Energy Facilities Siting Board

1. Energy Facilities Siting Board Plant Revitalization Task Force November 19, 2012

2. Energy Facilities Siting Board:Purpose and Structure • Statutory purpose: Review proposed energy facilities so as to provide a reliable energy supply with minimum impact on environment at the lowest possible cost. G.L. c. 164, §69H • EFSB has siting jurisdiction over power plants, transmission lines, intrastate gas pipelines, and large natural gas & oil storage facilities • EFSB is a nine-member board chaired by the Secretary of EEA; also includes DPU (2), EOHED, DEP, DOER, and three public members (with labor, environmental, and energy expertise) - Statutory authority specified in G.L. c. 164 §§69G - 69S - Regulations specified in 980 CMR 1.00-12.00 - EFSB is administratively part of the Dept. of Public Utilities (DPU) • DPU Siting Division is staff to the Siting Board and the DPU Commission. Adjudicates cases; prepares decisions for review

3. Energy Facilities Siting Board:Generation Facility Reviews • A “Generation facility” is defined as “ … any generating unit designed for or capable of operating at a gross capacity of 100 megawatts or more, including associated buildings, ancillary structures, transmission and pipeline interconnections that are not otherwise facilities, and fuel storage facilities.” • Prior to electric restructuring, Board reviewed the need for, cost of, alternative sites and environmental impacts of electric generating facilities. Board review is now focused on environmental impacts • To approve a proposal, the Board must find that that environmental impacts and mitigation costs are minimized. G.L. c. 164, §69J ¼ • One year timeline is specified in statute for EFSB cases, but there are no penalties or “constructive approval” if not met. • Possible outcomes: approval (with conditions); denial, or withdrawn request

4. Energy Facilities Siting Board:Standards of Review • Decisions based on record evidence, statutory requirements, and case precedents • Decisions incorporate existing regulatory requirements and guidelines of federal, state, and local authorities; the Board can also impose more stringent requirements to achieve necessary impact mitigation • Siting decisions also apply “policies of the Commonwealth” specifically enacted to guide the EFSB: • Environmental justice policy of EEA • Cumulative health impact considerations • Climate change policies

5. Footprint Power Salem Harbor:Overview of Petition to EFSB • Petition filed with EFSB on August 3, 2012; seeking approval to construct a 692 MW natural gas-fired, quick-start combined-cycle generating facility pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §69J ¼ • Footprint acquired entire 65-acre site where existing Salem Harbor Units are located • Beginning June 1, 2014, Footprint proposes to demolish and remove all above-ground features of existing units; Footprint states that it will remediate the entire 65-acre site • New facility including all ancillary structures will occupy 16 acres of site; National Grid Substation on site

6. EFSB Footprint Proceeding:Current Status • Pre-adjudicatory phase is complete (Public notice, public comment hearing in Salem, site visit, opportunity to become intervenor/party in the adjudicatory phase) • EFSB process is now in the adjudicatory phase • First discovery responses due later this week, then more written interrogatories from Staff and other Parties • Evidentiary hearings later; EFSB decision must be based on record evidence • Today’s presentation is based on the Petition & site visit; issues based on discovery to date and prior experience with generation cases

7. EFSB Footprint Proceeding:Procedural Considerations • Parties are free to raise new issues or argue whether information being sought is relevant, in need of confidential treatment, or within the scope of the proceeding • Board must be open-minded and impartial throughout the proceeding; it decides issues as they are raised and in the written decision • At this time, Staff (and Board) cannot opine on merits of Petition or state their views about the record

8. EFSB Footprint Proceeding:Intervenors • City of Salem • Salem State University • Historic Derby Street Neighborhood Assn./Point Neighborhood Assn. • North Shore Community Development Coalition • IBEW Local 326 • Salem Alliance for the Environment (SAFE) • Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) • National Grid

9. EFSB Footprint Proceeding:Description of Site Use/Remediation • Footprint states that remaining 49-acres are available for development and it is in discussions with City of Salem about potential future uses; suggests that final development decisions may not be made until after EFSB decision • Site characterization process has begun; expected to be complete within 2 months • Until that process is complete, the extent of site contamination and potential clean-up approach and costs is unclear

10. EFSB Footprint Proceeding:Remediation Considerations • Likely that remediation of the entire site will be addressed in the EFSB proceeding, although final development plans still evolving • As part of conditions, the Siting Board may define the degree or extent of any necessary cleanup, consistent with -- or perhaps even exceeding – established DEP requirements. • Future use of the site and remediation standards are closely linked • Possible that other 49 acres could offer opportunities for additional impact mitigation beyond remediation. For example, moving the location of certain buildings or pieces of equipment, or providing additional screening within the 65-acre site, could potentially reduce noise or visual impacts to the surrounding community.

11. EFSB Footprint Proceeding:Major Areas of Review (so far) • Noise • Visual impacts • Air emissions • Water use, wetlands and Chapter 91 • Solid and hazardous waste; demolition & site remediation • Environmental justice • Cumulative health impacts • Zoning and local approvals • Electric and magnetic field (EMF) impacts • Construction and traffic impacts • Safety • Community impact mitigation • Other

12. EFSB Footprint Proceeding:Next Steps • Continuing discovery by the EFSB staff and intervenors • Procedural schedule calls for evidentiary hearings last week of February • EFSB will be attending Plant Revitalization Task Force meetings to update participants • Findings of the Task Force expected to precede issuance of EFSB decision in late Summer 2013 Questions?