|
FERC hears input on Duke relicensing
By Lynn Hotaling
Federal power regulators traveled to Sylva last week for the third time in as many years to listen to citizen input regarding Duke Energy’s relicensing bid.
A different set of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff members June 8 heard many of the same speakers reiterate their opinions – both pro and con – during what FERC fisheries biologist Lee Emery termed the final public hearing in Duke’s five-plus year effort to secure new operating licenses for five of its six Jackson County hydroelectric plants.
The subject of discussion was the FERC staff’s May 10 draft environmental assessment for the projects, a document that for the most part follows recommendations developed over several years by a stakeholders team and agreed to by the power company.
 |
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff member Allan Creamer, left (facing crowd), and FERC contractor Leslie Smythe, right, (facing crowd) listen to Doug Odell, who was one of about 30 individuals who spoke during last Thursday’s (June 8) hearing on the FERC staff’s May 10 draft environmental assessment on Duke Energy’s bid to secure new operating licenses for five of its six Jackson County hydroelectric projects – Glenville/Thorpe, Tanassee Creek, Bear Creek, Cedar Cliff and Tuckaseigee. As mitigation for its larger projects, Duke has offered to surrender its Dillsboro plant and remove its 93-year-old dam. Dam removal, which has proven to be controversial, is part of a settlement agreement endorsed by Duke. The draft EA supports the dam removal as do resource agencies with statutory authority under the Federal Power Act. Jackson County’s commissioners and others disagree and filed an alternative plan with FERC in June 2005; the draft EA does not incorporate any of the county plan’s provisions. – Herald photo by Nick Breedlove
Prior to hearing from the public, FERC’s Allan Creamer told the crowd that the written comment period had been extended until Monday, June 26. Almost 30 individuals spoke during the three-hour session, and the Justice Center’s larger courtroom was packed with dozens more.
For the most part, the arguments had been made at previous hearings, and those who spoke during a round of December 2004 sessions all clung to their previous positions.
The meeting turned contentious at the end, and threatened to become a shouting match, but FERC staffers Emery and Creamer kept things from getting out of hand.
A majority of speakers expressed dissatisfaction with the draft EA, though their reasons varied widely. These included six who objected to the document’s support of removing the Dillsboro Dam; and the same number who wanted FERC to reconsider its recommendations based on Lake Glenville-related issues, including leases to private property owners.
One speaker disagreed with the draft EA’s inclusion of proposed recreational releases in the West Fork, and two said the document doesn’t do enough to address sedimentation in Duke’s reservoirs, especially with regard to dam removal.
A couple of speakers didn’t really address the document at all: one, T.J. Krueger asked for more water flow in the East Fork to help his rafting business; and another, Adam Bigelow, said it was good to see people meeting and talking about the issues surrounding relicensing.
Two others said the draft EA does not adequately address Duke’s flood control responsibility. One of those, Bill Lyons, said the proposal requires lakes to be at “full pool,” which does not allow sufficient lead time for water releases during heavy rain events.
Commissioners’ Chairman Brian McMahan spoke in favor of Jackson County’s alternate proposal, which the county calls a “preferred settlement agreement,” and asked FERC staff to reconsider the draft EA’s rejection of that document’s provisions.
On the other hand, seven spoke favorably of the draft EA and the Cooperative Stakeholders Agreement that was signed in October 2003 and which the power company endorses. Removal of the Dillsboro Dam is the linchpin of that agreement.
The draft EA covers Duke’s hydroelectric projects on the East and West forks of the Tuckaseigee River (Glenville/Thorpe, Tuckasegee, Cedar Cliff, Bear Creek, Wolf Creek and Tanassee Creek) and the surrender of the Dillsboro project. It evaluates the environmental consequences of the operation and maintenance of Duke’s Tuckaseigee River hydroelectric projects.
The draft is the FERC staff’s initial set of recommendations and is based on proposals from the FERC staff, Duke Energy, state and federal agencies, and other parties. After the comment period closes week after next, FERC licensers will finalize a set of recommendations that will be considered with regard to granting new licenses to the power company.
According to Duke District Manager Fred Alexander, the power company expects to see final environmental assessments and new licenses for its Jackson County projects by the end of this year.
Overall, Duke Energy is pleased with the draft EA, Alexander said. The three resource agencies with legal authority (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Water Quality Division) under the Federal Power Act have also indicated their continued support for the Stakeholders Agreement and agreement with the recommendations in the draft EA.
Jackson’s plan differs significantly from the stakeholders’ agreement in that it stipulates the Dillsboro Dam remain in place (and be given to Jackson County as a charitable donation); it delays (for at least 10 years) recreational kayaking water releases in the Tuckaseigee’s bypassed West Fork and a portage trail that would give the public access to High Falls and boaters access below the falls; it would allow lakeshore property owners to obtain leases for the power company’s 10-vertical-foot lakeside buffer zone; it would require Duke to conduct dredging operations at all its reservoirs; and it would require large annual cash payments to Jackson and Macon counties.
For information on filing written comments, visit the FERC Web site, ferc.gov.
For more information on all aspects of relicensing, visit www.thesylvaherald.com and check the archives for Sept. 29, 2005; July 14, 2005; June 2, 16 and 30, 2005; May 12 and 26, 2005; Jan. 6, 2005; and Dec. 9, 16 and 23, 2004.
|
