Local coalition proposed alternative to save Kilarc-Cow Creek hydro project

Photo by Maggie Trevelyan Kilarc Reservoir is beautiful year round, one reason why so many people want to see it saved.

In a public filing submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on January 22, 2010, a local coalition consisting of Shasta County, Sierra Pacific Industries, Abbott Ditch Users, Tetrick Ranch and Evergreen Shasta Power proposed a settlement that would avoid the decommissioning of the Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydro Project by essentially authorizing a new operator to continue operations on an economic and improved environmental basis.

  The Settlement proposes that Evergreen Shasta Power, LLC, a new, local entity, would acquire the facilities from Pacific Gas and Electric Company and proceed to obtain authorization from FERC to operate the facilities under two separate License Exemption Applications. As acceptable conditions of the exemptions, Evergreen Shasta would provide greater instream flows for fish and payments to the County for recreation maintenance at Kilarc, retain Kilarc Lake for recreation and a water supply for fire fighting, and establish a fund for habitat restoration and ditch maintenance in the Cow Creek watershed to improve fish habitat and water quality.

     The group has also asked that FERC promptly establish a settlement proceeding in Sacramento to further consider and develop this alternative to retain the present Project 606, in cooperation with the other stakeholders. The coalition has received public support from the Save Kilarc Committee and many individuals in the Community of Whitmore and in Shasta County.

     FERC is in the process of evaluating PG&E’s license surrender application, and FERC’s Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) is scheduled for issuance soon. In their January 22 filing, the coalition suggested delaying the DEA until after a settlement proceeding was held.  This would give the FERC time to receive answers to questions concerning the claimed benefits to the fish from the decommissioning and how PG&E intended to resolve the water rights issues for the Abbott Ditch Users and Tetrick Ranch, as well as to consider the coalition’s Alternative. According to Erik Poole, the coalition’s spokesperson, these basic questions have yet to be answered, and they need to be before any decision is made about whether the Kilarc-Cow Creek Project should be decommissioned.

     The Alternative presented by the coalition would avoid the currently projected $14.5 million dollars in PG&E ratepayer expenses for decommissioning, the loss of the recreation at Kilarc Reservoir, and the gutting of two operating hydro plants that produce reliable green energy. It would also avoid litigation certain to result from the loss of the water conveyance system used to deliver water to the Abbott Ditch Users, which PG&E proposes to destroy.  Litigation could also ensue from property rights conflicts resulting from decommissioning, as well as potential contamination problems from the decommissioning process.

     Under FERC’s rules, parties have 20 days to respond to the Settlement Alternative and can also respond to the Motion for Settlement Proceeding, as well as the other documents filed by the coalition asking FERC to authorize it to make it possible for the community to retain these facilities and the benefits they provide while establishing an economically viable project. (Submitted by Erik Poole.)

KC Hydro asserts that Kilarc may not require a license

     In a public filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission made on Jan. 25, 2010, KC Hydro, a collaboration of Davis Hydro LLC and Sackheim Consulting, requests that the FERC 1) make a determination that Project 606 (the Kilarc-Cow Creek hydroelectric project) is not subject to mandatory federal licensing requirements and 2) terminate Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s License Surrender proceedings.

     As evidence that Project 606 may not be subject to the FERC’s licensing jurisdiction, Kelly Sackheim, writing on behalf of KC Hydro, cites a 1995 Commission ruling on the Bend Hydroelectric Project #2643 which states:  “Under Section 23(b)(i) of the Federal Power Act, a license is required for a hydroelectric project if it: (1) is located on “navigable waters of the United states”; (2) occupies lands or reservations of the United States; (3) uses the surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) is located on a non-navigable Commerce Clause stream, affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce, and has undergone construction of major modification after August 26, 2935.  If those conditions are not met, Section 4(e) of the FPA would permit licensing of a hydroelectric project in response to a voluntary application if the project is located on a Commerce Clause water.”  (The entire 1995 Commission ruling is available with KC Hydro’s Jan. 25 filing on the FERC website.)

     Sackheim then asserts that Project 606 is not subject to mandatory licensing by the FERC because it is not located upon a navigable stream; does not occupy lands or reservations of the U.S.; does not use surplus water or power from a government dam; and has not undergone construction or major modifications since August 26, 1935.  “It is my belief that PG&E may not be required to take any action upon the expiration of its license and valuable time of the Commission may be saved by terminating the present license surrender proceedings by acknowledging that it is no longer in the public interest for the Commission to exercise jurisdiction over this project.”

     The filing concludes by stating that, if allowed to proceed by the FERC, Davis Hydro is prepared to approach PG&E with an offer to purchase at least the Kilarc portion of the P-606 Project. “We are committed to build a facility that PG&E, the fish resource agencies, research entities, and the community can be proud of.  We are committed to build a strong fish resource supported financially by green hydropower and request Commission support of these goals as well.”