Response To PG&E: WAVEConnect Mendocino and Humbolt coasts Important UPDATE 09 09 08 PG&E withdraws WAVEConnect Project from Mendocino Coast The following 30 pages (PDF link) are comments specific to: Mendocino coast and County, and by regional reference, the North Coast of California;  submitted in May 2008. MMS - Docket No. MMS-2008-OMM-0020-0002 and FERC: Docket Nos. P-12781 and P-12779 and CPUC Docket # (Included by reference) Proceeding Number: A0707015 Status: Active to 05/28/08 Download  Comments  in PDF Format 209kb, submitted into the records of: Senator Boxer EPW Environmental Justice & Toxics, FERC, MMS, CPUC, Mendocino County BoS, City of Fort Bragg. PG&E WAVEConnect project plans to come ashore at the mill site and hook up to the grid. We the people of Northern California are paying for nuclear reactors to be decommissioned, and the Diablo Canyon re-commissioning, and cleanup at the Geysers after both Calpine and PG&E filed bankruptcy. Both companies are poised to capitalize big through the State's RPS, and renewable energy markets. The toxins remain. 2001 - Most people probably think of "PG&E" simply as their utility. But since the state passed its electricity deregulation law in 1996, the utility has evolved into a giant and complex corporate structure that also includes three unregulated companies." Those are: PG&E Generating Company LLC, which operates power plants from its headquarters in Bethesda, Md. PG&E Gas Transmission, headquartered in Portland, Ore., which produces and transports natural gas. PG&E Energy Trading, also in Bethesda, trades energy commodities on financial markets and manages risk for customers. While these unregulated subsidiaries represented only about 17 percent of PG&E Corp.'s profits last year they are the fastest-growing part of the corporation. Their revenues last year were $12 billion, compared to the utility's $7 billion. Total value of their assets: estimated $9.5 billion. Mendocino County as of May 5, 2008 Mendocino County filed their response to PG&E's comments on Mendocino County's Request for Rehearing on the Wave Energy project off the Mendocino coast. County further argues that "had the County had an opportunity to intervene in the preliminary permit proceedings... the County would have also raised its concerns about the vagueness of the project description and to propose additional permit conditions to clarify the project. Response To FERC: Docket Nos. P-12781 and P-12779 Three-year preliminary permits were issued for the PG&E projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on March 13, 2008 in FERC Docket Nos. P-12781 and P-12779. On April 14, 2008, the Department of the Interior filed Requests for Rehearing in both FERC docket numbers, on the grounds that FERC has no jurisdiction on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). MMS announced in a Federal Register notice dated April 18, 2008 that it intends to issue leases to PG&E for the portions of these projects that will be placed on the OCS. Rehearings to Intervene have been filed by Mendocino County, Fort Bragg, Ocean Resource Use and Conservation Groups, Stakeholders, citizens. 2008 CPUC 2 Step: Proceeding Number: A0707015 - forward and then back April 29, 2008 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION'S DRAFT INTERIM OPINION Authorizing Emerging Renewable Energy Programs... preliminary grant/order to PG&E. FERC vs MMS: Docket No. MMS-2008-OMM-0020-0002 Notice of Nominations Received and Proposed Limited Alternative Energy Leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and Initiation of Coordination and Consultation On November 6, 2007, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) published in the Federal Register (72 FR 214, pp. 62673-62675) a request for information ... as of 05/22/08 the corrected Docket. This correction is effective immediately upon publication of this Notice. The 30-day and 60-day comment periods identified in the original Notice shall be deemed to commence upon the publication of this correction Notice" (April 30th, 2008). In the April 29, 2008 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION'S DRAFT INTERIM OPINION AUTHORIZING EMERGING RENEWABLE RESOURCE PROGRAMS: Only $2 million of PG&E's requested $6 million for its wave energy (WaveConnect) project is authorized at this time pending further review by the TRP consultants and approval by ED [Executive Director of PUC]. Page 3 AND SO... Beginning with CEQA and the CPUC, then current monitoring programs and science, a review of California RPS, carbon offset trading, previous PG&E/Calpine bankruptcies and non-accountability, corporate hegemony of natural resources, misuse of both ratepayer and State tax revenues, Ocean protection, renewable food resources, local economic and environmental impacts, current baseline studies, cultural historic experience vs the half truths of PG&E ... these  comments  are submitted into the record re: Oil/Gas and Renewable Ocean Energy Lease Permits on the OCS, northern CA CPUC CEQA RULES Rule 2.4 (CEQA Compliance) (a) Applications for authority to undertake any projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. (CEQA) and the guidelines for implementation of CEQA, California Administrative Code Sections 15000 et seq., shall be consistent with these codes and this rule. (b) Any application for authority to undertake a project that is not statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA requirements shall include a Proponents's Environmental Assessment (PEA). The PEA shall include all information and studies required under the Commission's Information and Criteria List adopted pursuant to Chapter 1200 of the Statutes of 1977 (Government Code Sections 65940 through 65942), which is published on the CPUC Internet website. (c) Any application for authority to undertake a project that is statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA requirements shall so state, with citation to the relevant authority. Information and Criteria List: The California Public Utilities Commission has adopted an Information and Criteria List in order to determine whether applications for projects are complete This list specifies the information required from any applicant for a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Ca. Pub. Res. Code Sections 21000 through 21176, or for development project subject to Cal. Gov. Code Sections 65920 through 65957. Submission of this information is necessary before an application can be determined to be complete. ?? How do the CEQA - Applications for authority to undertake any projects affect the criteria and project parameters for PG&E's WAVE Connect application? Are the communications regarding the new Oct 2006 CEQA rules between PG&E and the MMS available for public review? How can they be obtained? What criteria were used to define whether or not PG&E's WAVE Connect Study Project is a 'Project' under the new October 2006 rules? Does MMS have CEQA review authority over the CPUC? From as far away as San Diego County "We want an accountable, publicly responsible trading mechanism," said State Senator Christine Kehoe (D) San Diego. Southern California State Senator Christine Kehoe is among those who think the state is putting the cart before the horse. She worries that big polluters will simply buy up credits and never reduce their emissions. Back in Mendocino County ?? Has MMS considered the merits of the natural carbon sink of the ocean offshore, the benthic layer depth, and the erosion that flowed seaward from 150 years of logging and burning (atmospheric deposition), offshore of what were once the largest terrestrial carbon sinks the Ancient Redwood forests? ?? What is the economic added value potential to the State and County of Mendocino in the new energy market of pollution regimes and carbon equivalence cap and trade offsets? Forests are already used within the State to offset carbon equivalence pollution. How will spatial requirements of overlapping multiple uses of the benthic layer of the OCS be structured? This would include impacts to gray whale migrations and feeding (gray whales feed on their right side and scoop up the top benthic layer, filtering it with their baleen).  Gray Whale Obstacle Course - From the summer Arctic waters to winter in Mexico - A film by Jean-Michel Cousteau California and Oregon OCS: MMS vs FERC MMS response to FERC's acceptance of several preliminary permit applications  for hydrokinetic energy projects on the OCS off the coasts of California and Oregon, MMS filed formal protests with FERC citing specific points of contention. MMS indicated that it believes FERC jurisdiction does not extend to the OCS for three reasons and requested that the agency reject the application in question and stop processing preliminary permits for similar projects on the OCS. MMS, Protest of the United States Minerals Management Service, FERC Docket P-12752-000 (January 30, 2007); MMS, Protest of the US Minerals Management Service, FERC Docket P-12750-000 (February 20, 2007); and MMS, Protest of the United States Minerals Management Service, FERC Docket P-12753-000 (March 2, 2007). Formally, the OCS is governed by Title 43, Chapter 29 "Submerged Lands", Subchapter III "Outer Continental Shelf Lands", of the U.S. Code. The term "outer Continental Shelf" refers to all submerged lands, its subsoil, and seabed that belong to the United States and are lying seaward and outside of the states' jurisdiction, the latter defined as the "lands beneath navigable waters" in Title 43, Chapter 29, Subchapter I, Section 1301. ?? Is it not true that proposed offshore development are within California State Waters seaward limits extending 3 international nautical miles (5.556 km/3.452 statute miles) seaward of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial seaward is measured? Thus the landward boundary of the outer continental shelf is a legal construct rather than a physical construct, modified only at intervals by appropriate processes of law. ?? How is it then that PG&E's proposed project area, off Fort Bragg, which lies within the State of California Waters jurisdiction, and proposed seafloor construction including (buried) cable which impact the Navigable Waters of the State of California and are thus under the State's Jurisdiction, have come to be administered by MMS? MMS and the OCS on the East Coast, the Cape Cod Wind Farm In regards to MMS and the OCS application review process itself: On the East Coast, the Cape Cod Wind Farm (Cape Wind) proposal review by MMS has not proved to be any kind of attempt to produce a quality document. Given these apparent inadequacies, what events on the East coast and results of the Cape Cod/MMS process and response by the public would provide a level of confidence in any research review by MMS? From STAFF WRITER Cape Cod Times April 23, 2008 Patrick Cassidy "I've never seen anything like this before," said Rodney Cluck, Cape Wind project manager for the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the lead federal agency to review Cape Wind Associates' plan to build 130 wind turbines in the sound. No other project reviewed by the agency during Cluck's 11 years with MMS has received as much attention, he said. The final number of public comments submitted on the agency's Cape Wind draft environmental report has yet to be tallied. A 2005 report on the project issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received one-tenth the number of comments the MMS document has so far. Despite the difference in magnitude, there were similar criticisms leveled against the MMS and Army Corps of Engineers documents. The MMS report took hits for conclusions drawn from studies of other projects, analysis of the impact of construction noise and alternatives considered in the document. The report, which was released in January, found little environmental impact across 117 areas under consideration. Some federal agencies requested more information on the project and called parts of the report inadequate. "At the very least, the (report) should explain why recommended studies and analyses were not conducted and the ramifications of not having that information," Michael Bartlett, supervisor for the New England Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wrote about bird and fisheries research in a letter sent to MMS on Monday. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the project's most vocal opponent, enlisted 40 experts to review the report and produced a 3,000-page critique, the organization's president, Glenn Wattley, said yesterday. "Part of the dilemma here is that after three years the MMS hasn't produced a higher quality document," Wattley said, comparing the Army Corps review and the MMS report. MMS took over the review of Cape Wind from the Army Corps as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The following 30 pages are comments specific to: Mendocino coast and County, and by regional reference, the North Coast of California. MMS - Docket No. MMS-2008-OMM-0020-0002 and FERC: Docket Nos. P-12781 and P-12779 and CPUC Docket # (Included by reference) Proceeding Number: A0707015 Status: Active to 05/28/08 Download  Comments  in PDF Format 209kb, submitted into the records of: Senator Boxer EPW Environmental Justice & Toxics, FERC, MMS, CPUC, Mendocino County BoS, City of Fort Bragg.