Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Impacts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press panel on road impacts, construction funding and economic losses as PG&E plans dam removals
Summary
During a Mendocino workshop, residents and tribal members raised concerns about construction truck traffic, road damage, lost tourism and fairness of shifting decommissioning costs; panelists said management plans and mitigation measures will be developed through CEQA/NEPA and PG&E's management plans, and that capital funding for replacement facilities has not yet been secured.
Public commenters at a Mendocino County workshop pressed the panel on practical and economic impacts of PG&E's proposed decommissioning and the construction needed to implement a replacement diversion.
Concerns included the number of heavy trucks that would travel Potter Valley roads during dam removal and material hauling, the absence of capital construction funds for the proposed NERF and storage projects, and economic losses from reduced recreation at Lake Pillsbury and the surrounding campgrounds.
A local resident asked: "If there's gonna be, like, 50 trucks a day removing the material, how is PG&E gonna mitigate that as far as public safety goes, the roads, the amount of fuel? Is that gonna be considered in the EIR report?" Panel members said traffic and road impacts would be addressed in forthcoming management plans developed as part of PG&E's surrender process and in CEQA/NEPA reviews. The panel encouraged residents to file comments in the open regulatory processes to ensure those impacts are documented.
On finances, panelists acknowledged no capital construction funds were in hand. David Manning said some planning and design funding has been secured and that a revenue/benefit study and bond or grant financing strategy would be pursued, but he said "there is no money set aside right now" for the full capital cost and that presenters were initiating a revenue study and pursuing grants and bonds.
Several speakers urged that PG&E should be asked to pay for mitigation or economic losses; presenters explained that the State Water Resources Control Board and FERC processes and substantive environmental statutes govern mitigation requirements and that remedies for economic impacts vary by statute and case. Organizers said the board of supervisors had requested economic analyses and encouraged residents to include these requests in public comments to FERC and state agencies.
The meeting closed with organizers pledging to post slides, the recorded panel, and public comments online and to hold more workshops; attendees were urged to continue submitting formal comments and to engage in the CEQA/NEPA processes for detailed mitigation planning.
