Just minutes from the town of Washington, Fish Creek begins on ridgetops high above the South Yuba River near the White Cloud Campground. It flows 1.5 miles north through forests near Lupine Point and into a narrow canyon until it meets the Wild and Scenic South Yuba River. Now, a company formed just this past spring, wants to dam it. 

RamaFlux Sierra PSH, LLC has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a two-year permit to study a 750-megawatt (MW) “pumped storage” power plant on Fish Creek. The plan would put one dam and a reservoir on the creek, 200 vertical feet above where it meets the South Yuba, and build a second reservoir high on the ridge near Jefferson Creek. 

FERC is taking public comments until 5:00 pm Eastern (2:00 pm Pacific) on Monday, November 30, 2026. This is our first and best chance to put the hard questions on the record before this destructive project gains momentum. SYRCL was born fighting dams on the South Yuba. Today we need you to speak up for Fish Creek. 

What is FERC deciding now? 

RamaFlux is requesting a permit to study the project.  If FERC grants it, RamaFlux gets a two-year permit to study their proposed project and be first in line to apply for a license. The permit does not allow the company to build anything or go onto private or public land without the owner’s permission.  

SYRCL’s concern: the application is woefully inadequate and unrealistic.  For example, it does not say how large the reservoirs would be, how tall the dams or embankments would be, where the water to fill them would come from, or how the power would get connected to the grid at Colgate.  

Bigger than all hydro projects on the Yuba combined 

The application does include one surprising goal and detail about the project.  The conceptual plan is to provide 750 megawatts (MW) of power. That amount of power capacity is more than all projects in the Yuba watershed combined. For comparison’s sake, Colgate Powerhouse (one of the largest projects in the Yuba and in the state) has the capacity to generate 350 MW, less than half of what RamaFlux Sierra’s application proposes they study. Shasta Dam produces 710 MW of power and is built on a river with more than 750 times the flow of Fish Creek. This proposal would make the Fish Creek proposal one of the largest hydro projects in the State of California. That amount of power generation on a creek that is just 1.5 miles long seems unlikely, if not simply infeasible.   

How “pumped storage” works 

Two reservoirs are the backbone of how pumped storage operates: water circulates between an uphill and downhill reservoir. When electricity prices are low, water is pumped uphill to an upper reservoir. When electricity prices are high, the water is released back downhill to the lower reservoir, generating power.  

The entire process is an energy loss for Californians – it takes more energy to pump the water uphill than can be generated when it flows back downhill. The business model is not about power generation; it’s about selling energy to the grid for more per kilowatt hour than they have to pay to pump the water back uphill. 

Is there enough water? 

Power generation takes water — and a lot of it. According to the application (p. 10), the two reservoirs would sit about 1,600 feet apart in elevation. Running the system to meet their claimed power generation would require sending roughly 6,000 cubic feet of water through the turbines every second (cubic feet per second, cfs) – that’s roughly 65 times the 2-year flood flow of 95 cfs on Fish Creek. At that rate, a single eight-hour run would move about 4,000 acre-feet of water, or about 1.3 billion gallons. That’s enough to fill about 2,000 Olympic swimming pools. The Sacramento River has a 2-year flood flow of about 70,000 cfs to generate a comparable amount of power at Shasta.    

All of that water has to come from somewhere, and RamaFlux Sierra would need the water rights to use it. The reservoirs would have to be filled in the first place, then topped off to replace what evaporates in our hot, dry summers. RamaFlux hasn’t said exactly where the water would come from, only that it would rely on seasonal runoff and precipitation. The company says those questions, including how much water Fish Creek can supply and how it connects to Jefferson Creek, will be answered by the studies under the permit. 

SYRCL has serious concerns and a multitude of questions about whether Fish and Jefferson creeks can even provide that amount of water and still send cold, clean water to the South Yuba for fish, wildlife, and downstream users.   

“Closed loop” on a flowing creek? 

The application says the project would be “primarily closed loop,” meaning it would use water to fill the reservoir initially and then, in concept, recirculate that same water.  But building a dam on a flowing creek isn’t, by definition, closed loop.  SYRCL is concerned because “closed loop” projects do receive expedited reviews with FERC.  

New roads and a high-voltage transmission line 

The reservoirs and powerhouse are only part of the project footprint.  The application also includes a new 230-kilovolt (230,000-volt) transmission line to connect the powerhouse to the grid. The application states it will consider connecting the transmission lines near Lupine Point and to lines along Highway 20, ending at the Colgate Powerhouse substation. (Although, the Illustration 2 supplied by the applicant shows this high voltage line following the South Yuba as it goes straight through National Forest land to the Colgate powerhouse on the North Yuba) The public needs to understand whether new transmission corridors will run through the forest and what that would mean for wildlife, recreation, scenery, and fire risk for nearby communities. 

Who’s paying for this? 

RamaFlux’s application states it will spend about $2.5 million studying the project.  According to the application, it would be paid for with its owners’ money, and it is “exploring partnerships.”  The company tells FERC that its “current available capital is sufficient.”  SYRCL’s experience planning and designing restoration projects suggests that this is far from sufficient given the unrealistic and inadequate application. FERC doesn’t require proof of financial ability, only that the applicant diligently pursues the studies during the permit period.  

Again, for SYRCL, RamaFlux’s application raises more questions than it answers about who is actually behind this project. The company says it will fund the $2.5 million study with its owners’ money and is “exploring partnerships”, but it names no partners, no investors, and no firms beyond a related company called RamaFlux Inc. The land is owned by Berkeley Bear Biotechnology LLC, but they aren’t mentioned anywhere in the application.  A project of this scale will ultimately require hundreds of millions of dollars in financing. The public currently has no way to evaluate who would actually build this project, who would own it, or what their track record is.  

What makes this especially important is that FERC’s preliminary permit process requires only that an applicant state that it has sufficient funds to conduct the studies, not that it has the capacity to build the project. That means a company formed just this spring, with unnamed partners and unspecified long-term capital, can secure priority claim on a Fish Creek hydropower project with no further financial disclosure. The people who live, recreate, and depend on the South Yuba River watershed are the ones who will absorb the consequences of a poorly studied or poorly financed project.

The public comment period closing November 30 is the first and best opportunity to put specific questions on the federal record before any study is designed and help shape what gets asked and what gets studied. 

Write your letter TODAY, or join us at SYRCL on November 19th 

Your comments matter, especially at this early stage. Your letter can: 

• Put local knowledge about Fish Creek, its wildlife, and its neighbors in FERC’s official record from day one. 
• Tell the applicant, FERC, and other agencies which questions any future study must answer. 
• Make clear the community is watching, before money and momentum build behind a single design. 

How to submit your letter 

1. Go to ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. 
2. Enter your name, email, and mailing address. FERC will email you a link to confirm. 
3. Search for docket P-15429 and select it. 
4. Type your comment (up to 10,000 characters) and submit. You may want to write your comment in advance and then paste it in the box provided. 

Deadline: 2:00 pm Pacific on Monday, November 30, 2026.  

Or, join us at the SYRCL office on November 19^th between 4-6pm. 

We’ll be answering questions and helping give pointers for how to write an effective letter.

Can’t make it in person? Sign up for our Fish Creek action alerts. We’ll have more information and a letter writing tool kit in the coming weeks.

Federal Register: Federal Register :: RamaFlux Sierra PSH, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications