Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Managing Lake Levels prior to the New License

Gene Ellis just sent out the August issue of The Yadkin Report. In it he spells out clearly how APGI will manage the lake levels during a drought prior to the new license being issued.

Following is an excerpt from the article Drought Management 101:

Managing Drought Conditions Until A New License Is Issued
Alcoa-Yadkin has agreed to adopt many elements of the Low Inflow Protocol to protect our water resources, even though the LIP will not officially become effective until the company receives a new license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Here is a general description of how Alcoa-Yadkin intends to manage water levels at the Yadkin lakes until a new license is issued:

  • High Rock Lake: If drought conditions cause water levels at High Rock Lake drop more than six inches below the “normal minimum elevation” – which is currently 5 feet below full during the summer recreation season – Alcoa-Yadkin will begin implementing its drought management plan. If drought conditions persist and water levels at High Rock Lake drop more than 1 foot below the normal minimum elevation, Alcoa-Yadkin will begin to draw down Badin Lake until the water level at both lakes is roughly equal. From that point forward, water levels at the two lakes will be drawn down equally on a foot-by-foot basis.
  • Badin Lake: Water levels at Badin Lake will typically remain in the normal operating range (within 3 feet of full) until High Rock Lake falls 6 feet below full. If that happens, water levels at Badin Lake will be drawn down until it is roughly equal to High Rock Lake. From that point forward, water levels at the two lakes will be drawn down equally on a foot-by-foot basis.
  • Tuckertown and Falls: These are smaller reservoirs with limited storage capacity. Reducing water levels at these reservoirs by three feet is equivalent to drawing down High Rock Lake by about nine inches. Therefore, the water in these reservoirs is typically used only during extreme drought conditions.


You will notice some changes in lake operations after a new license is issued. For instance, one notable difference will be a change in the “normal minimum elevation” at High Rock Lake from 5 feet below full to 4 feet below full.

This is an excellent plan for all involved -- APGI, South Carolina, and Badin Lake users including homeowners, recreational users, and the fish and wildlife.

I will be working with the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Drought Management Advisory Group (YPD-DMAG) after the license is issued to modify the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) to be more in line with this interum plan. The main difference is to change the Badin Lake Normal Minimum Elevation (NME) from 5 feet below full to 3 feet below full.

Be sure to read the entire article in your issue of The Yadkin Report.

By the way, the North Carolina House last week overwhelmingly voted down the bill to create the Yadkin River Trust. This leaves the State takeover attempt in an awkward position of not having an organization to operate the project. Looks more likely that Alcoa will likely get the new license.

...........................Garry

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Gene Ellis Retires

Some of you may have heard that Gene Ellis retired from Alcoa. Yes, Gene retired in June.

However, Gene has not abandoned his quest of many years, working hard to bring together many diverse interests to agree on a Relicensing Settlement Agreement and ultimately to obtain a new 50-year license to operate the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. Gene is back working as a consultant to Alcoa to achieve this goal.

In fact, you can read Gene’s very clear and convincing remarks about the proposed State takeover of the Yadkin Project to the NC House Water Resources Committee on Tuesday, July 7 in his Blog at http://www.yadkinproject.blogspot.com.

We wish Gene well in his retirement.

…………………………Garry

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

July 4th Badin Lake Level

I know that many of you are concerned about the drop in the lake level over the last week, especially after what happened last June heading into the July 4 holiday. I have asked and Alcoa (APGI) assures me that over the July 4th weekend Badin Lake will be within 1 - 2 ft. of full, given current weather predictions.

They also assured me that they stand by their commitment to keep water levels in Badin Lake within three feet of full (on average) during normal, non-drought conditions. Of course, we still have the concern with how the lake level is managed during a drought as we experienced last summer. Let us hope we continue to have sufficient rain to keep us out of a drought until we have an opportunity to renegotiate the conditions leading into the triggering of the Low Inflow Protocol.

On the issue of the State takeover of the Yadkin Project, the FERC has remained silent over the last two months. We assume that the State is getting its act together on how the project run by a State Trust would serve the public interest better than Alcoa. In the meantime, Stanley County and Alcoa are fighting out whether or not the FERC can grant a long-term license while the validity of the 401 water quality certification is in question.

……………………….Garry

Friday, April 17, 2009

FERC Grants the State Intervention

Well, I was wrong.

“Pursuant to Rule 214, the motion to intervene filed by the State of North Carolina is granted, subject to the Commission’s rules and regulations.”

On 4/17/2009 at 4:00 PM, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington D.C., issued a two-paragraph NOTICE GRANTING LATE INTERVENTION, which ended with the above statement. I said it was unlikely. The FERC evidently found sufficient reason to allow the State to proceed.

What does it mean? What is the next step? I’m not for sure. Following is what the State asked for:

“The State therefore moves to intervene to curtail APGI’s vestigial private control of this segment of the Yadkin River and to rededicate this valuable resource to significant public use.”

The State also asked for a hearing:

“….the State of North Carolina further moves the Commission for an Order initiating and noticing a hearing at the earliest possible date on the State’s Motion to Intervene.”

The FERC has not ruled on this request and I can’t tell if the hearing was requested to support granting the intervention (which has been granted) or to present the State’s case for takeover after the intervention has been granted. The State did follow up with:

“The State of North Carolina will promptly file with the Commission its full comments on the pending relicensing application, as well as all other documents and information supporting its position that the relicensing application should be denied and that the United States should take over this project following the expiration of the license.”

So, stay tuned. Relicensing of the Yadkin Project by Alcoa is not a done deal. We live in interesting times.

……………………….Garry

Friday, April 10, 2009

State Takeover Analysis

After digging through the documents and talking (and emailing) with those who are for and those who are against, here is my opinion on the proposed State takeover of the Yadkin Project. Now, I am not a lawyer and have not read ALL of the Federal Power Act, but I think I am pretty close on how things will turn out. Let me know if you think I missed something that would make a difference.

There several issues here. Following is my summary:
  1. Is there legal basis for taking the Yadkin Project? – Yes
  2. Was the request to take it filed on time? – No
  3. Is there legal basis to continue even though the request was filed “out of time”? – Yes
  4. What is the cost to the State to take it (if they could)? – $25 to $80 million plus severance damages as determined by the FERC.
  5. Does the State have a case if the motion to take it was filed on time? – Possibly
  6. Does the State have a case since the motion was filed out of time? – Unlikely
  7. What does this all mean to us, the residents, owners and users of Badin Lake? – Delay in getting the new license approved and what that implies.

Legal basis for taking the Yadkin Project
Those who are for the takeover don’t want it being called a “takeover.” They prefer to use the word “recapture.” They want you to believe that the Yadkin Project originally belonged to the State and that they are just trying to take it back from Alcoa. But the relevant section in the Federal Power Act (U.S. Code Collection, Title 16, Chapter 12, Subchapter I— http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/usc_sup_01_16_10_12_20_I.html) is titled “§ 807. Right of Government to take over project works.” The Act states “…the right of the United States or any State or municipality to take over, maintain, and operate any project licensed under this chapter at any time by condemnation proceedings upon payment of just compensation is expressly reserved.” So, yes, there is a legal basis for the State to take over the Yadkin Project.

The request to take the Yadkin Project was filed out of time
Section 807 starts out with “Upon not less than two years’ notice in writing from the commission the United States shall have the right upon or after the expiration of any license to take over and thereafter to maintain and operate any project or projects as defined in section 796 of this title……..” The license for the Yadkin Project expired on March 31, 2008, so the State’s request to take over the project is more than three years overdue.

Basis to continue even though the request was filed out of time
From the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18, Chapter I -- FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/cfr.php?title=18&type=chapter&value=1) we get § 385.214 Intervention (Rule 214), (d) Grant of late intervention. “(1) In acting on any motion to intervene filed after the period prescribed under Rule 210, the decisional authority may consider whether:……” So, yes, the FERC says it is possible to file out of time and still proceed with an intervention.

Cost to take the Project
This gets murky. Proponents of the takeover say $25 million. APGI says $500 million. Big difference!

From § 807 (a) Compensation; condemnation by Federal or State Government:
“…upon the condition that before taking possession it shall pay the net investment of the licensee in the project or projects taken, not to exceed the fair value of the property taken,…” and “The net investment of the licensee in the project or projects so taken and the amount of such severance damages, if any, shall be determined by the Commission after notice and opportunity for hearing.”

Evidently, APGI estimated net investment at $25 million in its 2006 relicensing application to the FERC. APGI now says the net investment is $80 million and that FERC would award significant severance damages. APGI also talks about $240 million for required “upgrades.” It appears that – but I have not confirmed – the $240 million is estimated maintenance and upgrade costs over the 50 year license timeframe. But the $240 million does include the immediate cost to install aerators to restore the dissolved oxygen levels below the dams required for the water quality certification. It also appears that the $240 million is part of the $500 million thrown out by APGI but, again, I have not been able to confirm that.

[Clarification update from APGI – 4/14/09: The $80 million figure is the estimated investment as of 2005 and the $25 million figure is the $80 million amount reduced by depreciation. (I would expect APGI has both more investment and more depreciation over the last four years.) The $240 million is for capital expenditures for modernization expected over the next seven years, not 50 years. The $500 million amount is an estimate by APGI of fair market value for the Project.]


So there you have it. Somewhere between $25 and $250 million. It all depends on what the FERC would accept and award (if it gets that far).

Does the State have a case?
It’s interesting that section 807 of the Federal Power Act makes no mention of justification for government to take a project. But the following section (808 – New licenses and renewals) states “Any new license issued under this section shall be issued to the applicant having the final proposal which the Commission determines is best adapted to serve the public interest…” The State is claiming that they would serve the public interest better than APGI. Section 808 also lists several other criteria, not the least of which is “The plans of the applicant to manage, operate, and maintain the project safely.” The current state of the State’s plan is a bill introduced in the Senate. I don’t think the FERC would call that a plan.

The State’s sole justification for taking the Project is that the previous license to Alcoa was supported because the power was to be used to create local jobs (smelting aluminum at Badin), but that is no longer the case with this license. The power generated by APGI will be sold on the open grid and so may be sold anywhere, not just to support local industry. Acknowledging that the Federal Government has never exercised its right to take over a project, a footnote on page 4 in the state petition to FERC for intervention says:

“Nevertheless, this case is unique. The licensee is not regulated by the State as a public utility. Nor is the State aware of any other instance in the State where a licensee has secured a license, with the State’s active support, expressly to support the local community, and then abandoned the activity that brought about that benefit.”

But there is no mention in the State’s filing with the FERC about what it would do with the power generated (to create local jobs). And the Senate bill to create the trust to operate the Project for the State explicitly states that one of the powers and duties of the trust is “To manufacture, produce, and generate hydroelectric power using the waters of the Yadkin River, and to sell the hydroelectric power to utilities within and without the State of North Carolina.” So the State would be doing nothing different to create local jobs than APGI is doing. The only difference is that the profit of the hydropower generation would go to the state instead of the private (publicly owned) company that developed the Project. That appears to be the only way the State would serve the public interest better than APGI.

So the State may have a case before the FERC for taking the Project without cause. It all depends on how the FERC would rule on a government takeover where there is no clear rationale other than the State wanting the profits from the generation.

Any chance since the request was filed out of time?
No way.
Although the FERC has procedures to permit filing an intervention out of time, such a motion must “show good cause why the time limitation should be waived” and several other criteria. The State’s reason for being late is stated in the filing: “The State recognizes that this motion is out of time; however, the opportunity to intervene through the normal channels predated the election of the current gubernatorial administration.” In other words it was filed (three years) late because the old governor didn’t do it.

Alcoa shut down the Badin Works in August of 2002. That’s the reason the State says they are opposing APGI getting the new license. The State had three and a half years, until March of 2006, to submit a timely filing for takeover. But now, three years after a timely filing was due: “NOW COMES the State of North Carolina, by and through Governor Beverly Eaves Perdue (the “State”), and moves: (i) to intervene out of time………” Sorry, I don’t think that will fly with the FERC.

What does this mean to the residents, owners and users of Badin Lake?
All this may further delay the FERC issuing a license to APGI. It was already delayed a year because of a procedural issue by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) in issuing the water quality certificate. That issue is now resolved and, technically, the NCDWQ could issue the water quality certificate, and it must issue it or say why not by May. Now the Governor wants to intervene and so it puts NCDWQ in an awkward position since it is the only thing holding up the FERC ruling on issuing the APGI license.

The new APGI license has many benefits to the people of North Carolina in general and to the residents, owners, and users of Badin Lake. APGI included a list of them in a flyer in the new pier permits that it just mailed out. We have only one problem with the APGI license, and that is with the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) specification that requires Badin Lake to be lowered to five feet below full before the downstream flow of the river below Falls dam is reduced to begin conserving water in times of drought. As I have said before, I believe we have a good chance to get that modified after the license is issued.

…………………………Garry

Thursday, April 2, 2009

NC Intervention Filing with FERC

The State of North Carolina officially petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to intervene out of time and to hold an emergency hearing on the state’s request.

What does this mean? Well, I guess the request to “intervene” means to stop FERC from issuing the license and to take over the Yadkin Project from Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI). The term “out of time” means that it is past (about two years past) the time when Federal Power Act says they can intervene.

Following is an excerpt from the state’s filing with FERC (with reference citings removed):

The Act [the Federal Power Act] allows the United States to take over any project “upon or after the expiration of any license” and following proper compensation. In order to effectuate this remedy, the Commission must first recommend takeover to Congress, which then considers and determines the matter. In the meantime, “the Commission shall not issue a new license to the original licensee . . . .”

The State recognizes that the United States has not previously exercised this authority with regard to any project. But never has so compelling an economic case been presented. On broad economic questions, the project now provides only the most minimal public benefits, e.g., payment of taxes, provision of power (albeit for private use and not for the public convenience). This contrasts markedly with the express purpose for the initial investment in the project, which was to maintain and enhance the local Badin Works. The licensee has long since recovered its initial investment. Going forward, a new license would allow the licensee to retain the use of an extraordinarily valuable public resource primarily for its own financial gain. This natural resource should be returned to public control for disposition, as the Federal Power Act demands, consistent with the public interest.

The State understands that the federal government may not be in a position to manage the project. And indeed, “no federal agency has expressed an interest in operating the Project.” But the inquiry should not end there. The State or an appropriate agent or contractor on its behalf would be fully qualified to operate the project in order to provide benefits to the local community and preserve and protect the public trust resources of the State.


So the argument is that smelting aluminum (and providing jobs and taxes to Stanley County) is OK but selling the power on the open market is not in the interests of the State of North Carolina. It also looks like it would take an act of Congress to effect the change.

I am continuing to discuss this with those who are for and those who are against the state action. I will update you with my findings next week.

………………………..Garry

Saturday, March 28, 2009

State of NC Wants to Take Over the Yadkin Project

Senator Fletcher Hartsell of Cabarrus County introduced a bill on Wednesday to create a State Trust that would allow the State of North Carolina to seize the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. (See the bill at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=s967 )

Why? I and many others don’t understand why.

I believe that Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI) has been a good steward of the River and the Lakes. Yes, we have had issues with them in the past over the Shoreline Management Plan and most recently with the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) specification, but they didn’t come up with these alone. They developed them with the help of the N.C. Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission among many others. And I believe we have a good shot at revising the LIP working with APGI and others that form the Yadkin-Pee Dee Drought Management Advisory Group (YPD-DMAG) based on the initial experience of operating with it during the summer of 2008.

If the state takes over the Yadkin Project, will they then proceed to take over other hydropower projects in the state such as those operated by Progress Energy on the Pee Dee River, and the hydropower project operated by Duke Power on the Catawba River? Now, I am not an advocate of unrestrained free enterprise because history has shown that large corporations will take advantage of their market power to set prices and restrain competition unless they are regulated. But the hydropower generation business is highly regulated. Witness the long and very expensive process that APGI has just gone through to relicense the Yadkin Project. And APGI can’t control the price they get for selling power. That is negotiated with the power distribution company they sell the power to – for example Progress Energy or Duke Power.

As for the PCB and mercury contamination issues, the levels found in the APGI managed lakes is no different from most other lakes in North Carolina and not likely caused by Alcoa in the first place. Alcoa does admit that they have contamination issues around the old Badin Works plant where they smelted aluminum until 2002, but they are working to clean up those sites and, in any event, that issue should not be tied to the operation of the hydropower business.

What do you think?
Are there those of you around the Lake who believe that the State has a case for taking over the Yadkin Project and would do a better job of managing it? Post your comments here or email me at kenney@BadinLakeAssociation.com.

………………………….Garry

Thursday, March 19, 2009

High Rock Lake Association Letter

Some of you may have received a letter yesterday (March 18) from the High Rock Lake Association (HRLA) soliciting your membership by paying your dues for 2009. The letter talks about all the benefits you would receive by being a part of the HRLA, including the work they have done and continue to do in supporting the Alcoa relicensing of the Yadkin Project.

In the letter, there is a disturbing statement made about “many people at Badin Lake,” and I want to make you all aware of it and to respond to it. The entire subject paragraph follows so those who did not receive the letter can see it in context:

“The Association is continuing its work on the Alcoa relicensing project, which has been delayed by Stanly County and some politicians in Raleigh. The new License is also being opposed by many people at Badin Lake; they think High Rock should always be used to keep Badin Lake full and they don’t like the license terms the HRLA fought for, which provide for equal drawdowns of both lakes in times of drought. Your membership in the High Rock Lake Association will help us convince FERC and the State of North Carolina that High Rock Lake deserves the benefits the new License will provide.”

Now, I agree that many people at Badin Lake are opposed to the new license under its current terms because it requires Badin Lake to be lowered to five feet below full before stage 0 of the Low Inflow Protocol is triggered and the downstream flow of the river below Falls dam is reduced in times of drought. But I am not aware of anybody who is saying that Badin Lake should be kept full at the expense of High Rock Lake in times of drought. I am attempting to get up with Larry Jones, the president of HRLA, to understand why he felt it necessary to make the inflammatory statement.

All of the lakes in the Yadkin-Pee Dee watershed should contribute their fair share to maintaining the reduced river flow to South Carolina during a drought, including Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake. And all of the lakes should be drawn down equally so as to minimize the impact on any one lake.

By the way, if I am wrong and some of you do want Badin Lake to be kept full at the expense of High Rock Lake, I want to hear from you. Post a comment here or email me at kenney@BadinLakeAssociation.com.

…………………………………Garry

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

APGI Summary of the March DMT Meeting

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc (APGI) just posted their summary of the March 5 DMT at http://www.alcoa.com/yadkin/en/environment/drought_plan.asp. I put my summary of the DMT meeting on the Blog here (see entry dated March 5), but they have a more complete listing of the people and their comments in their summary.

Another link of interest on the APGI website is the Lake Levels page at http://www.alcoa.com/yadkin/en/lakes/reservoir_data.asp. The lake levels are automatically updated every hour and you can link to graphs showing current and historical lake levels. APGI is not very good at keeping other information on the website up to date.

.............................Garry

Thursday, March 5, 2009

DMT Meeting Held March 5, 2009

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI) hosted a meeting (conference call) of the Drought Management Team (DMT) on Thursday, March 5. This meeting was called because more than 10% of the Yadkin-Pee Dee watershed was in drought classification D1 (moderate drought). There were 25 participants on the call. I participated representing the Badin Lake Association.

It’s ironic that the call was held after the significant rain and snow event that occurred on Sunday. The lakes are full and APGI is generating at full capacity to try to keep from spilling too much water. Spilling water is the term they use when water goes over the spillway (or through the flood gates) and can’t be used for generating power. As you can imagine, they want to manage the lake levels to prevent or at least minimize spilling water.

After a roll call to identify all participants, Marshall Olson invited Alan Jones of APGI to speak first. Alan is evidently responsible for directly managing the water through the lakes and through the turbines. His comments were that he currently had a lot of water, he used up his three feet of capacity in High Rock Lake due to the rain/snow event, and that he needed to work High Rock Lake down to three to four feet below full in order to be prepared for the next rain event. He said that he expected about 3000 cubic feet per second (cfs) through the lakes during March, but a lot of that was front-end loaded. (We are currently at over 5000 cfs but he expects that to drop off quite a bit.)

Marshall then proceeded through the list of attendees asking for any comments. Among the attendees were representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers, NC Dept of Natural Resources, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, High Rock Lake Association, Duke Energy, Badin Lake Association, Uwharrie Point Community Association, NC Division of Water Resources, Progress Energy, SC Dept of Natural Resources, Pee Dee River Association, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Winston-Salem, and Kerr Scott Reservoir. Most participants said that they currently had plenty of water and no problems.

Larry Jones from High Rock Lake Association cautioned that, although we currently have a lot of water, all indications are that we are headed into a repeat of last summer, with drought and low river flow conditions. He said that we shouldn’t be too hasty to lower High Rock down to prepare for a rain event that likely will not come because it would be hard to recover the lake level heading into the recreation season. His argument was that we experience an event like that one this past weekend only once a year, and we already saw it.

Richard Schaefer from Uwharrie Point Community Association said that we need to educate people that, although the lakes are full now, we are still at risk for low water levels this summer. He recommended that we put together a story that relates drought conditions and river flow to lake levels so that people can better understand what is happening when the lake levels drop.

When my turn came to speak, I expressed my belief that we should not allow Badin Lake to drop to five feet below full this year before reducing the downstream flow to begin conserving water. I stated that conserving water earlier in the drought cycle would improve recreation, wildlife and fish habitat. In response to a comment that it makes sense to balance the relative drawdowns of High Rick and Badin lakes, I stated that Badin Lake does not have a problem with contributing its fair share of water to maintain downstream river flows after the downstream flow from Falls Dam is reduced. It is only that that we should begin conserving water before the lake is five feet down. I also stated that beginning to conserve water earlier in the drought cycle would provide additional capacity for maintaining the downstream river flows later in an extended drought. One other point I made is that the capacity of Badin Lake is not needed to contain a significant rain event because it is two dams down from High Rock, 95% of the Yadkin River Basin drains to High Rock Lake, and APGI would need to spill water over High Rock and Tuckertown dams before Badin could be used to hold back excess river flow.

The meeting was adjourned with the intent to draw up a press release documenting the meeting and providing some education as requested by Richard Schaefer.

By the way, an interesting comment that Marshall Olson made at the beginning of the meeting is that we would continue to hold the DMT meetings until the new license was approved. The implication is that, with the new license with the included Low Inflow Protocol, we would not need the meetings because the operation of the lakes during a drought is completely specified there.

………………………..Garry

Saturday, February 28, 2009

The Low Inflow Protocol

The Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) specifies how the lake levels and the river flows are to be managed during a drought in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The LIP is important to Badin Lake. It is important because that is why our lake was drained down to five feet below full pond during June of 2008. The lake was lowered another foot and a half during July and August before we received the significant rain from tropical depression Faye on August 27.

Don’t get me wrong. The LIP is not all bad. In fact, it is a good thing. It’s just that it needs some fixing.

The LIP was developed in response to the severe drought that culminated in the summer of 2002. During that drought, the Badin Lake water level stayed up to no more than three feet below full pond until the beginning of July 2002 before it began to drop rather quickly. The reason it stayed up is because Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI) dropped the High Rock Lake level to satisfy the downstream flow requirements of their existing license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). High Rock was already down 18 feet before Badin Lake went below three feet down. High Rock Lake subsequently went down to about 24 feet below full and Badin Lake went down to about 12 feet below full before we began receiving significant rain in September.

The LIP is specified as part of the Relicensing Settlement Agreement (RSA) submitted by APGI to FERC to obtain a 50-year license to continue to operate the Yadkin River dams – the Yadkin Project. The RSA has not yet been approved by FERC so, technically, the LIP is not yet in effect.

But APGI operated the lakes according to the LIP during the summer of 2008. Instead of keeping Badin Lake within three feet of full and draining High Rock Lake down to satisfy the downstream river flows (as they did in years past during a drought), APGI kept the High Rock and Badin drawdowns within one foot of each other (specified in the LIP), and they lowered High Rock down to four feet below full and Badin to five feet below full before triggering stage 0 of the LIP to reduce the downstream river flow below Falls dam and begin conserving water. Yes, I said that right. Instead of keeping Badin Lake within three feet of full while they lowered High Rock, the LIP specifies that Badin Lake must be lowered more than High Rock. All this before the LIP is triggered to begin conserving water. In fact, while the inflow into High Rock Lake (as measured at the USGS stream gage at Yadkin College) averaged 722 cubic feet per second (cfs) during June 2008, APGI was releasing an average of 1400 cfs downstream from Falls dam. And you wondered why Lake Tillery stayed full while we suffered.

Now, APGI says that we are better off than before! They say that the old license had Badin Lake going down to 6.6 feet below full and the change to five feet down is an improvement. Well, it may have said something about 6.6 feet down somewhere in the old license, but we never saw it in reality. We did see five feet down last summer! In fact, APGI has previously stated that Badin Lake would be maintained between zero and two feet below full pond, and only in rare conditions allow it to drop as low as three feet. The statement of this policy was posted on APGI, Yadkin Division website at http://www.alcoa.com/yadkin/en/lakes/narrows.asp until sometime in 2007 when it was removed without notification or reason.

What can we do about the LIP? There are two changes that I see should be made to the LIP based on the operating experience of 2008, and both have to do with reducing the downstream flow rate earlier in the drought in order to begin conserving water in the APGI lakes. One is to invoke stage 0 of the LIP based only on the drought status and the inflow rate of the Yadkin River and not make it dependent on the lake levels of High Rock or Badin Lake. The other change is to allow Badin Lake to drop no more than three feet down, independent of other conditions, before triggering stage 0 of the LIP. These changes should be good for recreation, for the fish, for the wildlife, and for the downstream water users in South Carolina. Yes, the changes afford APGI a little less flexibility in when they can generate power in a drought. But the same amount of water will still flow through their turbines.

But to modify the LIP we need to get the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Drought Management Advisory Group (YPD-DMAG) together to work out and agree on any changes. The LIP specifies that the YPD-DMAG be convened by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) at least once every five (5) years to review and, if necessary, update the LIP. It also specifies that, regardless of the Low Inflow Condition, coordination will include a meeting convened annually by NCDWR during April to discuss issues relevant to the LIP.

So is NCDWR going to hold the April meeting where we can discuss changes to the LIP? Answer – No! NCDWR says that the RSA is not approved and the LIP is part of the RSA so, although they are ready to assume the role of calling together a meeting they can’t do that until the RSA is approved by FERC.

So, since the RSA is APGI’s document (that they submitted to FERC), can’t APGI call together the YPD-DMAG to modify the LIP and submit the modified RSA to FERC? Yeah, right! They already have everyone signed off on the LIP and are not about to reopen it now. They have only the water quality certification to get from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and they are good to go with the license approval.

So…………? If we play by the book, it looks like we have to wait for the license approval before we can expect any renegotiation of the LIP. That is unless FERC pays attention to all the cards and letters asking them to withhold approval of the license until the LIP is changed because the people of Badin Lake were not adequately represented in formulating the initial version of the LIP. Maybe FERC will tell APGI that they must call together the YPD-DMAG, reconsider the LIP and submit a revised RSA before they will approve. What do you think?

You can download the entire RSA (5 megabyte pdf file) and the LIP contained within it from the Alcoa website at Relicensing Settlement Agreement (RSA).

……………………………Garry

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

A New Beginning

Hello to all of the Badin Lake Association.

I am Garry Kenney and I will now be representing you on the Drought Management Team (DMT) and the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Drought Management Advisory Group (YPD-DMAG). Harry Saunders, as president of the Badin Lake Association, held these roles previously. But since Harry is out of town almost constantly during the week, I asked to represent the Badin Lake Association on these groups and Harry has agreed to this request.

I will do my best to represent your views and concerns to Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI). I started this blog to keep you informed about what and why things are happening on the Lake and to allow you to feed back your thoughts, comments and questions. I will, in turn, get answers from APGI and post them back here.

So what are these groups -- the DMT and the YPD-DMAG?

The DMT is a tactical group set up to help manage the lake levels and river flow during drought in the Yadkin river basin. As a result of the drought of 2002, a Drought Contingency Plan was formed to ensure that all stakeholders in the Yadkin Project are working together to manage drought conditions. The DMT talks at least quarterly, and more often if drought conditions begin to occur.

The YPD-DMAG is a strategic group set up to define and maintain the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) for Yadkin-Pee Dee river basin. This describes how the river flows and lake levels should be managed during a drought. In most cases, the DMT meeting is just a notification to all interested parties when the different stages of the LIP are triggered.

Formally, the YPD-DMAG consists of one representative from each of the following organizations (to the extent that they are willing to participate): Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI), Progress Energy (PE), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), High Rock Lake Association (HRLA), Badin Lake Association (BLA), Duke Power Company, Lake Tillery Homeowners Association, South Carolina Pee Dee River Coalition (SCPDRC) and owners of intakes that withdraw more than one million gallons of water per day from the impoundments of either the Yadkin Project (P-2197) or the Yadkin-Pee Dee Project (P-2206).

I will be posting additional information on the DMT and the LIP in the near future.

......................Garry