Commissioner James Danly Statement
July 28, 2022
Project No. 77-312
I agree with today’s decision but write separately to offer a suggestion.[1] When determining whether there are “sufficient grounds”[2] to reopen the Potter Valley Project license, the Commission should ask the following: is it “reasonable”[3] to require Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)—that is, California ratepayers—to pay to comply with new operational measures that are not required by law for a project that PG&E no longer seeks to operate? One must also bear in mind that compliance typically does not immediately follow an order’s issuance. Orders requiring compliance frequently entail compliance plans which can take years to develop, review, and approve.[4]
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 180 FERC ¶ 61,047 (2022).
[2] Id. P 14.
[3] Standard Article 15 incorporated into the Potter Valley license, Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 25 FERC ¶ 61,010, at Ordering Para. (D) (1983), only empowers the Commission to require “reasonable modifications of the project structures and operation.” Standardized Conditions for Inclusion in Preliminary Permits & Licenses Issued Under Part I of the Fed. Power Act., 54 F.P.C. 1792, 1837 (1975).
[4] For example, PG&E’s Fish Passage Facility Winter Operation Plan has been pending before the Commission since November 2020. See PG&E November 13, 2020 Filing, Project No. 77-302 (Accession No. 20201113-5148). The most recent filing in that docket is the April 20, 2021 Commission staff Letter designating PG&E as the Commission’s non-federal representative for the purpose of informal Endangered Species Act consultation. See Commission Staff April 20, 2021 Letter, Project No. 77-302 (Accession No. 20210420-3045).