HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 20, 1983 (53)STAFF. REPORT ITEM NO. ,
June 15, 1983
TO: The NCPA Commission
FROM: Roger A. Fontes
SUBJECT: Haas -Kings Project - Additional Budget and Project Information
At the May 20, 1983 NCPA Commission meeting,, staff presented information on
the project, a final- Second Phase Agreement, and recommendations regarding
the budget and a special assessment to cover project expense increases (see
Staff Report No. 180:3 - Item No. 4 on that Agenda). The Commission continued.
the matter to the June 23, 1983 meeting, and requested staff to develop
additional back-up information.
Enclosed for your review are the final Second Phase Agreement (changed
slightly in Secion IA to clarify proper pay -back agreements, and Section 5,
allowing participating City Councils to approve the agreement- prior to.the
July 28, 1983 NCPA Commission meeting), and a "cost of power" calculation
done-:by,R. Wi, Beck for the project (both for the existi.ng.,and proposed.newly.
constructed powerhouses). A very detailed (seventy pages) project" descri.p-
tion, and project ,operation and resource :utilization report has been
forwarded:- to Haas -Kings' Project Participants under. seperate cover: to
individual- NCPA Utility Directors. In a change from the announcement made -at
the May 20 meeting, the City of Roseville ,has decided :Ato keep its
participation share in Haas -Kings at the current 40.74 percent level.
With regard to the following budget and scheduling information, NCPA (and the
other project participants, SMUD, and Southern Cities), -are basing `;the
preliminary- budgets for Fiscal Year 1984 (July 1, 1983 to June 30, 1984),
with the"understanding that the Bountiful decision by the U. S. Supreme Court
may require substantial revisions in the ,assumptions- being: made ':(and
consequently, in both schedule ,and budgets). In order .to proceed, we have
assumed a schedule of likely events. Based on that schedule, the project's
consultants then outlined tasks and then assigned those to appropriate
attorneys or the engineers/consultants.
Prosed Schedule for Haas -Kings River Project (Project No. 6729) ,
This project license does not expire until 1985, so it will probably be put
on a- more extended FERC Hearing schedule. In addition, the considerable
project modifications proposed by PG&E and by SHUD-Cal Cities to create _
8dAltional diversion-: dams, will probably lead to additional environmental
review. ,(Please note that the SMUD-Ca) Cities license application has yet to
be "noticed" by FERC). If a reasonable scenario takes place,.we-assume Notice
of acceptance of the license application in paid -1983, which could place the
Haas -Kings River project toward the end of 1984 before a decision on a
hearing is reached.
SR: 199:3
A
. Page Two
Based on the above, it, is anticipated that the Naas -Kings River, activities
during Fiscal Year 1984, will include principally the completion of environ-
mental process; updating and supplemental application work; monitoring of
relevant hydro relicensing activities at FERC and in the courts; and
lobbying/PR tasks.
Proposed Activities
Generally speaking, the proposed budget is divided into legal servicese
consulting services (R. M. Beck, with subcontracts in the environmental
areas, and =lobbying/PR; consultants, e.g., L. Noftinger), and .expenses.
Principal activities for the budgeted period are as follows:
A. Legal Services
This will. cover services b Arnold 3 Porter Spiegel 6 McDiamid and
possibly the Robert Strauss by
(Akin, Gump, etc.)The activities to be
covered include:
Particiation in EIS studies.
Pre !ration of MOA enc contracts and coordination with con
P Agency
su1 tants.
Amicus*pirticiation in courts/FERC relating to Bountiful proceedings. Y.
Amicus participation in-Merwin proceedings.
Lobbying activities.
Approximate Budget for Legal Services
Arnold 3 Porter
Legal -Services S289000=
Expenses- 3,000
Spiegel a McDiaroid %
Legal Services 52511000
Expenses 26500
Akin, Gump (Estimate) $10,000
B. Consulting Services
` If efforts will be required by SMO, NCPA, and California Cities to
conduct requisite environmental studies and provide requested supplemen-
tal information: '
SR199:3
i
• �1
Page Three
1. R. W. Beck Technical. Studies
C
Feasibility Report $25,0001
Power.Utilization 15,000T� 2/
Transmission 15,004- 4 —
Mapping 209000
Power Plant Inspection 4,000
Total -179,000
2. R. W. Beck Environmental Studies
The field studies - recommended to be performed are consistent with the,
March 211 1983 revised FERC Exhibit E. Initiation of these studies may '
be limited by the ability to obtbin Forest Service permits in -a timely
manner.
Resolution B Implementation of MOA $ 109000
Initiate Water Quality Studies 201,000;._
Initiate IFIM Studies 301,000
k
Initiate Fish Study 15,000
Traffic b Recreation Wildlife
Conflict Study 209000
' Supplemental Information 40,go. =`
k
Total .a
3. Washington D. C. Public Information Consultant - $101000
Project Participants wishing additional information can contact the
NCPA office.
= E
Incremental cost, to be added to estimate 'for Feather."River (Rock.
Creek -Cresta) project.
2/�..
Technical evaluation of existing studies, as available, to determine the
availability of transmission capacity to deliver the hydroelectric power
to HCPA, SMW, and the five -city area of southern California. ;
SR1993
s
P
Page Four
Recommendation _..
It is recommended that the NCPA Commission approve Resolution No. 83-43,
which approves the form of the Second Phase Agreement and authorizes the NCPA
General Manager to transport the agreement to Participating`Members for their
execution by July 28, 1983.
It is further recommended that the NCPA Commission approve a voluntary
special 'assessment of $120,000 to cover project costs incurred through `June
30, 1982. The assessment will be made according toy the individual city
percentage- participation 'as shown on the attached May, 12, 1983 table. -Unless
otherwise instructed each city's assessment will. reflect.a credit, -prior to
NCPA billing of any:. land all} remaining. Phase 2A funds, as, per attachment.
Respectfully submitted,
ROGER A. PONTES
Manager, System Planning b Engineering
SRA99.3
RESOLUTION NO. 83-43
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY,,.
as follows:
Section 1. The form of "Agreement for Financing of Planning and
Development Activities for Relicensing of the Haas -King River Project"
presented to this meeting is hereby approved.
Section 2. The General Manager is authorized and directed to transmit
such Agreement to the members with a request that they authorize its
execution by resolution on or before June 22 1983.-
Ll
5/25/83 41878C
AGREEMENT
FOR
FINANCING OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
FOR RELICENSING OF THE HAAS -KINGS RIVER PROJECT
This Agreement dated as of September 24, 1982, by and
between Northern California Power Agency, a joint powers agency
of the State of California, hereinafter called "NCPA" and those
of its members who execute this Agreement witnesseth:
WHEREAS, NCPA, Sacramento Utility District, hereinafter
called SMUD, and the Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton,
and Riverside, California, hereinafter called the Southern
Cities, have entered into a Haas -Kings River Licensing
Application Agreement pursuant to which they will undertake to
pursue a joint application with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission'tFERC) for a license for the constructed Haas=King a
River Project No. 1988, hereinafter called the "Project"f and
WHE1tL'AS, NCPA has by its Resolution No. 82-4'4 authorized'
the- filing of such a joint application with' the' FERCf and
WHEREAS, NCPA will be entitled to re6eiveM124.611 of the
power from the Project if the license is granted, and is obliged
to pay 24.61% of the costs associated with said proceeding
before FERC,',which NCPA obligation is now estimated to be
approximately $350,000; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that those NCPA members who retain
a participation percentage, herein called the "Project Members,"
formalize their understanding regarding sharing of the benefits
and burdens assigned to NCPA under the Haas -Kings River Licensing
Application Agreement and associated with their participation in
the FERC proceedings on the Project; and
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
3ection 1. Obligation Formalized -Percentage Particiption
i
Collection and Documentation. Each Project Member hereby agrees
to pay or advance to.NCPA, from its electric department revenues
only• its percentage share of the costs authorized by Project
Members in accordance with this Agreement in connection with its
participation.in the FERC proceedings on the Project before the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Each Project Member
further agrees.that it will fix the rates and charges for
-2-
services provided by its electric
department so that it will at
all times have sufficient money in
its electric department neve-
nue funds to meet this obligation.
The percentage participation
of each NCPA member which has tentatively
determined to be a
Project Member, i8..intially established
as follows:
Alameda
12.43%
Biggs
1.05 -`
:Gridley
2.38
Healdsburg
3.97,
Lodi
12.70 '
Lompoc
5.56
Palo Alto
t,
15.61
Redding
0.00
Roseville
40.74
-2-
E
Santa Clara
Ukiah
Plumas-Sierra R.E.C.
0
0.00
0.00
5,56
100.00%
The above participation percentages shall be revised pro-
portionately if less than all of the above NCPA members become
Project Members, and thereafter if and when any Project Member
withdraws in whole or in part. Any Project Member wholly with-
drawing shall thereupon cease to be a Project Member for all
purposes except for purposes of Section 4.
hereafter, NCPA shall demand from each Project Member its
share of its'agreed to financial commitment on a concurrent
basis. Any -`part of such demand by NCPA which remains unpaid for
sixty days after its billing date shall bear nterest'from such
sixtiet.h'day at the prime rate of the Bank of'America NT&SA then
in effect'computed-'on a daily basis plus two percent until paid*
g j Member's parts-'
Interest so earned shall not chap a any Pro ct ect
cipation percentage,' -and shall become apart of the working
capital fund defined below.
The funds advanced, according to this Section, l .shall::be .,used
to establish a workingca fund if and when a
capital p approved-. by the
Project Members, and in an amount and subject to any limitations
approved by the Project Members.
Section 1A. Notwithstanding the revised participation
percentages established pursuant to Section 1,, expenses incurred
by NCPA.for �.he Project prior to the effective date of this.
-3-
U
0 -
agreement,
agreement, repaid to NCPA members pursuant to Section 4 hereof,
shall be distributed in the following percentages:
Alameda 7.97%
Biggs 0.64
Gridley 1.55
Healdsburg 2.57
Lodi 8.19
Lompoc 3.64
Palo Alto 16.98
Redding 0.00
Roseville 26.15
Santa Clara 28.72
(b) Increase in Purchases. A Project Member, eln,, at
the time of .entering into its Final Power Contract, purchase
-4-
more than -its participation percentage of Project power if add l -
tional power is available by reason of the non -participation in
the Final Power Contract by one or more Project Members. Such
excess power shall be reallocated among those who do participate
in the same proportion as their shares bear to the total shares
of those who do participate. If Project Members.so entitled do
not wish to contract for all the excess power, such remaining
excess shall be disposed of as agreed to by the Project Members.
(c) Exercise and Effect of 'faking Less Than Full
Entitlement. The Project Members shall establish the terms and
provisions of an agreement to purchase power of the Project prior
to the expiration.of this Agreement, to be known as the Final
Power Contract. They shall also establish the date by which the
Final Power Contract must be executed by..Project members.' and .J
delivered to; NCPA if they are to participate, in- the;. purchase of
'power -from the Project. Failure to execute the Final Power
Contract for any of its total participation share and. to, deliver
it°to NCPA by. that date or 30 days.after.member receipt, which -
'ever is later, will -be an irrevocable decision on parte of -that
Project Member= not to purchase any such power,.:.Execution: and
delivery of.the'Final Power Contract for less than its total b
particirntion percentage and delivery of that Project Member
Fez.
executed agreement to NCPA by the date established or -30 -days '
after Project Member's receipt, whichever is later, will likewise
be an irrevocable decision on the part of that Project:; Member
not to purchase any such power in excess of the share,_set-.'forth
-5-
in its delivered agreement.
P&
Supplemental agreements or other
agreements will be entered into"for the excess or surplus power.
The procedure for processing supplemental agreements shall be
consistent with those prescribed immediately above in this sub-
section (c) for making purchases of power. Failure to return an
executed agreement for any additional power within the prescribed
period is an irrevocable decision not to purchase such additional
power. The Project Member making any herein defined irrevocable
decision not to purchase all of its share of power shall be
foreclosed from receiving, and shall be relieved of further
burdens related to, power which it has declined to purchase.
Section 3. Member Direction and Review. NCPA shall comply
with all .lawful directions of the Project-Members'with respect
to this Agreement, while not stayed or 'nullified* to tho fullest.
extent authorized by law. Actions of 'Project Members,''includng
giving above directions to'NCPA, will be taken only 4t meetings
of authorized representatives of Project Members duty ,-called„arid
held pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Ord inarily,'vot i ,.,by
representatives of Project Members will be on'a one'ie'iber/one a;
vote basis, with a majority vote required for'actionf'-however
upon request of a Project Member representative, tbe'voting::on
an issue will be by percentage participation with 65s'or'_more
favorable vote necessary to carry the action.
Any decision related to the Project taken by the favorable
vote of representation of Project Members holding less than 65% e
of percentage participation can be reviewed and revised if.a
-6-
0
0
Project. Memberholding.any participation percentage gives Notice
of Intention to seek such review and revision to each other
Project Member within 48 hours after receiving written notice of
such action. If such Notice of Intention is so given, any action
taken specified in the notice shall be nullified, unless the, NCPA
Commissioners of Project Members holding at least 65% of the
total participation percentage then in effect vote in favor
thereof at a regular or specially called meeting of Project
Members. If the Notice of Intention concerned a failure to act,
such action shall nevertheless be taKen if NCPA Commissioners of
Project Members holding at least 65% of the total Participation
Percentage vote in favor thereof at a regular or specially called
meeting of Project Members.
Section 4. Conditional Repayment to Members. All payments
and advances made heretofore, And those hereafter made pursubnt
to Section 1,.excluding interest paid on delinquent: payments,
shall be.re.paid to each of the entities making such payments and
advances pursuant to this Agreement out of the proceeds of the`..
first issuance of the Project bonds or as and., when there are
sufficient funds available from partial sale of bonds. Such -
reimbursements shall be made within 60 days following the sale
a
of. any. Project bonds and shall include interest computed monthly
at a.rate equivalent to the end of the month prime rate of-tha-
,Sank of America NT&SA. Any interest due under the third para-
graph., of; section 1 of this Agreement and unpaid- shall be deducted'-
from
educl'ted.efrom the. repayment. If NCPA, $MUD, and Southern Cities are no
-7-
07,
successful in obtaining a Project license from FERC, there shall
be no reimbursement except out of unused Project funds including
those then in the Working capital and Contingency Fund account,
along with all other receipts to which NCPA is entitled in
connection with the Project.
Section 5. Term. This Agreement shall take effect on
September 238 1982, but only if executed by NCPA members holding
8..51 of the initial percentage participation on or before July 27#
1983. This Agreement shall not be binding upon Plumas-sierra
Rural Electric Cooperative until approved in writing by the
Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration. This
Agreement shall be superseded by a third phase agreement which
Project Members shall enter any time prior to the issuance of
the FERC license, but in no event later than'120 days after the
receipt of the FERC license, pursuant to Section 2r* except that
section 4 shall remain in effect. Changes in this provision;
except as to Section 4, shall be in accordance with Section''3';`.
hereof.
Section 6. 'Financial Commitments Each 'Project"Membtr ."
agrees to a total financial'commitment for its respective per`
centage participation of a total NCPA participation of's350,0fl0'
in costs, including payments and advances heretofore made, ax
authorized and approved by Project Members.-
from
embers.From time to time as needs arise, representatives of Project
Members may, by a favorable vote as provided in Sectiod'3,
authorize an increase in NCPA's financial commitment which can
-8-
me shown. to support the completion of the Project but only after
30 days' written notice of such proposed increase has been given
to all Project Members.
Section 7. Withdrawal From Further Participation. if at
any time following the execution of this Agreement, there is an
Increase in NCPA's financial commitment, Project Members may
partially withdraw, i.e., from participation in the increase, or
may withdraw wholly from the Project. Such r._thdrawal shall be.
subject to honoring any commitments made by them or on their
behalf pursuant to authorization of this Agreement. To withdraw,
such Project Members shall give NCPA written notice of such
withdrawal, in part or in whole, within thirty (30) days of the
receipt of the notice by them of the increase.
Section 6. Voting Rights and Duration. A Project Member
is participating for purposes of Section 3 percentage voting
until it completelywithdraws., but a aw ,.
partial withdrawal will
result in a reduction in its percentage participation'to..the"
ratio of its payments after such withdrawal to the total amount.
of payments by all Project Members after such withdrawal Whey
Final Power Contracts_ agreements are executed, or revised,
revised participation percentages for voting shall be established' `
by dividing the amount of power agreed to be purchased by each
Project Member by the total amount of power to be purchased by'
all Project Members except that the 65% of percentage partiaiga
tion specified in sections 3 and 9 shall be reduced by the amount --
-9-
U410k,
Cl
that the percentage participation of any Project Member shall
exceed 35%11 but such 651 shall not be reduced below 50%.
Section 9. Quorum Defined. The presence of either a
majori,ty,of the Project Members, or of Project Members then
having a combined participation percentage of at least 651 shall
constitute a quorum for the purpose of action. If no quorum is
present at a regular meeting of such Project Members,, the absent
Project members shall pay $50 each, the money to be paid into the
working capital fund of the Project.
IN WITdESS WHE M P, each Project Member has executed this
Agreement with the approval cf its governing body, and caused
By:
-10-
g�
r.
-CITY OF GRIDLEY
By t
By:
CITY OF HEALDSHURG
By:
By:
CITY OF LODI.
By:
By:
CITY OF LOMPOC
By:
By:
W
Santa Clara
Ukiah
Plumas-Sierra R.E.C.
0.00
0.00
5.56
100.001
The above participation percentages shall be revised pro-
portionately if less than all of the above NCPA members become
Project Members, and thereafter if and when any Project Member
withdraws in whole or in part. Any Project Member wholly with-
drawing shall thereupon cease to be a Project Member for all
purposes except for purposes of Section 4.
_.
Hereafter, NCPA shall demand from each Project Member its
share of its agreed to financial commitment on a concurrent
basis. Any part of such demand by NCPA which remains unpaid fox
sixty days after its billing date shall bear interest from""such
sixtieth day at the prime rate of the Bank of M rica:.NTi81► then
G`
in effect computed on a daily basis plus two_percent until'paid'.
Interest so earned shall not change any Project Member.'ii,
cipation percentage, and shall become a part of the workings
-.
capital fund defined -below.
The funds advanced according to this Section 1 shall be used
to.establish approved b establish a working capital fund if and when a y the: ,
Project Members, and in an amount and subject to any limitations
approved by the Project members.
Section IA. Notwithstanding the revised participation'
percentages established pursuant to Section i, expenses incurred
by NCPA for the Project prior to the effective date of this
-3-
successful in obtaining a Project license from FERC, there shall
be no reimbursement except out of unused Project funds including
those then in the Working capital and Contingency Fund account,
along with all other receipts to which NCPA is entitled in
connection with the Project.
Section 5. Term. This Agreement shall take effect on
September 230 1982, but only it executed by NCPA members holding
851 of the initial percentage participation on or before July 27,
1983. This Agreement shall not be binding upon Plumas-Sierra
Rural Electric Cooperative until approved in writing by the
Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration. This
Agreement shall be superseded by a third phase agreement which
Project Members shall enter any time prior to the issuance.of.
the FERC license, but in no event later than 120 days after.the` ;
receipt.of the FERC license, pursuant 'to Section 2' except that''
Section 4 shall remain in effect. Changes in this provision,
except as to Section 4, shall be in accordance with Section 3
hereof.
Section 6.. Financial Commitments. Each Project Member
agrees to a total financial commitment for its respective per-
centage participation of a total.NCPA participation.o ;3508,000
in costs, including payments and advances heretofore made,"Mas,
authorised and approved by Project Members. `
From time to time as needs arise, representatives of Project.
Members may, by a favorable vote as provided in Section 3,
authorise an increase in NCPA's financial commitment which can
1966
Debt Serviee 1,721
0 It 254
A 99
Insurance 12
Interim 1te►laeem"to 62
Taxes 42
Co1Mt1ngeneies2 269
Total Busbar Costs 2,459
Weeling Barvtees
Rssarves3
Total Project Costs
Project Output4t
Cepscitt (MM)
Energy (C1Rt.)
NilwkYAS
�5zi�ii�/A'i✓9liY�w'�%'��D,�rP l�^lia2i}t n�:.'%.,.. �. !i ..{� w��m,� ...r 6 ..i. irv:..... �k,.•A-..3� ...+}r-.�+ -.r.. .•� ..� .. _. .. ...- ..�..-..-.-.-. .... ,. ..
.. .. .Y .I .. .... ... •.
I
dAAS-KINK RIVER PROJECT
RCPA LNTITL M HO
1987
1988
1969
1990
1991
1992
1995
L994
1893
l�il6
IN7
19.11
1,7,21
5,317
3,817
5,817
5,817
5,813'
5,317
s,e 7
5.817
3,8T7
5,817S�$117
.2.803`
274
311
352
380
411
4 43
479
S 7
SS9
603
652
!(A-
107
121
137
148
160
173
166
201
217
233
2'54
274
13
32
51
55
39
64
$9
73
81
6.7
$6
162
67
84
803
111
120
130
140
1S1
163
1.7
- 1.1
206
43
44
152
155
158
161
165
163
11
173
178
162
303
369
472
522
588
661
717
766
867
961
1:.323
..1 ft
2,527
6,778
7,064
7,188
7.313
7,449
7,573
7,715
7.275
8,053
8,311
8,665
1,483
1,833
2,310
3,091
3,580
4,314
4,863
5,426
6,138
6,997
7,931
9,273 .:116927
1.412
1.447
1.715
2.018
2,097
8.127
_2.432
2..493
2..376
2.644
.2.803`
3..426�!
6S-9
5,354
3,807
10,803
12,193
12,865
13,754
14,744
13,494
16,429
179-56`
it Tev .
21,01.0
24,t31
43
43
43
57
57
57
S7
37
$7
57
57
57
S7
151
151
158
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
1"
35.46
38.46
68.37
74.35
78.45
83.86
89.91
94.48
100.18
106.81
114.57
128.11
149.08
Escalation Ott 8.00
,lased 66.24.612 of total project. Assam project improvements on-line January 1988.
hetimated at 82 of all other costs (excluding debt service and including trsnnission and roo*rv*o).
3Assar 202 installed and 92 spinning reserve requitements.
4Assums 7.92 lasses to delivery points (Al to busbar; 3.92 to distributing laval). Based on overage pear anergy and 8epaniobla capacity.
SDelWarod to City at distribution lovell Assumes all reserve and other roslvireaiants Aire pare*ased from PCaedE..`
0
Tr• - y �., 'i. t' %i .t { ..: i t .•t.1: r �L t 7�.`~• ° ! �1` �• �=?ter•
� -.• J � 1 � l:. t 111 i-fft. :<?3•.,{..�'j
of �; `'�. .;5,�'•' i r .. • [r��� ti Z.1Ai:kt r 1y tir•lrt 11L t .•1 r�` 331-
7y-•�y '�� j� '. � �.Tr �.��,. '.i't y::y �' � 6 ;. ,I R• ':y `'wj .1•.�S L ; `!i-.S•.:tj`•ri4` i. 1 � i+ � � !li
.� t•t, i•. t 7 ,i� �t •••j �' ( {•�� � t• 1 1' '`it -ti �,. �1 'f `� � �t�/tflj r}C�� •� �''Ll�f� rtttl
L 11
J
�'• it f �� i.�.� ` '�.t:�� yl .15;1.yi:1!}yr� r':i� •4Jr.:+ '�•. d .S r,)��y�.�-��
t 1• �.�ii5i
•:
I! I
71
N
_ � y
MOOECEIVE0
IVD N'.Tt 0
l�rti�ern taiifornia Power Agency
. 8421 Auburn Boulevard. Suite 160 Citrus Heights. California 96610 tit IEE 14.;. REEMCHE
CITY CLERK
ROaERT E. GRIMSHAW CITY OF LOD!
General Manager
(916) 722-7814
June 29, 1983
TO: Members of the NCPA Commission
FROM: Robert E. Grimshaw
SUBJECT: Calaveras Project
We have received a letter -from the City of Redding confirming its desire to
withdraw from. the Calaveras Project; a copy of that letter..is.attached You
wiI1 note.that,Redding offers its interest to the other members of NCPA, as
provided for in. the Calaveras Project Member Agreement;
The relevant section of the Agreement appears to be Section 9(c), a copy of
which is attached :,to.,: this letter - for convenient reference.
Please advise NCPA,,prior to the July Commission meeting, whether the membe.r,
you represent desires to increase i.ts allocation in the Calaveras Project'by
virtue;of -an assignment from Redding, and the extent oU the ;additionalparti-
ci pation, des fired.
Yours trily,
RO RIl�
General Manager
Attachments
0
CITY OF REUIIH-1113
CALIFORNIA
June 27, 1983
Robert Grimshaw
Northern California Power AGency'
8421 Auburn Blvd., Suite 160
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
Subject: NCPA Calaveras Project
Dear Bob:..
0
- �8 JC�J
e,c, 7. fl�', Vk/ -
--.-P
This letter will serve to confirm the notification made at
the NCPA meeting of June 23, 1983, regarding Redding' IS
decision to withdraw from the NCPA Calaveras Project.
During the regular City Council meeting of June 20,, 1.9.83,
the Redding City Council voted to withdraw from the.NCPA
Calaveras Project,`and authorized the City staff to„prepare
the necessary documents to provide for that withdrawal:
Pursuant to Council action, Redding hereby offers Its -
interest;
tsinterest in, the. NCPA Calaveras Project to the other members
of NCPA, ae provided for in the Calaveras Project Member'`:
Agreement.
'Please . provide the` appropriate notifications of ., the kava h -
ability.of Redding's interest in the Project, to the other
members "ofNCPA.
Sincerer, .
-'Conm ss over
AP:pd
05-036
cc: All Members of City Council
City tanager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director - Electric Department
760 PARKVIEW AVENUE-REDDIMG CA 96001 - TEL 916-246-1131 `
t
(c) Prior to the date of issuance of Bonds other than
Temporary. Bondsp any Project Participant may, subject to subsection
(b) of this Section 9, transfer, assign, sell or exchange all or a
portion of the Project capacity and energy to which such Project
Particf.pant is entitled in accordance with this subsection (c). Such
capacity and energy may be -offered to other Project Participants.
Each such Project Participant shall be limited in its right to such
capacity and energy as against any other such Project Participant in
proportion to their Project Entitlement Percentages thereof. Any
such transferee, assignee, exchangee or vendee shall be entitled to
Project capacity and energy to the extent the same are so trans-
ferred, assigned, exchanged or sold. The Project Entitlement
Percentage of the Project Participant so transferring, assigning,
exchanging or selling shall be decreased and the obligations of such
Project Participant under this Agreement shall be discharged to the
extent Project capacity and energy is transferred, assigned,
exchanged or sold; provided, however, that such Project Participant
shall remain liable for all obligations of NCPA incurred prior to the
date of such transfer, assigr=ent, exchange or sale to the extent of
its Project Entitlement Percentage unless such obligations are spe-
cifically assumed by the transferree, assignee, exchangee or vendee
of such Project Participant. Any such transaction which would dis-
charge or reduce any Project Participant's obligation pursuant to
this subsection CO shall be subject to the prior approval of NCPA
and in addition, each Significant Transaction shall be subject to the
approval of each Project Participant unless NCPA determines, after
consultation with its consulting engineer, that such approval should
not be required. Appendix A to this Agreement shall be amended as
appropriate to reflect any such transaction pursuant to this subsec-
tion (c) changing any Project -Entitlement Percentage.. whe.re a trans-
f er, assignment, sola, or exchange is made of Project energy or
capacity without decreasing a Project Participant's obligations under
this Agreement, no approval is required under this subsection CO.
W"''
01
CITY OF LODI
CITY tmL m WEST PiNEiTREET
POST OFFICE SOX 320
LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241
(209) 334.5634
July 26, 1983
UC ' AAei.
16&04je
Alive M.
City Clerk
Amts ii
zwo
MELVID that the City Qxmcil of the City of Lodi does
hereby approye the Agreement for Financing of Planning and Development
Activities for Aelioensiinq of the Haas-Kings River Project (Second
Phase Agreement) , a ; copy of which is attached hereto. marked Exhibit
"A" and thereby meds a part hereof.
BE IT FtRnBR HWMVHD that the City Council of the City of
Dodi does hmW at t . i,ze the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
k
subject Agreement on behalf of the City.
Dated: July 20, 1983
ti
I (Hereby certify that Resolution. No. 83-73 wets
paste andadopted by,_, the City Council of the,.
City of Lodi in a regular meeting held July 20,
1983 by.: the: following vote:
Ayers: Cbu ncil I sip Snider and Olson (Mayor)
_
Noes: council lleniberl - Pinioeistrui..
`4 =
)tenant: council Me:ebers , Rem and
. any
City Clerk
~�
x a
1
y
83-73
REP
171.
I t n
Northorn California Powot Agency = X' 23 .,4,g .3..�
8421 Auburn Boulevard. Suite 160 Citrus Heights. California 95610
AUCE I .. i ►� t1►SCr
RGorwal MOBERT ana�gerlMSHAW CCITY
CLERK
Ki
.�,
(916) 722-7815
June 27, 1983
TO: Members of the NCPA Commission
FROM: Gail Sipple
SUBJECT: Naas -Kings River Project - Second Phase Agreement
In follow up to the Commission meeting held on June 23, 1983, attached is
a copy of the "Agreement for Financing of Planning and Development Activities
for Relicensing of the Haas -Kings River Project" Second Phase Agreement),
to be presented to your governing body for approval.
P1 -ease note that Resolution No. 83-43 (attached) requests that the agreement
be approved by resolution on or before July 27, 1983.
Upon approval, please send me an executed copy of the resolution and
agreement.
By copy of this letter I am also forwarding these documents to your City
Clerk for processing.
Yours truly,
GAIN'PPt€
fti°ve Assistant
Attachments
4
RESOLUTION NO. 83-43
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE C."ISSION OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY,
as follows:
Section 1. The form of "Agreement for Financing of Planning and
Development Activities for Relicensing of the Haas -King -River Project"
presented to this meeting is hereby approved.
Section 2. The General Manager is authorized and directed to transmit
such Agreement to the members with a request that they authorize its
execution by resolution on or before July 27, 1983.
Vote Abstained Absent
City of - Alameda
Biggs
Gridley
Healdsburg
Lodi
Lompoc. !L
Palo Alto
Redding .__.
Rosevfille
Santa Clara ZC T
Ukiah X
Plumas-Sierra
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of t-�.�e.^____, 19830
E
IU AS -KINGS PROJECT INFORMATION
COUNCIL PRESENTATION
JULY 12, 1983
}
k-
A
HAAS -KINGS RNF.It POWER PI AYi. PROJF.Cf
(Rol i rensi r,2/7mp _ovm;reut:s)
DKSCKIPTIOy: The Hans -Kings River Project is one u.` 6i ee hydro%lectric
projects currently licensed to PG&E on the North Fork Kings River. It
includes the Courtright and Wi::hon Reservoirs, which also serve PG&E's Helms
and Balch Projects.. The Helms Project, which is currently under construction,
will cycle water between Courtright and Wishon Reservoirs. Water is released
from the Wishon Reservoir through the tiaas powerhouse to the Balch powerhouses
and finally through the Kings River powerhouse. The license applicants (S=,
NCI'A, Southern Cities) propose to con::truct new diversions into Wishon Reservoir
and the Ilaas tunnel and to acid additional generating capacity to the existing
Maas development. In addition, they* propose to enter into coordination agree-
ments with the current licensee (PGbf's) and other electric utilities to ensure
the maximum utilization of the water resources of the North fork Kinga River..
PROPOSED IMPROVDIENMS: The applicant:: propose to line the existing Ilaas tunnel
with concrete and construct n new surface penstock and powerhouse annex.] This
combination of improvements, coupled with three additional diversions (Rancheria,
Long Meadow and Teakettle Creek), will allow the production of an additional
60 MW of. capacity and 52 CWH-7 of energy at the Ilaas development.
Runoff from the Rancherin drainage basics presently flows into the North Fork
Kings River at a point downstream of Wishon Reservoir. The applicants propose
to construct two diversion dams, a connecting pipe, a vertical drop shaft, and
approximately 3.0 miles of tunnel, to permit diversion of flows to Wishon
Reservoir for regulation and generation at the Baas development.
Construction of.diversion darns, connecting pipes, and vertical drop shafts are
proposed to divert the flows of Long Meadow and Teakettle Creeks into the Naas
tunnel. These -diversions will take advantage of flows that would otherwise
not be used for regulation and generation at the Haas development-.
PROJECT UTILIZATION The proposed improvements will he designed for unattended
automatic operation, and the entire Project will be remotely controlled from a
central dispatch office. The applicants propose to coordinate the operation of
the Project with the operation of the Helms and Balch Projects as a coordinated
river system in order to maximize the production of capacity and energy.
Assuming the timely completion of the Calaveras hydroelectric Project, Lodi
would essentially use only the peaking capacity of Haas-Kings3 in the early
years. Host of its share -of Project energy would be marketed to other utilities
as 'non-firm', during this period.
1
including adjacent y
udS ad nt h' n ac switchyard and transmission
line to existing Maas powerhouse switchyard.
2 Million. KWII.
3 City's share is currently 7.5 Mld.
Wrl'.SHINGTO COLIMEN7 �D �►.' �� ��i's'DF�
W nIFt;1
FERC's change of heart
The Federal Encr 1' Regulztor) Comm issiones dr; Inane \,.'aiming on its
bydroclectrie licensing policy has cheered investor-o••-n%:d u:ilitic%,
caused public -power outrzge, and surprised ccer that la.%-ycrs who
0-."ar,161 +.h.r ?gad sten e•. -)thing in %%'eshi; -.:on. Th: f::rts, in bri_f-
N In 1984, under the Carter Adminietration, FERC ruled that
public -power cntitics have preferential rights not only to new h)dro
projects, but also to existing projects when they come up for rcliccnsing.
In thus interpreting the Fcdc.al Powcr Act, FERC sought to periit the
city of Bountiful. Utah, to take a h:dro dim from Utah Power
Lieut.
M In 1951, under the Reagan A'ministration, a "new" FERC--
hcadcd by Reagan ap;x)intee C.M. Ruticr IIl—stuck by the Carter
FERC. The rcliccnsing case wag b) that time bcforv. a U.S. Appeals
Court, and the new FERC filed a brief rcafirming that, where
competing application: have equal merit, the "tie-breaker" favors public
Bower.
X In Scptcinber 1952, ' the app cols court upheld FERC. While
agreeing with FERC that the Fedc.al P"-er Act was fuzzy on the
relicensing question, the court gate "great deference" to FERC's
interpretation favoring public powcr: -We have reviewed the commis-
sion's interpretation ... and deem such construction consistent with the
statute s'language. structure, scheme, and available Icgislative history."
a Last February, 37 investor-owned utilities appealed to the US.
Supreme Court. The)- noted the cosmic sweep of the appeals court's
decision: it could force private utilities eventually to turn over 490 major
hydro projects to public-pawcr entities; the replacement cost of those
plants would be some 521 -billion.
0 In April. at it closed -door meeting. Chairman Butler convinced
FERC that it should reconsider the rcliccnsing issue. The commission
next asked the Justice Dept to petition the Supreme Court to accept the
case. to vacate .the ap- eals court decision, and to remand the cast to the
appeals court with instructions to remand it to FERC.
■ In I&y. giving FERC most of what it wanted, the Justice Dept
asked the Supreme Court to remand the case to the appeals court* but.
stopped short of asking that it be remanded all the way back to FERC.
"A majority of the commmsioners appear to be ready to overrule** the
commission's own original decision in the case. said Justic-.
The i..-nmensity of the stakes in the case is matched by the confusion
and controversy over the commission's reversal.
As the Justice Dept acl:noxledced. in its petition to the Supreme
Court, FERC's apparent desire to reverse itself creates an "especially
delicate" situation, b.cause the ap, ctrl- court gave "great deference'"to r
FERC in the court's 1952 decision. Assuming that the Supreme Court
docs send the case back, should the appeals court now give "great
deference" to w}iate-er new argument FERC makes to reverse—or at
least modify—its earlier ruling?
It's not unusual for a federal agency to change its mind. This is, after
all, a case of great importance. hingirig on ambiguous language in a
statute that's nearly 50 years old. It is unusual, though. to try to retrieve
such a case from the doorstep of the Supreme Court.
By Mel Ray, Washington correspondent
*On July 5. the Supreme Court refused. (DKC)
Ft2JC nne tri �f
( movol tlIIN# /N# 4.1.11 to$ P.IA%Iptl Y•.IQN•
�tttte4!!n• i C•! ru r
rtt• se'
• :WAOtrCTIC
NCNTN
T1OL
tw.trlp\I
NII• 4v1tw.f
i
1
1
IEItnNg4t n•.••.•1.
l,
l
i
0.1 1/
/
rp4 A•!•I t#1.
10,14#4 i -
- 1 � p#e•t•# t••# R�4f ot��. v
v•t" ps.tit •w rJ 1
� rr•p•t•a hrAun• :.l I `�t •
TIES t• % 1`I�C�\\\ TttS °�/1�� l•il �prene.•� A.+en•.y tlN�r.q•
tttRAA MAT10NAt, renCi4OF TrH.aN £.Ir• r
/ 9A'tCN ! OwCnNOtJ3[ t I \•
"` t �Q..t4 INtw.pr#Niq i06
If%J�
6 - sAttlr TyNMtI 1 0•
wts#w•ata• R2tfC R 0[ eHt4•pt#1#ell• i
0 s 1* � .rr � •�tl J tuts Ip..a•1rt1
5 � Rly p••wp4 6�1]{�/I t/%),I C•10 •."l_. �•A, 's. 81944 *##(AnMvrHN
041. ►1.1 nt-t•.•w
u set 111911v/ / n1Y••
<Y 1.1w•wrtMMIM
VATIC
/ q A,
►CRC St -
/
T7CwY ......
M . •NMW M•.M � - Nlff /.Iwtwut t.• uw NM � •N •M ..«r.M
# �JA
d t•nttl#tl»
d r O•ii .� t#u• .t rtty t.Iwtw NIN4 Uw• MAAt•t NrOl kinin
� - . � ''��i (NM•p\•Ne/) .. tYYt t•. tw,'•� e.�t't3t�k -
f� T139 •jr-- ttt 13etr ' • EXIYDIT �l T iaa'
•tt /�� lIM•.wN•Nw nwA . tl•N•q 6t Ne Itiv, MAI,
Jt r � t!r•w.►Nt•etl .«i.. a . # fns�{ �e
Ft �4f �\ � 1 Neth r�� •. •. .�.�...rw t�
Irl" V �lttp• •Y11ttttM O L r '4t 'a y 1`
lY-tt#ttll Gw• ! i.��S•5}gni Y,f h� t
r
KEY MAP
� �(x
1 i
x
X
V h
kc-: 'EPV01f? 2
-o Fork
.:x
r h,n9s River
i c, `k
HELMS PUMPED 1
STORAGE PO`:JERPL.ANT,i
^ 1'/ISS=9NT , X
ro
Proposed
Propused Long Meadow �Roncherio
end Teekett?e Diversions 1 Tunnel
(tiro, shafts)
Proposed Hogs Power
Tunnel (to be tined
he rt
Surge tank S�
�.
(to be exQn,'aded) 4 RoncherioG
Diversion IN -
New WO HAAS POWERHOUSE '
u penstock
c
POWERHOUSE
p `. ,�•�-� Proposed t
/----- et powerhouse
KINGS RIVER Northo 60 mw* 3 11
PO► ERHOUSE '� K,n9S 6' `
LEGEND
i
PROPOSED
EXISTING IMPROVEMENT ' PROJECT MAP
Tunnel / Penstock --- =T--••-
1
Powernloni .r p
0
700
Q
Ln
D
`-
500
tp
w
w 300
m
HAAS — KINGS RIVE PPOJECT BEN' Er iT
0
! 0AID DURATION CURVE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
- i ----T --T A-----4---
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
THOUSAND HOURS PER YEAR
THOUSAND` KILOWATTS
�,
s