San Francisco, transformed into one of the world”s leading cities by the Gold Rush of 1849, is reaching to try to slow a new wave energy “gold rush” in Fort Bragg.
A recent City of San Francisco filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission asks the federal agency to block Pacific Gas & Electric Company”s proposed wave energy projects off Fort Bragg.
“San Francisco believes the risk of sparking a gold rush” by ill-prepared applicants with ill-conceived projects is too high, and the drain on Commission resources in reviewing such applications would be too great,” a filing signed by the city and county of San Francisco states.
San Francisco is the only local governmental agency to take an official position in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) file on Mendocino Coast wave power.
Two large-scale power plants are now proposed off the Mendocino Coast by two large companies which are heavily involved in the issue globally — Chevron and PG&E.
With jurisdiction unclear, the considerable effort to determine what wave energy could mean to the area is being led by a scattering of ocean lovers led by activist George Reinhardt of Fort Bragg, to whom groups like Coast Economic Localization Link and even some Fort Bragg City Council members defer on the issue.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has also leaped into the fray, with a filing that claims fellow federal agency FERC isn”t equipped to protect the interests of the ocean adequately and seeks that job for NMFS. That pleases Larry Knowles, owner of the local business Rising Tide Sea Vegetables, who is worried about impacts on currents and sea life.
Along with PG&E”s filing off Fort Bragg, a new application from Chevron for a wave energy plant off of Mendocino was filed in early July. The filings represent a legal claim to develop those waters.
While both filings have come as a surprise to local people and governments, these plans have been in the works for many months.
“The Chevron business development manager told me a few months ago that they would be filing. He has also talked with PG&E,” said Roger Bedard, whose company, Electric Power Research Institute, is working with PG&E on the planned project off Fort Bragg.
Local government response
While the problem with the first California Gold Rush was that it generated too much interest among the general public, the opposite problem has dogged the emerging zero-carbon wave energy technology. Perhaps the most unexpected part of the controversy is that there really isn”t any.
Robert S. Cinq-Mars, an electrical engineer from New Hampshire who provided the sole public comment in more than a dozen active wave energy files, expresses his surprise that hardly anybody seems interested in a process that could change the face of the world”s oceans.
“The minimal response thus far to the FERC Notice of Inquiry relating to ocean energy permitting suggests that this important process, soon to expire, may not be sufficiently advertised to the relatively new ocean energy community,” Cinq-Mars wrote in an effort to generate more comments and a delay from FERC.
Although the City of Fort Bragg has heard two presentations by PG&E and its contractor, local governments have not commented officially for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
“I think the city of Fort Bragg should be writing their own letter to FERC. Not in support of San Francisco”s protest, but making clear the city”s concerns — however they wish to express them,” Reinhardt said.
Mendocino County, the entity that may have some legal jurisdiction, has yet to get involved even to the extent Fort Bragg has. In Oregon, several county governments laid wave energy claims on behalf of residents and are negotiating with multiple developers.
However, the process is admittedly confusing to all involved.
San Francisco points to the fact that FERC itself realizes the process needs better organization and planning and is considering putting a halt to all new applications.
San Francisco”s filing came prior to the July 2 Chevron claim but is aimed at Fort Bragg more than a nearly identical project by PG&E in Eureka because what happens in the ocean off Fort Bragg could impact San Francisco.
“San Francisco notes that the actions of currents, patterns of marine migration and channels of navigation can easily transfer an impact in one area of water off the California coast to adjacent areas of coastline,” the filing states.
While Reinhardt sees validity in the position that much more scrutiny and public participation are needed in the process, he feels that San Francisco is taking the wrong approach by trying to force action with a legal filing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
“San Francisco believes that the coastal resources of California are an unmatched natural resource and that their exploitation must be undertaken only with extreme care and in light of all proper protection. Accordingly, San Francisco”s participation is in the public interest, and San Francisco therefore requests leave to intervene,” the city”s filing states.
In its official reply to San Francisco”s effort to block the Fort Bragg project from going forward, PG&E states the utility supports permit issuance because it believes such issuance will lead to earlier commercial development of “necessary offshore hydropower generation, whereas the City of San Francisco”s approach, if implemented, has the potential to stifle a burgeoning industry,” the PG&E filing states.
San Francisco asks FERC not to grant permits to any pending wave energy plans (about 15 on the West Coast) and apply greater scrutiny to those already granted (about 30 on the West Coast).
There has been speculation that giant corporations want to stake the claims as much to keep others out of the technology as to develop it. Others say only big corporations can afford to develop the technology.
“San Francisco supports the interim policy … to assure that those sites are not being banked by entities that have no realistic expectation of developing them within their permit term,” the city”s filing states.
The PG&E and Chevron FERC filings now represent a claim similar to a mining claim — blocking any other efforts in that same spot.
“Cooperation is the way to proceed with wave energy development,” Reinhardt said. “Since I don”t believe in starting the discussion with lawsuits, I don”t support the rejection of PG&E”s application. I share the concern that there be real oversight.”
Reinhardt agrees with San Francisco”s concern that these sites should not be “banked” or saved up by corporate entities that have no intention of developing them.
“For years the energy and auto companies have been buying renewable energy innovations only to bury them. Their record is terrible. Are they turning over a new leaf, or just destroying another one?” Reinhardt asked.
Next week: Chevron officials talk about their intentions and locals respond.
PG&E, Chevron”s wave energy claims
– Agency filing preliminary FERC
permit application: PG&E
Date filed: Feb. 27, 2007
Buildout: 4 megawatts in first stage, up to 40 megawatts in second
Study area: Off Fort Bragg and reaching north; an area 17 miles north to south by 4 miles wide, starting about one half mile offshore
– Agency filing preliminary FERC permit application: Chevron California Renewables
Date filed: July 2, 2007
Buildout: 2 to 60 megawatts
Study area: Off the town of Mendocino, north to Point Cabrillo, south to a point halfway between Little River and Albion, about one half mile from shore to 3 miles offshore.
– Wave energy now costs 20-30 cents per kilowatt hour
Wave energy needs to cost 4-5 cents per kilowatt-hour to compete
