Federal regulators reject controversial pumped storage project proposed for Sonoma Coast

Federal regulators have denied a requested preliminary permit for a highly controversial hydropower facility on coastal land near Fort Ross, all but shutting down a proposal that aroused anger and opposition throughout the region.

In a six-page decision issued Tuesday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission noted a wide range of public and governmental objections to the proposed project, its potential environmental impacts and ramifications for protected public lands, including the Fort Ross State Historic Park and the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary offshore.

The Tuesday decision still allows Alabama-based Hydro Green Energy to seek a rehearing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission within 30 days.

But the commission particularly highlighted legal prohibitions on authorizing projects in the California Coastal National Monument — more than 20,000 federally protected islands, rocks, pinnacles and exposed reefs off the California coast, as well as six onshore units, one of them in Point Arena, overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

“We’ve always said this project was dead on arrival,” California Senate Majority Leader Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, said Tuesday. “I’m glad that it’s now official.

“What a supreme waste of everyone’s time to pretend like this behemoth of a boondoggle would be built on the sensitive Sonoma Coast.”

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Fort Ross Decision.PDF

The preliminary permit would have allowed Hydro Green Energy to explore the feasibility of building what’s called a pumped storage facility in the vicinity of Fort Ross State Historic Park. Had the plan proved viable, HGE would have had first dibs on a federal license for the site.

The project would have included a 23-acre saltwater reservoir at high elevation around Seaview and Fort Ross roads to store ocean water drawn in through offshore intake equipment. It would then have been piped inland, underground and pumped vertically 1,500 feet uphill, when renewable power was readily available.

Later, when wind and solar energy sources were insufficient to satisfy demand on the grid, water from the reservoir could be released back down the vertical pipe and back toward shore through power-generating turbines inside a 250-foot-long, 100-foot-high power house at the water’s edge.

Pumped storage, in use for more than a century, is considered a clean, renewable, desirable power supply when appropriate sites and background energy sources exist.

But the proposal made public last July, though somewhat vague as to precise locations, drew the immediate ire of public officials, nonprofit groups and the general public. They cited numerous concerns about marine organisms, potential impacts from the reintroduction of stored saltwater into the ocean, the pipeline’s path across the San Andreas Fault and disruption of the tranquil coastal area. Other concerns included potential impacts to groundwater, tribal culture and resources and lack of electrical transmission infrastructure in the area.

Fort Ross Pump Storage Application.PDF

Sonoma County supervisors, as they finalized a Local Coastal Plan for the wider region, inserted language especially designed to ensure such a project was never built.

State Parks, the California Coastal Commission and the National Marine Sanctuary weighed in against it, as well, along with scores of others, almost unanimously opposed.

Hydro Green Energy President and Chief Executive Officer Wayne Krouse said state park land was not involved, though conceptual maps supplied by the company showed that was not the case.

The federal commission said Krouse also was unaware that the project would occupy federal lands, especially a national monument.

The commission indicted that was a major obstacle.

“On Jan. 11, 2000, President Clinton established the California Coastal National Monument through a presidential proclamation, pursuant to the Antiquities Act of 1906,” its decision states. “The monument was created for the purpose of protecting the islands, rocks, and pinnacles of the California coast, which provide habitats for marine-dependent wildlife and vegetation, promote biodiversity, and preserve fragile ecosystems. The proclamation states that the lands within the boundaries of the monument are ‘ … withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws …’ ”

Richard Charter, director of the Coastal Coordination Program for The Ocean Foundation and a lead critic of the proposal, put it more succinctly.

"Although the applicant technically has 30 days in which to reapply, FERC has now made a compelling set of arguments in rejecting the proposal," Charter said.

Krouse did not respond to requests for comment or to questions about the likelihood HGE would request a rehearing.

Said McGuire: “With Christmas right around the corner, it’s nice to see this rejection by FERC. It’s an early holiday gift. Good riddance.”

You can reach Staff Writer Mary Callahan (she/her) at 707-521-5249 or mary.callahan@pressdemocrat.com. On X/Twitter @MaryCallahanB.