Rancho Cordova City Council
July 17, 2023

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 39
MAY 2023
As shown in Table 3.8-1, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of the Project would be approximately 822 MT CO2e. As previously discussed, the SMAQMD identifies a GHG emission threshold for construction-related emissions of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. As such, the Project would not exceed the SMAQMD GHG threshold. Therefore, the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would represent a less than significant impact.

Operational Emissions
CalEEMod was used to estimate potential project-generated operational GHG emissions from area sources, energy sources (electricity), mobile sources, off-road equipment, and waste, and water/wastewater. Emissions from each category are discussed below with respect to the Project. Operational year 2023 was assumed following completion of construction. Table 3.8-2 shows the estimated operational and amortized construction emissions from the Project.

Table 3.8-2. Estimated Annual Operation GHG Emissions
Emissions Source
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons per Year
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 130.09
Energy 112.73 0.01 0.00 113.37
Mobile 1.34 0.00 0.00 1.36
Off-road 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.26
Total 114.98
SMAQMD Threshold 1,100
Threshold Exceeded? No
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

See Attachment A for complete results.

As shown in Table 3.8-2, the estimated total GHG emissions during operation of the Project would be approximately 115 MT CO2e per year. The Project would not exceed the SMAQMD threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, operational impacts associated with directly or indirectly generating a significant quantity of GHG emissions would be less than significant.
b) Would the project generate conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less-than-Significant Impact
SMAQMD
The Project include the construction of a proposed BESS and improvements to the existing Cordova Substation that would generate few mobile source trips. As the Project does not include natural gas and would not have a parking lot, it would be consistent with the SMAQMD’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 Best Management Practices. As the Project does not exceed the SMAQMD 1,100 MT CO2e per year threshold and implements the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Best Management Practices, it would not conflict with the SMAQMD GHG projections for meeting the state’s GHG reduction goals. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 40
MAY 2023

SACOG MTP/SCS
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for the Sacramento region pro-actively links land use, air quality, and transportation needs. The MTP/SCS is federally required to be updated every four years. The SACOG board adopted the 2020 MTP/SCS and accompanying documents at a special board meeting on November 18, 2019 (SACOG 2019). The MTP/SCS developed four policy priorities for the region and include:

1. Build vibrant places for today’s and tomorrows residents;

2. Foster the next generation of mobility solutions;

3. Modernize the way we pay for transportation infrastructure; and

4. Build and maintain a safe, reliable, and multimodal transportation system.

The Project would not conflict with the policy priorities and goals of the MTP/SCS. The project is not growth inducing and would not exceed the growth projections of the MTP/SCS. The Project, as an energy storage project with associated improvements to the existing Cordova Substation, by design would mitigate renewable energy intermittency, facilitating the retirement of fossil fuel vehicles and the transition to electric vehicles.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the MTP/SCS and impacts would be less than significant.

Consistency with the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan The CARB Scoping Plan provides framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHG emissions. Under the Scoping Plan, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions.

The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32 and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The Project would comply with all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law and to the extent that they are applicable to the Project.

The Project would not impede the attainment of the GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 identified in Executive Order (EO) S-03-05 and SB 32. EO S-03-05 establishes the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 establishes for a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. While there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future year analysis, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the state on a trajectory toward meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance is unknown (CARB 2014).

The Project would not interfere with implementation of any of the GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 because the Project would not exceed SMAQMD’s screening threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. As such, the Project would not impede the state’s trajectory toward the previously described statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 41
MAY 2023
The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Project’s impact associated with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs would be less than significant.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the Project by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. and is included as Appendix E to this Initial Study. This section summarizes the result of the Phase I ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 42
MAY 2023
Environmental Site Assessment. Full details regarding regulatory setting, methodology, and other information can be found in Appendix E.
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes is extensively regulated by federal, state, and local policies, which provide a high level of protection to the public. Disclosure laws such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Hazardous Waste Control Law, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, and Business Plan Act, CCR Title 26, require users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport and to notify the appropriate city, county, state, and federal agencies in the event of a violation.

Under normal operations, BESS facilities do not store or generate hazardous materials in quantities that would represent a risk to off-site receptors. In addition, the Project’s preventative measures and fire and safety systems make an accident condition very rare. Because lithium-ion and LFP BESS facilities do store energy, a battery thermal runaway can occur if a cell, or area within a cell, achieves elevated temperatures due to thermal failure, mechanical failure, internal/external short circuiting, and electrochemical abuse.

However, as previously stated, the Project’s preventative measures, and fire and safety systems, make a thermal runaway event very rare. In addition, the 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) also requires that all BESS use an Energy Management System for monitoring and balancing cell voltages, currents and temperatures.

The system must transmit an alarm signal if potentially hazardous temperatures or other conditions such as short circuits, over voltage or under voltage, are detected. The fire code also requires the use of appropriate fire-extinguishing and smoke detection systems, which will be incorporated into each of the Project’s BESS enclosures. Therefore, with compliance with the CFC and installation of an Energy Management system, impacts would be less than significant. The Project's improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would not present a significant hazard as the existing Cordova Substation is already operational and operates in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials during construction and operation would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits from the EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which gives the EPA the authority to control the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Additionally, the hazardous materials regulations included in federal law govern the transportation of hazardous materials. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issues regulations concerning highway routing of hazardous materials, hazardous materials endorsements for a commercial driver’s license, highway hazardous material safety permits, and financial responsibility requirements for motor carriers of hazardous materials.

Under normal operations, battery energy storage system facilities do not store or generate hazardous materials in quantities that would represent a risk to off-site receptors. In addition, the Project’s preventative measures and integrated operational management systems, fire, and safety systems, such as ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 43
MAY 2023
HVAC systems, ventilation, gas, heat and smoke detection and alarms, and fire suppression systems, make an accident condition very rare and they are designed to limit a credible thermal runaway event to the cell level. The Phase I ESA found no spills, stains, or other indications that a surficial release has occurred at the site. Additionally, no contamination by hazardous substances or petroleum products has affected the Project site (Appendix D). The Project's improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would not present a significant hazard as the existing Cordova Substation is already operational and in compliance with CFC requirements. Thus, based on the findings of the Phase I ESA and with compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials during project construction and operation, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less-than-Significant Impact. The nearest schools to the Project site are Sunrise Elementary School (11821 Cobblebrook Drive), located approximately 1.7 miles west of the Project site, and Robert J. Mcgravey Elementary School (4350 Sophistry Drive), located approximately 1.58 miles west of the Project site. Thus, the Project would not be located within one-quarter mile of a school. Hazardous materials handled on site during construction activities would comply with applicable hazardous materials regulations to reduce potential impacts. The Project would include the construction of the proposed BESS which would discharge into the grid when energy is needed, providing important electrical reliability services to the local area. The Project would be operated remotely with no permanent on-site operations and maintenance personnel, and no occupied buildings habitable structures. Any potential hazardous substance used on site would be related to future maintenance activities and would adhere to applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials. The improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would not entail any operational changes related to hazardous emissions or substances. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. According to the DTSC’s EnviroStor database, there are no clean-up sites located within or near the Project site with an open-site assessment status (DTSC 2022). Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous materials release information for the Cortese List.

The SWRCB’s GeoTracker database identifies leaking underground storage tanks, waste discharge sites, oil and gas sites, and other waste or cleanup sites. A review of GeoTracker did not identify any sites or facilities within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is Mather Airport, located approximately 4.7 miles to the west. The Project site is not located within the Noise Exposure Ranges as identified in the Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (SACOG 2020). In addition, the Project site is not located within any of the airport’s Safety Zones (SACOG 2020). The Project would be operated remotely with no permanent on-site operations and maintenance personnel, and no occupied buildings or habitable structures. It is expected that between two to four staff members will visit the site weekly and as needed for maintenance and ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 44
MAY 2023
monitoring. The improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would be located within the existing Cordova Substation’s developed footprint and would not entail any operational changes related to airport safety hazards or excessive noise levels. As such, during operation, the Project would not expose people to a safety hazard or excessive noise levels. No impact would occur. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Project site is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within an LRA (CAL FIRE 2022). In 2016, the County prepared the Sacramento County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), which identifies plans, programs, and mitigation measures to minimize impacts of identified hazards. The HMP is a document that contains information to assist in planning for the occurrence of natural and man-made hazards; it contains strategies to help mitigate the impact of these hazards (Sacramento County 2016). Project construction is not anticipated to require the partial or temporary closure of surrounding roadways. In the event of an emergency, emergency personnel would be able to access the roads surrounding the Project site as well as access the Project site.

As such, project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less-than-Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the Project site is not located within a fire hazard severity zone. The Project would be operated remotely with no permanent on-site operations and no occupied buildings or habitable structures. The Project will include current best practices for fire safety. The batteries would be subject to compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations for health and safety, the proposed BESS would contain a safety system that would include a fire detection and suppression control system that would be triggered automatically when the system senses imminent fire danger, and the fire suppression system inside each enclosure will shut down the unit if any hazard indicators are detected. In the event of an emergency, the property owner would be immediately alerted through the remote monitoring system, which includes temperature sensors within the equipment that is monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Upon learning of an emergency situation, the proper emergency services would be alerted. The Project would adhere to applicable requirements set forth by the 2019 CFC adopted by the City’s Code of Ordinances. The improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would be located within the existing Cordova Substation’s developed footprint and would not entail any operational changes related to wildland fire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 45
MAY 2023

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding onor offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities resulting from Project implementation would disturb soils, which could increase siltation of nearby drainage systems. The Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP, which would ensure appropriate measures are implemented to control erosion and protect water quality during both Project construction and operation. Additionally, the Project would implement standard ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 46
MAY 2023
construction BMPs during project construction to prevent and control any erosion. Compliance with construction measures would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements set forth by the Sacramento River Watershed Program or result in the degradation of surface and groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would include the construction of the proposed BESS and associated improvements to the existing Cordova Substation. Implementation of the Project would not result in the use of groundwater and, therefore, would not decrease or interfere with existing groundwater.

The Project site consists of six acres of vacant undeveloped land. As such, project implementation would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on-site. However, since other undeveloped areas surrounding the Project would allow for groundwater recharge within the Project area, impacts would be less than significant. The improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would be located entirely within the existing Cordova Substation’s developed footprint which would not change the amount of existing impervious surfaces on the Cordova Substation site.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would include the construction of the proposed BESS on approximately six acres of vacant undeveloped land. As discussed in response to Threshold 3.7 (b), the Project would require submittal of a SWPPP which would include erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used during the construction phase. Additionally, upon completion of construction, impervious areas on-site would be increased, reducing potential for soil erosion. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. The improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would be located entirely within the existing Cordova Substation’s developed footprint which would not change the amount of existing impervious surfaces on the Cordova Substation site.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project site and inevitably alter the existing on-site drainage pattern. Runoff generated by the Project site would be collected by proposed stormwater retention basin at the northern portion of the site, which would capture the peak runoff rates. Additionally, through implementation existing regulations, flooding impacts from changes to the existing drainage patterns and increasing imperviousness as a result of the Project would be less than significant. The improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would be located entirely within the existing Cordova Substation’s developed footprint which would not change the amount of existing impervious surfaces on the Cordova Substation site.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 47
MAY 2023
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less-than-Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the proposed stormwater retention basin would capture project-generated runoff, which would eventually discharge into the City’s storm drain system. Further, through implementation of existing regulations regarding stormwater, the Project would not exceed the capacity of drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would be located entirely within the existing Cordova Substation’s developed footprint which would not alter the existing drainage of the Cordova Substation site. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps, the Project is not located within a designated high risk flood hazard area (FEMA 2022). The Project site is located within Zone X, which includes areas of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2022). Implementation of the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is not located within a designated high risk flood hazard area (FEMA 2022). Additionally, the Project site is not located within a tsunami inundation zone and seiches do not pose a hazard to the Project site (DOC 2022c). During construction the Project would implement BMPs to ensure flows from the Project site would not release pollutants into downstream receiving waters. Upon completion of construction, the Project would not require the storage of pollutants that, in the event of inundation, could be released. Therefore, the impacts associated with the risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone would not occur. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact. A Water Quality Plan was prepared for the Central Valley Region in 1998, and last revised in 2016. Construction and operation of the Project would not interfere with implementation of the plan and the Project would comply with applicable permits and construction measures that would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 48
MAY 2023

3.11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature (such as a major highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. The Project includes the construction of the proposed BESS on an approximately six-acre Project site in the western portion of the City. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The improvements to the existing Cordova Substation would be located within the existing Cordova Substation’s developed footprint which would not divide an established community. Access to the Project site would be provided via Canyonlands Drive and Poopenaut Court. The Project includes no barrier or other component that would act to physically divide an established community and no impacts would occur. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The Project includes the construction of the proposed BESS and improvements to the existing Cordova Substation. Operation and maintenance of the Project would not substantially differ from existing practices and protocol of the existing SMUD Cordova Substation, which the Project would interconnect with and there would be no operational or use changes associated with the Cordova Substation improvements.

Furthermore, the Project site is zoned LC in the SRSP, which allows for a commercial mixed-use development. The Project would require a zone text amendment to allow for the development of the proposed BESS within the LC zoning designation. Upon approval of the requested zone text amendment, the Project would not conflict with the LC zoning designation. Impacts would be less than significant.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 49
MAY 2023

3.12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Sacramento General Plan identifies locations of areas designated as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-2 within the County. According to the general plan, remaining aggregate deposits are located in the Old American River Channel, located south of the City (Sacramento County 2011). These areas are protected by the County for future mining purposes. The Project site is not within any of these areas as identified by the County’s general plan. Furthermore, the Project site it zoned LC. Mineral extraction is not a permitted use within this zone. No impact would occur. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact As discussed in response to Threshold 3.12 (a), the Project site is not located within a MRZ-2, as identified by the County’s general plan. The Project site consists of undeveloped, vacant land and is not considered a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 50
MAY 2023

3.13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
A Noise and Vibration Assessment Letter Report was prepared for the Project by Dudek as is included as Appendix F to this Initial Study. This section summarizes the result of the Noise and Vibration Assessment Letter Report. Full details regarding regulatory setting, methodology, and other information can be found in Appendix F. a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less-than-Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction activities would result in short-term noise. Construction activities would consist grading and site preparation, paving activities, and building construction/Cordova Substation improvements, all of which require the use of heavy-duty equipment that generate varying noise levels. Construction activities would be limited to the less noise-sensitive hours (e.g., daytime) of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, in accordance with Chapter 6.68 Noise Control of the City’s municipal code (City of Rancho Cordova 2022). Construction-generated noise levels would fluctuate depending on the type, number, and duration of equipment used. The effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities occurring on any given day, noise levels generated by those activities, distances to noise - sensitive receptors, and the existing ambient noise environment at nearby receptors. Construction equipment would vary by phase, but the entire construction process would include operation of an air compressor, backhoe, haul trucks and trailers, compactor, concrete mixer and pump, crane, dozer, and ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 51
MAY 2023
other standard construction equipment. Noise generated from these pieces of equipment would be intermittent and short as typical use is characterized by periods of full-power operation followed by extended periods of operation at lower power, idling, or powered-off conditions.

The grading and site preparation phase typically generate the most substantial noise levels because of the onsite equipment associated with grading and compacting are the noisiest. Site preparation equipment and activities would include an excavator, a backhoeand dozer. Because this is typically the loudest phase, it was assumed that these pieces of equipment could be operating simultaneously, generating the loudest anticipated noise levels for the overall construction activities. Noise emission levels from these types of construction equipment are shown in Table 3.13-1.

Table 3.13-1. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels Equipment Typical Sound Level (dB) – 50 feet from Source Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete mixer 85
Concrete pump 82
Concrete vibrator 76
Crane, derrick 88
Crane, mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 81
Grader 85
Impact wrench 85
Jack hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 89
Pneumatic tool 85
Pump 76
Roller 74
Saw 76
Scraper 89
Truck 88
Based on the reference noise levels listed in Table 3.13-1 and accounting for typical usage factors for each piece of equipment, onsite construction activities could generate an average noise level of approximately 67 dB at 50 feet from the Project site boundary
The City does not have adopted daytime construction noise standards. However, when evaluating potential noise impacts, temporary short-term noise occurring during the less sensitive times of the day, when people are active, out of their homes, or otherwise not sleeping, are generally considered less of a nuisance and less likely to disrupt sleep, or otherwise result in significant noise exposure. Thus, considering that construction activities would occur during the daytime hours, in accordance with typical ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 52
MAY 2023
City-required conditions of approval limiting construction activities to Monday through Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., overall construction activities would be temporary, construction noise levels would fluctuate, and the loudest levels would occur for a shorter duration than the overall construction duration, existing nearby sensitive receptors would not be substantially affected. Therefore, short-term construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project would include the construction of a BESS and improvements to the existing Cordova Substation.

The Project would create operational noise from the proposed on-site equipment. The Project would require a zone text amendment to allow for the development of the proposed BESS within the LC zoning designation. Upon approval of the requested zone text amendment, the Project would be consistent with the allowed uses within the LC zoning designation, which include BESS facilities. Section 6.68.070 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes the maximum noise levels allowed within residential zones, and for stationary noise sources that could affect residential properties. The residences to the west, northwest, and north of the Project site are zoned RD-5. As such, the Project is restricted to noise levels no greater than 55 dBA Leq during the daytime and 50 dBA Leq during the nighttime.

Findings from the Noise and Vibration Assessment Letter Report show that operational noise levels created by the Project would be within the City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards at the nearby receptors (Appendix F). Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from on-site noise sources. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less-than-Significant Impact. The nearest off-site structures that are susceptible to vibration as single‐ family homes located west of the Project site, where the nearest residential structure is approximately 275 feet away from the Project site. Since the City’s Municipal Code does not provide a quantifiable vibration threshold level, Caltrans guidance has been utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources at 0.25 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV). Refer to Appendix F for further details.

The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a large bulldozer. A large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest off-site structure (275 feet away) would be 0.0002 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest residential structure would be below the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold detailed above. The on‐going operation of the Project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources. Therefore, groundborne vibration or groundborne noise impacts during construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is Mather Airport, located approximately 4.7 miles to the west. The Project site is not located within the Noise Exposure Ranges as identified in the Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (SACOG 2020). In addition, the Project would be operated remotely with no ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 53
MAY 2023
permanent on-site operations and maintenance personnel, and no occupied buildings or habitable structures. It is expected that between two to four staff members will visit the site weekly and as needed for maintenance and monitoring. No operational changes are anticipated due to the Project’s improvements to the existing Cordova Substation. As such, during operation, the Project would not expose people to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur.

3.14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would include the construction of a BESS on an approximately six-acre Project site and associated improvements to the existing Cordova Substation to support the BESS.

The purpose of the Project is to provide essential regional and local grid reliability, help to meet California’s goal of a zero carbon future by complimenting renewable energy generation, and help to reduce the likelihood of local outages. The Project, including the Cordova Substation improvements, would not include the construction of new residential uses, businesses, roads, or other infrastructure that may result in an increase in unplanned population. As such, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth; impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project site consists of six acres of vacant undeveloped land and associated improvements to the existing Cordova Substation to support the BESS. The Project would not affect any existing housing or necessitate construction of replacement housing in the area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would result in no impacts associated with displacement of people or housing.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 54
MAY 2023

3.15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The closest fire station to the Project site is Fire Station 61, located approximately 5.54 miles northwest of the Project site. Based on the Project site being located within the service area of the fire station and the proximity of the Project site to the fire station, it is anticipated that the Project could be adequately served by Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District without adversely affecting personnel-to-resident ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

The City has adopted the 2019 California Building Standards Code, Title 24, incorporating the International Fire Code, 2018 Edition, which lists the minimum required fire-flow and flow duration for buildings of different floor areas and construction types. This includes compliance with all applicable fire code and Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District requirements and standards for construction, access, water mains, fire flow, and fire hydrants. Prior to any site development or future project approvals, all plans will be required to be submitted to the fire marshal for review and verification that they conform to all pertinent fire standards and requirements. The Project will be constructed in accordance with these regulations.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Police protection?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project site is located approximately 4.4 miles southeast of the Rancho Cordova Police Department (RCPD) (2897 Kilgore Road). Based on the Project site being located within the service area of the RCPD and the proximity of the Project site to the RCPD, as well as the fact that the Project will be fully enclosed, have no public access, will be operated remotely, and will have private security ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 55
MAY 2023
services available 24 hours per day, seven days per week. It is anticipated that the Project could be served without adversely affecting personnel-to-resident ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Schools?
No Impact. The Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the City. The number of employees hired to construct the Project would be minimal and would likely already reside within the broader project area. Additionally, the Project would be operated remotely with no permanent on-site operations and maintenance personnel, and no occupied buildings or habitable structures resulting in increased population or demand on schools. It is expected that between two to four staff members will visit the site bi-weekly and as needed for maintenance and monitoring. As such, it is not anticipated that people would relocate to the City as a result of the Project, and thus, an increase in school-age children requiring public education is not expected to occur. No Impact would occur.

Parks?
No Impact. The Project would not result in population growth, and as such, would not increase demands on park and recreation facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Other public facilities?
No Impact. The Project would not directly or indirectly increase demand of public facilities. The number of employees hired to construct the Project would be minimal and would likely already reside within the broader project area. Additionally, the Project would be operated remotely with no permanent onsite operations and maintenance personnel, and no occupied buildings or habitable structures resulting in increased population or demand of public facilities. It is expected that between two to four staff members will visit the site weekly and as needed for maintenance and monitoring. As such, it is not anticipated that people would relocate to the City as a result of the Project, and thus, an increase in demand of public facilities. No Impact would occur.

3.16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 56
MAY 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The Project proposes a new battery energy storage facility and associated improvements to the existing Cordova Substation to support the BESS, and thus would not introduce a residential development.

As such, the Project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities would occur or be accelerated. Additionally, due to the anticipated limited number of construction personnel, short-term impacts to local recreational facilities would not occur. Further, upon operation, the Project would be operated remotely with no permanent on-site operations and maintenance personnel. Therefore, impacts would not occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in the City. Thus, the Project would not increase the demand for recreational facilities. Additionally, the Project would not promote or indirectly induce new development that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Therefore, impacts would not occur.

3.17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 57
MAY 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Impact. The Project site consist of vacant undeveloped land. The Project site contains no sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or transit facilities along Canyonlands Drive or Poopenaut Court. Additionally, because the Project would operate remotely with no permanent on-site operations and maintenance personnel, and no occupied buildings or habitable structures, operational vehicle trips generated because of the Project would be negligible. No additional operational vehicle trips above existing conditions are anticipated to be generated by the improvements to the existing Cordova Substation. The Project would not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. Impacts would not occur. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project proposes construction and operation of a BESS. Construction of the Project is anticipated to occur over approximately 12 months. Although construction of the Project would require transport of materials to/from the Project site by heavy equipment, the construction period is considered temporary, and all routine construction-related trips as well as construction worker commutes would cease once construction is complete. The Project would be operated remotely with no permanent on-site operations and maintenance personnel, and no occupied buildings or habitable structures. It is expected that between two to four staff members will visit the site weekly, or as needed for maintenance and monitoring. As such, because vehicle trips generated by the Project would be negligible, the Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). No additional operational vehicle trips above existing conditions are anticipated to be generated by the improvements to the existing Cordova Substation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less-than-Significant Impact. Access to the Project site would be provided via driveways located on Canyonlands Drive and/or Poopenaut Court. The Project does not include any substantial changes to the existing roadways and there would be no roadway changes as a result of the improvements to the existing Cordova Substation. Additionally, the Project would comply with existing laws, rules and regulations.

Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous design features would be less than significant.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 58
MAY 2023
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The Project site consists of six acres of vacant undeveloped land within the City and associated improvements to the existing Cordova Substation. Construction of the Project would not require the full or partial closure of surrounding roads. In the event of an emergency, emergency vehicles would be able to access the Project site and surrounding are during construction and operation. As such, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No impact would occur.

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? No impact. The Project site consists of undeveloped vacant land that had been previously disturbed by agricultural uses until the early 2000s (Appendix C). As discussed in response to Threshold 3.5 (a), the only previously recorded cultural resource is a historic industrial building located within the 0.5-mile search radius. However, this resource has been found ineligible for the NRHP and CRHR. Therefore, Project ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 59
MAY 2023
implementation is would not cause a substantial change to a cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR. No impact would occur.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less-than-significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, Dudek requested a NAHC search of their SLF for the Project site. the NAHC responded that the result of the SLF search was negative.

In addition, no cultural resources were observed during the intensive pedestrian survey. As such, it is highly unlikely that project construction activities would disturb unknown tribal cultural resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
waste water treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the waste
water treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 60
MAY 2023
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, waste water treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less-than-Significant Impact.

Water Facilities
Construction water required for the Project would be minimal, and only for common construction-related purposes, including but not limited to dust suppression, soil compaction, and grading. Dust-control water may be used during ingress and egress of on-site construction vehicle equipment traffic and during the construction of the energy storage equipment. The water used may be supplied by purchase from local water purveyors or hauled to the project site via water trucks. No new wastewater facilities would be developed for the Project.

Electric Power Facilities
The Project will be charged from the electric grid via the Project’s interconnection to SMUD Cordova Substation located immediately adjacent to the Project site. Energy stored in the Project will then be discharged into the grid when the energy is needed, providing important electrical reliability services to the local area. This extension would not result in additional adverse physical effects beyond those already identified in other sections of this environmental analysis.

Natural Gas
Because the Project site would be unmanned and no residences are proposed as part of the Project, no new or expanded natural gas facilities would be required.

Telecommunication Facilities
Because the Project site would be unmanned, and daily operations would be monitored remotely through the proposed fiber optic line, the Project would not require the construction of new or expanded telecommunications facilities.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Threshold 3.19 (a), the Project would require minimal water usage during construction. Additionally, since no habitable structures would be constructed as part of the Project, operational water required for the Project would be minimal, and only for ongoing maintenance. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. The Project would not require wastewater services at the site. Therefore, the Project would not impact any wastewater treatment provider.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 61
MAY 2023
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less-than-Significant Impact. It is expected that the Project would generate minimal solid waste. The amount of solid waste to be generated by the Project is dependent on the manufacturer chosen for the Project and whether or not the BESS enclosures will be assembled off or on-site. The Sacramento County Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 10,815 tons per day. Additionally, the landfill has a max permitted capacity of 117,400,00 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 112,700 cubic yards. It is anticipated that the landfill will close in 2064 (CalRecylce 2022). As such, the Sacramento Landfill would have the capacity to serve the Project. With adherence to the appliable waste management plans and regulations set by the state and local jurisdiction, implementation actions related to solid waste disposal, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. Construction-generated solid waste would be temporary, and operation of the Project would not generate solid waste beyond existing conditions. Solid waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at designated landfill facilities in compliance with federal, state, and local regulation. No impact would occur.

3.20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 62
MAY 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. As discussed in response to Threshold 3.10 (f), the Project site is located within an LRA and is not located within a VHFHSZ within an LRA (CAL FIRE 2022). In 2016, the County prepared the Sacramento County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), which identifies plans, programs, and mitigation measures to minimize impacts of identified hazards. The HMP is a document that contains information to assist in planning for the occurrence of natural and man-made hazards; it contains strategies to help mitigate the impact of these hazards (Sacramento County 2016). The Project would include the installation of the BESS on an approximately six-acre vacant undeveloped parcel and include associated improvements to the existing Cordova Substation to accommodate the BESS. Project construction is not anticipated to require the partial or temporary closure of surrounding roadways. In the event of an emergency, emergency personnel would be able to access the roads surrounding the Project site as well as access the Project site.

As such, project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would comply with Chapter 17.04.010 of the City’s Municipal Code, which adopts the California Fire Code (CFC). Chapter 33 of the CFC outlines general fire safety precautions during construction and demolition that are intended to maintain minimum levels of fire protection and limit the spread of fire (California Fire Code 2019). The Project would not include structures intended for long-term occupancy. The Project site is relatively flat and is characterized by non-native grassland and disturbed habitat. In the event of a wildfire, vegetation on the Project site could ignite and contribute to fire spread, but neither the location of the Project site or any components of the Project would contribute to heightened fire risk. The Project’s associated improvements to the existing Cordova Substation are not expected to heighten fire risk because they will be located entirely within the developed footprint and there will be no operational changes as a result of the improvements.

Chapter 12 of the 2019 California Fire Code requires the use of an Energy Management System, for monitoring and balancing cell voltages, currents and temperatures. The system must transmit an alarm signal if potentially hazardous temperatures or other conditions such as short circuits, over voltage or under voltage are detected. The fire code also requires the use of an appropriate fire extinguishing and smoke detection system, to the satisfaction of the fire official which will be incorporated into each of the Project’s ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 63
MAY 2023
BESS enclosures. The batteries selected for the Project will use lithium-ion or LFP cell technology. The batteries would be subject to compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations for health and safety, including the 2019 California Fire Code. The existing regulations control the conditions under which the energy storage (battery) component can operate, and because the site will comply with all fire clearance requirements for vegetation, the fire impact is less than significant. In addition, the battery storage would contain a fire protection system that would include a fire detection and suppression control system that would be triggered automatically when the system senses imminent fire danger. The fire suppression system will shut down the unit if any hazard indicators are detected.

Because the Project has a multi-layered approach to fire safety it would be a rare event for a fire to occur at the site that could not be controlled by these features or by responding firefighters from nearby fire stations. The likelihood of a facility fire escaping and igniting vegetation is considered extremely low due to the protections and setbacks from the nearest unmaintained vegetation and there would be no project occupants as it is an unmanned facility. Therefore, because the potential for a wildfire ignition caused by the facility’s operations is considered an extremely rare event and the absence of project occupants, the potential for impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant undeveloped land. The Project would include electrical cable and telecommunication connections, wiring and electrical system installation, and would include assembly of the accessory components including inverter transformers and generation step-up transformers installation of high voltage equipment, and generation tie-line interconnecting to the SMUD Cordova substation. However, as described above, the Project will include current best practices for fire safety. The batteries would be subject to compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations for health and safety, the battery storage would contain a safety system that would include a fire detection and suppression control system that would be triggered automatically when the system senses imminent fire danger, and the fire suppression system inside each enclosure will shut down the unit if any hazard indicators are detected. The Project’s associated improvements to the existing Cordova Substation are not expected to heighten fire risk because they will be located entirely within the developed footprint and there will be no operational changes as a result of the improvements.

The Project will be operated remotely with no permanent on-site operations and maintenance personnel, and no occupied buildings or habitable structures. It is expected that between two to four staff members will visit the site weekly and as needed for maintenance and monitoring. The Project site will be fully enclosed and will not be open to the public. The Project will be monitored 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The system will transmit an alarm signal if potentially hazardous temperatures or other conditions such as short circuits, over voltage or under voltage, are detected.

Accordingly, it is not anticipated that the Project would exacerbate fire risk, since electrical cables and telecommunications would be undergrounded, and pavement of the site would serve as a fuel break.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 64
MAY 2023
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less-Than-Significant Impact. For reasons described previously in responses to Thresholds 3.9 (g), and

3.20(a), (b), and (c), the Project would not pose a substantial risk for wildfire. The Project would be located on relatively flat land. Furthermore, the Project would not include habitable structures or other structural development intended for human occupancy. As such, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks from post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. Impacts would be less than significant.

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 65
MAY 2023
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, potential impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a level below significance with incorporation of MM-PAL-1. The Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Overall, Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of the mitigation measure.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less than Significant. Given the nature of the Project, potential cumulative impacts could occur during the temporary construction work if other projects occur in the same timeframe and area. The Project construction would occur within an undeveloped six-acre parcel within the City of Rancho Cordova and no other substantial projects are known from the same area. The Project would include to construction of the proposed BESS and connection to the existing SMUD Cordova Substation along with improvements to the existing Cordova Substation that would be located entirely within the substation’s developed footprint. The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant. The potential for adverse direct or indirect impacts to human beings was considered throughout Chapter 3 of this initial Study, Based on this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that construction or operation of the Project would result in a substantial adverse effect on human beings.

Impacts would be less than significant.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

13267.05 66
MAY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 67
MAY 2023
4 References and Preparers

4.1 References Cited
CAL FIRE. 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed August 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

CalRecycle. 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search.

CARB. 2019. “Common Air Pollutants.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-air-pollutants.

City of Rancho Cordova. 2022. City of Ranch Cordova Municipal Code. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/RanchoCordova/#!/RanchoCordova06/RanchoCordova0668.html#

6.68. DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2022a. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed August 2022. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.

DOC. 2022b. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed September 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
DOC. 2022c, Tsunami Hazard Area Map. Accessed September 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2022. EnviroStor. Accessed August 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Search FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2022. Flood Insurance Maps. Accessed September 2022. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments). 2020. Mather Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted May 1997. Updated August 2020. https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/mather_draft_alucp.pdf?1601659275.

Sacramento County. 2006. Relative Likelihood for the Presence of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Eastern Sacramento County, California. Accessed December 2021.
https://www.airquality.org/StationarySources/Documents/NOA_Parcels_redux.pdf.

Sacramento County. 2012. Williamson Act Map.
https://planning.saccounty.net/Documents/Maps/Williamson_Act_0312_new%20color_note.pdf.

Sacramento County. 2016. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
https://waterresources.saccounty.gov/stormready/Pages/Local-Hazard-Mititagtion-Report.aspx.

Sacramento County. 2022. Sacramento County Online Map. Accessed August 2022. https://generalmap.gis.saccounty.gov/JSViewer/county_portal.html.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 68
MAY 2023
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments). 2019. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). Adopted November 18, 2019. https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/2020_mtp-scs.pdf?1580330993.

SMAQMD. 2009. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. December 2009; revised April 2020. https://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/CEQA-Guidance-Tools.

SMAQMD. 2020. Guidance to Addressing the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District.

October. Accessed December 2021.
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/SMAQMDFriantRanchFinalOct2020.pdf.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2022. Geotracker. Accessed August 2022. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Search+GeoTracker

4.2 List of Preparers
City of Rancho Cordova
Darcy Goulart, Planning Manager
DUDEK
Keith Carwana, Project Manager
Candice Magnus, Project Manager
Tyler Friesen, GIS Specialist
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Date: 12/8/2021 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1326705\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BRA\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd SOURCE: Bing Imagery 2021; County of Sacramento 2021; Open Street Maps 2019 0 1,000 2,000Feet
Isleton
Rancho
Cordova
Galt
Elk
Grove
Folsom
Citrus
Heights
Sacramento
Am ador
County
E l Dorado
County
P lacer County
San
Jo aquin
County
Yo l o
County
S olano County
S acramento
County
50 99
160
220
124
4 12
16 26
113
12 84
104
16 88
99 80
80 505
5 oject SitePr
Project Location
FIGURE 1
Project Location
Initial Study for the Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 70
MAY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Date: 12/8/2021 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1326705\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BRA\Figure2_ProjectSite.mxd SOURCE: Bing imagery 2021; Sacremento County 2021; Open Street Maps 2019 0 250 500Feet Existing Preserve
FIGURE 2
Project Site Initial Study for the Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project Project Study Area
Sunridge Specific Plan Area
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 72
MAY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

P-POH P-POH

P-POH P-POH

P-POH P-POH
X
X X
X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X
X
X X
X
X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X

POH POH

POH POH POH POH POH

POH POH

POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH

POH POH POH

POH POH POH POH POH POH

POH POH POH POH POH

POH POH POH POH

POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH PO

POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH

POH POH POH

POH POH
POH

POH POH POH

POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH
SMUD Cordova Substation
X
LOD
LOD

LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD

LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
W LOD

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o
o

X X X X X X X X

MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
CANYONLANDS DR.

POOPENAUT CT. (PRIVATE)
R42'
194
200
200
205
205
200
200
202
203
204
195
190
002
202
201
201
202
197
198
199
196
189
190
195
199
200
20' ACCESS ROAD (TYP)

PROPOSED BESS EQUIPMENT

PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE

PROPOSED NOISE WALL

PROJECT BOUNDARY

VERNAL POOL (TYP)

PROPOSED AUXILIARY

EQUIPMENT AREA

PROPOSED POI (LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED)
30' ACCESS EASEMENT
12' P.U.E.

ACCESS, ELECTRICAL, WATER &

COMMUNICATION EASEMENT
20' S.A.S.D. EASEMENT
10' PIPELINE EASEMENT
10' PIPELINE EASEMENT
200' ELECTRICAL
FACILITIES EASEMENT 10' L.E.
16' P.U.E.

PROPOSED STORMWATER

RETENTION BASIN

PROPOSED STORMWATER

RETENTION BASIN

PROPOSED STREET

AND ACCENT TREES
APPROX. EVERY 40'

PROPOSED VERTICAL

ACCENT PLANTINGS
APPROX. EVERY 20'

PROPOSED FLOWERING

GROUND COVER

PROPOSED VARIED

GROUND COVER

PROPOSED ENTRANCE GATE

PROPOSED ENTRANCE GATE

25.0' LANDSCAPE SETBACK

50.0' SOUTH SACRAMENTO HABITAT

CONSERVATION PLAN SETBACK

10.0' STORMWATER CONTROL

DITCH SETBACK

10.0 69.0

10.0 10.0

65.0 135.0

16.0 20.0'

12.5 Su
St
Sacr
LEGEND:

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROPOSED 24 FT ACCESS ROAD

PROPOSED PERMANENT BASIN
205
EX. 1' INTERVAL CONTOUR
EX. 5' INDEX CONTOUR

PARCEL LINES

EASEMENT LINES

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT
NOTES:

1. THIS PLAN IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

2. FURTHER SITE DESIGN DETAILS ARE SUBJECT TO SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA STATE REQUIREMENTS.

3. PROPOSED GRADING WILL BE ANTICIPATED WITH FURTHER ITERATION OF DESIGN. DETAILED

GRADING WILL PRIORITIZE BALANCING EARTHWORK AND TERRACING PADS AS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE SLOPE TOLERANCES OF EQUIPMENT.

4. ALL LANDSCAPING SHOWN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED AT A LATER DATE.

5. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM IS CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 2, NAD83 (2011), IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 (GEOID 18)

6. FEMA FLOOD ZONE IDENTIFICATION IS: ZONE X - AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD. FEMA FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION WAS DERIVED FROM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP(S) (FIRM) NO. 6067C0240J, ALL WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 19, 2018.

7. RECTIFIED ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY AND LiDAR DATA, USED FOR PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING, ACQUIRED AUGUST 19, 2021.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRIANTS PROVIDED BY DUDEK.

POH
LOD
EX. ASPHALT LINE
EX. CONCRETE LINE
EX. POWER OVERHEAD LINE
EX. VEGETATION LINE
EX. BUILDING LINE
EX. RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROPOSED LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
EX. PRESERVE SETBACK (50 FEET)
EX. STORMWATER CONTROL DITCH SETBACK (25 FEET)
EX. STORMWATER CONTROL DITCH
EX. BOUNDARY LINE SETBACK
EX. VERNAL POOL
EX. VEGETATION BUFFER (25 FEET)
X PROPOSED 6-TO-8-FOOT SECURITY FENCE
PROPOSED 12-FOOT HIGH WALL
X EX. FENCE LINE
Preliminary Site Plan
Initial Study for the Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project FIGURE 3
Path: Z:\Projects\j1326705\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Visual
Source: Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 2022
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 74
MAY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

SOURCE: Bing Imagery 2021; County of Sacramento 2015
Date: 12/8/2021 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1326705\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BRA\FIgure5_SSHCP_LandCovers.mxd 0 100 200Feet
(50 feet)
Existing Preserve
Land Cover Types
Disturbed
Streams/Creeks (VPIH)
Swale
Valley Grassland
Vernal Pool
South Sacramento
Habitat Conservation
Plan Area
Rio Vista
Fairfield
Dixon
Vacaville
Antioch Pittsburg Oakley
Ione
Plymouth
Winters Davis West
Sacramento
Stockton
Stockton
Lodi
Isleton
Woodland
Rancho
Cordova
Galt
Elk Grove
Folsom
Citrus
Heights
Sacramento
Suisun City
Am ador
County
E l Dorado
County
P lacer County
San
Jo aquin
County
Yo lo County
S olano County
50 99
160
244
220
4 124
12 16
113
26 12
84 104
16 88
99 80
505
5 Project Site
Project Study Area
Preserve Setback
FIGURE 4
South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP) - Modeled Land Covers Initial Study for the Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13267.05 76
MAY 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

May 9, 2023 13267
Parker Hills
Vesper Energy
125 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Ste 525
Irving, Texas 75062
Subject: Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Dear Mr. Hills:

Dudek is pleased to present Vesper Energy with the following air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis for the proposed Juniper Creek Energy Storage Project (Project) located in the City of Rancho Cordova, California (City). The Project site would be located on approximately six acres of vacant land on APN 067-0780-011-0000.

This memorandum estimates criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions and impacts from construction and operation of the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). The contents and organization of this memorandum are as follows: Section 1, Project Description, Section 2, General Analysis and Methodology, Section 3 and Section 4, Thresholds of Significance and Impact Analyses for the Air Quality Assessment and GHG Emissions Assessment, Section 5, Conclusions, and Section 6 References Cited. 1 Project Description
The Project will be composed of lithium-ion batteries installed in racks, inverters, medium-voltage (MV) transformers, a collector substation, and other associated equipment to interconnect with the existing and adjacent Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Cordova Substation (point of interconnection). The batteries will be installed either in containers or in purpose-built enclosures. The containers or enclosures will have battery storage racks, with relay and communications systems for automated monitoring and managing of the batteries to ensure performance and safety. The project consists of an approximately 200-megawatt battery energy storage system (BESS).

A battery management system will be provided to control the charging/discharging of the batteries, along with temperature monitoring and control of the individual battery cell temperature with an integrated cooling system.

Batteries operate with direct current (DC) electricity, which must be converted to alternating current (AC) for compatibility with the existing electric grid. Power inverters to convert between AC and DC, along with transformers to step up the voltage, will be included as part of the Project.

The Project will be operated remotely with no permanent on-site operations and maintenance personnel, and no occupied buildings, habitable structures, or parking. It is expected that between two to four staff members will visit ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 2 MAY 2023
the site monthly and as needed for maintenance and monitoring. The site will be fully enclosed and will not be open to the public.

The Project also entails improvements to the existing SMUD Cordova Substation to interconnect and accommodate the Project. The improvements will be entirely located within the substation’s developed footprint and are expected to include completion of a bay within the Cordova Substation by adding an additional circuit breaker and disconnect switch. Specific upgrades will be finalized through the ongoing interconnection process with SMUD. The Project also entails modification of the existing SMUD Hedge-Cordova 230kV remedial action scheme (RAS) at the existing Hedge and Cordova substations. Modification of the RAS is limited to digital programming changes for grid protection and relaying. No ground disturbing activities are anticipated at the SMUD Hedge Substation. 2 General Analysis and Methodology
The Project site is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SMAQMD, which has jurisdiction over the City where the Project is located. Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. Criteria air pollutants that are evaluated include volatile organic compounds (VOCs; sometimes referred to as reactive organic gases (ROGs)), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns in size (coarse particulate matter, or PM10), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in size (fine particulate matter, or PM2.5). ROGs and NOx are important because they are precursors to ozone (O3).

GHGs are gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature. Global climate change concerns are focused on whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect. Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3, and water vapor. If the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs rise, the average temperature of the lower atmosphere will gradually increase. Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous environmental resources though uncertain impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns.

Although climate change is driven by global atmospheric conditions, climate change impacts are felt locally. Climate change is already affecting California: average temperatures have increased, leading to more extreme hot days and fewer cold nights; shifts in the water cycle have been observed, with less winter precipitation falling as snow, and both snowmelt and rainwater running off earlier in the year; sea levels have risen; and wildland fires are becoming more frequent and intense due to dry seasons that start earlier and end later (CAT 2010).

The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the mass of its emissions and the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere, known as its global warming potential (GWP), which varies among GHGs. Total GHG emissions are expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. Thus, GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The CO2e for a gas is derived by multiplying the mass of the gas by the associated GWP, such that metric tons (MT) of CO2e = (MT of a GHG) × (GWP of the GHG). The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) assumes that the GWP for CH4 is 25, which means that emissions of 1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2, and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007).

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 3 MAY 2023

2.1 Construction
Emissions from the construction phase of the proposed Project were estimated using the CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 (CAPCOA 2021). For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed that construction of the proposed Project would commence in November 20221 and would last approximately 12 months, ending in October 2023. The analysis contained herein is based on the following subset area schedule assumptions (duration of phases is approximate):
▪ Site preparation – 1 month
▪ Grading – 2 months
▪ Substation installation/Cordova Substation upgrades – 5 months ▪ Battery/Container installation – 5 months
The majority of the phases listed above would occur concurrently and would not occur sequentially in isolation. The estimated construction duration was provided by the Project applicant. Detailed construction equipment modeling assumptions are provided in Attachment A, CalEEMod Outputs.

The construction equipment mix used for estimating the construction emissions of the proposed Project is based on information provided by the Project applicant and is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Construction Scenario Assumptions
Construction
Phase
One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily Worker
Trips
Average
Daily
Vendor
Truck Trips
Total Haul
Truck
Trips Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Site preparation 20 2 0 Graders 1 10
Rubber Tired
Loaders
1 10
Skid Steer Loaders 2 10
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
2 10
Grading 20 4 988 Graders 2 10
Plate Compactors 2 10
Rollers 2 10
Rubber Tired
Loaders
2 10
Skid Steer Loaders 2 10
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
2 10
Substation 20 20 0 Aerial Lifts 2 10
1 The analysis assumes a construction start date of November 2022, which represents the earliest date construction would initiate.

Assuming the earliest start date for construction represents the worst-case scenario for criteria air pollutant emissions because equipment and vehicle emission factors for later years would be slightly less due to more stringent standards for in-use off-road equipment and heavy-duty trucks, as well as fleet turnover replacing older equipment and vehicles in later years.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 4 MAY 2023
Table 1. Construction Scenario Assumptions
Construction
Phase
One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily Worker
Trips
Average
Daily
Vendor
Truck Trips
Total Haul
Truck
Trips Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
installation/Cordova
Substation upgrades
Air Compressors 1 10
Bore/Drill Rigs 1 10
Cranes 1 10
Excavators 1 10
Generator Sets 1 10
Rollers 1 10
Rough Terrain
Forklifts
1 10
Rubber Tired
Dozers
2 10
Skid Steer Loaders 1 10
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
1 10
Trenchers 2 10
Battery/Container
installation
20 20 4 Air Compressors 2 10
Cranes 1 10
Excavators 1 10
Generator Sets 1 10
Plate Compactors 1 10
Rollers 1 10
Rough Terrain
Forklifts
1 10
Skid Steer Loaders 1 10
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
1 10
Trenchers 1 10
Note: See Attachment A for details.

For the analysis, it was assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating 5 days per week (22 days per month), up to 10 hours per day during Project construction. Construction worker and vendor (equipment/material deliveries, water trucks, etc.) trips were based on CalEEMod default assumptions and rounded up to the nearest whole number to account for whole round trips.

Project grading would be balanced onsite. It is anticipated that earth movement grading would be primarily, if not completely, accomplished using off-road equipment.

Construction of Project components would be subject to SMAQMD Rule 403, which requires that proposed construction include steps to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line (SMAQMD 1977).

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 5 MAY 2023
Compliance with SMAQMD Rule 403 would limit fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during proposed grading and construction activities.

A detailed depiction of the construction schedule—including information regarding phases and equipment used during each phase—is included in Attachment A to this technical memorandum. The information contained in Attachment A was used as CalEEMod model inputs.

2.2 Operation
Emissions from the operational phase of the proposed Project were estimated using CalEEMod. Operational year 2023 was assumed, as it would be the first year following completion of construction.

Area Sources
During operations and maintenance, one of the main sources of GHG emissions would be fugitive emissions from equipment containing SF6 gas installed at the proposed switchyard. SF6 has a GWP of 23,900 using CO2 at a reference value of 1 (IPCC 2007). The switchyard would include six 138 kilovolt (kV) breakers that would contain SF6 gas. It is estimated that the Project would maintain a total of 2,400 lbs of SF6 gas at the substation. Although leakage is unlikely, for the purposes of the Project’s emissions inventory, it was assumed that the breakers would have a maximum annual leak rate of 0.5% in accordance with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) PC37.122 - Standard for High Voltage Gas-Insulated Substations Rated Above 52 kV. Emissions from SF6 gas are included as part of area source emissions.

CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources, including emissions from consumer product use and landscape maintenance equipment. Emissions associated with natural gas usage in space heating and water heating are calculated in the building energy use module of CalEEMod, as described in the following text.

Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and institutional consumers, including detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. Other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings are not considered consumer products (CAPCOA 2021). Consumer product VOC emissions are estimated in CalEEMod based on the floor area of non-residential buildings and on the default factor of pounds of VOC per building square foot per day. The CalEEMod default values for consumer products were assumed.

Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and hedge trimmers. The emissions associated from landscape equipment use are estimated based on CalEEMod default values for emission factors (grams per square foot of building space per day) and number of summer days (when landscape maintenance would generally be performed) and winter days.

Energy Sources
As represented in CalEEMod, energy sources include emissions associated with building electricity and natural gas usage. Electricity use would contribute indirectly to criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the emissions from electricity use are only quantified for GHGs in CalEEMod, since criteria pollutant emissions occur at the site of the ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 6 MAY 2023
power plant, which is typically off site. The proposed Project would not include the use of natural gas on site during operation. The Project is anticipated to use electricity for on-site lighting and for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC).

Emissions were calculated by multiplying the energy use by the utility’s carbon intensity (pounds of GHGs per megawatt-hour for electricity) for CO2 and other GHGs. Annual electricity emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using the emissions factors for SMUD, which would be the energy source provider for the project.

Mobile Sources
Following the completion of construction activities, the proposed Project would generate criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) as a result of the periodic maintenance activity of the project.

It is anticipated that up to four workers would visit the site once per month to perform routine maintenance.

CalEEMod default data, including trip characteristics and emissions factors, were used for the model inputs.

Project-related traffic was assumed to include a mixture of worker vehicles in accordance with the associated use, as modeled within CalEEMod (50% light-duty autos, 25% light-duty truck type 1, and 25% light-duty truck type 2). Emission factors representing the vehicle mix and emissions for 2023 were used to estimate emissions associated with vehicular sources.

Off-Road Sources
The proposed Project would involve using a crane once every 5 years during routine maintenance to be able to lift and move the battery containers. CalEEMod default equipment size and load factors were assumed. It was assumed that the crane would operate for 8 hours, 1 day every 5 years.

Health Risk Assessment
As a precautionary measure, a health risk assessment (HRA) was performed to assess the impact of a battery cell malfunction, such as a runaway reaction or overcharge event, on sensitive receptors proximate to the Project site (outputs provided as Attachment B). This report includes an HRA associated with emissions from battery cell malfunction based on the methodologies prescribed in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA Guidelines) (OEHHA 2015) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Facility Prioritization Guidelines (CAPCOA 2016). During normal operation, there would be no emissions from the battery systems associated with the proposed Project. The assessment is based on the prioritization method for acute impacts. The thresholds are based on the application of a number of conservative air dispersion modeling scenarios coupled with air pollutant toxicities as reported by OEHHA and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. The prioritization thresholds are such that a total score greater than or equal to 10 would be considered a high priority; a total score greater than or equal to 1 and less than 10 would be considered an intermediate priority; and a total score less than 1 would be a low priority. The final prioritization is determined by the highest prioritization received for any release scenario. The prioritization method is the initial and most conservative tool used by air districts in California (including SMAQMD) to determine public health impacts due to toxic air pollutants for purposes of the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Act. The CAPCOA screening approach for health risks was used for the acute impact of toxic emissions (CAPCOA 2016). The prioritization score is calculated by estimating the maximum emission rate for each pollutant, dividing it by the acute non-cancer reference exposure level for the pollutant, and multiplying that by the proximity factor, normalization factor, and dispersion adjustment factor ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 7 MAY 2023
(CAPCOA 2016). The use of this tool is the first step in the toxic air pollutant screening level risk assessment process to determine whether a more refined assessment is required. The prioritization method is a direct impact risk assessment method, rather than a probabilistic/statistical method. The prioritization method relies on the emission rates of the various pollutants for a given facility, potency or toxicity factors (including adjustments for sensitive individuals such as seniors and children) for each pollutant identified, conservative air dispersion modeling assumptions, and the proximity of potential receptors to determine a facility’s score.

This analysis evaluated the potential impacts of a thermal runaway event where there was an elevated temperature situation due to a runaway reaction with combustion. Because the BESS would be enclosed in an essentially sealed cargo container, it is assumed that the emissions caused by these malfunction scenarios would remain within the cargo container until the container doors were opened by the fire department. Therefore, it is assumed that the release of pollutants to the atmosphere would occur within a relatively short time (i.e., 1 hour or less). The BESS would be equipped with monitoring and control systems that would prevent and/or control battery cell malfunctions.

The Project applicant has not committed to a specific battery vendor at the time of the preparation of this assessment and thus Tesla was assumed to be the supplier of the battery technology. The compounds and the associated mass emission rates used herein were determined by proprietary testing performed by Tesla. The tests performed by Tesla included a number of conservative factors, including allowing both the non‐combustion and combustion malfunction events to continue without control for over an hour and using an external ignition source to force combustion when the malfunction itself did not result in sufficient heat to cause a fire. The tests performed by Tesla showed that, in the event of a single cell undergoing thermal runaway there was no propagation to surrounding cells. In addition, the tests showed that when an entire module (a module is comprised of 12,636 cells) was ignited and the fire suppression system discharged there was no propagation to surrounding modules. The test results are considered representative of the proposed battery chemistry type for the project and would be applicable to other battery suppliers. While the entire BESS will be comprised of a total of approximately 17 modules, because the malfunction events discussed above are extremely unlikely to occur in the first place and, if such an event does occur, it will only likely occur within a single battery cell, the analysis assuming combustion of 10% of cells in a module remains extremely conservative.

Project emissions to the air would consist of combustion and vent products from the burning and/or venting of the battery cells due to a battery cell malfunction. Inhalation is the main pathway by which air pollutants would potentially cause public health impacts. Potential human health impacts associated with the proposed Project stem from human exposure to air emissions from the battery cell malfunction scenario discussed above. The expected pollutants emitted under these scenarios are listed in Table 2, with more detailed calculations provided in Attachment B. Also included in Attachment B is a copy of the material safety data sheet provided by the Tesla.

Although the assessment includes emissions in Table 2, only pollutants that have acute reference exposure levels contribute to the risk prioritization score.

Table 2. Chemical Constituents Emitted
Pollutants Chemical Names
CH4 Methane
H2 Hydrogen
C2H4 Ethylene
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO Carbon monoxide
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 8 MAY 2023
Table 2. Chemical Constituents Emitted
Pollutants Chemical Names
C3H6 Propylene
C2H6 Ethane
C3H6 Propene
C3H8 Propane
O2 Oxygen
N2 Nitrogen
HF Hydrogen fluoride
HCL Hydrochloric acid
HCN Hydrogen cyanide
Styrene Styrene
Toluene Toluene
Source: Tesla 2019.

According to SMAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The closest off-site sensitive receptors to the Project site include residences approximately 280 feet to the west of the Project site. 3 Air Quality Assessment

3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project impacts to air quality are based on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). For the purposes of this air quality analysis, a significant impact would occur if the Project would:

Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) indicates that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to determine whether a proposed project would have a significant impact on air quality.

SMAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational emissions within the City. The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the SMAQMD thresholds. A significant impact related to air quality would occur if the project would:
▪ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan; ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 9 MAY 2023
▪ Result in short-term (construction) emissions of NOx above 85 pounds per day, or PM10 above 80 pounds per day or PM2.5 above 82 pounds per day with all feasible best available control technology (BACT) or best management practices (BMPs) implemented;
▪ Result in long-term (operational) emissions of NOx or ROG above 65 pounds per day, or PM10 above 80 pounds per day or PM2.5 above 82 pounds per day with all feasible best available control technology (BACT) or best management practices (BMPs) implemented;
▪ Result in CO concentrations that exceed the 1-hour state ambient air quality standard (i.e., 20.0 ppm) or the 8-hour state ambient standard (i.e., 9.0 ppm);
▪ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project area is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including the release of emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); ▪ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; or ▪ Create a lifetime cancer risk from toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposures exceeding 10 in 1 million for stationary sources, or substantially increase the lifetime cancer risk as a result of increased exposure to TACs from mobile sources.

3.2 Impact Analysis

3.2.1 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The project site is under the jurisdiction of the SMAQMD within the SVAB. The SVAB is designated nonattainment for both national and California ozone standards. Accordingly, the SMAQMD, along with other local air districts in the SVAB, is required to comply with and implement the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate when and how the region can attain the federal O3 standards. As such, the SMAQMD, along with the other air districts in the region, prepared the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2017 SIP Revisions). The Ozone Attainment Plan addresses attainment of the federal 8-hour O3 standard, while the 2015 Triennial Report and Air Quality Plan Revision address attainment of the California 1-hour and 8- hour O3 standards (SMAQMD 2016). These are the latest plans adopted by the SMAQMD in coordination with the air quality management districts and air pollution control districts of El Dorado, Sacramento, Solano, Sutter, and Yolo counties, and they incorporate land use assumptions and travel demand modeling provided by Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). The purpose of a consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. In general, projects are considered consistent with, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan if the growth in socioeconomic factors is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the air quality management plan.

Demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) were developed by SACOG for its Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) (SACOG 2019) based on general plans for cities and counties in the SVAB. The air quality management ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 10 MAY 2023
plans rely on the land use and population projections provided in the MTP/SCS, which is generally consistent with the local plans; therefore, the air quality management plans are generally consistent with local government plans.

The proposed project includes construction of a BESS and will not have employees. Therefore, the project would not generate population growth, housing, or employment that was not accounted for in regional plans such as SACOG’s MTP/SCS, impacts relating to the project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan would be less than significant.

3.2.2 Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SMAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a proposed project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.

Construction Emissions
Proposed construction activities would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and ROG off-gassing) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and, for particulate matter, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately estimated.

CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate emissions from construction of the proposed Project. Internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, trucks, and worker vehicles would result in emissions of ROGs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would also be generated by entrained dust, which results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil. The Project would be required to comply with SMAQMD Rule 403 to control dust emissions generated during any dustgenerating activities. Standard construction practices that would be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active dust areas two times per day, with additional watering depending on weather conditions. The CalEEMod default assumptions were used for estimating fugitive dust emissions from grading on site. Table 3 presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during construction of the proposed Project. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Attachment A.

Table 3. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
2022 3.06 36.73 24.05 0.07 2.54 1.44
2023 5.02 50.08 44.27 0.09 2.73 2.29
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 11 MAY 2023
Table 3. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Maximum 5.02 50.08 44.27 0.09 2.73 2.29
SMAQMD Threshold N/A 85 N/A N/A 80 82
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

Emissions include compliance with SMAQMD Rules 403.

See Attachment A for complete results.

As shown in Table 3, the Project construction would not exceed SMAQMD’s daily thresholds. Therefore, construction impacts associated with criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
Emissions from the operational phase of the proposed Project were estimated using CalEEMod. Operational year 2023 was assumed following completion of construction. Table 4 presents the estimated emissions during operation.

Table 4. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emissions Source
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Area 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.07 0.02
Off-road 0.35 3.82 1.83 0.01 0.15 0.15
Total 1.41 3.84 2.07 0.01 0.22 0.17
SMAQMD Threshold 65 65 N/A N/A 80 82
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

See Attachment A for complete results. Totals may not sum precisely due to rounding.

As shown in Table 4, ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be below the SMAQMD threshold of significance.

The SMAQMD CEQA guidance states that operational emissions that generate above zero pounds per day of PM10 and PM2.5 would result in a significant impact, unless all feasible BACT and BMPs are implemented (SMAQMD 2009). The proposed project would comply with BMP measures in its final design to reduce operational PM10 and PM2.5 emissions including compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Green Building Code (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11). Because the project would not exceed the SMAQMD thresholds during operation, the project would result in a less than significant impact.

Health Impacts of Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction and operational emissions of the project would not exceed the SMAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Refer to section 3.3.3 for an in-depth discussion regarding potential health effects from emissions resulting from the project.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 12 MAY 2023
Health effects associated with O3 include respiratory symptoms, worsening of lung disease leading to premature death, and damage to lung tissue (CARB 2019). ROG and NOx are precursors to O3, for which the SVAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Due to the lack of quantitative methods to assess this complex photochemistry, the holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is speculative. However, because the project would not exceed the SMAQMD thresholds for ROG or NOx, the project would not contribute to health effects associated with O3.

Health effects associated with PM10 include premature death and hospitalization, primarily for worsening of respiratory disease (CARB 2019). Construction of the project would not exceed thresholds for PM10 or PM2.5, would not contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter, and would not obstruct the SVAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with PM10 or PM2.5.

In summary, construction and operation of the project would not result in exceedances of the SMAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, and potential health effects associated with criteria air pollutants would be less than significant.

3.3.3 Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
CO Hotspots
Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.” CO transport is extremely limited and disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels affecting sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with severely congested intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) (LOS E or worse is unacceptable). Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of a CO hotspot. Additional analysis of CO hotspot impacts would be conducted if a project would result in a significant impact or contribute to an adverse traffic impact at a signalized intersection that would potentially subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 93.123(c)(5), Procedures for Determining Localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5 Concentrations (Hot-Spot Analysis), states that “CO, PM10, and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses are not required to consider construction-related activities, which cause temporary increases in emissions. Temporary increases are defined as those which occur only during the construction phase and last five years or less at any individual site” (40 CFR 93.123).

Localized concentrations of CO from exhaust would be a concern on high-volume roadways where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited, such as tunnels or below grade highways. There are no high-volume roadways in the project’s vicinity with limited mixing that would be affected by the project generated traffic during construction.

While Project construction would involve on-road vehicle trips from trucks and workers during construction, construction activities would last approximately 12 months and would not require a project-level construction hotspot analysis.

Mobile source impacts occur on two scales of motion. Regionally, project-related travel would add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled within the local airshed and the SVAB. Locally, project-generated traffic would be added to the City’s roadway system near the Project site. If such traffic occurs during periods of ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 13 MAY 2023
poor atmospheric ventilation, is composed of a large number of vehicles cold-started and operating at pollutioninefficient speeds, and is operating on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of microscale CO hotspots in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. Because of continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SVAB is steadily decreasing.

Therefore, it is concluded that a quantitative CO hotspots analysis is not required. The construction-related traffic is not anticipated to create a CO hotspot as emissions would be dispersed rapidly through the entrainment of ambient air, which dilutes the concentration of the emissions as they are carried away from the source by winds and would not be concentrated. During operation, the Project is expected to generate vehicle trips for maintenance personnel once a month and therefore no CO hotspots would be created.

As such, impacts to sensitive receptors with regard to potential CO hotspots resulting from the Project’s contribution to cumulative traffic-related air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute (immediate) and/or chronic (cumulative) non-cancer health effects. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). TACs are identified by federal and state agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In the state of California, TACs are identified through a two-step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two-step process of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, was enacted by the State Legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere.

Examples of TACs include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile sources, such as automobiles; and area sources, such as landfills. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and non-carcinogenic effects. Non-carcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced on either short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC.

Project construction would result in emissions of diesel particulate from heavy construction equipment and trucks accessing the site. Diesel particulate is characterized as a TAC by the State of California. OEHHA has identified carcinogenic and chronic non-carcinogenic effects from long-term exposure, but has not identified health effects due to short-term exposure to diesel exhaust. According to OEHHA, HRAs, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the Project. Thus, the duration of the proposed construction activities would constitute only a small percentage of the total 30-year exposure period. Due to this relatively short period of exposure (12 months) and minimal particulate emissions on site, TACs generated by the proposed Project would not result in concentrations causing significant health risks. Furthermore, according to the closest meteorological station to the project site at the Sacramento Executive Airport, the predominant wind direction is blowing from the southwest which would blow away from the residences to the north and west of the project site. Overall, the Project would not result in substantial TAC exposure ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 14 MAY 2023
to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site, and impacts would be less than significant. Per CARB’s air toxic control measure, heavy-duty diesel vehicles will be limited to idling for 5 minutes while onsite.

Additionally, the health risk public-notification thresholds adopted by the SMAQMD Board is 10 excess cancer cases in a million for cancer risk and a hazard index of more than one (1.0) for non-cancer risk. The hazard index of more than 1.0 means that predicted levels of a toxic pollutant are greater than the reference exposure level, which is considered the level below which adverse health effects are not expected. Examples of projects that emit toxic pollutants over long-term operations include oil and gas processing, gasoline dispensing, dry cleaning, electronic and parts manufacturing, medical equipment sterilization, freeways, and rail yards. The Project would not emit TACs during normal operations and toxic contaminants are not anticipated to be present at the Project site; as such, a formal HRA will not be required for the Project. As discussed above, the Project would bring a crane onsite to move containers around once every few years. Accordingly, the Project is not anticipated to result in emissions that would exceed the SMAQMD Board-adopted health risk notification thresholds.

However, as discussed in Section 2.2, Operation, of this letter report, and as a precautionary measure, an HRA was performed to assess the impact of a battery cell malfunction, such as a runaway reaction or overcharge event, on sensitive receptors proximate to the Project site (provided as Attachment B). This analysis evaluated the potential impacts of a thermal runaway event where there was an elevated temperature situation due to a runaway reaction with combustion. Although the entire BESS would be composed of many modules, the malfunction events discussed above are unlikely to occur and, if such an event does occur, it would likely occur only within a single battery cell or a limited number of battery cells. The analysis conservatively evaluated the thermal runaway event taking place in a single cell and a module. The results of the HRA are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Health Risk Assessment Results
Toxic Air Contaminant
Prioritization Score
Cell Module
Carbon monoxide 3.74E-04 4.72E-01
Hydrogen fluoride 3.72E-05 4.70E-02
Hydrochloric acid 1.56E-05 1.97E-02
Hydrogen cyanide 1.17E-04 1.47E-01
Methanol 2.72E-08 3.43E-05
Styrene 4.41E-09 5.57E-06
Toluene 7.78E-06 9.83E-03
Total 5.51E-04 6.96E-01
Significance Threshold 1.0 1.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No
Source: Attachment B.

As shown in Table 5, the results of the HRA show that a thermal runaway of a cell or module would be considered a low-priority risk and thus would result in a less than significant impact.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 15 MAY 2023
Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
According to the Special Report 192: Relative Likelihood for the Presence of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Eastern Sacramento County, California, prepared by the Department of Conservation, the project site is located within an area categorized as least likely to contain naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA) (Sacramento County 2006). The geology in the project site is known to consist of sedimentary rocks, whose deposits are generally less likely to contain NOA due to the composition and lack of metamorphism. Faults and serpentinite outcroppings are not known to be in the project area. Consequently, NOA is not anticipated to be present on the project site.

Criteria Air Pollutants
Recent rulings from the California Supreme Court (including the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502 case regarding the proposed Friant Ranch Project) have underscored the need for analysis of potential health impacts resulting from the emission of criteria pollutants during operations of proposed projects. Although analysis of project-level health risks related to the emission of CO and TACs has long been practiced under CEQA, the analysis of health impacts due to individual projects resulting from emissions of criteria pollutants is a relatively new field.

SMAQMD released the Guidance to Address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District (Guidance) for the analysis of criteria emissions in areas within the District’s jurisdiction (SMAQMD 2020). The Guidance represents SMAQMD’s effort to develop a methodology that provides a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis in response to the Supreme Court’s direction on correlating health impacts to a project’s emissions.

The Guidance was prepared by conducting regional photochemical modeling, and relies on the USEPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) to assess health impacts from ozone and PM2.5. SMAQMD has prepared two tools that are intended for use in analyzing health risks from criteria pollutants. Small projects with criteria pollutant emissions close to or below SMAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance may use the Minor Project Health Effect Screening Tool, while larger projects with emissions between two and six times greater than SMAQMD’s adopted thresholds may use the Strategic Area Project Health Screening Tool. Considering the proposed project would result in emissions lower than the SMAQMD’s thresholds of significance, the project would qualify for use of the Minor Project Health Effects Screening Tool. It is important to note, however, that the Minor Project Health Effects Screening Tool applies the assumption that all small projects result in emissions of criteria pollutants equal to the SMAQMD thresholds of significance.

As shown in Table 4, the project would result in operational emissions below the SMAQMD thresholds of significance and, thus, the health impacts calculated for the project using in the Minor Project Health Effects Screening Tool are highly conservative. The project’s actual health impacts associated with criteria pollutant emissions would be expected to be much less than what is presented herein based on the aforementioned SMAQMD tool. The SMAQMD tool assumes the project will emit over 482 times more PM2.5 than it actually will (0.17 lb/day vs. the threshold of 82 lb/day), over 46 times more ROG (1.41 lb/day vs the threshold of 65 lb/day), and nearly 17 times more NOX (3.84 lb/day vs the threshold of 65 lb/day). Results from the Minor Project Health Effects Screening Tool are shown in Table 6 below. As shown in the table, according to the Minor Project Health Effects Screening Tool, which is based on the highly conservative assumption that the project would emit criteria pollutants at levels equal to the SMAQMD thresholds of significance, the proposed project could result in 1.6 premature deaths per year due to the project’s PM2.5 emissions and 0.03 premature deaths per year due to the project’s ozone emissions.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 16 MAY 2023
Such numbers represent a very small increase over the background incidence of premature deaths due to PM2.5 and ozone concentrations (0.0035 percent and 0.0001 percent, respectively). In addition, according to the Minor Project Health Effects Screening Tool, PM2.5 emissions from the proposed project could result in 0.65 asthmarelated emergency room visits, and ozone emissions from the proposed project could result in 0.52 asthma-related emergency room visits. Such numbers represent a minute increase over the background level of asthma-related emergency room visits (0.0036 percent and 0.0058 percent, respectively). As noted above, because the proposed project’s emissions would be substantially below the SMAQMD thresholds of significance, the proposed project’s actual health impacts associated with criteria pollutant emissions would be much lower than what is presented in Table 6.

Furthermore, the SMAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds of significance were established with consideration given to the health-based air quality standards established by the NAAQS and CAAQS, and are designed to aid the district in achieving attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS. The thresholds of significance represent emissions levels that would ensure that project-specific emissions would not inhibit attainment of regional NAAQS and CAAQS and, therefore, would not adversely affect public health.

Considering that implementation of the proposed project would not result in emissions of criteria pollutants that would exceed the SMAQMD standards, the proposed project would not inhibit attainment of regional NAAQS and CAAQS and would not result in adverse health impacts related to the emission of criteria pollutants.

Table 6. Health Effects from the Proposed Project
PM2.5 Health Endpoint Age Range1 Incidences
Across the 5-AirDistrict Region
Resulting from
Project
Emissions
(per year)2
Percent of
Background
Health
Incidences
Across the 5-AirDistrict Region3
Total Number of
Health
Incidences
Across the 5-AirDistrict Region
(per year)4
(Mean)
Emergency Room Visits, Asthma 0 - 99 0.65 0.0036% 18419 Hospital Admissions, Asthma 0 - 64 0.043 0.0023% 1846
Hospital Admissions, All Respiratory 65 - 99 0.24 0.0012% 19644 Hospital Admissions, All Cardiovascular
(less Myocardial Infarctions) 65 - 99

0.13 0.00055% 24037
Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 18 - 24 0.000052 0.0014% 4 Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 25 - 44 0.0049 0.0016% 308 Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 45 - 54 0.013 0.0017% 741 Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 55 - 64 0.021 0.0017% 1239 Acute Myocardial Infarction, Nonfatal 65 - 99 0.084 0.0017% 5052 Mortality, All Cause 30 - 99 1.6 0.0035% 44766
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 17 MAY 2023
Table 6. Health Effects from the Proposed Project
PM2.5 Health Endpoint Age Range1 Incidences
Across the 5-AirDistrict Region
Resulting from
Project
Emissions
(per year)2
Percent of
Background
Health
Incidences
Across the 5-AirDistrict Region3
Total Number of
Health
Incidences
Across the 5-AirDistrict Region
(per year)4
(Mean)
Ozone Health Endpoint Age Range1 Incidences
Across the 5-AirDistrict Region
Resulting from
Project
Emissions (per
year)2
Percent of
Background
Health
Incidences
Across the 5-AirDistrict Region3
Total Number of
Health
Incidences
Across the 5-AirDistrict Region
(per year)4
(Mean)
Hospital Admissions, All Respiratory 65 - 99 0.049 0.00025% 19644 Emergency Room Visits, Asthma 0 - 17 0.19 0.0032% 5859
Emergency Room Visits, Asthma 18 - 99 0.33 0.0026% 12560 Mortality, Non-Accidental 0 - 99 0.033 0.00011% 30386
Source: Sac Metro Air District Minor Project Health Effects Tool, version 2, published June 2020.

Notes: 1 Affected age ranges are shown. Other age ranges are available, but the endpoints and age ranges shown here are the ones used by the USEPA in their health assessments. The age ranges are consistent with the epidemiological study that is the basis of the health function.
2 Health effects are shown in terms of incidences of each health endpoint and how it compares to the base (2035 base year health effect incidences, or “background health incidence”) values. Health effects are shown for the Reduced Sacramento 4-km Modeling Domain and the 5-Air-District Region.
3 The percent of background health incidence uses the mean incidence. The background health incidence is an estimate of the average number of people that are affected by the health endpoint in a given population over a given period of time. In this case, the background incidence rates cover the 5-Air-District Region (estimated 2035 population of 3,271,451 persons). Health incidence rates and other health data are typically collected by the government as well as the World Health Organization. The background incidence rates used here are obtained from BenMAP.
4 The total number of health incidences across the 5-Air-District Region is calculated based on the modeling data. The information is presented to assist in providing overall health context.

The results of the Minor Project Health Effects Screening Tool have been presented for informational purposes only. Overall, because the project would be relatively small compared to the regional growth and development that drives health impacts from criteria pollutants, and the anticipated air quality emissions would fall below all applicable thresholds of significance, potential health impacts related to criteria air pollutants would be less than significant.

3.3.4 Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location all contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 18 MAY 2023
Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the Project. Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment and asphalt pavement application. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the Project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant.

Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities (SMAQMD 2009). The proposed Project would not create any new sources of odor during operation. Therefore, Project operations would result in an odor impact that would be less than significant. 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment

4.1 Thresholds of Significance
In April 2020, SMAQMD adopted an update to their land development project operational GHG threshold, which requires a project to demonstrate consistency with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors adopted the updated GHG threshold in December 2020. SMAQMD’s technical support document, “Greenhouse Gas Thresholds for Sacramento County”, identifies operational measures that should be applied to a project to demonstrate consistency. All projects must implement Tier 1 BMPs to demonstrate consistency with the Climate Change Scoping Plan. After implementation of Tier 1 BMPs, project emissions are compared to the operational land use screening levels table (equivalent to 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year). In addition, as set forth in Chapter 6 of SMAQMD’s CEQA Guide, “the District has determined that projects below the GHG Operational Screening Levels would not exceed the District’s construction GHG threshold of significance if the project meets the parameters in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1 for the construction NOx screening level." Otherwise, SMAQMD recommends a construction significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year.

Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1 of the SMAQMD CEQA Guide provides that the NOx screening level is a project of 35 acres or less, provided that the project does not include any of the following:
• Include buildings more than 4 stories tall;
• Include demolition activities;
• Include major trenching activities;
• Have a construction schedule that is unusually compact, fast-paced, or involves more than 2 phases (i.e., grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings) occurring simultaneously;
• Involve cut-and-fill operations (moving earth with haul trucks and/or flattening or terracing hills); and
• Require import or export of soil materials that will require a considerable amount of haul truck activity.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 19 MAY 2023
If a project’s operational emissions are less than or equal to 1,100 MT CO2e per year after implementation of Tier 1 BMPs, the project will result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution and has no further action. Tier 1 Best Management Practices include:
• BMP 1 – no natural gas: projects shall be designed and constructed without natural gas infrastructure.
• BMP 2 –EV Ready: projects shall meet the current CALGreen Tier 2 standards. o EV Capable requires the installation of “raceway” (the enclosed conduit that forms the physical pathway for electrical wiring to protect it from damage) and adequate panel capacity to accommodate future installation of a dedicated branch circuit and charging station(s)
o EV Ready requires all EV Capable improvements plus installation of dedicated branch circuit(s) (electrical pre-wiring), circuit breakers, and other electrical components, including a receptacle (240-volt outlet) or blank cover needed to support future installation of one or more charging stations
Projects that implement BMP 1 and BMP 2 can use the screening criteria for operation emissions. Projects that do not exceed 1,100 MT CO2e are then screened out of further requirements. For projects that exceed 1,100 MT CO2e per year, then compliance with BMP 3 is also required:
• BMP 3 – Reduce applicable project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 15% residential and 15% worker relative to Sacramento County targets, and no net increase in retail VMT. In areas with aboveaverage existing VMT, commit to provide electrical capacity for 100% electric vehicles.

Therefore, this assessment uses SMAQMD’s GHG construction and operational emissions thresholds of 1,100 MT CO2e per year (separately) to evaluate whether the project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

4.2 Impact Analysis

4.2.1 Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed Project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of offroad construction equipment, on-road haul and vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. The total construction GHG emissions were calculated and then compared to the SMAQMD operational and construction GHG significance thresholds of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. Also, as discussed in Section 4.1, the project is compared to the SMAQMD NOx screening levels.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 20 MAY 2023
The project would exceed the NOx screening level discussed in Section 4.1 as it would include trenching activities, cut-and-fill grading operations, and import or export of soil materials. As such, in accordance with the SMAQMD guidelines, emissions must be quantified and compared to the SMAQMD thresholds.

CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions during construction. Construction of the project is anticipated to last up to 12 months. On-site sources of GHG emissions include off-road equipment and off-site sources include on-road vehicles (haul and vendor trucks and worker vehicles). Table 7 presents construction GHG emissions for the project from on-site and off-site emission sources.

Table 7. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions
Year
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons
2022 100.31 0.03 0.00 101.82
2023 713.34 0.17 0.01 720.53
Total 822.35
SMAQMD GHG Threshold 1,100
Threshold Exceeded? No
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

See Attachment A for complete results.

As shown in Table 7, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of the proposed Project would be approximately 822 MT CO2e. Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are typically considered separate from operational emissions, as global climate change is inherently a cumulative effect that occurs over a long period of time and is quantified on a yearly basis. As previously discussed, the SMAQMD identifies a GHG emission threshold for construction-related emissions of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. Table 7 indicates that the project would not exceed the SMAQMD GHG threshold.

Therefore, the project’s construction-related GHG emissions would represent a less than significant impact.

Operational Emissions
CalEEMod was used to estimate potential project-generated operational GHG emissions from area sources, energy sources (electricity), mobile sources, off-road equipment, and waste, and water/wastewater. Emissions from each category are discussed in the following text with respect to the proposed project. For additional details, see Section

2.2 for a discussion of operational emission calculation methodology and assumptions. Operational year 2023 was assumed following completion of construction. Table 8 shows the estimated operational and amortized construction emissions from the project.

Table 8. Estimated Annual Operation GHG Emissions
Emissions Source
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons per Year
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 130.09
Energy 112.73 0.01 0.00 113.37
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 21 MAY 2023
Table 8. Estimated Annual Operation GHG Emissions
Emissions Source
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons per Year
Mobile 1.34 0.00 0.00 1.36
Off-road 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.26
Total 114.98
SMAQMD Threshold 1,100
Threshold Exceeded? No
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

See Attachment A for complete results.

As shown in Table 8, the estimated total GHG emissions during operation of the Project would be approximately 115 MT CO2e per year. The Project would not exceed the SMAQMD threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. Projects below this significance criterion have a minimal contribution to global emissions and are considered to have less than significant impacts. Therefore, operational impacts associated with directly or indirectly generating a significant quantity of GHG emissions would be less than significant.

4.2.2 Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
SMAQMD
The project is a BESS that would generate few mobile source trips as discussed in Section 2.2. As the project does not include natural gas and would not have a parking lot, it would be consistent with the SMAQMD’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 Best Management Practices. As the project does not exceed the SMAQMD 1,100 MT CO2e per year threshold and implements the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Best Management Practices, it would not conflict with the SMAQMD GHG projections for meeting the state’s GHG reduction goals. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.

SACOG MTP/SCS
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for the Sacramento region pro-actively links land use, air quality, and transportation needs. The MTP/SCS is federally required to be updated every four years. The SACOG board adopted the 2020 MTP/SCS and accompanying documents at a special board meeting on November 18, 2019 (SACOG 2019). The MTP/SCS developed four policy priorities for the region and include:

1. Build vibrant places for today’s and tomorrows residents;

2. Foster the next generation of mobility solutions;

3. Modernize the way we pay for transportation infrastructure; and ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 22 MAY 2023

4. Build and maintain a safe, reliable, and multimodal transportation system.

The proposed project would not conflict with the policy priorities and goals of the MTP/SCS. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the project is not growth inducing and would not exceed the growth projections of the MTP/SCS.

The project, as an energy storage project, by design would mitigate renewable energy intermittency, facilitating the retirement of fossil fuel vehicles and the transition to electric vehicles. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the MTP/SCS and impacts would be less than significant.

Consistency with the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan (approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2014 and 2017) provides a framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHG emissions. The Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used for project-level evaluations.2 It does provide recommendations for lead agencies to develop evidence-based numeric thresholds consistent with the Scoping Plan, the state’s long-term GHG goals, and climate change science. Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high-GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard), among others.

The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32 and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. Table 9 highlights measures that have been, or will be, developed under the Scoping Plan and presents the proposed project’s consistency with Scoping Plan measures. The project would comply with all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law and to the extent that they are applicable to the Project.

Table 9. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Transportation Sector
Advanced Clean Cars T-1 Consistent. The project’s employees would purchase vehicles in compliance with CARB vehicle standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle purchase.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Consistent. Motor vehicles driven by the project’s employees would use compliant fuels.

Regional Transportation-Related GHG
Targets
T-3 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Advanced Clean Transit N/A Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.
2 The Final Statement of Reasons for the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines reiterates the statement in the Initial Statement of Reasons that “[t]he Scoping Plan may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan” (CNRA 2009).

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 23 MAY 2023
Table 9. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Last-Mile Delivery N/A Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Reduction in VMT N/A Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Vehicle Efficiency Measures

1. Tire Pressure

2. Fuel Efficiency Tire Program

3. Low-Friction Oil

4. Solar-Reflective Automotive Paint
and Window Glazing
T-4 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Ship Electrification at Ports (Shore
Power)
T-5 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Goods Movement Efficiency Measures

1. Port Drayage Trucks

2. Transport Refrigeration Units Cold
Storage Prohibition

3. Cargo Handling Equipment, AntiIdling, Hybrid, Electrification

4. Goods Movement Systemwide
Efficiency Improvements

5. Commercial Harbor Craft
Maintenance and Design Efficiency

6. Clean Ships

7. Vessel Speed Reduction
T-6 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Emission
Reduction
▪ Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation
▪ Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
Standards for New Vehicle and
Engines (Phase I)
T-7 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Hybridization Voucher Incentive Project
T-8 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Medium and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 N/A Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

High-Speed Rail T-9 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Electricity and Natural Gas Sector
Energy Efficiency Measures (Electricity) E-1 Consistent. The project would be constructed in accordance with CALGreen and Title 24 building
standards.

Energy Efficiency (Natural Gas) CR-1 Consistent. The project would be constructed in accordance with CALGreen and Title 24 building
standards.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 24 MAY 2023
Table 9. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Solar Water Heating (California Solar
Initiative Thermal Program)
CR-2 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Combined Heat and Power E-2 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by
2020)
E-3 Consistent. The project would support the development of renewable energy through energy storage.

Renewables Portfolio Standard (50% by
2050)
N/A Consistent. The project would support the development of renewable energy through energy storage.

SB 1 Million Solar Roofs
(California Solar Initiative, New Solar
Home Partnership, Public Utility
Programs) and Earlier Solar Programs
E-4 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Water Sector
Water Use Efficiency W-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Water Recycling W-2 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Water System Energy Efficiency W-3 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Reuse Urban Runoff W-4 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Renewable Energy Production W-5 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Green Buildings
State Green Building Initiative: Leading
the Way with State Buildings (Greening
New and Existing State Buildings)
GB-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Green Building Standards Code
(Greening New Public Schools,
Residential and Commercial Buildings)
GB-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Beyond Code: Voluntary Programs at
the Local Level (Greening New Public
Schools, Residential and Commercial
Buildings)
GB-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Greening Existing Buildings (Greening
Existing Homes and Commercial
Buildings)
GB-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Industry Sector
Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits
Audits for Large Industrial Sources
I-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission
Reduction
I-2 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 25 MAY 2023
Table 9. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Reduce GHG Emissions by 20% in Oil
Refinery Sector
N/A Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

GHG Emissions Reduction from Natural
Gas Transmission and Distribution
I-3 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Refinery Flare Recovery Process
Improvements
I-4 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Work with the Local Air Districts to
Evaluate Amendments to Their Existing
Leak Detection and Repair Rules for
Industrial Facilities to Include Methane
Leaks
I-5 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Recycling and Waste Management Sector
Landfill Methane Control Measure RW-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Increasing the Efficiency of Landfill
Methane Capture
RW-2 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Mandatory Commercial Recycling RW-3 Consistent. The project would include recycling during both construction and operation.

Increase Production and Markets for
Compost and Other Organics
RW-3 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Anaerobic/Aerobic Digestion RW-3 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Extended Producer Responsibility RW-3 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing RW-3 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Forests Sector
Sustainable Forest Target F-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

High GWP Gases Sector
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems:

Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions
from Non-Professional Servicing
H-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and NonSemiconductor ApplicationsH-2 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Reduction of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) in
Semiconductor Manufacturing
H-3 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Limit High GWP Use in Consumer
Products
H-4 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Air Conditioning Refrigerant Leak Test
During Vehicle Smog Check
H-5 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 26 MAY 2023
Table 9. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Stationary Equipment Refrigerant
Management Program – Refrigerant
Tracking/Reporting/Repair Program
H-6 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Stationary Equipment Refrigerant
Management Program – Specifications
for Commercial and Industrial
Refrigeration
H-6 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

SF6 Leak Reduction Gas Insulated
Switchgear
H-6 Consistent. The project would use SF6 in its switchgear equipment and limit leaks in accordance with CARB
regulations.
40% Reduction in Methane and
Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Emissions
N/A Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.
50% Reduction in Black Carbon
Emissions
N/A Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB
from implementing this measure.

Agriculture Sector
Methane Capture at Large Dairies A-1 Not applicable. The project would not prevent CARB from implementing this measure.

Source: CARB 2008, 2017.

Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; CARB = California Air Resources Board; N/A = not applicable; VMT = vehicle miles traveled; CALGreen = California Green Building Standards; SB = Senate Bill; GWP = global warming potential; SF6 = sulfur hexafluoride.

Based on the analysis in Table 9, the Project would be consistent with the applicable strategies and measures in the Scoping Plan.

The Project would not impede the attainment of the GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 identified in Executive Order (EO) S-03-05 and SB 32. EO S-03-05 establishes the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 establishes for a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. While there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future year analysis, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the state on a trajectory toward meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance is unknown (CARB 2014).

To begin, CARB has expressed optimism with regard to both the 2030 and 2050 goals. It states in the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG emissions limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32” (CARB 2014). With regard to the 2050 target for reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels, the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan states the following (CARB 2014):

This level of reduction is achievable in California. In fact, if California realizes the expected benefits of existing policy goals (such as 12,000 megawatts of renewable distributed generation by 2020, net zero energy homes after 2020, existing building retrofits under AB 758, and others) it could reduce emissions by 2030 to levels squarely in line with those needed in the developed world and ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 27 MAY 2023
to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Additional measures, including locally driven measures and those necessary to meet federal air quality standards in 2032, could lead to even greater emission reductions.

In other words, CARB believes that the state is on a trajectory to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and EO S-03-05. This is confirmed in the Second Update (CARB 2017), which states:

The Proposed Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while also identifying new, technologically feasibility and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Proposed Plan is developed to be consistent with requirements set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and AB 197.

The Project would not interfere with implementation of any of the previously described GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 because the Project would not exceed SMAQMD’s screening threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year.

Because the Project would not exceed the threshold, this analysis provides support for the conclusion that the Project would not impede the state’s trajectory toward the previously described statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050.

As discussed previously, the Project is consistent with the GHG emission reduction measures in the Scoping Plan and would not conflict with the state’s trajectory toward future GHG reductions. In addition, since the specific path to compliance for the state in regard to the long-term goals will likely require development of technology or other changes that are not currently known or available, specific additional mitigation measures for the Project would be speculative and cannot be identified at this time. The Project’s consistency would assist in meeting the City’s contribution to GHG emission reduction targets in California. With respect to future GHG targets under SB 32 and EO S-03-05, CARB has also made clear its legal interpretation is that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet SB 32’s 40% reduction target by 2030 and EO S-03-05’s 80% reduction target by 2050; this legal interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that future regulations will be adopted to allow the state to continue on its trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets. Based on the considerations previously outlined, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Project’s impact associated with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs would be less than significant. 5 Conclusions
Criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed SMAQMD’s significance thresholds or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions.

Similarly, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create a CO hotspot. The HRA prepared for the Project showed that the Project would be considered low risk; therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Estimated total GHG emissions generated during operation, including amortized construction emissions, would be below SMAQMD’s threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 28 MAY 2023
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, as there are currently no mandatory GHG regulations or finalized agency guidelines that would apply to implementation of this Project. Accordingly, potential cumulative GHG impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, the Project would not result in significant impacts to air quality or GHG emissions.

Sincerely,
____________________________
Adam Poll, QEP, LEED AP BD+C
Senior Air Quality Specialist
Cc: Keith Carwana, Dudek
Att: A – CalEEMod Emissions Outputs
B – Health Risk Assessment Outputs
6 References
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

CAPCOA. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0. Prepared by Trinity Consultants and the California Air Districts. May. Accessed December 2021. http://www.caleemod.com/.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2016. Facility Prioritization Guidelines. August 20.

Accessed December 2021. http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/CAPCOA%20Prioritization%20Guidelines%20- %20August%202016%20FINAL.pdf.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008. Accessed January 2019. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm.

CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. Accessed January 2019. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.

CARB. 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017. Accessed January 2019. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.

CARB. 2019. “Common Air Pollutants.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-air-pollutants.

CAT (Climate Action Team). 2010. Climate Action Team Biennial Report. Sacramento, California. April 2010.

Accessed January 2019. http://web.archive.org/web/20190223112247/https://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2010publications/CAT-1000-2010-004/CAT-1000-2010-004.PDF.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

TO: PARKER HILLS
SUBJECT: JUNIPER CREEK ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS STUDY 13267 29 MAY 2023
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:

Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009. Accessed January 2019. http://resources.ca.gov/ ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. “Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM).” https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Accessed January 2019. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015.

Accessed January 2019. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.

SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments). 2019. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). Adopted November 18, 2019. https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/2020_mtp-scs.pdf?1580330993.

Sacramento County. 2006. Relative Likelihood for the Presence of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Eastern Sacramento County, California. Accessed December 2021.
https://www.airquality.org/StationarySources/Documents/NOA_Parcels_redux.pdf.

SMAQMD (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District). 1977. Rule 403 Fugitive Dust. August 3.

Accessed December 2021. http://www.airquality.org/ProgramCoordination/Documents/rule403.pdf.

SMAQMD. 2009. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. December 2009; revised April 2020. https://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/CEQA-Guidance-Tools.

SMAQMD. 2016. 2015 Triennial Progress Report. Accessed September 22, 2016. http://www.airquality.org/ProgramCoordination/Documents/11)%20%202015TriennialReportandProgre ssRevision.pdf.

SMAQMD. 2020. Guidance to Addressing the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District.

October. Accessed December 2021.
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/SMAQMDFriantRanchFinalOct2020.pdf.

Tesla. 2019. “Cell and Unit Level Assessment of Gas Release Composition from Tesla ESS.” June 2019.

ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Attachment A
CalEEMod Emissions Outputs
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Table of Contents
Annual2
Summer 31
Winter 56
SF6_Calculations 81
ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Sunridge Energy Storage Project
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Surrogate land use for battery storage containers.

Construction Phase - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Trips and VMT - Based on project description.

Grading - CalEEMod defaults.

Vehicle Trips - Up to 4 workers visit the site monthly for maintenance.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 43.50 1000sqft 1.00 43,500.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
6 Wind Speed (m/s) 3.5 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
357.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Energy Use - CalEEMod defaults. No natural gas.

Water And Wastewater - No water use.

Solid Waste - No solid waste.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - In accordance with SMAQMD Rule 403.

Operational Off-Road Equipment - Use of crane to move containers.

Fleet Mix - Worker vehicle mix.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 95.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 44.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 22.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 0.63 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 0.82 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 9.3060e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LDA 0.54 0.50
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.25
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.25
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.0930e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 3.5070e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 9.4200e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.0060e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperDaysPerYear 260.00 1.00 tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperOffRoadEquipmentNumber 0.00 1.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 40.89 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 988.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 7.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 7.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 30.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 20.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.18
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 10,059,375.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.0506 0.5906 0.4156 1.1200e0030.0460 0.0214 0.0674 6.5200e0030.0197 0.0262 0.0000 100.3130 100.3130 0.0261 2.8600e003101.8182 2023 0.4126 4.0784 3.9149 8.0800e0030.0725 0.1884 0.2610 0.0151 0.1761 0.1912 0.0000 713.3371 713.3371 0.1702 9.8800e003720.5351 Maximum 0.4126 4.0784 3.9149 8.0800e0030.0725 0.1884 0.2610 0.0151 0.1761 0.1912 0.0000 713.3371 713.3371 0.1702 9.8800e003720.5351 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.0506 0.5906 0.4156 1.1200e0030.0259 0.0214 0.0473 4.3500e0030.0197 0.0241 0.0000 100.3129 100.3129 0.0261 2.8600e003101.8181 2023 0.4126 4.0784 3.9149 8.0800e0030.0565 0.1884 0.2449 0.0133 0.1761 0.1894 0.0000 713.3363 713.3363 0.1702 9.8800e003720.5343 Maximum 0.4126 4.0784 3.9149 8.0800e0030.0565 0.1884 0.2449 0.0133 0.1761 0.1894 0.0000 713.3363 713.3363 0.1702 9.8800e003720.5343 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.46 0.00 10.99 18.11 0.00 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 11-1-2022 1-31-2023 1.0349 1.0349
2 2-1-2023 4-30-2023 1.7503 1.7503
3 5-1-2023 7-31-2023 1.3723 1.3723
4 8-1-2023 9-30-2023 0.6454 0.6454
Highest 1.7503 1.7503

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1901 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1500e003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 112.7319 112.7319 0.0104 1.2600e003113.3670 Mobile 3.6000e0044.0000e0045.2300e0031.0000e0051.7200e0031.0000e0051.7300e0034.6000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.3445 1.3445 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3566 Offroad 1.8000e0041.9100e0039.2000e0040.0000 8.0000e0058.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 0.2535 0.2535 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2555 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1906 2.3200e0036.7100e0031.0000e0051.7200e0039.0000e0051.8100e0034.6000e0048.0000e0055.3000e0040.0000 114.3309 114.3309 0.0105 1.3000e003114.9803 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1901 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1500e003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 112.7319 112.7319 0.0104 1.2600e003113.3670 Mobile 3.6000e0044.0000e0045.2300e0031.0000e0051.7200e0031.0000e0051.7300e0034.6000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.3445 1.3445 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3566 Offroad 1.8000e0041.9100e0039.2000e0040.0000 8.0000e0058.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 0.2535 0.2535 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2555 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1906 2.3200e0036.7100e0031.0000e0051.7200e0039.0000e0051.8100e0034.6000e0048.0000e0055.3000e0040.0000 114.3309 114.3309 0.0105 1.3000e003114.9803 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Battery/Container Installation Building Construction 6/14/2023 10/31/2023 5 100 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/1/2022 11/30/2022 5 22 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3 Grading Grading 12/1/2022 1/31/2023 5 44
4 Substation Installation Building Construction 2/1/2023 6/13/2023 5 95 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 10.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders 1 10.00 203 0.36
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders 2 10.00 65 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 10.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 2 10.00 187 0.41
Grading Plate Compactors 2 10.00 8 0.43
Grading Rollers 2 10.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 6.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders 2 10.00 203 0.36
Grading Skid Steer Loaders 2 10.00 65 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 10.00 97 0.37
Substation Installation Aerial Lifts 2 10.00 63 0.31
Substation Installation Air Compressors 1 10.00 78 0.48 Substation Installation Bore/Drill Rigs 1 10.00 221 0.50 Substation Installation Cranes 1 10.00 231 0.29
Substation Installation Excavators 1 10.00 158 0.38
Substation Installation Forklifts 0 6.00 89 0.20
Substation Installation Generator Sets 1 10.00 84 0.74
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 13.75
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 55
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Substation Installation Rollers 1 10.00 80 0.38
Substation Installation Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 10.00 100 0.40 Substation Installation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 10.00 247 0.40 Substation Installation Skid Steer Loaders 1 10.00 65 0.37 Substation Installation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.00 97 0.37 Substation Installation Trenchers 2 10.00 78 0.50
Battery/Container Installation Air Compressors 2 10.00 78 0.48 Battery/Container Installation Cranes 1 10.00 231 0.29
Battery/Container Installation Excavators 1 10.00 158 0.38 Battery/Container Installation Forklifts 0 6.00 89 0.20 Battery/Container Installation Generator Sets 1 10.00 84 0.74 Battery/Container Installation Plate Compactors 1 10.00 8 0.43 Battery/Container Installation Rollers 1 10.00 80 0.38
Battery/Container Installation Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 10.00 100 0.40 Battery/Container Installation Skid Steer Loaders 1 10.00 65 0.37 Battery/Container Installation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.00 97 0.37 Battery/Container Installation Trenchers 1 10.00 78 0.50 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 6 20.00 2.00 0.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 12 20.00 4.00 988.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Substation Installation 15 20.00 20.00 0.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Battery/Container
Installation
11 20.00 20.00 4.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.2 Battery/Container Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1387 1.2780 1.5094 2.5400e0030.0641 0.0641 0.0606 0.0606 0.0000 220.2271 220.2271 0.0497 0.0000 221.4698 Total 0.1387 1.2780 1.5094 2.5400e0030.0641 0.0641 0.0606 0.0606 0.0000 220.2271 220.2271 0.0497 0.0000 221.4698 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0000e0053.2000e0046.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1243 0.1243 0.0000 2.0000e0050.1303 Vendor 1.5000e0030.0594 0.0163 2.4000e0047.6500e0033.4000e0047.9800e0032.2100e0033.2000e0042.5300e0030.0000 23.7630 23.7630 5.8000e0043.4800e00324.8148 Worker 3.6400e0032.3900e0030.0321 9.0000e0050.0110 6.0000e0050.0111 2.9300e0035.0000e0052.9800e0030.0000 8.6402 8.6402 2.2000e0042.2000e0048.7124 Total 5.1500e0030.0622 0.0485 3.3000e0040.0187 4.0000e0040.0191 5.1500e0033.7000e0045.5200e0030.0000 32.5275 32.5275 8.0000e0043.7200e00333.6575 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.2 Battery/Container Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1387 1.2780 1.5094 2.5400e0030.0641 0.0641 0.0606 0.0606 0.0000 220.2268 220.2268 0.0497 0.0000 221.4695 Total 0.1387 1.2780 1.5094 2.5400e0030.0641 0.0641 0.0606 0.0606 0.0000 220.2268 220.2268 0.0497 0.0000 221.4695 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0000e0053.2000e0046.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1243 0.1243 0.0000 2.0000e0050.1303 Vendor 1.5000e0030.0594 0.0163 2.4000e0047.6500e0033.4000e0047.9800e0032.2100e0033.2000e0042.5300e0030.0000 23.7630 23.7630 5.8000e0043.4800e00324.8148 Worker 3.6400e0032.3900e0030.0321 9.0000e0050.0110 6.0000e0050.0111 2.9300e0035.0000e0052.9800e0030.0000 8.6402 8.6402 2.2000e0042.2000e0048.7124 Total 5.1500e0030.0622 0.0485 3.3000e0040.0187 4.0000e0040.0191 5.1500e0033.7000e0045.5200e0030.0000 32.5275 32.5275 8.0000e0043.7200e00333.6575 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 7.2900e0030.0000 7.2900e0037.9000e0040.0000 7.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0162 0.1855 0.1444 3.2000e0047.1200e0037.1200e0036.5500e0036.5500e0030.0000 28.0686 28.0686 9.0800e0030.0000 28.2955 Total 0.0162 0.1855 0.1444 3.2000e0047.2900e0037.1200e0030.0144 7.9000e0046.5500e0037.3400e0030.0000 28.0686 28.0686 9.0800e0030.0000 28.2955 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.0000e0051.5600e0034.2000e0041.0000e0051.7000e0042.0000e0051.8000e0045.0000e0051.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.5411 0.5411 1.0000e0058.0000e0050.5651 Worker 8.6000e0046.0000e0047.6800e0032.0000e0052.4200e0031.0000e0052.4400e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.6000e0040.0000 1.9629 1.9629 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.9802 Total 9.2000e0042.1600e0038.1000e0033.0000e0052.5900e0033.0000e0052.6200e0036.9000e0042.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.5041 2.5041 6.0000e0051.3000e0042.5453 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 3.2800e0030.0000 3.2800e0033.5000e0040.0000 3.5000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0162 0.1855 0.1444 3.2000e0047.1200e0037.1200e0036.5500e0036.5500e0030.0000 28.0685 28.0685 9.0800e0030.0000 28.2955 Total 0.0162 0.1855 0.1444 3.2000e0043.2800e0037.1200e0030.0104 3.5000e0046.5500e0036.9000e0030.0000 28.0685 28.0685 9.0800e0030.0000 28.2955 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.0000e0051.5600e0034.2000e0041.0000e0051.7000e0042.0000e0051.8000e0045.0000e0051.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.5411 0.5411 1.0000e0058.0000e0050.5651 Worker 8.6000e0046.0000e0047.6800e0032.0000e0052.4200e0031.0000e0052.4400e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.6000e0040.0000 1.9629 1.9629 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.9802 Total 9.2000e0042.1600e0038.1000e0033.0000e0052.5900e0033.0000e0052.6200e0036.9000e0042.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.5041 2.5041 6.0000e0051.3000e0042.5453 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0292 0.0000 0.0292 3.1500e0030.0000 3.1500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0315 0.3538 0.2461 5.8000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 50.8221 50.8221 0.0163 0.0000 51.2283 Total 0.0315 0.3538 0.2461 5.8000e0040.0292 0.0138 0.0430 3.1500e0030.0127 0.0159 0.0000 50.8221 50.8221 0.0163 0.0000 51.2283 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0100e0030.0455 8.5000e0031.6000e0044.1800e0033.7000e0044.5500e0031.1500e0033.5000e0041.5000e0030.0000 15.8731 15.8731 6.4000e0042.5200e00316.6388 Vendor 1.1000e0043.1100e0038.4000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0043.0000e0053.7000e0041.0000e0043.0000e0051.3000e0040.0000 1.0822 1.0822 3.0000e0051.6000e0041.1301 Worker 8.6000e0046.0000e0047.6800e0032.0000e0052.4200e0031.0000e0052.4400e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.6000e0040.0000 1.9629 1.9629 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.9802 Total 1.9800e0030.0492 0.0170 1.9000e0046.9400e0034.1000e0047.3600e0031.8900e0033.9000e0042.2900e0030.0000 18.9182 18.9182 7.2000e0042.7300e00319.7491 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0131 0.0000 0.0131 1.4200e0030.0000 1.4200e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0315 0.3538 0.2461 5.8000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 50.8221 50.8221 0.0163 0.0000 51.2283 Total 0.0315 0.3538 0.2461 5.8000e0040.0131 0.0138 0.0269 1.4200e0030.0127 0.0142 0.0000 50.8221 50.8221 0.0163 0.0000 51.2283 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0100e0030.0455 8.5000e0031.6000e0044.1800e0033.7000e0044.5500e0031.1500e0033.5000e0041.5000e0030.0000 15.8731 15.8731 6.4000e0042.5200e00316.6388 Vendor 1.1000e0043.1100e0038.4000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0043.0000e0053.7000e0041.0000e0043.0000e0051.3000e0040.0000 1.0822 1.0822 3.0000e0051.6000e0041.1301 Worker 8.6000e0046.0000e0047.6800e0032.0000e0052.4200e0031.0000e0052.4400e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.6000e0040.0000 1.9629 1.9629 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.9802 Total 1.9800e0030.0492 0.0170 1.9000e0046.9400e0034.1000e0047.3600e0031.8900e0033.9000e0042.2900e0030.0000 18.9182 18.9182 7.2000e0042.7300e00319.7491 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0292 0.0000 0.0292 3.1500e0030.0000 3.1500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0293 0.3182 0.2443 5.8000e0040.0122 0.0122 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 50.8199 50.8199 0.0163 0.0000 51.2261 Total 0.0293 0.3182 0.2443 5.8000e0040.0292 0.0122 0.0413 3.1500e0030.0112 0.0144 0.0000 50.8199 50.8199 0.0163 0.0000 51.2261 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.6000e0040.0393 7.9000e0031.5000e0044.1800e0032.9000e0044.4600e0031.1500e0032.7000e0041.4200e0030.0000 15.3462 15.3462 6.1000e0042.4300e00316.0866 Vendor 7.0000e0052.6200e0037.2000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0041.0000e0053.5000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0051.1000e0040.0000 1.0456 1.0456 3.0000e0051.5000e0041.0919 Worker 8.0000e0045.3000e0047.0600e0032.0000e0052.4200e0031.0000e0052.4300e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.6000e0040.0000 1.9009 1.9009 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.9167 Total 1.5300e0030.0425 0.0157 1.8000e0046.9400e0033.1000e0047.2400e0031.8900e0032.9000e0042.1900e0030.0000 18.2927 18.2927 6.9000e0042.6300e00319.0952 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0131 0.0000 0.0131 1.4200e0030.0000 1.4200e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0293 0.3182 0.2443 5.8000e0040.0122 0.0122 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 50.8198 50.8198 0.0163 0.0000 51.2260 Total 0.0293 0.3182 0.2443 5.8000e0040.0131 0.0122 0.0253 1.4200e0030.0112 0.0127 0.0000 50.8198 50.8198 0.0163 0.0000 51.2260 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.6000e0040.0393 7.9000e0031.5000e0044.1800e0032.9000e0044.4600e0031.1500e0032.7000e0041.4200e0030.0000 15.3462 15.3462 6.1000e0042.4300e00316.0866 Vendor 7.0000e0052.6200e0037.2000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0041.0000e0053.5000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0051.1000e0040.0000 1.0456 1.0456 3.0000e0051.5000e0041.0919 Worker 8.0000e0045.3000e0047.0600e0032.0000e0052.4200e0031.0000e0052.4300e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.6000e0040.0000 1.9009 1.9009 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.9167 Total 1.5300e0030.0425 0.0157 1.8000e0046.9400e0033.1000e0047.2400e0031.8900e0032.9000e0042.1900e0030.0000 18.2927 18.2927 6.9000e0042.6300e00319.0952 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.5 Substation Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2330 2.3188 2.0512 4.1200e0030.1111 0.1111 0.1033 0.1033 0.0000 360.6870 360.6870 0.1020 0.0000 363.2357 Total 0.2330 2.3188 2.0512 4.1200e0030.1111 0.1111 0.1033 0.1033 0.0000 360.6870 360.6870 0.1020 0.0000 363.2357 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.4300e0030.0565 0.0155 2.3000e0047.2600e0033.2000e0047.5800e0032.1000e0033.1000e0042.4000e0030.0000 22.5748 22.5748 5.5000e0043.3100e00323.5741 Worker 3.4600e0032.2700e0030.0305 9.0000e0050.0105 5.0000e0050.0105 2.7800e0035.0000e0052.8300e0030.0000 8.2082 8.2082 2.1000e0042.1000e0048.2768 Total 4.8900e0030.0587 0.0460 3.2000e0040.0177 3.7000e0040.0181 4.8800e0033.6000e0045.2300e0030.0000 30.7830 30.7830 7.6000e0043.5200e00331.8509 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.5 Substation Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2330 2.3188 2.0512 4.1200e0030.1111 0.1111 0.1033 0.1033 0.0000 360.6866 360.6866 0.1020 0.0000 363.2353 Total 0.2330 2.3188 2.0512 4.1200e0030.1111 0.1111 0.1033 0.1033 0.0000 360.6866 360.6866 0.1020 0.0000 363.2353 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.4300e0030.0565 0.0155 2.3000e0047.2600e0033.2000e0047.5800e0032.1000e0033.1000e0042.4000e0030.0000 22.5748 22.5748 5.5000e0043.3100e00323.5741 Worker 3.4600e0032.2700e0030.0305 9.0000e0050.0105 5.0000e0050.0105 2.7800e0035.0000e0052.8300e0030.0000 8.2082 8.2082 2.1000e0042.1000e0048.2768 Total 4.8900e0030.0587 0.0460 3.2000e0040.0177 3.7000e0040.0181 4.8800e0033.6000e0045.2300e0030.0000 30.7830 30.7830 7.6000e0043.5200e00331.8509 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 3.6000e0044.0000e0045.2300e0031.0000e0051.7200e0031.0000e0051.7300e0034.6000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.3445 1.3445 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3566 Unmitigated 3.6000e0044.0000e0045.2300e0031.0000e0051.7200e0031.0000e0051.7300e0034.6000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.3445 1.3445 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3566

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 7.83 0.00 4,685 4,685 Total 0.00 7.83 0.00 4,685 4,685
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

15.00 7.50 8.50 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.500000 0.250000 0.250000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 112.7319 112.7319 0.0104 1.2600e003113.3670 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 112.7319 112.7319 0.0104 1.2600e003113.3670 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
694260 112.7319 0.0104 1.2600e003113.3670
Total 112.7319 0.0104 1.2600e003113.3670
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
694260 112.7319 0.0104 1.2600e003113.3670
Total 112.7319 0.0104 1.2600e003113.3670
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1901 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1500e003 Unmitigated 0.1901 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1500e003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0202 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1699 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e0051.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1500e003 Total 0.1901 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1500e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0202 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1699 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e0051.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1500e003 Total 0.1901 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1500e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Cranes 1 8.00 1 231 0.29 Diesel
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

11.0 Vegetation
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Equipment Type tons/yr MT/yr
Cranes 1.8000e0041.9100e0039.2000e0040.0000 8.0000e0058.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 0.2535 0.2535 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2555 Total 1.8000e0041.9100e0039.2000e0040.0000 8.0000e0058.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 0.2535 0.2535 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2555 UnMitigated/Mitigated

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 29 Date: 12/3/2021 9:52 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Sunridge Energy Storage Project
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Surrogate land use for battery storage containers.

Construction Phase - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Trips and VMT - Based on project description.

Grading - CalEEMod defaults.

Vehicle Trips - Up to 4 workers visit the site monthly for maintenance.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 43.50 1000sqft 1.00 43,500.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
6 Wind Speed (m/s) 3.5 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
357.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Energy Use - CalEEMod defaults. No natural gas.

Water And Wastewater - No water use.

Solid Waste - No solid waste.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - In accordance with SMAQMD Rule 403.

Operational Off-Road Equipment - Use of crane to move containers.

Fleet Mix - Worker vehicle mix.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 95.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 44.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 22.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 0.63 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 0.82 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 9.3060e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LDA 0.54 0.50
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.25
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.25
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.0930e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 3.5070e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 9.4200e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.0060e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperDaysPerYear 260.00 1.00 tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperOffRoadEquipmentNumber 0.00 1.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 40.89 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 988.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 7.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 7.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 30.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 20.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.18
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 10,059,375.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.0607 36.3809 24.0515 0.0707 1.9769 1.2939 3.2708 0.3200 1.1937 1.5136 0.0000 7,007.661 0 7,007.661
0 1.7002 0.2730 7,131.522
6 2023 5.0194 49.9872 44.2726 0.0937 1.9768 2.3470 3.1130 0.3199 2.1817 2.2875 0.0000 9,102.946 1 9,102.946
1 2.3835 0.2637 9,186.756
0 Maximum 5.0194 49.9872 44.2726 0.0937 1.9769 2.3470 3.2708 0.3200 2.1817 2.2875 0.0000 9,102.946 1 9,102.946
1 2.3835 0.2730 9,186.756
0 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.0607 36.3809 24.0515 0.0707 1.2478 1.2939 2.5417 0.2412 1.1937 1.4349 0.0000 7,007.661 0 7,007.661
0 1.7002 0.2730 7,131.522
6 2023 5.0194 49.9872 44.2726 0.0937 1.2477 2.3470 2.7325 0.2412 2.1817 2.2875 0.0000 9,102.946 1 9,102.946
1 2.3835 0.2637 9,186.756
0 Maximum 5.0194 49.9872 44.2726 0.0937 1.2478 2.3470 2.7325 0.2412 2.1817 2.2875 0.0000 9,102.946 1 9,102.946
1 2.3835 0.2730 9,186.756
0 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.88 0.00 17.38 24.61 0.00 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.0418 4.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0179 0.0139 0.2376 6.2000e0040.0684 3.4000e0040.0688 0.0181 3.2000e0040.0185 62.5523 62.5523 1.6200e0031.4900e00363.0382 Offroad 0.3514 3.8155 1.8344 5.7700e0030.1593 0.1593 0.1466 0.1466 0.0000 558.8192 558.8192 0.1807 563.3376 Total 1.4111 3.8295 2.0765 6.3900e0030.0684 0.1597 0.2281 0.0181 0.1469 0.1651 0.0000 621.3811 621.3811 0.1824 1.4900e003626.3859 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.0418 4.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0179 0.0139 0.2376 6.2000e0040.0684 3.4000e0040.0688 0.0181 3.2000e0040.0185 62.5523 62.5523 1.6200e0031.4900e00363.0382 Offroad 0.3514 3.8155 1.8344 5.7700e0030.1593 0.1593 0.1466 0.1466 0.0000 558.8192 558.8192 0.1807 563.3376 Total 1.4111 3.8295 2.0765 6.3900e0030.0684 0.1597 0.2281 0.0181 0.1469 0.1651 0.0000 621.3811 621.3811 0.1824 1.4900e003626.3859 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Battery/Container Installation Building Construction 6/14/2023 10/31/2023 5 100 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/1/2022 11/30/2022 5 22 3 Grading Grading 12/1/2022 1/31/2023 5 44
4 Substation Installation Building Construction 2/1/2023 6/13/2023 5 95 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 10.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders 1 10.00 203 0.36
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders 2 10.00 65 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 10.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 2 10.00 187 0.41
Grading Plate Compactors 2 10.00 8 0.43
Grading Rollers 2 10.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 6.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders 2 10.00 203 0.36
Grading Skid Steer Loaders 2 10.00 65 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 10.00 97 0.37
Substation Installation Aerial Lifts 2 10.00 63 0.31
Substation Installation Air Compressors 1 10.00 78 0.48 Substation Installation Bore/Drill Rigs 1 10.00 221 0.50 Substation Installation Cranes 1 10.00 231 0.29
Substation Installation Excavators 1 10.00 158 0.38
Substation Installation Forklifts 0 6.00 89 0.20
Substation Installation Generator Sets 1 10.00 84 0.74
Substation Installation Rollers 1 10.00 80 0.38
Substation Installation Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 10.00 100 0.40 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 13.75
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 55
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Substation Installation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 10.00 247 0.40 Substation Installation Skid Steer Loaders 1 10.00 65 0.37 Substation Installation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.00 97 0.37 Substation Installation Trenchers 2 10.00 78 0.50
Battery/Container Installation Air Compressors 2 10.00 78 0.48 Battery/Container Installation Cranes 1 10.00 231 0.29
Battery/Container Installation Excavators 1 10.00 158 0.38 Battery/Container Installation Forklifts 0 6.00 89 0.20 Battery/Container Installation Generator Sets 1 10.00 84 0.74 Battery/Container Installation Plate Compactors 1 10.00 8 0.43 Battery/Container Installation Rollers 1 10.00 80 0.38
Battery/Container Installation Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 10.00 100 0.40 Battery/Container Installation Skid Steer Loaders 1 10.00 65 0.37 Battery/Container Installation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.00 97 0.37 Battery/Container Installation Trenchers 1 10.00 78 0.50 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 6 20.00 2.00 0.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 12 20.00 4.00 988.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Substation Installation 15 20.00 20.00 0.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Battery/Container
Installation
11 20.00 20.00 4.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.2 Battery/Container Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.7747 25.5609 30.1875 0.0507 1.2812 1.2812 1.2114 1.2114 4,855.175 9 4,855.175
9 1.0959 4,882.573
0 Total 2.7747 25.5609 30.1875 0.0507 1.2812 1.2812 1.2114 1.2114 4,855.175 9 4,855.175
9 1.0959 4,882.573
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1000e0046.0100e0031.2700e0033.0000e0057.0000e0045.0000e0057.4000e0041.9000e0044.0000e0052.4000e0042.7388 2.7388 1.1000e0044.3000e0042.8710 Vendor 0.0308 1.1266 0.3206 4.8800e0030.1574 6.6900e0030.1641 0.0453 6.4000e0030.0517 523.7627 523.7627 0.0129 0.0766 546.9246 Worker 0.0831 0.0436 0.7691 2.0700e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 208.8816 208.8816 4.7200e0034.6400e003210.3830 Total 0.1139 1.1762 1.0909 6.9800e0030.3862 7.8700e0030.3941 0.1060 7.4800e0030.1135 735.3831 735.3831 0.0177 0.0817 760.1786 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.2 Battery/Container Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.7747 25.5609 30.1875 0.0507 1.2812 1.2812 1.2114 1.2114 0.0000 4,855.175 8 4,855.175
8 1.0959 4,882.573
0 Total 2.7747 25.5609 30.1875 0.0507 1.2812 1.2812 1.2114 1.2114 0.0000 4,855.175 8 4,855.175
8 1.0959 4,882.573
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1000e0046.0100e0031.2700e0033.0000e0057.0000e0045.0000e0057.4000e0041.9000e0044.0000e0052.4000e0042.7388 2.7388 1.1000e0044.3000e0042.8710 Vendor 0.0308 1.1266 0.3206 4.8800e0030.1574 6.6900e0030.1641 0.0453 6.4000e0030.0517 523.7627 523.7627 0.0129 0.0766 546.9246 Worker 0.0831 0.0436 0.7691 2.0700e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 208.8816 208.8816 4.7200e0034.6400e003210.3830 Total 0.1139 1.1762 1.0909 6.9800e0030.3862 7.8700e0030.3941 0.1060 7.4800e0030.1135 735.3831 735.3831 0.0177 0.0817 760.1786 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.6628 0.0000 0.6628 0.0716 0.0000 0.0716 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4688 16.8638 13.1291 0.0291 0.6474 0.6474 0.5956 0.5956 2,812.754 6 2,812.754
6 0.9097 2,835.497
1 Total 1.4688 16.8638 13.1291 0.0291 0.6628 0.6474 1.3102 0.0716 0.5956 0.6672 2,812.754 6 2,812.754
6 0.9097 2,835.497
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.2200e0030.1339 0.0374 5.1000e0040.0157 1.3700e0030.0171 4.5300e0031.3100e0035.8400e00354.2280 54.2280 1.4100e0037.9300e00356.6258 Worker 0.0893 0.0496 0.8380 2.1300e0030.2281 1.1900e0030.2293 0.0605 1.0900e0030.0616 215.7687 215.7687 5.2800e0035.0400e003217.4011 Total 0.0945 0.1834 0.8754 2.6400e0030.2439 2.5600e0030.2464 0.0650 2.4000e0030.0674 269.9968 269.9968 6.6900e0030.0130 274.0269 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.2983 0.0000 0.2983 0.0322 0.0000 0.0322 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4688 16.8638 13.1291 0.0291 0.6474 0.6474 0.5956 0.5956 0.0000 2,812.754 6 2,812.754
6 0.9097 2,835.497
1 Total 1.4688 16.8638 13.1291 0.0291 0.2983 0.6474 0.9457 0.0322 0.5956 0.6278 0.0000 2,812.754 6 2,812.754
6 0.9097 2,835.497
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.2200e0030.1339 0.0374 5.1000e0040.0157 1.3700e0030.0171 4.5300e0031.3100e0035.8400e00354.2280 54.2280 1.4100e0037.9300e00356.6258 Worker 0.0893 0.0496 0.8380 2.1300e0030.2281 1.1900e0030.2293 0.0605 1.0900e0030.0616 215.7687 215.7687 5.2800e0035.0400e003217.4011 Total 0.0945 0.1834 0.8754 2.6400e0030.2439 2.5600e0030.2464 0.0650 2.4000e0030.0674 269.9968 269.9968 6.6900e0030.0130 274.0269 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.3256 0.0000 1.3256 0.1431 0.0000 0.1431 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8677 32.1600 22.3723 0.0529 1.2563 1.2563 1.1578 1.1578 5,092.891 6 5,092.891
6 1.6282 5,133.597
0 Total 2.8677 32.1600 22.3723 0.0529 1.3256 1.2563 2.5820 0.1431 1.1578 1.3009 5,092.891 6 5,092.891
6 1.6282 5,133.597
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0933 3.9036 0.7665 0.0146 0.3917 0.0336 0.4253 0.1073 0.0322 0.1394 1,590.544 6 1,590.544
6 0.0639 0.2521 1,667.272
9 Vendor 0.0105 0.2677 0.0748 1.0100e0030.0315 2.7500e0030.0342 9.0600e0032.6300e0030.0117 108.4560 108.4560 2.8300e0030.0159 113.2516 Worker 0.0893 0.0496 0.8380 2.1300e0030.2281 1.1900e0030.2293 0.0605 1.0900e0030.0616 215.7687 215.7687 5.2800e0035.0400e003217.4011 Total 0.1930 4.2209 1.6792 0.0177 0.6513 0.0376 0.6888 0.1768 0.0359 0.2127 1,914.769 4 1,914.769
4 0.0720 0.2730 1,997.925
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5965 0.0000 0.5965 0.0644 0.0000 0.0644 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8677 32.1600 22.3723 0.0529 1.2563 1.2563 1.1578 1.1578 0.0000 5,092.891 6 5,092.891
6 1.6282 5,133.597
0 Total 2.8677 32.1600 22.3723 0.0529 0.5965 1.2563 1.8529 0.0644 1.1578 1.2222 0.0000 5,092.891 6 5,092.891
6 1.6282 5,133.597
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0933 3.9036 0.7665 0.0146 0.3917 0.0336 0.4253 0.1073 0.0322 0.1394 1,590.544 6 1,590.544
6 0.0639 0.2521 1,667.272
9 Vendor 0.0105 0.2677 0.0748 1.0100e0030.0315 2.7500e0030.0342 9.0600e0032.6300e0030.0117 108.4560 108.4560 2.8300e0030.0159 113.2516 Worker 0.0893 0.0496 0.8380 2.1300e0030.2281 1.1900e0030.2293 0.0605 1.0900e0030.0616 215.7687 215.7687 5.2800e0035.0400e003217.4011 Total 0.1930 4.2209 1.6792 0.0177 0.6513 0.0376 0.6888 0.1768 0.0359 0.2127 1,914.769 4 1,914.769
4 0.0720 0.2730 1,997.925
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.3256 0.0000 1.3256 0.1431 0.0000 0.1431 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6606 28.9237 22.2045 0.0529 1.1077 1.1077 1.0210 1.0210 5,092.665 2 5,092.665
2 1.6281 5,133.368
7 Total 2.6606 28.9237 22.2045 0.0529 1.3256 1.1077 2.4333 0.1431 1.0210 1.1642 5,092.665 2 5,092.665
2 1.6281 5,133.368
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0609 3.3752 0.7124 0.0141 0.3916 0.0260 0.4176 0.1072 0.0249 0.1321 1,537.480 1 1,537.480
1 0.0613 0.2438 1,611.656
6 Vendor 6.1500e0030.2253 0.0641 9.8000e0040.0315 1.3400e0030.0328 9.0600e0031.2800e0030.0103 104.7525 104.7525 2.5800e0030.0153 109.3849 Worker 0.0831 0.0436 0.7691 2.0700e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 208.8816 208.8816 4.7200e0034.6400e003210.3830 Total 0.1502 3.6441 1.5456 0.0171 0.6512 0.0285 0.6797 0.1768 0.0272 0.2040 1,851.114 2 1,851.114
2 0.0686 0.2637 1,931.424
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5965 0.0000 0.5965 0.0644 0.0000 0.0644 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6606 28.9237 22.2045 0.0529 1.1077 1.1077 1.0210 1.0210 0.0000 5,092.665 2 5,092.665
2 1.6281 5,133.368
7 Total 2.6606 28.9237 22.2045 0.0529 0.5965 1.1077 1.7042 0.0644 1.0210 1.0854 0.0000 5,092.665 2 5,092.665
2 1.6281 5,133.368
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0609 3.3752 0.7124 0.0141 0.3916 0.0260 0.4176 0.1072 0.0249 0.1321 1,537.480 1 1,537.480
1 0.0613 0.2438 1,611.656
6 Vendor 6.1500e0030.2253 0.0641 9.8000e0040.0315 1.3400e0030.0328 9.0600e0031.2800e0030.0103 104.7525 104.7525 2.5800e0030.0153 109.3849 Worker 0.0831 0.0436 0.7691 2.0700e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 208.8816 208.8816 4.7200e0034.6400e003210.3830 Total 0.1502 3.6441 1.5456 0.0171 0.6512 0.0285 0.6797 0.1768 0.0272 0.2040 1,851.114 2 1,851.114
2 0.0686 0.2637 1,931.424
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.5 Substation Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.9056 48.8170 43.1829 0.0867 2.3392 2.3392 2.1743 2.1743 8,370.301 8 8,370.301
8 2.3659 8,429.448
4 Total 4.9056 48.8170 43.1829 0.0867 2.3392 2.3392 2.1743 2.1743 8,370.301 8 8,370.301
8 2.3659 8,429.448
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0308 1.1266 0.3206 4.8800e0030.1574 6.6900e0030.1641 0.0453 6.4000e0030.0517 523.7627 523.7627 0.0129 0.0766 546.9246 Worker 0.0831 0.0436 0.7691 2.0700e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 208.8816 208.8816 4.7200e0034.6400e003210.3830 Total 0.1138 1.1702 1.0897 6.9500e0030.3855 7.8200e0030.3933 0.1058 7.4400e0030.1132 732.6443 732.6443 0.0176 0.0813 757.3076 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.5 Substation Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.9056 48.8170 43.1829 0.0867 2.3392 2.3392 2.1743 2.1743 0.0000 8,370.301 8 8,370.301
8 2.3659 8,429.448
4 Total 4.9056 48.8170 43.1829 0.0867 2.3392 2.3392 2.1743 2.1743 0.0000 8,370.301 8 8,370.301
8 2.3659 8,429.448
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0308 1.1266 0.3206 4.8800e0030.1574 6.6900e0030.1641 0.0453 6.4000e0030.0517 523.7627 523.7627 0.0129 0.0766 546.9246 Worker 0.0831 0.0436 0.7691 2.0700e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 208.8816 208.8816 4.7200e0034.6400e003210.3830 Total 0.1138 1.1702 1.0897 6.9500e0030.3855 7.8200e0030.3933 0.1058 7.4400e0030.1132 732.6443 732.6443 0.0176 0.0813 757.3076 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0179 0.0139 0.2376 6.2000e0040.0684 3.4000e0040.0688 0.0181 3.2000e0040.0185 62.5523 62.5523 1.6200e0031.4900e00363.0382 Unmitigated 0.0179 0.0139 0.2376 6.2000e0040.0684 3.4000e0040.0688 0.0181 3.2000e0040.0185 62.5523 62.5523 1.6200e0031.4900e00363.0382

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 7.83 0.00 4,685 4,685 Total 0.00 7.83 0.00 4,685 4,685
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

15.00 7.50 8.50 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.500000 0.250000 0.250000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.0418 4.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101 Unmitigated 1.0418 4.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.1105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.9309 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.1000e0044.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101 Total 1.0418 4.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.1105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.9309 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.1000e0044.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101 Total 1.0418 4.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101 Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Cranes 1 8.00 1 231 0.29 Diesel
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

11.0 Vegetation
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Equipment Type lb/day lb/day
Cranes 0.3514 3.8155 1.8344 5.7700e0030.1593 0.1593 0.1466 0.1466 0.0000 558.8192 558.8192 0.1807 563.3376 Total 0.3514 3.8155 1.8344 5.7700e0030.1593 0.1593 0.1466 0.1466 0.0000 558.8192 558.8192 0.1807 563.3376 UnMitigated/Mitigated

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:53 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Sunridge Energy Storage Project
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Surrogate land use for battery storage containers.

Construction Phase - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Off-road Equipment - Based on project description.

Trips and VMT - Based on project description.

Grading - CalEEMod defaults.

Vehicle Trips - Up to 4 workers visit the site monthly for maintenance.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 43.50 1000sqft 1.00 43,500.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
6 Wind Speed (m/s) 3.5 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
357.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Energy Use - CalEEMod defaults. No natural gas.

Water And Wastewater - No water use.

Solid Waste - No solid waste.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - In accordance with SMAQMD Rule 403.

Operational Off-Road Equipment - Use of crane to move containers.

Fleet Mix - Worker vehicle mix.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 95.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 44.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 22.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 0.63 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 0.82 0.00
tblFleetMix HHD 9.3060e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix LDA 0.54 0.50
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.06 0.25
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.25
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.0930e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.13 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 3.5070e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 9.4200e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.0060e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 5.4800e-004 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 10.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00
tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperDaysPerYear 260.00 1.00 tblOperationalOffRoadEquipment OperOffRoadEquipmentNumber 0.00 1.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 40.89 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 988.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 7.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 7.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 30.00 20.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 20.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.18
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 10,059,375.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.0517 36.7260 23.9282 0.0704 1.9769 1.2940 3.2709 0.3200 1.1938 1.5138 0.0000 6,983.778 6 6,983.778
6 1.7005 0.2738 7,107.893
6 2023 5.0131 50.0841 44.1573 0.0935 1.9768 2.3470 3.1131 0.3199 2.1818 2.2876 0.0000 9,079.977 6 9,079.977
6 2.3838 0.2646 9,164.051
6 Maximum 5.0131 50.0841 44.1573 0.0935 1.9769 2.3470 3.2709 0.3200 2.1818 2.2876 0.0000 9,079.977 6 9,079.977
6 2.3838 0.2738 9,164.051
6 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.0517 36.7260 23.9282 0.0704 1.2478 1.2940 2.5418 0.2412 1.1938 1.4350 0.0000 6,983.778 6 6,983.778
6 1.7005 0.2738 7,107.893
6 2023 5.0131 50.0841 44.1573 0.0935 1.2477 2.3470 2.7326 0.2412 2.1818 2.2876 0.0000 9,079.977 6 9,079.977
6 2.3838 0.2646 9,164.051
6 Maximum 5.0131 50.0841 44.1573 0.0935 1.2478 2.3470 2.7326 0.2412 2.1818 2.2876 0.0000 9,079.977 6 9,079.977
6 2.3838 0.2738 9,164.051
6 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.88 0.00 17.38 24.61 0.00 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.0418 4.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0129 0.0171 0.2038 5.5000e0040.0684 3.4000e0040.0688 0.0181 3.2000e0040.0185 55.6221 55.6221 1.8300e0031.7100e00356.1790 Offroad 0.3514 3.8155 1.8344 5.7700e0030.1593 0.1593 0.1466 0.1466 0.0000 558.8192 558.8192 0.1807 563.3376 Total 1.4061 3.8326 2.0427 6.3200e0030.0684 0.1597 0.2281 0.0181 0.1469 0.1651 0.0000 614.4509 614.4509 0.1826 1.7100e003619.5267 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.0418 4.0000e0054.4400e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0059.5200e0039.5200e0032.0000e0050.0101 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0129 0.0171 0.2038 5.5000e0040.0684 3.4000e0040.0688 0.0181 3.2000e0040.0185 55.6221 55.6221 1.8300e0031.7100e00356.1790 Offroad 0.3514 3.8155 1.8344 5.7700e0030.1593 0.1593 0.1466 0.1466 0.0000 558.8192 558.8192 0.1807 563.3376 Total 1.4061 3.8326 2.0427 6.3200e0030.0684 0.1597 0.2281 0.0181 0.1469 0.1651 0.0000 614.4509 614.4509 0.1826 1.7100e003619.5267 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Battery/Container Installation Building Construction 6/14/2023 10/31/2023 5 100 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/1/2022 11/30/2022 5 22 3 Grading Grading 12/1/2022 1/31/2023 5 44
4 Substation Installation Building Construction 2/1/2023 6/13/2023 5 95 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 10.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders 1 10.00 203 0.36
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders 2 10.00 65 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 10.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 2 10.00 187 0.41
Grading Plate Compactors 2 10.00 8 0.43
Grading Rollers 2 10.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 6.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders 2 10.00 203 0.36
Grading Skid Steer Loaders 2 10.00 65 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 10.00 97 0.37
Substation Installation Aerial Lifts 2 10.00 63 0.31
Substation Installation Air Compressors 1 10.00 78 0.48 Substation Installation Bore/Drill Rigs 1 10.00 221 0.50 Substation Installation Cranes 1 10.00 231 0.29
Substation Installation Excavators 1 10.00 158 0.38
Substation Installation Forklifts 0 6.00 89 0.20
Substation Installation Generator Sets 1 10.00 84 0.74
Substation Installation Rollers 1 10.00 80 0.38
Substation Installation Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 10.00 100 0.40 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 13.75
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 55
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Substation Installation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 10.00 247 0.40 Substation Installation Skid Steer Loaders 1 10.00 65 0.37 Substation Installation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.00 97 0.37 Substation Installation Trenchers 2 10.00 78 0.50
Battery/Container Installation Air Compressors 2 10.00 78 0.48 Battery/Container Installation Cranes 1 10.00 231 0.29
Battery/Container Installation Excavators 1 10.00 158 0.38 Battery/Container Installation Forklifts 0 6.00 89 0.20 Battery/Container Installation Generator Sets 1 10.00 84 0.74 Battery/Container Installation Plate Compactors 1 10.00 8 0.43 Battery/Container Installation Rollers 1 10.00 80 0.38
Battery/Container Installation Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 10.00 100 0.40 Battery/Container Installation Skid Steer Loaders 1 10.00 65 0.37 Battery/Container Installation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.00 97 0.37 Battery/Container Installation Trenchers 1 10.00 78 0.50 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 6 20.00 2.00 0.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 12 20.00 4.00 988.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Substation Installation 15 20.00 20.00 0.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Battery/Container
Installation
11 20.00 20.00 4.00 15.00 8.50 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.2 Battery/Container Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.7747 25.5609 30.1875 0.0507 1.2812 1.2812 1.2114 1.2114 4,855.175 9 4,855.175
9 1.0959 4,882.573
0 Total 2.7747 25.5609 30.1875 0.0507 1.2812 1.2812 1.2114 1.2114 4,855.175 9 4,855.175
9 1.0959 4,882.573
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.0000e0046.5000e0031.2900e0033.0000e0057.0000e0045.0000e0057.4000e0041.9000e0044.0000e0052.4000e0042.7404 2.7404 1.1000e0044.3000e0042.8726 Vendor 0.0300 1.2135 0.3329 4.8900e0030.1574 6.7500e0030.1642 0.0453 6.4600e0030.0518 524.0543 524.0543 0.0128 0.0768 547.2649 Worker 0.0775 0.0536 0.6414 1.8400e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 185.6215 185.6215 5.1500e0035.3300e003187.3384 Total 0.1075 1.2736 0.9757 6.7600e0030.3862 7.9300e0030.3941 0.1060 7.5400e0030.1135 712.4162 712.4162 0.0181 0.0826 737.4759 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.2 Battery/Container Installation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.7747 25.5609 30.1875 0.0507 1.2812 1.2812 1.2114 1.2114 0.0000 4,855.175 8 4,855.175
8 1.0959 4,882.573
0 Total 2.7747 25.5609 30.1875 0.0507 1.2812 1.2812 1.2114 1.2114 0.0000 4,855.175 8 4,855.175
8 1.0959 4,882.573
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.0000e0046.5000e0031.2900e0033.0000e0057.0000e0045.0000e0057.4000e0041.9000e0044.0000e0052.4000e0042.7404 2.7404 1.1000e0044.3000e0042.8726 Vendor 0.0300 1.2135 0.3329 4.8900e0030.1574 6.7500e0030.1642 0.0453 6.4600e0030.0518 524.0543 524.0543 0.0128 0.0768 547.2649 Worker 0.0775 0.0536 0.6414 1.8400e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 185.6215 185.6215 5.1500e0035.3300e003187.3384 Total 0.1075 1.2736 0.9757 6.7600e0030.3862 7.9300e0030.3941 0.1060 7.5400e0030.1135 712.4162 712.4162 0.0181 0.0826 737.4759 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.6628 0.0000 0.6628 0.0716 0.0000 0.0716 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4688 16.8638 13.1291 0.0291 0.6474 0.6474 0.5956 0.5956 2,812.754 6 2,812.754
6 0.9097 2,835.497
1 Total 1.4688 16.8638 13.1291 0.0291 0.6628 0.6474 1.3102 0.0716 0.5956 0.6672 2,812.754 6 2,812.754
6 0.9097 2,835.497
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.1600e0030.1441 0.0388 5.1000e0040.0157 1.3800e0030.0171 4.5300e0031.3200e0035.8500e00354.2229 54.2229 1.4100e0037.9400e00356.6245 Worker 0.0830 0.0609 0.6962 1.9000e0030.2281 1.1900e0030.2293 0.0605 1.0900e0030.0616 191.6674 191.6674 5.7100e0035.7800e003193.5340 Total 0.0881 0.2051 0.7349 2.4100e0030.2439 2.5700e0030.2464 0.0650 2.4100e0030.0674 245.8903 245.8903 7.1200e0030.0137 250.1585 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.2983 0.0000 0.2983 0.0322 0.0000 0.0322 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4688 16.8638 13.1291 0.0291 0.6474 0.6474 0.5956 0.5956 0.0000 2,812.754 6 2,812.754
6 0.9097 2,835.497
1 Total 1.4688 16.8638 13.1291 0.0291 0.2983 0.6474 0.9457 0.0322 0.5956 0.6278 0.0000 2,812.754 6 2,812.754
6 0.9097 2,835.497
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.1600e0030.1441 0.0388 5.1000e0040.0157 1.3800e0030.0171 4.5300e0031.3200e0035.8500e00354.2229 54.2229 1.4100e0037.9400e00356.6245 Worker 0.0830 0.0609 0.6962 1.9000e0030.2281 1.1900e0030.2293 0.0605 1.0900e0030.0616 191.6674 191.6674 5.7100e0035.7800e003193.5340 Total 0.0881 0.2051 0.7349 2.4100e0030.2439 2.5700e0030.2464 0.0650 2.4100e0030.0674 245.8903 245.8903 7.1200e0030.0137 250.1585 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.3256 0.0000 1.3256 0.1431 0.0000 0.1431 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8677 32.1600 22.3723 0.0529 1.2563 1.2563 1.1578 1.1578 5,092.891 6 5,092.891
6 1.6282 5,133.597
0 Total 2.8677 32.1600 22.3723 0.0529 1.3256 1.2563 2.5820 0.1431 1.1578 1.3009 5,092.891 6 5,092.891
6 1.6282 5,133.597
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0908 4.2168 0.7822 0.0146 0.3917 0.0338 0.4254 0.1073 0.0323 0.1396 1,590.773 8 1,590.773
8 0.0637 0.2522 1,667.513
6 Vendor 0.0103 0.2883 0.0775 1.0100e0030.0315 2.7600e0030.0343 9.0600e0032.6400e0030.0117 108.4458 108.4458 2.8200e0030.0159 113.2489 Worker 0.0830 0.0609 0.6962 1.9000e0030.2281 1.1900e0030.2293 0.0605 1.0900e0030.0616 191.6674 191.6674 5.7100e0035.7800e003193.5340 Total 0.1841 4.5660 1.5559 0.0175 0.6513 0.0377 0.6890 0.1768 0.0360 0.2128 1,890.886 9 1,890.886
9 0.0723 0.2738 1,974.296
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5965 0.0000 0.5965 0.0644 0.0000 0.0644 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8677 32.1600 22.3723 0.0529 1.2563 1.2563 1.1578 1.1578 0.0000 5,092.891 6 5,092.891
6 1.6282 5,133.597
0 Total 2.8677 32.1600 22.3723 0.0529 0.5965 1.2563 1.8529 0.0644 1.1578 1.2222 0.0000 5,092.891 6 5,092.891
6 1.6282 5,133.597
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0908 4.2168 0.7822 0.0146 0.3917 0.0338 0.4254 0.1073 0.0323 0.1396 1,590.773 8 1,590.773
8 0.0637 0.2522 1,667.513
6 Vendor 0.0103 0.2883 0.0775 1.0100e0030.0315 2.7600e0030.0343 9.0600e0032.6400e0030.0117 108.4458 108.4458 2.8200e0030.0159 113.2489 Worker 0.0830 0.0609 0.6962 1.9000e0030.2281 1.1900e0030.2293 0.0605 1.0900e0030.0616 191.6674 191.6674 5.7100e0035.7800e003193.5340 Total 0.1841 4.5660 1.5559 0.0175 0.6513 0.0377 0.6890 0.1768 0.0360 0.2128 1,890.886 9 1,890.886
9 0.0723 0.2738 1,974.296
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.3256 0.0000 1.3256 0.1431 0.0000 0.1431 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6606 28.9237 22.2045 0.0529 1.1077 1.1077 1.0210 1.0210 5,092.665 2 5,092.665
2 1.6281 5,133.368
7 Total 2.6606 28.9237 22.2045 0.0529 1.3256 1.1077 2.4333 0.1431 1.0210 1.1642 5,092.665 2 5,092.665
2 1.6281 5,133.368
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0581 3.6493 0.7254 0.0141 0.3916 0.0261 0.4177 0.1072 0.0250 0.1322 1,538.354 4 1,538.354
4 0.0612 0.2439 1,612.571
9 Vendor 5.9900e0030.2427 0.0666 9.8000e0040.0315 1.3500e0030.0328 9.0600e0031.2900e0030.0104 104.8109 104.8109 2.5700e0030.0154 109.4530 Worker 0.0775 0.0536 0.6414 1.8400e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 185.6215 185.6215 5.1500e0035.3300e003187.3384 Total 0.1415 3.9456 1.4334 0.0169 0.6512 0.0286 0.6798 0.1768 0.0273 0.2041 1,828.786 8 1,828.786
8 0.0689 0.2646 1,909.363
2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5965 0.0000 0.5965 0.0644 0.0000 0.0644 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6606 28.9237 22.2045 0.0529 1.1077 1.1077 1.0210 1.0210 0.0000 5,092.665 2 5,092.665
2 1.6281 5,133.368
7 Total 2.6606 28.9237 22.2045 0.0529 0.5965 1.1077 1.7042 0.0644 1.0210 1.0854 0.0000 5,092.665 2 5,092.665
2 1.6281 5,133.368
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0581 3.6493 0.7254 0.0141 0.3916 0.0261 0.4177 0.1072 0.0250 0.1322 1,538.354 4 1,538.354
4 0.0612 0.2439 1,612.571
9 Vendor 5.9900e0030.2427 0.0666 9.8000e0040.0315 1.3500e0030.0328 9.0600e0031.2900e0030.0104 104.8109 104.8109 2.5700e0030.0154 109.4530 Worker 0.0775 0.0536 0.6414 1.8400e0030.2281 1.1300e0030.2292 0.0605 1.0400e0030.0615 185.6215 185.6215 5.1500e0035.3300e003187.3384 Total 0.1415 3.9456 1.4334 0.0169 0.6512 0.0286 0.6798 0.1768 0.0273 0.2041 1,828.786 8 1,828.786
8 0.0689 0.2646 1,909.363
2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 25 Date: 12/3/2021 9:54 AM Sunridge Energy Storage Project - Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ITEM 17.1. ATTACHMENT 1