Sumas Energy 2 Update: Sumas Still Poor Location

Written with the collaborative efforts of Candice Ambrosio, Dean Rogers, and Marlene Noteboom, this article updates and reflects some of the views of GASP (Generations Affected by Senseless Power).

After nearly three years of research, education and testimony by citizens, experts, and government leaders from the United States and Canada, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s (EFSEC) requirements of National Energy Systems Co., of Kirkland (NESCO) still demonstrate to many people that Sumas is a poor location for the proposed Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) power plant.

Of the utmost concern for Whatcom County and Canada are the air quality issues, the unresolved flood modeling and mitigation, and the permitting of the power transmission lines. Legal procedures on both sides of the border have been pursued as a result of the site certification agreement signed by Washington’s Governor Locke in August. British Columbia government officials have filed an appeal with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Whatcom County has just recently settled with NESCO on air quality offsets.

Part of the site certification requires SE2 to submit to EFSEC a plan for offsetting 100 percent of the NOx (nitrous oxides) and 10 micron particulate matter (PM10) emissions. In an effort to insure that air quality offsets are adequately identified, evaluated and proposed to the possible participants, Whatcom County and NESCO have drafted an agreement that involves the selection of a consultant who will compile, review and analyze air pollution data in the Fraser Valley airshed and then “contact owners and/or operators of potential offset sources and discuss with them the feasibility of offsets and their willingness to participate in potential offset programs.”

The resulting offset report hopefully would not only demonstrate to EFSEC the actual work necessary for NESCO to comply with the 100 percent offset requirement, but would also serve as a valuable tool for Whatcom County in identifying pollution issues in future development proposals. This agreement would also help guarantee that actual offsets are completed rather than the alternative payment of $1.5 million to a joint Canadian and Washington State fund that could be used to improve air quality in the airshed.

Many experts have commented that the alternative of $1.5 million would not cover the costs of actual analysis and retrofits to obtain that 100 percent goal. Another concern is that PM10 has been the only particulate matter pollution addressed even though current research has demonstrated that PM2.5 (2.5 microns), a much smaller particle, has the ability to infiltrate and cause significant respiratory ailments as much or more than PM10.

In contrast to the air quality issue that citizens cannot physically measure or view themselves, flooding in the area can be devastatingly real with the destruction of homes, farms, and unfortunately, human life. The Nooksack River is highly likely to repeat its avulsion event sending large volumes of river water rapidly down Smith and Johnson Creeks. The site certification agreement has required the completion of the unsteady state flood modeling of the site for selected events. Four elements are to be looked at including:

•Creation of a “calibration” model comparing the results of the November 1990 Nooksack River avulsion flood with the observed conditions during that flood.

•Creation of a “base conditions” model, which adds in the fill that already occurred in the 1990s.

•Creation of a “proposed conditions” model that adds in the fill that is proposed for the site.

•Running hydrographs of the floods in 1990 and 1995 at 50, 100, and 150 percent on all three of the above models.

The results of these models will then be used to evaluate potential adverse off-site impacts and then offer possible mitigation. What does all this mean to anyone in the Everson-Nooksack overflow flood area? Simply stated, it suggests that proper studies were not done originally and that significantly more damage could occur as a result of the fill already added to the area since 1990 and the additional fill proposed for the SE2 project.

It is of the utmost importance that Whatcom County remains vigilant to the welfare of the farmers and residents in this area who may suffer from future flood events. The Nooksack River is an ever-changing resource that will always have the potential for devastation that needs to be avoided wherever possible.

In addition to further research and evaluation that needs completion in order to fulfill Site Certification requirements, the permitting for power transmission remains unfinished. Still questionable is the Canadian National Energy Board process that determines whether a 230 kilovolt transmission line would be allowed into Abbotsford, British Columbia.

After hearings in October and a month of deliberation, the NEB has ruled that it would examine the environmental impact of the proposed SE2 power plant before granting permission for building a power line. Hearings are scheduled to begin in Abbotsford on April 7, 2003. Canadians feel this is a significant decision setting a legal precedent since only one other time has the NEB looked at the impacts in Canada from an American project.

NESCO president Chuck Martin has said that the company has no cost-effective alternative to the B.C. power line; however, American opponents remain vigilant due to the statement in the second revised application (Analysis of Alternatives) that Whatcom County power line routes may be an alternative even though they are not part of the process at this time. Purchase of the power by PSE (Puget Sound Energy) could bring Whatcom County transmission routes back to the forefront.

Many hours of work still remain for NESCO to meet all the requirements and timetables set forth by Washington State and Whatcom County, but these need to be properly addressed before construction can begin within 10 years of the effective date of site certification. If construction has not begun within five years, NESCO will need to report to EFSEC its intent and any applicable changes to the site certificate. A time frame could prove useful in making sure that “Best Available Technology” is actually the most current technology and is implemented as it becomes available.

The entire country has seen the corporate call for more energy sag as many corporations find themselves entangled in lawsuits and bankruptcy for illegal trades, reportedly even trades in Sumas, Washington. As truth unfolds about the “energy crisis” and the overstated power need such as in the case of Internet farms, (Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2002), careful observation and research is paramount in protecting quality of life in Whatcom County. Hopefully, requirements by EFSEC and Whatcom County will illustrate that Sumas remains a poor location for a power plant of this size. §