Skip to content
DWT logo
People Services Insights
About Offices Careers
Search
People
Services
Insights
About
Offices
Careers
Search
Advisories

FERC Responds Positively to Chelan P.U.D. Rehearing Request on Cost Cap and Project Boundary Issues

By Daniel M. Adamson, Brian Gish, Lisa B. Zycherman
December 2008
Share
Print this page

On April 19, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted rehearing in part to the Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington (“District”) of the Nov. 6, 2006 Commission staff order issuing a new license for the 48-megawatt Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (“Project”). The rehearing order includes improvements in the Commission’s treatment of license article cost-caps arrived at as part of negotiated relicensing settlements. The cost-cap issue has been a major issue for licensees who have negotiated cost-caps on certain obligations with agencies and stakeholders which have then been overridden by the Commission.

In the rehearing order, the Commission affirmed its authority to “add provisions that are supplemental to, or more stringent than, the mandatory conditions,” to ensure that cost capping provisions for funding conditions do not render implementation of a needed measure “incomplete.” However, FERC agreed with the District’s argument that any exercise of FERC’s authority to require a licensee to surpass cost caps must be subject to notice and opportunity for hearing. Accordingly, FERC modified Article 402 of the District’s new license to explicitly include notice and opportunity for hearing for any changes to funding levels for specific measures. This change will provide the District a valuable tool for preserving the benefits of the cost caps it negotiated as part of its relicensing settlement.

In addition, FERC agreed with the District that when a settlement cost cap is included in a mandatory license condition that FERC determines is not in the public interest under Section 10(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the reservation of authority in Article 402 does not apply to those cost caps. The District had argued that if the Commission believed a license measure was not in the public interest there was no reason for the Commission to reserve its authority to require a licensee to spend more on such a measure. FERC agreed. In the case of the Lake Chelan Project new license, this is a significant change because the Commission held that a number of the license articles included as mandatory FPA Section 4(e) were not in the public interest under Section 10(a)(1). Consequently, the spending limits in these articles are now “hard caps.”

FERC’s Order also addressed several Project lands issues raised by the District. With respect to wildlife habitat lands, FERC denied rehearing on the District’s request that Article 406 of the new license be revised to delete a provision for bringing lands requiring ongoing maintenance to ensure the success of wildlife habitat measures into the Project boundary. The Commission stated that it retained the authority to bring such lands within the Project boundary, even if the lands at issue are not “contiguous with the project or are located some distance from the project.” However, the FERC clarified that it “generally do[es] not require lands on which one-time measures are implemented to be included within project boundaries.”

Finally, FERC affirmed the conclusion in the original license order that, given the value of whitewater resources associated with the Project, a three-year whitewater conditions monitoring study in an extremely hazardous river reach may not be indefinitely delayed while the District seeks to resolve liability concerns. Consistent with its relicensing settlement agreement the District had sought to delay the whitewater releases and monitoring study until it had obtained liability insurance or until an applicable state statute had been amended to include an extension of immunity protections for recreational whitewater releases.

Related Articles

2025
Feature
Financial Services
New Administration Outlook: Helping You Navigate Post-Election Uncertainty in 2025 and Beyond Read More External Link
06.06.25
Insights
Food + Beverage
Food Venture Financing News - Weekly Issue No. 239 Read More
06.05.25
Insights
Brand Protection & Advertising
Stay ADvised: 2025, Issue 11 Read More
DWT logo
©1996-2025 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Not intended as legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Media Kit Affiliations Legal notices
Privacy policy Employees DWT Collaborate EEO
SUBSCRIBE
©1996-2025 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Not intended as legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.