HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole October 23 2007I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Committee Of The Whole
3
4 October 23, 2007
5
6
7 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. in the Council
8 Conference Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10 Present: Absent:
11 Barbara Brenner None
12 Dan McShane
13 Sam Crawford
14 Seth Fleetwood
15 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
16 L. Ward Nelson
17
18
19 1. PRESENTATION ON A PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER PERMIT APPLICATION
20 FOR CASCADE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT IN PETERSBURG,
21 ALASKA (AB2007 -429)
22
23 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County Executive submitted an
24 application earlier last month to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a
25 preliminary permit. The permit is designed to provide the time and studies necessary to
26 support an application for a FERC license. Ultimately, the permit and license are designed
27 to develop a project in southeast Alaska for generating green renewable hydroelectric
28 energy. A dam is not a part of this project. The County was originally approached by
29 Cascade Creek LLC, which is a local company managed by Chris Spens. He offered the
30 County the opportunity to be engaged in a project that provides the citizens of this
31 community lower cost, green energy.
32
33 The Executive decided to enter into the application to keep their options open and
34 explore the opportunity. This is consistent with what the Council has said before about
35 developing green sustainable energy.
36
37 Tom Fisher, Toll House Energy President, stated that his company, in conjunction
38 with Cape Tribal Corporation in southeast Alaska, are developing the Thomas Bay energy
39 project, a larger project in which the Cascade Creek hydropower project is involved. His
40 company brought on Chris Spens to develop this and other projects. James Stanford is a
41 local developer and associate who saw the need for green energy and believes in this
42 project.
43
44 Chris Spens, Toll House Energy Project Manager, stated this is a very exciting and
45 positive project. It is good for people and the environment. They are mindful of the fact
46 that the County and City both opted to purchase 100 percent green power. Hydropower in
47 Washington State is not considered green power. In many other states it is. Regardless of
48 the label, hydropower is renewable and sustainable.
49
50 This project does not include a dam. It is a lake draw -down project. It is one of
51 three projects. Features include a tunnel drilled into the lake, below the surface. That
52 tunnel will deliver water to a powerhouse near sea level elevation. The total drop is about
Committee of the Whole, 10/23/2007, Page 1
1 1,500 feet, which is noteworthy because it produces a lot of pressure. That pressure is
2 converted into energy at the powerhouse.
3
4 These three hydro projects are linked via new transmission lines and connected to
5 the town of Petersburg, Alaska. The electricity is then transmitted south to Wrangell,
6 Alaska, the Alaska- Canadian border, and onto the North American grid. He submitted
7 information (on file). By adding this power source to the North American grid, Whatcom
8 County can allow its citizens the opportunity to have power at a modest price.
9
10 It's also advantageous to southeast Alaska, because it has a range of generating
11 facilities that provides energy at a high cost. Over time, the project would connect areas on
12 southeast Alaska to one another so they can share resources. This project is sizeable.
13 Permitting and licensing hydropower project is a long -term endeavor. These projects are
14 scheduled to come online around 2014.
15
16 The B.C. government pledged to fund and build the primary transmission corridor
17 north and partially to the west to nearly reach southeast Alaska. These three projects
18 combined will make the transmission length from Tyee Lake hydro to the Alaska - Canadian
19 border.
20
21 Whatcom County's individual application is for a preliminary permit. It is an
22 opportunity, not a guarantee. It doesn't obligate the County to any action or cost. There is
23 full access to the materials on the internet and the FERC website. This is a chance to
24 review, consider, and decide whether or not it wants to participate.
25
26 The question of whether to proceed further should wait until they receive a
27 preliminary permit from FERC. That preliminary permit preserves their priority for future
28 licensing application. It gives them time to do research, studies, and prepare an
29 environmental impact analysis on the project. That analysis later becomes part of a federal
30 application for license.
31
32 The other two projects consider dams, but they are not essential for those projects
33 to occur. They merely represent an option to add additional capacity or storage, However,
34 the Cascade application does not incorporate a dam.
35
36 Most common impacts include water flow, maintaining instream flows, and providing
37 for fish needs. The creek leading out of Swan Lake, which is Cascade Creek, is impassable
38 to anadromous fish due to a waterfall. At present, there is no known fish use of Cascade
39 Creek between the waterfall and the lake. Fish within the lake use the upper reaches of
40 Cascade Creek. It's reasonable to explore and consider the impacts as lake level fluctuates.
41
42 There are recreational uses on Cascade Lake. Part of the project study, design, and
43 impact analysis considers those uses. There are a couple of projects in southeast Alaska
44 with the same issues that have already been permitted, licensed, and built. Two of those
45 complete projects are listed as low impact. They are lake draw -down systems, just like this
46 project.
47
48 Other issues to consider are about having the power of eminent domain when they
49 get the FERC license. That's frightening to property owners. However, all the routing for
50 transmission lines in this project would be on existing roads and rights -of -way. The route
51 avoids crossing private property. Transmission would be overland and then under water to
52 Petersburg.
53
Committee of the Whole, 10/23/2007, Page 2
1 At the moment, the three primary issues appear to be fisheries, recreation, and the
2 transmission lines. That is similar to most new development in the county.
3
4 Whenever a project is proposed, people hear issues right away. This is the type of
5 project process that allows ample public participation, extensive environmental impact
6 investigation, publication of studies for public review and comment, and conditions to
7 reduce environmental impacts to an acceptable level. These types of power projects don't
8 happen unless the public, resource agencies, and administering agencies concur that it can
9 be done and environmental impact can be appropriately managed.
10
11 This is a great project. They hope to involve the Alaska community as much as it is
12 willing. The project will take time. The reason for this project is for Whatcom County to use
13 clean power. He explained the FERC application process. Whatcom County is in the first
14 position to receive the preliminary permit, which has value.
15
16 Weimer asked when a preliminary permit would be issued, and when the County
17 would have to start doing studies. Spens stated the permit is issued in six to 12 months.
18 The County is not obligated to do anything. Once the permit is in hand, he imagines there
19 will be a discussion. It does start the three -year clock to preserve their right. Within that
20 three years, the county needs to make a federal license application to maximize the
21 opportunity.
22
23 Crawford asked if Executive Kremen communicated with the community in
24 Petersburg, Alaska. The battle lines are already being drawn to pit one community against
25 another. He asked why he, as a councilmember, has to be subjected to something he
26 doesn't know anything about and a daily deluge of emails from people he's never met, who
27 live far away and think he's impacting their lives.
28
29 Desler stated there was no contact with anyone from southeast Alaska. This project
30 is only approved by the federal government. There are many examples where people have
31 moved into Whatcom County to develop power and export power from Whatcom County on
32 behalf of their own jurisdiction, such as the City of Seattle.
33
34 It's unusual for the County government to take something like this on. They want to
35 at least preserve the option for examining the issue of developing green power. Many other
36 communities will start to think about the same thing in the current environmental context.
37 They are not trying to create any animosity with anyone else.
38
39 Crawford stated he respects these community business owners. At the same time,
40 the County must take some responsibility and role to manage the relationship with the
41 community in Petersburg since Whatcom County's name is on the permit. He asked what
42 the Executive is doing to be proactive in that regard. Spens stated this information was
43 shared with the County Executive belatedly. He is a planner, but didn't do a good job of
44 thinking ahead about how to present this information to the County.
45
46 They had a public meeting in Petersburg. Think about any development project
47 they've had to consider, especially if it was substantial or unusual. The typical reaction is
48 concern and anxiety. He presented information to the community.
49
50 Brenner stated not everyone's issues are addressed to their satisfaction through
51 FERC. That is untrue. Spens stated he said the issues are raised. He didn't say they are
52 addressed to their satisfaction.
53
Committee of the Whole, 10/23/2007, Page 3
1 Brenner stated the County came out strongly against Sumas Energy (SE) 2, but
2 FERC totally ignored the County.
3
4 McShane stated that was the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). EFSEC
5 did not ignore the County. It just didn't agree.
6
7 Brenner asked why the Council wasn't contacted immediately and brought in before
8 the preliminary application was submitted, rather than now. She's very uncomfortable this
9 way. Desler stated they should have done that.
10
11 Weimer asked if this was offered to Western Washington University or the City of
12 Bellingham. Spens stated it was not.
13
14 2. DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR KAREN FRAKES
15 REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (AB2007 -018)
16
17 McShane moved to go into executive session to discuss Consent Agenda items two
18 through four for 15 minutes.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 3. CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (WYNDEN HOLMAN,
23 HEARING EXAMINER FILE NO. APL07- 0009), FILED ON BEHALF OF
24 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (AB2007-
25 386)
26
27 4. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL'S
28 DECISION ON APPEAL (LAKE WHATCOM WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT AND
29 LAKE WHATCOM RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER, HEARING EXAMINER
30 FILE NO. CUP06- 0031), FILED BY SQUALICUM VALLEY COMMUNITY
31 ASSOCIATION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM
32 (AB2007 -321)
33
34 OTHER BUSINESS
35
36 ADJOURN
37
38 T e meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m.
39
40
41
42 Jill`Nixoq�,N#j1)ybes Transcription
43 �
44 'tT) 9 VNroved these minutes on November 20 , 2007.
45 �• y1"A tC�•. C�
46 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
47 ; O COVE ;` = WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
49 T F��• _
50 `
51
52 D�(x},p BrownVayis, Q&ncil Clerk Carl eimer, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 10/23/2007, Page 4