This section summarizes federal, state, regional, and local regulations related to energy resources and energy use and applicable to ACEforward.

Transcription

1 Introduction This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting for energy resources and energy use in the vicinity of ACEforward s near-term and longer-term improvements. It also describes the impacts on energy resources that would result from implementation of ACEforward and mitigation measures that would reduce significant impacts, where feasible and appropriate. Additional considerations of energy-related impacts is presented in Section 4.3, Air Quality, which discusses the implications of energy use on air quality; Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which calculates potential greenhouse gas emissions from energy use; and Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, which describes potential interruption of electricity and natural gas service. Cumulative impacts on energy resources, in combination with planned, approved, and reasonably foreseeable projects, are discussed in Chapter 5, Other CEQA-Required Analysis Regulatory Setting This section summarizes federal, state, regional, and local regulations related to energy resources and energy use and applicable to ACEforward Federal There are no federal regulations pertinent to energy resources State California Environmental Quality Act Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides that potentially significant energy implications of a project must be considered in an EIR, with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. California Green Building Standards Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.) Part 11, or CALGreen, sets standards for sustainable building design for residential and non-residential buildings in California. This code sets forth sustainable construction practices applicable to planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. Effective January 1, 2014, 2013 CALGreen mandates permitted new residential and nonresidential building construction, demolition, and certain additions and alteration projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated during a project (CALGreen 4.408, 5.408, , and 301.3) CALGreen became effective January 1, 2017 and increases the recycle and/or salvage mandate to 65 percent for new residential and non-residential building construction, demolition, and certain additions and alteration projects (2016 CALGreen and 5.408)

2 Senate Bill 1389, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002 The California Commission (CEC) is responsible for, among other things, forecasting future energy needs for the state and developing renewable energy resources and alternative renewable energy technologies for buildings, industry, and transportation. Senate Bill 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the CEC to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report assessing major energy trends and issues facing the state s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors. The report is also intended to provide policy recommendations to conserve resources, protect the environment, and ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies. The 2013 Integrated Policy Report, the most recent report required under Senate Bill 1389, was released to the public in February 2013 (California Commission 2013). Assembly Bill 2076, Reducing Dependence on Petroleum The CEC and the California Air Resources Board are directed by Assembly Bill 2076 (passed in 2000) to develop and adopt recommendations for reducing dependence on petroleum. A performancebased goal is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent less than 2003 demand by Regional and Local The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), a state joint powers agency, proposes improvements located within and outside of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way (ROW). The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) affords railroads engaged in interstate commerce 1 considerable flexibility in making necessary improvements and modifications to rail infrastructure, subject to the requirements of the Surface Transportation Board. ICCTA broadly preempts state and local regulation of railroads and this preemption extends to the construction and operation of rail lines. As such, activities within the UPRR ROW are clearly exempt from local building and zoning codes and other land use ordinances. ACEforward improvements outside of the UPRR ROW, however, would be subject to regional and local plans and regulations. Though ICCTA does broadly preempt state and local regulation of railroads, SJRRC intends to obtain local agency permits for construction of facilities that fall outside of the UPRR ROW even though SJRRC has not determined that such permits are legally necessary and such permits may not be required. Appendix H, Regional Plans and Local General Plans, provides a list of applicable goals, policies, and objectives from regional and local plans of the jurisdictions in which ACEforward improvements are proposed. Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans. These plans were considered during the preparation of this analysis and were reviewed to assess whether ACEforward would be consistent 2 with the plans of relevant jurisdictions. ACEforward would be generally consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives related to energy use and conservation identified in Appendix H. 1 Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) operates within a right-of-way (ROW) and on tracks owned by the UPRR, which operates interstate freight rail service in the same ROW and on the same tracks. 2 An inconsistency with regional or local plans is not necessarily considered a significant impact under CEQA, unless it is related to a physical impact on the environment that is significant in its own right

3 4.6.3 Environmental Setting This section describes the environmental setting related to energy resources and energy use. The study area for energy relevant to ACEforward includes the entire service areas of the energy providers that would serve ACEforward s near-term and longer-term improvements during construction and operation. Figure depicts the study area for energy resources Overview of Consumption in the State Overall, California s energy consumption (per capita) and production are among the lowest and highest, respectively, in the nation. Because of its mild climate and energy efficiency programs, California ranked 49th in the nation for per capita energy consumption in 2014 (the most recent year for which data is available). In 2015, California ranked fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, second in net electricity generation from other renewable energy resources, and first as a producer of electricity from biomass, geothermal, and solar energy. As of January 2016, California ranked third in the nation in petroleum refining capacity (U.S. Information Administration 2016a). The transportation end-use sector consumes the largest share of energy in California. In 2014, transportation accounted for 38.7 percent of all energy consumed in California, compared to 24.4 percent for industrial uses, 18.6 percent for commercial uses, and 18.3 percent for residential uses (U.S. Information Administration 2016b). Table compares various modes of passenger travel within the United States and the approximate energy use for each mode. Commuter rail energy use per passenger mile was less than cars, personal trucks, and transit buses in In other words, commuter rail is more energy efficient per passenger mile than other common transportation modes for intercity commuting. Table U.S. Passenger Travel Mode and Use Travel Mode Vehicle-miles (millions) Passengermiles (millions) Consumption (Btu per vehicle mile) (Btu per passenger-mile) Cars 1,436,600 2,226,730 4,839 3,122 Personal Trucks 1,067,201 1,963,650 6,555 3,563 Motorcycles 19,970 23,165 2,871 2,475 Air 5, , ,030 2,369 Buses (Transit) 2,445 22,614 35,419 3,829 Rail (Transit) ,829 63,512 2,381 Rail (Commuter) ,718 85,564 2,708 Rail (Intercity-Amtrak) 325 6,675 44,932 2,186 Source: Davis, Diegel & Boundy 2015 Btu = British thermal unit Petroleum, Electricity and Natural Gas Among the various types of energy sources, petroleum (diesel fuel) is the primary fuel consumed, in terms of operational energy demand, and is used to propel ACE locomotives on their scheduled runs. Of the other primary energy sources, electricity is used principally for station and parking facility 4.6-3

4 lighting, and natural gas is not used (Garcia pers. comm.). Each of these fuel sources and the providers are described in the following sections. Petroleum California s crude oil production has declined overall in the past 30 years; however, it remains one of the top producers of crude oil in the nation, accounting for more than 6 percent of total U.S. production in California ranks third in the nation in petroleum refining capacity and accounts for more than one-tenth of the total U.S. capacity (U.S. Information Administration 2016a). Valley Pacific Petroleum provides diesel fuel for the operation of ACE trains. Valley Pacific Petroleum obtains its fuel from the Chevron Richmond Refinery, a 2,900-acre petroleum refinery in Richmond, California, which processes about 250,000 barrels of crude oil a day (Chevron 2016). In 2015, ACE trains used a total of 462,433 gallons of diesel fuel to power four weekday roundtrips between Stockton and San Jose (Pennino pers. comm.). Electricity California s electricity use is assessed annually by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). CAISO is a not-for-profit corporation in charge of operating the long-distance, high-voltage power lines that deliver electricity, and CPUC publishes the Long-Term Procurement Plan (LTPP), which aims to implement a safe, reliable, and cost-effective electricity supply in California. CAISO works with state agencies, generation and transmission owners, load serving entities, and other balancing authorities to identify any issues regarding upcoming operating conditions. Significant amounts of new renewable generation has reached commercial operation, and this trend is expected to continue as new renewable generation comes online to meet the State s 33 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (California Independent System Operator 2015). Electricity use for ACEforward improvements would occur primarily at improved and new stations. Consequently, electricity service providers for improved and new station locations are identified and discussed below and their service areas comprise the study area for this analysis. Figure depicts the service for electricity service providers that would service improved and new stations as part of ACEforward

5 Table lists the service providers by geographic segment that maintain energy utilities along the ACEforward corridor. Table provides information on peak energy demand and electricity consumption by service provider. Table Electricity Providers along the ACEforward Corridor Municipality or Unincorporated Area San Jose to Fremont City of San Jose City of Santa Clara City of Newark City of Fremont Alameda County (unincorporated areas) Centerville/Niles/Sunol City of Fremont Alameda County (unincorporated areas) Tri-Valley City of Livermore City of Pleasanton Alameda County (unincorporated areas) Altamont Alameda County (unincorporated areas) Tracy to Lathrop City of Tracy City of Lathrop San Joaquin County (unincorporated areas) Lathrop to Stockton City of Stockton San Joaquin County (unincorporated areas) Manteca to Modesto City of Manteca City of Ripon City of Modesto San Joaquin County (unincorporated areas) Modesto to Merced City of Ceres City of Turlock City of Livingston City of Atwater City of Merced Stanislaus County (unincorporated areas) Merced County (unincorporated areas) PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company Electricity Provider PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E/Modesto Irrigation District Expansion Modesto Irrigation District & Turlock Irrigation District PG&E Turlock Irrigation District Turlock Irrigation District PG&E & Merced Irrigation District PG&E & Merced Irrigation District PG&E & Merced Irrigation District Turlock Irrigation District Turlock Irrigation District & Merced Irrigation District 4.6-5

6 Table Electricity Consumption and Peak Demand by Electricity Providers Electricity Provider Electricity Consumption (GWh) in 2014 Peak Demand (MW) PG&E 86,703 60,424 Turlock Irrigation District 2, Merced Irrigation District * Modesto Irrigation District 2, * GWh = gigawatt hour MW = megawatt PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company * The most recent peak demand figures for Modesto Irrigation District are from 2013 and for Merced Irrigation District are from Source: California Commission 2016; Kavelec 2015; Turlock Irrigation District 2014; California Commission 2014, 2015; Modesto Irrigation District Pacific Gas and Electric Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity for approximately 5.4 million customer accounts in a 70,000-square-mile service area in northern and central California. PG&E s service area stretches from Eureka in the north to Bakersfield in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Sierra Nevada in the east. PG&E operates 18,616 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines in the following counties where ACEforward improvements are proposed: Santa Clara, Alameda, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced (Pacific Gas and Electric 2015). Demand/Consumption In PG&E s service area, total electricity consumption was approximately 86,703 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2014 (California Commission 2016). The California Demand Updated Forecast (Kavelec 2015), which describes electricity consumption, sales, and peak demand, reports that peak demand within the PG&E service area was 60,424 megawatts (MW) in Peak demand has grown by 34 percent since The increase in peak electricity demand represents overall growth since 1990; however, peak demand fluctuates in the short term as a result of many factors, including the economy (Kavelec 2015). Generation Capacity/Supply PG&E s generation portfolio includes hydroelectric facilities, a nuclear power plant, and a natural gas power plant (Pacific Gas and Electric 2015). The net operating capacity of these facilities at the end of 2014 was 7,684 MW. In 2014, PG&E generated 28,929 GWh through its own facilities, and purchased 51,679 GWh to meet the demands of its customers (Pacific Gas and Electric 2016a). Turlock Irrigation District The Turlock Irrigation District owns and operates an electric generation, transmission, and distribution system that serves approximately 101,000 customer accounts within a 662-square-mile area. The Turlock Irrigation District service area includes the cities of Ceres and Turlock and stretches from the Santa Clara County border in the west to the Tuolumne County border in the east. The Turlock Irrigation District operates 389 miles of transmission lines in Stanislaus and Merced Counties (Turlock Irrigation District 2013)

7 Demand/Consumption The total electricity consumption in 2014 within Turlock Irrigation District s service area was 2,064 GWh (California Commission 2016). Peak demand in 2014 was 510 MW (Turlock Irrigation District 2014). Generation Capacity/Supply Turlock Irrigation District s 2014 annual report published electric generation from Turlock Irrigation District s hydroelectric, natural gas, and wind facilities (Turlock Irrigation District 2014). The Turlock Irrigation District generated 154 MW of electricity from two hydroelectric facilities, 524 MW from four natural gas facilities, and 137 MW from one wind facility. The Turlock Irrigation District generated a total of 815 MW of electricity during 2013 (Turlock Irrigation District 2014). Merced Irrigation District Merced Irrigation District operates transmission and distribution electrical facilities serving customers spanning 164,000 acres in eastern Merced County. Merced Irrigation District currently provides power to electric services to thousands of customers in Eastern Merced County including the cities of Livingston, Atwater and Merced (Merced Irrigation District 2016). Demand/Consumption In 2014, Merced Irrigation District delivered approximately 514 GWh to 8,500 customers (California Commission 2014). The most recent peak demand figures from 2012 total 95 MW (California Commission 2015). Generation Capacity/Supply Merced Irrigation District purchases nearly all its power from the Turlock Irrigation District, which generates its own power and purchases power from others, including PG&E. Modesto Irrigation District In 2013, the Modesto Irrigation District provided electric service to more than 115,000 customer accounts in a 560-square-mile area. The Modesto Irrigation District electrical service area stretches from the Stanislaus County border in the east to the San Joaquin River in the west, and from north of the Tuolumne River to south of the Stanislaus River (Modesto Irrigation District 2013). Demand/Consumption In 2014, total electricity consumption was 2,501 GWh (California Commission 2014). The Modesto Irrigation District s peak demand in 2013 was 656 MW (Modesto Irrigation District 2013). Generation Capacity/Supply The Modesto Irrigation District s portfolio of energy sources includes hydro power (Don Pedro Dam and Powerhouse), solar (McHenry Solar), wind (Modesto-Santa Clara-Redding Public Power Agency [MSR] Bighorn and Bighorn 2), coal (MSR San Juan), and other short-term sources from various generators (partnership-owned or purchased energy) to accommodate peak demand (Modesto Irrigation District 2013). Natural Gas PG&E is the only natural gas service provider for counties that are served or proposed to be served by ACEforward improvements and is responsible for maintaining the infrastructure for natural gas 4.6-7

8 distribution and transmission. PG&E s natural gas system spans 70,000 square miles, serves approximately 6 million gas customers, and delivers 970 billion cubic feet (BCF) of gas per year, or 2.6 BCF per day. PG&E s gas transmission and distribution pipelines stretch from Eureka in the north to Bakersfield in the south and from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Sierra Nevada in the east. PG&E has more than 6,700 miles of gas transmission pipeline and 42,000 miles of gas distribution pipeline. PG&E s network of high-pressure natural gas transmission pipelines generally follows existing transportation corridors, such as roads and railroad tracks (Pacific Gas and Electric 2016b) Impact Analysis This section describes the environmental impacts of ACEforward s near-term and longer-term improvements on energy supplies. It describes the methods used to evaluate the impacts and the thresholds used to determine whether an impact would be significant. Measures to mitigate significant impacts are provided, where appropriate Methods for Analysis Construction of Near-Term Improvements Construction of near-term improvements would require gasoline and diesel, as the primary sources of energy, for construction equipment, employee transport, haul truck vehicles, and possibly freight locomotives. consumption associated with construction would be temporary and would cease when construction activities are complete. Construction-related energy demand for near-term improvement was estimated using energy factors from Davis, Diegel and Boundy (2015). As discussed in Chapter 2, Description of Near-Term Improvements, one or more near-term improvement alternatives have been identified within the geographic segments. The specific combination of alternatives that will be selected to ultimately define the near-term alignment is currently unknown. However, construction energy use would be expected to fall within the range estimated. Near-Term Operations The analysis of energy demand associated with operations in the near-term considers the following components: The shift of travelers from automobiles to commuter rail transit would result in reduced automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and thus savings in automobile fuel consumption. Reduction in daily freight miles due to a direct shorter connection from the Niles Subdivision. Increased ACE commuter rail service and operations to serve ridership demand would result in increased consumption of petroleum to operate the trains. Increased ACE commuter rail facilities would also result in greater electricity demand at existing stations and new stations. To make each of these demand components comparable and to derive the net energy consumption, demand for each of the different types of energy sources is converted into British thermal units (Btu) based on the energy intensity factor of each source. The specific combination of alternatives that will be selected to ultimately define the project alignment is yet to be determined. Similar to the construction analysis, two scenarios were used to account for the possible range of energy demand. Specifically, base and maximum scenarios were 4.6-8

9 established using forecasted ACE ridership levels. Both the base and maximum ridership scenarios were also evaluated with and without the extension to Modesto. The methodology for deriving the operational energy demand for each of these project components is summarized below. Displaced Vehicles Miles Near-term improvements would expand ACE commuter rail service and divert traffic from the region s roadways and reduce automobile usage. Reduced automobile VMT due to modal shift was quantified for the following scenarios: Existing (2015) No Project Alternative (2020) Near-term improvements with Modesto extension base and maximum ACE ridership (2020) Near-term improvements without Modesto extension base and maximum ACE ridership (2020) No Project Alternative (2040) Near-term improvements with Modesto extension base and maximum ACE ridership (2040) Near-term improvements without Modesto extension base and maximum ACE ridership (2040). This displaced VMT for all analysis scenarios by station pair (e.g., Stockton-Tracy) was developed by AECOM and was used to derive changes in energy demand, as well as changes to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions(mcwethy pers. comm.). An energy intensity factor was used to convert each automobile vehicle mile into energy demand in Btus. The energy intensity factor for cars was 4,839 Btu per vehicle-mile in 2014 and this amount is expected to decrease as fleet average fuel economy improves (Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2015). To account for this decrease, the factor was adjusted assuming the fleet average fuel economy improves as the fuel economy standard requires more energy-efficient automobiles. Between 2004 and 2014, the average annual percentage decrease in energy intensity for passenger vehicles was 1.3 percent. This same annual improvement in energy efficiency was used to estimate energy intensity for vehicles in the future. The resulting estimated energy intensity factor for cars was 4,474 Btu per vehicle-mile in 2020 and 3,444 Btu per vehicle-mile in Relocated Freight Near-term improvements would establish a direct connection from the Niles Subdivision to either the Oakland Subdivision (at Niles Junction or at Industrial Parkway in Hayward) or the Niles Canyon Railway (at Niles Junction). The connection would reduce the total daily freight miles between the Port of Oakland and the Central Valley. This improvement would have a corresponding reduction in petroleum use and therefore energy savings. These reductions have not been quantified; however, they are qualitatively described in the impact analysis. ACE Locomotive Operation, Idling and Maintenance Expanded passenger rail service would result in increased diesel fuel combustion from increased locomotive operation and increased idling while loading passengers at stations and while warming 4.6-9

10 up after receiving routine maintenance. The two locomotives required to provide additional roundtrip service would be maintained at the existing ACE Stockton Maintenance Facility. Shuttle Connections ACE provides shuttle connections at the Great America and Pleasanton stations. Changes in ACE ridership will have corresponding effects on shuttle demand and VMT. Fuel use changes associated with changes in the shuttle service would not be expected to be considerable compared to the other contributors to operational energy demand. These increases have not been quantified; however, they are qualitatively described in the impact analysis. Station Operation Several near-term improvement alternatives include improvements at existing stations, such as the expansion of parking areas and installation of pedestrian overcrossings, or the construction of new stations. Operation of new or improved stations would increase electricity consumption for lighting at surface parking lots and structures, in particular. Calculations of future energy demand at stations were based on a conservative approach which applied energy use at an existing ACE station (PG&E bill from Lathrop/Manteca Station) and a multiplier based on the estimated acreage of the relevant station. Longer-Term Improvements Construction and Operation Construction of the longer-term improvement alternatives would demand energy, like the near-term improvements, for construction equipment, employee transport, and materials delivery. usage is a function of the type, location, and duration of construction and the intensity of construction activity. Thus, construction impacts would vary depending on the types of improvements implemented in the longer-term. The location and types of construction equipment required for each longer-term improvement has not been defined at this stage of conceptual design. In addition, changes in ACE s longer-term operating schedule and the associated effects on passenger VMT are yet to be determined. Consequently, a quantified analysis of potential energy demand has not been prepared, but a qualitative assessment is presented, based on information available from the near-term improvements analysis Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, conserving energy may be achieved by decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F has identified significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts on energy conservation. An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the project would have any of the following consequences. Include wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated. Adversely affect local and regional energy supplies and result in the need for additional capacity during peak and base period demands for electricity

11 Near-Term Improvements Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact EN-1 Level of Impact Construction, operation, and maintenance of near-term improvements could result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Less than significant (beneficial) Impact Characterization Construction Construction impacts are defined as those resulting from building near-term improvements, its associated infrastructure, and related physical changes. During construction of near-term improvements, energy in the form of gasoline and diesel would be consumed to produce and transport construction materials, operate and maintain construction equipment, and transport construction workers to and from work sites. would be used to construct near-term improvements, including new main tracks, siding track, bridge crossing structures, parking improvements at existing stations, and new stations. Natural gas is not typically used during construction and none of the construction equipment identified for near-term improvements would require electricity. consumption associated with construction would be temporary and would cease when construction activities are complete, anticipated around Overall construction energy demand for the ACEforward near-term improvements would be greater with an extension to Modesto, compared to near-term improvements without the Modesto service extension. Operation and Maintenance Operational impacts are those resulting from ongoing, routine, and occasional activities associated with the implementation of near-term improvements and related services. During operation, neither the existing stations nor the new stations would result in any demand for natural gas (Garcia pers. comm.) and would comply with applicable Title 24 Cal. Code Regs. standards for energy efficiency. Operation of ACEforward in the near term would involve two additional weekday roundtrip service runs, the operation of potential and proposed new stations in the Tracy to Lathrop and Manteca to Modesto segments, and the operation of existing stations with new parking areas, all of which would result in an increase in energy consumption. The two locomotives required to provide the additional roundtrip service would also impose a demand for energy associated with their maintenance. However, the increased service and accessibility to ACE commuter rail services would encourage the diversion of travelers and commuters from automobiles to passenger rail. The reduction in automobile VMT and the related decrease in fuel consumption would offset the operational demands of the near-term improvements, resulting in a net energy savings relative to no project conditions. The operational energy demand would differ if an extension to Modesto were included or not. The displaced automobile VMT is higher for the scenarios with an extension to Modesto and therefore these scenarios achieve greater energy savings (Table 4.6-5). However, the extension to Modesto also results in greater locomotive fuel consumption (Table 4.6-6). Overall, the net operational energy savings would be greater for scenarios with the extension to Modesto

12 Impact Differences by Segment The key differences in construction and operational energy use between alternatives in the various segments are highlighted below. San Jose to Fremont Both near-term improvement alternatives in this segment that would be selected for implementation (Alternative SJF-1and SJF-2). Centerville/Niles/Sunol There are five near-term improvement alternatives (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, CNS-1c, CNS-2a and CNS-2b) in this segment and only one would be selected for implementation. The greatest construction energy demand would be associated with Alternative CNS-1a, because it includes construction of significant improvements and infrastructure, such as the Centerville line expansion, Alameda Creek Bridge, Sunol double track, and Hearst siding extension. All five near-term improvement alternatives in this segment would establish a direct connection from the Niles Subdivision to either the Oakland Subdivision or the Niles Canyon Railway. The connection would reduce total daily freight miles and associated energy use. Tri-Valley Both near-term improvement alternatives (Alternatives TV-1 and TV-2) in this segment would be selected for implementation. There are two variations of Alternative TV-2 that are being considered; Alternative TV-2 (variant 1) with a two-floor parking structure at Vasco Road Station or Alternative TV-2 (variant 2) with a three-floor parking structure at Vasco Road Station. Altamont There is one near-term improvement alternative in this segment that would be selected for implementation (Alternative A-1). Tracy to Lathrop There are six near-term improvement alternatives in this segment and only one would be selected for implementation in combination with one of the corresponding station options in West Tracy, Tracy, and Lathrop. Alignment Options Alternatives TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-3, TL-4a, and TL-4b all include substantial construction including new track, replacement of existing track, and bridges and, therefore, impose much higher construction energy demand than Alternative TL-1, which uses the existing alignment and therefore would require no construction energy use. Station Options The West Tracy Station A-1 and River Islands Station would require the most construction activity and, therefore, would generate the highest energy demand. Construction-related energy would be lowest under the Existing Tracy Station and Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station, which would entail construction of parking improvements at existing station facilities. Under the maximum ridership scenario, the River Islands Station, Downtown Tracy Station, and West Tracy A-2 Station would be constructed. Under the base ridership scenario, only the existing

13 stations (Existing Tracy Station and Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station) would be used, resulting in minimal construction energy demand. Lathrop to Stockton There is one near-term improvement alternative in this segment that would be selected for implementation (Alternative LS-1). There are three variations of Alternative LS-1 that is being considered; however, all three variants entail constructing surface parking lots roughly of the same size. Alternative LS-1 (variant 2) would additionally entail surgically deconstructing and reassembling a structure onsite. Manteca to Modesto There are two near-term improvement alternatives in this segment (Alternative MMO-1a and MMO-1b); only one alternative would be selected for implementation. The alternatives have similar elements, with the key difference being that Alternative MMO-1a includes the existing Tracy-Fresno Subdivision connection while Alternative MMO-1b includes construction of the Oakland-Fresno Subdivision connection. Consequently, Alternative MMO-1b would impose a greater construction energy demand. Impact Quantification Construction Table summarizes the estimated expenditure of diesel and gasoline associated with construction of the near-term improvements that is expected to occur over approximately three years. Total gasoline and diesel use for near-term construction is estimated to be between 608,000 gallons (84 billion Btu) and 1.0 million gallons (140 billion Btu). This estimated range was based on the following scenarios: Base Demand: Alternatives SJF-1 & SJF-2, CNS-2a, TV-1 & TV-2, A-1, TL-1, West Tracy Station B-1, Existing Tracy Station, Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station, LS-1, and MMO-1a Maximum Demand: Alternatives SJF-1 & SJF-2, CNS-1a, TV-1 & TV-2, A-1, TL-3, West Tracy Station A-1, Downtown Tracy Station, River Islands Station, LS-1, and MMO-1b. Table Construction of Near-Term Improvements Fuel Consumption Segment/Alternative San Jose to Fremont Gallons Total (Diesel and Gasoline) Btu (billions) * SJF-1 46,329 6 SJF-2 24,785 3 Centerville/Niles/Sunol CNS-1a 228, CNS-1b 184, CNS-1c 167, CNS-2a 133, CNS-2b 206,

14 Segment/Alternative Tri-Valley Gallons Total (Diesel and Gasoline) Btu (billions) * TV-1 33,066 5 TV-2 a 24,785 3 Altamont A-1 50,347 7 Tracy to Lathrop (Alignment) TL TL-2a 177, TL-2b 165, TL-3 165, TL-4a 156, TL-4b 115, Tracy to Lathrop (Stations) West Tracy Station A-1 39,112 5 West Tracy Station A-2 23,484 3 West Tracy Station A-3 41,685 6 West Tracy Station A-4 20,172 3 West Tracy Station A-5 20,275 3 West Tracy Station B-1 16,186 2 West Tracy Station B-2 16,186 2 Existing Tracy Station 13,870 2 Downtown Tracy Station a 54,730 8 Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station 11,040 2 Relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station a 44,638 6 River Islands Station 62,388 9 Lathrop to Stockton LS-1 a 57,285 8 Manteca to Modesto MMO-1a 196, MMO-1b 219, Notes * Btu based on diesel heat content conversion; 138,700 Btu/gallon (Davis, Diegel and Boundy 2015) a This analysis uses the worst-case variant for calculating construction-period fuel consumption for Alternatives TV-2, Downtown Tracy Station, Relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station, and LS

15 Operation and Maintenance As outlined in Section , Methods for Analysis, the following components make up the nearterm operational energy demand: Reduced automobile VMT due to modal shift to commuter rail transit. Reduction in daily freight miles due to establishment of direct connection from the Niles Subdivision. Increased rail services and operations would result in increased consumption of petroleum. Increased consumption of electricity at expanded and new stations. savings from reduced automobile VMT due to modal shift are quantified in Table for the various scenarios identified in Section The figures for automobile VMT displaced are higher for scenarios with an extension compared with those without an extension to Modesto. Thus scenarios with an extension to Modesto achieve greater energy savings. Based on the projected ACE ridership resulting from the near-term improvements, the mode switch from vehicle to ACE is estimated to reduce VMT by between approximately 20 million and 37 million in 2020 and between approximately 23 and 49 million in 2040 compared to No Project Alternative. This decrease in automobile VMT would result in a savings of approximately 90 billion to 166 billion Btu per year in 2020 and approximately 79 billion to 170 billion Btu per year in 2040 compared to No Project conditions in

16 Table Annual ACE Ridership and Total Automobile VMT Displaced Existing (2015) No Project (2020) Base ridership no Modesto extension (2020) Max ridership no Modesto extension (2020) Base ridership - with Modesto extension (2020) Max ridership with Modesto extension (2020) No Project (2040) Base ridership - no Modesto extension (2040) Max ridership no Modesto extension (2040) Base ridership - with Modesto extension (2040) Max ridership -with Modesto extension (2040) Annual ACE ridership (millions) Total Annual Auto VMT (millions displaced) BTU (reduction in billions)

17 The near-term improvement of relocated freight service from the Niles Subdivision would also result in diesel use savings. For freight trains from or to the Central Valley from the Port of Oakland, the shift from the Coast Subdivision to the Niles Subdivision would shorten the route by approximately 6 or 7 miles. Offsetting a portion of the above two energy-saving improvements, the additional roundtrips by ACE trains would increase fuel consumption of diesel. Table summarizes the daily operating hours and associated diesel use under existing conditions (2015), 2020 and 2040 scenarios. Table shows that the predicted locomotive diesel use is higher for future service runs with the Modesto extension. Thus, the energy demand for near-term improvements would be higher if there is a split service with the Modesto extension. Table Near-Term Operations Locomotive Fuel Consumption Daily hours by Diesel use gallons b Diesel use (Btu) locomotive a (billions) c Existing (2015) , No Project , Maximum Ridership Scenario with Modesto Extension , Base Ridership Scenario with Modesto Extension , Maximum Ridership Scenario without Modesto Extension , Base Ridership Scenario without Modesto Extension , No Project , Maximum Ridership Scenario with Modesto Extension , Base Ridership Scenario with Modesto Extension , Maximum Ridership Scenario without Modesto Extension , Base Ridership Scenario without Modesto Extension , Notes a Under existing operations the four return services equate to a daily total of 17.6 hours of locomotive usage (see Appendix K, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Supporting Documentation) b Under the existing operations, the ACE trains used approximately 462,433 gallons of diesel fuel per year (Pennino pers. comm.). Assumed that diesel use efficiency for locomotives remains unchanged from existing through to year 2040 c Heat content used for conversion to Btu: 138,700 Btu/gallon (Davis, Diegel and Boundy 2015). Increased rail services would also involve greater energy demand at existing stations and operation of new stations. Table summarizes the existing electricity use and future electricity use anticipated for operation of ACEforward in the near-term at existing and new station locations

18 Table Near-Term Operations Electrical Use at Existing and New Stations Station Existing Electricity Usage (kwh/month) a Future Electricity Usage Min, no Modesto extension (kwh/month) b Future Electricity Usage Max, no Modesto extension (kwh/month) c Future Electricity Usage Min, with Modesto extension (kwh/month) Future Electricity Usage- Max, with Modesto extension (kwh/month) d Existing Stations Fremont Station 4,200 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 Pleasanton Station 5,600 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 Downtown Livermore Station Vasco Road Station 5,700 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 Tracy Station 8,800 11, , Lathrop/Manteca Station 9,200 10, , Stockton Station 3,400 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 New Proposed and Potential Stations West Tracy Station , ,000 Downtown Tracy Station , ,400 River Islands Station , ,900 Relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station Downtown Manteca Station ,400 1,400 Ripon Station ,000 2,000 Modesto Station Monthly Total 37,100 kwh 70,000 76,500 72,700 kwh 78,500 kwh Annual Total 445,200 kwh 840, , ,400 kwh 942,000 kwh BTU (billions) e BTU above existing (billions) NA Notes: No improvements are proposed at the existing San Jose Diridon, Santa Clara, and Great America stations. These stations are owned and operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority (PCJPB; operators of Caltrain) (San Jose Diridon and Santa Clara stations) and Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) (Great America Station). a Estimates of electricity use per station are based on PG&E bill for a representative ACE station and the square footage associated with each station. b Includes min estimates with exception of max Lathrop/Manteca (project all to Stockton). c Includes West Tracy A-1 (max), Downtown Tracy (max) and River Islands (max). d Includes West Tracy A-1 (max), Downtown Tracy (max) and River Islands (min). e For electricity use, 1 kwh equals 10,339 Btu (Davis, Diegel & Boundy 2015)

19 Overall, the near term improvements would result in net energy savings. As shown in Table 4.6-8, the net energy reductions from operation of the near-term improvements would be approximately between 64 and 130 billion Btu per year in 2020 and between 53 and 134 billion Btu per year in Table Summary of Near-Term Improvement Demand (Compared to No Project Alternative) Btu/year (2020) (billions) Btu/year (2040) (billions) Automobile Demand -(90 to 166) -(79 to 170) ACEforward Near-Term Operational Demand Train propulsion 22 to to 31 Stations 4 to 5 4 to 5 Subtotal 26 to to 36 Net Demand -(64 to 130) -(53 to 134) Significance Conclusion Construction Construction equipment and materials for near-term improvements would require energy inputs. As shown in Table 4.6-4, construction of near-term improvements would require fuel use for construction equipment and construction worker trips. However, the energy expenditure associated with construction of near-term improvements would be temporary and limited to the duration of the construction period. Many financial incentives are offered by government agencies and utility companies to support energy-efficient investments. Therefore, it is expected that construction materials built and purchased from offsite suppliers would be efficiently produced based on the economic incentive for efficiency. In addition, jurisdictions in which construction of near-term improvements would occur require reuse and recycling of construction and demolition materials, which would reduce the inherent energy cost of materials. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.3, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1, which would require the use of advanced emissions controls for off-road equipment; Mitigation Measure AQ-2.2, which would minimize idling times and ensure all construction equipment is maintained properly; Mitigation Measure AQ-2.3, which would require advanced emissions controls for locomotives; and Mitigation Measure AQ-2.4, which would ensure the use of a modern fleet for material delivery and haul trucks, would be required during the construction of near-term improvements. These mitigation measures require the use of newer construction equipment, locomotives, and on-road vehicles that are generally more fuel efficient than older construction equipment, locomotives, and on-road vehicles. Non-renewable energy resources would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner during construction. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Operation and Maintenance As demonstrated in Table 4.6-1, commuter rail travel per passenger-mile is less energy intensive than travel by car, personal truck, and transit buses per passenger-mile. Operation of ACEforward near-term improvements would result in a net energy savings. With implementation of the nearterm improvements, additional travelers could choose to ride ACE instead of an alternative form of transportation. Therefore, despite increased energy demand as a result of additional train

20 operations and roundtrips, implementation of ACEforward could reduce automobile VMT and consequently reduce energy consumption per passenger mile. This change in energy consumption due to ACEforward would be an environmental benefit. use benefits achieved through operation of near-term improvements would offset the shortterm construction energy use in approximately two to three years. savings achieved thereafter would contribute to reductions in energy use. demand at new stations and expanded parking lots at existing stations would be minimized by compliance with Title 24 Cal. Code Regs. standards. As a result, the new stations would not result in activities that consume electricity in an inefficient manner. Therefore, improvements to existing, proposed, and potential stations under ACEforward in the near term would not encourage or result in activities that consume large amounts of electricity in an inefficient manner. In summary, with reductions in automobile VMT and compliance with applicable regulations, including Title 24 Cal. Code Regs., energy impacts from the construction, operation and maintenance of the near-term improvements would be less than significant. Because the impacts would result in less energy use than under No Project conditions, the energy savings would be an environmental benefit. Impact EN-2 Level of Impact Construction, operation, and maintenance of near-term improvements could result in substantial increase in energy demand that would affect local or regional energy supplies and require additional capacity during peak and base period demands for electricity to meet that increased demand. Less than significant Impact Characterization Construction As discussed in Impact EN-1, during construction of the near-term improvements, energy would be consumed to produce and transport construction materials, to operate and maintain construction equipment, and to transport construction workers to and from work sites. Large equipment used for construction would be powered with diesel fuel. Overall, energy consumption would involve mostly diesel fuel for construction equipment and transport, with negligible quantities of electricity required. The energy consumption during construction of near-term improvements would not result in a substantial increase in energy demand that would affect local or regional energy supplies outlined in Section , Petroleum, Electricity, and Natural Gas. Diesel fuel for construction could be obtained from the Chevron Richmond Refinery and other refineries in the region that would be determined by the construction contractors. As stated in Section , the Chevron Richmond Refinery is a large processing facility, and the demand for diesel fuel for construction of near-term improvements would be a small percentage of the production capacity of this refinery and others that could meet the construction energy needs. Operation and Maintenance Operation of ACEforward in the near-term would involve two additional weekday roundtrips (from four to six), proposed and potential stations in the Tracy to Lathrop and Manteca to Modesto segments, and expanded parking areas at existing stations, all of which would result in an increase in energy consumption. The energy consumption would be primarily associated with the trains consumption of diesel fuel and consumption of electricity at the proposed, potential, and existing

21 stations. Lighting, mechanical systems, and maintenance activities at proposed and potential stations and expanded parking lots at existing stations would result in demand for electricity from regional and local providers. The energy consumption during operation would not result in a substantial increase in energy demand that would affect local or regional energy supplies identified in Section The increased demand for diesel fuel to operate the additional trains would be minor compared to the petroleum-producing capacity at the Chevron Richmond Refinery. Significance Conclusion Construction Large equipment used for construction would be powered with diesel fuel, which would not require electricity directly from the grid. As a result, construction activities would not significantly increase peak electricity demands or base period electricity demands. Demand for electricity during construction could potentially result from the use of lighting, generators, or other mechanical equipment. However, because the use of electricity would be intermittent during construction, it is assumed that the electricity demand during construction would be less than operational demand. PG&E, Modesto Irrigation District, and Turlock Irrigation District would be able to accommodate the increase in temporary electricity use with existing resources. Electricity consumption during construction would not be substantial and, thus, would not affect the ability of PG&E, Modesto Irrigation District, or Turlock Irrigation District to serve the region with existing supplies. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Operation and Maintenance During operation, the trains would continue to run on diesel fuel, which would not require electricity from the grid. The near-term station improvements are estimated to increase demand for electricity by approximately 40,000 kwh per month (over No Project Alternative), or the equivalent of power needed to supply approximately 74 homes. Given that PG&E supplied 86,703 GWh in 2014 as shown in Table 4.6-2, or 7,225 GWh per month (7.225 billion kwh per month), the net addition of 40,000 kwh per month would represent a negligible amount in the context of the electricity demanded each month in PG&E s service area. Similarly, the new stations that would be served by the Modesto Irrigation District would constitute a negligible increase in demand to this provider s existing demands. During operation, the proposed stations, potential stations, and the expanded parking areas at existing stations would comply with applicable Title 24 Cal. Code Regs. standards, which require installation and maintenance of energy-efficient electrical systems in new construction. The nearterm improvements at the proposed, potential, and existing stations would not result in a substantial increase in energy demand that would affect local or regional energy supplies or require additional capacity to meet that increased demand. Overall, the proposed stations, potential stations, and the expanded parking areas at existing stations would represent a negligible amount of the electricity demanded each month in the service areas of electricity providers. Moreover, the electrical demand at the stations is expected to be relatively constant, as electrical demand would not be subject to changes in operation; therefore, the near-term improvements are not expected to affect peak demand in any service area. This impact would be less than significant