By Frank Galusha, EasyWriter ©

On October 19, 2009 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) held a public scoping meeting as part of its environmental review of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s License Surrender Application under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The meeting was held to take public comment about the impact of PG&E’s decision to surrender its license to operate two power plants, one on Old Cow Creek (Kilarc) near the town of Whitmore and another on South Cow Creek near Hooten Gulch in the South Cow Creek Valley.

The consequences of decommissioning these facilities include: 1) draining Kilarc Reservoir and filling in the popular fishing hole; 2) returning all waters now diverted to the powerhouse fore bays via bypasses to their natural streambeds (as requested by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game), and 3) demolishing the facilities that produce at least 4.8 MW of green hydropower.

FERC also conducted public tours of the two areas on October 20 and 21. On October 22 FERC held a meeting in Redding at which the resource agencies were given the chance to defend their positions. A great many people showed up at these meetings to voice their concerns and a very interesting story seems to be unfolding.

The “Watershed Moment” at FERC’s Oct. 19 scoping meeting in Palo Cedro came when Steve Tetrick, manager of potential hydro operator Evergreen Shasta Power (ESP), got the impression that the fat lady had already sung.  Tetrick, who had taken the podium to present ESP’s offer to take over PG&E’s Old Cow and South Cow Creek power plants and improve salmon habitat in the watershed, took exception to something said at the FERC project coordinator’s table and suddenly stiffened. Apparently, it had been implied the draining of the popular lake was a done deal.

Raising his voice just a bit, Tetrick asked FERC project coordinator, CarLisa Linton, “Am I wasting my time presenting an alternative? If so, do you have a FERC lawyer on the panel?” Tetrick then added, “It is a fact that the presentation of an alternative is fully contemplated by the scoping process.”

Linton, who seemed slightly dismayed, quickly rose from her seat to assure the large gathering at the Millville Grange, that “once we have looked at all the impacts and concerns, there would be a chance for consideration of all alternatives.”

Tetrick is correct. FERC was here to conduct scoping meetings and tours as per the National Environmental Policy Act, to independently evaluate the environmental effects of PG&E’s license surrender application – and to do an Environmental Assessment (EA) that describes and evaluates the probable effects, including cumulative effects, if any, of the proposed license surrender application.

At least 20 people also took to the podium to express their concerns about what would be done with the lake and the power facilities once PG&E has surrendered its license to operate them.

Lisa Whitman asked how remains of the facilities would be disposed of. William Farrell rose to say that he disagreed with the National Marine Fisheries Service Draft Plan, which recently deemed Redding-area Sacramento tributaries as too improved for restoration of salmon habitat. “That’s just not so,” Farrell said, “we can help the fish.”

Bonnie Tetrick used her time at the podium to ask the FERC panel “to look at the big picture.” She recited a long list of positives of the ESP plan that would help not only fish but people, the environment, the commission, the resource agencies, the County and wildlife.

Glenn Dye, chairman of the Save Kilarc Committee, shared a parable about the loss of valuable things and pleaded with the panel, asking them to not destroy a facility he had enjoyed for years.

Many other questions and concerns were placed into the official record that evening. Participants protested the loss of the green hydropower produced by the plants and the threatened loss of their water rights, plus the loss of Kilarc Reservoir’s fishing, picnicking and access for youth, families, the handicapped, hunters, hikers, bikers, etc. Some suggested that draining the reservoir and destruction of the facilities would be detrimental to the fish, including steelhead and salmon, and other wildlife.

One participant at the meeting asked P&E representatives, “Given today’s conditions would you make the same decision?”  PG&E had elected to decommission about five years ago when circumstances were entirely different.  At the time PG&E elected to back away, power was five cents per kilowatt hour, (it is now 11 cents +). Back then there was no drought. Back then we had “global warming” not today’s watered down cliché “climate change.”

At that time there wasn’t such a huge demand for clean, renewable power. We didn’t have a collapse of the Central Valley salmon runs. Most importantly, there were no potential operators of the facilities waiting in the wings. Today, we have two companies vying for the right to run them: Tetrick’s Evergreen Shasta Power, LLC of Whitmore and Richard Ely’s Davis Hydro LLC of Davis.

Ostensibly, FERC can choose to take no action (Status Quo option) in which case the plants remain in place and PG&E will continue to operate them on an annual basis. FERC can also elect to have PG&E demolish the plants, drain the lake, destroy all the recreational facilities and even retire the existing access road.

Most of those who spoke at the first scoping meeting believe this would be a travesty. In addition to the loss of recreation and fishing, this could cost ratepayers $14.5 million to destroy the dams/plants; a large unknown amount to replace the 4.8 MW of green hydropower; a large unknown amount to build a replacement diversion dam on South Cow in order to meet adjudicated water rights for South Cow Creek landowners; and huge costs to everyone for needless lawsuits and endless delays for litigation, which, at the end of day, is likely to be won by landowners because water rights date back 105 years or more.

But it’s not over yet! FERC can also consider and adopt one of two alternatives offered by Davis Hydro and Evergreen Shasta Power, which would save this fishing place and improve habitat for anadromous fish.

Richard Ely of Davis Hydro claims the real stumbling blocks to continued operation of the power plants are the resource agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. “They hold the power to block this,” Ely said. The agencies want all the water now being diverted for power production to be put back in the streams – to make them they way they were when nature had control. They say this is the best way to restore dwindling supplies of steelhead and salmon.

Perhaps FERC and the resource agencies are beginning to see, as Bonnie Tetrick put it, “the big picture.” Why put people before fish when we can produce a win-win-win-win-win ending to this story? If we can get FERC to that point, then we can start discussing the relative merits of the alternatives.

For more on the FERC scoping meetings, see Glenn Dye’s letter on East Valley Voices page.