<< Back 5/21/03 Some say no to Duke’s 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 didn’t 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. Duke’s 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. “It’s 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. “It’s 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 Carolina’s 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 County’s 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 Power’s 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.