SMUD cited environmental impacts, legal uncertainty and rising costs in its decision to cancel its power purchase agreement
By KATYA OKS — city@theaggie.org
On Jan. 5, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) cancelled its power purchase agreement in Coyote Creek. This decision followed a November meeting where the Agrivoltaic Ranch project was initially approved.
SMUD is one of the nation’s largest community-owned electric service providers, which aims to deliver reliable and affordable electricity to Sacramento County. SMUD leads industry efforts in energy efficiency programs and in finding solutions which are sustainable and beneficial for the surrounding environment, according to their website.
In 2021, SMUD signed a power purchase agreement with D.E. Shaw Renewable Investments (DESRI), which was meant to help SMUD reach its clean energy goals. The project was set to take place in Coyote Creek, which spans over 1000 acres in the Sacramento area.
The project quickly became controversial, facing extensive community backlash from local environmental groups and concerned citizens.
Gabrielle Katanic, a local activist and member of the Sacramento Valley Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) — one of the main litigants and primary coalitions that has organized events surrounding the project — explained the reasons she got involved.
“It felt like a conundrum, because normally I’m really pro-renewable energy,” Katanic said. “But when I found out about where this project was located, and the level of destruction that was going to be happening, I was horrified. I’ve seen firsthand how special those ecosystems are and how much they provide [for us], like carbon sequestration, which is crucial to our climate goals. This [project] is not the way; we do need to lean into green energy, but not by destroying intact habitats.”
Cynthia Ball, a second-year sociology major, also expressed her concerns over how the Coyote Creek project engages in a form of greenwashing. Greenwashing is defined as a marketing tactic used by companies to mislead individuals into believing that such entities engage in sustainable practices, when in reality, they do not.
“[The Coyote Creek Project] brings up the problem with greenwashing being used as a tool to benefit profit-hungry companies,” Ball said. “Land is thought of as something that is supposed to be developed, which is true for most humans. However, when possible, land in California needs to be left undisturbed to allow for wildlife to persist.”
On Nov. 18, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors held a meeting on the topic of moving forward with the project. This meeting also included a public comment section.
“I got to the County Board of Supervisors meeting and was blown away; the entire county board meeting room was packed,” Katanic said. “There were over 150 public comments made, and we were there for 5 hours. And [the public comment section was] just person after person after person coming up and saying, ‘This is not a good project,’ ‘This is a bad project,’ ‘This is not green energy.’”
Despite public criticism, the supervisors unanimously approved the Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Solar Project.
“I think at that point, there was a feeling like they were probably going to have it move forward regardless,” Katanic said. “So the coalition — this is a group of nonprofits, community members and other people that care about this project — organized a community meeting. This was an opportunity for people to get together, find out more about the project and then also find out how they could get involved.”
In a written statement on Jan. 5, SMUD explained why they cancelled the agreement after initially approving it in November.
“Due to project uncertainties, SMUD announced today that they will not be purchasing power from the Coyote Creek project,” the statement reads. “Some of the uncertainties include: supply chain constraints, rising prices, tariffs, schedule delays, environmental impacts and pending litigation.”
Katanic shared her reaction to the news.
“It was shocking,” Katanic said. “We’ve been fighting really hard, but to be able to see the results of that was amazing. It felt really good to our community to have our voices heard.”
Although Katanic expressed relief at the cancellation, she also noted that the Coyote Creek project could still move forward. In a written statement, on Jan. 7, DESRI confirmed that they were “moving forward with the development.”
“Unfortunately, we did hear a couple of days after that [decision] that the solar developer DESRI said that they were planning on moving forward with the project regardless,” Katanic said. “Our hope is that, because there is so much opposition, we can still fight back. There are three separate lawsuits that have been filed to try to stop this project: one from the recreation community, one from the environmental community and then also one from the local [Wilton Rancheria tribe].”
Katanic urged Sacramento and Yolo County community members to get involved, and shared a resource to keep those interested in the loop.
“We have a new website up — savecoyotecreek.com — and we’re trying to make that our central hub where people can get information about the project,” Katanic said. They can read the latest news updates, any upcoming events and an action list will be posted there.”
Ball also expressed a similar sentiment.
“Follow @sacramentofoodforest and @talktomenerdy on Instagram,” Ball said. “They are involved at the local level on this issue and post how you can show up as a concerned community member.”
Written By: Katya Oks — city@theaggie.org
