HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-226RESOLUTION OPPOSTNG TliE LICENSING OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA POZ~7ER AGENCY AND SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL
UTILITY BISTRICT TO OPERATE PACIFIC GAS AND
EL~CTRIC COMPANY'S ROCK'CREEK AND CRESTA POWER
PROJECTS. FERC LICEI~SE PROJEC'T N0. 1962
'vdHEREAS, the Caunty o~ Butte derives a majority of its power
trom Pacific Gas and Electric Company; and
WT~FEREAS, the County of Butte derives a significant portion
of its ~ax reve~ues from PG&E; and
WH~REAS, applications have beez~. subrnitted by the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District and I3orthern California Power Agency,
which includes the cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton and
Riverside, requesting to obtain PG&:i,'s license ~Lo operate the Rock
Creek and Cresta Power Projects, FERC License Project No. 1962; and
WH~REAS, granting such a license to any agency other than
PG&E would be extremely de~rimental and irresponsible to the residents
o~ Butte County and the customers o~ PG&E;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Sutte does hereby strongly oppose the Sacr.amento
Municipal Utility District and Northern California Power Agency
application for a l.icense to operate the Rock Creek and Cresta Power
Projects on the following grounds:
1. Tfze Sacramento Municipal Ut~.lity bis~ricC and the
PZorthern California Power Agency are only inte~es~ed in the cost
and level of power provided its own res~.dents and ha~cre no interest
in the welfare of the citizens of Butte CounCy or customers o£ PG&E,
which greatly exceeds the numbex o,f poten~ial benefitees.
`,
~;
_ -z-
2. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the
municipalities within the tdorthern Cali.foxnia Power Agency, parti-
cularly those within SouChern Calzfornia, have not considered the
enYrironmen.tal limitation o~ thezr regions and have th.ereby found
i~ z~ecessary ta request exploitation of the resources of regions
where conservat~on and wa.se util~.zation of resources have been the
gui.dix~.g li.ght zelative to land use plannin~. This principle wi11
essentially lead to a total disregard of environmental constraints
and encourage the premature loss of resources and added costs of
transportation.
3. Sutte County relies upon PG&E to finance County
goYrernmenC serv'ice Chrough substantial tax revenues. Granta.ng a
license ta the Sacramento Municipal Utilzty Di.st~ict or the North.ern
California Po~rer Agency wi11 ultima~ely result in a decrease of the
County`s operating budget. Any benefits received by the subject
district can be directly related to losses to Butte County.
4. The Environmental Impact Report submitted by the
Sacramento P~unicipal Utility District and the Northern CaZifornia
Power Agency fails to discuss the social impact of the Zoss of tax
revenue, which would not be true in the event PG&E retains the
power facilities license.
B~ iT FUit'FHER RESOLVED that for the foregoing reasons the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte urge the Federal Energy
ReguJ~a~ory Commission to not grant a license to the Northern
California Powrer Agency and the Southern Cal.ifornia cities or the
Sacramento Municipal Utility Dis~rict, as the public good af
everyone would not be best served by so doing.
-3-
PASSED l~~D ADOPTED by the Butte County Board o~ Superv~so~s
th~s 2Z day o~ Oc~ober , 1980, by the fo~lowing vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke
NOES: None
A~S~~~'~ : None
NOT VOTIVG: ,~upervisor lan
RO ERT E. E , Ch i an o t e
Butte County Board of Supezvisors
A.TTE S T :
CL.ARK A. NELSON, County C1erk and
ex-officio Clerk of the Board
By
;
~
~~
Dctaber ~~, ].~P4
.~{ ~c~~r~l ~n.er~y ~e~u~a°~ory
~om~z~~ia~.
~5ra~~~~.~ ~~~. ~. c. ~~~-~~
~~~-~z~n~~.;
~'~.~~.aa~r~ is A c~r~~.~iec~ cop~ o~ ~.Z~so1u~~.on it3Q. €7~-2~~
~rhich ~~s a~p~ov~d by the ~~.t~~ Caun~j' ~var~. o~: ,~~.~a~r-
~risors on Da~aber 2.~., ~9~i0.
~~n~ ~a.^el~ ~
G~.i~K 1~.. NTL;
~ECOI~7~~. ~.nc3.
t~f ~he Butt~
~uperv~so~s
$~,
.
A~~~.s~ani
CAP : pf
.~.~~..
~~Ji~', CC7U~~'Y ~ `"~~~~
es;.~-or~ ~.c:~o ~~.er1~
Co-anty Ba~rd a:~
~~.e~.~'~ ~o ~li~ ~oard
~~,