General -
[Comment - there is definitely a difference of opinions about the land donation. I believe that it is improper to specify that it be Eastalco land, but many others feel this is totally appropriate]
Mr. Marschner got to talk about the water issue including the [sad] state of the effluent use study and BOCC proposed conditions.
Mr. Michael Marschner
Super Condensed Testimony Version (Click here for full testimony)
Sempra prefers to purchase effluent from the County, but will build their own supply system if necessary.
DUSWM was directed by the County at the May 27th meeting to develop the concept study - and it is still being worked on.
The County is not ready (even by 2007) to provide effluent to Catoctin in the quantities they need.
Looking at trying to get 1.5M gallons from the Ballenger Creek plant, but haven't finished looking at it.
Once it is available, there are many issues that have yet to be worked out including a rate structure and permit issues.
Both Eastalco and Waverly Farms have inquired about using the effluent.
The County has not yet approved the use of effluent for any use.
The county or MDE may require additional permitting or changes to the existing County permit, but it is not yet known.
The conditions listed below
The BOCC is not indicating that they are for or against the plant.
Proposed Conditions
The following additional items should be considered in the CPCN:
The County recommends that any special effluent water quality requirements that may be placed on the use of the effluent water be based on sound technologically feasible methods of determining the “real time” quality of the effluent water and that these methods be first validated based on the actual water quality leaving the County's wastewater treatment facilities. Any such limits, as discussed above, should be placed on Sempra’s use of the water and not apply to the County or the County’s NPDES permit, since the water quality requirements of the reuse of the water may in fact be more significant than those associated with the normal disposal of wastewater into water of the state.
The CPCN should make it clear that if the County’s effluent is used by Sempra’s Catoctin Power project, concentration based limits may need to be imposed on Sempra’s return flow to the Potomac River through the County’s system to preserve the quality of the effluent for use by others.
That Sempra / Catoctin Power work with EastAlco Aluminum to identify and place approximately 250 acres of land into permanent agricultural preservation. If at all possible this property was to consist of the following:
[Please note that these properties in the first option add up to 313.17 acres] (1) account identifier – district 23, account number 437457, tax map 94, grid 3, parcel 76 – 144 acres west of Ballenger Creek Pike adjacent to St. Matthew’s Church that is owned by EastAlco; and (2) account identifier – district 01, account number 005391, tax map 94, grid 4, parcel 3 – 169.17 acres located on the east side of Ballenger Creek Pike, also owned by EastAlco, and located directly across the road from St. Matthew’s church and which wraps around the church cemetery.
If the identified properties could not be obtained for preservation, Sempra should work with EastAlco to identify other property that would accomplish the BOCC’S intent of placing land into permanent agricultural preservation in order to act as a buffer between the Catoctin Power plant and the community, including St. Matthews’ church.
Finally, if Sempra was not able to obtain and place this land into permanent agricultural preservation by working with EastAlco, Sempra must work with the Carrollton Manor Land Trust to identify and obtain 250 acres of land to be preserved for this purpose at Sempra’s expense.
Unanswered Questions and Comments
While my stance has not changed - I do not want the plant built here, I believe it is incumbent upon us, our elected officials and government agencies to protect our interests and make sure that if the plant is approved, that it is required to make the the best possible use of scant resources and provide the maximum benefit to Adamstown, Frederick County and Maryland.
Land Donation Condition: Everyone who questioned Mr. Marschner had various versions of the same question -- 'Why?" While I can be convinced that requesting that as a good neighbor, Catoctin work to get land into preservation, this condition as worded and presented leaves many unanswered questions.
My unanswered questions and rationale:
Why was there no one prepared to address this issue at the hearing? Mr Marschner had no answer to any of the questions that he was asked about this proposed condition. I wanted to get the answers to these questions on the record so the hearing examiner could make an informed decision about this request, yet no one with any first hand knowledge was available for questioning. It was suggested that I go to a work session and ask the questions - but that defeats the purpose. Without someone being sworn in as a witness and the information being presented to the hearing examiner he can not use that information in his opinion.
Why is the preferred choice 313 acres of Eastalco land?
Why specify Eastalco? And not only for the preferred option, but for the second one as well?
Why should a company whose sole presence in the county is 22 acres of leased land be required to find and donate 250-313 acres of land? If they were buying a ton of land on which top put the plant (like Duke was going to) then I would wholeheartedly support requiring significant land preservation, but they are not. As it was aptly described to me by a member of the audience ' this is legal extortion.'
Why did the BOCC select land 'to be used as a buffer' that is on the other side of Ballenger Creek Pike?
Why use a field as a buffer?
Why not specify that the whole area between the plant and Ballenger Creek Pike be turned into a Forest?
My comments:
Philosophically I do not think it is right to drag another company into this proceeding. Eastalco is not making an application here, Catoctin Power is.
I would have rather seen a condition like "Sempra must find and place 250 acres of land located in preferably the Adamstown region, but definitely in Frederick County into a qualified preservation program within 3 years of the receipt of CPCN approval, even if plant construction is not begun. Frederick County would prefer that the land selected could be used as a buffer between the community and the plant.".
-> Note that a number of people who are concerned about the plant and are members of the mailing list do not agree with my position on this issue. They believe the request as stated by the BOCC is proper. See the Correspondence page for a lot more of the back and forth emails.
Effluent Status (or lack thereof):
My unanswered questions and rationale:
The study has not been completed -- Why not?? This was asked and the answer was that the same consultant that is providing management of the pipeline project is also developing the study, and the pipeline is the top priority.
Why isn't the BOCC asking where this study is? I thought one of the reasons for the study was to provide information to the BOCC so they could make an informed decision about providing effluent.
Are they opposed to providing effluent to Catoctin even if the plant is approved?
Don't they realize that the alternate water supply system has been designed, and Catoctin has almost all of it's ducks in a row to make it happen?
Why do they feel that they should not press forward on providing this effluent water?
Why haven't the permitting issues been resolved?
My Comments:
Instead of having open ended questions about the permits, I would have thought that after 6 months of looking at the issue, that the County would know what the options were. We should have information from an authoritative source that says 'here's how we can work together to ensure proper separation of the issues and the quality of the effluent heading into the river or further down the pipe(s) is maintained.
I asked if this could be accelerated by using a different consultant. Answer - no there are things only he knows. Somehow I find this very hard to believe. If a third party was brought in, they could evaluate the system design and all of the issues independent of the pipeline status.
I asked if it was possible to accelerate the project (the whole thing including the treatment plant) to allow for the use of effluent -- in other words, if Catoctin provided the funding to accelerate, could it be done. Answer was no. Again, I find this very hard to believe. The federal government does this all the time. In those cases it is normally because a project is behind, and they throw money and additional resources at it and it gets done. Same thing can be done here.
If the plant is approved, and the cooling water comes from Frederick County's effluent then:
There is no need for the environment (or the residents of the area) to be disturbed by the construction of a new pipeline.
There is no need for a new inlet in the river.
There is no need for a new outfall to the river.
There is no need for a new pump house by the river.
This can be a new source of revenue to the county.
This opens up additional consumptive uses, as the Catoctin reservoir can be used to replenish additional consumption during periods of low flow. That means Eastalco and farms could purchase effluent and provide even more income to the county.
Since additional funding would be necessary to accelerate the ongoing projects to allow for this use of effluent, Catoctin could be a great source of funding for the project. It would be cheaper for them to provide acceleration funds rather than construct and maintain a totally new water system.
The impression I get is that the County is deliberately dragging its feet and delaying the study. This study should be completed ASAP. What remains are technical and permitting issues, these can be overcome with some work, yet there is no real urgency to get it done. In the same amount of time that it took the county to get to a rough draft, Catoctin planned a whole new supply system, talked with all of the right players, put in place the Settlement Agreement and made significant progress on the easements and the permits.
BOCC's Official Position
Has our BOCC decided not to take a position on this issue, or have they just not taken a stance yet? Answer - Mr. Marschner did not know.
My Summary -- to me these are the major issues that are on the table based on Mr. Marschner's testimony and the inputs from the BOCC. These are things that I believe are issues that we should be prepared to address if the CPCN is approved.
I believe that the BOCC should be pressing to take advantage of the potential revenue source that the sale of effluent would provide. In addition, since the consumptive use rules require that consumptive use over 1MGD be made up for, the Catoctin reservoir would allow additional consumptive uses like the farm to be mitigated by the flow augmentation of the reservoir. I'm sure that Catoctin would be willing to release a little additional water (for some price or other consideration I am sure).
I believe the BOCC should be taking a position on the plant, even if does not agree with mine, at least I would think that they have carefully weighed the options, and the costs and benefits to the county and made a decision, rather than just leaving it alone it.
I believe that the BOCC should remove or re-work the undue restrictions on Catoctin, and the burden that they are placing on Eastalco in regard to the donation of land.
-> Note that a number of people who are concerned about the plant and are members of the mailing list do not agree with my position on this issue. They believe the request as stated by the BOCC is proper. See the Correspondence page for a lot more of the back and forth emails.
BEFORE THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
|
IN THE MATTER OF: |
* * * *
* |
Case No. 8997 |
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
FREDERICK COUNTY’S DIRECT TESTIMONY
BY MICHAEL G. MARSCHNER
Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CURRENT POSITION.
A. My name is Michael G. Marschner. I am the Director of the Division of Utilities and Solid Waste Management (“DUSWM”) for Frederick County, Maryland. My work history is summarized in the Frederick County “Director’s Profile” attached as Exhibit A to this testimony.
Q. BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT THE DIVISION OF UTILITIES AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.
A. DUSWM is responsible for the planning, engineering, construction and operation of the County’s water and sewer infrastructure and the County’s solid waste facilities.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPOSAL OF SEMPRA ENERGY RESOURCES’ SUBSIDIARY – CATOCTIN POWER, LLC. - TO CONSTRUCT AN ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING FACILITY ON THE EAST ALCO FACILITY IN FREDERICK COUNTY?
A. Yes. I am familiar with the water supply concepts and options that Sempra has proposed for this project. I have been contacted several times by Sempra representatives, and have had several discussions with these individuals (Sempra staff and consultants), concerning Sempra’s proposed water concepts and issues related to the Catoctin Power project.
Q. IS IT CUSTOMARY FOR YOU TO MEET WITH INDIVIDUALS REGARDING PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE LARGE QUANTITIES OF WATER?
A. Yes. I am frequently contacted concerning projects that may need large quantities of water or wastewater disposal, because they could impact the County’s water and sewer capacity or require major infrastructure improvements. In fact, I have been the primary contact with two other entities that also proposed separate power plant projects in Frederick County - Duke Energy North America and Standish Energy.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ (“BOCC”) CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED CATOCTIN POWER PROJECT AND, IF SO, WHAT DIRECTION DID YOU RECEIVE FROM THE BOCC ON THIS PROPOSED PROJECT?
A. I am generally familiar with the history of this proposed project before the BOCC. I was also present on May 27, 2004 when Sempra presented the proposed project, including its request to purchase the County’s treated wastewater, to the BOCC and at the BOCC’S subsequent July 12, 2004 public hearing on this proposed project. As a result of Sempra’s request to purchase the County’s treated wastewater, often referred to as “effluent”, for this project DUSWM was directed to prepare a concept study of issues relating to the sale of the County’s effluent for the Catoctin Power project. This study is presently in preparation under my direct supervision.
Q. WHAT WATER ACQUISITION CONCEPTS HAS SEMPRA PROPOSED TO FREDERICK COUNTY, AT LEAST AS DISCUSSED WITH YOU?
A. As mentioned above, Sempra has indicated that it would prefer to acquire the County’s effluent that would otherwise be discharged into the Monocacy River from the County’s Ballenger Creek wastewater treatment plant (“wastewater treatment plant” is sometimes hereafter referred to as “WWTP”) and that effluent which will be discharged into the Potomac River after construction of the County’s McKinney WWTP. If the County’s effluent is not available, Sempra has indicated that it will consider directly drawing water from the Potomac River and most likely discharging directly into the Potomac. I understand that Sempra’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”) in this proceeding covers both of these water alternatives.
Q. CAN YOU PROVIDE A BREIF EXPLAINATION AND HISTORY OF THE COUNTY’S POTOMAC RIVER WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS?
A. Frederick County’s wastewater effluent conveyance system to the Potomac River was planned in late 1980, long before Sempra, Duke Energy or Standish Power expressed interest in using the County’s wastewater effluent. The decision to convey treated wastewater effluent from the County’s future McKinney WWTP was the result of recommendations made in a 1986 208 Water Quality Management Plan for the Middle Potomac Basin prepared by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, the predecessor of the Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”). This report identified an assimilative capacity limitation of the Monocacy River to receive additional WWTP effluent. To address this problem Frederick County subsequently adopted the concept of building an extended wastewater effluent conveyance system from the County’s future McKinney WWTP to the Potomac River.
Q. HAS THIS EFFLUENT CONVEYANCE SYSTEM BEEN PROGRAMMED FOR CONSTRUCTION?
A. Yes. After several years of study and development of a unique design alternative the effluent conveyance system design was started in 2002, concurrent with the County’s construction of a new water transmission line from its Potomac River water treatment plant (also known or referred to as the County’s “New Design Road WTP”). The first phase of the effluent conveyance system construction has been initiated with the County award of a $9.2M construction contract to build portions of the water transmission line and the effluent conveyance system. The completion of this portion of the project is expected to be completed in late 2005.
Q. WITH THE COMPLETION OF THIS PART OF EFFLUENT CONVEYANCE SYSTEM WILL THE COUNTY BE CONVEYING TREATED WASTEWATER EFLFUENT TO THE POTOMAC RIVER?
A. No. Although parts of the conveyance system are being constructed in concert with the water transmission system, the use of the effluent conveyance system will be delayed until the County’s McKinney WWTP is operational. The McKinney WWTP includes an effluent pumping system necessary to divert flow to the Potomac River. The earliest the McKinney WWTP will be processing wastewater is in 2007 at which time wastewater flow from the Ballenger Creek WWTP would need to be diverted to the McKinney WWTP to facilitate any large diversion of effluent to the County’s Potomac River effluent conveyance system.
Q. BASED ON THE COUNTY’S CURRENT PROJECTIONS WILL IT BE POSSIBLE BEFORE 2007 TO DIVERT THE QUANTITIES OF TREATED EFFLUENT IDENTIFIED AS BEING REQUIRED IN SEMPRA’S CPCN APPLICATION?
A. No. However, the County is investigating ways that a portion of the existing Ballenger Creek WWTP effluent flow could be diverted to the new effluent conveyance system prior to the commissioning of the McKinney WWTP. The actual technical considerations or cost of such an early diversion is not yet known.
Q. WOULD THIS TREATED EFFLUENT FROM THE BALLENGER CREEK WWTP BE AVAILABLE BEFORE 2007 FOR SEMPRA’S CATOCTIN POWER PROJECT?
A. No. The extent of our investigations has been limited to initially diverting approximately 1 to 1.5 MGD.
Q. WHEN DOES THE COUNTY EXPECT TO HAVE TREATED WASTEWATER FLOW DIVERTED TO THE POTOMAC RIVER EFFLUENT CONVEYANCE SYSTEM?
A. Once the McKinney WWTP and its attendant effluent pump station is completed, existing flows from the Ballenger Creek WWTP could be diverted to the McKinney facility, that will then be able to produce an effluent flow capable of meeting the projected average daily demands for non-potable effluent along the New Design Road corridor.
Q. ONCE THE EFFLUENT CONVEYANCE SYSTEM AND THE MCKINNEY WWTP ARE OPERATIONAL AND PRODUCING EFFLUENT FLOW, CONVEYED TO THE POTOMAC RIVER, HOW WILL THE COUNTY ALLOCATE CAPACITY FROM THIS NON-POTABLE WATER SUPPLY?
A. The establishment of a secondary non-potable water supply along the New Design Road corridor may present several issues that the Frederick County Board of Commissioners will need to address before they can allocate or sell capacity from this supply. First and foremost may be limitations placed on the reuse of this water by the MDE since the use of this water at intermediate points along the conveyance system may represent multiple outfall locations in the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the Potomac River discharge. The County’s water and sewer plan might require a special overlay that establishes the existence of this supply and its permitted use by properties that might not otherwise be permitted connection to “denied access” water lines along the same corridor. Since the effluent conveyance system could serve multiple properties which may also need to access the conveyance system to discharge individual wastewater discharges, the County might need to establish minimum water quality requirements to ensure the reuse of the of the supply as is flows along the pipeline corridor to the Potomac River. The County will need to establish an appropriate capacity fee and commodity fee for the use of the non-potable water supply. Specific, possible uniform contractual provisions will need to be developed to make sure allocations provided to multiple users of the non-potable water supply are not compromised by any single user’s withdrawal from the conveyance system and, to the extent necessary, that withdrawals do not jeopardize the County’s ability to maintain water supply for fire protection along the conveyance systems alignment.
Q. HAS THE COUNTY RECEIVED OTHER REQUESTS TO USE ITS NON-POTABLE WASTEWATER EFFLUENT FROM THE BALLENGER CREEK AND PROJECTED MCKINNEY WWTPS?
A. Yes. We have revived requests from East Alco Aluminum and we have had an inquiry from a large landscape horticulture farm located South (downstream) of the proposed Sempra project.
Q. HAS THE COUNTY APPROVED THE USE OF THE EFLFUENT FOR THESE PROJECTS?
A. No. Specific approval of the use of this effluent has not occurred for any of these requests. Furthermore, the DUSWM is evaluating ways the effluent may be best used to provide potential non-potable water supply for multiple activities, including the landscape horticultural farm mentioned above.
Q. IF THE COUNTY DECIDES TO SELL ITS EFFLUENT WILL ANY SPECIAL PERMITS BE NEEDED FOR THE REUSE OF THIS NON-POTABLE WATER?
A. Although it is not completely clear at this time what permits may be needed for the use and subsequent disposal of the non-potable effluent water, we believe that, at a minimum, the MDE will (and should) require that Sempra obtain a separate NPDES user discharge permit if there is to be a return flow through the County’s effluent outfall system. The County may also by permit or contract require such discharges to meet certain water quality requirement to allow for the reuse of the water by other properties along the alignment of the effluent conveyance system. Since the effluent from the County’s WWTPS is primarily derived from the County’s Potomac River water supply, the MDE may require changes to the County’s Water Appropriation and Use Permit (“WAUP”) to address any issues or potential conflicts between existing WAUP provisions (and also those found in the Code of Maryland Regulations Title 26.17.07) and the provisions of any settlement agreement between the Washington Metropolitan Area Water Suppliers and Sempra for low flow augmentation of the Potomac River. These permit changes may be needed to clearly address the County’s responsibilities in the event a low flow water restriction is declared for the Potomac River.
Q. DOES THE COUNTY HAVE ANY SPECIFIC WATER SUPPLY RECOMMENDATIONS OR POSSIBLE CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IF SEMPRA’S REQUESTED CPCN IS APPROVED?
A. Yes. In addition to the requirement that Sempra obtain a separate NPDES permit as discussed above, the CPCN should reflect that its issuance does not require Frederick County to provide or sell effluent or potable water to Sempra and that if Frederick County is willing to do so, Sempra will be required to comply and fulfill such requirements that the County might have regarding the use of the effluent and those other terms and conditions that the BOCC might believe appropriate. These terms and conditions might involve, but not necessarily limited to, issues surrounding the construction and operation of the effluent conveyance system, which might include but also not be limited to, water supply and capital project financial contributions, purchase of the non-potable water, limits on effluent and potable water quantity and quality as well as special contractual liability limits on the County delivery of water to the project site. The important point that I am trying to make, is that if the requested CPCN issues, this does not obligate or require the County to supply either effluent or potable water to Sempra (or to anyone else) or to allow Sempra (or anyone else) to discharge into and through the County’s effluent outfall system; if the County chooses to either sell effluent or potable water or to allow the discharge into the County’s outfall system, this will be on such terms as the County in its sole discretion shall require.
Q. BASED ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES DISSCUSSED ABOVE ARE THERE ANY FURTHER ISSUES OR CONDITIONS THAT THE COUNTY BELIEVES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE CPCN IF IT IS APPROVED?
A. Yes. The following additional items should be considered in the CPCN:
1. In light of the variability of the biological processes used to treat the wastewater that might be used by the SEMPRA project, the County recommends that any special effluent water quality requirements that may be placed on the use of the effluent water be based on sound technologically feasible methods of determining the “real time” quality of the effluent water and that these methods be first validated based on the actual water quality leaving the County's wastewater treatment facilities. Any such limits, as discussed above, should be placed on Sempra’s use of the water and not apply to the County or the County’s NPDES permit, since the water quality requirements of the reuse of the water may in fact be more significant than those associated with the normal disposal of wastewater into water of the state.
2. In establishing the proposed McKinney outfall the County is effectively developing a non-potable water supply along the New Design Road corridor. It will be in the County’s best interest to make sure that the effluent quality in this outfall line is preserved throughout the entire outfall length to allow access to the non-potable effluent supply by other potential water reuse customers. This may require users of the effluent system to meet the same NPDES concentration limits required of the County for its McKinney WWTP. The CPCN should make it clear that if the County’s effluent is used by Sempra’s Catoctin Power project, concentration based limits may need to be imposed on Sempra’s return flow to the Potomac River through the County’s system to preserve the quality of the effluent for use by others.
Q. IN ADDITION TO THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IN YOUR TESTIMONY, AND THOSE ITEMS RAISED BY THE BOCC THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF MR. GARY HESSONG – FREDERICK COUNTY’S DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW – PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED IN THIS PROCEEDING, HAS THE BOCC REQUESTED THAT ANYTHING ELSE BE MADE A CONDITION TO ANY CPCN THAT MIGHT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING?
A. Yes. Given the scope of the proposed Catoctin Power project, the BOCC again considered the proposed project in public work session on October 21, 2004. At that time Assistant County Attorney Richard McCain summarized the status of this PSC proceeding noting that Sempra’s water issue testimony had just been subject to public examination (at the October 14, 2004 hearing held at the County’s Winchester Hall) and that the BOCC would have the opportunity to submit additional testimony to the PSC on or before November 24, 2004. The BOCC then moved to request that the PSC require, as a condition to any CPCN that might issue in this proceeding, that Sempra / Catoctin Power work with EastAlco Aluminum to identify and place approximately 250 acres of land into permanent agricultural preservation. If at all possible this property was to consist of the following: (1) account identifier – district 23, account number 437457, tax map 94, grid 3, parcel 76 – 144 acres west of Ballenger Creek Pike adjacent to St. Matthew’s Church that is owned by EastAlco; and (2) account identifier – district 01, account number 005391, tax map 94, grid 4, parcel 3 – 169.17 acres located on the east side of Ballenger Creek Pike, also owned by EastAlco, and located directly across the road from St. Matthew’s church and which wraps around the church cemetery. If the identified properties could not be obtained for preservation, Sempra should work with EastAlco to identify other property that would accomplish the BOCC’S intent of placing land into permanent agricultural preservation in order to act as a buffer between the Catoctin Power plant and the community, including St. Matthews’ church. Finally, if Sempra was not able to obtain and place this land into permanent agricultural preservation by working with EastAlco, Sempra must work with the Carrollton Manor Land Trust to identify and obtain 250 acres of land to be preserved for this purpose at Sempra’s expense.
Q. HAS THE BOCC AUTHORIZED THIS TESTIMONY, INCLUDING THE REQUEST THAT 250 ACRES OF LAND BE PLACED IN PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL OR PARK PRESERVATION AS A CONDITION TO ANY CPCN THAT THE PSC MIGHT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING?
A. Yes. On October 21, 2004 Mr. Richard J. McCain, Assistant Frederick County Attorney was specifically directed by the BOCC to submit the request relating to the required land preservation and present additional testimony as believed appropriate to the PSC. Mr. McCain advised the BOCC that its request would be submitted through my testimony.
Q. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH TO ADD TO YOUR TESTIMONY?
A. Yes. The BOCC again wishes to be clear that its request for the conditions attached hereto do not indicate either the BOCC’S support for or opposition to Sempra’s proposed project.
Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
A. Yes