| |
Some
say no to Dukes relicensing proposal
By
Don Hendershot
Duke
Power is hoping that three years of negotiations that have come to
an end will help pave the way for FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission) approval of its federally mandated relicensing efforts.
Duke Power has been consulting with two stakeholder teams –
Nantahala and Tuckasegee – to try and to a set of consensus
recommendations for FERC.
The culmination of the negotiations was the signing of a draft, non-binding
consensus agreement. About 30 members of the two stakeholder teams,
including federal and state agencies, local governments, state and
local organizations and local groups signed the agreement.
Kevin Colburn, one of the signers, representing American Whitewater
called the consensus agreement a comprehensive package. Colburn said
Duke made major concessions in the last hour to come up with an agreement
that won the support of the majority of stakeholders. He said the
agreement called for more and easier access for paddlers that it would
open up eight miles of Class III and IV rapids that were previously
inaccessible.
But some of the stakeholders didnt think Duke went far enough
in providing recreation for all the public. Jackson County was one
of the stakeholders that did not sign the agreement. Ken Westmoreland,
Jackson County manager and stakeholder representative, said that while
there was a lot on the table for recreation, there was very
little in terms of the general public.
I believe our offer of a 12-mile greenway went farther, in the
terms of general recreation, than the construction of numerous put-ins
along the river, Westmoreland said.
Westmoreland also felt that with economic assistance from Duke, Andrews
Park in Dillsboro could have been made into an attractive and popular
regional recreational area.
Dukes three-year effort is a hybrid of two relicensing protocols
sanctioned by FERC. In the traditional process, the licensee (in this
case Duke), state and federal agencies and FERC go through a prescribed
negotiation process. In the alternative method, stakeholders,
agencies, the licensee and FERC are in the process from the beginning.
What Duke chose was to invite stakeholders and agencies in, but deal
with FERC in the traditional manner. Jeff Lineberger of Duke Power,
said the utility chose this hybrid process, because we felt
the licensee should be driving the negotiations. He said there
are certain fixed deadlines that the licensee has to meet and Duke
wanted to be sure the process keeps moving.
All parties agreed that this collaborative approach was more time
and energy consuming, but most felt it was worth the extra effort.
Without question, it was worth it, Lineberger said. Its
important to me that Duke Power be in touch enough with the community
that we can work out problems. By investing all this time now we may
have actually saved time by having a signed consensus agreement to
present to FERC.
US Fish and Wildlife representative Mark Cantrell said he felt it
was a worthwhile process. Its definitely a beneficial
use of time up front. It allows us to hear from non agency stakeholders
and to be able to incorporate their concerns. It also provides us
with useful local knowledge of the projects.
From an agency standpoint, I got what I needed, Kevin
Barnet of North Carolinas Division of Water Quality said. I
believe this process smoothed the way and that it could set a standard
for important negotiations.
Roger Turner, community organizer and stakeholder representing the
Western North Carolina Alliance felt the stakeholder concept was not
inclusive enough. I felt like there was a lack of involvement
from the general public and that Duke was not forthcoming in negotiations.
Turner said.
Western North Carolina Alliance will join American Rivers as
interveners in the next step of these relicensing efforts, Turner,
who did not sign the agreement said. WNCA also supported Jackson Countys
charge of too few general recreation opportunities.
WNCA, Jackson County and the Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee
River (WATR) were three of the non-signers that felt some type of
ongoing resource enhancement fund or escrow account should have been
included in the consensus agreement. Westmoreland said there was no
way anyone could predict what type of mitigation needs or resource
enhancement projects might arise out of the 30-year life of the new
licenses.
David Wheeler, president of WATR, said he felt a general unwillingness
on the part of Duke to put any meaningful resources towards mitigation.
Lineberger disagrees. This is a substantial commitment. We will
be giving up 5 percent of our generation across the region if this
agreement turns into a settlement.
We feel that the most important thing we can do for our power
customers and our shareholders is to keep these generators operating.
The Nantahala and Tuckasegee agreements affect 10 of Duke Powers
hydroelectric projects on the Nantahala and Tuckasegee rivers in Macon,
Jackson and Swain counties.
Some of the highlights of the agreement according to Duke include,
maintaining lake levels to benefit public recreation and fish habitat;
possible removal of the Dillsboro Dam to create 11 more miles of unimpeded
river; provide/make more land available for conservation purposes;
create more and improved boating access on the Tuckasegee and Nantahala
rivers downstream from the reservoirs and to continue the use of existing
hydroelectric generating projects to supply the area with low-cost,
renewable electric power.
Stakeholders and Duke still have till June 30 to continue negotiations
and revisit the consensus agreement. Westmoreland said he is still
hopeful that Duke would reconsider parts of the agreement.
After June 30, the agreement will be examined for changes and grammar.
In September stakeholders will be asked to review the agreement and
resign. At this point the consensus agreement would become a legally
binding document.
The public can examine the consensus agreement by visiting the Duke
website at www.nantahalapower.com. |