    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    Coasta
           I Zone 1                                                                                           61974,
     Information
       Center

                                                                                             AlNlb, IL
                                            Lim
                                                    Aw

                                                                           17-7 -

                                                                              lot

                                                              0'@
        te7

                                                                         W4
                                                                    'W   lp"

                                                                    fri- &

                                                               L

               HD
               9502                   CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
                U53
               E67
               1974                 '-'CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

                                                     ENERGY

                                 Part. of a Study of the California Coastal Zone

                                  Summary of the Report, "Energy", Compiled by

                                             State Commission Staff

                           The California Coastal Zone Conservation..Act of 1972, (prop-
                           osition 20 at the election of November  7, 1972) created the
                           California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and six Re-
                           gional Commissions, and directed them to prepare a comprehen-
                           sive, enforceable plan for the preservation, protectiong re-
                           storation, and enhancement of the coastal zone.

                           This is one of a series of informational reports designed to
                           help the Central Coast Regional Commission carry out this
                           responsibility. Using these reports, the Regional Commission
                           will develop recommendations to the California Coastal Zone
                           Conservation Commission on statewide policy to this Region.
                           These recommendations, together with the recommendations of
                           the other five Regional Commissions, will be the basic mate-
                           rials the State Commission:.will use in planning for the fu-
                           ture of the California Coast,

                           Each report focuses on a specific aspect of the Coastal Zone.
                           The relationship of this report to others in the series may
                           be seen at a glance on the next page.

                           This summary report wa*s prepared by the Commission staff to
                           focus on the most important Coastal planning considerations
                           suggested by the more extensive technic 'al report. Possible
                           planning recommendations based on this.report are listed at
                           the end* These are only tentative, since the conclusions
                           based on this report will need to be considered later, after
                           other reports on different aspect's of the Coastal Zone have
                           been completed.

                           Cover Photo   Jack McDowell
                                                                   Property of CSC Librazy

          r4-
                                       CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION

                                                 SANTA CRUZ

                                               OCTOBER 11 1974
                                                                   (1, Q. [@FPAPTMENT Or COMM
                                                                      I                    ERCE NOAA
                                                                   COAS1AL SF`YICI"@@ CENTER
                                                                   2234 SoLfIH HOF-:@ON AVENUE
                                                                   CHARLESTON    SC 29405-2413

                                     Background Reports for Planning-the

                                       Future of the California Coast

                                             Marine Environment

                                                  Geology

                                          Coastal Land Environment

                                           Appearance and Design

                                                 Recreation

                                                   Energy

                                               Transportation

                                           Intensity of Development

                                        Powers, F'unding, and Government

                                              CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL   COMMISSION

                                                    Charles B. Kramer
                                                              Chairman

                                                  .,Grace McCarthy
                                                             'Vice  Chairman

                                                    Philip W, Harry
                                                              State  Representa ive

                                                    Rath R. Andresen

                                                    Julian Camacho

                                                    Warren Church
                                                    Gerald F. Day
                                                    B.  Joseph Dolan
                                                    Victoria Gibson
                                                    Samuel H. Halsted,.
                                                    James Hughes
                                                    Frank J6 Lodato

                                                    Herbert Rhodes

                                                    Norman A. Walters

                                                    Ilene Weinreb
                                                    Lorette M. Wood

                                                    Edward Y. Brown
                                                              Executive  Director

                         This summary is abstracted from an extensive  technical report cover-
                     ing statewide and regional issues. Copies of the technical report are
                     available for review at the Commission office or at the following public
                     and school libraries:

                     San Jose State University                   University of  California
                     Main Library                                Santa Cruz
                     125 - 7th Street                            Library
                     San Jose, California 95112                  Santa Cruz, CalifornJa

                     Cabrillo College                            Monterey Peninsula College,
                     Library                                     Library
                     6500 Soquel Drive                           980 Fremont
                     Aptos, California                           Monterey, California

                     Hartnell College                            Skyline College
                     Library                                     Library
                     156 Homestead Avenue                        3300 College Drive
                     Salinas, California                         San Bruno, California

                     San Mateo County Library                    Monterey  City Library
                     Central Branch                              M4dison & Pacific Streets
                     25 Tower Road                               Monterey,  California
                     Belmont, California

                     Santa Cruz Public Library                   Monterey County Public Library
                     Main Branch                                .26 Central Avenue
                     224 Church Street                           Salinas, California

                     Half Moon.Bay Branch                        Pacific Grove Library
                        Public Library                           Central Avenue & Fountain Avenue
                     620 Correas Avenue                          Pacific Grove, California
                     Half Moon Bay, California

                     Emerson Branch Library                      Watsonville Public Library
                     Elm Avenue & Imperial                       310 Union
                     Seaside, California                         Watsonville, California

                     Daly City Public Library                    Pacifica Branch Public Library
                     Westlake Main Branch                        Hi-Iton Way & Palmetto Avenue
                     275 Southgate Avenue.                       Pacifica, California
                     Daly City, California

                     Harrison Memorial Public Libraz"j
                     Ocean Avenue & Lincoln
                     Carmel, California

                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                              Page

                        introduction'                                                           I
                        California Within the Larger Energy Picture                             2
                        United States in the World Energy-Situation                             3
                        National Energy Situation                                               4
                        Future Energy Sources for the Nation                                    8
                        California's Energy Situation                                          12
                             California's Energy Demand                                        14
                             California's Present Energy Supply                                16
                             Resources for California's Future Energy                          17
                        The Environmental Effects of California's Future Energy
                           Sources                                                             24
                             Petroleum Exploration and Production                              24
                             Siting Tanker Terminals                                           27
                             Siting of Refineries                                              28
                             Siting Liquefied Natural Gas Tanker Terminal and                  30
                                Onshore Facilities
                             Siting Power Plants                                               31
                             Alternative Energy Sources                                        35
                        The Question of Life-Styles                                            38
                        Conclusion                                                             39

                                                   J

                              - Tankers plying coastal waters and harbors-

                              - Offshore platf orms and islands pumping oil-

                              - Power plasts looming large.on rural and urban
                                waterfronts-

                              - Refineries working around the clock, surrounded
                                by industrial plants-

                              - Automobiles, factori-es, homes ... using oil, gas,
                                electricity-

                          Co nsumption of energy is part of every facet of modern living.

                     Energy aids in the growing of food, and the delivery of water from

                     distant locations; it warms and cools buildings, runs industrial plants,

                     provides fuel for transportation, and allows Californians to enjoy all

                     the amenities they have come to expect. At the same time, the pro-.

                     duction and use of energy often upsets our environment by causing air

                     and water pollution, disfiguring.landscapes, and pre-empting other

                     valuable land uses. This report is concerned with the effects of energy

                     production and use upon the California coast.

                         Massive energy production facilities impact upon the coast in

                     many ways, not only by the visual impact of power plants and oil

                     drilling equipment but alsq/'by oil spills, air pollution from refineries,

                     disposal of cooling waters, and the pre-emption of coastal land that

                     might be used for other development, agriculture, or recreation, among

                     other possible uses. Yet to come are new power plants, tanker ter-

                     minals, liquefied natural gas facilities, and oil drilling installations

                     throughout the California coastal zone.

                         Much of the State's oil and gas production comes from the coastal

                     zone, and there are increasing demands to drill offshore in State and

                      Fe deral  water.s. Most of California's electrical generating facilities,

                      both fossil fuel powered@and nuclear power plants, are located in the

                      coastal zone.. Tankers,tie,.up-.@at ports along the coast;.onshore and

                      offshore terminals for mammoth  tankers are being advocated. And

                      because most Californians live  in, or frequently visit, areas of the

                      coast, most of the.State's energy consumption occurs.in this strip of

                      land and ocean running the full length of the State.

                           Future plans for the conservation and development of the coastal

                      zone, therefore, will dramatically affect the energy demand and supply

                      for the entire State, and to some extent, other parts of the nation.

                           This report attempts to trace the main threads of the complex

                      energy situation and to develop strategies for minimizing adverse effects

                      upon the coastal zone and society. It was prepared from   a myriad of

                      sources, including national and State government studies, private

                      industry projections and statistics, technical publications, and public

                      testimony of many energy experts and concerned groups. The.evolution

                      of this report has been influenced by information and comments offered

                      by representatives of State and Federal agencies, oil companies, utility

                      .companies, environmental groups, technical experts, interest groups,

                      and university professors.,/@

                      California Within the- LargerEnergy Picture

                           Once the United States was self-sufficient in its use of energy.

                      In fact, until 1950 the U.S. was a net exporter of energy (primarily

                      oil and gas). The rapidly increasing use of energy in all facets of

                      life and the downturn in growth of domestic energy production have

                      reversed the nationalltrend,  however, to a point where the U.S. now

                      imports approximately  15 percent of its energy, and 35 percent of its

                                                          -2-

                      oil. This trend of dependency of foreign sources shows few signs of

                      slackening, and will undoubtedly have large repercussions on Califor-

                      nia's and the nation's.supply and sources of energy. For example, the

                      price of Arabian1crude oil affects the price of gasoline in Los Angeles

                      and the entire Statet and the. availability of imported Canadian natural

                      gas influences gas and electricity prices in nearly all communities.

                      The energy demands placed on California, and on its coastal zone, are

                      greatly affected by foreign, U.S., and out-of-State energy trends.

                      United States in the World Enerp_y Situation

                           The United States and the world are increasing their.consumption

                      of energy faster than supply can be increased. As the large industri-

                      alized powers in the world have become more and more dependent on

                      foreign energy sources (primarily oil), the interrelationships among

                      world energy supply sources have increased. Power plants in California,

                      Japan, France, and other nations depend on foreign l0W-5Ulfur fuel oil

                      and natural gas. Individual refineries, tankers, and pipelines service

                      the needs of many nations, the United States included. All of these

                      complex factors blend into a world energy situation of great inter-

                      dependence among nations.
                           The United States onc,e consumed an incredible 47 percent of the

                      world's total energy; that figure has fallen-over the past 50 years to

                      33 percent, still a disproportionate share for a country with only

                      6 percent of the world's population.

                           Despite its domination of world consumption, the United States

                      finds itself increasingly vulnerable to the economic and political

                      decisions of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC),

                      which controls approximately 85 percent of the world's oil reserves

                                                         -3-

                       outside-of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe', and the People's Republic
                       of China. The "Arab oil boycott" affected all aspects of American energy

                       consumption an d pr2mpted President Nixon's call for "Project Independence"

                       for supplying the nation's energy.

                            Many authorities doubt the desirability or practicality of attempting

                       a total American self-sufficiency in energy because of the many signif-

                       icant environmental impacts that would occur. Even those authorities,

                       however, recognize that the production rates, prices, and availability

                       of foreign energy are governed by the policies of the overseas nations,

                       who can quickly cut off or reduce the exports to the U.S. for economic

                       or political reasons. In any case,   the U.S. will undoubtedly continue

                       to be dependent on foreign energy sources in some significant degree for

                       decades.

                            Besides seeking new supplies, the U.S. is beginning to examine

                       ways to reduce its rate of consuming the scarce energy resources of

                       the world. Developing nations of the world, representing the bulk of

                       the world's population, presumably should eventually enjoy something

                       approaching the developed nations' standard of living. The magnitude of,

                       the potential world energy demand compared to known energy resources,

                       and.the cumulative environmental impact of greatly increased energy

                       production should be  reason enough for the United States and other

                       developed nations to  slow their energy consumption growth rates. Such

                       a slowdown will require greater energy efficiency, better technology,

                       and changed attitudes concerning wasteful energy consumption within all

                       facets of U.S. life.

                       National Enerp_V@Situation

                            Use of energy in the United States has been outgrowing our ability

                       to provide it. United States energy consumption increased at an average
                                                           -4-

                      yearly rate of 3.5 percent-betweenl-1950 and 1965, and has-jumped to an

                      alarming 5.0 percent annually since -1965@ By contrast@,@ the population

                      growth'rate is slowing down to almost,zero.
                                           V
                            The dramatic. increases in energy consumption'resulte'd-from many

                      factorsi. Artificially low crude oiland.natural gas. prices, kept low

                      by inexpensive foreign petroleum and manipulation of foreign oil import

                      quotas, by the Federal Power Commission"s lid.on'the pricesof natural

                      gas (at the wellhead).for intei@state.use, and by-Federal, control on

                      fuel price increases since.1971, encouraged all sectors of the United

                      States to use more fuel.. Energy was a bargain in the 1960s.compared

                      'to other necessary.purchases; in fact, the overall, price of,energy

                     .,declined relative:to the.prices of other goods and@.services@ Natural

                      gas and electricity rate structures for pricing encouraged-energy con-

                      sumption by charging lowerlunit prices per British.Thermal- Unit-(BTU)

                      for larger users than for smaller users. Tax incentives on large capi-

                      tal investments promoted the construction and use of.energy-intensive

                      equipment for industry. Rapid expansion of the highway and road systems,

                      inconjuction with sprawling suburbs, caused a.tremend=5 increase in

                     ..the daily use and casual consumption of gasoline. Domestic tax,credits

                      for American oil companies operating overseas, and monetary incentives

                     'frequently'offered by other countries prompted the cheap production and

                      -refining of petroleum abroad. All these complex factors,,and@more,

                      combined to offer America an artificially low price on,energy, and

                      encouraged its increasing-use.

                           While the country used energy at   a soaring rate, domestic  produc-

                      .tion increased only 3 percent annually@between 1950 and.1970,  and has

                      since fallen to virtually'no yearly increase at all. ,In the case of oil

                                                         -5-

                       this was  caused by discouraging economic prospects for domestic produc-
                       tion relative to  cheaper foreign operations. In the case of natural

                       gas the artificially low wellhead prices imposed by the Federal Power
                       Commission (FPC) discouraged domestic natural gas exploration and

                       recovery. Therefore, the increased domestic consmmption of,energy has

                       been supplied from overseas sources, principally foreign oil and

                       Canadian gas. In 1973 the United States used 75,600 trillion BTUs of

                       energy, but only 62,000 trillion BTUs were produced domestically.

                            Not only has the use of energy significantly increased, but also
                       the make-up of the U.S.-"'energy supply mix!' has dramatically changed.

                       In 1950, the last year of domestic energy self-sufficiency, the coun-

                       try's energy mix was 39 percent petroleum, 38 percent coal, 18 percent

                       natural gas, and 5 percent hydropower. As of 1973 our annual energy

                       Consumption had increased     times since 1950, and the national energy

                       mix had become 46 percent petroleum, 31 percent natural gas, a greatly

                       reduced 18 percent coalt 4 percent hydropower, and I percent nuclear.

                            These major energy switches resulted from many factors. Consump-

                       tion of oil and,gas increased primarily because of low prices, great

                       flexibility of use for many fuel purposes, ease of transport through

                       pipelines and tankers, and relatively clean-burning characteristics

                       compared to coal. Coal Is percentage of the U.S. energy mix fell dras-

                       tically because of its higher per unit costs, stricter safety regula-

                       tions for shaft mines, environmental regulations on types of mining,

                       and the greater "dirtiness" from its burning. Hydroelectric energy

                       generally maintained its overall percentage of the energy mix, although

                       there were relatively few additional hydroelectric sites developed

                       between 1950 and  1970. Finally, nuclear.power emerged as a potential

                                                          -6-

                      major source of electricity generation. All of these factors and more

                      combined to create.energy switches toward use of petroleum and natural

                      gas, and.away from consumption of coal,

                           All four.major sectors of the economy-industrial, transportationt

                      residentialv and commercial-experienced large increases in energy

                      consumption. Industry uses approximately 40 percent of the nation's

                      total energy  package, and is  also the least efficient in its use of

                      energy. The   U.S. is a mobile society, so transportation consumes about

                      25 percent of  the nation's energy. The 4.3 average    annual growth rate

                      of energy consumption in transportation since 1960 reflects not only

                      the increased  use of transportationt but  also  the move toward less

                      efficient modes  of transportation (e.g. car and   planes instead  of

                      buses and trains). Residential use     of energy increased 50 percent

                      during the 1960s, and now accounts for   approximately 20  percent of the

                      nation's energy  consumption. Finally,   the commercial sector of the

                      economy uses only about 15 percent of   the nation's energy, but   has

                      grown at the high annual rate of 5.4 percent since.1960.

                           Cutting across  all four sectors of the economy was the increased

                      use of electricity. Electricity must be distinguished from other sources

                      of energy because it is an  intermediate energy source   produced from the

                      basic fuels such'as  oil or coal. Consumption of electricity grew at an

                      annual rate of 7.4 percent  and more than doubled in the 1960s, and

                      electricity production now  consumes over 25 percent of all primary fuels.

                      used (oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium).   I'Electricity is a highly

                      flexi-ble form of energy and can be used in all sectors of the economy.

                      However, although all energy consumption is somewhat inefficient (i.e.

                      effectively uses only a portion of the possible ener      potential.of a
                                                                             gy

                      fuel), electricity is produced by consuming another    fuel and is therefore

                                                            -7-

                        even less efficient for uses where it replaces direct fuel use (e.g.,

                        use of electricity in the'home for heating is only one-half as efficient
                        as use of natural ga*s for that purpose)., Electricity generation using

                        steam wastes approx:Lmately 65 percent.of the primary fuel used.

                        Future Enerp-v Sources for the Nation

                             As uncomfortable  as the U.S. reliance  on foreign  oil sources is,

                        many authorities doubt  our ability to ever  again reach a   self-suffi-

                        ciency in oil and natural gas. Most of the    easy-to-find,  easy-to-

                        extract oil and gas have already been produced, and new efforts to find

                        domestic petroleum involve drilling in very   deep, very expensive wells,

                        and looking to offshore drilling   on the continental.shelf lands.

                             The sophisticated technology   and large investments needed for

                        offshore production are now becoming available with higher oil prices.,

                        Offshore production already accounts for approximately 20 percent of

                        our domestic production, and  that figure may goup sharply in the future.

                        The slowdown in offshore drilling following the 1969 Santa Barbara oil

                        spill is now being reversed, as more companies accept the increased

                       ,economic risks, the increased costs in meeting environmental regulations,
                        and the possible penalties,@or an oil spill in exchange for the chance

                        at drilling for large new offshore reservoirs.

                              President Nixon has called for 10 million acres of outer continental

                        shelf lands to be, leased every year for the next five years, and oil

                        companies hope to eventually produce in offshore    California waters, in

                        the Gulf of Mexico, along  the Atlantic coast, and   in the North Slope

                        and Cook Inlet areas of Alaska. Any major offshore production, if

                        approved, will not significantly affect U.S. domestic oil and gas sup-

                        plies until the late 1970s  and early 1980s. Construction of the Alaskan

                        pipeline has also now begun and is expected to   come on line  by 1978.

                                                            -8-

                             If the U.S. should be fortunate enough to increase its oil and gas

                       production, refinery   capacity must be rapidly     expanded.  Termination in

                       late,1973 of.the Oil   Import  Program  (in existence since   1959) and

                       increased prices for   petroleum products stimulated proposals     for refinery

                       expansion,in this country, but it    is unclear if the   increased capacity

                       will satisfy the   total refinery need. Desulfurization refining      capacity

                       (removing sulfur   from some crude oil)   must also be  expanded  in order to

                       provide oil to meet the air pollution     standards for  power plants. In

                       the  last five years, U.S.   refinery capacity has   steadily fallen behind

                       refined product needs.

                             The domestic natural   gas supply situation is   even more critical

                       than  that for oil. The Federal Power Commission      (FPC) recently  raised
                       natural.gas prices, which sho@ld result in slowly      increasing dome  stic

                       production. However, in the near     term, shortages   will.be common.

                             Major interstate distributor  s have curtai-led  deliveries, and recent

                       regulations of the FPC have effectively forced large gas customers, such

                       as public utilities and heavy industry, to switch      almost entirely to

                       scarce fuel oil. As a result, increasingly large       quantities'of  low-

                       sulfur fuel oil must be imported in order to satisfy their fuel       needs

                       while meeting  air quali.ty,!rstandards. Meanwhile the search for    new

                       sources of supply has resulted    in projects to produce gas    from coal and

                       solid wastes and to import it    as liquefied natural   gas from  countries

                       around theworld. For example, there are two competing        proposals for

                       bringing gas from the Alaskan North Slope and Mackenzie      Delta to the

                       U.S.: a large network of gas pipelines from Alaska       through Alberta,

                       Canada, and then to the Midwest and Pacific Northwest; or a       natural gas

                       pipeline parallel   to the oil pipeline from   the North Slope   south to

                                                             -9-

                      Valdez, where it. would be liquefied and shipped in large liquefied

                      natural gas (LNG) carriers south to California.

                           Coal, the use of which has declined 55 percent since petroleum

                      took over as the nation's largest source of energy in 1950, comprises

                      80 percent of our remaining domestic energy reserves. Several major

                      developments are well unde rway that will result in increased use of coal.

                      Low-sulfur coal is being mined in large quantity in the western states

                      and being shipped by train to the Midwest and East Coast for electric

                      utility use. And devices for cleaning up the exhaust gases from

                      burning coal may eventually permit its increased use. New technologies

                      for producing sulfur-free synthetic petroleum from coal will' be in com-

                      mercial use within the next five to ten years.

                           Over the past 20 years,  nuclear power has received by far the most

                      attention from the Federal government as the most significant long-term

                      future source of energy. Although nuclear electrical generating plants

                      produced only 1 percent of the nation's energy in 1973, the Atomic

                      .Energy Commission presently projects that nuclear energy will supply

                      about one-half of all electricity consumption in the year 2000. Nuclear

                      .technology produces no air pollution, relatively little noise pollution,

                      and does not consume scarce  supplies of gas and oil. Despite the opti-

                      mistic projectionof nuclear energy supply, however, a number of sig-

                      nificant environmental and public health problems attend nuclear power

                      plant development, including nuclear recctor safety, waste heat disposal,

                      radioactive wastes management, and theft of nuclear fuels, all of which

                      have provoked a new debate over the merits of nuclear fission energy.

                           The relative, scarcity of oil and.gas, the environmental and eco-

                      nomic problems inherent in extracting, transporting, refining, and

                      burning fossil fuels, and the problems surrounding nuclear power have

                      recently provoked a hard look at alternative energy sources for a new

                      national energy mix. These sources include traditional hydropower,

                      .improved nuclear technologies (which may eventually include nuclear

                      fusion), geothermal, solar, solid wastes, wind, and tidal.

                           Because of the uncertainties surrounding the development of new

                      energy technologies, most projections of future energy supply rely

                      heavily on.mer6, extension of the trends of the past, and too often

                      ignore or minimize the possible future contributions of alternative

                      sources of energy. These projections in turn inevitably discourage

                      attempts to research and develop energy alternatives, while promoting

                      further development of those sources already forecast.

                           The energy scare brought on by the late 1973-1974  shortage of oil

                      and natural gas helped to challenge the conventional projections of

                      supply mix, however, and has generated a new interest in development

                      of alternative energy sources. For example, the Federal government

                      budgets for development of new sources have increased, though they are

                      still a small fraction of the commitment to nuclear fission. Proposed

                      Federal legislation would establish a new agency called the Energy

                      'Research and Development Administration, primarily to support the new

                      development of energy sourc es and improve energy efficiency.

                          The U.S. energy situation is  changing constantly, defying both

                      accurate forecasting and absolute control through rigid energy policies.

                      There are many choices-some still  not even identified-to be made in

                      the coming years that will affect the entire nation's energy mix.

                      Decisions made at the national level that will affect the future

                      energy mix-decisions as to how much,research money should be given to

                      solar energy, for example, or how many leases' should be granted for oil

                       drilling in Federal waters, or allocating oil and refined products-

                       will substantially determine the long-range energy options of the indi-

                       vidual. states.

                            However, many of the crucial decisions regarding energy supply will

                       be made by the states themselves; this is particularly true for a large

                       and complex state.like California. Although California's future energy

                       supply mix and the implications of that supply mix for the coastal zone

                       will evolve within the framework of national energy policies, many of

                       the specific decisions regarding energy source priorities, the location

                       of energy facilities, and environmental regulations will be made by
                       t.he State itself, on the basis of it's own economic goals, its.own

                       environmental policies, and its own energy needs.

                       California's Ener gy Situation

                            California is already confronting many difficult energy problems;

                       but problems requiring still tougher decisions-decisions that will

                       particularly affect the coastal zone-will increase during the coming

                       years. The State Lands Commission has lifted the drilling moratorium

                       on offshore petroleum operations from existing platforms. Such drilling

                       is now to be approved on a I-ease-by-lease basis. This will lead quickly

                       to thorny questions of if, when, and how new offshore platforms and

                       drilling should be permitted. Electric utility companies will continue

                       to propose expanded or new fossil fuel and nuclear power plants on

                       sites within the coastal zone. Oil company efforts are presently under-

                       way for new or expanded refineries, tanker terminals, and liquefied

                       natural gas (LNG) facilities along the coast. In.addition, there are

                       many promising research projects into the potential of such energy

                       sources as geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind, all of which

                       could capitalize on California's own diverse natural resources.

                                                         -12-

                            Decisions on such complex energy issues should ideally be made

                      primarily by  .a single State energy agency responsible for planning for

                      overall energydevelopment and conservation for California. The,

                      recently established Energy.Resources Conservation and Development Com-

                      mission, to begin operation'in January 1975, is a significant step in

                      that direction though it still lacks authority oversupply issues.

                      relating to oil.and natural   gas. In pAssing the legislation     enacting

                      the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission,     the Cali-

                      fornia Legislature declared that    11the.,present rapid rate of growth in

                      demand for electric energy is in part due    to wasteful, uneconomic,

                      inefficient,.and  unnecessary uses of power.and a continuation of this

                      trend will result in serious depletion or    irreversible commitment of

                      energy, land  and water  resources, and potential threats to the State's

                      environmental quality."

                           The Commission is   responsible for  future siting of  power plants,

                      for instituting  comprehensive energy   conservation policies and programs

                      (e.g. labeling electrical appliances    with their energy efficiencies),

                      for forecasting  and assessing energy   demands and supplies, and for

                     .instituting an accelerated program of research and development for

                      ,energy,forms and technologies. The Commission will have no siting or

                      regulatory authority in petroleum matters, however2 which leaves these

                      matters in the hands of a confusing and sometimes conflicting array of

                      agencies. Offshore drilling proposals, tanker terminals, LNG facilities,

                      and refineries all warrant an integrated approach to deterrnining the

                      relative needs for the facilities and their optimal locations. In all

                      cases, the constant objective of energy development should be the uise

                      and efficient ealoitation and u3e of resources while ensuring maximum

                      pr tection of the environment.

                                                          -13-

                            When a proposal is made for offshore oil exploration'and production,

                       for a power plant on the coastline, or for new or expanded refineries

                       or tanker terminals4*for example, the need for the additional energy

                       should first be deteminedo Only after analysis of California demand

                       and supply has shown that there is such a,need should the question of

                       finding an environmentally acceptable site be addressed. Thus an

                       understanding'. of Califoniia's energy demand and supply is essential for

                       planning for the coastal zone.

                            1.  California's Energy Demand

                            The growth in California's demand for energy has roughly paralleled

                       the national trend. The State experienced  a 5 percent annual increase
                       in the use of energy between 1968 and 1973, which if continued would

                       result in a doubling of consumption every 15 years.  During the same

                       time period, the in-State production of energy dropped. This created

                       a need for more and more imports, and precipitated new energy supply

                       problems.

                            In several wayst California's energy demand is different from the

                       nation's. California consumes more energy for transportation and less

                       for industr y than the natioh as a whole; California lacks in-State

                       coal resources and, in any event, air quality regulations prevent the

                       direct use of coal for industrial and power plant boilers. As.a result,

                       approximately 90 perc ent of the State's energy demand was satisfied by

                       oil and natural gas-well over the 75 percent accounted for by oil and

                       natural gas in the nation.

                            Recent statistics on energy use are surfacing that indicate that

                       fuel scarcity and increased prices have slightly depressed demand in

                       Califcrnia. Gasoline and electricity consumption have been generally

                                                         -14-

                       down from-the.corresponding months of last year. Several studies now

                       indicate that energy demand is somewhat flexible and depends on prices,

                       i.e. that there is some "price elasticity" to energy demand. Energy

                       nhortages combined with increasing prices can be expected, therefore,

                       to partially discourage consumption.

                            Energy demand studies completed in 1973 by the Resources Agency of

                       California and the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) resulted in high

                       forecasts of future demand. Both forecasts, however, were based pri-

                       marily on assumed continuation of past and present energy use, and

                       were completed before.the late 1973-1974 energy crunch and the conser-

                       vation awareness'it generated. They do not acknowledge the potential

                       for significant demand reductions as a result of energy conservation

                       practices and increased prices, and they minimize the role of alterna-

                       ti-ve sources in California's future energy mix.

                            The most realistic energy projections to appearto date.are those

                       included in the recent Rand Corporation study. The Rand projections

                       take into account the impact of energy price increases and resulting

                       reduction in demand. The Rand Case 2 scenario results in a 30 percent

                       lower demand for electricity in the year 2000 than does the projection

                       of the California Public Utilities Commission.

                            Other developments that can further reduce California's future

                       energy dEmand are conservation programs, moreefficient use of energy,

                       increased use of mass transit, more compact communities, and large-

                       scale recycling. Energy consumption can be further reduced, and supplies

                       somewhat expanded, by de-regulating the price of crude oil,.by allowing
                       the price of natural gas to rise, and by restructuring the electricity

                       rate structure to show consideration of the concepts of marginal cost

                                                         -15-

                       and peak loadpricing. These pricing changes would increase t   he

                       incentive for.new production while depressing demand, because of the

                       higher prices to energy users. To reduce demand for energy-producing

                       facilities in the coastal zone and the entire State, the Energy

                       Resources Conservation and Development Commission should institute

                       widespread energy conservation programs and public information cam-

                       paigns on the controversial subject of energy.

                            2. California's Present Energy Lmly

                            The growth in supply of energy from in-State sources has deteri-

                       orated from the time.when California was a net exporter of energy to

                       the point where in November 1973, California was importing 57 percent

                       of its total energy. The imported sources were foreign crude oil and

                       refined products, and crude oil from Alaska and the Rocky Mountain states

                       (40 percent of daily demand); natural gas from the southwestern United

                       States and Canada.(75 percent of daily demand); electricity from the

                       Pacific Northwest and the Southwest; and nuclear fuel from the Rocky

                       Mountain states. These energy sources arrived in California by pipe-

                       lines, tankers, trucks, and electricity transmission lines. Transpor-

                       tation or transmission, pi7ocessing, and actual consumption of all of

                       these out-of-State sources affects the   coastal zone. This large

                       dependence on outside energy sources gives no immediate signs of

                       changing.

                            Petroleum.represents 90 percent of the State's energy supply.

                       Hydroelectric power has slightly decreased its supply of the State's

                       energy to approximately 9 percent of the total.- Geothermal energy and

                       coal have both slightly increased their roles in the State's energy

                       picture, each to roughly I percent. A fortunate winter of heavy

                                                          -16-

                     precipitation An 1973-74 will provide unusually large water supplies for
                     Calif ornial shydroelectric facilities. California's nuclear capacity

                     is also expanding slowly and additions to the San Onofre power plant

                     will expand the State's generating capacity in a few years, if the    new

                     generating units  come on line. Electricity generated from primary

                     energy sources now accounts for 25 percent of the   State's-total  energy

                     consumption.

                          Even with higher consumer energy prices, successful conservation

                     practices, improved technology allowing increased energy efficiencies,

                     and changes in energy-use patterns and life-styles, the State's 'con-

                     sumption of energy will increase to some degree.

                          3. Resources'for California's Future Enerp_7

                          Most projections of national and State energy supplies    estimate

                     that crude oil will be the largest single source ofenergy,    at least

                     through 1985. California has produced a total of 16.3 billion barrels

                     to date', but the entire State still has -estimated future,recoverable'

                     oil resources of 59.4 bill-ion barrels. Over 32 billion barrels of this

                     oil remains in onshore reservoirs, 20 billion barrels in Federal outer

                     continental shelf lands, and 6.4 billion barrels in offshore State

                     reservoirs. k1though these numbers are large, any increase in.Cali-

                     fornia's oil production will result only from large investments for

                     stimulating production from existing wells, from drilling for new oil,

                     and from improved technology that will increase.the overall recovery of

                     oil from reservoirs. Drilling for new oil, and oil fieldoproduction in

                     general, have been declining for five years, partially because of the

                     drilling moratorium on State offshore lands. However, the..,increased

                     prices of oil, in addition to renewed efforts at offshore drilling and

                                                         -17-

                      a new emphasis on greater national "energy self-sufficiency", Will

                      probably result in expansion of in-State oil production. Increased pro-

                      duction will only bd? achieved over many years of development, and at

                      greater costs to the oil companies that will surely be passed on to the

                      consumers in theform of even higher prices.

                           The California State Lands Commission has lifted its five-year

                      moratorium on offshore drilling, and is now approving drilling from

                      existing platforms on a lease-by-lease basis. In addition, the U.S.

                      Department of the Interior has called for lease proposals for drilling

                      in 1.6 million acres of offshore continental shelf lands stretching

                      from Ventura County to San Clemente Island. Drilling.on these Federal

                      lands could threaten to deplete reservoirs extending into adjacent

                      State petroleum resource sanctuaries (large areas near the shore where

                      State law forbids oil drilling forenvironmental and resource conser-

                      vation reasons). This would force California to produce oil from the

                      sanctuaries in order to protect its share of the reservoirs and the

                      substantial revenues from.them.

                           Oil is recovered from wells with varying degrees of efficiency

                      (never is 100 percent of a reservoir fully recoverable). Oil companies

                      and the Division of Oil and Gas insist that California's regulations

                      for oil production are equal to or more strict than those of other

                      states, but a comparison of relevant state statutes,reveals.a wide dis-

                      parity in the regulation of petroleum operations, with California's

                      apparently more lax. Improved regulatory laws would most likely increase

                      the volume of petroleum recovered. For instance, legislation should be

                      enacted, similar to existing laws in Texas and Louisiana, authorizing

                      the Division of Oil and Gas to regulate the production practices of

                                                        -18-

                      individual wells. R@covery efficiency and identification of additional
                      reservoir capacity could be furtheiaided byt  .he California Legislature

                      passing a law requiring the Division of Oil and Gas to gather all

                      exploratory and production date from oil companies, which could,then

                      add to the public pool of knowledge about the extent of reservoirs,

                      and lead to greater understanding of the Statets petroleum resources.

                           Oil needs not met by California's production will be satisfied by

                      imports. Large 'Portions of the Alaskan pipeline flow from the North

                      Slope may come to California by tanker as early as 1978 for refining

                      and consumption. This large volume of oil will drastically reduce the

                      need for California to import petroleum from foreign nations. Should

                      the Alaskan oil be augmented-by increased California production or

                      modest imports from overseas, the State may have a surplus of oil as

                      early as 1979.

                          Even if California can supply all its needs of crude oil, it must

                      be refined in order to be usable. Refinery capacitY increased at a

                      rate equal with product needs during the 19605t but additions have

                      fallen off considerably since then. During the period from 1971 to

                      1973, refinery capacity increased only 40,000 barrels per day-well

                      below the needed expansion'. As a consequence, California has been

                      forced to import more refined produc.ts-since 1971P primarily residual

                      fuel oil for utilities, and has also reduced the State's export of

                      refined products.

                          At present the oil companies have announced plans to expand Cali-

                      fornia's present refinery capacity of 1.8 million barrels per day by

                      an additional 700,000 barrels per day by the end of 1977. At this rate,

                      the refinery needs projected for 1985 (which are probably high because

                                                        -19-

                      they fail to takeinto account reduced product demand caused by higher

                      prices, energy conservation practices, and development of alternative
                      energy sources) will'be satisfied by the end of 1977.  This is being

                      accomplished.by 12 individual projects either expanding existing facil-

                      ities or constructing plants at new sites. Of the 12, only three

                      expansion projects are within the coastal zone, and the largest of

                      them-a 175,000-barrels-per-day expansion of the El Segundo refinery-

                      has already been approved by the Coastal Commission.

                           California presently lacks any desulfurization capacity in its

                      refineries. Air pollution standards permit  only low-sulfur crude oil or

                      desulfurized fuel oil to be burned in power plants. Therefore, the

                      State relies on a steady stream of tankers to provide foreign low-

                      sulfur crude and fuel oil. The  El Segundo refinery expansion will

                      include the first desulfurization capacity for the State. Future

                      refinery capacity increases should maximize use of desulfurization tech-

                      nology in order to reduce the need for foreign imports.

                           California's petroleum demand will continue to require oil arriving

                      in tankers, from Alaska and overseas, though the volume of imports will-

                      undoubtedly fluctuate. No tanker larger than 138,000 deadweight tons

                      (dwt) can be accommodated inexisting California tanker terminals,

                      although this.size Limit can be increased to 150,000 dwt with minor

                      in-harbor dredging. There are several proposals to construct new or

                      expanded tanker facilities in California: Estero Bay, 400,000 dwt limit;

                      Los Angeles, 200,000 dwt limit; and Moss Landing, 130,000 dwt limit.

                      These facilities have been proposed primarily to reduce transportation

                      costs of importing foreign petroleum by allowing si-Lippers to use very

                      large crude carriers (tankers of 200,000-400,000 dwt).

                                                        -20-

                             However, -existing f aci-lities can already accommodate projected 1985

                       import needs. Even the 1985 projections are probably high as a result

                       of  anticipated deman4l growth reduction and expected near-t  erm increased

                       in domestic production from   Alaska and California. Therefore, no new

                       or   substantially expanded tanker terminals    are required until

                       at least  1985.  Existing  facilities can  and should be utilized more

                       efficiently, with   two  or more  companies sharing presently one-company

                       terminals.

                            In  order  to prevent the unnecessary  and environmentally hazardous

                       use of very  large crude  carriers to   ship crude oil to California for

                       transshipment  outside of  the western states, future tanker volumes

                       should be  restricted to  the size  necessary to meet the requirements of

                       the.Fifth  Petroleum Administration for Defense    (PAD V-California,

                       Arizona,  Nevada,  Oregon, Washington,  Alaska, and Hawaii). This may

                       require  oil companies to  exchange crude  oil. volumes instead of using

                       California  as a shipping  center (e.g.  exchange Alaskan oil. to be mar-

                       keted  in the Midwest   for Middle Eastern oil bound for California).

                             Generally, California will continue to    rely heavily on oil for at

                      ,least a decade@ All aspects of    the State's   demand and supply of petro-

                       leum-availability    of crude oil   and  natural gas, refined  products,

                       allocations, and   pricing--will cont inue to be affected ty the'Federal

                       Energy Agency.   The  California Energy Resources Conservation and Devel-

                       opment  Commission will also affect the   dynamics of California's petro-

                       leum demand and  supply as its use fits   into  the State s entir e energy

                       picture.

                            California only produces 25   percent of   its natural gas consumption

                       at present. Though there could    be increased  natural  gas production

                                                           -21-

                        associated with offshore oil production, California's natural gas Will

                        continue to come primarily from out of State: from     the southwestern

                        sta tes, western Car&da, and imports from other countries. There are

                        also serious proposals for constructing facilities within the coastal

                        zone to  receive, store,  and vaporize liquefied natural gas (LNG) trans-

                        ported  in special-ly designed ships from Alaska. and abroad. California

                        presently  has one LNG storage  facility in  San Diego, but there will be

                        substantial new developments to accommodate arriving LNG.      Present pro-
                        posals include siting these   facilities at  Los Angeles/tong  Beach Harbor,

                        Port Hueneme, and Point Conception.

                             Most public, utilities and government agencies  concerned with energy

                        generally agree that the electrical generating capacity at the turn of

                        the century will be over one-half nuclear, one-quarter fossil fuel

                        (principally oil,  natural gas, and coal), one-tenth hydroelectric, and

                        perhaps one-tenth  geothermal.   Such an energy mix would require large

                        increases for the  next  25 years in nuclear power plant capacity, a

                        relatively smaller  increase in the use of fossil fuels    and hydroelectric

                        power, and increased geothermal- capacity. These generally accepted

                        projections, however, apparently minimize the potential contributions

                        of alternative energy sources because of    the inability to plan firmly

                        on their contribution.

                             However, if there  were a strong policy   commitment by government

                        bodies and electric utilities to high levels    of research and develop-

                        went of alternative energy technologies, and    to extensive marketing and

                        public education, then new energy technologies could make a greater

                        contribution to future electrical energy supply than is presently pro-

                        jected. For example, California enjoys    the best  prospects of any state

                        for geothermal energy, po,s se.sses aconsiderable  number of sites for

                                                            -22-

                      pumped hydroelectric  (pumping water back up into reservoirs during

                      periods of low demand  to be available at peak demand times), and has

                      a troublesome quant1ty of solid wastes which could contribute to

                      electrical, energy production. In addition, solar and wind energy could

                      contribute significantly by the turn of the century. It is estimated

                      that up to one half of electrical generation capacity added between now

                      and the year 2000 could be provided by alternative sources of energy.

                           If alternative sources were more fully exploited, dependence upon

                      conventional electricity sources could be greatly reduced. Oil com-

                      panies, electricalutilities, the Public Utilities Commission staff,

                      and other,groups-question the impact of future alternative energy forms

                      and doubt the wisdom of assuming that these energy sources will become

                      abundantly available. The promise of alternative energy sources, however,

                      is only as strong as the institutional and financial commitment to

                      developing them. The new State Energy Commission will,staff and fund

                      programs to research the prospects and recommend development of at

                      least the following alternative energy sources: geothermal, solid

                      wastes, solar, and wind. Projects should'begin immediately to promote

                      Ahe use of solid wastes for electricity generation, an innovation already

                      successfully employed elsewhere in the  U.S.

                           The need for every new facility proposed. for the coastal zone should

                      be examined by the Coastal Commission in cooperation with the Energy

                      Commission even before the environmental effects on the coastal zone are

                      considered. Every proposal for a major energy facility in the coastal
                      zone (e.g@. power plants, offshore petroleum leases, tanker terminals,
                      LNG facilities, refineries) should be balanced against alternative means

                      of providing the amount of energy to be provided by the proposed facility.

                                                        -23-

                       The Environmental Effects of California's Future Energ7 Sources

                            Once a need has been established for greater supplies of energy,

                       energy development projects must be located, designed, and operated

                       in such a 'way that their environmental effects are minimized. Each

                       energy source suffers from particular environmental or safety problems,

                       and must be weighed against other energy sources to determine its rela-,

                       tive desirability.

                            1. Petroleum Exploration  and Production

                            Oil fields, which produce crude oil and natural gas, represent a

                       long-term commitment.of land and resources that maybe partially 11irre-

                       versible or irretrievable" as defined by the California Coastal Zone Con-

                       s.ervation kct. Many thousands of acres in the State-arIe presently

                       utilized for petroleum operations, usually to the exclusion of any other

                       land uses until after the oil field is abandoned.. Some old, oil fields

                       are converted to other,uses. Drilling and production-procedures, whether

                       onshore or offshore, involve risks of oil pollition. However, because

                       of the less familiar and more unpredictable nature of the ocean environ-

                       ment, offshore petroleum activities tend to.be.more hazardous than on

                       land. Considering the.total number of wells drilled in California,

                       there have been remarkably,ifew oil blowouts or spills,'butthe Santa
                       Barbara Channel oil spill of 1969 brought into focus the environmental

                       impacts of offshore drilling.

                            Present containment and recovery equipment for oil spills is

                       reasonably effective in calm sea andmeather conditions (i.e. wave

                       heights below five feet, currents less than one knct   but moderate to

                       heavy conditions will spread an oiLspill despite rigorous application

                       of man's best available technology. If not contained,. spills can spread

                       relatively fast, depending on conditions.

                                                          -24-

                            There are conflicting reports on the ecological effects of oil,

                       spills. Refined products definitely have more severe effects on marine
                       life than crude oil: The effects tend to be more profound as the spill

                       enters areas close to shore, and they are particularly damaging in such

                       sensitive areas as estuaries and marshlands. Although some animal and

                       plant species are particularly vulnerable to oil spills (e.g. many

                       birds, mussels and barnacles, marsh grasses), most populations seem to

                       rebound within months or years after a crude oil spill. There have not

                       been sufficient studies of the sub-lethal and long-term effects of oil

                       spills, particularly as they affect entire ecosystems.   Hydrocarbons

                       are basically poisonous to most forms of life,  although toxicity levels

                       are not always reached.

                            Itis clear.that there are large.economic  losses from oil spills,

                       including damages to personal property associated with commercial

                       fishing, recreational sites, tourist activities, and ocean-related

                       act'
                         ivi     -generally, in addition.to the unwelcome visual impact of oil

                       on the ocean,.on coastal rocks, and on sandy beaches.

                            Since the 1969 spill in the Santa Barbara Channel, the technology

                       for preventing, containing, and recovering oil spills has improved, but

                       the fact remains that onshore petroleum activities are generally le.ss

                       hazardous than offshore operations.

                            If new drilling proposals are approved, both State and Federal

                       offshore production will use.fixed platforms with many wells per plat-

                       form, underwater pipelines to onshore treating and storage facilities,

                       and significant onshore developments. The threat of oil spills, in

                       addition to the various other environmental effects associated with the

                       facilities, should be balanced against the need for increased supplies

                                                        -25-

                       of oil and gas. In order to  reduce the need for new drilling, produc-

                       tion from existing wells, both onshore and offshore, should be encouraged

                       to the maximum.extent possible by de-regulation of oil prices. To

                       reduce the possibility of major new spills like the 1969 event that

                       occurred on Federal leases off Santa Barbara, the Federal government

                       should also be strongly urged to match the State's stringent requirements,

                       which have thus far prevented any significant spills.

                            To the greatest extent possible, offshore production should con-

                       solidate facilities and use submerged production systems to minimize

                       developments within the coastal zone, and preclude any adverse environ-

                       mental or aesthetic impacts.

                            Before any new offshore proposal for drilling is approved, the

                       petroleum company or companies involved should be required to submit

                       long-term plans for development of the lease and related facilities,.

                       so thatthe decisions whether to approve that proposal and others can

                       be made in 'a full long-range planning:context. Applicants should be

                       required to accept strict liability for cleanup costs and demage from

                       oil spills, and to submit a $10 million bond with the State Lands Divi-

                       Sion before drilling, and an additional $1 million bond for each drilled

                       well actually put,into prod-action. Such bonds,would help to ensure

                       that the best safety and spil-I prevention technology are used and that

                       oil.spill contingency plans are effective.

                            Perhaps most importantly, development of offshore petroleum

                       resources must be carefully coordinated between California agencies and

                       the U.S. Department of the,Interior. Federal leasing of outer contin-

                       ental shelf lands beyond State jurisdiction is not presently subject to

                       the approval of any California agencies. Because Federal offshore

                                                         -.26-

                       activities may affect water-quality and marine life, inadvertently

                       deplete some of  the State's reservoirs, pose a greater threat of oil

                       spills, increase  thevaesthetic impact of  more fixed platforms, and lead

                       to significant onshore developments such   as. refineries, tanker terminals,

                       storage tanks, pipelines, and associated   industrial development, appli-

                       cants for Federal offshore leases should   also be required to submit

                       long-term plans of development to   the Department of  the Interior and

                       the Coastal Commission   or its successor agency for  approval.. In order

                       to cope with the  related onshore deve lopment and  environmental degrada-

                       tion that will occur, California should receive    a portion of the revenues

                       from offshore production  in Federal waters.

                            Through careful planning directed at developing    the offshore petro-

                       leum resource only as it  is  clearly needed and  protecting  environmental

                       and ecological values,  petroleum production can be made more efficient,

                       safer, and less visible in the coastal zone.

                            2. Siting Tanker Terminals

                            Because existing tanker terminal capacity    can accommodate projected

                       import needs until at least 1985, new or substantially expanded terminals

                       should be permitted only when it can be conclusively    shown that there is

                       a need for new capacity th@t  cannot be met elsewhere,   that smaller

                       tankers could not feasibly be used, and that the new    facilities will be

                       environmentally less damaging than the existing ones.

                            Eventually (after 1985) California.will need new tanker terminals

                       to accommodate its volume of imported crude oil and refined products.

                       Tankers will undoubtedly be much larger in   ten years than existing

                       tankers and will require deeper water depths at tanker terminals. No

                       California port can accommodate these huge vessels without extensive

                                                           -27-

                       dredging to deepen channels  and berthing areas. As   discussed in the
                       Marine Environment planning  element, however, dredging and filling

                       involves significant adverse effects on marine life and tidal action.

                       Supertankers would also be subjected  to congested ha rbor traffic, with

                       associated risks of  oil spills which affect  nearshore areas far more

                       than offshore deepwat6r areas. Therefore, no future tanker terminals

                       should be permitted'in  existing harbor areas  that would require

                       dredging or be near critical biological  areas.

                            Future tanker terminals  should be sited.in deepwater areas (greater
                       than 80 feet), away from areas of critical   biological concern, and out

                       of vessel traffic lanes* Tanker facilities should be,used by many com-
                       panies (instead of a proliferation of facilities for individual users),

                       be sited as close as possible  to refineries andpower plants to reduce

                       transportation costs, and have ready access to the finest-state-of-the-

                       art equipment for the containment and recovery of oil spills. Tanker

                       owners and tanker terminal operators whould assume strict liability for

                       all.oil spill damages and should be encouraged to use the most modern and

                       safely designed and equipped tankers available. All of these provisions

                       should result in safe tanker importation  of petroleum without.sub-

                       stantial adverse effects on,'the environment.

                            3. Siting of Refineries.

                            California's refineries have  been  sited within or near major market

                       areas (metropolitan centers) in  order to minimize the transportation

                       costs of refined products. Refined products    require a greater variety

                       of transportation modes (i.e.*tanker trucks,   pipelines, dump trucks
                       for asphalt) than crude oil, which leads  to  large transportation systems

                       and costs. Of the State's 34 refineries, 15 are in    the Los Angeles

                                                        -28-

                        area, 6 in the San Francisco Bay area, 9 small to medium-sized refineries

                        in Bakersfield, and 4 at scattered sites. All the Los Angeles and San

                        Francisco refineries receive crude oil from both in-State production

                        and tanker terminal's handling imports. Hence it is important to locate

                        refineries,with concern for proximity to market areas, but also near

                        the sources of crude oil.

                             Cars, buses, trucks,  and other vehicles cause the greatest per-

                        centage of air pollution,in Palifornia,  but refineries also contribute

                        significantly to air pollution. Recent studies have linked refinery

                        hydrocarbon emissions.with risk of lung cancer in areas immediately

                        downwind of refineries. The health-effects data is not conclusive,

                        but there.can be no doubt that refineries significantly contribute to

                        the deterioration of air quality, primarily in metropolitan areas.

                             The Federal Clean Air Act has led to regulations concerning ambient

                        air quality standards affecting critical air basins      e. Los Angeles
                                                                                          C.

                        area, San Francisco Bay area) and "stationary source" emission standards,

                        which affect refineries. Even the new technology of "clean" refineries

                        cannot'meet the hydrocarbon emission levels administered by the Environ-

                        mental Protection Agency and the local California Air Pollution Control

                        Districts (APCDs). As a:Lr  pollution continues to increase from a multi-

                        tude of gasoline-burning vehicles and refinery and industrial sites,

                        More people will suffer adverse health effects and the critical air

                        basins will become smoggier and less livable. The net result will be

                        to force new refineries outside of metropolitan areas.

                             The siting of refineries themselves is-not' dependent on the coastal

                        zone, because their source of crude oil can be provided by pipelines to

                        an inland site. Refineries should be sited in areas in whilch prevailing

                                                            -29@'

                        winds  will disperse emissions away from population areas and particu'

                        larly  sensitive natural areas (e.g. prime agriculturalland).

                              4. Siting Liquefied Natural Gas Tanker Terminal a@id Onshore Facil-.!-
                                 ..1ties'

                              Important new near-term sources of natural gas supply for California

                        include gas produced in southern Alaska, on the Alaskah'North Slope, and

                        in Indonesia. The very.large volumes of gas available can be econom-

                        ically transported in specially designed ships by liquefying the gas
                        at -259 0 F..to reduce its volume. After shipping, the liquefied natu-

                        ral, gas (LNG) is off-loaded at special docking facilities, stored in

                        liquid form in very large tanks,.and changed back into gas in vapori-

                        zation plants, as needed. Facilities and operations for LNG import into

                        California would be located on the coast.

                              LNG import.projects are relatively new to the U.S., two projects

                        having been in o peration on the East Coast since 1969., LNG imports

                        to Japan and Europe, however, have been going on for ten years.

                              The foremost,conc.ern regarding planning for LNG import projects

                        is public safety. ING is difficult to handle because the extremely low

                        temperature at which natural gas is liquefied.creates unique stresses

                        on containment materials and results   in very rapid vaporization in the

                        event of an escape of LNG.-" The vapor  is highly flammable in open air,

                        and in enclosed  spaces mixed with air  in certain proportions, it can

                        explode.

                              Proponents say.that LNG is no,more,hazardous to  handle and store

                        than accepted hydrocarbons such as liquid propane or   gasoline, that

                        the statistical probability ofserious accident is very small, and

                        that the likelihood of an LNG accident affecting people or property off

                        of the plant site is even less. Planning for LNG facilities should,

                                                           -30-

                      however, proceed only under the most rigorous safety standards for

                      equipment design, tanker and onshore facilities operations, fire response

                      capability, and emergency evacuation planning. The most imPortant con-

                      sideration. in LNG site selection should be minimization of exposure of

                      population and property to the potential effects.of an accident of major

                      proportion.

                           LNG facilities may involve a variety of potential adverse environ-

                      mental- impacts.. Dredging may be required to accommodate the 40-foot

                      drafts of LNG  carriers, and to build berthing facilities. At sites on

                      the open coast, pier-and possibly breakwater-construction would be

                      necessary to assure ship safety during off-loading. Where sea water is

                      used in a once-through system to provide heat  for vaporization,  the

                      plant will discharge a cold-water effluent.   Where this ma@ have an

                      adverse impact on marine ecosystems, as in enclos  ed bays or estuaries

                      where dispersion is poor, it should be avoided.

                           LNG facilities are presently proposed for Los Angeles Harbor, Port

                      Hueneme, and Point Conception. Viewed in very broad terms, site selec-

                      tion will involve choosing among developed harbor areas, wl:ere land use

                      and environmental impacts are small but the possible'consequences of

                      accident may be greater, and undeveloped coastal areas, where land use

                      and environmental impacts  'May be significant, but risk to the public

                      is nil.

                           5. Siting Power Plants

                           Power plants for the generation of electrical energy have tradi-

                      tionally been located along the coast to take advantage of the abundant

                      and "free" ocean waters for cooling of the plant, tanker ftel oil trans-

                      port possibilities, and proximity to the major electricity load centers

                      of the State*

                                                        -31-

                           The new State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Com-

                      mission will have responsibility for determining California's need for

                      new power plants. I@ will also make decisions regarding acceptable

                      power plant technologies and coastal versus inland  siting. The Coastal

                      Commission or its successor agency should, however,  retain   concurrent

                      jurisdiction over environmental issues relating to  power plants proposed

                      in the coastal zone, and therefore have the authority to prevent devel-

                      opment of any power plant site that would threaten public health or

                      safety in.the coastal zone, damage  marine life, pre-empt scenic or

                      recreation areas, or otherwise  be inconsistent with the objectives of

                      the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972.

                           When sited in the coastal  zone, both nuclear and fossil fuel power

                      plants create public health and  safety problems, have adverse environ-

                      mental and ecological effects,  and pre-empt other land uses.

                           Nuclear power plants involve hotly debated public health and safety

                      issues. Nuclear plants do not   produce air pollutants, and that is a

                      distinct advantage in California, where air pollution problems are

                      already severe in the most populous air basins. However, a serious

                      ,accident at a nuclear plant resulting in release of radioactive materials

                      could endanger the lives of,..'thousands of people. The risks of such an

                      accident are low but are markedly increased  if nuclear plants are sited

                      in areas of potential seismic activity. Many areas of the California

                      coastline lie in seismic risk areas (see the Geology planning element)

                      and are therefore unsuited to nuclear power plant siting.

                           Many other coastal areas are too close to ekisting   populations  to

                      be suitable for nuclear plants under regulations of the  Atomic Energy

                      Commission. When nuclear power plants are allowed to be sited in the

                                                         -32-

                      coastal zone, adequate emergency evacuation plans should       be devel-

                      oped for nearby populations, and steps must be taken by local govern-

                      ments or by the electric utility to prevent subsequent population influx
                                            d
                      into the area of possible radiation hazard. Nuclear plants also present

                      serious problems of radioactive waste handling, transportation, and

                      storage, and sabotage or theft possibilities.

                           Nuclear plants already operating or inthe process of being con-

                      structed along the   Calif ornia coast utilize "once-through" cooling sys-

                      tems, in which cold   ocean water is  pumped through the,plant to absorb

                      the waste heat, and   then is pumped  again into  the ocean. A once-through

                      cooling system for   a standard-size  nuclear reactor unit  (about 1,000 Mw)

                      circulates large volumes of water    through the plant. Significant quan-

                      tities of marine life are inevitably trapped and killed at the cooling

                      system intake points or drawn into the cooling system, exposed to high

                      temperatures and killed. And the heated water discharge raises local

                      ocean temperatures, further affecting marine life.

                           There are alternatives to once-through cooling systems. Use of

                      closed-cycle evaporative cooling towers, which can be designed to use

                      either fresh water.or sea water, avoids the damage to marine life caused

                      by once-through systems. Cooling towers, however, do not merely circu-

                      late water; they consume water through evaporation. In      California,

                      because fresh water supplies are scarce in    some areas,  some people

                      believe that fresh water should not be used    for waste heat cooling at

                      power plants, and th  at power plants should therefore use ocean waters

                      for cooling. While agricultural and municipal uses      of fresh water

                      should always be guaranteed first priority, a number     of studies conclude

                      that presently available inland fresh water supplies     for California are

                                                            -33-

                       adequate to cool new power plants needed during the next 20 years. In

                       addition, experts now believe that cooling towers     can use re-treated

                       municipal and agric4tural waste waters. These facts, coupled with the

                       impending commercial availability of new lldry4l or   "dry-spray" cooling

                       tower technology which require   negligible water and which substantially

                       reduce water consumption, make   inland power plant siting a reasonable

                       alternative to coastal siting,   particularly if  the utili ties were to

                       assist in defraying the   costs of inland water  reclamation projects.

                            All but three of   the power plants presently in the coastal zone are

                       fossil fuel plants.   These plants do not present the    safety problems of

                       nuclear power plants   in the event   of an accident; and therefore seismic

                       risk is not as significant    afactor  in siting fossil plants. However,

                       fossil fuel plants emit significant    quantities of  oxides of sulfur and

                       nitrogen,  which create air pollution and are a significant public health

                       hazard.  Most fossil fuel plants are    more efficient than nuclear plants

                       and consequently produce less waste    heat per unit of  electricity pro-

                       duced, and require less cooling water.     However, the  consequences to

                       marine life of using once-through cooling systems at     fossil plants are

                      ,also severe.   Because of   the smaller water requirement and the disposal

                       of some waste  heat through.-tall stacks, fossil fuel plants can be cooled

                       with cooling towers and   sited inland with greater ease. Fossil fuel

                       power plants should be des   igned and located to minimize the air pollution

                       hazards to human populations,   minimize or  eliminate  damage to  marine

                       life, and minimize land   use conflicts in the coastal zone.

                            There are very few remaining coastal    sites suitable for power

                       plants, but potential inland   sites-are relatively numerous. Noncoastal

                       areas with sufficient cooling water can    be chosen for power plants away

                       from seismic risk areas and population    centers, thereby removing the

                                                           -34-

                     safety hazard'from cities, the air pollution problems. from dangerously

                     polluted air basins, the potential for adverse impact of once-through

                     cooling systems,on fragile marine ecosystems, and land use.conflicts

                     within the narrow coastal zone. All these considerations make siting

                     at inland locations generally preferable to coastal siting, whenever

                     possible.

                          No new power plant sites or power plant expansions,at existing

                     coastal sites, therefore, should be permitted in the coastal unless no

                     inland sites are available that have adequate cooling water and that

                     are otherwise environmentally acceptable.

                              Alternative Ener@y Sources

                         Hydroelectric generation facilities require huge volumes of water

                     stored behind dams, which involves substantial loss of land by inunda-

                     tion. Dams can also deprive down-river areas of the natural flooding

                     processes that deposit new sediments and continue natural erosion and

                     sand transport to beaches (as outlined in the Coastal Land Environment

                     planning element). However, dams can also provide needed'recrea@ion

                     areas for boating, fishing, etc. The need for future hydroelectric

                     facilities can be reduced byusing pumped. hydroelectric power instead of

                     constructing massive new dam complexes.

                         While geothermal power poses some pollution problems that require

                     careful control, in general it is relatively non-polluting and does

                     not consume scarce fossil fuels. The principal enviornmental concerns

                     about geothermal power center on air pollution from hydrogen sulfide,

                     the classic "rotten egg" smell, the occurrence of land subsidence under

                     depleted reservoirs, the possibility of radioactive radon loakage, and

                     stream pollution from sulfur and soil runoff. Most of the 35 "known

                                                       -35-

                       geothermal resource areas" in California are outside the coastal zone

                       and in unpopulated rural areas.

                            Solar energy iE? inexhaustible in supply, does not involve  consump-

                       tion of fossil fuels, and probably poses the fewest environmental prob-

                       lems of all the major sources of energy. There are major problems with

                       its use, however. Though all of the prime solar collection areas in

                       California are away from the*coastal zone, they would use many square

                       miles of desert or semi-arid land for large commercial solar plants.

                       In addition, solar plants-would require large volumes of cooling water,

                       which could be difficult to obtain in semi-arid areas. However,'the

                       Los Angeles Energy Planning Council is examining the possibility of

                       locating an experimental electricity generation solar plant in the

                       nearby desert.

                            One use for solar energy that is feasible today and that could sig-

                       nificantly reduce natural gas  and electricity consumption is water heating

                       and home heating and cooling. For example, in Florida today, about

                       6o,ooo solar hot water heaters are in use which were installed  in the

                       1930s and 1940s before the advent of all-electric homes. The    principal

                       barriers to the use af  solar energy have been.institutional and economic.

                       With the rise of other fuel  prices, however, it is now economically com-

                       petitive to use solar energy for heating and cooling.

                            Solid wastes have a  large potential as an energy source as well as

                       the advantage of greatly reducing waste disposal problems.   Solid wastes

                       can be burned directly to produce steam for heat and power  or can be con-

                       erted to oil or gas for  a variety of uses. For example, refuse could

                       furnish about 10 percent  of the fuel needed by utilities or serve as a

                       source of gas for residential customers. In other parts of the country

                       wastes are already being used to generate electricity.

                                                          _36-

                         Wind energy facilities offer a romantic.memory out of the past of

                    windmills, but such facilities seem to offer only modest potential as

                    major power plants. Large wind energy facilities would require consid-

                    erable land areas  and have a visual impact. Both of these character-

                    istics probably preclude such facilities in the coastal zone. On the

                    other hand, there is considerable potential for individual windmill

                    units. These could make single buildings or small building clusters

                    nearly energy self-sufficient if used in conjunction with new energy

                    storage techniques presently being developed. This would again reduce

                    overall energy demand for non-renewable fossil fuels and electricity.

                         Tidal.power is enormous and constantly replenishable,   but har-

                    neS3ing it would require massive installations along many miles of the

                    coast, with such minimal energy potential that its development is not

                    warranted.

                         There is also.growing interest  in nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion

                    facilities would present several. public safety hazards in the event of

                    an accident, but 'other environmental effects wouldbe negligible.

                    However, nuclear fusion technology is decades away. Cooling require-

                    ments would be reduced, and land use considerations would allow siting

                    of facilities almost anywhere in the State-most. likely away- from popu-

                    lation centers.

                         New methods to store energy are also  being developed. For example,

                    hydrogen fuel cells are presently planned.for operation in 1978 by the

                    Southern California Edison Company, but widespread commercial use seems

                    decades away. Fuel cells.would requir  e small,land areas and few

                    environmental effects. Storage batteries are also an important method

                    of storing electrical energy,  particularly inconjunction with such

                    new sources of energy as wind  or solar.

                                                       -37-

                       The Question of Life-Styles

                            While the potential for energy   conservation  is significant (we

                       could halve our energy growth rate without affecting our quality of

                       life or economic growth), and the technology to minimize many of the

                       environmental impacts is largely   available, the fundamental issue in

                       "energy and the coastal   zone,, is our way of -life. If we consider  all

                       together the many issues'involved   in meeting continued*energy demand

                       growth-environmental protection,    economic growtht international eco-

                              and political stability,   resource utilization, quality of life-

                       we must confront head-on'the issue of whether life-styles in.California

                       must change  in response to the increasing difficulties of supplying

                       @energy  for consumption at ever-increasing per capita rates.

                            At present, virtually every aspect of life in California is predi-

                       cated on   acheap, plentiful, and unlimited supply of.energy. It is now

                       ,apparent  to many, however,-that although the short-run benefits of.

                       having cheap energy for unbounded indiVidual'use    are..highly visible and

                       very seductive, the longer-run consequences both to collective society

                       and ultimately to individuals are serious,*
                            Alternative'patterns of life designed to'consume    less energy are
                       now being seriously propose@_and seriously received-for the first

                       time. Such proposals should not be unduly alarming. They are based on

                       such ideas  as a society that is services-oriented rather than goods-

                       .oriented; greater attention by industry, government,aand individuals to

                       recycling  of products; new  energy-conserv:Lng patterns of recreation and

                       transportation; new  emphases in ardhitectural design on   comunity living

                       and working; and.perhaps a "reduced pace of life". For     example, we

                       would have to become accustomed to smaller cars and public transportation,

                                                           -38-

                     and to walking more and driving less; we would be slightly cooler in the

                     winter and warmer in the summer; and we would turn off lights as we

                     leave a room and con W e fewer throw-away articles.

                         Such ideas are  aimed at achieving a consciousness about energy that

                     is similar to that for money and a higher quality-of life for all by

                     eliminating some of the many problems associated with today's "good

                     life". They are also ideals that@help to illuminate the idea that

                     sooner or later a point may be reached where we have enough energy,

                     where further annual increase in energy consumption would be minimal.

                     At the same time these proposals could improve the energy income of

                     the poor. Conserving measures such as effective mass transiL and resi-

                     dential. complexes with total energy systems could actually result in

                     better services, lower longm@run energy prices, and a higher standard of

                     living for the poorer income groups. The need for large new energy

                     complexes in the coastal zone would also be substantiallylessened.

                     Conclusion

                         Californials.energy situation is complex. Its impact upon the

                     coastal zone is extensive. A new look at future energy demand, tem-

                     pered by price increases and,conservation practices, can reduce the need

                     for someof the additional' energy generation capacity previously antici-

                     pated. And a fresh and dedicated approach to alternative energy sources

                     can further reduce the impact of energy pro*duction upon the environment.

                     Through a statewide perspective and program for the conservation and

                     supply of energy, the coastal zone can be preserved and Irisely devel-

                     oped while ensuring California an adequate and clean supply of energy.

                                                        -39-

                                           .                     @@
                                           11 3 6668 00001 9432