California
Shasta County and Pit River tribe sue California over wind project. Three takeaways.
Shasta County is taking its fight to the courts to stop a controversial wind energy project that it rejected two years ago, but has revived with the help of a new state law.
At a public meeting Tuesday in Anderson that was hosted by the California Energy Commission (CEC), Assistant County Counsel Matthew McOmber said the county is partnering with the Pit River Tribe to sue the commission.
McOmber made the announcement during the meeting’s public comment period.
In an emailed statement to the Record Searchlight after the meeting, McOmber wrote, “The lawsuit alleges that the CEC does not have authority to consider or approve the Fountain Wind Project and demands that the Court require that the CEC cease any and all action related to Fountain Wind’s Project due to lack of jurisdiction.”
The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Shasta County Superior Court. Best Best & Krieger of Riverside is representing the county.
A settlement conference is scheduled for Aug. 26, 2024. The civil suit is set to go to trial on Oct. 29, 2024.
Both the settlement conference and trial date could come after the CEC renders a decision on the project.
Texas-based ConnectGen wants to build up to 48 wind turbines on 4,500 acres in the Montgomery Creek-Round Mountain area, which is about 35 miles east of Redding. According to the company’s website, the turbines would have the capacity to generate about 200 megawatts, enough to power about 80,000 homes.
New legislation, AB 205, that took effect in the summer of 2022 allows the California Energy Commission to consider approving the project. That means the state could overrule Shasta County’s decision and approve the Fountain Wind project.
Tuesday’s meeting drew about 100 people and lasted roughly six hours at the Gaia Hotel in Anderson. Fifty-eight people spoke during the public comment period. The CEC also has received about 200 written comments to date in opposition and support of the project.
Another public meeting will take place in Shasta County after the project’s draft environmental impact report is published in late March. The EIR is expected to be finished in June and the project could come before the CEC for a final decision in late July. That meeting would take place in Sacramento.
Here are three takeaways from Tuesday’s meeting.
What the lawsuit alleges
The lawsuit echoes what residents, organizations and several members of the Pit River tribe told the CEC at Tuesday’s meeting, that the massive wind farm is not wanted in eastern Shasta County because of wildfire risk and the negative impacts it would have on cultural and tribal resources, tourism, the watershed, and mental and physical health.
Many residents who spoke Tuesday did so in an incredulous tone, wondering why the meeting is even happening after the project was turned down by the Shasta County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
“We’re afraid that the need for renewable energy is going to win over the safety of the residents of the area,” John Gable, who owns a cabin in Moose Camp near the project site, told the Record Searchlight during a break in the meeting.
Both Shasta County Supervisors Patrick Jones and Mary Rickert addressed the CEC on Tuesday and told commissioners that they represent county residents, while the CEC does not. At the June 2021 Planning Commission meeting and October 2021 Board of Supervisors meeting, residents also made it clear they were against the project, the supervisors said.
The project site lies in Rickert’s district.
The lawsuit states that, “In effect, the application over which the Commission is now asserting jurisdiction is nothing more than an attempt to get a second bite at the apple to illegally overturn the County’s action without judicial review and in violation of the plain language of AB 205 and California constitutional separation of powers principles.”
The lawsuit alleges that without judicial determination in this case, the CEC is reviewing the project, which is a waste of public time and resources over a project where the state has no jurisdiction. What the state is doing is usurping the county’s authority and judicial authority on a project that the county spent five years reviewing before rejecting it, the lawsuit says.
“AB 205 was not intended to, and does not, confer jurisdictional authority over a project that was reviewed in its entirety under a local agency’s discretionary review authority and CEQA and was subsequently denied by the local agency,” the lawsuit says.
CEC spokeswoman Lyndsay Buckley said it’s the commission’s policy not to comment on pending litigation.
Tribal members speak out
Members of the Pit River tribe on Tuesday told the CEC that any claim that the tribe is working with ConnectGen to mitigate the wind energy project is not true.
The tribe told commissioners that the project would be built within sensitive tribal cultural sites. Moreover, the tribe was never consulted about AB 205 before it became law, tribal representatives said.
“This project is not green or clean and can never offset its carbon footprint,” said Brandy McDaniels, a member of the Pit River Madesi Band.
She called Fountain Wind a “fake green energy project” and said she is upset the Pit River name continues to be used to confuse the public that the tribe supports the wind farm or is working with ConnectGen.
“All the people that live in the area, they don’t want it. So why do you come again?” said Louise Davis, a member of the Pit River Itsatawi Band.
Project much needed in California
Henry Woltag, director of development for ConnectGen, said there are no projects like this left in California.
“Fountain Wind, being one of the few remaining wind projects, is a well-studied project and a well-sighted one,” Woltag said.
He said Fountain Wind would be located in an area that’s ideal for generating wind energy, with its access to an existing power system that has enough capacity to “deliver additional energy to the grid” and a compatible land use, “such as commercial timber operations.”
“Well-sighted projects like Fountain Wind are critically needed in order for California to meet its carbon reduction goals,” Woltag said.
Woltag said ConnectGen would be making a $350 million investment in Shasta County to build Fountain Wind.
The project would create 200 union contracting jobs, provide $50 million in property tax revenue to the county and provide $3.5 million in sales tax revenue, Woltag said.
Doyle Radford Jr., business manager for Laborers Local 185, told the Record Searchlight that Fountain Wind would be a responsible project that would provide good-paying jobs to local union workers.
“A lot of our members travel several counties away” to work, he said. “These would be local jobs. They’re committed to building it with good wages, good local jobs. At the end of the day, that’s what we want to see, responsible development with good middle-class jobs for our members.”
In a written comment to the CEC, Redding resident Stephanie Anderson wrote that while she respects the Pit River tribe, “However, I believe this project and others like it are necessary pieces of infrastructure. The public benefits from each investment in our energy grid, and our investments should be green and sustainable. Skilled and trained workers can mitigate damage to the environment during installation.”
David Benda covers business, development and anything else that comes up for the USA TODAY Network in Redding. He also writes the weekly “Buzz on the Street” column. He’s part of a team of dedicated reporters that investigate wrongdoing, cover breaking news and tell other stories about your community. Reach him on X, formerly Twitter @DavidBenda_RS or by phone at 1-530-338-8323. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today.
California
2 dead, 3 injured in shooting in Louisville’s California neighborhood
USA epidemic of gun violence and mass killings
Find out about the growing problem of gun violence and mass killings in the USA and learn how the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) categorizes different types of gun violence.
Two men are dead and three others injured in a mass shooting in the California neighborhood Saturday night, Louisville Metro Police said.
Second Division officers initially found four men with gunshot wounds in the 2200 block of Garland Avenue when they arrived at 7:30 p.m., LMPD spokesperson John Bradley said in a statement.
Two men were pronounced dead at the scene, while the other two were taken to the University of Louisville Hospital for treatment. As of Sunday, one man was in “critical but stable condition,” while the other was in stable condition, Bradley said.
A fifth man was later found in the area, Bradley said Sunday. He was also taken to UofL Hospital, but his condition was unknown.
Police had not located a suspect Saturday night. LMPD’s homicide unit is investigating, Bradley said. Anyone with information about the shooting could call LMPD’s anonymous tip line at 502-574-5673.
The two men who died have not yet been identified.
Reach reporter Leo Bertucci at lbertucci@gannett.com or @leober2chee on X, formerly known as Twitter
This story has been updated to add video.
California
California man beheaded his 1-year-old son with a knife, authorities say
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A man has been arrested on suspicion of beheading his 1-year-old son, Northern California authorities said.
The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement Friday that deputies responding to an early morning family disturbance call found a woman outside a home who told deputies that her husband Andrey Demskiy, 28, assaulted her and her mother.
Deputies forced their way into the house in northern Sacramento County when they learned Demskiy was inside with the boy. As they took him into custody, they found a “severed child’s head” in the bedroom where Demskiy was detained.
Detectives said Demskiy used a knife to behead his son after his wife and mother-in-law left the house, according to the statement. He was in custody and ineligible for bail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.
The sheriff’s department and the county public defenders office did not respond to emails seeking information on whether Demskiy had an attorney who could speak on his behalf.
California
Protests Swept California Campuses Last Year. Schools Are Now Blocking Them | KQED
At UC Santa Cruz, police arrested one student who was using a megaphone during a demonstration on Oct. 7, according to an eyewitness who spoke to LookOut Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office public arrest reports show one person was arrested on the Santa Cruz campus for obstruction of a public officer and battery without injury that day.
While no arrests were made, Pomona College has suspended 12 students for the remainder of the 2024–25 academic year following an Oct. 7 demonstration in which they entered, damaged and vandalized a restricted building, according to the student newspaper. The college also banned dozens of students from the four other campuses of the Claremont Colleges, a consortium that includes Pomona.
Private colleges have implemented their own policy changes. Pomona College now requires students and faculty to swipe their ID cards to enter academic buildings. Since last semester, students and visitors entering USC are also required to show a school or photo ID.
Some students are still facing charges from last year’s protests
Few charges have been filed after UCLA’s encampment made headlines in April when counterprotesters led an attack on encampment protesters while law enforcement did not intervene for several hours. The following day, 254 people were arrested on charges related to the protest encampment. In October, two additional people were also arrested for participating in the counter-protester violence.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office is pursuing three felony cases against individuals arrested at UCLA in relation to violence during last spring’s protests.
Meanwhile, the city attorney’s office is reviewing 93 misdemeanor cases from USC and 210 from UCLA, according to information it provided to CalMatters last month.
Lilyan Zwirzina, a junior at Cal Poly Humboldt, was among the students arrested in the early morning of April 30 following protesters occupying a campus building and ignoring orders to disperse from the university. Law enforcement took her to Humboldt County Correctional Facility, where she faced four misdemeanor charges, including resisting arrest. Zwirzina thought she’d have to cancel her study abroad semester, which conflicted with the court date she was given.
“I was pretty frustrated and kind of freaked out,” Zwirzina said. Authorities dropped the charges against her in July.
The Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office didn’t pursue charges against 27 of the 39 people arrested, citing insufficient evidence. The 12 remaining cases were referred to the Cal Poly Humboldt Police Department for investigation. Those cases remain under investigation, according to the university.
For 13 people, including students, arrested at Stanford University in June, the Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has not pressed charges as of Nov. 20, according to information his office provided CalMatters.
Elsewhere across the state, some district attorneys are pursuing misdemeanor and felony charges against student protesters. Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer is pursuing misdemeanor charges against 50 people, including two UCI professors, a teaching assistant, and 26 students, stemming from a protest at UC Irvine on Oct. 22, 2023. Charges include failure to disperse, resisting arrest and vandalism.
At Pomona College, 19 students were arrested on April 5 on charges of trespassing after some protesters entered and refused to leave an administrative building. Students arrested either had their cases dismissed or have accepted community service in lieu of further legal action. James Gutierrez, the attorney representing the arrested students, said he asked that the college drop charges against its students, citing their right to protest the use of paid tuition dollars.
“They are righteously demanding that their colleges, the ones they pay tuition to and housing fees and pour a lot of money into, that that university or college stop investing in companies that are directly supporting this genocide and indirectly supporting it,” he said.
Students fight back against campus protest policies
As administrators face the challenge of applying protest policies more uniformly and swiftly, the truer test of California public higher education institutions’ protest rules will be playing out in court.
In one already resolved case, UC leadership agreed in August to comply with a court order requiring the campus to end programs or events that exclude Jewish students. A federal judge ruled some Jewish students in support of Israel who were blocked from entering the encampment had their religious liberties violated — though some Jewish students did participate in UCLA’s protest encampment.
Now, students have filed at least two lawsuits against their campuses and the UC system for violating their rights while ending student encampments last spring. In September, ACLU NorCal filed suits against the UC and UC Santa Cruz for not providing students due process when they immediately barred arrested students from returning to campus.
“Those students should have gotten a hearing, an opportunity to defend themselves or to explain themselves, and the school would have shown evidence of why they created a risk of disturbance on campus,” Chessie Thacher, senior staff attorney at ACLU of Northern California, said.
UC Santa Cruz spokesperson Scott Hernandez-Jason said the university “appreciates the court’s careful deliberation” and that the university “is committed to upholding the right to free expression while also protecting the safety of its campus community.”
In October, ACLU SoCal filed lawsuits on behalf of two students and two faculty members against the UC and UCLA, alleging the actions the university took to break down the encampment violated their free speech rights.
UCLA spokesperson Ricardo Vazquez told CalMatters via email that the university would respond in court and that UCLA “fully supports community members expressing their First Amendment rights in ways that do not violate the law, our policies, jeopardize community safety, or disrupt the functioning of the university.”
“The encampment that arose on campus this spring became a focal point for violence, a disruption to campus, and was in violation of the law,” Vazquez said in the email statement. “These conditions necessitated its removal.”
-
Politics1 week ago
Canadian premier threatens to cut off energy imports to US if Trump imposes tariff on country
-
Technology1 week ago
OpenAI cofounder Ilya Sutskever says the way AI is built is about to change
-
Politics1 week ago
U.S. Supreme Court will decide if oil industry may sue to block California's zero-emissions goal
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta asks the US government to block OpenAI’s switch to a for-profit
-
Politics1 week ago
Conservative group debuts major ad buy in key senators' states as 'soft appeal' for Hegseth, Gabbard, Patel
-
Business7 days ago
Freddie Freeman's World Series walk-off grand slam baseball sells at auction for $1.56 million
-
Technology7 days ago
Meta’s Instagram boss: who posted something matters more in the AI age
-
News1 week ago
East’s wintry mix could make travel dicey. And yes, that was a tornado in Calif.