|
Federal officials hear varied opinions on Duke relicensing
By Lynn Hotaling
(Part 1 of series)
Settlement Agreement
Duke Power's proposed compensation package to the area for the impact of its hydroelectric projects includes the following provisions:
– Removal of Dillsboro Dam; several acres along the river would go to the town of Dillsboro
– Recreational flows for kayaking seven days per year in West Fork
– Parking area and trails to High Falls
– Fishing trails at Thorpe and Tanassee Creek powerhouses
– Purchase of 150 acres adjoining the Blue Ridge Parkway to be transferred to U.S. Forest Service when licenses are issued (property worth $400,000)
– Swimming area at Lake Glenville
– Portage around Cullowhee Dam and canoe and drift boat access
– Public boat launches and parking in river's catch-and-release section, at Barkers Creek and at Whittier
– Tote-and-float access at Tanassee Creek Lake
– Primitive campsites at Wolf Creek Lake
– Rest rooms, lighting at Wolf, Bear and Glenville lakes
– $40,000 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife study
– $40,000 for brook trout replacement effort
– Guaranteed minimum flows
– Compromise on flows for fishing and boating
– More consistent lake levels
– $200,000 for erosion control (split among five counties)
– $350,000 to Jackson County to use for Andrews Park improvements or greenways
Federal energy officials listened last week as Duke Power outlined its plans to compensate Jackson and surrounding counties for the company's use of the area's natural resources to generate electricity.
Then they listened some more as agency representatives, local government officials and individuals stated why Duke's proposed settlement (see box on page 7A) is or is not acceptable.
Several representatives of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in town for "scoping sessions" aimed at determining what should be included in environmental assessments for Duke's projects, heard some 40 speakers over the course of four meetings held Dec. 8 and 9.
While a number of speakers praised the Settlement Agreement, which was negotiated over three years by stakeholders representing more than 30 organizations, others said Duke's plan does not adequately compensate the area – especially Jackson County, where Duke operates six hydro projects – for the impact of the utility on area waterways.
FERC will continue to receive written comments concerning Duke Power's license applications for the company's Tuckaseigee River projects (East and West Forks and Dillsboro) through Jan. 10.
Jackson County officials, along with the Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee, Western North Carolina Alliance and the county's Soil and Water District, participated in the stakeholders' process but did not sign the agreement. They have hired Arlington, Va., attorney Paul Nolan to represent their interests in their fight to gain more concessions from the power company. It was learned last week that the town of Franklin and the Macon County commissioners have voted to join the intervenors in trying to widen the scope of Duke's compensation package.
It is not yet known whether Nolan will represent Franklin and Macon County as well. He said last week that he has been approached but hasn't received a formal offer or discussed possible conflicts of interests with Jackson County officials.
Through November, Nolan has received $23,789.99 (Jackson County, WNCA and Jackson County Soil and Water have each agreed to pay one-third of his fees) to take on one of the county's largest taxpayers: Duke Power contributed $255,293.08 to local coffers during 2003.
The amount of taxes Duke pays is determined by the N.C. Department of Revenue, said county tax appraiser Bobby McMahan.
Other local governments, however, including the towns of Sylva and Dillsboro, signed the Stakeholders Agreement and agreed not to intervene, as did the Eastern Band of Cherokee and eight natural resource agencies.
Perhaps most significant to FERC officials' deliberations, all three agencies given "mandatory conditioning authority" by the Federal Power Act have signed off on the plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service and North Carolina's Division of Water Quality are charged by law with carefully examining all such agreements and making sure that provisions necessary to protect resources are included.
"We'll look at the agencies' recommendations and at Duke's proposal and factor all that into our analysis to decide what to do," said FERC licenser Ed Abrams. "The reason we're here is to collect information that will help us do our analysis."
FERC's decision whether to accept Duke's proposed settlement will be a subjective one, Abrams said, because it will be based on the whole record of the case. Licensers will make a determination as to whether the settlement is "fair, reasonable and in the public interest," and weight will be given in proportion to the evidence, he said.
"We listen to everyone and do what's best for the resource," Abrams said.
When asked whether FERC would rubber-stamp the Settlement Agreement in granting new licenses to Duke, Abrams said that, in general, if a settlement looks reasonable and is signed by most stakeholders, FERC will go along with it.
"All we know is we have a settlement signed by the major stakeholders," Abrams said. "We have to take it seriously, but that doesn't mean others' opinions won't be counted."
While twice as many (20) spoke against some part of the agreement as those who expressed support for the entire plan, speakers were not united in which portions they opposed. And about 10 speakers took no position on the Settlement Agreement as written, instead asking to add items including flood control provisions and a ban on jet skis at Cedar Cliff Lake.
However, most dissenting discussion centered around four topics: removal of the Dillsboro Dam; Duke-owned buffer zones around the lakes; recreational flows for kayakers down the West Fork; and whether the plan provides enough compensation to Jackson County for the use of its resources compared to the benefits Duke Power reaps.
FERC staff expect to issue environmental assessments in May, Abrams said. After a comment period, they will make a recommendation to a five-member board appointed by the president, which will decide whether to issue new licenses to Duke.
Duke 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. The reduced rates reflect the low-cost generation of Duke's hydroelectric plants in Jackson, Macon, Swain and Clay counties.
(Editor's Note: Next week's installment will highlight what speakers at the meetings said are the pros and cons of Duke's proposed mitigation package.)
|
