|
Federal energy officials in town to hear comment on Duke's relicensing plans
By Lynn Hotaling
Despite a three-year stakeholders' process aimed at generating a consensus with regard to Duke Power Co.'s relicensing plans, local governments and agencies remain split as to the proposal's merits.
Developed as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's mandatory relicensing process, the agreement continues to generate controversy. Both supporters and opponents of the plan are expected to attend a series of meetings that began Wednesday and continue tonight (Thursday).
FERC officials took public comment during two Wednesday meetings on Duke Power/Nantahala Area's East Fork (Canada community ) projects and will continue to hear citizen input today on the West Fork projects (Thorpe/Glenville and Tuckasegee) during 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. sessions in the Justice Center's Courtroom 2.
Opposition is growing to the mitigation package proposed by Duke Power in return for the new hydroelectric generating licenses the company is seeking.
In the past week both Franklin's town board and Macon County commissioners have voted to intervene in the process, joining Jackson County government, the town of Webster and two area environmental groups.
It is not known whether Macon County and Franklin officials will employ the services of energy attorney Paul Nolan of Arlington, Va., who has been retained by Jackson County commissioners. Cost for Nolan's services is currently shared among several agencies, including Jackson County Soil and Water, Western North Carolina Alliance, the Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee and American Rivers. All, including Jackson County's commissioners, have filed as intervenors.
On the other hand, several state and federal agencies support Duke's proposal, which includes removal of the 90-year-old Dillsboro Dam. Representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the N.C. Department of Water Quality signed off on the deal. Their approval is key, because FERC officials gave each of the three "mandatory conditioning authority," or veto power, over settlement agreements reached during relicensing efforts.
Jackson County Manager Ken Westmoreland and Soil and Water Conservation Board member Tom Massie both indicated Tuesday that they don't think Duke's proposal adequately compensates Jackson County for the use of its public waters. Most of Duke's major dams are in this county, Massie said.
"Purely from a mitigation standpoint, Jackson County should get a larger percentage," he said.
Duke's proposal provides $200,000 for sedimentation control but divides it equally among five counties, giving Jackson a $40,000 share.
"We don't object to what's been offered; it just doesn't go far enough," said Westmoreland. Jackson County leaders would like Duke to provide funding for the expansion and enhancement of Andrews Park, which is located on Lake Glenville. They'd also like to see the company help fund greenways, place land along the lakes and rivers in conservation easements to preserve public access, and establish a fund to assist the county with problems that might develop during the term of the new licenses.
As an example, Westmoreland pointed to the extensive streambank damage caused by Hurricanes Frances and Ivan in September.
The value of Duke's mitigation package is estimated at "several million dollars" by Duke District Manager Fred Alexander, and the original proposal contained some $450,000 for lake and river access improvements within Jackson County. After county leaders indicated they wanted more funding for improvements at Andrews Park, Alexander said Duke re-worked the agreement to create a $350,000 fund that could be used for enhancements at Andrews or for greenways.
According to Alexander, it's his understanding that initial improvements at Andrews were accomplished through grant funding after Duke donated the property to the county during the 1970s, but that no additional grant funds have been sought. Duke funded a master plan for Andrews Park five or six years ago, at a cost of about $10,000, and gave the plan to county officials, Alexander said.
"We remain hopeful that master plan will be useful in securing grant money for Andrews Park," Alexander said Tuesday.
With regard to objections that Duke's mitigation plan doesn't offer Jackson County enough compensation for the power company's seven projects here, Alexander said the agreement was a compromise.
"It was negotiated with all the parties, and it was not possible to satisfy the needs and desires of everyone," Alexander said. "We believe the continuing relicensing process will give those who left the settlement agreement process another avenue to pursue their goals."
Westmoreland also said county commissioners are likely to oppose removal of the Dillsboro Dam, both because it would deprive the county of a valuable cultural resource and because Duke's proposal to flush accumulated sediment downstream is environmentally unsound.
Duke's removal plan indicates that the company will "develop a sediment management plan that promotes natural and phased sediment transport using high operational flows and natural high water events at intervals through the demolition process."
Massie also objects to Duke's dam removal plan, saying it would flush an estimated 84,000 tons of sediment trapped behind the dam.
Roger Turner of Western North Carolina Alliance said his organization objects for a number of reasons, including the agreement's lack of long-term protection for the natural resources on all shorelines and the inadequacy of the funds Duke's proposal includes.
On the issue of the Dillsboro Dam, Turner said WNCA is "OK with removal but only if it's done in the most environmentally sensitive way."
Duke's dam removal plan is based on an environmental analysis that's supported by state and federal wildlife resource agencies, Alexander said.
"It has scientific support," he said. "Further, it appears the agencies believe the long-term gain more than justifies any short-term disturbance."
Duke Power is seeking relicensing of its Jackson County hydroelectric facilities because current operating licenses expire in 2005 and 2006. The company operates Thorpe and Tuckasegee power plants on the Tuckaseigee River's West Fork, and Wolf Creek, Tanassee Creek, Bear Creek and Cedar Cliff on the river's East Fork. Dillsboro, the company's smallest generating facility, is the only hydro plant on the Tuckaseigee's main stem.
Duke's 65,000 Nantahala Area customers pay lower bills than customers in other parts of Duke's system ($77.02 for 1,000 kwh for a Nantahala Area residential customer as compared to $80.34 per 1,000 kwh for Duke's other North Carolina customers) because this area's rates are the old Nantahala Power & Light rates, which continue since NP&L became part of Duke in 2000, Alexander said. The reduced rates reflect the low-cost generation of Duke's hydroelectric plants in Jackson, Macon, Swain and Clay counties, he said.
|
