Attachment #2

Preliminary Draft Resolution (April 7, 2021)

A2108017

1 / 111

FILED08/24/2104:59 PM

1 / 111

376500344 1

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION Electric Safety and Reliability Branch Date: Resolution [number]

R E S O L U T I O N

Resolution [NUMBER], Modifies Citation Procedures for Violations of Commission General Order 167, Enforcement of Maintenance and Operation Standards for Electric Generating Facilities OUTCOME: [Insert description of final outcome] SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: [tbd] ESTIMATED COST: [tbd]

SUMMARY The Commission’s General Order (GO) 167 sets forth standards for the maintenance and operation of electric generating facilities. Under the existing language of GO-167, Commission staff may issue citations only for certain specified violations of GO-167. This resolution modifies the scope of the violations for which Commission staff may issue citations to include any violation of GO-167 and integrates the GO-167 citation process with the Commission’s other existing electric citation processes. BACKGROUND The Commission first adopted General Order (GO) 167 in 2004, in two decisions issued in Rulemaking (R.) 02-11-039.1 That proceeding was opened by the Commission to implement the requirements of Pub. Util. Code § 761.3,2 which was enacted in response to the California energy crisis of 2000-2001 and directed the Commission to implement and enforce standards for the maintenance and operation of electric generation facilities. (D.04-05-017 at 2, citing § 761.3(a).) As the Commission stated in 2004:

1 Those two decisions are Decision (D.) 04-05-017 and D.04-05-018. 2 Senate Bill (SB) X2 39 (Burton and Speier), added by Statutes 2002, Second Extraordinary Session, Chapter 19, Section 4 (effective August 8, 2002). All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless specified otherwise.

2 / 111 2 / 111

Resolution [number] DRAFT [date]

376500344 2

The statewide energy crisis of 2000-2001 resulted in many economic and personal hardships to people and businesses within California. In our recent filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), we indicated that the total cost of electricity needed to serve California, for the period of May 2000 through June 2001, was $19 billion higher than the cost incurred during the combined years of 1998, 1999, and 2000. Our filings with FERC document many instances of Generating Assets being placed on reserve status for questionable reasons and resulting in electricity power outages. In 2002, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill SBX2 39 during its second extraordinary session to help avoid such outages in the future. The Legislature determined that the public interest, as well as the public health and safety, requires the electric generating facilities and power plants in the state to be maintained appropriately and operated efficiently. (D.04-05-018 at 3-4, footnote omitted.)

GO-167 was the Commission’s response to this statutory directive. While GO-167 was initially implemented in D.04-05-017 and D.04-05-018, it has been subsequently modified, with the most recent changes in 2008 via Resolution No. E-4184 adopted August 21, 2008 and D.08-11-009 adopted November 6, 2008.3 The first sentence of the current version of GO-167 states:

The purpose of this General Order is to implement and enforce standards for the maintenance and operation of electric generating facilities and power plants so as to maintain and protect the public health and safety of California residents and businesses, to ensure that electric generating facilities are effectively and appropriately maintained and efficiently operated, and to ensure electrical service reliability and adequacy. (GO-167, Section 1.0.)

On August 14 and 15, 2020 as the result of an extreme heat storm, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) implemented rolling outages in response to inadequate electric generation to meet the demand on the system. Hundreds of thousands of Californians lost power as a result. Looking at just Commission-jurisdictional

3 The process for adopting the 2004 decisions and the 2008 resolution and decision did not include evidentiary hearings. Resolution E-4184 modified the reporting requirements for electric and gas emergencies. D.08-11-009 added procedural details to the enforcement provisions for consistency with existing citation programs.

3 / 111 3 / 111

Resolution [number] DRAFT [date]

376500344 3

customers, 491,600 were affected by rolling outages on August 14, 2020, and 321,000 were affected by rolling outages on August 15, 2020.4 In response to these rolling outages, the Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) conducted in-person inspections at a select number of electric generating facilities that experienced outages during the August 2020 heatwave and shared its findings with the Commission. At the Commission’s public meeting on January 14, 2021, the Commissioners expressed support for expanding Commission staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of GO-167, including violations of maintenance and operation standards. This resolution is implementing that policy directive.

Notice A preliminary draft resolution, with proposed changes to GO-167 attached as Appendix A, was served via e-mail on [date] to all generating asset owners5 and to the service lists in the following Commission proceedings: Emergency Reliability (R.20-11-003), Resource Adequacy (R.19-11-009), Integrated Resource Planning (R.16-02-007) and the prior GO-167 proceeding (R.02-11-039). Comments on the draft were due on April 27, 2021, and reply comments were due on May 4, 2021. JURISDICTION The Commission’s authority under GO-167, pursuant to § 761.3, extends beyond the regulated investor-owned utilities and includes other generators, including exempt wholesale generators (EWGs). The Commission’s authority specifically encompasses any “Generating Asset,” as defined in section 2.8 of GO-167, and any “Generating Asset Owner,” as defined in section 2.9 of GO-167, subject to certain exceptions. This resolution does not change those definitions and exceptions and does not change or expand the range of entities covered by GO-167. The scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction under § 761.3 was discussed in depth in D.04-05-0176, D.04-05-0187 and D.06-01-047 and need not be repeated here, other than to note that the Commission previously observed that: “The breadth of the legislation extends our authority to many electric generators who have consistently maintained that they are not otherwise subject to our regulation.” (D.04-05-018 at 6.) The citation authority to be granted to staff by this resolution does not expand the jurisdiction or

4 Final Root Cause Analysis, Mid-August 2020 Extreme Heat Wave, dated January 13, 2021 at 34-35. 5 A list of all generating assets and corresponding generating asset owners is attached as Appendix B to this resolution. 6 See, D.04-05-017 at 5-21. 7 See, D.04-05-018 at 6-11.

4 / 111 4 / 111

Resolution [number] DRAFT [date]

376500344 4

authority of the Commission beyond that already established by § 761.3, D.04-05-017, D.04-05-018 and D.06-01-047. It is clear that the Commission’s jurisdiction for enforcing violations of Commission decisions and rules extends beyond just the investor-owned utilities that the Commission generally regulates. The Public Utilities Code states:

Every corporation or person, other than a public utility and its officers, agents, or employees, which or who knowingly violates or fails to comply with, or procures, aids or abets any violation of any provision of the California Constitution relating to public utilities or of this part, or fails to comply with any part of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission, or who procures, aids, or abets any public utility in the violation or noncompliance, in a case in which a penalty has not otherwise been provided for the corporation or person, is subject to a penalty of not less than five hundred dollars ($500), nor more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each offense. (Pub. Util. Code § 2111.)

PROPOSED CHANGES The existing language of GO-167 provides that for specified violations the Director of CPSD (predecessor to SED) and his/her designee “may assess a scheduled fine” via a citation process. (GO-167, subsection 13.3.1.) The specified violations for which a scheduled fine can be assessed via citation are limited to certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements, which are set forth in Appendix F of GO-167. (GO-167, subsection 13.3.2.) Additionally, the current language in Appendix F is vague, and there are aspects of its application that are unclear. Violations of other provisions of GO-167 beyond those set forth in Appendix F can be enforced by the Commission via a formal proceeding, such as an Order Instituting Investigation (OII). (GO-167, section 13.1.) This existing structure presents several practical problems. First, it means that enforcement of even minor violations of GO-167 other than those specified in Appendix F would appear to require the opening of a full OII. Opening an OII for a relatively minor violation is not resource effective for either the Commission or the respondent, and creates an incentive for the Commission to only take enforcement action in response to the most egregious violations of GO-167, and to let smaller violations go unaddressed. This is not the optimum approach to ensuring the reliability of the electrical grid. Second, the citation process set forth in GO-167 for violations of Appendix F is separate and distinct from the Commission’s existing and more general electric citation program adopted in D.14-12-001 and most recently modified in

5 / 111 5 / 111

Resolution [number] DRAFT [date]

376500344 5

D.18-05-023.8 Accordingly, whenever the electric citation program is modified, the GO-167 citation process also has to be modified, or else the Commission and parties will have to deal with differing processes depending on whether they are being cited under the general electric citation program or under GO-167. In fact, a number of the changes to the GO-167 citation program made in D.08-11-009 were for the purpose of making the GO-167 processes more consistent with the processes used in the Commission’s electric citation program. (D.08-11-009 at 5-7, 9-12.) Having separate citation programs that must be separately updated to maintain consistency is not efficient for either the Commission or interested parties. Third, it appears that the existing mechanism for enforcing violations of the parts of GO-167 that directly affect reliability was not effective in preventing the rolling blackouts in August 2020. While it is not clear what relationship there may have been (if any) between that mechanism and the blackouts, the expanded enforcement authority adopted here may serve as a further deterrent to violations, or at a minimum will provide for expeditious enforcement of operation and maintenance violations. In order to remedy these problems and to implement the Commissioners’ stated desire to expand Commission staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of GO-167, the best approach is to integrate the GO-167 citation process with the Commission’s existing general electric citation program. This can be done by using the general electric citation process for all violations of GO-167, and eliminating the current process set forth in subsection 13.3.2 and Appendix F. A redlined version of section 13.3 of GO-167 (“Imposition of Fines for Specified Violations”) showing the proposed changes is attached as Appendix A to this resolution. The proposed changes only affect section 13.3; Appendix F and section 14.4 (referring to section 13.3 and Appendix F) would be eliminated. No changes to other sections of GO-167 are proposed.9

8 D.14-12-001 stated: “The Commission finds it is reasonable and necessary to delegate to staff the ability to issue citations to any electrical corporation owning or operating electrical supply facilities for violations of GOs 95, 128, 165, 166, 174, or other related decisions, codes or regulations applicable to electrical supply facilities. […] This decision gives staff the authority to issue a written citation to any electrical corporation owning or operating electrical supply facilities for violations that occurred both before and after the date of this decision.” (Id. at 11-12.) 9 Another possible approach would be to leave in place the existing process set forth in subsection 13.3.2 and Appendix F and add new language to provide for citations under the Commission’s general electric citation program for any other violations outside of the violations listed in Appendix F. This approach is more complex and does not fix the problem of having two separate processes, so it appears to be less desirable.

6 / 111 6 / 111

Resolution [number] DRAFT [date]

376500344 6

Delegation of Authority to Commission Staff The Commission has previously delegated citation authority to Commission staff for specified violation under GO-167 and for more general electric violations pursuant to D.14-12-001. The proposed changes do not expand that authority, but rather just conform staff’s authority to issue GO-167 citations with the previously established electric citation program. Given the events of August 14 and 15, 2020, the Commission finds it reasonable and necessary to permit staff to issue citations for violations of any part of GO-167 under the existing delegation of authority for electric violations. Questions/Issues In adopting this refinement to the Commission’s electric citation process for GO-167, there are a number of issues that comments should address, including the following:

1) In determining the size or nature of a fine or other penalty for violations of GO-167, are there factors that should be considered that differ from those used in the Commission’s existing electric citation program? If so, what are they and how should they be applied?

2) Are there any other differences between GO-167 citations and other electric citations that should be taken into consideration? If so, what are those differences and how should they be taken into consideration?

3) Should the changes made in the citation process by this resolution apply to past violations of GO-167, or only to future violations? Any argument that the changes should only apply prospectively should address the discussion in D.14-12-001 at 19-20.

INITIAL COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION Comments were received from [____]. Reply comments were received from

[____]. [Insert discussion of comments received and any changes to proposed GO made

in response to comments]

COMMENTS A final revised draft resolution was distributed for comment pursuant to

Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 14.5 on [date]. Comments were received

from [____]. [Insert discussion of comments received and any changes made in response

to comments]

7 / 111 7 / 111

Resolution [number] DRAFT [date]

376500344 7

FINDINGS 1. [tbd] 2. [tbd] 3. [etc.] IT IS ORDERED: 1. [tbd] 2. [tbd] 3. [etc.] I certify that this Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California at its regular business meeting held on [date]. The following Commissioners approved it:

/s/ Rachel Peterson Executive Director

8 / 111 8 / 111

376500344 A-1

APPENDIX A

The following shows the proposed changes to section 13.3 of GO-167:1

13.3 Imposition of Fines for Specified Violations

13.3.1 Specified Violations. For specified Violations of this General Order, the Director of CPSD and his/her designee may assess a scheduled fine or, in the alternative, proceed with any remedy otherwise available to CPSD or the Commission. For any violation of this General Order, citations may be issued pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 2111 or other applicable authority, following the processes and procedures of the Commission’s electric citation program, as set forth in D.14-12-001 as modified by D.18-05-023, or its successor. Scheduled fines may be assessed by CPSD only for the Violations referenced in subsection 13.3.2 of this General Order. CPSD shall notify the Generating Asset Owner, in writing, of any specified Violations and assessed fines, and shall include notice of the right to contest the fine. as set forth in subsections 13.3.4 and 13.3.8 of this General Order. No fine assessed by CPSD pursuant to this subsection shall become payable if contested by the Generating Asset Owner pursuant to subsection 13.3.4.

13.3.2 Schedule of Fines. The Specified Violations and the corresponding fines that may be assessed are set forth in Appendix F to this General Order. The Commission may modify this schedule of fines no earlier than 30 days after providing reasonable notice and affording interested persons with an opportunity to comment.

13.3.3 Acceptance of Assessed Fine. A Generating Asset Owner may either accept or appeal the assessment of a scheduled fine. In the event the Generating Asset Owner accepts the assessment and elects to pay the scheduled fine in lieu of an appeal, the Generating Asset Owner shall so notify CPSD in writing within 30 days of the assessment, shall pay the fine in full, and shall bring itself into compliance with the applicable provision(s) of the General Order within 30 days of the written acceptance. Fines shall be submitted to CPSD for payment into the State Treasury to the credit of the General Fund. Fines are delinquent if not paid within 30 days of the Generating Asset Owner's acceptance; and, thereafter, the balance of the fine bears interest at the legal rate for judgments.

1 Appendix F and section 14.4 are eliminated, but not shown here.

9 / 111 9 / 111

Resolution [number] DRAFT [date]

A-2

13.3.4 Appeal of Citation. If a Generating Asset Owner appeals the citation and assessment of a scheduled fine, the Generating Asset Owner must file its Notice of Appeal within 30 days of the date of the citation. In the event of such a contest, staff shall, at its discretion, proceed with evidentiary hearings on the appeal, or withdraw the citation where facts and circumstances warrant such action and provide a written notice of withdrawal to the Generating Asset Owner. In the event of an appeal, any remedy available may be imposed, and the remedy shall not be mandated or limited to the scheduled fine.

13.3.5 Default. If a Generating Asset Owner (a) notifies CPSD of acceptance of a scheduled fine and fails to pay the full amount of the fine within 30 calendar days of the date of the written acceptance of the fine; or (b) fails to notify CPSD of acceptance of a scheduled fine and fails to serve a written notice of appeal on the Director of CPSD in the manner and time required, the Generating Asset Owner shall be in default, and the fine contained in the citation shall become final. Upon default, any unpaid balance of a citation fine shall accrue interest at the legal rate of interest for judgments, and CPSD and the Commission may take any action provided by law to recover unpaid penalties and ensure compliance with applicable statutes and Commission orders, decisions, rules, directions, demands or requirements.

13.3.6 Form and Content of Citations. The Director of CPSD or his/her designee is authorized to draft a citation and present it to the Generating Asset Owner. If after investigation, CPSD finds violations of any of the Specified Violations, CPSD may issue a citation and levy the corresponding fine set forth in Appendix F to this General Order. Citations shall include the following:

13.3.6.1 Citations shall clearly delineate the alleged violations and fine amount and shall summarize CPSD's evidence.

13.3.6.2 Citations shall include an explanation of how to file an appeal, including an explanation of the Generating Asset Owner's right to have a hearing, to have a representative at the hearing, and to request a transcript of the hearing.

13.3.6.3 Citations shall be supported by evidence documenting the alleged violation and this information, if not voluminous, shall be provided with the citation. If the evidence is voluminous, CPSD may summarize the evidence and make it available for timely inspection by the Generating Asset Owner.

13.3.7 Service of Citations. Citations shall be sent by first class mail to the Generating Asset Owner's authorized representative as set forth in the most recent verified statement or certification records on file with the Commission, or the

10 / 111 10 / 111

Resolution [number] DRAFT [date]

A-3

agent for service of process of the corporation or LLC or other business entity filed with the Secretary of State of California.

13.3.8 Appeals. Appeals will be conducted as follows:

13.3.8.1 The appeal shall be brought by Filing a written Notice of Appeal upon the Director of CPSD within 30 days from the date of the citation. The Notice of Appeal must indicate the grounds for the appeal.

13.3.8.2 CPSD shall promptly advise the Chief Administrative Law Judge upon receipt of a timely Notice of Appeal. The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall designate an Administrative Law Judge to hear appeals under this resolution.

13.3.8.3 Upon advice from CPSD that a citation has been appealed, the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall forward the matter to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, who shall promptly set the matter for hearing. The Administrative Law Judge may, for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties, grant a reasonable continuance of the hearing.

13.3.8.4 Appeals of citations shall be heard in the Commission's San Francisco or Los Angeles hearing rooms on regularly scheduled days. Appeals shall be calendared accordingly, except that a particular matter may be re-calendared at the direction of the Administrative Law Judge.

13.3.8.5 The respondent may order a transcript of the hearing, and shall pay the cost of the transcript in accordance with the Commission's specified procedures.

13.3.8.6 The respondent may be represented at the hearing by an attorney or other representative, but any such representation shall be at the respondent's expense.

13.3.8.7 At an evidentiary hearing, CPSD bears the burden of proof and accordingly shall open and close. The Administrative Law Judge may, in his or her discretion to better ascertain truth, alter the order of presentation. Formal rules of evidence do not necessarily apply, and all relevant and reliable evidence may be received in the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge.

13.3.8.8 Ordinarily, the case shall be submitted at the close of the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge, upon a showing of good cause, may keep the record open for a reasonable period to permit a party to submit additional evidence or argument.

11 / 111 11 / 111

Resolution [number] DRAFT [date]

A-4

13.3.8.9 The Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order resolving the appeal not later than 30 days after the appeal is submitted, and the order shall be placed on the first available agenda, consistent with the Commission's applicable rules.

(END OF APPENDIX A)

12 / 111 12 / 111

376500344

APPENDIX B

13 / 111 13 / 111

Contact Emailaaron.honor@altagas.caabalcazar@mrpgenco.comAlan.Cowan@edf-re.com Alex.Telegin@Avangrid.com An@cdarevon.comandrew.worts@nrg.comandrewg@calpine.comAnnette.Faraglia@pge.comAnthony.Hill@sma-america.comarobertson@wellhead.comashley.dimola@sce.comasset_management@canadiansolar.comAvis.Kowalewski@calpine.comB.BUCHYNSKY@DGC-US.COMBahrsj@coneddev.combarry.boswell@luminant.comblandingf@southwestgen.comBMARX@SEMPRAUTILITIES.COMbob.johnston@bherenewables.comBob.Pence@DEShaw.combrad.harmon@sunpower.comBrandon.lane@allianzgi.com BrownsbergerR@conedceb.comBruce.Berry@FirstSolar.combweber@aeny.usBWILTON@TENASKA.COMc3bi@pge.comC3Hx@pge.comCameron.White@calpine.comCarla.Hoffman@edf-re.comCarlos.Melendez@edf-re.comcary.vandenberg.0130@idemitsurenewables.comcf@arevonenergy.comcf@cdarevon.comcgummo@mrpgenco.comChristopher.L.Allen@nexteraenergy.comChristopher.Thurman@deshaw.comclapeter@semprautilities.comClinton.Richards@sma-america.comcluton@swinerton.comcompliance@recurrentenergy.comcraig.lovas@fluor.comcre.notices@clenera.comcwarr@arevonenergy.comcwiles@terra-gen.comd.salda@dgc-ops.com

14 / 111 14 / 111

Dale.Donmoyer@CALPINE.COMDale.Whiney@edf-re.comDANAR@CALPINE.COMDaniel.beebe@nrg.comdaniel.gerard@nee.comdaniel.johnson@deshaw.comDaniel.McDevitt@genon.comDaniel.Summa@edf-re.comdave.sweet@novasourcepower.comDavid.cordero@aes.comDAVID.FISHER@NAES.COMdavid.king@nrg.comdavid.rosas@atlanticayield.comDavid.Spencer@aes.comDavid.Wen@aes.comDBAERMAN@SEMPRAUTILITIES.COMddai@sunpinsolar.usddunbar@mrpgenco.comdebbie.powell@pge.comd.johnson@dgc-ops.comdenver.deck@naes.comdesri-compliance@world.deshaw.comdixonj@conedceb.comdouglas.bodkins@firstsolar.comDPCLABUR@southernco.comdrichardson@wellhead.comduane.yee@leewardenergy.comemiliano.garcia@atlantica.comeric.vandeuren@pge.comerin.kivlehan@clenera.comEsworth.carty@clearwayenergy.comewarner@lspower.comFrank.mireles@nexteraenergy.comga.notices@clenera.comgabriel.vaca@brookfieldrenewable.comGary.Bishop@naes.comgil.makabenta@nexteraenergy.comGlen.King@nexteraenergy.comGMCDANIEL@WELLHEAD.COMgmcdaniel@wellhead.comGopal.Bhushan@clearwayenergy.comGreg.Carver@firstsolar.comGSharland@aeny.usgsrp-am-americankings@gs.comgsrp-am-mulberry@gs.comDJH2@pge.comhdave@terraform.com

15 / 111 15 / 111

Jamie.Corey@clearwayenergy.comjason.allen@leewardenergy.comjason.buentiempo@longroadenergy.comjason.jin@calpine.comjason.king@onwardenergy.comjcast@terra-gen.comjcouvillion@mrpgenco.comjdhardin@camsops.comJDonahoe@csginvestments.comJeanie.Lopez@edf-re.comJerome.LeHir@edf-re.comJessica.miller@vistraenergy.comJHUTSON@ORANGEGROVEENERGY.COMjim.beach@aes.comjmattingly@mrpgenco.comjmosher@maxgen.comjnevarez@terra-gen.comJody.batten@calpine.comJody.batten@calpine.comjoe.moura@nrg.comJohn.archibald@naes.comjohn.teulings@newenergysolar.com.auJONATHAN.KIRBY@BROOKFIELDRENEWABLE.COMjorge.pedron@avangrid.comjose.perez@aes.comjosh.suttles@novasourcepower.comjoshua.kretz@nexteraenergy.comJoshua.tillery@firstsolar.comjthomas@terraform.comjvha@pge.comjwgrafton@bherenewables.comKatherine. genasci@vistracorp.comkatherine.markeson@aes.comkcounts@semprautilities.comkearneyp@conedceb.comKenneth.Hammon@patternenergy.comkenya.streeter@sce.comKerianne.Masterson@edf-re.comkevin.devlin@patternenergy.comkevin.karwick@calpine.comkevin.malcarney@clearwayenergy.comkholst@centcap.netkimball.osmars@terraform.comKJOHNSON@LSPOWER.COMkkarwick@calpine.comKossman, Pat <Pat.Kossman@nrg.com>kquigley@southernco.com

16 / 111 16 / 111

kstrauch@mrpgenco.comkurt.seel@calpine.comKyle.leffler@nee.comlegal@recurrentenergy.comlucas.maass@canadiansolar.comlucas.maass@canadiansolar.com Lyle.Laven@SCE.comm.carpenter@dgc-ops.comm.noll@dgc-ops.comMagin.reyes@exeloncorp.comGil.Makabenta@nexteraenergy.commalcarney@clearwayenergy.com mark.gouveia@genon.commark.lemasney@nee.comMARK.PERRYMAN@avangrid.comMatt.Tulve@aes.comMatthew.Forrest@brookfieldrenewable.comMForrest@brookfieldrenewable.commichael.collins@rwe.commichael.hughes@aes.commichael.munroe@nrg.comMichael.puccioni@calpine.commike.baker@nrg.comMike.Batte@luminant.comMJCASEY@southernco.commjcooper@coopercompliance.commkubow@mrpgenco.commmcdaniels@cpv.commonica.nguyenduc@genon.commonica.nguyenduc@genon.commromero2@sdge.comMTurner@lapalomagc.comNathan.Bindell@firstsolar.comNathaniel.marchand@swinerton.comNicholas.park@firstsolar.comNick.Barse@edf-re.comnoyesm@conedceb.comnpoteet@BHERENEWABLES.COMOpscompliance@arevonenergy.comPaul.Mattesich@nrg.compcummins@wellhead.comPelaezJ@conedceb.comphilip.lai@canadiansolar.compso@calpine.comRamon.campos@altagas.carandall.hickock@clearwayenergy.com

17 / 111 17 / 111

rcastanon@terra-gen.comRDROBECK@SWINERTON.COMrdrobeck@swinerton.comrhodesD@southwestgen.comricardo.fabre@gs.comRick.marks@nexteraenergy.comrick.mcpherson@nrg.comRicky.baker@edf-re.comrinehartm@calpine.comrjohnston@bherenewables.comRob.Robertson@LeewardEnergy.comRobert.Kwiatkowski@nrg.comRobert.sandner@firstsolar.comRPARKER@CALPINE.COMrshropshire@ppmsllc.comRusty.sage@deshaw.comrwalden@mrpgenco.comSamuel.siegel@vistraenergy.comSaul.Gonzalez@sma-america.comsbrussee@aeny.usSCHWARZKOPFA@CONEDDEV.COMsean.beatty@nrg.comsergio.gonsales@patternenergy.comSGR8@PGE.COMsheridanc@conedceb.comsherri.li@brookfieldrenewable.comshiv.srinivasan@firstsolar.comsmcbride@clearwayenergy.comsreynolds@calpine.comstanley.teheejr@exeloncorp.comstephen.lynch1@firstsolar.comSteve.Greenleaf@brookfieldrenewable.comT1WY@PGE.COMtbenson@lapalomgc.comtbofman@wellhead.comTCURLEY@TERRA-GENPOWER.COMtcurley@tgpnyc.comteresa.wilson@calpine.comTerry.maddox@sce.comTERRYM@CALPINE.COMterrym@calpine.comtgilmore@mrpgenco.comTGSMITH@SOUTHERNCO.COMThanh.Fults@Calpine.comThomas.Diciolli@genon.comTim.Wisdom@pge.comtimothy.menzel@atlantica.com

18 / 111 18 / 111

tjonas@tenaska.comtmahoney@calpinetmann@wellhead.comTom.broad@nexteraenergy.comTONY.CHAVEZ@AES.COMTony.welsh@patternenergy.comtracy.jarvis@aes.comtracy.kisch@clearwayenergy.comTy.Kristensen@avangrid.comVictor.Shaw@calpine.comvincent.lesko@aes.comw.forsyth@dgc-us.comweikko.wirta@aes.comWendy.Greene@bherenewables.comWesley.Harrison@sunpower.comWilliam.woods@nee.comwscobee@tgpnyc.com

19 / 111 19 / 111

Attachment #3

PCF Opening Comments on Preliminary Draft Resolution (April 27, 2021)

20 / 111 20 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 1

Protect Our Communities Foundation

4452 Park Blvd #309 San Diego, CA 92116

April 27, 2021 Mr. Lee Palmer Director, California Public Utilities Commission Safety & Enforcement Division 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: The Protect Our Communities Foundation Comments on the Safety &

Enforcement Division’s Preliminary Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to Commission General Order 167

Dear Director Palmer:

The Protect Our Communities Foundation (hereafter PCF) files these comments on the

preliminary draft Resolution (hereafter “Resolution”) promulgated by the Electric Safety and

Reliability Branch of the Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division on April 8, 2021. PCF

supports the effort to reinvigorate General Order 167 (GO-167) and offers these comments to

assist in making the Commission’s renewed power plant maintenance and operations standards

and enforcement efforts successful, so that California can avoid future blackouts and so that

California ratepayers receive all the electricity resources for which they have paid.

PCF has vigorously advocated that the Commission fully employ section 761.31 and GO-

167 as essential elements in California’s preparations for summer 2021 and beyond.2 The

1 All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise stated. 2 See R.20-11-003, The Protect Our Communities Foundation’s Responses to ALJ Steven’s December 11, 2020 Ruling Regarding Proposals and Questions Regarding Emergency Capacity Procurement by the Summer of 2021 in Rulemaking 20-11-003 (December 18, 2020), pp. 6-7; see also R.20-11-003, PCF-1, Prepared Opening Testimony of Bill Powers, P.E. on Behalf of the Protect Our Communities Foundation (January 11, 2021); R.20-11-003, The Protect Our Communities Foundation Opening Comments on Order Instituting Rulemaking in Emergency Reliability (November 30, 2020); R.20-11-003, The Protect

21 / 111 21 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 2

recognition that the primary objective with respect to power plants located within California

continues to be deterrence – prevention beforehand rather than punishment after the fact –

remains extremely important.3 California ratepayers pay to ensure that we have a well-

maintained, ready and responsible power plant fleet; it is what ratepayers expect; and GO-167

remains as one of the most important tools to achieve this goal.

PCF recommends that the Resolution make clear the full breadth of the Commission’s

jurisdiction and enforcement authority in overseeing all electricity generation facilities

throughout California, regardless of ownership status or form; that the Resolution continue to

rely on the full breadth of statutory and regulatory authority available to the Commission,

including Section 2111; and that the Commission ensure the most transparency possible –

either by continuing to maintain and update Appendix F – or by making it clear that the

record-keeping and reporting requirements contained in Appendix F remain effective and

enforced. PCF also recommends that GO-167 be updated to require the digital filing,

maintenance and transmission of records and logbooks. Moreover, PCF recommends that the

Commission provide the same whistleblower and worker protections for electric generation

workers as it does now for gas system workers.

I. The Role of Power Plant Outages in 2000-01 and in 2020.

The excesses of the energy traders and the burdens imposed on California ratepayers and

on the California economy during the California Energy Crisis have been well-documented. The

California Legislature acted promptly to gain control of its electricity markets and grid

operations by passing urgency legislation in 2001, and the Legislature ensured that California

maintained necessary and important tools to regulate and inspect electricity generation facilities

located within California as well. That legislation, SB X2 39 (Speier & Burton, 2002) provides

Our Communities Foundation Reply Comments on the Order Instituting Rulemaking in Emergency Reliability (December 10, 2020). 3 PCF requests access to the inspection reports and off-the-record communications “with the Commission” about plant outages to supplement what is now a clearly incomplete record in R.20-11-003. Access to these materials will avoid impressionistic comments, particularly on enforcing the logbook requirements and using the information contained in the logbooks. PCF seeks information about when the SED staff performed their in-person inspections; which “selected” plants were inspected; what procedures the inspections utilized; what findings were made; and what communications with Commissioners were.

22 / 111 22 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 3

one of the bases for the Commission’s proposed updates to its inspection and enforcement

authority over California-based power plants.

A. Background of SB X2 39 (2002).

SB X2 39 was passed to help “avoid [questionable] powerplant outages” that contributed

to the blackouts and price gouging that occurred during the California Energy Crisis of 2000-

2001.

The Legislature determined that the public interest, as well as the public health and safety, requires the electric generating facilities and power plants in the state to be maintained appropriately and operated efficiently.4

The Commission adopted GO-167 in 2004 “to address our obligations under the

legislation….”5 When SB X2 39 was enacted in 2002, the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) had in place a west-wide must offer requirement that prevented physical

and economic withholding. FERC allowed this requirement to expire in October 2016,6 which

makes this Commission’s vigilance in ensuring power plant operation and appropriate plant

maintenance even more important.

Weaknesses in the CAISO organized markets create the temptation and the potential for

power plant owners and operators to make business decisions – pursuing revenues and profits --

that result in power plant withholding (unavailability) that can cause prices to rise. Properly and

aggressively implemented, GO-167 can be an element in an effective suite of antidotes to this

behavior, which California experienced in August 2020, just as the state did in 2000-2001.7

As in 2000-01, troubling power plant outage levels and thought-provoking

“questionable” outage patterns were significant contributors to the August 2020 blackouts. Last

summer’s blackouts were also accompanied by price gouging and profiteering. Thus, re-

invigorating GO-167 and timely enforcement of the Commission’s standards for plant

maintenance and operations continues to be key and critical to protect Californians and the

California economy.

4 R.02-11-039, D.04-05-018 (May 7, 2004), p. 3. 5 Ibid., p. 4. 6 See 157 FERC P. 61,051 (October 21, 2016). 7 D.04-05-018, p. 3 (“…the total cost of electricity needed to serve California, for the period of May 2000 through June 2001, was $19 billion higher than the cost incurred during the combined years of 1998, 1999, and 2000.”); see also p. 3 at fn 3.

23 / 111 23 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 4

B. Investigation of and Data Relating to the 2020 Power Plant Outages.

PCF notes the Commission’s recognition of the role that the power plants located within

California may have played with respect to the August 2020 blackouts that California

experienced. PCF endorses the Commission’s acknowledgement that it possesses the

responsibility and authority to police violations of plant operations standards in order to ensure

electric system reliability:

…it appears that the existing mechanism for enforcing violations of the parts of GO-167 that directly affect reliability was not effective in preventing the rolling blackouts in August 2020. While it is not clear what relationship there may have been (if any) between that mechanism and the blackouts, the expanded enforcement authority adopted here may serve as a further deterrent to violations, or at a minimum will provide for expeditious enforcement of operation and maintenance violations. (emphasis added)

PCF highlights the importance of the “Commissioners’ stated desire to expand Commission

staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of GO-167.”8

PCF applauds Commission staff who have already begun to investigate the problems that

occurred with respect to the operation of power plants located within California last summer.

The Resolution notes that Commission staff already have started to investigate and inspect power

plants, with the Commissioners’ support:

In response to these rolling outages, the Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) conducted in-person inspections at a select number of electric generating facilities that experienced outages during the August 2020 heatwave and shared its findings with the Commission. At the Commission’s public meeting on January 14, 2021, the Commissioners expressed support for expanding Commission staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of GO-167, including violations of maintenance and operation standards. This resolution is implementing that policy directive.9

To assist the Commission’s investigation and review of power plant outages last summer,

PCF details the analyses that it has conducted thus far, and includes the findings and additional

questions that it has developed. PCF’s experts reviewed the plant outage data for August 14th

and 15th, 2020, contained in the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) databases.

The charts that follow paint a graphic picture of the data that PCF’s experts found.

8 Draft Resolution, Modifies Citation Procedures for Violations of Commission General Order 167, Enforcement of Maintenance and Operation Standards for Electric Generating Facilities (April 7, 2021), (“Draft Resolution”), p. 5. 9 Draft Resolution, p. 3.

24 / 111 24 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 5

Figure 1, below, shows in graphic form the volume of power plant outages occurring on

an hourly basis throughout Friday, August 14th and Saturday, 15th of last year. The chart details

detailed outage and curtailment data provided by CAISO in the wake of the August blackouts.10

Dark red represents forced outages, light red represents planned outages. Forced plant outages

notably spiked in the run-up to the rolling blackouts the afternoon of August 14th, as shown in

Figure 1. Figure 1 also shows the important role of planned outages that were inexplicably

authorized at a time when the summer peak was reasonably likely to occur.

FIGURE 1

Figure 2, below, delves further into the hour-by-hour plant outage activity for the handful

of gas-fired power plants that proved to be key and critical to the CAISO’s ability to maintain

system reliability. This chart shows exactly when each of the critical power plants went down –

and came back up to serve the grid – and also details in gray when exactly the blackouts were

called – overlaid on the data showing specific plant outages. From Figure 2 we can see the

major contribution of the forced outage of 741 MW Ormond Beach Unit 1 to the rolling

blackouts on August 14th.

10 CAISO, Outage Data for August 13-16 and Responses to Stakeholder Questions, September 11, 2020: http://www.caiso.com/Documents/OutageData-August13-16-Responses-StakeholderQuestions.html.

25 / 111 25 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 6

FIGURE 2

PCF remains the only party to the Emergency Reliability proceeding, R. 20-11-003, that

has focused on the extent of power plant outages and the suspicious, troubling pattern of outages

at large thermal plants in the hours leading up to blackouts on August 14 and August 15, 2020.11

Unfortunately the root cause analyses published by the CAISO -- the primary evidentiary

“record” on which D.21-02-028 is based -- are largely silent on the important matter of

powerplants underperforming and/or unavailable.12 D.21-02-028 itself likewise stays silent on

this important issue. PCF directs attention to its filings in R.20-11-003 and especially to its

11 See R.20-11-003, The Protect Our Communities Foundation Opening Comments on Order Instituting Rulemaking in Emergency Reliability (November 30, 2020), p. 3; see also R.20-11-003, The Protect Our Communities Foundation Reply Comments on the Order Instituting Rulemaking in Emergency Reliability (December 10, 2020), pp. 5-6. 12 Preliminary Root Cause Analysis (October 6, 2020), (“PCRA”) (PCRA fails to investigate or explain the following statement (on Page 8) in connection with Figure ES-3: “The natural gas fleet collectively experienced 1,400 MW to 2,000 MW of forced outages (i.e. derating or lowering the resource’s available capacity) largely attributed to the extreme heat, and day-of outages. Additionally, almost 400 MW of planned outages had not been substituted.”); Final Root Cause Analysis (January 13, 2021), (“FRCA”), p. 97 at fn 89 (FRCA fails to correct its deficient explanation of the forced plant outages that it identifies, despite PCF’s repeated admonitions within the context of R.20-11-003: “…[E]nergy production did vary for specific resources and that may be due to events happening in the moment…. The RA natural gas fleet collectively generated approximately 85% of its shown RA value.” (emphasis added))

26 / 111 26 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 7

testimony13 with respect to exports and outages, further to inform the Safety and Enforcement

Division staff’s work in examining and determining the reasons for the troubling level of forced

plant outages last summer.

II. Comments on Specific Proposed Changes to GO-167 The primary objectives of the Resolution involve expanding the scope of the citation

authority of the SED staff to include all violations of GO-167 and ensuring that GO-167 citation

procedures are consistent with the overall electric system enforcement procedures applicable to

other sectors of the electricity industry. PCF supports both objectives, 14 with the following

reservations and caveats.

A. Jurisdiction and Scope of the Commission’s Authority. The Resolution states explicitly that “[t]he citation authority to be granted to staff by this

resolution does not expand the jurisdiction or authority of the Commission beyond that already

established by § 761.3, D.04-05-017, D.04-05-018 and D.06-01-047.”15 The Resolution should

equally explicitly state that there exists no diminution of the Commission’s jurisdiction over

“…facilities for the generation of electricity owned by an electrical corporation or located in the

state…”16 that is, generation facilities owned or operated by entities that are not electrical

corporations or utilities. Because the electric citation procedures established by D.14-12-001

and D.18-05-023 apply to electric facilities of “electric corporations” no ambiguity should exist

whatsoever about the applicability of the Commission’s authority and procedures to the electric

generation facilities of entities that are not electric corporations. As noted in the Resolution, this

issue was extensively litigated in the proceedings leading up to adoption of GO-167, and

decisively resolved.17Thus, the issue of the extent and scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction

over all electric facilities located within California is not open to dispute.

13 R.20-11-003, PCF-1 (January 11, 2021); PCF-2 (January 11, 2021); PCF-3 (January 19, 2021); PCF-4 (January 19, 2021); Opening Legal and Policy Brief of the Protect Our Communities Foundation (February 5, 2021). 14 Draft Resolution, pp. 4-5. 15 Draft Resolution, pp. 3-4. 16 Section 761.3(a) (emphasis added.) 17 See D.06-01-047, on rehearing of D.04-05-017 and D.04-05-018.

27 / 111 27 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 8

B. The Commission Retains Sanctions Power Pursuant to Section 2111. The electric system citation program adopted in D.14-12-001 (hereafter ESCP) derives

from the gas system program adopted by the Commission in Resolution ALJ-274.18 The electric

system citation programs focuses on violations of Commission requirements that may impact

public safety.19 GO-167 focuses on maintaining adequate service for all ratepayers to be

provided at reasonable rates by assuring that power plants remain operational and capable of

serving load in accordance with their legal and contractual obligations. These different objectives

mean that the rigor, frequency and objectives of inspections and reviews for the different

purposes may also differ.

GO-167 depends in the first instance on the generator’s diligence and good faith:

• in maintaining and updating its Operation Plan (GO-167 Sections 8.0-8.3) and its

Maintenance Plan (GO-167 Sections 7.0-7.3);

• in communicating on an on-going basis changes in facility characteristics and status

(GO-167, Section 15.1.2); and

• in maintaining Generator Logbooks that document “…a formal record of real time

operating events as well as the overall status of the generating units and auxiliary

equipment under the purview of the Control Room Operator.” (GO-167, Sections 5.0-

5.7 and Appendix B for thermal powerplants; Sections 6.0-6.6 and Appendix C for

hydroelectric powerplants.)

Because the Commission depends on operator good faith and diligence, the Commission

must require severe penalties for record-keeping failures. PCF notes that any updates to GO-167

should also require power plant operators digitally to file the daily logbooks so that all record

keeping can be checked by the Commission at the end of each day, when needed. Presumably,

digital filing would also require the Commission to set up a concomitant filing system.

The express reference in the Resolution to Section 2111, affirming the Commission’s

statutory power to sanction non-utility entities beyond the fine levels in the ESCP, continues to

be extremely important to achieve a base level of deterrence. PCF recommends maintaining the

explicit reference to Section 2111 and the Commission’s clear authority under Section 2111.

18 Resolution ALJ-274: Establishes Citation Procedures for the Enforcement of Safety Regulations by the Consumer Protection and Safety Division Staff for Violations by Gas Corporations of General Order 112-E and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 190. 191, 192, 193, and 199 (December 1, 2011). 19 See D.14-12-001, p. 10ff.

28 / 111 28 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 9

C. Maintaining Transparency and the Treatment of Appendix F The Resolution’s proposal to apply the electric inspection program to generating facilities

presumably includes the preference for self-reporting established by D.18- 05-023, which

implemented SB 291 and Section 1702.5. The regime established by GO-167 emphasizes the

importance of record-keeping, record disclosure, and transparency, so that the guess-work,

mystification (“events happening in the moment”)20 and circumlocution about powerplant

performance apparent in the FRCA can be eliminated going forward. The ESCP self-reporting

preference is fully consistent in principle with GO-167.21

The self-reporting feature of the ESCP makes effective the preference for generator good

faith, by incentivizing generators to maintain timely and accurate records. The maintenance of

timely and accurate records must include periodically checking on the status of self-maintained

GO- 167 records and an affirmative requirement for generators to correct all records if any are

found to be out of compliance. For example, the one specific power plant malfunction noted in

the FRCA22 – the mistaken dispatch instruction at Panoche on August 15, 2020 – involved a

problem whose correction took an apparently inordinate amount of time.

The problem experienced as described by the FRCA at Panoche should have been

completely explicable and immediately correctible if the logbook records had been complete –

and accessible as required by GO-167.23 If GO-167 were followed appropriately, we would

know where restoration time was lost as between the CAISO, the scheduling coordinator and the

plant operator, so that timely corrective action could have been taken without resort to a blackout

or Stage 2 alert. Establishing clear records keeping requirements in real time, digitally, would

prevent future such miscommunication scenarios. Complete transparency would both avoid GO-

167 sanctions and improve system reliability.

20 FRCA, p. 97. 21 See D.18-05-023, p. 4ff, emphasizing the voluntary nature of self-reporting and noting that self-reporting will be a factor in determining the severity of the penalty for violation. 22 FRCA, p.30 & fn. 35. 23 GO-167, Appendix B: “…The log shall also contain an accurate and concise record of important and/or unusual events involving operations, maintenance, water chemistry, safety, accidents affecting personnel, fires, contractor activities, environmental matters, and any other pertinent information concerning the operation of the facility. The log shall also record communications between the facility and outside entities including but not limited to the Independent System Operator (ISO), scheduling coordinators or headquarters facilities,…” The issues include at least (1) the specific sequence of communications among unit operator, scheduling coordinator and CAISO and (2) the time for recovery of the Panoche unit after discovery of the erroneous dispatch instruction.

29 / 111 29 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 10

GO-167 Appendix F specifically calls out record-keeping deficiencies for sanction. PCF

suggests that the Commission reconsider eliminating Appendix F in order to provide maximum

transparency. At the least, the Resolution’s proposed elimination of Appendix F should not be

understood as de-emphasizing or excusing record-keeping failures, which are especially

important to identify and correct in the GO-167 enforcement scheme. Rather, as noted above,

record-keeping failures have a heightened significance for the GO-167 scheme. The Resolution

should specifically address these matters with the intention of making records and documents

fully compliant, transparent and accessible.

D. Direct Interaction with the Workforce under ESCP. As noted above, the ESCP derives from ALJ-274 and the gas safety inspection program

developed in the wake of the San Bruno explosion. For the gas industry, the Commission has

adopted strong whistle-blower and other employee protections.24 Gas and electric utilities have

strong unionized workforces, with established procedures and processes for regular

communication with managers about operating conditions, safety and procedures including

deviations from procedure. The Commission can and does rely on regular communications from

workers to augment the information it receives from official reports and inspections in fulfilling

its inspection and enforcement responsibilities.

Many non-utility generators do not have these workforce protections. The Commission

should explicitly include the whistleblower protections for workers contained in Appendix G in

its revision of GO-167. Moreover, the Commission should consider adopting additional

requirements as to workforce training and protections to ensure sufficient generator maintenance

and operations reliability and performance. The reliability of California’s electric system

depends, at base, on the ability of the generation workforce to perform at all times.

24 See GO-112-F, Appendix G.

30 / 111 30 / 111

PCF Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 11

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bill Powers

Bill Powers, P.E. - Technical Advisor Protect Our Communities Foundation 4452 Park Boulevard, #209 San Diego, CA 92116 Tel: (619) 917-2941 Email: bpowers@powersengineering.com

Dated: April 27, 2021

CC: All Parties on Service List(s): R.20-11-003, R.19-11-009, R.16-02-007 List of Generating Asset Owners Attached as Appendix B in Draft Resolution

Elizabeth Podolinsky, Elizabeth.podolinsky@cpuc.ca.gov Karen Shea, karen.shea@cpuc.ca.gov Peter Allen, peter.allen@cpuc.ca.gov

31 / 111 31 / 111

Attachment #4

PCF Reply Comments on Preliminary Draft Resolution (May 4, 2021)

32 / 111 32 / 111

PCF Reply Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 1

Protect Our Communities Foundation

4452 Park Blvd #309 San Diego, CA 92116

May 4, 2021 Mr. Lee Palmer Director, Safety & Enforcement Division California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: The Protect Our Communities Foundation Reply Comments on the Safety &

Enforcement Division’s Preliminary Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to Commission General Order 167

Dear Director Palmer:

PCF provides the following reply comments concerning the Staff’s preliminary draft

resolution (Resolution) enforcing the Commission’s compliance with G.O. 167 and SB X2 39

(Speier and Burton 2002.) As the Resolution recognizes, the Commission maintains the duty to

ensure reliability and to enforce the requirements of GO 167 regardless of parties’ suppositions

of the intent or origin of the Commission’s renewed focus on its enforcement authority and

responsibilities. Thus, hypotheses propounded by the Independent Energy Producers

Association (IEP) about the causes of the August 2020 blackouts1 has no bearing on whether the

Commission should or can renew its focus on enforcing GO 167 – nor do other factors which

contributed to the August 2020 blackouts preclude or in any way constrain the Commission’s

updating or enhancing its GO 167 enforcement authority and activities.

More perniciously, IEP asserts that they are exempt from state utility regulation,2 and

surmises that the Commission retains only limited authority over California-based generating

1 See generally, Comments of the Independent Energy Producers Association on the Preliminary Draft Resolution on Citation Procedures for Violations of General Order 167 (April 27, 2021), (“IEP Opening Comments”). 2 IEP Opening Comments, p. 4.

33 / 111 33 / 111

PCF Reply Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 2

facilities, omitting and thus obscuring the fact that the Federal Power Act of 1935 explicitly

contains a Savings Clause3 which reserves to the states jurisdiction and authority over generating

facilities located within the State of California, authority upon which SB X2 39 relied when it

added Section 761.3 to the Public Utilities Code in 2002.

Without question, the Commission possesses the authority to create GO 167’s

requirements and procedures and enforce the provisions therein. As other parties recognize,4 the

Resolution allows staff to review and issue citations and fines more easily, allows staff to require

the immediate correction of plant operations and maintenance violations and enhances penalties

for such violations. All of these changes support and enhance the Commission’s ability to ensure

reliability and to comply with its statutory mandates. The Commission remains required,

pursuant to Section 761.35 and other legislative mandates, to ensure reliability and to promote

the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of the public6 in the manner envisioned by and

reinforced through the adoption of the Resolution.

I. The Commission Retains Wide-Ranging Authority to Enforce GO 167 and Should Not Limit Itself A Priori in Any Way.

IEP pushes hard for the Commission to censor and stifle its ability to utilize or enforce its

authority gained under the Savings Clause of the Federal Power Act and SB X2 39. The

Commission should reject such an out-of-the-box hobbling of its powers, which would hamper if

not prevent the Commission from fulfilling its mandates to ensure reliable service throughout

California. It matters not that the Commission possess other enforcement tools. The Legislature

decided that the Commission needed more than what it was perceived to possess in 2002 and

enacted SB X2 39 to remedy the gap.

IEP posits that the Commission possesses sufficient authority under other enforcement

schemes now and that the Resolution has not shown that greater penalties and enforcement

3 The Federal Power Act, Section 201(b), codified at 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(2), (“The Commission . . . shall not have jurisdiction . . . over facilities used for the generation of electric energy . . .”) See also, Section 201(a), codified at 16 U.S.C. § 824(a), limiting the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), (“. . .such Federal regulation, however, to extend only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the States.”) 4 Comments of the California Energy Storage Alliance to Preliminary Draft Resolution: Modifies Citation Procedures for Violations of Commission General Order 167, Enforcement of Maintenance and Operation Standards for Electric Generating Facilities (April 27, 2021), (“CESA Opening Comments”), p. 2. 5 All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise stated. 6 See Section 451.

34 / 111 34 / 111

PCF Reply Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 3

would produce greater compliance – turning on its head the burden to demonstrate results. The

Commission clearly possesses the prerogative to enhance penalties and expand its enforcement

of plant maintenance and operations standards – and need not “prove” the problem before it acts

to address it. The same tired arguments against Commission enforcement that were trotted out in

2002 against SB X2 39 are contained in IEP’s comments about the generators’ economic

incentives to behave. 7 Clearly self-regulation failed before the Legislature’s 2002 enactment of

SB 2X 39 and it has begun to fail again, in part because of FERC’s recent elimination of some of

the Energy Crisis era protections that were put in place in 2001, as PCF discussed in its opening

comments.

Both the Joint Utilities and IEP raise the issue of the use of language and the use of the

term “public utility.” The Commission can easily determine where it is appropriate to specify

public utility and where it is appropriate to specify generating facility. In both regards, the

Commission can apply all the enforcement authority it believes necessary to ensure reliability

throughout the State of California. PCF agrees with the Joint Utilities8 that the Commission

should make it clear that its GO 167 authority and enforcement activities apply to all generation

asset owners and operators – and not only to utility-owned generation assets. Ownership of a

California-based generation asset has often been separated from the responsibility to operate that

asset. Thus, including all operators within the scope of GO 167 remains key and critical. The

Commission must exert authority over both the ownership and operation of the asset in order to

comply with SB 2X 39’s intent.

And, as noted in the Introduction and in fn. 3, the Federal Power Act’s Savings Clause in

Section 201(b) fully reserves all oversight to and empowers the state with respect to “facilities

for the generation of electric energy.” When California enacted its deregulation law9 it retained

its full authority to regulate such facilities, and the passage of SB 2X 39 trumped any previous

provision of state law to the contrary. Thus SB 2X 39 supersedes the provisions of AB 1890

because SB 2X 39 constitutes the later and the latest statutory direction concerning the subject of

power plant or generation facility oversight. This issue has been definitively resolved both by the

7 See IEP Opening Comments, pp. 8-10. 8 Southern California Edison et al., Comments on Preliminary Draft Resolution __: Modifies Citation Procedures for Violations of Commission General Order 167, Enforcement of Maintenance and Operation Standards for Electric Generating Facilities (April 27, 2021), (“Joint Utilities Opening Comments”), p. 6. 9 See AB 1890 (Brulte 1996).

35 / 111 35 / 111

PCF Reply Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 4

Federal Power Act’s Savings Clause, by the interstitial nature of the Federal Power Act’s

regulatory schema,10 and by the enactment of SB 2X 39 in 2002.

The Joint Utilities further argue that because they are subject to Energy Resource

Recovery Account (ERRA) review, they should be treated separately from non-utility generation

with respect to outage investigations and potential resulting penalties. But as they

acknowledge,11 a review of utility costs and prudence in incurring costs remains a “distinct

concept” from an investigation as to the causes of an outage – and any inappropriate or lacking

behavior, maintenance or operational implementation that may be found within the context of a

more thorough investigation. PCF urges the Commission not to hobble itself from the start in

treating what may have been found to be prudent plant cost expenditures as equivalent to

compliance with Section 761.3 and GO 167 when the Commission evaluates generation

facilities’ operational and maintenance actions. But the Joint Utilities want it only their way –

they don’t want any conclusion about imprudence in the ERRA proceeding to influence or apply

to the GO 167 enforcement process yet they want the ERRA proceeding’s conclusions to impact

the GO 167 process if favorable to the utilities.12

And SB 291 clearly establishes, by its own legislative language, as cited by IEP, that

“Nothing in this section affects the commission’s authority pursuant to Section 761.3.”13 Thus,

IEP’s argument that including the independent generators within the scope of the Resolution

conflicts with SB 291 stands without merit. As the Resolution states, merging the Citation Rules

with the enforcement provisions of GO 167 where needed, makes sense and remains well within

the purview of the Commission’s authority and jurisdiction.

10 See Section 201(a), codified at 16 U.S.C. §824(a), limiting the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), (“. . . such Federal regulation, however, to extend only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the States.”) 11 Joint Utilities Opening Comments, p. 6 at fn 16. 12 See Joint Utilities Opening Comments, Attachment A, paragraph 14.4, (“The issuance of a fine pursuant to GO-167 shall not be determinative of a conclusion of utility imprudence in the context of evaluating a potential ERRA ratemaking disallowance.”) (quoting the Joint Utilities’ proposed language changes) 13 Pub. Util. Code §1702.5(e); See IEP Opening Comments, p. 14.

36 / 111 36 / 111

PCF Reply Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 5

II. Others Argue Against Enforcement of Plant Maintenance and Operations Requirements And The Imposition of Penalties As If They Are A Bad Thing.

The Joint Utilities’ comments concentrate on why the Commission should not increase or

impose penalties and instead suggest additional layers of conferring, negotiating, bargaining14

and essentially delaying the use of the Commission’s enforcement powers to ensure reliability.

The question should not be limited to, as other parties urge, whether the Commission has proven

a problem exists so that its exercise of its police powers could be justified. Instead, the

Commission should promptly punish violations of generation facility maintenance and

operations standards and requirements as a preventive tool to increase the probability that the

power plants are ready to perform when they are needed. Post-mortem root cause analysis after

the next blackout will be too late.

Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) raises concerns with the Resolution’s proposal to

“require[e] EGs to immediately correct any violations of EG operations and maintenance

standards that are noticed in a GO 167 citation”15 Why wouldn’t the Commission require

immediate corrections to violations of power plant operations requirements? PCF would raise

concerns if the Commission chose not to require immediate corrections of power plant

operations, as any such violations could endanger the reliability of the grid and the health and

safety of all Californians. As WPTF itself recognizes, “the primary motivation behind the PDR’s

proposed changes to GO 167 is to empower staff to issue citations for not only “specified

violations” but also for more serious violations of the EG maintenance and operations

standards.”16 Exactly. The Commission must employ the full scope of its regulatory and police

powers to ensure the reliability of California’s electricity system and the health, safety, comfort

and convenience of the public whenever and wherever it sees the need.

As for enhancing penalties for violations, the appropriate question to ask remains: Why

wouldn’t the Commission act to strengthen its penalties if it sees the need to achieve greater

deterrence of troubling power plant outages? The Joint Utilities argue that the magnitude of

fines should not be increased – that discretion should be reserved to the staff and Commission to

determine on a case by case basis. The Commission should not set in stone penalty amounts that

14 See Joint Utilities Opening Comments, pp. 3-4. 15 Western Power Trading Forum Comments on Preliminary Draft Resolution Modifying General Order 167 (April 27, 2021), (“WPTF Opening Comments”), p. 1. Also see pp. 6-7. 16 WPTF Opening Comments, p. 7.

37 / 111 37 / 111

PCF Reply Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 6

may turn out to be mere slaps on the wrist of a generator or operator which could result in a lack

of deterrence. More consequential fines should always be within the authority of the

Commission. The Commission should not tie its hands prospectively. The Commission has

demonstrated its capacity to act quickly when it perceived quick action to be needed in the

Emergency Reliability proceeding.17 Here, too, the Commission should act promptly, by

adoption of the Resolution and its clear direction to staff, to ensure deterrence of unnecessary

plant outages when California most needs the electricity that California power plants can, and

should, produce.

IEP’s examples of the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) reporting schema, in which the

Commission uses a collaborative citation authority, remain inapposite.18 Ensuring the

maintenance and operation of California’s power plants invokes the most basic and broad-

ranging of this State’s authority – the health and police powers of the State of California. The

Commission possesses well-settled authority and jurisdiction to ensure the health, safety, and

welfare of all California families and businesses through the exercise of its regulatory and

enforcement authority. To compare the Commission’s use of citations in other regulatory

functions to its enforcement of power plant operations, which directly affect the health, safety,

and welfare of all Californians, minimizes, if not mocks, the duties and responsibilities of this

Commission.

III. The Resolution Should Apply to All Violations of GO 167, As the Commission Previously Contemplated in D.04-05-018 and D.14-12-001.

IEP’s conflation of the application of civil and criminal law19 with the Commission’s

authority to enforce its regulatory and police power mandates should be rejected. The

Legislature and this Commission have long put all generating facilities on notice of the required

maintenance and operations standards. All that the Resolution proposes involves additional tools

or mechanisms to investigate, cite, penalize, and enforce the clearly-defined requirements to

which power plants have long been required to adhere. The Resolution makes clear its focus on

changing enforcement mechanisms in its notation that “the existing mechanism for enforcing

17 In R.20-11-003, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish Policies, Processes, and Rules to Ensure Reliable Electric Service in California in the Event of an Extreme Weather Event in 2021, the Commission has already voted out two wide-ranging decisions within four months. 18 IEP Opening Comments, pp. 13-14. 19 See, IEP Opening Comments, p. 20.

38 / 111 38 / 111

PCF Reply Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 7

violations of the parts of GO-167 that directly affect reliability was not effective in preventing

the rolling blackouts in August 2020.”20

PCF disagrees with the Joint Utilities’ contention that violations should only be

prospectively subject to the full force of the Commission’s GO 167 authority. They assert

without citation “principles of due process” while ignoring the Commission’s clear direction in

D.04-05-018 and D.14-12-001. All generation asset owners and operators have been thoroughly

put on notice. Moreover, the Commission can and does reexamine and change how it

implements its regulatory authority as facts and circumstances change.

At the end of their comments, the Joint Utility parties implicitly acknowledge that no

impediment exists in how and when the Commission uses its GO 167 enforcement authority, as

they close with the supplication that “it is necessary for the Commission to provide the Joint

Utilities generation asset owners sufficient notice and time to implement new procedures to

ensure full compliance with the new parameters of a markedly different GO-167 enforcement

paradigm. For these reasons, any changes should only be applied prospectively.”21 Thus the

Joint Utilities ultimately stand on the assertion that they need time to implement new procedures

– without providing any citations to any law, policy, or requirement that would mandate that the

Commission forego its enforcement duties as well as its authority to ensure system reliability.

Staff’s authority to act to remedy problems should not be frozen in time. Thus, WPTF’s

crimped proposal to limit staff action to a narrow set of citations should be rejected. As WPTF

notes, prior citation authority was created to exempt some power producers from the full scope

of Commission oversight. As circumstances change, the Commission should adjust the scope of

its authority to ensure that where FERC retreats, as explained in PCF’s opening comments, the

Commission steps in to ensure reliability. Thus, PCF urges the Commission to reject WPTF’s

narrow view of the appropriateness of Safety and Enforcement Division staff actions over all

power plants located in California, consistent with the jurisdiction and authority provided to the

states in the Federal Power Act.

20 Preliminary Draft Resolution, Modifies Citation Procedures for Violations of Commission General Order 167, Enforcement of Maintenance and Operation Standards for Electric Generating Facilities (April 7, 2021), p. 5. 21 Joint Utilities Opening Comments, p. 8.

39 / 111 39 / 111

PCF Reply Comments on Draft Resolution Containing Proposed Changes to GO-167, page 8

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bill Powers

Bill Powers, P.E. - Technical Advisor Protect Our Communities Foundation 4452 Park Boulevard, #209 San Diego, CA 92116 Tel: (619) 917-2941 Email: bpowers@powersengineering.com

Dated: May 4, 2021

CC: All Parties on Service List(s): R.20-11-003, R.19-11-009, R.16-02-007 List of Generating Asset Owners Attached as Appendix B in Draft Resolution

Elizabeth Podolinsky, Elizabeth.podolinsky@cpuc.ca.gov Karen Shea, karen.shea@cpuc.ca.gov Peter Allen, peter.allen@cpuc.ca.gov

40 / 111 40 / 111

Attachment #5

Final Draft Resolution ESRB-9 (May 21, 2021)

41 / 111 41 / 111

DRAFT Item __ [Agenda ID 19539]

385285630 1

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION Electric Safety and Reliability Branch Date: June 24, 2021 Resolution ESRB-9

R E S O L U T I O N

Resolution ESRB-9 - Modifies Citation Procedures for Violations of Commission General Order 167, Enforcement of Maintenance and Operation Standards for Electric Generating Facilities OUTCOME: Modifies the General Order 167 citation process to allow Commission staff to issue citations for any violation of General Order 167 and aligns the General Order 167 citation processes with those of the existing Commission electric citation programs. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: May improve the safety and reliability of California electric generation facilities. ESTIMATED COST: No significant cost.

SUMMARY The Commission’s General Order (GO) 167 sets forth standards for the maintenance and operation of electric generating facilities. Under the existing language of GO-167, Commission staff may issue citations only for certain specified violations of GO-167. This Resolution modifies the scope of the violations for which Commission staff may issue citations to include any violation of GO-167, and modifies the GO-167 citation process to more closely align with the Commission’s other existing electric citation processes. BACKGROUND The Commission first adopted GO-167 in 2004, in two decisions issued in Rulemaking (R.) 02-11-039.1 That proceeding was opened by the Commission to implement the requirements of Pub. Util. Code § 761.3,2 which was enacted in response to the California

1 Those two decisions are Decision (D.) 04-05-017 and D.04-05-018. 2 Senate Bill (SB) X2 39 (Burton and Speier), added by Statutes 2002, Second Extraordinary Session, Chapter 19, Section 4 (effective August 8, 2002). All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless specified otherwise.

42 / 111 42 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 2

energy crisis of 2000-2001 and directed the Commission to implement and enforce standards for the maintenance and operation of electric generation facilities. (D.04-05-017 at 2, citing § 761.3(a).) As the Commission stated in 2004:

The statewide energy crisis of 2000-2001 resulted in many economic and personal hardships to people and businesses within California. In our recent filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), we indicated that the total cost of electricity needed to serve California, for the period of May 2000 through June 2001, was $19 billion higher than the cost incurred during the combined years of 1998, 1999, and 2000. Our filings with FERC document many instances of Generating Assets being placed on reserve status for questionable reasons and resulting in electricity power outages. In 2002, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill SBX2 39 during its second extraordinary session to help avoid such outages in the future. The Legislature determined that the public interest, as well as the public health and safety, requires the electric generating facilities and power plants in the state to be maintained appropriately and operated efficiently. (D.04-05-018 at 3-4, footnote omitted.)

GO-167 was the Commission’s response to this statutory directive. While GO-167 was initially implemented in D.04-05-017 and D.04-05-018, it has been subsequently modified, with the most recent changes in 2008 via Resolution No. E-4184 adopted August 21, 2008 and D.08-11-009 adopted November 6, 2008.3 The first sentence of the current version of GO-167 states:

The purpose of this General Order is to implement and enforce standards for the maintenance and operation of electric generating facilities and power plants so as to maintain and protect the public health and safety of California residents and businesses, to ensure that electric generating facilities are effectively and appropriately maintained and efficiently operated, and to ensure electrical service reliability and adequacy. (GO-167, Section 1.0.)

3 The process for adopting the 2004 decisions and the 2008 Resolution and decision did not include evidentiary hearings. Resolution E-4184 modified the reporting requirements for electric and gas emergencies. D.08-11-009 added procedural details to the enforcement provisions for consistency with existing citation programs.

43 / 111 43 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 3

On August 14 and 15, 2020 as the result of an extreme heat storm, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) implemented rolling outages in response to inadequate electric generation to meet the demand on the system. Hundreds of thousands of Californians lost power as a result. Looking at just Commission-jurisdictional customers, 491,600 were affected by rolling outages on August 14, 2020, and 321,000 were affected by rolling outages on August 15, 2020.4 In response to these rolling outages, the Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) conducted in-person inspections at a select number of electric generating facilities that experienced outages during the August 2020 heatwave and shared its findings with the Commission. At the Commission’s public meeting on January 14, 2021, the Commissioners generally expressed support for the concept of expanding Commission staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of GO-167, including violations of maintenance and operation standards. This Resolution implements that policy directive.

Notice A preliminary draft Resolution, with proposed changes to GO-167 attached as Appendix A, was served via e-mail on April 8, 2021 to all generating asset owners5 and to the service lists in the following Commission proceedings: Emergency Reliability (R.20-11-003), Resource Adequacy (R.19-11-009), Integrated Resource Planning (R.16-02-007) and the prior GO-167 proceeding (R.02-11-039). Comments on the draft were due on April 27, 2021, and reply comments were due on May 4, 2021. JURISDICTION The Commission’s authority under GO-167, pursuant to § 761.3, extends beyond the regulated investor-owned utilities and includes other generators, including exempt wholesale generators (EWGs). The Commission’s authority specifically encompasses any “Generating Asset,” as defined in section 2.8 of GO-167, and any “Generating Asset Owner,” as defined in section 2.9 of GO-167, subject to certain exceptions. This Resolution does not change those definitions and exceptions and does not change or expand the range of entities covered by GO-167. The scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction under § 761.3 was discussed in depth in D.04-05-0176, D.04-05-0187 and D.06-01-047 and need not be repeated here, other than

4 Final Root Cause Analysis, Mid-August 2020 Extreme Heat Wave, dated January 13, 2021 at 34-35. 5 A list of all generating assets and corresponding generating asset owners is attached as Appendix B to this Resolution. 6 See, D.04-05-017 at 5-21. 7 See, D.04-05-018 at 6-11.

44 / 111 44 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 4

to note that the Commission previously observed that: “The breadth of the legislation extends our authority to many electric generators who have consistently maintained that they are not otherwise subject to our regulation.” (D.04-05-018 at 6.) The citation authority to be granted to staff by this Resolution does not expand the jurisdiction or authority of the Commission beyond that already established by § 761.3, D.04-05-017, D.04-05-018 and D.06-01-047. It is clear that the Commission’s jurisdiction for enforcing violations of Commission decisions and rules extends beyond just the investor-owned utilities that the Commission generally regulates. The Public Utilities Code states:

Every corporation or person, other than a public utility and its officers, agents, or employees, which or who knowingly violates or fails to comply with, or procures, aids or abets any violation of any provision of the California Constitution relating to public utilities or of this part, or fails to comply with any part of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission, or who procures, aids, or abets any public utility in the violation or noncompliance, in a case in which a penalty has not otherwise been provided for the corporation or person, is subject to a penalty of not less than five hundred dollars ($500), nor more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each offense. (Pub. Util. Code § 2111.)

PROPOSED CHANGES The existing language of GO-167 provides that for specified violations the Director of CPSD (predecessor to SED) and his/her designee “may assess a scheduled fine” via a citation process. (GO-167, subsection 13.3.1.) The specified violations for which a scheduled fine can be assessed via citation are limited to certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements, which are set forth in Appendix F of GO-167. (GO-167, subsection 13.3.2.) Additionally, the current language in Appendix F is vague, and there are aspects of its application that are unclear. Violations of other provisions of GO-167 beyond those set forth in Appendix F can be enforced by the Commission via a formal proceeding, such as an Order Instituting Investigation (OII). (GO-167, section 13.1.) This existing structure presents several practical problems. First, it means that enforcement of even minor violations of GO-167 other than those specified in Appendix F would appear to require opening a full OII. Opening an OII for a relatively minor violation is not resource effective for either the Commission or the respondent, and creates an incentive for the Commission to only take enforcement action in response to the most egregious violations of GO-167, and to let smaller violations go unaddressed. This is not the optimum approach to ensuring the reliability of the electrical grid. Second, the citation process set forth in GO-167 for violations of Appendix F is separate and distinct from the Commission’s existing and more general electric citation program

45 / 111 45 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 5

adopted in D.14-12-001 and most recently modified in D.18-05-023.8 Accordingly, whenever the electric citation program is modified, the GO-167 citation process also has to be modified, or else the Commission and parties will have to deal with differing processes depending on whether they are being cited under the general electric citation program or under GO-167. In fact, a number of the changes to the GO-167 citation program made in D.08-11-009 were for the purpose of making the GO-167 processes more consistent with the processes used in the Commission’s electric citation program. (D.08-11-009 at 5-7, 9-12.) Having multiple and differing citation programs that must be separately updated to maintain consistency is not efficient for either the Commission or interested parties. In order to remedy these problems and to implement the Commissioners’ stated desire to expand Commission staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of GO-167, the best approach is to align the GO-167 citation process with the Commission’s existing general electric citation program. This can be done by using the general electric citation process for all violations of GO-167, and eliminating the current process set forth in subsection 13.3.2 and Appendix F. A redlined version of section 13.3 of GO-167 (“Imposition of Fines for Specified Violations”) showing the proposed changes is attached as Appendix A to this Resolution. The proposed changes only affect section 13.3; Appendix F and section 14.4 (referring to section 13.3 and Appendix F) would be eliminated. No changes to other sections of GO-167 are proposed.9 Delegation of Authority to Commission Staff The Commission has previously delegated citation authority to Commission staff for specified violations under GO-167 and for more general electric violations pursuant to D.14-12-001. The proposed changes do not expand that authority, and only conform staff’s authority to issue GO-167 citations with the previously established electric citation program. Given the events of August 14 and 15, 2020, the Commission finds it reasonable and necessary to permit staff to issue citations for violations of any part of GO-167 under the existing delegation of authority for electric violations.

8 D.14-12-001 stated: “The Commission finds it is reasonable and necessary to delegate to staff the ability to issue citations to any electrical corporation owning or operating electrical supply facilities for violations of GOs 95, 128, 165, 166, 174, or other related decisions, codes or regulations applicable to electrical supply facilities. […] This decision gives staff the authority to issue a written citation to any electrical corporation owning or operating electrical supply facilities for violations that occurred both before and after the date of this decision.” (Id. at 11-12.) 9 Another possible approach would be to leave in place the existing process set forth in subsection 13.3.2 and Appendix F and add new language to provide for citations under the Commission’s general electric citation program for any other violations outside of the violations listed in Appendix F. This approach is more complex and does not fix the problem of having two separate processes, and so is less desirable.

46 / 111 46 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 6

Questions/Issues In adopting this refinement to the Commission’s electric citation process for GO-167, there are a number of issues that comments should address, including the following:

1) In determining the size or nature of a fine or other penalty for violations of GO-167, are there factors that should be considered that differ from those used in the Commission’s existing electric citation program? If so, what are they and how should they be applied?

2) Are there any other differences between GO-167 citations and other electric citations that should be taken into consideration? If so, what are those differences and how should they be taken into consideration?

3) Should the changes made in the citation process by this Resolution apply to past violations of GO-167, or only to future violations? Any argument that the changes should only apply prospectively should address the discussion in D.14-12-001 at 19-20.

INITIAL COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION Comments on the preliminary draft Resolution (served on April 8, 2021) were received from the Independent Energy Producers Association (IEP), the California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA), the Protect Our Communities Foundation (PCF), Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF)10, Arevon Asset Management (Arevon)11, and jointly from Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (Joint Utilities). Reply comments were received from IEP, PCF and the Joint Utilities. IEP, PCF, WPTF and the Joint Utilities submitted detailed and thoughtful comments that provided a wide range of views, and that the Commission has carefully considered. The comments of CESA and Arevon were less detailed, and raised more general concerns.

10 WPTF did not serve Commission staff with its comments on April 27, 2021, but WPTF appears to have timely served other parties, who responded to WPTF’s comments. Commission staff received WPTF’s initial comments on May 5, 2021, after requesting those comments from counsel for WPTF. 11 It appears that Arevon may not have served their April 27, 2021 comments on anyone other than Commission staff. Accordingly, while Arevon’s comments were considered, they were given significantly less weight, as other interested parties did not have an opportunity to respond to Arevon.

47 / 111 47 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 7

IEP IEP generally opposes the changes proposed in the preliminary draft Resolution, and raises a number of issues. The two main overarching arguments made by IEP are that the proposal does not adequately distinguish between electric public utilities and independent power producers with the status of Exempt Wholesale Generators (EWGs) (IEP Initial Comments at 2-5), and that the proposed changes are an unnecessary shift from what IEP characterizes as an effective compliance-based approach to one more focused on punishment. (Id. at 2, 11-12.) IEP spends considerable time emphasizing the fact that the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction over EWGs differs from and is more limited than the Commission’s jurisdiction over electric utilities. As a general concept, IEP is correct, but in the specific situation presented by GO-167, the distinction is largely irrelevant. The Commission has previously addressed this issue, and has expressly found that it has authority over EWGs pursuant to § 761.3. In D.04-05-017, the Commission noted that several parties made the argument that the Commission’s implementation and enforcement standards, such as those contained in GO-167 cannot govern operation and maintenance practices of EWGs. (D.04-05-017 at 7.) The Commission emphatically rejected that argument, finding that the California Legislature made EWGs “[E]xplicitly subject to the additional, special, specific jurisdiction vested in the Commission to enforce operations and maintenance standards pursuant to § 761.3.” (Id. at 10.) The Commission continued:

“In fact, § 761.3 specifically directs that the Commission implement and enforce Committee-adopted standards to be followed by an electrical corporation notwithstanding specific provisions of the Public Utilities Code that would otherwise exclude EWGs from Commission jurisdiction (i.e., §§ 216(g), 228.5(c), 228.5(d)). As a result, the law provides the Commission with the specific and necessary jurisdictional basis to apply adopted standards to EWGs.” (Id. at 11.)

In short, the Commission has previously considered and rejected the argument that GO-167 cannot be enforced against EWGs. (D.04-05-017 at 5-21; see also, D.06-01-047.) EWGs have been subject to GO-167 for years, and they can be penalized for a violation of GO-167 via a Commission Order Instituting Investigation (OII), or via a citation for

48 / 111 48 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 8

certain specific violations identified in section 13.3 of GO-167. There is no legal barrier to the Commission issuing citations to EWGs for violations of GO-167. IEP also makes several policy arguments as to why EWGs should not be subject to citations for any violation of GO-167. According to IEP, SED already has substantial existing enforcement authority, including audits of generating assets, data requests, notices of violation, and requests for corrective action. (IEP Initial Comments at 6-8.) IEP notes that this range of actions available to SED allows SED to take quick action, and to have flexibility to tailor its enforcement approach to match the facts on the ground, and an “overly prescriptive enforcement regime” could hinder that flexibility. (Id. at 8-9.) IEP raises a valid point - it would be counterproductive for the Commission to adopt an overly rigid or prescriptive approach that forces SED to always impose a penalty, and forecloses SED from working with a generation asset to bring a facility into compliance with the requirements of GO-167. Accordingly, we clarify that providing SED with expanded citation authority under GO-167 does not remove or limit SED’s ability to use any of its existing tools to ensure the safe and reliable operation of electric generation assets. While SED is authorized to issue a citation for any violation of GO-167, it is not required to do so. Similarly, IEP argues that the preliminary draft Resolution shifts the focus from promoting compliance to punishing violations. (IEP Initial Comments at 11-12.) IEP’s argument mischaracterizes the proposed changes as binary, with penalties taking the place of compliance. The Commission is not taking any existing compliance tools away from SED, but is rather providing SED with an additional tool that it may use as appropriate. In some situations, a penalty may be appropriate. Finally, IEP argues that independent power producers have an inherent economic incentive to comply with the requirements of GO-167, as they will not earn revenues if they are not generating (or ready to generate) electricity. (Id. at 9-10.) However, based on California’s historic experience, it is not clear that this economic incentive guarantees the reliable operation of electric generation units as consistently as IEP’s argument implies. Currently, if an independent power producer violates GO-167, they can be subject to substantial penalties via an OII. If they comply with the requirements of GO-167, they are not subject to penalties for violation of GO-167. Allowing citations for violations of GO-167 does not change this basic calculus. IEP’s market-based argument would support the elimination of any penalty for violations of GO-167, not just citations, which the Commission is not considering. California’s real-world experience has shown that sometimes a visible enforcement mechanism is a necessary backstop to the invisible hand of the market.

49 / 111 49 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 9

In its Initial Reply Comments, IEP reiterates more vigorously its argument that EWGs should not be subject to the Commission’s electric citation rules, on the grounds that those rules were written to apply only to electric utilities, not to EWGs. According to IEP:

Integrating the GO 167 citation program with the broader Citation Rules would require significant revisions to the Citation Rules to maintain jurisdictional clarity and would nonetheless create the risk of jurisdictional overreach by the Commission. (IEP Initial Reply Comments at 1)

IEP further expands on this argument later:

Any attempt to integrate the GO 167 citation program with the Citation Rules will have be carefully constructed to avoid jurisdictional confusion and potential overreach. […] Maintaining the existing distinction between the GO 167 program that applies to GAOs and the Citation Rules that apply to electric public utilities is simpler, preserves the jurisdictional distinction between EWGs and public utilities, and is consistent with the different functions of the two citation programs. For these reasons, IEP recommends keeping the citation program for GO 167 within GO 167 and not attempting to integrate the GO 167 citation program with the general Citation Rules. (Id. at 2-3.)

IEP’s argument misstates the proposed outcome of the preliminary draft Resolution. While the word “integrate” was used in parts of the preliminary draft Resolution, the Commission would not actually be integrating the GO-167 citation program into the more general electric citation program.12 The GO-167 citation program would remain separate, but would use the same processes and procedures as the electric citation program. The proposed revised language of section 13.3.1 reads: For any violation of this General Order, citations may be issued pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 2111 or other applicable authority, following the processes and procedures of the Commission’s electric citation program, as set forth in D.14-12-001 as modified by D.18-05-023, or its successor. In short, the proposed changes do exactly what IEP recommends – keeping the citation program for GO-167 within GO-167 itself. IEP’s argument that the proposed changes would somehow result in jurisdictional confusion or overreach is not well founded. The

12 The word “integrate” used in the preliminary draft Resolution may have caused some confusion, and has been replaced with the word “align.”

50 / 111 50 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 10

proposed changes do not change the Commission’s jurisdiction over EWGs pursuant to § 761.3. PCF PCF strongly supports the proposed changes set forth in the preliminary draft Resolution, both expanding the scope of SED staff’s citation authority and making the GO-167 citation processes consistent with the Commission’s overall electric system enforcement procedures. (PCF Initial Comments at 7.) PCF provides additional factual background in support of its position, and makes several other recommendations. PCF notes that the preliminary draft Resolution states that the proposed changes do not expand the existing jurisdiction or authority of the Commission. PCF requests that the Resolution should similarly state that the proposed changes do not reduce or otherwise result in the diminution of the Commission’s jurisdiction over electric generation facilities. (Id.) The proposed changes to SED staff’s citation authority do not affect or alter the scope of the Commission’s authority or jurisdiction. Just as there is no increase in jurisdiction, there is no decrease in jurisdiction. PCF similarly requests affirmation of the Commission’s authority to impose penalties pursuant to PU Code §2111. (Id. at 8.) Since that authority is statutory, the Commission has that authority regardless of whether or not the Commission expressly restates it, but to be clear, nothing in the proposal affects the scope of the Commission’s authority pursuant to §2111. PCF devotes a significant portion of its comments to factual background on both power plant outages and the statutory and regulatory responses to those outages. (PCF Initial Comments at 2-6.) According to PCF, the background they describe supports the Commission vigorously enforcing the requirements of GO-167. (Id. at 3.) PCF has two other recommendations. First, that GO-167 be updated to require the digital filing, maintenance and transmission of records and logbooks. (Id. at 2, 8.) And second, that the Commission should explicitly include the whistleblower protections for workers and consider adopting additional requirements for workforce training and protections. (Id. at 2,10.) No other comments or reply comments addressed these issues. It is not clear that this is the appropriate forum to fully address these issues, so we do not adopt them at this time, but Commission staff may consider them further as appropriate. PCF strongly opposes the arguments of IEP, which PCF characterizes as “tired,” and echoing arguments made in 2002 against the enactment of § 761.3. PCF opposes IEP’s efforts to limit, hobble, stifle or freeze the Commission’s enforcement authority. (See, PCF Initial Reply Comments at 2-7.)

51 / 111 51 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 11

WPTF WPTF’s comments on the preliminary draft resolution tend to be the most nuanced. For example, WPTF supports authorizing staff to issue citations for any violation of GO-167, and would require electric generators to immediately correct any violations of GO-167 maintenance and operations standards that are noticed in a citation (WPTF Initial Comments at 1), but would retain the separate citation regime currently embodied in Appendix F (Id. at 7). WPTF offers detailed redline edits of GO-167, along with tables comparing GO-167 with the general electric citation rules. Overall, however, WPTF’s recommendations are not significantly dissimilar from those in the preliminary draft Resolution. The main issue raised by WPTF is the difference in the methodology for calculating penalty amounts under GO-167 compared with the general electric citation program. For example, WPTF points out that the electric citation program requires staff to set the fine for each cited violation at the statutory maximum, while GO-167 sets forth the factors to be considered in determining the sanctions to be imposed on a generation asset owner. (WPTF Initial Comments at 3-4) WPTF’s primary recommendation to address this issue is for the Commission to retain the factors set forth in sections 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 of GO-167, regardless of any other changes made to GO-167. (Id. at 5.) The preliminary draft Resolution does not eliminate those sections of GO-167, and there is no other proposal to do so. Sections 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 of GO-167 remain in place unchanged. Some of WPTF’s observations and suggestions are both nuanced and detailed, and deserve further consideration as we implement the changes adopted today. The Commission recommends that SED consider WPTF’s recommendations on a going-forward basis when evaluating potential refinements to the GO-167 citation process. Joint Utilities In their opening comments, the Joint Utilities generally supported the intent of the preliminary draft Resolution, but their support is conditional, and they requested certain additional language and requirements be placed upon the proposed citation program. (Joint Utilities Initial Comments at 1-3.) First, the Joint Utilities requested that a revised GO-167 specifically and explicitly incorporate by reference the Commission’s recently adopted Enforcement Policy (Resolution M-4846). The Joint Utilities point out that: “The Enforcement Policy notes that ‘Staff may decide that violations that are ‘administrative’ in nature do not warrant the imposition of a penalty given the facts known at the time.’” (Joint Utilities Initial Comments at 4.)

52 / 111 52 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 12

The Joint Utilities further note that:

The Enforcement Policy also specifically contemplates a series of escalating steps that Staff may employ before issuing an NOV […], which appropriately and sensibly begin with more collaborative Staff-utility “warning communications.” (Id.)

It is understandable why the Joint Utilities may want to expressly incorporate these aspects of the Enforcement Policy into the GO-167 penalty process, but we decline to do so. First, the Commission’s new Enforcement Policy is an over-arching policy, and as such will be taken into consideration as appropriate across Commission proceedings, whether or not it is specifically identified in the applicable General Order or other Commission decision or order. Adding it to GO-167 could potentially cause confusion as to whether or not it is applicable in cases where it is not specifically identified. Second, the Commission’s Enforcement Policy is new, has not been fully implemented, and may be subject to refinements and other changes, so it is inadvisable to firmly lock GO-167 (and only GO-167) to the current version of the Enforcement Policy. The Commission expects that its processes, including those under GO-167, will be implemented consistent with Commission policies and practices, including the Enforcement Policy. It is unnecessary to modify GO-167 to expressly lock it to the Enforcement Policy. In a mirror image of IEP’s argument, the Joint Utilities argue that the Commission should take into consideration the fact that the regulated electric utilities are subject to additional Commission oversight, such as rate recovery disallowances, that do not apply to independent power producers. (Joint Utility Comments at 5-6.) While this is true, this is currently the case for Commission enforcement actions under GO-167, whether those are notices of violation, citations, or OIIs, so it is not clear why such language needs to be added to GO-167. And it is not clear that the electric utilities should be treated differently (presumably more leniently) than independent power producers for violations of GO-167, which would appear to be the practical implication of the Joint Utilities’ argument. Later, the Joint Utilities modified their position to more closely correspond to that of WPTF. (Joint Utilities Initial Reply Comments at 1-3.) With some minor exceptions, the changes adopted by this Resolution are generally consistent with the recommendations of WPTF, as discussed above. While the Joint Utilities agree with IEP that the focus of GO-167 should be on correction rather than punishment, the Joint Utilities also agree with PCF’s criticism of IEP, that IEP appears to be primarily focused on evading the Commission’s jurisdiction over EWGs, which was previously litigated and resolved, contrary to IEP’s arguments. (Joint Utilities Initial Reply Comments at 2.)

53 / 111 53 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 13

CESA and Arevon CESA expressed concern that the proposed changes “would remove the due process involved in formal investigations into violations of GO-167,” because it “would allow staff to more easily review and issue citations and fines.” (CESA Initial Comments at 2.) The proposed changes (which would allow staff to more easily issue citations) do not take the place of or obviate the availability of more formal investigations, such as an OII. This Commission anticipates that more significant or larger-scale violations would likely still be the subject of an OII, rather than a citation. As such, the proposed citation process does not remove any due process from the Commission’s formal investigation process. In addition, the Commission’s general electric citation process that would apply to GO-167 violations provides due process, including an appeal process. CESA fails to identify how the proposed changes “remove” due process. Arevon makes a number of suggestions, including that the Commission should publish examples of citations that eventually were deemed violations, and the Commission should provide guidance on how the penalty amount will be determined. (Arevon Initial Comments at 3.) The existing electric citation program already provides guidance on how penalty amounts are determined, and GO-167 also sets forth factors to be taken into consideration when calculating penalties. In addition, the Commission posts on its website a listing of electric safety citations that have been issued, including supporting documents. (Electric Safety Citations (ca.gov)) Arevon also requests that “that the Commission consider conducting further analysis of historical operations […] to identify whether such violations have directly caused a public safety or grid reliability issue.” (Id. at 3.) In light of the California energy crisis that led to the enactment of § 761.3, such analysis is not necessary here. Appendix F The preliminary draft Resolution incorporated a proposal to eliminate GO-167’s existing Appendix F, which sets forth penalties for specific reporting and recordkeeping violations. This proposal drew a number of comments, albeit with varying perspectives. PCF offers the following recommendation:

GO-167 Appendix F specifically calls out record-keeping deficiencies for sanction. PCF suggests that the Commission reconsider eliminating Appendix F in order to provide maximum transparency. At the least, the Resolution’s proposed elimination of Appendix F should not be understood as de-emphasizing or excusing record-keeping failures, which are especially important to identify and correct in the GO-167 enforcement scheme. Rather, as noted above, record-keeping failures have a heightened significance for the

54 / 111 54 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 14

GO-167 scheme. The Resolution should specifically address these matters with the intention of making records and documents fully compliant, transparent and accessible. (PCF Initial Comments at 10.)

The Joint Utilities also suggest the retention of Appendix F:

Finally, the Joint Utilities understand the intent of the Preliminary Draft Resolution to extend the Commission’s citation authority beyond the “limited … recordkeeping and reporting requirements” found in Appendix F of GO-167. The Joint Utilities do not disagree that such a move is appropriate. It does not follow, however, that Appendix F should be eliminated in its entirety. While the universe of the types of requirements that could lead to a citation may be expanding, the magnitude of the associated fines should not. The approximate magnitude and range of penalties set forth in Appendix F continues to be appropriate for violations of GO-167, whether or not those violations are limited to recordkeeping and reporting requirements or are more broadly applicable. (Joint Utilities Initial Comments at 11, emphasis in original.)13

First, in response to PCF’s request that the proposed elimination of Appendix F “should not be understood as de-emphasizing or excusing record-keeping failures,” we concur. Recordkeeping continues to be an essential component of safe and reliable operation of electric generation facilities. This Commission does not, however, concur with the recommendation of the Joint Utilities that the fine amounts set forth in Appendix F provide a reasonable “magnitude and range” of penalties for any violation of GO-167. Given that the penalties set forth in Appendix F range from approximately $1000 to $5000 per incident, the magnitude of those penalties is significantly less than that of the general electric citation program. While a cited generator is free to use those numbers in arguing for a reduced penalty, the Commission declines to require itself to apply those numbers that are inconsistent with the penalty levels imposable under the general electric citation program. Recordkeeping and reporting continue to be important requirements of GO-167, but should not be the only requirements for which specific penalties are identified, particularly when penalties may be imposed for other sections as well. Given the potential issues arising from the language of Appendix F, we will adopt the approach used by the preliminary draft Resolution of eliminating Appendix F.

13 Arevon makes a similar argument, that Appendix F should be retained to provide guidance on the calculation of penalty amounts. (Arevon Initial Comments at 3.)

55 / 111 55 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 15

Prospective or Retroactive Commenters were requested to address whether the changes made in the citation process by this Resolution should apply to past violations of GO-167, or only to future violations, and any argument that the changes should only apply prospectively needed to address the relevant discussion in D.14-12-001. IEP, WPTF and the Joint Utilities argue that the changes to the applicable penalty mechanism should be applied only prospectively, not retroactively. PCF disagrees. The Joint Utilities note that the Commission already has the ability to open an OII to investigate past violations of GO-167, but given the change to a citation program, generation asset owners would not have notice of the steps they could have taken to mitigate potential penalties under the new citation program. (Joint Utilities Initial comments at 7.) IEP argues:

If the purpose of a citation and fine is to provide a stronger incentive for compliance with the applicable standard, retroactive application of a citation will have no effect, since the entity in question would have no idea, at the time a violation could potentially be prevented, that it was facing higher penalties or engaging in an act or omission that will be defined as a violation at some point in the future. Retroactive citations and fines do not, and cannot, encourage the desired behavior. (IEP Initial Comments at 21.)

IEP and the Joint Utilities raise valid points. In the present situation there does not appear to be a good purpose for a retroactive application of the proposed changes to GO-167. Accordingly, the changes we adopt today only apply prospectively, not retroactively. Conclusion and Next Steps The preliminary draft Resolution has been modified in response to comments. This Resolution does not change the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction over EWGs (or utilities), but only changes the process used for responding to violations of GO-167. Because this Resolution changes existing practices, it will be useful to evaluate the efficacy and workability of the new practices, and to consider further refinements or modifications. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that SED conduct workshops or other methods of obtaining feedback on the processes adopted by this Resolution, and present to the Commission any changes that SED recommends.

56 / 111 56 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 16

COMMENTS A draft Resolution was distributed for comment pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 14.5 on May 21, 2021. Comments were received from [____]. FINDINGS 1. On August 14 and 15, 2020 as the result of an extreme heat storm, the California

Independent System Operator implemented rolling outages in response to inadequate electric generation to meet the demand on the system.

2. Of Commission-jurisdictional customers, 491,600 were affected by rolling outages on August 14, 2020, and 321,000 were affected by rolling outages on August 15, 2020.

3. While the Commission has authority to impose penalties on electric generators for violations of General Order 167, Commission staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of General Order 167 is limited to specified reporting and recordkeeping violations.

4. The Commission has separately delegated to staff the ability to issue citations to any electrical corporation owning or operating electrical supply facilities for violations of General Orders 95, 128, 165, 166, 174, or other related decisions, codes or regulations applicable to electrical supply facilities.

5. The Commissioners have publicly expressed support for granting Commission staff authority to issue citations for any violation of General Order 167, including violations of maintenance and operation standards.

6. It makes sense to modify the General Order 167 citation process to more closely align with the Commission’s other existing electric citation processes.

7. The Commission has previously delegated to Commission staff the authority to issue citations for violations of General Order 167 and for other electrical violations.

8. This Resolution does not alter the Commission’s existing jurisdiction over electric generation facilities.

IT IS ORDERED: 1. Commission enforcement staff with citation authority may issue citations for any

violation of General Order 167, including but not limited to violations of maintenance and operations standards.

2. The General Order 167 citation process is modified to more closely align with the Commission’s other existing electric citation processes.

57 / 111 57 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 17

3. General Order 167 is modified as shown in Appendix A to this Resolution. Section 14.4 and Appendix F of General Order 167 are deleted.

I certify that this Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California at its regular business meeting held on June 24, 2021and the following Commissioners approved favorably thereon:

Rachel Peterson Executive Director

58 / 111 58 / 111

- 1 -

APPENDIX A

The following shows the proposed changes to section 13.3 of GO-167:1

13.3 Imposition of Fines for Specified Violations

13.3.1 Specified Violations. For specified Violations of this General Order, the Director of CPSD the Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) and his/her designee may assess a scheduled fine or, in the alternative, proceed with any remedy otherwise available to SED CPSD or the Commission. For any violation of this General Order, citations may be issued pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 2111 or other applicable authority, following the processes and procedures of the Commission’s electric citation program, as set forth in D.14-12-001 as modified by D.16-09-55 and D.18-05-023, or its successor Scheduled fines may be assessed by CPSD only for the Violations referenced in subsection 13.3.2 of this General Order. SED CPSD shall notify the Generating Asset Owner, in writing, of any specified Violations and assessed fines, and shall include notice of the right to contest the fine. as set forth in subsections 13.3.4 and 13.3.8 of this General Order. No fine assessed by CPSD pursuant to this subsection shall become payable if contested by the Generating Asset Owner pursuant to subsection 13.3.4.

13.3.2 Schedule of Fines. The Specified Violations and the corresponding fines that may be assessed are set forth in Appendix F to this General Order. The Commission may modify this schedule of fines no earlier than 30 days after providing reasonable notice and affording interested persons with an opportunity to comment.

13.3.3 Acceptance of Assessed Fine. A Generating Asset Owner may either accept or appeal the assessment of a scheduled fine. In the event the Generating Asset Owner accepts the assessment and elects to pay the scheduled fine in lieu of an appeal, the Generating Asset Owner shall so notify CPSD in writing within 30 days of the assessment, shall pay the fine in full, and shall bring itself into compliance with the applicable provision(s) of the General Order within 30 days of the written acceptance. Fines shall be submitted to CPSD for payment into the State Treasury to the credit of the General Fund. Fines are delinquent if not paid within 30 days of the Generating Asset Owner's acceptance; and, thereafter, the balance of the fine bears interest at the legal rate for judgments.

1 Appendix F and section 14.4 are eliminated, but not shown here.

59 / 111 59 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 - 2 -

13.3.4 Appeal of Citation. If a Generating Asset Owner appeals the citation and assessment of a scheduled fine, the Generating Asset Owner must file its Notice of Appeal within 30 days of the date of the citation. In the event of such a contest, staff shall, at its discretion, proceed with evidentiary hearings on the appeal, or withdraw the citation where facts and circumstances warrant such action and provide a written notice of withdrawal to the Generating Asset Owner. In the event of an appeal, any remedy available may be imposed, and the remedy shall not be mandated or limited to the scheduled fine.

13.3.5 Default. If a Generating Asset Owner (a) notifies CPSD of acceptance of a scheduled fine and fails to pay the full amount of the fine within 30 calendar days of the date of the written acceptance of the fine; or (b) fails to notify CPSD of acceptance of a scheduled fine and fails to serve a written notice of appeal on the Director of CPSD in the manner and time required, the Generating Asset Owner shall be in default, and the fine contained in the citation shall become final. Upon default, any unpaid balance of a citation fine shall accrue interest at the legal rate of interest for judgments, and CPSD and the Commission may take any action provided by law to recover unpaid penalties and ensure compliance with applicable statutes and Commission orders, decisions, rules, directions, demands or requirements.

13.3.6 Form and Content of Citations. The Director of CPSD or his/her designee is authorized to draft a citation and present it to the Generating Asset Owner. If after investigation, CPSD finds violations of any of the Specified Violations, CPSD may issue a citation and levy the corresponding fine set forth in Appendix F to this General Order. Citations shall include the following:

13.3.6.1 Citations shall clearly delineate the alleged violations and fine amount and shall summarize CPSD's evidence.

13.3.6.2 Citations shall include an explanation of how to file an appeal, including an explanation of the Generating Asset Owner's right to have a hearing, to have a representative at the hearing, and to request a transcript of the hearing.

13.3.6.3 Citations shall be supported by evidence documenting the alleged violation and this information, if not voluminous, shall be provided with the citation. If the evidence is voluminous, CPSD may summarize the evidence and make it available for timely inspection by the Generating Asset Owner.

13.3.7 Service of Citations. Citations shall be sent by first class mail to the Generating Asset Owner's authorized representative as set forth in the most recent verified statement or certification records on file with the Commission, or the

60 / 111 60 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 - 3 -

agent for service of process of the corporation or LLC or other business entity filed with the Secretary of State of California.

13.3.8 Appeals. Appeals will be conducted as follows:

13.3.8.1 The appeal shall be brought by Filing a written Notice of Appeal upon the Director of CPSD within 30 days from the date of the citation. The Notice of Appeal must indicate the grounds for the appeal.

13.3.8.2 CPSD shall promptly advise the Chief Administrative Law Judge upon receipt of a timely Notice of Appeal. The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall designate an Administrative Law Judge to hear appeals under this resolution.

13.3.8.3 Upon advice from CPSD that a citation has been appealed, the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall forward the matter to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, who shall promptly set the matter for hearing. The Administrative Law Judge may, for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties, grant a reasonable continuance of the hearing.

13.3.8.4 Appeals of citations shall be heard in the Commission's San Francisco or Los Angeles hearing rooms on regularly scheduled days. Appeals shall be calendared accordingly, except that a particular matter may be re-calendared at the direction of the Administrative Law Judge.

13.3.8.5 The respondent may order a transcript of the hearing, and shall pay the cost of the transcript in accordance with the Commission's specified procedures.

13.3.8.6 The respondent may be represented at the hearing by an attorney or other representative, but any such representation shall be at the respondent's expense.

13.3.8.7 At an evidentiary hearing, CPSD bears the burden of proof and accordingly shall open and close. The Administrative Law Judge may, in his or her discretion to better ascertain truth, alter the order of presentation. Formal rules of evidence do not necessarily apply, and all relevant and reliable evidence may be received in the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge.

13.3.8.8 Ordinarily, the case shall be submitted at the close of the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge, upon a showing of good cause, may keep the record open for a reasonable period to permit a party to submit additional evidence or argument.

61 / 111 61 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 DRAFT June 24, 2021

385285630 - 4 -

13.3.8.9 The Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order resolving the appeal not later than 30 days after the appeal is submitted, and the order shall be placed on the first available agenda, consistent with the Commission's applicable rules.

(END OF APPENDIX A)

62 / 111 62 / 111

Attachment #6

Resolution ESRB-9

63 / 111 63 / 111

Date of Issuance June 25, 2021

389524899 1

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION June 24, 2021 Electric Safety and Reliability Branch Resolution ESRB-9

R E S O L U T I O N

Resolution ESRB-9 - Modifies Citation Procedures for Violations of Commission General Order 167, Enforcement of Maintenance and Operation Standards for Electric Generating Facilities OUTCOME: Modifies the General Order 167 citation process to allow Commission staff to issue citations for any violation of General Order 167 and aligns the General Order 167 citation process with those of the existing Commission electric citation programs. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: May improve the safety and reliability of California electric generation facilities. ESTIMATED COST: No significant cost.

SUMMARY The Commission’s General Order (GO) 167 sets forth standards for the maintenance and operation of electric generating facilities. Under the existing language of GO 167, Commission staff may issue citations only for certain specified violations of GO 167. This Resolution modifies the scope of the violations for which Commission staff may issue citations to include any violation of GO 167, and modifies the GO 167 citation process to more closely align with the Commission’s other existing electric citation processes. BACKGROUND The Commission first adopted GO 167 in 2004, in two decisions issued in Rulemaking (R.) 02-11-039.1 That proceeding was opened by the Commission to implement the requirements of Pub. Util. Code § 761.3,2 which was enacted in response to the California

1 Those two decisions are Decision (D.) 04-05-017 and D.04-05-018. 2 Senate Bill (SB) X2 39 (Burton and Speier), added by Statutes 2002, Second Extraordinary Session, Chapter 19, Section 4 (effective August 8, 2002). All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless specified otherwise.

64 / 111 64 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 2

energy crisis of 2000-2001 and directed the Commission to implement and enforce standards for the maintenance and operation of electric generation facilities. (D.04-05-017 at 2, citing § 761.3(a).) As the Commission stated in 2004:

The statewide energy crisis of 2000-2001 resulted in many economic and personal hardships to people and businesses within California. In our recent filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), we indicated that the total cost of electricity needed to serve California, for the period of May 2000 through June 2001, was $19 billion higher than the cost incurred during the combined years of 1998, 1999, and 2000. Our filings with FERC document many instances of Generating Assets being placed on reserve status for questionable reasons and resulting in electricity power outages. In 2002, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill SBX2 39 during its second extraordinary session to help avoid such outages in the future. The Legislature determined that the public interest, as well as the public health and safety, requires the electric generating facilities and power plants in the state to be maintained appropriately and operated efficiently. (D.04-05-018 at 3-4, footnote omitted.)

GO 167 was the Commission’s response to this statutory directive. While GO 167 was initially implemented in D.04-05-017 and D.04-05-018, it has been subsequently modified, with the most recent changes in 2008 via Resolution No. E-4184 adopted August 21, 2008 and D.08-11-009 adopted November 6, 2008.3 The first sentence of the current version of GO 167 states:

The purpose of this General Order is to implement and enforce standards for the maintenance and operation of electric generating facilities and power plants so as to maintain and protect the public health and safety of California residents and businesses, to ensure that electric generating facilities are effectively and appropriately maintained and efficiently operated, and to ensure electrical service reliability and adequacy. (GO 167, Section 1.0.)

3 The process for adopting the 2004 decisions and the 2008 Resolution and decision did not include evidentiary hearings. Resolution E-4184 modified the reporting requirements for electric and gas emergencies. D.08-11-009 added procedural details to the enforcement provisions for consistency with existing citation programs.

65 / 111 65 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 3

On August 14 and 15, 2020 as the result of an extreme heat storm, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) implemented rolling outages in response to inadequate electric generation to meet the demand on the system. Hundreds of thousands of Californians lost power as a result. Looking at just Commission-jurisdictional customers, 491,600 were affected by rolling outages on August 14, 2020, and 321,000 were affected by rolling outages on August 15, 2020.4 In response to these rolling outages, the Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) conducted in-person inspections at a select number of electric generating facilities that experienced outages during the August 2020 heatwave and shared its findings with the Commission. At the Commission’s public meeting on January 14, 2021, the Commissioners generally expressed support for the concept of expanding Commission staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of GO 167, including violations of maintenance and operation standards. This Resolution implements that policy directive.

Notice A preliminary draft Resolution, with proposed changes to GO 167 attached as Appendix A, was served via e-mail on April 8, 2021 to all generating asset owners5 and to the service lists in the following Commission proceedings: Emergency Reliability (R.20-11-003), Resource Adequacy (R.19-11-009), Integrated Resource Planning (R.16-02-007) and the prior GO 167 proceeding (R.02-11-039). Comments on the draft were due on April 27, 2021, and reply comments were due on May 4, 2021. JURISDICTION The Commission’s authority under GO 167, pursuant to § 761.3, extends beyond the regulated investor-owned utilities and includes other generators, including exempt wholesale generators (EWGs). The Commission’s authority specifically encompasses any “Generating Asset,” as defined in section 2.8 of GO 167, and any “Generating Asset Owner,” as defined in section 2.9 of GO 167, subject to certain exceptions. This Resolution does not change those definitions and exceptions and does not change or expand the range of entities covered by GO 167. The scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction under § 761.3 was discussed in depth in D.04-05-0176, D.04-05-0187 and D.06-01-047 and need not be repeated here, other than

4 Final Root Cause Analysis, Mid-August 2020 Extreme Heat Wave, dated January 13, 2021 at 34-35. 5 A list of all generating assets and corresponding generating asset owners is attached as Appendix B to this Resolution. 6 See, D.04-05-017 at 5-21. 7 See, D.04-05-018 at 6-11.

66 / 111 66 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 4

to note that the Commission previously observed that: “The breadth of the legislation extends our authority to many electric generators who have consistently maintained that they are not otherwise subject to our regulation.” (D.04-05-018 at 6.) The citation authority to be granted to staff by this Resolution does not expand the jurisdiction or authority of the Commission beyond that already established by § 761.3, D.04-05-017, D.04-05-018 and D.06-01-047. It is clear that the Commission’s jurisdiction for enforcing violations of Commission decisions and rules extends beyond just the investor-owned utilities that the Commission generally regulates. The Public Utilities Code states:

Every corporation or person, other than a public utility and its officers, agents, or employees, which or who knowingly violates or fails to comply with, or procures, aids or abets any violation of any provision of the California Constitution relating to public utilities or of this part, or fails to comply with any part of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission, or who procures, aids, or abets any public utility in the violation or noncompliance, in a case in which a penalty has not otherwise been provided for the corporation or person, is subject to a penalty of not less than five hundred dollars ($500), nor more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each offense. (Pub. Util. Code § 2111.)

PROPOSED CHANGES The existing language of GO 167 provides that for specified violations the Director of CPSD (predecessor to SED) and his/her designee “may assess a scheduled fine” via a citation process. (GO 167, subsection 13.3.1.) The specified violations for which a scheduled fine can be assessed via citation are limited to certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements, which are set forth in Appendix F of GO 167. (GO 167, subsection 13.3.2.) Additionally, the current language in Appendix F is vague, and there are aspects of its application that are unclear. Violations of other provisions of GO 167 beyond those set forth in Appendix F can be enforced by the Commission via a formal proceeding, such as an Order Instituting Investigation (OII). (GO 167, section 13.1.) This existing structure presents several practical problems. First, it means that enforcement of even minor violations of GO 167 other than those specified in Appendix F would appear to require opening a full OII. Opening an OII for a relatively minor violation is not resource effective for either the Commission or the respondent, and creates an incentive for the Commission to only take enforcement action in response to the most egregious violations of GO 167, and to let smaller violations go unaddressed. This is not the optimum approach to ensuring the reliability of the electrical grid. Second, the citation process set forth in GO 167 for violations of Appendix F is separate and distinct from the Commission’s existing and more general electric citation program

67 / 111 67 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 5

adopted in D.14-12-001 and most recently modified in D.18-05-023.8 Accordingly, whenever the electric citation program is modified, the GO 167 citation process also has to be modified, or else the Commission and parties will have to deal with differing processes depending on whether they are being cited under the general electric citation program or under GO 167. In fact, a number of the changes to the GO 167 citation program made in D.08-11-009 were for the purpose of making the GO 167 processes more consistent with the processes used in the Commission’s electric citation program. (D.08-11-009 at 5-7, 9-12.) Having multiple and differing citation programs that must be separately updated to maintain consistency is not efficient for either the Commission or interested parties. In order to remedy these problems and to implement the Commissioners’ stated desire to expand Commission staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of GO 167, the best approach is to align the GO 167 citation process with the Commission’s existing general electric citation program. This can be done by using the general electric citation process for all violations of GO 167, and eliminating the current process set forth in subsection 13.3.2 and Appendix F. A redlined version of section 13.3 of GO 167 (“Imposition of Fines for Specified Violations”) showing the proposed changes is attached as Appendix A to this Resolution. The proposed changes only affect section 13.3; Appendix F and section 14.4 (referring to section 13.3 and Appendix F) would be eliminated. No changes to other sections of GO 167 are proposed.9 Delegation of Authority to Commission Staff The Commission has previously delegated citation authority to Commission staff for specified violations under GO 167 and for more general electric violations pursuant to D.14-12-001. The proposed changes do not expand that authority, and only conform staff’s authority to issue GO 167 citations with the previously established electric citation program. Given the events of August 14 and 15, 2020, the Commission finds it reasonable and necessary to permit staff to issue citations for violations of any part of GO 167 under the existing delegation of authority for electric violations.

8 D.14-12-001 stated: “The Commission finds it is reasonable and necessary to delegate to staff the ability to issue citations to any electrical corporation owning or operating electrical supply facilities for violations of GOs 95, 128, 165, 166, 174, or other related decisions, codes or regulations applicable to electrical supply facilities. […] This decision gives staff the authority to issue a written citation to any electrical corporation owning or operating electrical supply facilities for violations that occurred both before and after the date of this decision.” (Id. at 11-12.) 9 Another possible approach would be to leave in place the existing process set forth in subsection 13.3.2 and Appendix F and add new language to provide for citations under the Commission’s general electric citation program for any other violations outside of the violations listed in Appendix F. This approach is more complex and does not fix the problem of having two separate processes, and so is less desirable.

68 / 111 68 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 6

Questions/Issues In adopting this refinement to the Commission’s electric citation process for GO 167, there are a number of issues that comments should address, including the following:

1) In determining the size or nature of a fine or other penalty for violations of GO 167, are there factors that should be considered that differ from those used in the Commission’s existing electric citation program? If so, what are they and how should they be applied?

2) Are there any other differences between GO 167 citations and other electric citations that should be taken into consideration? If so, what are those differences and how should they be taken into consideration?

3) Should the changes made in the citation process by this Resolution apply to past violations of GO 167, or only to future violations? Any argument that the changes should only apply prospectively should address the discussion in D.14-12-001 at 19-20.

INITIAL COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION Comments on the preliminary draft Resolution (served on April 8, 2021) were received from the Independent Energy Producers Association (IEP), the California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA), the Protect Our Communities Foundation (PCF), Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF)10, Arevon Asset Management (Arevon)11, and jointly from Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (Joint Utilities). Reply comments were received from IEP, PCF and the Joint Utilities. IEP, PCF, WPTF and the Joint Utilities submitted detailed and thoughtful comments that provided a wide range of views, and that the Commission has carefully considered. The comments of CESA and Arevon were less detailed, and raised more general concerns.

10 WPTF did not serve Commission staff with its comments on April 27, 2021, but WPTF appears to have timely served other parties, who responded to WPTF’s comments. Commission staff received WPTF’s initial comments on May 5, 2021, after requesting those comments from counsel for WPTF. 11 It appears that Arevon may not have served their April 27, 2021 comments on anyone other than Commission staff. Accordingly, while Arevon’s comments were considered, they were given significantly less weight, as other interested parties did not have an opportunity to respond to Arevon.

69 / 111 69 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 7

IEP IEP generally opposes the changes proposed in the preliminary draft Resolution, and raises a number of issues. The two main overarching arguments made by IEP are that the proposal does not adequately distinguish between electric public utilities and independent power producers with the status of Exempt Wholesale Generators (EWGs) (IEP Initial Comments at 2-5), and that the proposed changes are an unnecessary shift from what IEP characterizes as an effective compliance-based approach to one more focused on punishment. (Id. at 2, 11-12.) IEP spends considerable time emphasizing the fact that the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction over EWGs differs from and is more limited than the Commission’s jurisdiction over electric utilities. As a general concept, IEP is correct, but in the specific situation presented by GO 167, the distinction is largely irrelevant. The Commission has previously addressed this issue, and has expressly found that it has authority over EWGs pursuant to § 761.3. In D.04-05-017, the Commission noted that several parties made the argument that the Commission’s implementation and enforcement standards, such as those contained in GO 167 cannot govern operation and maintenance practices of EWGs. (D.04-05-017 at 7.) The Commission emphatically rejected that argument, finding that the California Legislature made EWGs “[E]xplicitly subject to the additional, special, specific jurisdiction vested in the Commission to enforce operations and maintenance standards pursuant to § 761.3.” (Id. at 10.) The Commission continued:

“In fact, § 761.3 specifically directs that the Commission implement and enforce Committee-adopted standards to be followed by an electrical corporation notwithstanding specific provisions of the Public Utilities Code that would otherwise exclude EWGs from Commission jurisdiction (i.e., §§ 216(g), 228.5(c), 228.5(d)). As a result, the law provides the Commission with the specific and necessary jurisdictional basis to apply adopted standards to EWGs.” (Id. at 11.)

In short, the Commission has previously considered and rejected the argument that GO 167 cannot be enforced against EWGs. (D.04-05-017 at 5-21; see also, D.06-01-047.) EWGs have been subject to GO 167 for years, and they can be penalized for a violation of GO 167 via a Commission Order Instituting Investigation (OII), or via a citation for

70 / 111 70 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 8

certain specific violations identified in section 13.3 of GO 167. There is no legal barrier to the Commission issuing citations to EWGs for violations of GO 167. IEP also makes several policy arguments as to why EWGs should not be subject to citations for any violation of GO 167. According to IEP, SED already has substantial existing enforcement authority, including audits of generating assets, data requests, notices of violation, and requests for corrective action. (IEP Initial Comments at 6-8.) IEP notes that this range of actions available to SED allows SED to take quick action, and to have flexibility to tailor its enforcement approach to match the facts on the ground, and an “overly prescriptive enforcement regime” could hinder that flexibility. (Id. at 8-9.) IEP raises a valid point - it would be counterproductive for the Commission to adopt an overly rigid or prescriptive approach that forces SED to always impose a penalty, and forecloses SED from working with a generation asset to bring a facility into compliance with the requirements of GO 167. Accordingly, we clarify that providing SED with expanded citation authority under GO 167 does not remove or limit SED’s ability to use any of its existing tools to ensure the safe and reliable operation of electric generation assets. While SED is authorized to issue a citation for any violation of GO 167, it is not required to do so. Similarly, IEP argues that the preliminary draft Resolution shifts the focus from promoting compliance to punishing violations. (IEP Initial Comments at 11-12.) IEP’s argument mischaracterizes the proposed changes as binary, with penalties taking the place of compliance. The Commission is not taking any existing compliance tools away from SED, but is rather providing SED with an additional tool that it may use as appropriate. In some situations, a penalty may be appropriate. Finally, IEP argues that independent power producers have an inherent economic incentive to comply with the requirements of GO 167, as they will not earn revenues if they are not generating (or ready to generate) electricity. (Id. at 9-10.) However, based on California’s historic experience, it is not clear that this economic incentive guarantees the reliable operation of electric generation units as consistently as IEP’s argument implies. Currently, if an independent power producer violates GO 167, they can be subject to substantial penalties via an OII. If they comply with the requirements of GO 167, they are not subject to penalties for violation of GO 167. Allowing citations for violations of GO 167 does not change this basic calculus. IEP’s market-based argument would support the elimination of any penalty for violations of GO 167, not just citations, which the Commission is not considering. California’s real-world experience has shown that sometimes a visible enforcement mechanism is a necessary backstop to the invisible hand of the market.

71 / 111 71 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 9

In its Initial Reply Comments, IEP reiterates more vigorously its argument that EWGs should not be subject to the Commission’s electric citation rules, on the grounds that those rules were written to apply only to electric utilities, not to EWGs. According to IEP:

Integrating the GO 167 citation program with the broader Citation Rules would require significant revisions to the Citation Rules to maintain jurisdictional clarity and would nonetheless create the risk of jurisdictional overreach by the Commission. (IEP Initial Reply Comments at 1)

IEP further expands on this argument later:

Any attempt to integrate the GO 167 citation program with the Citation Rules will have be carefully constructed to avoid jurisdictional confusion and potential overreach. […] Maintaining the existing distinction between the GO 167 program that applies to GAOs [Generating Asset Owners] and the Citation Rules that apply to electric public utilities is simpler, preserves the jurisdictional distinction between EWGs and public utilities, and is consistent with the different functions of the two citation programs. For these reasons, IEP recommends keeping the citation program for GO 167 within GO 167 and not attempting to integrate the GO 167 citation program with the general Citation Rules. (Id. at 2-3.)

IEP’s argument misstates the proposed outcome of the preliminary draft Resolution. While the word “integrate” was used in parts of the preliminary draft Resolution, the Commission would not actually be integrating the GO 167 citation program into the more general electric citation program.12 The GO 167 citation program would remain separate, but would use the same processes and procedures as the electric citation program, including the appeal process. The proposed revised language of section 13.3.1 reads: For any violation of this General Order, citations may be issued pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 2111 or other applicable authority, following the processes and procedures of the Commission’s electric citation program, as set forth in D.14-12-001 as modified by D.16-09-55 and D.18-05-023, or its successor. In short, the proposed changes do exactly what IEP recommends – keeping the citation program for GO 167 within GO 167 itself. IEP’s argument that the proposed changes would somehow result in jurisdictional confusion or overreach is not well founded. The

12 The word “integrate” used in the preliminary draft Resolution may have caused some confusion, and has been replaced with the word “align.”

72 / 111 72 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 10

proposed changes do not change the Commission’s jurisdiction over EWGs pursuant to § 761.3. PCF PCF strongly supports the proposed changes set forth in the preliminary draft Resolution, both expanding the scope of SED staff’s citation authority and making the GO 167 citation processes consistent with the Commission’s overall electric system enforcement procedures. (PCF Initial Comments at 7.) PCF provides additional factual background in support of its position, and makes several other recommendations. PCF notes that the preliminary draft Resolution states that the proposed changes do not expand the existing jurisdiction or authority of the Commission. PCF requests that the Resolution should similarly state that the proposed changes do not reduce or otherwise result in the diminution of the Commission’s jurisdiction over electric generation facilities. (Id.) The proposed changes to SED staff’s citation authority do not affect or alter the scope of the Commission’s authority or jurisdiction. Just as there is no increase in jurisdiction, there is no decrease in jurisdiction. PCF similarly requests affirmation of the Commission’s authority to impose penalties pursuant to PU Code §2111. (Id. at 8.) Since that authority is statutory, the Commission has that authority regardless of whether or not the Commission expressly restates it, but to be clear, nothing in the proposal affects the scope of the Commission’s authority pursuant to §2111. PCF devotes a significant portion of its comments to factual background on both power plant outages and the statutory and regulatory responses to those outages. (PCF Initial Comments at 2-6.) According to PCF, the background they describe supports the Commission vigorously enforcing the requirements of GO 167. (Id. at 3.) PCF has two other recommendations. First, that GO 167 be updated to require the digital filing, maintenance and transmission of records and logbooks. (Id. at 2, 8.) And second, that the Commission should explicitly include the whistleblower protections for workers and consider adopting additional requirements for workforce training and protections. (Id. at 2,10.) No other comments or reply comments addressed these issues. It is not clear that this is the appropriate forum to fully address these issues, so we do not adopt them at this time, but Commission staff may consider them further as appropriate. PCF strongly opposes the arguments of IEP, which PCF characterizes as “tired,” and echoing arguments made in 2002 against the enactment of § 761.3. PCF opposes IEP’s efforts to limit, hobble, stifle or freeze the Commission’s enforcement authority. (See, PCF Initial Reply Comments at 2-7.)

73 / 111 73 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 11

WPTF WPTF’s comments on the preliminary draft resolution tend to be the most nuanced. For example, WPTF supports authorizing staff to issue citations for any violation of GO 167, and would require electric generators to immediately correct any violations of GO 167 maintenance and operations standards that are noticed in a citation (WPTF Initial Comments at 1), but would retain the separate citation regime currently embodied in Appendix F (Id. at 7). WPTF offers detailed redline edits of GO 167, along with tables comparing GO 167 with the general electric citation rules. Overall, however, WPTF’s recommendations are not significantly dissimilar from those in the preliminary draft Resolution. The main issue raised by WPTF is the difference in the methodology for calculating penalty amounts under GO 167 compared with the general electric citation program. For example, WPTF points out that the electric citation program requires staff to set the fine for each cited violation at the statutory maximum, while GO 167 sets forth the factors to be considered in determining the sanctions to be imposed on a generation asset owner. (WPTF Initial Comments at 3-4) WPTF’s primary recommendation to address this issue is for the Commission to retain the factors set forth in sections 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 of GO 167, regardless of any other changes made to GO 167. (Id. at 5.) The preliminary draft Resolution does not eliminate those sections of GO 167, and there is no other proposal to do so. Sections 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 of GO 167 remain in place unchanged. Some of WPTF’s observations and suggestions are both nuanced and detailed, and deserve further consideration as we implement the changes adopted today. The Commission recommends that SED consider WPTF’s recommendations on a going-forward basis when evaluating potential refinements to the GO 167 citation process. Joint Utilities In their opening comments, the Joint Utilities generally supported the intent of the preliminary draft Resolution, but their support is conditional, and they requested certain additional language and requirements be placed upon the proposed citation program. (Joint Utilities Initial Comments at 1-3.) First, the Joint Utilities requested that a revised GO 167 specifically and explicitly incorporate by reference the Commission’s recently adopted Enforcement Policy (Resolution M-4846). The Joint Utilities point out that: “The Enforcement Policy notes that ‘Staff may decide that violations that are ‘administrative’ in nature do not warrant the imposition of a penalty given the facts known at the time.’” (Joint Utilities Initial Comments at 4.)

74 / 111 74 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 12

The Joint Utilities further note that:

The Enforcement Policy also specifically contemplates a series of escalating steps that Staff may employ before issuing an NOV […], which appropriately and sensibly begin with more collaborative Staff-utility “warning communications.” (Id.)

It is understandable why the Joint Utilities may want to expressly incorporate these aspects of the Enforcement Policy into the GO 167 penalty process, but we decline to do so. First, the Commission’s new Enforcement Policy is an over-arching policy, and as such will be taken into consideration as appropriate across Commission proceedings, whether or not it is specifically identified in the applicable General Order or other Commission decision or order. The Commission expects that its processes, including those under GO 167, will be implemented consistent with Commission policies and practices, including the Enforcement Policy. Expressly adding a reference to the Enforcement Policy in GO 167 could potentially cause confusion as to whether or not it is applicable in cases where it is not specifically identified. Second, the GO 167 citation program we approve today and the Commission’s Enforcement Policy are separate processes, both of which may be subject to refinements and other changes, so it is inadvisable to firmly lock together the current version of GO-167 (and only GO 167) to the current version of the Enforcement Policy. The two processes are separate and additive: the Commission can utilize either one individually or both together as needed, and is not limited to using them in combination. The Enforcement Policy itself states that: “This Policy does not modify any of the Commission’s citation programs…” (Resolution M-4846 at 3.) It is inappropriate and unnecessary to modify the GO 167 citation program to expressly lock it to the Enforcement Policy. In a mirror image of IEP’s argument, the Joint Utilities argue that the Commission should take into consideration the fact that the regulated electric utilities are subject to additional Commission oversight, such as rate recovery disallowances, that do not apply to independent power producers. (Joint Utility Comments at 5-6.) While this is true, this is currently the case for Commission enforcement actions under GO 167, whether those are notices of violation, citations, or OIIs, so it is not clear why such language needs to be added to GO 167. And it is not clear that the electric utilities should be treated differently (presumably more leniently) than independent power producers for violations of GO 167, which would appear to be the practical implication of the Joint Utilities’ argument. Later, the Joint Utilities modified their position to more closely correspond to that of WPTF. (Joint Utilities Initial Reply Comments at 1-3.) With some minor exceptions, the changes adopted by this Resolution are generally consistent with the recommendations of WPTF, as discussed above.

75 / 111 75 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 13

While the Joint Utilities agree with IEP that the focus of GO 167 should be on correction rather than punishment, the Joint Utilities also agree with PCF’s criticism of IEP, that IEP appears to be primarily focused on evading the Commission’s jurisdiction over EWGs, which was previously litigated and resolved, contrary to IEP’s arguments. (Joint Utilities Initial Reply Comments at 2.) CESA and Arevon CESA expressed concern that the proposed changes “would remove the due process involved in formal investigations into violations of GO 167,” because it “would allow staff to more easily review and issue citations and fines.” (CESA Initial Comments at 2.) The proposed changes (which would allow staff to more easily issue citations) do not take the place of or obviate the availability of more formal investigations, such as an OII. This Commission anticipates that more significant or larger-scale violations would likely still be the subject of an OII, rather than a citation. As such, the proposed citation process does not remove any due process from the Commission’s formal investigation process. In addition, the Commission’s general electric citation process that would apply to GO 167 violations provides due process, including an appeal process. CESA fails to identify how the proposed changes “remove” due process. Arevon makes a number of suggestions, including that the Commission should publish examples of citations that eventually were deemed violations, and the Commission should provide guidance on how the penalty amount will be determined. (Arevon Initial Comments at 3.) The existing electric citation program already provides guidance on how penalty amounts are determined, and GO 167 also sets forth factors to be taken into consideration when calculating penalties. In addition, the Commission posts on its website a listing of electric safety citations that have been issued, including supporting documents. (Electric Safety Citations (ca.gov)) Arevon also requests that “that the Commission consider conducting further analysis of historical operations […] to identify whether such violations have directly caused a public safety or grid reliability issue.” (Id. at 3.) In light of the California energy crisis that led to the enactment of § 761.3, such analysis is not necessary here. Appendix F The preliminary draft Resolution incorporated a proposal to eliminate GO 167’s existing Appendix F, which sets forth penalties for specific reporting and recordkeeping violations. This proposal drew a number of comments, albeit with varying perspectives. PCF offers the following recommendation:

76 / 111 76 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 14

GO 167 Appendix F specifically calls out record-keeping deficiencies for sanction. PCF suggests that the Commission reconsider eliminating Appendix F in order to provide maximum transparency. At the least, the Resolution’s proposed elimination of Appendix F should not be understood as de-emphasizing or excusing record-keeping failures, which are especially important to identify and correct in the GO 167 enforcement scheme. Rather, as noted above, record-keeping failures have a heightened significance for the GO 167 scheme. The Resolution should specifically address these matters with the intention of making records and documents fully compliant, transparent and accessible. (PCF Initial Comments at 10.)

The Joint Utilities also suggest the retention of Appendix F:

Finally, the Joint Utilities understand the intent of the Preliminary Draft Resolution to extend the Commission’s citation authority beyond the “limited … recordkeeping and reporting requirements” found in Appendix F of GO 167. The Joint Utilities do not disagree that such a move is appropriate. It does not follow, however, that Appendix F should be eliminated in its entirety. While the universe of the types of requirements that could lead to a citation may be expanding, the magnitude of the associated fines should not. The approximate magnitude and range of penalties set forth in Appendix F continues to be appropriate for violations of GO 167, whether or not those violations are limited to recordkeeping and reporting requirements or are more broadly applicable. (Joint Utilities Initial Comments at 11, emphasis in original.)13

First, in response to PCF’s request that the proposed elimination of Appendix F “should not be understood as de-emphasizing or excusing record-keeping failures,” we concur. Recordkeeping continues to be an essential component of safe and reliable operation of electric generation facilities. This Commission does not, however, concur with the recommendation of the Joint Utilities that the fine amounts set forth in Appendix F provide a reasonable “magnitude and range” of penalties for any violation of GO 167. Given that the penalties set forth in Appendix F range from approximately $1000 to $5000 per incident, the magnitude of those penalties is significantly less than that of the general electric citation program. While a cited generator is free to use those numbers in arguing for a reduced penalty, the

13 Arevon makes a similar argument, that Appendix F should be retained to provide guidance on the calculation of penalty amounts. (Arevon Initial Comments at 3.)

77 / 111 77 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 15

Commission declines to require itself to apply those numbers that are inconsistent with the penalty levels imposable under the general electric citation program. Recordkeeping and reporting continue to be important requirements of GO 167, but should not be the only requirements for which specific penalties are identified, particularly when penalties may be imposed for other sections as well. Given the potential issues arising from the language of Appendix F, we will adopt the approach used by the preliminary draft Resolution of eliminating Appendix F. Prospective or Retroactive Commenters were requested to address whether the changes made in the citation process by this Resolution should apply to past violations of GO 167, or only to future violations, and any argument that the changes should only apply prospectively needed to address the relevant discussion in D.14-12-001. IEP, WPTF and the Joint Utilities argue that the changes to the applicable penalty mechanism should be applied only prospectively, not retroactively. PCF disagrees. The Joint Utilities note that the Commission already has the ability to open an OII to investigate past violations of GO 167, but given the change to a citation program, generation asset owners would not have notice of the steps they could have taken to mitigate potential penalties under the new citation program. (Joint Utilities Initial comments at 7.) IEP argues:

If the purpose of a citation and fine is to provide a stronger incentive for compliance with the applicable standard, retroactive application of a citation will have no effect, since the entity in question would have no idea, at the time a violation could potentially be prevented, that it was facing higher penalties or engaging in an act or omission that will be defined as a violation at some point in the future. Retroactive citations and fines do not, and cannot, encourage the desired behavior. (IEP Initial Comments at 21.)

IEP and the Joint Utilities raise valid points. In the present situation there does not appear to be a good purpose for a retroactive application of the proposed changes to GO 167. Accordingly, the changes we adopt today only apply prospectively, not retroactively. Conclusion and Next Steps

78 / 111 78 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 16

The preliminary draft Resolution has been modified in response to comments. This Resolution does not change the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction over EWGs (or utilities), but only changes the process used for responding to violations of GO-167. Because this Resolution changes existing practices, it will be useful to evaluate the efficacy and workability of the new practices, and to consider further refinements or modifications. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that SED conduct workshops or other methods of obtaining feedback on the processes adopted by this Resolution, and present to the Commission any changes that SED recommends. COMMENTS A draft Resolution was distributed for comment pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 14.5 on May 21, 2021. Comments were received on June 10, 2021 from IEP, WPTF and the Joint Utilities. In its Comments, IEP clarified that it does not dispute the Commission’s authority to implement the program authorized in section 761.3 and to enforce the maintenance and operation standards of GO 167 for EWGs that are Generating Asset Owners (GAOs), but was concerned that some language in the preliminary draft resolution potentially blurred the limitations on the Commission’s statutory authority over EWGs that are GAOs. (IEP Comments at 3.) Those concerns have been ameliorated as a result of the changes made from the preliminary draft resolution. (Id.) IEP also points out some inconsistencies between the general electric citation rules and GO 167 that they assert must be addressed in advance. For example, the general electric citation rules refer to the maximum penalty level of $100,000 set by Public Utilities Code section 2107 for utilities, while the maximum penalty level for non-utilities is set at $50,000 by Public Utilities Code section 2111. (Id. at 4-5.) IEP is correct, but overstates the potential significance of this (and similar) issues. The Commission’s statutory penalty authority over non-utilities is pursuant to section 2111, not 2107, and nothing in this Resolution changes that. IEP similarly notes that the general electric citation rules refer to violations of “other related applicable decisions, codes, or regulations” that could result in a citation and a fine. IEP proposes language to address this issue: “At a minimum, the Draft Resolution should be revised to clarify that the procedures and practices of the general utility citation rules apply only to violations of GO 167, and not other general orders, by GAOs.” (Id. at 5-6.) It is not clear that such a clarification is necessary, as this entire Resolution only addresses violations of GO 167, but to reassure IEP and other non-utility entities, we concur with the above-quoted sentence from IEP.

79 / 111 79 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 17

IEP recommends the formation of a working group that would meet, issue a preliminary report, receive comments, and issue a final report, which would be followed by a resolution to be approved by the Commission, and only then would the new citation process be put into effect. (Id. at 7-9.) Given the relatively minor nature of the potential issues identified by IEP, such a lengthy process is unnecessary. To the extent the citation program adopted by this Resolution needs further refinement, it can be modified as needed based on any real and significant issues that may arise from its implementation and use. Other than the above clarifications, no changes to the Resolution have been made in response to IEP’s comments. WPTF makes very detailed recommendations, asking for the Resolution to spell out precisely which parts of the electric citation program will or will not apply to citations for violations for GO 167. (WPTF Comments at 2-5.) Many of WPTF’s recommendations are overbroad, particularly those asking for certain provisions of the electric citation program to be made inapplicable to citations for violations of GO 167, and the remainder are unnecessary. Accordingly, no changes have been made in response to WPTF’s comments. The Joint Utilities generally express support for this Resolution and note that it “materially improves upon” the preliminary draft resolution. (Joint Utilities Comments at 1.) The Joint Utilities request some minor clarifications, with one such request relating to the Resolution’s consideration of the Commission’s Enforcement Policy, which the Joint Utilities had argued should specifically be incorporated into the GO 167 penalty process. (Id. at 2.) The language of the Resolution has been modified to more clearly reflect the relationship between the Commission’s Enforcement Policy and the GO 167 citation process. The Joint Utilities also requests that this Resolution clarify that “[O]nly the electric citation program’s penalty process and procedure elements are relevant in the GO 167 context.” (Id. at 2.) This appears to be similar to one of the requests of IEP in that it basically just reiterates the fundamental purpose of this Resolution. As we did above, but this time to reassure the utilities, we concur with the above-quoted language. FINDINGS 1. On August 14 and 15, 2020 as the result of an extreme heat storm, the California

Independent System Operator implemented rolling outages in response to inadequate electric generation to meet the demand on the system.

2. Of Commission-jurisdictional customers, 491,600 were affected by rolling outages on August 14, 2020, and 321,000 were affected by rolling outages on August 15, 2020.

80 / 111 80 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 18

3. While the Commission has authority to impose penalties on electric generators for violations of General Order 167, Commission staff’s authority to issue citations for violations of General Order 167 is limited to specified reporting and recordkeeping violations.

4. The Commission has separately delegated to staff the ability to issue citations to any electrical corporation owning or operating electrical supply facilities for violations of General Orders 95, 128, 165, 166, 174, or other related decisions, codes or regulations applicable to electrical supply facilities.

5. The Commissioners have publicly expressed support for granting Commission staff authority to issue citations for any violation of General Order 167, including violations of maintenance and operation standards.

6. It makes sense to modify the General Order 167 citation process to more closely align with the Commission’s other existing electric citation processes.

7. The Commission has previously delegated to Commission staff the authority to issue citations for violations of General Order 167 and for other electrical violations.

8. This Resolution does not alter the Commission’s existing jurisdiction over electric generation facilities.

IT IS ORDERED: 1. Commission enforcement staff with citation authority may issue citations for any

violation of General Order 167, including but not limited to violations of maintenance and operations standards.

2. The General Order 167 citation process is modified to more closely align with the Commission’s other existing electric citation processes.

3. General Order 167 is modified as shown in Appendix A to this Resolution. Section 14.4 and Appendix F of General Order 167 are deleted.

4. The Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) shall revise GO 167 consistent with this Resolution and will post the revised version, identified as General Order 167-B, to the Commission’s website within 90 days of the Commission’s approval of this Resolution. Existing references to “CPSD” in GO 167 may be changed to “SED” in the revised version.

81 / 111 81 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

389524899 19

I certify that this Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California at its regular business meeting held on June 24, 2021 and the following Commissioners approved favorably:

/s/ RACHEL PETERSON Rachel Peterson Executive Director

MARYBEL BATJER President MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN GENEVIEVE SHIROMA DARCIE L. HOUCK Commissioners

82 / 111 82 / 111

- 1 -

APPENDIX A

The following shows the proposed changes to section 13.3 of GO 167:1

13.3 Imposition of Fines for Specified Violations

13.3.1 Specified Violations. For specified Violations of this General Order, the Director of CPSD the Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) and his/her designee may assess a scheduled fine or, in the alternative, proceed with any remedy otherwise available to SED CPSD or the Commission. For any violation of this General Order, citations may be issued pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 2111 or other applicable authority, following the processes and procedures of the Commission’s electric citation program, as set forth in D.14-12-001 as modified by D.16-09-55 and D.18-05-023, or its successor Scheduled fines may be assessed by CPSD only for the Violations referenced in subsection 13.3.2 of this General Order. SED CPSD shall notify the Generating Asset Owner, in writing, of any specified Violations and assessed fines, and shall include notice of the right to contest the fine. as set forth in subsections 13.3.4 and 13.3.8 of this General Order. No fine assessed by CPSD pursuant to this subsection shall become payable if contested by the Generating Asset Owner pursuant to subsection 13.3.4.

13.3.2 Schedule of Fines. The Specified Violations and the corresponding fines that may be assessed are set forth in Appendix F to this General Order. The Commission may modify this schedule of fines no earlier than 30 days after providing reasonable notice and affording interested persons with an opportunity to comment.

13.3.3 Acceptance of Assessed Fine. A Generating Asset Owner may either accept or appeal the assessment of a scheduled fine. In the event the Generating Asset Owner accepts the assessment and elects to pay the scheduled fine in lieu of an appeal, the Generating Asset Owner shall so notify CPSD in writing within 30 days of the assessment, shall pay the fine in full, and shall bring itself into compliance with the applicable provision(s) of the General Order within 30 days of the written acceptance. Fines shall be submitted to CPSD for payment into the State Treasury to the credit of the General Fund. Fines are delinquent if not paid within 30 days of the Generating Asset Owner's acceptance; and, thereafter, the balance of the fine bears interest at the legal rate for judgments.

1 Appendix F and section 14.4 are eliminated, but not shown here.

83 / 111 83 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

- 2 -

13.3.4 Appeal of Citation. If a Generating Asset Owner appeals the citation and assessment of a scheduled fine, the Generating Asset Owner must file its Notice of Appeal within 30 days of the date of the citation. In the event of such a contest, staff shall, at its discretion, proceed with evidentiary hearings on the appeal, or withdraw the citation where facts and circumstances warrant such action and provide a written notice of withdrawal to the Generating Asset Owner. In the event of an appeal, any remedy available may be imposed, and the remedy shall not be mandated or limited to the scheduled fine.

13.3.5 Default. If a Generating Asset Owner (a) notifies CPSD of acceptance of a scheduled fine and fails to pay the full amount of the fine within 30 calendar days of the date of the written acceptance of the fine; or (b) fails to notify CPSD of acceptance of a scheduled fine and fails to serve a written notice of appeal on the Director of CPSD in the manner and time required, the Generating Asset Owner shall be in default, and the fine contained in the citation shall become final. Upon default, any unpaid balance of a citation fine shall accrue interest at the legal rate of interest for judgments, and CPSD and the Commission may take any action provided by law to recover unpaid penalties and ensure compliance with applicable statutes and Commission orders, decisions, rules, directions, demands or requirements.

13.3.6 Form and Content of Citations. The Director of CPSD or his/her designee is authorized to draft a citation and present it to the Generating Asset Owner. If after investigation, CPSD finds violations of any of the Specified Violations, CPSD may issue a citation and levy the corresponding fine set forth in Appendix F to this General Order. Citations shall include the following:

13.3.6.1 Citations shall clearly delineate the alleged violations and fine amount and shall summarize CPSD's evidence.

13.3.6.2 Citations shall include an explanation of how to file an appeal, including an explanation of the Generating Asset Owner's right to have a hearing, to have a representative at the hearing, and to request a transcript of the hearing.

13.3.6.3 Citations shall be supported by evidence documenting the alleged violation and this information, if not voluminous, shall be provided with the citation. If the evidence is voluminous, CPSD may summarize the evidence and make it available for timely inspection by the Generating Asset Owner.

13.3.7 Service of Citations. Citations shall be sent by first class mail to the Generating Asset Owner's authorized representative as set forth in the most recent verified statement or certification records on file with the Commission, or the

84 / 111 84 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

- 3 -

agent for service of process of the corporation or LLC or other business entity filed with the Secretary of State of California.

13.3.8 Appeals. Appeals will be conducted as follows:

13.3.8.1 The appeal shall be brought by Filing a written Notice of Appeal upon the Director of CPSD within 30 days from the date of the citation. The Notice of Appeal must indicate the grounds for the appeal.

13.3.8.2 CPSD shall promptly advise the Chief Administrative Law Judge upon receipt of a timely Notice of Appeal. The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall designate an Administrative Law Judge to hear appeals under this resolution.

13.3.8.3 Upon advice from CPSD that a citation has been appealed, the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall forward the matter to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, who shall promptly set the matter for hearing. The Administrative Law Judge may, for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties, grant a reasonable continuance of the hearing.

13.3.8.4 Appeals of citations shall be heard in the Commission's San Francisco or Los Angeles hearing rooms on regularly scheduled days. Appeals shall be calendared accordingly, except that a particular matter may be re-calendared at the direction of the Administrative Law Judge.

13.3.8.5 The respondent may order a transcript of the hearing, and shall pay the cost of the transcript in accordance with the Commission's specified procedures.

13.3.8.6 The respondent may be represented at the hearing by an attorney or other representative, but any such representation shall be at the respondent's expense.

13.3.8.7 At an evidentiary hearing, CPSD bears the burden of proof and accordingly shall open and close. The Administrative Law Judge may, in his or her discretion to better ascertain truth, alter the order of presentation. Formal rules of evidence do not necessarily apply, and all relevant and reliable evidence may be received in the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge.

13.3.8.8 Ordinarily, the case shall be submitted at the close of the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge, upon a showing of good cause, may keep the record open for a reasonable period to permit a party to submit additional evidence or argument.

85 / 111 85 / 111

Resolution ESRB-9 June 24, 2021

- 4 -

13.3.8.9 The Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order resolving the appeal not later than 30 days after the appeal is submitted, and the order shall be placed on the first available agenda, consistent with the Commission's applicable rules.

(END OF APPENDIX A)

86 / 111 86 / 111

Attachment #7

Time Sheet and Categorization

87 / 111 87 / 111

Issue % DescriptionEA 25% Advocacy re: enforcement authority under Section 671.3

and related PUC decisions and staff-proposed enhancements

PO 25% analysis of plant operations data and relevancy to GO 167 enforcement

R 25% reply comments responding to arguments to limit GO 167 enforcement procedures

AF 15% arguments re: Appendix F and digital recordkeeping & advocacy re: enhancing whistelblower protections for CA generation facilities

GP 10% general participation 100%IC Intervenor Compensation Claim Preparation

Person Date Issue Total Description: 2021 HoursBill Powers 2021-04-27 PO/EA 3.00 2.5 hours drafting data and explanation re: 2020 plant

outages and need for enhanced inspection and enforcement; 0.5 hours reviewing and editing final comment draft & call discussing same with Loretta Lynch

Bill Powers 2021-05-04 R 2.00 1.5 hours reviewing draft reply coments and skimming IEP comments; 0.5 hours call with Loretta Lynch re: reply comment final issues and review reply comments for filing

Total 2020 5.00

Person Date Issue Total Description: 2021 HoursLoretta Lynch 2021-04-21 EA/WP 1.675 Read draft report & talk to Bill Julian re: issues to include in

commentsLoretta Lynch 2021-04-24 GP 0.25 talk to Bill Julian re: GO 167 background and proceeding

scheduleLoretta Lynch 2021-04-27 EA/PO/GP 4.125 read & edit comment draft 1.5; skim all decisions and rules

referenced in draft comments & read BP edits, .5; edit and add explanations of legislation and expert data and charts to draft comments and discuss use of same with Bill Powers, 1.75; emails and talk to Julia Severson re: final filing and formatting issues, .375

Loretta Lynch 2021-04-30 R 1 read draft resolution and read Joint Utilities Comments and proposed changes; outline issues

Loretta Lynch 2021-05-03 R/EO 4Read IEP, CESA, and WPTF comments 1 hour; oultine and draft issues to address re: draft resolution strengthening GO 167 penalties and enforcement 3 hours

Loretta Lynch 2021-05-04 EA/PO 1.5 talk to Bill Powers re: changes; read and incorporate BP changes and find FPA citations to include. Draft email listing final issues and questions

Total 2020 12.55

Person Date Issue Total Description: 2021 HoursJulia Severson 2021-04-27 GP 6.50 edit, format, research citations for GO 167 draft reso

comments (6); email correspondence about comments on draft reso (0.5)

Julia Severson 2021-05-04 GP 2.00 edit and format GO-167 draft reso reply comments

Total 8.50

Person Date Issue Total Description: Prepare Intervenor Comp. ApplicationJulia Severson 2021-08-20 IC 5.50 review PCF comments and final resolution; begin and

finalize first draft of claimJulia Severson 2021-08-023 IC 1.50 edit and finalize draft and supporting documents; email

correspondence about the sameTotal 7.00

Person Date Issue Total Description: Prepare Intervenor Comp. ApplicationLoretta Lynch 2021-08-23 IC 1.50 edit and revise draft claim

Total 1.50

The Protect Our Communities Foundation Request for Intervenor Compensation for Contribution to Resolution ESRB-9

88 / 111 88 / 111

Attachment #8

Loretta Lynch Resume

89 / 111 89 / 111

Revised October 2018

- 46 -

Loretta M. Lynch

Biography

Loretta Lynch served as President of the California Public Utilities Commission from

2000 through 2002 and as a Commissioner through 2004. Ms. Lynch guided the PUC

through the California energy crisis and fought against price gouging and market

manipulation by energy sellers. She was an early critic of energy deregulation, opposed

PG&E’s bankruptcy bailout, and fought to maintain the Commission’s regulatory

authority. Ms. Lynch is a strong advocate of keeping rates reasonable, ensuring the

safety and reliability of energy infrastructure, and of transitioning from fossil fuels to

renewable energy sources for electricity.

After serving on the PUC, Ms. Lynch lectured at the Goldman School of Public Policy at

UC Berkeley and was named an Executive Fellow at the Institute for Governmental

Studies. She was a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley from 2007 to 2013. Ms. Lynch

currently consults with consumer, community, labor and environmental groups on

ratemaking, policy and legal issues. She was on the Pacific Environment board of

directors from 2005 to 2010 and is a board member of the Protect Our Communities

Foundation in Southern California.

Prior to the PUC, Ms. Lynch was the director of Governor Davis’ Office of Planning and

Research. As part of the governor’s senior staff, she worked on policy and legislative

issues including land-use and regional planning, health care, mental health &

infrastructure initiatives, and was the liaison to the PUC.

Before entering public service, Ms. Lynch was a partner at Keker & Van Nest, a San

Francisco litigation firm. Ms. Lynch was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers

in California in 2000 & 2001 by the Los Angeles Daily Journal. She worked as class

action counsel for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles prior to joining Keker &

Van Nest and as an associate at Shea & Gardner. Ms. Lynch clerked for the Honorable

Dorothy W. Nelson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Ms. Lynch has worked in key roles in a number of political campaigns, including Van de

Kamp for Governor, 1990; Clinton for President, 1992; Feinstein for Senate, 1992; and

Delaine Eastin for California Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1994. Ms. Lynch also

volunteered for Gray Davis’ 1998 campaign for Governor. She was an Assembly Fellow

in the California Legislature in 1983-84.

Ms. Lynch holds a law degree from Yale University Law School (J.D. 1987) and an

undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California (B.A. 1983). She was

born in Independence, MO and lives in San Francisco with her husband, Jack Davis, a

union lawyer.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

46 / 46 90 / 111 90 / 111

Attachment #9

Bill Powers Resume

91 / 111 91 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 1 of 17

BILL POWERS, P.E.

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Powers Engineering, San Diego, CA 1994- ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Camarillo, CA 1989-93 Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA 1982-87 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 1980-81

EDUCATION Bachelor of Science – Mechanical Engineering, Duke University Master of Public Health – Environmental Sciences, University of North Carolina

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Registered Professional Mechanical Engineer, California (Certificate M24518) Registered Professional Engineer, Missouri (Certificate 2018039156) American Society of Mechanical Engineers Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES Forty years of experience in:

Air quality and utility commission proceedings - expert witness Distributed solar photovoltaics (PV) siting and regional renewable energy planning Power plant cooling system conversion and air emission control assessments Combustion equipment permitting, testing and monitoring Air pollution control equipment retrofit design/performance testing Petroleum refinery air engineering and testing

Latin America environmental project experience

RECENT AIR QUALITY AND UTILITY COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS Compressor Station Gas Turbine Air Emission Controls. Assessed the air emission controls and siting issues related to two proposed pipeline compressor station projects in the vicinity of Nashville, Tennessee utilizing Solar Turbines, Inc Titan gas turbines. The result, based on application of a Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirement, was the reduction of the proposed air permit nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission limit from 25 parts per million (ppm) to 9 ppm. Combined Heat and Power Plant Gas Turbine Air Emission Controls. Evaluated the air emission controls proposed for a combined heat and power (CHP) plant at Duke University that would utilize Solar Turbines, Inc Titan gas turbine. Applicant proposed a 25 ppm NOx limit using dry low-NOx combustion as Best Available Control Technology (BACT) in its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) application to the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Argued that NOx BACT for the CHP plant should be use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to achieve a 2 ppm NOx emission limit. Applicant withdrew its CPCN application.

SDG&E 36-Inch Transmission Pipeline. Expert witness for non-profit client advocating that existing 16-inch pipeline did not require replacement with new $600 million 36-inch pipeline. Underscored in testimony that SDG&E had recently completed extensive inline inspection of existing 16-inch pipeline and found that pipeline was in good condition for long-term operation at 512 psig transmission pressure. Demonstrated that reduction of pressure to 320 psig would not increase safety of existing pipeline, as ILI could no longer be done periodically at lower pressure. Commission accepted this reasoning and denied SDG&E’s application.

92 / 111 92 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 2 of 17

Cove Point LNG Export Terminal. Expert witness in two separate administrative proceedings before the Maryland Public Service Commission, in 2014 and 2017, regarding air permit conditions for the proposed Cove Point LNG export. The plant site is located in a non-attainment area for ozone. Testimony addressed deficiencies in the proposed air emission limits and proposed control technology for combustion equipment – including gas turbines, auxiliary boilers, and flares, fugitive emission sources, and marine loading vapor recovery systems. Corpus Christi LNG Expert Terminal. Expert witness in Texas Commission on Environmental Quality contested air permit proceeding in 2013 before the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Testimony addressed deficiencies in the proposed control technology for compressor-drive gas turbines, flares, and fugitive emission sources, and marine loading vapor recovery systems.

DISTRIBUTED SOLAR PV SITING AND REGIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANNING

Roadmap to 100 Percent Local Solar by 2030 in the City of San Diego. Author of the May 2020 Roadmap to 100 Percent Local Solar Build-Out by 2030 in the City of San Diego strategic energy plan for San Diego. The Roadmap outlines a strategy to maximize the use of solar energy and battery storage in the City of San Diego (City) to provide 100 percent clean electricity to all San Diegans by 2030. The City’s Climate Action Plan sets a mandatory target of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035. The Roadmap describes how the City can best deliver lower-cost electricity and provide local job growth by choosing local solar power paired with battery storage, complemented by smart energy efficiency and demand response programs, to reach 100 percent clean energy. North Carolina Clean Path 2025 Plan. Author of the August 2017 North Carolina Clean Path 2025 strategic energy plan for North Carolina. NC Clean Path 2025 implements local solar power, battery storage, and energy efficiency measures to rapidly replace fossil fuel-generated electricity in the state. The plan is substantially less costly than the $40 billion expansion of natural gas infrastructure, nuclear power, and transmission infrastructure being planned for North Carolina. Implementation of NC Clean Path 2025 would reduce power generated by coal- and natural gas-fired plants by about 60 percent by 2025, and 100 percent by 2030. All in-state coal-fired plants would be closed and gas-fired plants would be used only for backup supply. Existing transmission and distribution infrastructure would be maintained and not expanded.

Bay Area Smart Energy 2020 Plan. Author of the March 2012 Bay Area Smart Energy 2020 strategic energy plan for the nine-county region surrounding San Francisco Bay. This plan uses the zero net energy building targets in the California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan as a framework to achieve a 60 percent reduction in GHG emissions from Bay Area electricity usage, and a 50 percent reduction in peak demand for grid electricity, by 2020. The 2020 targets in the plan include: 25 percent of detached homes and 20 percent of commercial buildings achieving zero net energy, adding 200 MW of community-scale microgrid battery storage and 400 MW of utility-scale battery storage, reduction in air conditioner loads by 50 percent through air conditioner cycling and targeted incentive funds to assure highest efficiency replacement units, and cooling system modifications to increase power output from The Geysers geothermal production zone in Sonoma County.

Solar PV technology selection and siting for SDG&E Solar San Diego project. Served as PV technology expert in California Public Utilities Commission proceeding to define PV technology and sites to be used in San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) $250 million “Solar San Diego” project. Recommendations included: 1) prioritize use of roof-mounted thin-film PV arrays similar to the SCE urban PV program to maximize the installed PV capacity, 2) avoid tracking ground-mounted PV arrays due to high cost and relative lack of available land in the urban/suburban core, 3) and incorporate limited storage in fixed rooftop PV arrays to maximizing output during peak demand periods. Suitable land next to SDG&E substations capable of supporting 5 to 40 MW of PV (each) was also identified by Powers Engineering as a component of this project.

93 / 111 93 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 3 of 17

Rooftop PV alternative to natural gas-fired peaking gas turbines, Chula Vista. Served as PV technology expert in California Energy Commission (CEC) proceeding regarding the application of MMC Energy to build a 100 MW peaking gas turbine power plant in Chula Vista. Presented testimony that 100 MW of PV arrays in the Chula Vista area could provide the same level of electrical reliability on hot summer days as an equivalent amount of peaking gas turbine capacity at approximately the same cost of energy. The final decision issued by the CEC in the case denied the application in part due to failure of the applicant or CEC staff to thoroughly evaluate the PV alternative to the proposed turbines. San Diego Smart Energy 2020 Plan. Author of October 2007 San Diego Smart Energy 2020, an energy plan that focuses on meeting the San Diego region’s electric energy needs through accelerated integration of renewable and non-renewable distributed generation, in the form of combined heat and power (CHP) systems and solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. PV would meet approximately 28 percent of the San Diego region’s electric energy demand in 2020. Annual energy demand would drop 20 percent in 2020 relative to 2003 through use all cost-effective energy efficiency measures. Existing utility-scale gas-fired generation would continue to be utilized to provide power at night, during cloudy weather, and for grid reliability support.

COOLING SYSTEM CONVERSION AND POWER PLANT EMISSION CONTROL ASSESSMENTS

Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative at California Nuclear Plant. Lead engineer on review of Bechtel assessment of wedgewire screens and closed-cycle cooling for Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. Demonstrated that wedgewire screens were not likely to be effective in substantially reducing entrainment at the site, and that lower cost closed-cycle retrofit alternatives could be utilized to allow a “cost reasonable” cooling tower retrofit. Plume-abated back-to-back cooling towers located in secondary parking lots to the southeast of the turbine building were identified as the most cost-effective alternative. Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative at Florida Nuclear Plant. Evaluated closed cycle cooling tower feasibility assessment for Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4. Closed-cycle cooling would replace the existing closed-cycle cooling canals. Wet cooling towers for Units 3 and 4 are feasible and could be operational within four years of submittal of applications for the necessary permits.

Utility Boilers – Conversion of Existing Once-Through Cooled Boilers to Wet Towers, Parallel Wet-Dry Cooling, or Dry Cooling. Provided expert testimony and preliminary design for the conversion of four natural gas and/or coal-fired utility boilers (Unit 4, 235 MW; Unit 3, 135 MW; Unit 2, 65 MW; and Unit 1,65 MW) from once-through river water cooling to wet cooling towers, parallel wet-dry cooling, and dry cooling. Major design constraints were available land for location of retrofit cooling systems and need to maintain maximum steam turbine backpressure at or below 5.5 inches mercury to match performance capabilities of existing equipment. Approach temperatures of 12 oF and 13 oF were used for the wet towers. SPX Cooling Technologies F-488 plume-abated wet cells with six feet of packing were used to achieve approach temperatures of 12 oF and 13 oF. Annual energy penalty of wet tower retrofit designs is approximately 1 percent. Parallel wet-dry or dry cooling was determined to be technically feasible for Unit 3 based on straightforward access to the Unit 3 surface condenser and available land adjacent to the boiler. Utility Boiler – Assessment of Air Cooling and Integrated Gasification/Combined Cycle for Proposed 500 MW Coal-Fired Plant. Provided expert testimony on the performance of air-cooling and IGCC relative to the conventional closed-cycle wet cooled, supercritical pulverized coal boiler proposed by the applicant. Steam Pro™ coal-fired power plant design software was used to model the proposed plant and evaluate the impacts on performance of air cooling and plume-abated wet cooling. Results indicated that a conservatively designed air-cooled condenser could maintain rated power output at the design ambient temperature of 90 oF. The IGCC comparative analysis indicated that unit reliability comparable to a conventional pulverized coal unit could be achieved by including a spare gasifier in the IGCC design, and that the slightly higher capital cost of IGCC was offset by greater thermal efficiency and reduced water demand and air emissions.

94 / 111 94 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 4 of 17

Utility Boiler – Assessment of Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Cost for 1,200 MW Oil-Fired Plant. Prepared an assessment of the cost and feasibility of a closed-cycle wet tower retrofit for the 1,200 MW Roseton Generating Station. Determined that the cost to retrofit the Roseton plant with plume-abated closed- cycle wet cooling was well established based on cooling tower retrofit studies performed by the original owner (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.) and subsequent regulatory agency critique of the cost estimate. Also determined that elimination of redundant and/or excessive budgetary line items in owners cost estimate brings the closed-cycle retrofit in line with expected costs for comparable new or retrofit plume-abated cooling tower applications.

Nuclear Power Plant – Assessment of Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Cost for 2,000 MW Plant. Prepared an assessment of the cost and feasibility of a closed-cycle wet tower retrofit for the 2,000 MW Indian Point Generating Station. Determined that the most appropriate arrangement for the hilly site would be an inline plume-abated wet tower instead of the round tower configuration analyzed by the owner. Use of the inline configuration would allow placement of the towers at numerous sites on the property with little or need for blasting of bedrock, greatly reducing the cost of the retrofit. Also proposed an alternative circulating cooling water piping configuration to avoid the extensive downtime projected by the owner for modifications to the existing discharge channel. Power Plant Dry Cooling Symposium – Chair and Organizer. Chair and organizer of the first symposium held in the U.S. (May 2002) that focused exclusively on dry cooling technology for power plants. Sessions included basic principles of wet and dry cooling systems, performance capabilities of dry cooling systems, case studies of specific installations, and reasons why dry cooling is the predominant form of cooling specified in certain regions of North America (Massachusetts, Nevada, northern Mexico).

Ameren Missouri Coal Units – Causes of Opacity and Opacity Reduction Alternatives. Lead engineer to assess the root causes of opacity exceedances and evaluate potential alternatives to eliminate opacity violations from the Labadie, Meramec, and Rush Island power plants.

Utility Boilers – Evaluation of Correlation Between Opacity and PM10 Emissions at Coal-Fired Plant. Provided expert testimony on whether correlation existed between mass PM10 emissions and opacity during opacity excursions at large coal-fired boiler in Georgia. EPA and EPRI technical studies were reviewed to assess the correlation of opacity and mass emissions during opacity levels below and above 20 percent. A strong correlation between opacity and mass emissions was apparent at a sister plant at opacities less than 20 percent. The correlation suggests that the opacity monitor correlation underestimates mass emissions at opacities greater than 20 percent, but may continue to exhibit a good correlation for the component of mass emissions in the PM10 size range. IGCC as BACT for Air Emissions from Proposed 960 MW Coal Plant. Presented testimony on IGCC as BACT for air emissions reduction from 960 MW coal plant. Applicant received air permit for a pulverized coal plant to be equipped with a baghouse, wet scrubber, and wet ESP for air emissions control. Use of IGCC technology at the emission rates permitted for two recently proposed U.S. IGCC projects, and demonstrated in practice at a Japanese IGCC plant firing Chinese bituminous coal, would substantially reduce potential emissions of NOx, SO2, and PM. The estimated control cost-effectiveness of substituting IGCC for pulverized coal technology in this case was approximately $3,000/ton. Analysis of Proposed Air Emission Limits for 600 MW Pulverized Coal Plant. Project engineer tasked with evaluating sufficiency of air emissions limits and control technologies for proposed 600 MW coal plant Arkansas. Determined that the applicant had: 1) not properly identified SO2, sulfuric acid mist, and PM BACT control levels for the plant, and 2) improperly utilized an incremental cost effectiveness analysis to justify air emission control levels that did not represent BACT.

95 / 111 95 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 5 of 17

Eight Pulverized Coal Fired 900 MW Boilers – IGCC Alternative with Air Cooling. Provided testimony on integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) as a fully commercial coal-burning alternative to the pulverized coal (PC) technology proposed by TXU for eight 900 MW boilers in East Texas, and East Texas as an ideal location for CO2 sequestration due to presence of mature oilfield CO2 enhanced oil recovery opportunities and a deep saline aquifer underlying the entire region. Also presented testimony on the major increase in regional consumptive water use that would be caused by the evaporative cooling towers proposed for use in the PC plants, and that consumptive water use could be lowered by using IGCC with evaporative cooling towers or by using air-cooled condensers with PC or IGCC technology. TXU ultimately dropped plans to build the eight PC plants as a condition of a corporate buy-out. Utility Boilers Retrofit of SCR and FGD to Existing Coal-Fired Units. Expert witness in successful effort to compel an existing coal-fired power plant located in Massachusetts to meet an accelerated NOx and SO2 emission control system retrofit schedule. Plant owner argued the installation of advanced NOx and SO2 control systems would generate > 1 ton/year of ancillary emissions, such as sulfuric acid mist, and that under Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection regulation ancillary emissions > 1 ton/year would require a BACT evaluation and a two-year extension to retrofit schedule. Successfully demonstrated that no ancillary emissions would be generated if the retrofit NOx and SO2 control systems were properly sized and optimized. Plant owner committed to accelerated compliance schedule in settlement agreement. Utility Boilers – Retrofit of SCR to Existing Natural Gas-Fired Units. Lead engineer in successful representation of interests of California coastal city to prevent weakening of an existing countywide utility boiler NOx rule. Weakening of NOx rule would have allowed a merchant utility boiler plant located in the city to operate without installing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) NOx control systems. This project required numerous appearances before the county air pollution control hearing board to successfully defend the existing utility boiler NOx rule. Biomass Plant NOx and CO Air Emissions Control Evaluation. Lead engineer for evaluation of available nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) controls for a 45 MW Aspen Power biomass plant in Texas where proponent had identified selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) for NOx and good combustion practices for CO as BACT. Identified the use of tail-end SCR for NOx control at several operational U.S. biomass plants, and oxidation catalyst in use at two of these plants for CO and VOC control, as BACT for the proposed biomass plant. Administrative law judge concurred in decision that SCR and oxidation catalyst is BACT. Developer added SCR and oxidation catalyst to project in subsequent settlement agreement. Biomass Plant Air Emissions Control Consulting. Lead expert on biomass air emissions control systems for landowners that will be impacted by a proposed 50 MW biomass to be built by the local East Texas power cooperative. Public utility agreed to meet current BACT for biomass plants in Texas, SCR for NOx and oxidation catalyst for CO, in settlement agreement with local landowners. Combined-Cycle Power Plant Startup and Shutdown Emissions. Lead engineer for analysis of air permit startup and shutdown emissions minimization for combined-cycle power plant proposed for the San Francisco Bay Area. Original equipment was specified for baseload operation prior to suspension of project in early 2000s. Operational profile described in revised air permit was load following with potential for daily start/stop. Recommended that either fast start turbine technology be employed to minimize start/stop emissions or that “demonstrated in practice” operational and control software modifications be employed to minimize startup/shutdown emissions.

96 / 111 96 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 6 of 17

NON-WIRES ALTERNATIVES TO TRANSMISSION LINES Ameren Missouri Mark Twain 345 kV Transmission Line. Responsible for evaluating: 1) the expected peak load growth of Ameren Missouri (MO) in general and in Northeast MO specifically over the next decade, 2) the likelihood of wind projects moving forward in the Northeast MO over the next decade, 3) the feasibility and cost of reconductoring with high capacity composite conductors the three 161 kV line segments that would experience NERC violations if 450 to 500 MW of wind power was constructed in Northeast MO, and 4) the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of substituting local solar for wind power to allow Ameren MO to meet its 2021 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligation without building the proposed 345 kV transmission line or upgrading the three existing 161 kV lines interconnecting at the Adair Substation. American Transmission Corporation Badger-Coulee 345 kV Line. Responsible for evaluating: 1) the expected peak load growth of Wisconsin utilities over the next decade, and 2) the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of alternatives including load management, energy efficiency, local solar, biogas, and energy storage as viable no-wires alternatives to the proposed ATC Badger-Coulee 345 kV transmission line. San Diego Gas & Electric Wood Pole to Steel Pole Replacement Project. Lead engineer assessing need and alternatives to replacement of existing wooden 69 kV poles with larger steel 69 kV poles as a response to the fire hazard potential of wooden poles in rural, high fire risk areas. Wooden poles in good condition and not a source of fire ignition. Utility would continue to shut off power to customers during low humidity, high wind conditions. Prepared alternative, solar with batteries for the ~10,000 affected customer meters, to allow customers to ride-through high fire hazard preventive grid power shut-offs at far less cost than replacing wood poles with steel poles. San Diego Gas & Electric 500 kV Sunrise Transmission Line. Lead engineer assessing the validity of load growth forecasts used by the utility to justify the need for the 500 kV line, and for developing a no-wires alternative, net-metered solar power with some battery support, to meet the identified reliability need at little or no net cost to the utility customer base.

COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT PERMITTING, TESTING AND MONITORING EPRI Gas Turbine Power Plant Permitting Documents – Co-Author. Co-authored two Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) gas turbine power plant siting documents. Responsibilities included chapter on state-of-the-art air emission control systems for simple-cycle and combined-cycle gas turbines, and authorship of sections on dry cooling and zero liquid discharge systems.

Air Permits for 50 MW Peaker Gas Turbines – Six Sites Throughout California. Responsible for preparing all aspects of air permit applications for five 50 MW FT-8 simple-cycle turbine installations at sites around California in response to emergency request by California state government for additional peaking power. Units were designed to meet 2.0 ppm NOx using standard temperature SCR and innovative dilution air system to maintain exhaust gas temperature within acceptable SCR range. Oxidation catalyst is also used to maintain CO below 6.0 ppm. Kauai 27 MW Cogeneration Plant – Air Emission Control System Analysis. Project manager to evaluate technical feasibility of SCR for 27 MW naphtha-fired turbine with once-through heat recovery steam generator. Permit action was stalled due to questions of SCR feasibility. Extensive analysis of the performance of existing oil-fired turbines equipped with SCR, and bench-scale tests of SCR applied to naphtha-fired turbines, indicated that SCR would perform adequately. Urea was selected as the SCR reagent given the local availability of urea. Unit is first known application of urea-injected SCR on a naphtha-fired turbine.

Microturbines Ronald Reagan Library, Ventura County, California. Project manager and lead engineer or preparation of air permit applications for microturbines and standby boilers. The microturbines drive the heating and cooling system for the library. The microturbines are

97 / 111 97 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 7 of 17

certified by the manufacturer to meet the 9 ppm NOx emission limit for this equipment. Low-NOx burners are BACT for the standby boilers.

Hospital Cogeneration Microturbines – South Coast Air Quality Management District. Project manager and lead engineer for preparation of air permit application for three microturbines at hospital cogeneration plant installation. The draft Authority To Construct (ATC) for this project was obtained two weeks after submittal of the ATC application. 30-day public notification was required due to the proximity of the facility to nearby schools. The final ATC was issued two months after the application was submitted, including the 30-day public notification period. Gas Turbine Cogeneration – South Coast Air Quality Management District. Project manager and lead engineer for preparation of air permit application for two 5.5 MW gas turbines in cogeneration configuration for county government center. The turbines are equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and oxidation catalyst to comply with SCAQMD BACT requirements. Aqueous urea is used as the SCR reagent to avoid trigger hazardous material storage requirements. The NOx and CO continuous emissions monitoring systems are covered by a separate permit.

Peaker Gas Turbines – Evaluation of NOx Control Options for Installations in San Diego County. Lead engineer for evaluation of NOx control options available for 1970s vintage simple-cycle gas turbines proposed for peaker sites in San Diego County. Dry low-NOx (DLN) combustors, catalytic combustors, high-temperature SCR, and NOx absorption/conversion (SCONOx) were evaluated for each candidate turbine make/model. High-temperature SCR was selected as the NOx control option to meet a 5 ppm NOx emission requirement.

Hospital Cogeneration Plant Gas Turbines – San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Project manager and lead engineer for preparation of air permit application and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) evaluation for hospital cogeneration plant installation. The BACT included the review of DLN combustors, catalytic combustors, high-temperature SCR and SCONOx. DLN combustion followed by high temperature SCR was selected as the NOx control system for this installation. The high temperature SCR is located upstream of the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to allow the diversion of exhaust gas around the HRSG without compromising the effectiveness of the NOx control system.

1,000 MW Coastal Combined-Cycle Power Plant – Feasibility of Dry Cooling. Expert witness in on-going effort to require use of dry cooling on proposed 1,000 MW combined-cycle “repower” project at site of an existing 1,000 MW utility boiler plant. Project proponent argued that site was two small for properly sized air-cooled condenser (ACC) and that use of ACC would cause 12-month construction delay. Demonstrated that ACC could easily be located on the site by splitting total of up to 80 cells between two available locations at the site. Also demonstrated that an ACC optimized for low height and low noise would minimize or eliminate proponent claims of negative visual and noise impacts. Industrial Cogeneration Plant Gas Turbines Upgrade of Turbine Power Output. Project manager and lead engineer for preparation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) evaluation for proposed gas turbine upgrade. The BACT included the review of DLN combustors, catalytic combustors, high-, standard-, and low-temperature SCR, and SCONOx. Successfully negotiated air permit that allowed facility to initially install DLN combustors and operate under a NOx plantwide “cap.” Within two major turbine overhauls, or approximately eight years, the NOx emissions per turbine must be at or below the equivalent of 5 ppm. The 5 ppm NOx target will be achieved through technological in-combustor NOx control such as catalytic combustion, or SCR or SCR equivalent end-of-pipe NOx control technologies if catalytic combustion is not available.

98 / 111 98 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 8 of 17

Gas Turbines Modification of RATA Procedures for Time-Share CEM. Project manager and lead engineer for the development of alternate CO continuous emission monitor (CEM) Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) procedures for time-share CEM system serving three 7.9 MW turbines located in San Diego. Close interaction with San Diego APCD and EPA Region 9 engineers was required to receive approval for the alternate CO RATA standard. The time-share CEM then passed the annual RATA without problems as a result of changes to some CEM hardware and the more flexible CO RATA standard. Gas Turbines Evaluation of NOx Control Technology Performance. Lead engineer for performance review of dry low-NOx combustors, catalytic combustors, high-, standard-, and low-temperature selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and NOx absorption/conversion (SCONOx). Major turbine manufacturers and major manufacturers of end-of-pipe NOx control systems for gas turbines were contacted to determine current cost and performance of NOx control systems. A comparison of 1993 to 1999 “$/kwh” and “$/ton” cost of these control systems was developed in the evaluation. Lead engineer for evaluation for proposed combined cycle gas turbine NOx and CO control systems. Project was in litigation over contract terms, and there was concern that the GE Frame 7FA turbine could not meet the 3 ppm NOx permit limit using a conventional combustor with water injection followed by SCR. Operations personnel at GE Frame 7FA installatins around the country were interviewed, along with principal SCR vendors, to corroborate that the installation could continuously meet the 3 ppm NOx limit. Gas Turbines Title V "Presumptively Approvable" Compliance Assurance Monitoring Protocol. Project manager and lead engineer for the development of a "presumptively approval" NOx parametric emissions monitoring system (PEMS) protocol for industrial gas turbines. "Presumptively approvable" means that any gas turbine operator selecting this monitoring protocol can presume it is acceptable to the U.S. EPA. Close interaction with the gas turbine manufacturer's design engineering staff and the U.S. EPA Emissions Measurement Branch (Research Triangle Park, NC) was required to determine modifications necessary to the current PEMS to upgrade it to "presumptively approvable" status. Environmental Due Diligence Review of Gas Turbine Sites Mexico. Task leader to prepare regulatory compliance due diligence review of Mexican requirements for gas turbine power plants. Project involves eleven potential sites across Mexico, three of which are under construction. Scope involves identification of all environmental, energy sales, land use, and transportation corridor requirements for power projects in Mexico. Coordinator of Mexican environmental subcontractors gathering on-site information for each site, and translator of Spanish supporting documentation to English. Development of Air Emission Standards for Gas Turbines - Peru. Served as principal technical consultant to the Peruvian Ministry of Energy in Mines (MEM) for the development of air emission standards for Peruvian gas turbine power plants. All major gas turbine power plants in Peru are currently using water injection to increase turbine power output. Recommended that 42 ppm on natural gas and 65 ppm on diesel (corrected to 15% O2) be established as the NOx limit for existing gas turbine power plants. These limits reflect NOx levels readily achievable using water injection at high load. Also recommended that new gas turbine sources be subject to a BACT review requirement.

Gas Turbines Title V Permit Templates. Lead engineer for the development of standardized permit templates for approximately 100 gas turbines operated by the oil and gas industry in the San Joaquin Valley. Emissions limits and monitoring requirements were defined for units ranging from GE Frame 7 to Solar Saturn turbines. Stand-alone templates were developed based on turbine size and NOx control equipment. NOx utilized in the target turbine population ranged from water injection alone to water injection combined with SCR.

99 / 111 99 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 9 of 17

Gas Turbines Evaluation of NOx, SO2 and PM Emission Profiles. Performed a comparative evaluation of the NOx, SO2 and particulate (PM) emission profiles of principal utility-scale gas turbines for an independent power producer evaluating project opportunities in Latin America. All gas turbine models in the 40 MW to 240 MW range manufactured by General Electric, Westinghouse, Siemens and ABB were included in the evaluation.

Stationary Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) RACT/BARCT Evaluation. Lead engineer for evaluation of retrofit NOx control options available for the oil and gas production industry gas-fired ICE population in the San Joaquin Valley affected by proposed RACT and BARCT emission limits. Evaluation centered on lean-burn compressor engines under 500 bhp, and rich-burn constant and cyclically loaded (rod pump) engines under 200 bhp. The results of the evaluation indicated that rich burn cyclically-loaded rod pump engines comprised 50 percent of the affected ICE population, though these ICEs accounted for only 5 percent of the uncontrolled gas-fired stationary ICE NOx emissions. Recommended retrofit NOx control strategies included: air/fuel ratio adjustment for rod pump ICEs, Non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) for rich-burn, constant load ICEs, and "low emission" combustion modifications for lean burn ICEs. Development of Air Emission Standards for Stationary ICEs - Peru. Served as principal technical consultant to the Peruvian Ministry of Energy in Mines (MEM) for the development of air emission standards for Peruvian stationary ICE power plants. Draft 1997 World Bank NOx and particulate emission limits for stationary ICE power plants served as the basis for proposed MEM emission limits. A detailed review of ICE emissions data provided in PAMAs submitted to the MEM was performed to determine the level of effort that would be required by Peruvian industry to meet the proposed NOx and particulate emission limits. The draft 1997 WB emission limits were revised to reflect reasonably achievable NOx and particulate emission limits for ICEs currently in operation in Peru. Air Toxics Testing of Natural Gas-Fired ICEs. Project manager for test plan/test program to measure volatile and semi-volatile organic air toxics compounds from fourteen gas-fired ICEs used in a variety of oil and gas production applications. Test data was utilized by oil and gas production facility owners throughout California to develop accurate ICE air toxics emission inventories.

AIR ENGINEERING/AIR TESTING PROJECT EXPERIENCE GENERAL Reverse Air Fabric Filter Retrofit Evaluation Coal-Fired Boiler. Lead engineer for upgrade of reverse air fabric filters serving coal-fired industrial boilers. Fluorescent dye injected to pinpoint broken bags and damper leaks. Corrosion of pneumatic actuators serving reverse air valves and inadequate insulation identified as principal causes of degraded performance.

Pulse-Jet Fabric Filter Performance Evaluation Gold Mine. Lead engineer on upgrade of pulse-jet fabric filter and associated exhaust ventilation system serving an ore-crushing facility at a gold mine. Fluorescent dye used to identify bag collar leaks, and modifications were made to pulse air cycle time and duration. This marginal source was in compliance at 20 percent of emission limit following completion of repair work. Pulse-Jet Fabric Filter Retrofit - Gypsum Calciner. Lead engineer on upgrade of pulse-jet fabric filter controlling particulate emissions from a gypsum calciner. Recommendations included a modified bag clamping mechanism, modified hopper evacuation valve assembly, and changes to pulse air cycle time and pulse duration.

Wet Scrubber Retrofit Plating Shop. Project engineer on retrofit evaluation of plating shop packed-bed wet scrubbers failing to meet performance guarantees during acceptance trials, due to excessive mist carryover. Recommendations included relocation of the mist eliminator (ME), substitution of the original chevron blade ME with a mesh pad ME, and use of higher density packing material to improve exhaust gas distribution. Wet scrubbers passed acceptance trials following completion of recommended modifications.

100 / 111 100 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 10 of 17

Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) Retrofit Evaluation MSW Boiler. Lead engineer for retrofit evaluation of single field ESP on a municipal solid waste (MSW) boiler. Recommendations included addition of automated power controller, inlet duct turning vanes, and improved collecting plate rapping system.

ESP Electric Coil Rapper Vibration Analysis Testing - Coal-Fired Boiler. Lead engineer for evaluation of ESP rapper effectiveness test program on three field ESP equipped with "magnetically induced gravity return" (MIGR) rappers. Accelerometers were placed in a grid pattern on ESP collecting plates to determine maximum instantaneous plate acceleration at a variety of rapper power setpoints. Testing showed that the rappers met performance specification requirements.

Aluminum Remelt Furnace Particulate Emissions Testing. Project manager and lead engineer for high temperature (1,600 oF) particulate sampling of a natural gas-fired remelt furnace at a major aluminum rolling mill. Objectives of test program were to: 1) determine if condensable particulate was present in stack gases, and 2) to validate the accuracy of the in-stack continuous opacity monitor (COM). Designed and constructed a customized high temperature (inconel) PM10/Mtd 17 sampling assembly for test program. An onsite natural gas-fired boiler was also tested to provide comparative data for the condensable particulate portion of the test program. Test results showed that no significant levels of condensable particulate in the remelt furnace exhaust gas, and indicated that the remelt furnace and boiler had similar particulate emission rates. Test results also showed that the COM was accurate.

Aluminum Remelt Furnace CO and NOx Testing. Project manager and lead engineer for continuous week-long testing of CO and NOx emissions from aluminum remelt furnace. Objective of test program was to characterize CO and NOx emissions from representative remelt furnace for use in the facility's criteria pollution emissions inventory. A TECO Model 48 CO analyzer and a TECO Model 10 NOx analyzer were utilized during the test program to provide +1 ppm measurement accuracy, and all test data was recorded by an automated data acquisition system.

PETROLEUM REFINERY AIR ENGINEERING/TESTING EXPERIENCE Big West Refinery Expansion EIS. Lead engineer on comparative cost analysis of proposed wet cooling tower and fin-fan air cooler for process cooling water for the proposed clean fuels expansion project at the Big West Refinery in Bakersfield, California. Selection of the fin-fin air-cooler would eliminate all consumptive water use and wastewater disposal associated with the cooling tower. Air emissions of VOC and PM10 would be reduced with the fin-fan air-cooler even though power demand of the air-cooler is incrementally higher than that of the cooling tower. Fin-fan air-coolers with approach temperatures of 10 oF and 20 oF were evaluated. The annualized cost of the fin-fin air-cooler with a 20 oF approach temperature is essentially the same as that of the cooling tower when the cost of all ancillary cooling tower systems are considered.

Criteria and Air Toxic Pollutant Emissions Inventory for Proposed Refinery Modifications. Project manager and technical lead for development of baseline and future refinery air emissions inventories for process modifications required to produce oxygenated gasoline and desulfurized diesel fuel at a California refinery. State of the art criteria and air toxic pollutant emissions inventories for refinery point, fugitive and mobile sources were developed. Point source emissions estimates were generated using onsite criteria pollutant test data, onsite air toxics test data, and the latest air toxics emission factors from the statewide refinery air toxics inventory database. The fugitive volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions inventories were developed using the refinery's most recent inspection and maintenance (I&M) monitoring program test data to develop site-specific component VOC emission rates. These VOC emission rates were combined with speciated air toxics test results for the principal refinery process streams to produce fugitive VOC air toxics emission rates. The environmental impact report (EIR) that utilized this emission inventory data was the first refinery "Clean Fuels" EIR approved in California. Development of Air Emission Standards for Petroleum Refinery Equipment - Peru. Served as principal technical consultant to the Peruvian Ministry of Energy in Mines (MEM) for the development of air emission

101 / 111 101 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 11 of 17

standards for Peruvian petroleum refineries. The sources included in the scope of this project included: 1) SO2 and NOx refinery heaters and boilers, 2) desulfurization of crude oil, particulate and SO2 controls for fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU), 3) VOC and CO emissions from flares, 4) vapor recovery systems for marine unloading, truck loading, and crude oil/refined products storage tanks, and 5) VOC emissions from process fugitive sources such as pressure relief valves, pumps, compressors and flanges. Proposed emission limits were developed for new and existing refineries based on a thorough evaluation of the available air emission control technologies for the affected refinery sources. Leading vendors of refinery control technology, such as John Zink and Exxon Research, provided estimates of retrofit costs for the largest Peruvian refinery, La Pampilla, located in Lima. Meetings were held in Lima with refinery operators and MEM staff to discuss the proposed emission limits and incorporate mutually agreed upon revisions to the proposed limits for existing Peruvian refineries.

Air Toxic Pollutant Emissions Inventory for Existing Refinery. Project manager and technical lead for air toxic pollutant emissions inventory at major California refinery. Emission factors were developed for refinery heaters, boilers, flares, sulfur recovery units, coker deheading, IC engines, storage tanks, process fugitives, and catalyst regeneration units. Onsite source test results were utilized to characterize emissions from refinery combustion devices. Where representative source test results were not available, AP-42 VOC emission factors were combined with available VOC air toxics speciation profiles to estimate VOC air toxic emission rates. A risk assessment based on this emissions inventory indicated a relatively low health risk associated with refinery operations. Benzene, 1,3-butadiene and PAHs were the principal health risk related pollutants emitted.

Air Toxics Testing of Refinery Combustion Sources. Project manager for comprehensive air toxics testing program at a major California refinery. Metals, Cr+6, PAHs, H2S and speciated VOC emissions were measured from refinery combustion sources. High temperature Cr+6 stack testing using the EPA Cr+6 test method was performed for the first time in California during this test program. Representatives from the California Air Resources Board source test team performed simultaneous testing using ARB Method 425 (Cr+6) to compare the results of EPA and ARB Cr+6 test methodologies. The ARB approved the test results generated using the high temperature EPA Cr+6 test method.

Air Toxics Testing of Refinery Fugitive Sources. Project manager for test program to characterize air toxic fugitive VOC emissions from fifteen distinct process units at major California refinery. Gas, light liquid, and heavy liquid process streams were sampled. BTXE, 1,3-butadiene and propylene concentrations were quantified in gas samples, while BTXE, cresol and phenol concentrations were measured in liquid samples. Test results were combined with AP-42 fugitive VOC emission factors for valves, fittings, compressors, pumps and PRVs to calculate fugitive air toxics VOC emission rates.

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AIR ENGINEERING/TESTING EXPERIENCE Air Toxics Testing of Oil and Gas Production Sources. Project manager and lead engineer for test plan/test program to determine VOC removal efficiency of packed tower scrubber controlling sulfur dioxide emissions from a crude oil-fired steam generator. Ratfisch 55 VOC analyzers were used to measure the packed tower scrubber VOC removal efficiency. Tedlar bag samples were collected simultaneously to correlate BTX removal efficiency to VOC removal efficiency. This test was one of hundreds of air toxics tests performed during this test program for oil and gas production facilities from 1990 to 1992. The majority of the volatile air toxics analyses were performed at in-house laboratory. Project staff developed thorough familiarity with the applications and limitations of GC/MS, GC/PID, GC/FID, GC/ECD and GC/FPD. Tedlar bags, canisters, sorbent tubes and impingers were used during sampling, along with isokinetic tests methods for multiple metals and PAHs.

Air Toxics Testing of Glycol Reboiler Gas Processing Plant. Project manager for test program to determine emissions of BTXE from glycol reboiler vent at gas processing facility handling 12 MM/cfd of produced gas. Developed innovative test methods to accurately quantify BTXE emissions in reboiler vent gas.

102 / 111 102 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 12 of 17

Air Toxics Emissions Inventory Plan. Lead engineer for the development of generic air toxics emission estimating techniques (EETs) for oil and gas production equipment. This project was performed for the Western States Petroleum Association in response to the requirements of the California Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act. EETs were developed for all point and fugitive oil and gas production sources of air toxics, and the specific air toxics associated with each source were identified. A pooled source emission test methodology was also developed to moderate the cost of source testing required by the Act. Fugitive NMHC Emissions from TEOR Production Field. Project manager for the quantification of fugitive Nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions from a thermally enhanced oil recovery (TEOR) oil production field in Kern County, CA. This program included direct measurement of NMHC concentrations in storage tank vapor headspace and the modification of available NMHC emission factors for NMHC-emitting devices in TEOR produced gas service, such as wellheads, vapor trunklines, heat exchangers, and compressors. Modification of the existing NMHC emission factors was necessary due to the high concentration of CO2 and water vapor in TEOR produced gases. Fugitive Air Emissions Testing of Oil and Gas Production Fields. Project manager for test plan/test program to determine VOC and air toxics emissions from oil storage tanks, wastewater storage tanks and produced gas lines. Test results were utilized to develop comprehensive air toxics emissions inventories for oil and gas production companies participating in the test program. Oil and Gas Production Field Air Emissions Inventory and Air Modeling. Project manager for oil and gas production field risk assessment. Project included review and revision of the existing air toxics emission inventory, air dispersion modeling, and calculation of the acute health risk, chronic non-carcinogenic risk and carcinogenic risk of facility operations. Results indicated that fugitive H2S emissions from facility operations posed a potential health risk at the facility fenceline.

TITLE V PERMIT APPLICATION/MONITORING PLAN EXPERIENCE

Title V Permit Application San Diego County Industrial Facility. Project engineer tasked with preparing streamlined Title V operating permit for U.S. Navy facilities in San Diego. Principal emission units included chrome plating, lead furnaces, IC engines, solvent usage, aerospace coating and marine coating operations. For each device category in use at the facility, federal MACT requirements were integrated with District requirements in user friendly tables that summarized permit conditions and compliance status. Title V Permit Application Device Templates - Oil and Gas Production Industry. Project manager and lead engineer to prepare Title V permit application “templates” for the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). The template approach was chosen by WSPA to minimize the administrative burden associated with listing permit conditions for a large number of similar devices located at the same oil and gas production facility. Templates are being developed for device types common to oil and gas production operations. Device types include: boilers, steam generators, process heaters, gas turbines, IC engines, fixed-roof storage tanks, fugitive components, flares, and cooling towers. These templates will serve as the core of Title V permit applications prepared for oil and gas production operations in California.

Title V Permit Application - Aluminum Rolling Mill. Project manager and lead engineer for Title V permit application prepared for largest aluminum rolling mill in the western U.S. Responsible for the overall direction of the permit application project, development of a monitoring plan for significant emission units, and development of a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions inventory. The project involved extensive onsite data gathering, frequent interaction with the plant's technical and operating staff, and coordination with legal counsel and subcontractors. The permit application was completed on time and in budget.

Title V Model Permit - Oil and Gas Production Industry. Project manager and lead engineer for the comparative analysis of regional and federal requirements affecting oil and gas production industry sources

103 / 111 103 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 13 of 17

located in the San Joaquin Valley. Sources included gas turbines, IC engines, steam generators, storage tanks, and process fugitives. From this analysis, a model applicable requirements table was developed for a sample device type (storage tanks) that covered the entire population of storage tanks operated by the industry. The U.S. EPA has tentatively approved this model permit approach, and work is ongoing to develop comprehensive applicable requirements tables for each major category of sources operated by the oil and gas industry in the San Joaquin Valley.

Title V Enhanced Monitoring Evaluation of Oil and Gas Production Sources. Lead engineer to identify differences in proposed EPA Title V enhanced monitoring protocols and the current monitoring requirements for oil and gas production sources in the San Joaquin Valley. The device types evaluated included: steam generators, stationary ICEs, gas turbines, fugitives, fixed roof storage tanks, and thermally enhanced oil recovery (TEOR) well vents. Principal areas of difference included: more stringent Title V O&M requirements for parameter monitors (such as temperature, fuel flow, and O2), and more extensive Title V recordkeeping requirements.

RACT/BARCT/BACT EVALUATIONS RACT/BARCT Reverse Jet Scrubber/Fiberbed Mist Eliminator Retrofit Evaluation. Project manager

and lead engineer on project to address the inability of existing wet electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and atomized mist scrubbers to adequately remove low concentration submicron particulate from high volume recovery boiler exhaust gas at the Alaska Pulp Corporation mill in Sitka, AK. The project involved thorough on-site inspections of existing control equipment, detailed review of maintenance and performance records, and a detailed evaluation of potential replacement technologies. These technologies included a wide variety of scrubbing technologies where manufacturers claimed high removal efficiencies on submicron particulate in high humidity exhaust gas. Packed tower scrubbers, venturi scrubbers, reverse jet scrubbers, fiberbed mist eliminators and wet ESPs were evaluated. Final recommendations included replacement of atomized mist scrubber with reverse jet scrubber and upgrading of the existing wet ESPs. The paper describing this project was published in the May 1992 TAPPI Journal. Aluminum Smelter RACT Evaluation - Prebake. Project manager and technical lead for CO and PM10 RACT evaluation for prebake facility. Retrofit control options for CO emissions from the anode bake furnace, potline dry scrubbers and the potroom roof vents were evaluated. PM10 emissions from the coke kiln, potline dry scrubbers, potroom roof vents, and miscellaneous potroom fugitive sources were addressed. Four CO control technologies were identified as technologically feasible for potline CO emissions: potline current efficiency improvement through the addition of underhung busswork and automated puncher/feeders, catalytic incineration, recuperative incineration and regenerative incineration. Current efficiency improvement was identified as probable CO RACT if onsite test program demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach. Five PM10 control technologies were identified as technologically feasible: increased potline hooding efficiency through redesign of shields, the addition of a dense-phase conveying system, increased potline air evacuation rate, wet scrubbing of roof vent emissions, and fabric filter control of roof vent emissions.

RACT/BACT Testing/Evaluation of PM10 Mist Eliminators on Five-Stand Cold Mill. Project manager

and lead engineer for fiberbed mist eliminator and mesh pad mist eliminator comparative pilot test program on mixed phase aerosol (PM10)/gaseous hydrocarbon emissions from aluminum high speed cold rolling mill. Utilized modified EPA Method 5 sampling train with portion of sample gas diverted (after particulate filter) to Ratfisch 55 VOC analyzer. This was done to permit simultaneous quantification of aerosol and gaseous hydrocarbon emissions in the exhaust gas. The mesh pad mist eliminator demonstrated good control of PM10 emissions, though test results indicated that the majority of captured PM10 evaporated in the mesh pad and was emitted as VOC. Aluminum Remelt Furnace/Rolling Mill RACT Evaluations. Lead engineer for comprehensive CO and PM10 RACT evaluation for the largest aluminum sheet and plate rolling mill in western U.S. Significant

104 / 111 104 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 14 of 17

sources of CO emissions from the facility included the remelt furnaces and the coater line. The potential CO RACT options for the remelt furnaces included: enhanced maintenance practices, preheating combustion air, installation of fully automated combustion controls, and energy efficiency modifications. BARCT Low NOx Burner Conversion – Industrial Boilers. Lead engineer for evaluation of low NOx burner options for natural gas-fired industrial boilers. Also evaluated methanol and propane as stand-by fuels to replace existing diesel stand-by fuel system. Evaluated replacement of steam boilers with gas turbine co-generation system.

BACT Packed Tower Scrubber/Mist Eliminator Performance Evaluations. Project manager and lead engineer for Navy-wide plating shop air pollution control technology evaluation and emissions testing program. Mist eliminators and packed tower scrubbers controlling metal plating processes, which included hard chrome, nickel, copper, cadmium and precious metals plating, were extensively tested at three Navy plating shops. Chemical cleaning and stripping tanks, including hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, chromic acid and caustic, were also tested. The final product of this program was a military design specification for plating and chemical cleaning shop air pollution control systems. The hydrochloric acid mist sampling procedure developed during this program received a protected patent.

BACT Packed Tower Scrubber/UV Oxidation System Pilot Test Program. Technical advisor for pilot test program of packed tower scrubber/ultraviolet (UV) light VOC oxidation system controlling VOC emissions from microchip manufacturing facility in Los Angeles. The testing was sponsored in part by the SCAQMD's Innovative Technology Demonstration Program, to demonstrate this innovative control technology as BACT for microchip manufacturing operations. The target compounds were acetone, methylethylketone (MEK) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and compound concentrations ranged from 10-100 ppmv. The single stage packed tower scrubber consistently achieved greater than 90% removal efficiency on the target compounds. The residence time required in the UV oxidation system for effective oxidation of the target compounds proved significantly longer than the residence time predicted by the manufacturer.

BACT Pilot Testing of Venturi Scrubber on Gas/Aerosol VOC Emission Source. Technical advisor for project to evaluate venturi scrubber as BACT for mixed phase aerosol/gaseous hydrocarbon emissions from deep fat fryer. Venturi scrubber demonstrated high removal efficiency on aerosol, low efficiency on VOC emissions. A number of VOC tests indicated negative removal efficiency. This anomaly was traced to a high hydrocarbon concentration in the scrubber water. The pilot unit had been shipped directly to the jobsite from another test location by the manufacturer without any cleaning or inspection of the pilot unit.

Pulp Mill Recovery Boiler BACT Evaluation. Lead engineer for BACT analysis for control of SO2, NOx, CO, TNMHC, TRS and particulate emissions from the proposed addition of a new recovery furnace at a kraft pulp mill in Washington. A "top down" approach was used to evaluate potential control technologies for each of the pollutants considered in the evaluation.

Air Pollution Control Equipment Design Specification Development. Lead engineer for the development of detailed Navy design specifications for wet scrubbers and mist eliminators. Design specifications were based on field performance evaluations conducted at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and Jacksonville Naval Air Station. This work was performed for the U.S. Navy to provide generic design specifications to assist naval facility engineering divisions with air pollution control equipment selection. Also served as project engineer for the development of Navy design specifications for ESPs and fabric filters.

CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITOR (CEM) PROJECT EXPERIENCE Process Heater CO and NOx CEM Relative Accuracy Testing. Project manager and lead engineer for process heater CO and NOx analyzer relative accuracy test program at petrochemical manufacturing facility. Objective of test program was to demonstrate that performance of onsite CO and NOx CEMs was in compliance with U.S. EPA "Boiler and Industrial Furnace" hazardous waste co-firing regulations. A TECO

105 / 111 105 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 15 of 17

Model 48 CO analyzer and a TECO Model 10 NOx analyzer were utilized during the test program to provide +1 ppm measurement accuracy, and all test data was recorded by an automated data acquisition system. One of the two process heater CEM systems tested failed the initial test due to leaks in the gas conditioning system. Troubleshooting was performed using O2 analyzers, and the leaking component was identified and replaced. This CEM system met all CEM relative accuracy requirements during the subsequent retest.

Performance Audit of NOx and SO2 CEMs at Coal-Fired Power Plant. Lead engineer on system audit and challenge gas performance audit of NOx and SO2 CEMs at a coal-fired power plant in southern Nevada. Dynamic and instrument calibration checks were performed on the CEMs. A detailed visual inspection of the CEM system, from the gas sampling probes at the stack to the CEM sample gas outlet tubing in the CEM trailer, was also conducted. The CEMs passed the dynamic and instrument calibration requirements specified in EPA's Performance Specification Test - 2 (NOx and SO2) alternative relative accuracy requirements.

LATIN AMERICA ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Assessment of operational deficiencies of Camisa pipeline Peru. Project leader of multi-year assessment of root causes of ruptures on Camisea 14-inch natural gas liquids pipeline for non-profit client. Determined that primary causes of hurried construction in difficult and unstable terrain, unstable right-of-way in the jungle sector due to inadequate erosion control practices, and inadequate pipe wall thickness to withstand external lateral forces. Two assessments were developed during the course of the project documenting deficiencies and recommending remedial actions.

Evaluation of U.S.-Mexico Border Region Copper Smelter Compliance with Treaty Obligations Mexico. Project manager and lead engineer to evaluate compliance of U.S. and Mexican border region copper smelters with the SO2 monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Annex IV [Copper Smelters] of the La Paz Environmental Treaty. Identified potential problems with current ambient and stack monitoring practices that could result in underestimating the impact of SO2 emissions from some of these copper smelters. Identified additional source types, including hazardous waste incinerators and power plants, that should be considered for inclusion in the La Paz Treaty process. Development of Air Emission Limits for ICE Cogeneration Plant - Panamá. Lead engineer assisting U.S. cogeneration plant developer to permit an ICE cogeneration plant at a hotel/casino complex in Panama. Recommended the use of modified draft World Bank NOx and PM limits for ICE power plants. The modification consisted of adding a thermal efficiency factor adjustment to the draft World Bank NOx and PM limits. These proposed ICE emission limits are currently being reviewed by Panamanian environmental authorities. Mercury Emissions Inventory for Stationary Sources in Northern Mexico. Project manager and lead engineer to estimate mercury emissions from stationary sources in Northern Mexico. Major potential sources of mercury emissions include solid- and liquid-fueled power plants, cement kilns co-firing hazardous waste, and non-ferrous metal smelters. Emission estimates were provided for approximately eighty of these sources located in Northern Mexico. Coordinated efforts of two Mexican subcontractors, located in Mexico City and Hermosillo, to obtain process throughput data for each source included in the inventory. Translation of U.S. EPA Scrap Tire Combustion Emissions Estimation Document Mexico. Evaluated the Translated a U.S. EPA scrap tire combustion emissions estimation document from English to Spanish for use by Latin American environmental professionals. Environmental Audit of Aluminum Production Facilities Venezuela. Evaluated the capabilities of existing air, wastewater and solid/hazardous waste control systems used by the aluminum industry in eastern Venezuela. This industry will be privatized in the near future. Estimated the cost to bring these control systems into compliance with air, wastewater and solid/hazardous waste standards recently promulgated in

106 / 111 106 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 16 of 17

Venezuela. Also served as technical translator for team of U.S. environmental engineers involved in the due diligence assessment. Assessment of Environmental Improvement Projects Chile and Peru. Evaluated potential air, water, soil remediation and waste recycling projects in Lima, Peru and Santiago, Chile for feasibility study funding by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. Project required onsite interaction with in-country decisionmakers (in Spanish). Projects recommended for feasibility study funding included: 1) an air quality technical support project for the Santiago, Chile region, and 2) soil remediation/metals recovery projects at two copper mine/smelter sites in Peru. Air Pollution Control Training Course Mexico. Conducted two-day Spanish language air quality training course for environmental managers of assembly plants in Mexicali, Mexico. Spanish-language course manual prepared by Powers Engineering. Practical laboratory included training in use of combustion gas analyzer, flame ionization detector (FID), photoionization detector (PID), and occupational sampling. Stationary Source Emissions Inventory Mexico. Developed a comprehensive air emissions inventory for stationary sources in Nogales, Sonora. This project requires frequent interaction with Mexican state and federal environmental authorities. The principal Powers Engineering subcontractor on this project is a Mexican firm located in Hermosillo, Sonora. VOC Measurement Program Mexico. Performed a comprehensive volatile organic compound (VOC) measurements program at a health products fabrication plant in Mexicali, Mexico. An FID and PID were used to quantify VOCs from five processes at the facility. Occupational exposures were also measured. Worker exposure levels were above allowable levels at several points in the main assembly area.

Fluent in Spanish. Studied at the Universidad de Michoacán in Morelia, Mexico, 1993, and at the Colegio de España in Salamanca, Spain, 1987-88. Have lectured (in Spanish) on air monitoring and control equipment at the Instituto Tecnológico de Tijuana. Maintain contact with Comisión Federal de Electricidad engineers responsible for operation of wind and geothermal power plants in Mexico, and am comfortable operating in the Mexican business environment.

PUBLICATIONS

Bill Powers, “More Distributed Solar Means Fewer New Combustion Turbines,” Natural Gas & Electricity Journal, Vol. 29, Number 2, September 2012, pp. 17-20.

Bill Powers, “Federal Government Betting on Wrong Solar Horse,” Natural Gas & Electricity Journal, Vol. 27, Number 5, December 2010,

Bill Powers, “Today’s California Renewable Energy Strategy—Maximize Complexity and Expense,” Natural Gas & Electricity Journal, Vol. 27, Number 2, September 2010, pp. 19-26.

Bill Powers, “Environmental Problem Solving Itself Rapidly Through Lower Gas Costs,” Natural Gas & Electricity Journal, Vol. 26, Number 4, November 2009, pp. 9-14.

Bill Powers, “PV Pulling Ahead, but Why Pay Transmission Costs?” Natural Gas & Electricity Journal, Vol. 26, Number 3, October 2009, pp. 19-22.

Bill Powers, “Unused Turbines, Ample Gas Supply, and PV to Solve RPS Issues,” Natural Gas & Electricity Journal, Vol. 26, Number 2, September 2009, pp. 1-7.

Bill Powers, “CEC Cancels Gas-Fed Peaker, Suggesting Rooftop Photovoltaic Equally Cost-Effective,” Natural Gas & Electricity Journal, Vol. 26, Number 1, August 2009, pp. 8-13.

107 / 111 107 / 111

Powers Engineering, 2021 17 of 17

Bill Powers, “San Diego Smart Energy 2020 – The 21st Century Alternative,” San Diego, October 2007.

Bill Powers, “Energy, the Environment, and the California – Baja California Border Region,” Electricity Journal, Vol. 18, Issue 6, July 2005, pp. 77-84.

W.E. Powers, "Peak and Annual Average Energy Efficiency Penalty of Optimized Air-Cooled Condenser on 515 MW Fossil Fuel-Fired Utility Boiler," presented at California Energy Commission/Electric Power Research Institute Advanced Cooling Technologies Symposium, Sacramento, California, June 2005.

W.E. Powers, R. Wydrum, P. Morris, "Design and Performance of Optimized Air-Cooled Condenser at Crockett Cogeneration Plant," presented at EPA Symposium on Technologies for Protecting Aquatic Organisms from Cooling Water Intake Structures, Washington, DC, May 2003.

P. Pai, D. Niemi, W.E. Powers, “A North American Anthropogenic Inventory of Mercury Emissions,” presented at Air & Waste Management Association Annual Conference in Salt Lake City, UT, June 2000. P.J. Blau and W.E. Powers, "Control of Hazardous Air Emissions from Secondary Aluminum Casting Furnace Operations Through a Combination of: Upstream Pollution Prevention Measures, Process Modifications and End-of-Pipe Controls," presented at 1997 AWMA/EPA Emerging Solutions to VOC & Air Toxics Control Conference, San Diego, CA, February 1997. W.E. Powers, et. al., "Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission Inventory for Stationary Sources in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico ," presented at 1995 AWMA/EPA Emissions Inventory Specialty Conference, RTP, NC, October 1995. W.E. Powers, "Develop of a Parametric Emissions Monitoring System to Predict NOx Emissions from Industrial Gas Turbines," presented at 1995 AWMA Golden West Chapter Air Pollution Control Specialty Conference, Ventura, California, March 1995. W. E. Powers, et. al., "Retrofit Control Options for Particulate Emissions from Magnesium Sulfite Recovery Boilers," presented at 1992 TAPPI Envr. Conference, April 1992. Published in TAPPI Journal, July 1992.

S. S. Parmar, M. Short, W. E. Powers, "Determination of Total Gaseous Hydrocarbon Emissions from an Aluminum Rolling Mill Using Methods 25, 25A, and an Oxidation Technique," presented at U.S. EPA Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants Conference, May 1992.

N. Meeks, W. E. Powers, "Air Toxics Emissions from Gas-Fired Internal Combustion Engines," presented at AIChE Summer Meeting, August 1990.

W. E. Powers, "Air Pollution Control of Plating Shop Processes," presented at 7th AES/EPA Conference on Pollution Control in the Electroplating Industry, January 1986. Published in Plating and Surface Finishing magazine, July 1986.

H. M. Davenport, W. E. Powers, "Affect of Low Cost Modifications on the Performance of an Undersized Electrostatic Precipitator," presented at 79th Air Pollution Control Association Conference, June 1986.

AWARDS Engineer of the Year, 1991 – ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Camarillo Engineer of the Year, 1986 – Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme Productivity Excellence Award, 1985 – U. S. Department of Defense

PATENTS Sedimentation Chamber for Sizing Acid Mist, Navy Case Number 70094

108 / 111 108 / 111

Attachment #10

Julia Severson Resume

109 / 111 109 / 111

Julia Severson (858) 922-1133 │ julia@protectourcommunities.org

www.linkedin.com/in/juliaseverson . EDUCATION . University of Redlands 2018 - 2020 Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy with minor in Spanish GPA: 3.781 Advanced Seminar in Philosophy Thesis: “Language, Representationalism, and Non-Human Animals’ Beliefs” Concentration in biomedical ethics, environmental ethics, and animal welfare ethics and policy. Dean’s List Fall 2018, Spring 2019, Spring 2020 Omicron Delta Kappa National Leadership Honor Society March 2019 – December 2020 National Society of Leadership and Success September 2020 – December 2020

University of Oregon 2016 – 2018 GPA: 3.55 Dean’s List Winter 2018

. EMPLOYMENT . Protect Our Communities Foundation June 2020 - Present Advocate San Diego, CA Actively participate in proceedings at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) by compiling data to be

utilized in filings, tracking deadlines and relevant rules, and attending workshops and Commission meetings. Assists participation in legal proceedings and court cases by conducting legal research, reviewing legal citations,

managing documents and exhibits, and providing support with filings. Write research memos to inform team members’ work in CPUC proceedings. Analyze decisions and fulfill intervenor compensation requests to be submitted to the CPUC. Provide public comment at City Council, Committee, and Board meetings.

. LEGAL EXPERIENCE . Summer Pre-Law Intern June 2019 – August 2019 Center for Public Interest Law (CPIL) University of San Diego School of Law Researched and analyzed proposed and approved state legislation that affected the Bureau for Private

Postsecondary Education. Drafted a report on Vertical Enforcement practices in the Medical Board of California for CPIL attorneys to

utilize in correspondence by tracking changes in legislation and enforcement statistics and analyzing enforcement program summaries presented in board and committee meetings.

Edited the California Regulatory Law Reporter and other pieces for publication. Drafted a report on the Department of Business Oversight for law students that work with the center about

proposed legislation that affected them and what they regulate. Researched grants for the CPIL office to apply for to gain funds for advocacy efforts.

Summer Intern June 2018 - August 2018 Aguirre & Severson LLP San Diego, CA Conducted legal research of cases and statute using LexisNexis. Collaborated with lawyers and clerks about the significance of research findings to aid in the development of

motions. Prepared files and evidence from fact investigation for use at hearings and client meetings. Developed a new website platform for the firm in order to promote easier methods of contact and expose relevant

media.

110 / 111 110 / 111

. PUBLICATIONS . Editorial Assistant Robert C. Fellmeth, R. (Spring 2019). California Regulatory Law Reporter. San Diego, CA. Center for Public

Interest Law University of San Diego School of Law. . LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE . Associated Students of the University of Redlands (ASUR) Redlands, CA Judicial Chair April 2019 – April 2020 Lead the Judicial Council to actively interpret and revise the ASUR constitution to ensure it best represented the

student body. Acted as the Director of the Clubs and Organizations Advisory Board (COAB) to guide the creation of new

organizations, present and approve new club constitutions with ASUR Senate, and regulate funds distributed to all clubs and organizations on campus.

Organized annual presidential and senatorial elections through advertising, facilitating a presidential debate, hosting information sessions, and implementing an online voting platform for all University students.

Organized the annual COAB Awards and the bi-annual event for clubs regarding funding, programming, and site management.

Constructed the first ASUR Judicial Chair Annual Report and made it available to the University student body, faculty, and administration.

Presidential Cabinet Member April 2019 – April 2020 Actively worked alongside the ASUR President Elect and other cabinet members to resolve issues on campus

regarding diversity, inclusion, sustainability, and more. Advised the ASUR President on financial, academic, social, and administrative issues. Represented student interests to University administration, faculty, and staff regarding academics, social life,

student life, and University policies. Planned campus projects that have included renovations of spaces, investments into mental health initiatives, and

sustainable practices with the University food provider. Judicial Council Member September 2018 - March 2019 Reviewed and revised the Presidential and Senatorial Elections Code of the ASUR Constitution with regards to

advertising and engagement. Assisted in the presidential debate by developing debate topics and setting up the event. Advertised presidential and senatorial elections through tabling and media distribution.

Club and Organization Advisory Board (COAB) Member September 2018 - March 2019 Aided in organizing the annual COAB Awards Banquet to honor students, advisors, and organizations through

researching and selecting qualified candidates across the campus. Proposed revisions of prospective organizations’ constitutions with the Judicial Chair and other members of

COAB. Reviewed applications for club funding and voted on clubs and organizations’ operational budgets.

University of Redlands Women’s Club Soccer September 2018 – April 2020 Head of Fundraising, Defender Coordinated fundraisers with vendors to raise funds for uniforms, referees, and travel. Advertised fundraisers to the community on and off campus to attract the greatest possible attendance.

. SKILLS . Moderate proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking Spanish. Proficient in Microsoft Office, including Excel, PowerPoint, and Word. Have public speaking experience in front of crowds exceeding 200 attendees. Strong writer of informational and persuasive pieces.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

111 / 111Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

111 / 111