(1) A brief, summary description of the alternative site and related facility proposals, including the general location of each site or potential transmission corridor; the type, size, and capacity of the generating or transmission facilities; fuel, water supply, pollution control systems and other general characteristics. The description shall indicate precisely what sites and related facilities the applicant proposes to have approved by the commission.

(2) A proposed time schedule outlining the applicant's estimates for obtaining regulatory approvals, starting and completing construction, initial start up, and full-scale operation of the proposed facilities.

(1) A summary description outlining the reasons why the applicant believes that new or additional facilities should be added to the applicant's electrical system, indicating whether the facilities are being proposed to meet projected capacity or energy deficits, to displace existing units scheduled for retirement, to meet requirements for additional reserves, or other justification for proposing new or additional capacity.

(2) A table showing the expected capacity and energy levels, adopted by the commission pursuant to Section 25309 of the Public Resources Code, for the general period in which the facilities are proposed. Where appropriate, include a table of, and explanation for, any adjustments to the adopted capacity and energy levels which are necessary to derive the applicant's service area requirements.

(3) A discussion indicating the amount or percentage of reserve capacity which the applicant believes is appropriate, including a description of the controlling criterion for determining the reserve margin, a discussion of why the applicant believes the indicated reserve margin is appropriate, and a discussion of how the indicated margin was derived.

(4) A table and summary description of the generating resources and electricity supplies which are likely to be available to the applicant's service area in the general time period proposed for initial operation of the facilities, including an explicit identification of transfer capabilities from outside the service area, and a summary of facilities operated or proposed by the applicant or by other entities within the service area.

(5) A discussion identifying and explaining any major uncertainties, such as delays in the construction or licensing of major planned resources or uncertainty with respect to contractual arrangements for transfer capabilities, which may affect the need for the proposed facilities.

(6) Tables showing the capacity and energy balances, projected deficits or excesses, and resulting reserve margins which reflect the applicant's expectations for electricity supply and demand within the general period for which the facilities are proposed.

(7) If the need is based in whole or in part on the proposed retirement or displacement of existing facilities, a discussion identifying such facilities and briefly explaining the reasons for their proposed retirement or displacement.

(8) If the need is based on factors other than projected capacity or energy deficits (taking into account reserve requirements), a discussion of the basis for the need and its conformance with the forecast assessment and any other criteria for determining need adopted in the most recent biennial report. If the need is based upon contingency planning, an explicit discussion of the nature and impact of the possible contingencies and their likelihood, an indication of when it may be determined whether the contingencies will or will not occur, and a schedule showing the earliest (or latest, if appropriate) date on which the proposed facilities should be operating given the possible contingencies.

(1) A discussion of the reasons why the principal generating technology was chosen from among those technologies most recently determined as commercially available by the commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 25309(j). Indicate the effect, if any, of the following factors on the selection of the facility type: comparative economics, comparative reliability, comparative health and safety aspects or environmental impacts, availability of appropriate sizes, comparative operating flexibility, lead time for approval and construction, and any other factor considered important by the applicant in making the selection.

(2) A discussion of the reasons for selecting the size of the facilities proposed in the notice. Indicate the effect, if any, of the following factors on the selection of facility size: need for capacity or energy; comparative reliability of different sizes, overall impact on system reliability, or reserve requirements of different sizes; comparative safety of different sizes; economies or diseconomies of scale associated with different sizes; commercial availability of different sizes; and other factors considered important by the applicant in the selection.

(3) A summary description of the preliminary design of the proposed facilities, specifically including the power generation, cooling, pollution control, fuel handling, water supply and treatment, safety, emergency, and auxiliary systems; and a summary of the proposed methods of construction and operation.

(1) For any technology not previously found to be commercially available as most recently determined by the commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 25309(j), a discussion of the reasons why the applicant expects the technology to be available in the time period proposed for the facility.

(2) A discussion of the economic comparability of the proposed facilities based on information available to the applicant on comparative costs of commercially available generating technologies.

(3) A discussion of any significant unresolved technical, environmental, or health and safety or other issues, affecting the ability to use the proposed technologies at each of the sites, which have been identified in the most recent biennial report, or which are otherwise known to the applicant. The discussion should include or refer to any information which the applicant believes is relevant to resolving the question or issues identified.

(4) A summary discussion explaining (with reference to parts (1) through (3) above) why the applicant believes the facilities proposed should be found acceptable.

(1) A description in general terms of any new or additional transmission facilities, powerlines, substations, switchyards, or other transmission equipment, whether or not within the exclusive permit authority of the commission, which the applicant believes will be required to carry electrical power from the proposed power plant at each of the sites presented in the notice to the principal load centers to be served by the new power plant. The information should include all potential corridors under consideration, approximate lengths of each corridor being considered, and a summary of the preliminary estimates of the costs of lines, stations and other equipment that are being considered.

(2) A discussion of the analyses, load-flow studies, or other considerations which the applicant believes justify the need for the additional transmission equipment under consideration, the relative merits of the alternative principal points of junction with the existing transmission system being considered, and the relative merits of the alternative capacity or voltage levels being considered for the proposed power lines.

(3) A discussion of the extent to which the consideration of alternative corridors or proposed capacity and voltage levels has taken or will take into account the future transmission needs created by additional generating facilities planned by the applicant or any other entity proposing generating facilities in the same general area.

(4) A discussion summarizing the principal advantages and disadvantages to the environment of each of the alternative transmission proposals under consideration by the applicant. The discussion shall extend only to the functional point of delivery of the power to the interconnected system, and should include an identification of areas in the vicinity of the proposed corridors where important social, aesthetic, historical, or recreational resources, or scarce, unique, or specially protected resources (including archaeological sites, endangered species, unique recreational areas, and protected biological areas) may be adversely affected. The discussion should indicate the measures being considered by the applicant to avoid or mitigate the principal adverse effects identified in the discussion.

(1) A preliminary description of any fuels, emissions (except for air quality emissions), wastes, or other toxic or hazardous substances associated with the proposed facility which may have an effect on safety and reliability; a discussion of the principal adverse effects of such substances on safety and reliability; and a discussion of the measures proposed or being considered by the applicant to ensure the safe handling, control, storage, removal, or disposal of such substances.

(2) A discussion of the likelihood that the measures described in part (1) will be able to comply with existing health and safety standards.

(3) A report which describes the seismic, other natural hazards, and man-made hazards associated with each of the proposed sites, discusses the degree to which such hazards could cause secondary hazards at the proposed facilities (e.g., fuel spills, structural collapse, increased emissions including radiological, explosions, etc.) and discusses the alternative levels of design being considered to safeguard safe and reliable operation in light of such hazards. The report should describe special design features being considered to protect against seismic and other potential natural hazards and indicate the relative degrees of safety from such hazards that can be achieved by the design features being considered.

(4) A description of the principal emergency systems and safety precautions proposed or being considered by the applicant, and a discussion of the nature of the hazards for which the systems or precautions are provided. The description need not duplicate the discussion of special design features in part (3) or measures discussed in other parts.

(5) If a nuclear power plant is proposed:

(6) A description of the principal adverse effects on safety and reliability associated with other aspects of the fuel cycle, and which are directly traceable to the proposed facilities.

(1) A discussion indicating the degree of reliability which the applicant believes the proposed facilities are capable of achieving. The discussion should include an estimate of the expected annual capacity factor for the initial operating years of the facilities and an estimate of the average annual capacity factor over the expected life of the facilities. Estimated capacity factors may be supported by information on forced outage rates and capacity factors actually experienced by comparable facilities elsewhere (if any) or by a discussion of other factors which support the applicant's expectations on reliability where data from actual operating experience of comparable facilities is not readily available. For purposes of this subsection, “comparable facilities” means facilities whose principal generating technology and fuel type, generating capacity, and mode of operation is similar to those of the proposed facilities. The discussion should indicate the basis for reliability expectations for any new or innovative pollution control, cooling water or other principal systems, even where the reliability of the principal generating technology is considered proven, and should identify any major uncertainties or unproven aspects of such new or innovative systems.

(2) An assessment of the long-term availability of the fuel or fuels proposed for the facilities, at prices consistent with those assumed in subsection (h), and a discussion of the principal uncertainties in providing assurance of a reliable supply of fuel over the expected operating life of the facility. If the facilities are capable of using multiple fuels, the extent of such fuel flexibility should be discussed, along with its impact on long-term reliability. The applicant may discuss the relative merits, costs, and difficulties in initially designing the facility to accept multiple fuels versus modifying the facility for such purposes at a later time.

(3) A discussion of the probable effect of the proposed facilities, including transmission facilities, on the overall reliability of the applicant's service system. The discussion should indicate the effect of the alternative plant sizes or transmission voltage levels being considered on the applicant's determination of “loss of load probability,” “largest contingency,” or any other reliability criterion or determinant of needed reserve margins.

(1) A discussion of the financial requirements for constructing and operating the proposed facilities, and a table summarizing capital requirements and operating expenses, and their principal components. The discussion should indicate and explain the basis for any assumed escalation rates and costs of capital, fuel, or other principal components. Significant cost differences between alternative sites and facilities should be identified.

(2) A summary of the cost of the installed generating capacity (expressed in $/KW) and of the cost of supplying energy at the busbar (expressed in ¢H /Kwhr.); a list of principal cost components, an explanation of the source or derivation of each, and the calculations used to arrive at the summary costs above; a discussion of any major uncertainties in the cost figures used or assumptions relied upon.

(3) A discussion of proposed methods for financing the proposal.

(1) The location of each site and related facility proposed in the notice on a location map and described by sections, range, township, and county. The map should also indicate the various transmission corridors under consideration by the applicant and the location of other transmission facilities and equipment being considered and identified pursuant to subsection (e)(1).

(2) Photographic representations adequately depicting the visual appearance of each power plant site and its immediate surroundings.

(3) A brief description of the applicant's legal interest in each power plant site proposed.

(4) A description, including artists drawings, of the proposed location of facilities and structures on each site.

(1) A brief description of the environmental setting for each site, a summary discussion of the general suitability of each alternative site to accommodate the facilities proposed in the notice, and a summary of the principal environmental, economic, and technological advantages and disadvantages of each alternative site.

(2) A preliminary statement of the principal environmental impacts of the proposed facilities at each site on areas of special environmental concern, including, but not limited to areas prohibited as power plant sites pursuant to Section 25527 of the Public Resources Code, areas designated by the Coastal Commission or BCDC or within their jurisdiction, areas identified for potential wilderness designation or other protective designation, and agricultural areas; and a preliminary statement of the principal environmental impacts on biological resources, including especially rare and endangered species, livestock, and crops.

(3) A preliminary statement of the principal environmental impacts on human health which may result from air and water pollutants discharged from the facility, toxic and other hazardous materials stored or used at the site, wastes created by the facility, or any other substance associated with the facility. The statement shall include all regulated pollutants and substances; for nonregulated pollutants and substances, the statement shall include a summary of any findings and conclusions made by the commission in any generic assessment of the health effects of such substances.

(4) A preliminary discussion of the principal impacts on human resources, including major impacts on aesthetic, historical, cultural, archaeological, and recreational resources.

(5) A discussion of the principal social and economic impacts of constructing and operating the facilities at each site on the surrounding communities. The discussion should include anticipated impacts on public institutions such as schools, and on public services, housing, employment and other community resources during construction, and the impact on tax bases and other community aspects after construction.

(6) A preliminary discussion indicating the extent to which various measures being considered by the applicant are likely to mitigate the impacts identified under parts (2) through (5).

(7) A general discussion of the compatibility of the proposed facilities with present and expected land uses at each site, including conformity with any long-range land use plans adopted by any federal, state, local, or regional planning agency. The discussion should identify the need, if any, for variances at any of the sites, or any measures that would be necessary to make the proposals conform with permitted land uses.

(8) A description of the principal and alternative (if any) sources of water proposed or being considered by the applicant for power plant cooling and other purposes; a description of the quality of water being considered and a general description of any treatment processes which may be necessary to make the water suitable for cooling or other uses at the site; a description of total amounts of such water that will be required each year and on any given day; a general description of any conveyance systems that will be required to carry the water from its source to the site and return it to a disposal or discharge area; the location and identity of any area being considered for disposal or discharge of water from the site; and a description of any treatment processes that may be necessary to make the water acceptable for discharge or disposal. The applicant should also describe any other major water facilities, including coolant outfalls, ponds, lakes, or towers, that may be associated with the proposed facilities, and discuss the principal impacts, if any, of these facilities on the physical and human environment.

(9) A land use map which indicates noise sensitive receptors or groups of receptors in the vicinity of the proposed site and related facilities, including anticipated receptors based on future land uses identifiable from public documents at the time of submission.

(1) A list of federal, state, regional, and local agencies and their standards, ordinances, or laws, including long-range land use plans adopted by the state or by any local or regional planning agency, that are applicable to each site and related facility, including those which would be applicable but for the exclusive authority of the commission to certify sites and related facilities. The list should include a brief description of the applicability of such standards, ordinances, laws, or plans for each agency, and citations for each.

(2) To the extent not discussed in previous sections, discussion of the likelihood of the conformity of the proposed facilities with remaining laws, regulations, ordinances and standards of particular importance in assessing the acceptability of the sites and related facilities. Indicate those areas for which conformity with applicable standards cannot be determined at this time and provide a preliminary schedule for the resolution of such remaining issues.

(1) A project description including typical fuel type and characteristics (BTU content, maximum sulfur and ash content), design capacity, proposed air emission control technologies, stack parameters (assumed height, diameter, exhaust velocity and temperature) and operational characteristics (heat rate, expected maximum annual and daily capacity factor). This information may be based upon typical data for a facility of the proposed type and design.

(2) A description of cooling systems, including approximate drift rate, water flow and water quality (TDS content).

(3) A projection of facility-related emissions from the stack and combustion system, from cooling towers and from associated fuel and other material handling, delivery and storage systems to the extent that the applicable new source review rule requires attributing these sources to the proposed project. The emissions discussion should include a discussion of the basis of the estimate, such as test results, manufacturers' estimates, extrapolations and all assumptions made.

(4) A list of all applicable air quality rules, regulations, standards and laws.

(5) A statement, including the reasons therefor, of what the applicant considers best available control technology as defined in the applicable district's new source review rule.

(6) Existing baseline air quality data for all regulated pollutants affected by the proposed facility including concentrations of pollutants, an extrapolation of that data to the proposed site, and a comparison of the extrapolated data with all applicable ambient air quality standards. This discussion should include a description of the source of the data, the method used to derive the data and the basis for any extrapolations made to the proposed site.

(7) Existing meteorological data including wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, relative humidity, stability and mixing height, and existing upper air data; and a discussion of the extent to which the data are typical conditions at the proposed site. This description should include a discussion of the source of the data and the method used to derive the data.

(8) A worst case air quality analysis for each proposed site and related facility to determine whether the plant may cause or contribute to a violation of each applicable ambient air quality standard. Such analysis shall include a description of the methodology employed and the basis for the conclusions reached, and shall consider topography, meteorology and contributions from other sources in the area.

(9) A discussion of the emission offset strategy or any other method of complying with the applicable new source review rule. The emission offset strategy shall be designed to show whether there are sufficient offsets available (contracts are not required). Offset categories (e.g. dry cleaners, degreasers) and an inventory of potential reductions may be used unless most of the potential offsets come from a very small number of sources. In the latter case, the offset sources should be more specifically identified. Potential offsets may be aggregated by geographic location as appropriate under the applicable rule. The offset discussion should also include a brief description of the emissions controls to be used for each offset category and should account for applicable rules requiring emission reductions. In the event there is no emissions inventory available from the ARB or from the applicable local district, the applicant may propose an alternative method for complying with this requirement.

(10) Based upon worst case data for analysis for short-term averaging times and typical data for analysis for annual averaging times, discussion of whether the proposed facility will be within PSD Class I or Class II increments.