DAMMED IF YOU DO…
This article was originally published in the May 24, 2025 Edition
At a public meeting held at the June Lake Community Center on Tuesday, Southern California Edison (SCE) faced criticism over its proposed relicensing of the Rush Creek Hydroelectric Project. Company representatives largely pawned off residents’ concerns to federal regulators now overseeing the project.
The project draws power from three dams to supply electricity to the Mono Basin when the Casa Diablo transmission line is offline, which occurs roughly 50 to 100 days a year. SCE’s current license to operate Rush Creek expires in 2027.
However, SCE is not pursuing a routine renewal. The company proposes significant infrastructure changes, including the decommissioning of the Agnew and Rush Meadows dams and the retrofitting of the Gem Dam. The overhaul, SCE says, is necessary due to seismic risk from the nearby Silver Lake Fault, first identified as a safety hazard in 2007.
SCE would operate construction on each site sequentially. SCE estimates that decommissioning Agnew and Rush Meadows will require one construction season each, while the Gem Dam retrofit could take up to three seasons. Construction could begin as early as 2029, though project lead Matt Woodhall described that as an “optimistic” timeline.
Public feedback has been a recurring part of the relicensing process. Still, Tuesday’s meeting marked a shift in responsibility, as it was the first time the utility company had met with the local public after submitting its Final License Application (FLA) for the project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
FERC is now responsible for assessing the weight of public concerns as it conducts an environmental review of the project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
After the review is complete, the agency will determine whether to issue an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), depending on the projected severity of any expected impacts.
Two additional public comment periods are built into that process: one when FERC announces the project is ready for environmental analysis, and another after the draft EA or EIS is released. Only after the EA/EIS is complete may FERC grant SCE a licensing agreement.
Among the main concerns raised by constituents at the meeting, a consistent one is the use of helicopters during the construction season and the planned use of the June Mountain parking lot as a staging area for such flights.
Constituents have complained that SCE has downplayed the impacts of helicopter noise on the community and stated that it has not provided a thorough report explaining why the company did not choose an alternative staging area.
The Sheet reported on SCE’s previous meeting with the community on their slated plans, where helicopter use was the primary concern for June Lake residents.
In response, the project leads pointed out in Tuesday’s introduction that they are mindful of helicopter use.
“In all cases, SCE intends to minimize the import and export of materials to the extent feasible, and the goal is to reuse as much material on site and minimize our helicopter usage,” said Julie Smith, Relicensing Project Manager for consulting company Stantec.
However, SCE continues to plan to use the June Mountain lot as the preferred staging area.
One audience member questioned whether SCE had appropriately analyzed the effects of the parking lot use on the water table. Others claimed the company had still not fulfilled their analysis request.
“The impact on the community was listed as just one of ten factors taken into account,” one audience member said. “I suspect the community would not agree to that or would weigh it differently. There’s a significant potential impact on the community based on that location.”
Woodhall stated that staging the flights from elsewhere would lead to an extended construction period, but encouraged people to participate during the FERC comment periods, as it’s now the regulatory agency’s discretion whether additional research is required.
The second primary concern for citizens revolves around SCE’s ecological restoration plan. The project plan stipulates that each site will undergo one year of environmental restoration and five years of monitoring. The method is called “passive restoration,” meaning the company does nothing, and plants naturally return to the environment.
Some attendees at the meeting criticized the 5-year restoration plan as only a sliver of the licence agreement’s slated 50-year term, and others questioned the effectiveness of such a laissez-faire approach.
This time, the project leads passed the baton off to the U.S. Forest Service, which they said would manage and adjust the project’s ecological plan as necessary. A representative from the agency stated that passive restoration can be effective, particularly in areas adjacent to a body of water.
“The goal is not to return it to pre-project conditions,” Woodhall said. “That’s not possible because there’s a real project there.”
An attendee asked explicitly about the area below Agnew Dam and criticized other passive restoration efforts as ineffective for the pine species. The project leads stated that the USFS will assess this in greater detail.
At the meeting’s close, a FERC representative urged community members to stay involved in the environmental review process. Although the presenters didn’t provide a specific date, the public comment period is expected to open as early as September.
FERC representatives stated that they welcome public input, particularly regarding potential gaps in the NEPA analysis.
