19901213Exhibits.pdf

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC uTrl~~§PC~ISSIONFILED 0
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR 90 IlEG 13 prn a. 23
AUTHORITY TO RATE BASE THE J
INVESTMENT REQUIRED FOR THE )...... "c:.AOS~'\~LO¡:\ IPC-E-90-2L)).tH rUb iv
REBUILD OF THE SWAN FALLS ¡,r.T.. S CO'llM'cC'I'O' t'HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT U i ! 4111 E .m I v.J ' ,.
)
""
EXHIBITS
IPCO Nos. 1 - 7
Staff Nos. 101 - 103
ICIP Nos. 201 - 202
November 29, 1990 Boise, Idaho
'"
7WEDRICKCOURT REPORTING
537 W. Bannock P.o. Box 578
Suite 205 Boise, Idaho 83701
[phone] .)
. . . We offer .. BaronData
Microtranscription™ by II
I' 0- _.~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
BEFOR TH
IDAH PlLIC UTTIES COMSSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-92
IDAHO POWE COANY
EXHBlT 1
-."li", IXH II,'T
. I
:1
..
I'
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
UHDD S'1ARS OJ' AKIUCA
J'DBU DtGY REGULTOR.Y COHKSSiOii
Idaho Power Compuy project No. 503-006
Idaho
ORDn AKING LICDSB
(DJOR)IZ-y-yy
Idaho Power Company (IPC) filed an application under Par I
of the Federal Power Act (Act) to amend its license for the Swan
Falls Project, located on the Snake River, in Ada and OWhee
Counties, Idaho. The Snåke River is a naviqable waterway of the
United States. The project partially occupies lands of the
Uni ted States administered by the Departent of the Interior.
IPC proposes to retire the existinq 10.4-meqawatt (MW)
powerhouse and reevelop the project. The redeveloped projectwould consis1: of a new poerhouse, con1:ininq two qeneratinq
uni't with a 1:atal rated capacity of 25 MW: a new switc:yard: anew transmission line; and other existinq proj ect works.
On Decemr 22, 1982, IPC was issued a new license for the
Swan Falls Project.lI The license authorized IPC, amonq other
thinqs, to replace the existinq powerhouse and qeneratinq units,
thereby increasinq the total rated capacity of the project from
10.4 MW to 25 MW. In January 1985, IPC asked permission to
postpone this work until the additional capacity is needed. An
order bendinq licene, issued on April 30, 1987, qranted the
reqes1: by deletinq the projec1 exansion from the license.lI
The April 1987 aiendment also reduced the license term from
40 year to 30 year, because the modfication of project works
was no lonqer authorized. Because this order reinstates that
projec1 exansion, the term of the new license will be retured
to 40 years. This revision of the new license term is inaccordce with the Commssion i s policy on relicensinq, as sta1:ed
in The Montana Power Company, 56 F.P.C. 2008 (1976).
Pulic notice of the application has been issued. The
comments filed by aqencies and individuals have been fully
considered in determininq whether to issue this order.
The Idaho Departen1: of Wa1:er Resources, an intervenor,
reqes1:s tha1: any amendmen1: of the Swan Falls license be
11 Idaho Power Company, 2i FEC i 62,519 (1982).
U Idaho Power Company, 39 FEC i 62,114 (1987).
EX 1
CA NO 1P-e2PAkW.lf
PAl OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
consistent with state law, with the provisions of the Swan Falls
Aqreement, with statewide comprehensive water resource
development plan, and with the recommendations of state resource
aqencies. We address these concerns in the attachedenvironmtai assessment (EA) issued for the redevelopment of theSwan Falls Proj ec1.
CgmprehfDsi v,pev,lgpm,nt
Section 4 (é) of the Act states that in deciding' whether to
issue a licene, the Commission, in addition to considerinq the
power and development puroses of the proj ect, shall qi ve equal
consideration to the followinq: the puroses of enerqy
conservation; the protection of, mitiqation of dam~qe to, andenanceme1: of, fish and wildlife; the protec1ion of recreational
opportunities: and the preservation of other aspects of
environmental quality. These purposes are considered in the
comprehensive developmt section of the EA prepared for thisprojec1.
Section 10 (a) (2) of the Act requires the Commssion to
conside~ the exent to which a project is consistent with federal
or state comrehensive plans for imrovinq, developinq, or con-
serving' a waterwy or waterys affected by the project. .
Onder sec1ion 10(a) (2), federal and state aqencies filed 24
comprehensive plans tha1: address various resources in Idao. Of
these, the staff identified and reviewed seven plan relevant tothis project.1/ No confli'C were found.
Based on our review of aqency and public comments filed in
this proceedinq and on our indepedent analysis, the Swan Falls
Project, as propoSed to be modified, is best adapted to a
comprehenive plan for the Snake River.
11 Idaho fisheries maqement plan, 1986, Idaho Deparent of
Fish and Gue; Idaho water quality standard and wastewatertreataent reqii:ements, 1985, Idaho Depaent of Health andWelfare; Idaho outdoor recreation plan, 1983, Idaho Departent of
Parks and Recreation: State water plan, 1986, Idaho WaterResoures Board; Nortwest conservation and electric power plan,1986, Nortwest Power Planninq Council; Columia River Basin fish
and wildlife program, 1987, Nortwest Power Planninq Council;Pro1:ec1ed areas amendments and response to comments, 1988,Nortwest Power Planinq Council.
EXHie1CA NO 1f2PAKW.IA
PA 2 OF 35
I'
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1-------- .
3
CQnseryation
The Idaho Pulic Utility Commission requires IPC to submit
an annual plan for acquirinq electic power conservation savinqson IPC i selecic poer system.
In the April 15, 1989, conservation plan, IPC lists thesefeatures: -
(1) usinq short term acqisition proqram of 2 to J years to
acquire benefits rrom low-income customers:
(2) usinq efficient appliances and construction standards in
new buildinqs in the residential and commercial parts or the
IPC' s power system;
(3) conducing' research and analysis proqram to build
future conservation capability and to develop a betterunder5tandiq or conseration resources in its service area;
(4) producinq an esimted 1,700,000 meqawa1:thours ofdem-side ener conseration by the year 2008.
This plan shows IPC is mainq a qood-faith effort to improve
the efficiency of electrici1: consumtion on its system.
¡!COpendAt;ioDIQf Fede"l and stat! Fisb and Wildlife Agepclei
Section 10 (j) of the Act requires the Comission to include
license conditions, based on recomendations of federal and state
fish and wildlife aqencies, for the protection, mitiqation, and
enanceent of fis and wildlife. .
The attached D. for the Swa Falls Proj ac addresses the
concern of the fish and wildlife aqencies, made in response to
the public notice, and provides recommendations consistent with
those of the aqencies.
SumAry of' Flndlng§
The D. contain backqround informtion, analysis of impaC',support for related' licene articles, and the basis for a findinq
of no significat imact on the environment. Issuance of this
amenàment is no1: a maj or federal action significatly affectinq
the quality of the hum enviromaent.
The design of this project is consistent with the
enqineerinq standards qoverninq dam safety. The proj ect will be
safe if constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with
the requirements of this order. Analysis of related issues is
provided in the Safety and Design Assessment (S&DA), also
attached to this order.
EXBI 1
CA NO 1I..2PA. If
PAGE 3 OF 35
I'
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
..
The Director, Office of Hydropower Licensinq, concludes that
the modified Swan Falls Proj ect would not conflict with any
planed or authorized development and would be best adapted 1:0
comprehensive development of the waterway for beneficial publicuses..
':e pirector ,orders:
(A) The licene for the Swan Falls 'Project No. 503 is
amended, effective the first day of the month in whic: this order
is issued.
(B) orderinq paraqraph (A) of the license for Project No.
503 is amended as follows:
(A) This license is issued to the Idaho Power Company
(licenee), of Boise, Idaho, under Part I of the
Federal Power Act (Act), for a period of 40 years from
the exiration date of the oriqinal license, hence
1:ermina1:inq on June 30, 2.010, for the continued
operation and maintenance of the Swan Falls Project
No. 503, located in Ada and OWhee Counties, Idaho, onthe Snake River, a naviqable waterwy of the United
States, and occupyinq lands of the United States
within the Birds of Prey Na1:url Area, whic: is
administered by the Departent of the Interior.This license is subj ect to the term and conditions of
the Act, whic: is incorporated by reference as par of
this license, and subject to the requlations theComission issues under the provisions of the Act.
(C) Orderinq paraqrph (B) (2) of the license for Project
No. 503 is amended as follows:.
(2) The project works consistinq of: (1) the 2s-foot-
hiqh, 1,21S-foot-lonq concrete and rockfill Swan Falls dam:
(2) the Swa Falls reservoir with a surface area of 900
acres and a total storaqe capacity of 4,SOO acre-feet: (3)
a spillway with crest elevation of 2,300 feet mean .sea
level with 12 bays, each provided with radial qates 31 feet
wide and 14.5 feet hiqh: (4) a powerhouse at the east
abu1:ent of the Swan Falls dam containinq two identicalhorizon1:l buJ-type turbine-qeneratinq uri1:, each with ara1:ed capacity of 12.5 MW; (5) a substation located 200fee1: from the powerouse, equipped with a 13.S/138-kilovolt
(kV), 30,000-kilovolt-ampere, 3-phase tranformer; (6) a
1,400-foot-lonq, 120-foot-wide (bottom width) tailrace;
(7) a 1.2-mile-lonq, 13S-kV trnsmssion line connectinq
to an existinq 138-kV 'tansmission line owned and operated
by the licensee; and (S) appurenant facilities.
EX'
CA NO 1P-E2PA. IPPAG4OF3S
I'
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
5
The proj ect works qenerally described above are more
specifically shown and described by those portions of
eXhibits A and F recommended for approval in the attached
S&DA.
(D) Orderinq paragraph (C) of the license for Project No.
503 is amended as follows:
(C) The exibit G described in Orderinq Paragraph (B) (1) of
the new license, issued Decemer 22, 1982, and those
sections of exibits A and F recommended for approval in the
attached S&DA are approved and made par of the license.
(E) Aricle 42 (a) is amended as follows:
(a) For the purose of reimbursinq the United States forthe cost of admistration of Part I of the Act, a
reasonable amount, as deterined in accordance with the
provisions of the Commission iS reqlations in effect from
time to time. '!e authorized intaled capacity for that
puose is 33,300 horsepower.
(F) The revised recrea1:ional plan, filed on Sep1:emer 19,
1989, consistinq of pages 4 thouqh 20, and providing for (a) an
exension of the upstream boat rap and additional dock at this
location, (b) a public drininq water fountain at the upstream
picnic area, (c) a walkway to accomodate the handicapped, and
(d) a display of a turbine in the existinq powerhouse, is
approved and- made part of this license.
(G) The license is also subject 1:0 the following additionalaricles:
Aric!. 301. Within 90 days af1er comple1:inq constrction,the licensee shall file for the Commssion approval revised
exibits A, F, and G to describe and show the redeveloped proj ect
as-buil1:, and to describe all facili ties the Commissiondetermes are necessary and convenient for transmi ttinq all of
the proj ect power to thé interconnected system.
Aricle 302. Before s1:rtin construction, the licenseeshall review and approve the design of contrctor-desiqned
cofferdam and deep excavations and shall enure that
construction of the cofferam and deep excavations is consistentwith the approed desiqn. A1: leas1: 30 days before startinq
construction of the cofferdam, the licenee shall submi t to the
Commission i s Reqional Director and to the Director , Division of
Dam Safety and Inspections, one copy of the approved cofferdam
construction drawinqs and specifications and a copy of the
letters of approval.
EX1CA NOlf2PAKWIP
PA 5 OF 35
I'
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
6
Article ~03. At least 60 days before startinq construction,
the licensee shall submit one copy to the Commission's Reqional
Director and two copies to the Director , Division of Dam Safety
and Inspections, of the final contract drawinqs and
specifications and of a supportinq desiqn report for pertinent
features of the project, such as water-retention structures, all
necessary transmission facilities, the powerhouse, and water
conveyance structures. The Director, Division of Dam Safety and
Inspections, may require c:anqes in the plans and specifications
to assure a safe and adequate project.
Article 3Q4. Within 60 days after issuance of this order,
the licensee shall file for approval by the Director , Division of
Dam safety and Inspections, a plan and schedule for constructinq
the new powerhouse and for modifyinq the existinq powerhouse.
Article 40;¡. The Commission reserves the authority to
require the licensee to construct, operate 1 and maintain, or
provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of,
fishways prescribed by the Secretar of the Interior.
Aricle 402. The licensee shall implemnt the raminq rateqaqinq plan outlined on paqe 28 of the licensee's Septemer 19,
1989, additional information filinq with the Commission. The
licensee shall make the qaqe operational wi thin 6 months after
beqinninq the operation of the powerhouse authorized by this
order. The licensee shall determine the final location of the
qaqe after consultinq with the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Idaho Departent Qf Fish and Game.
Aricle 4Q3. The licenee shall imlement the reclamation
plan proidinq for the restoration of veqetative cover and
wildlife haitat, consistinq of paqes E-6 thouqh E-l0 in the
exhit E of the application for amdmen1: of license, filed on
April 24, 1989. The measures shall be implemented accordinq to
the schedule outlined in the plan.
Aricle 4Q4. The licensee, before startinq any maintenance
or repair work at the historic residences and buildinqs occupied
and used by proj ect employees nex to Swan Falls Dam and
Powerhouse and before startinq any destrction, removal, or other
al teation of these strctures, shall consult with the Idaho
S1:te Historic Preseration Officer (SHP) about work necessary
to main1:in the structures' historical inteqrity or to mitiqa1:e
imcts to the strctes. Any such work shall be underaken in
a maer satisfactory to the SHP and in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standar and Guidelines forArcheolog and Historic Preservation.
Within 1 year from the issuance of this order, the licensee
shall file for Conmission approval a cultural resources
manaqement plan, describinq the standards and quidelines that
EX 1
CA NO 1f-E2
PACKW. IP
PAG6OF35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7
will be implemented to maintain and repair these residences and
buildinqs, and a copy of a letter from the SHPO commentinq on the
acceptability of the plan.
If the licensee plans to alter or remove any structure, at
least 90 days before any alteration or removal of the structure,
the licensee shall file for Comm~sion approval (1) a specificmitiqative plan to docuent the siqnificant information that
would be lost and to miimize imacts to associated historic
structures, and (2) a copy of a letter from the SHPO commentinq
on the acceptaility of the plan. If the licensee and the SHP
disaqree about the scope of maintenance, repair, or mitiqative
activities required at these structures, the Commission reserves
the riqht to direct the licensee at its own expense to conductany work found necessary.
Article 405. The licensee, before startinq any land-
clearinq, land-disturbinq, or spoil-producinq activities withinthe project bounaries, other thn tho.se specifically authorized
in this license, shall consult with the Idaho State HistoricPreservtion Officer (.SHP), shall conduct a cultural resources
surey of these areas, and shall file for Commission approval a
cultural resources manaqement plan to avoid or mitiqate .impact
to any siqnifieat arcbeoloqical or historic sites identified
durinq the suey. The survey and plan shall be based on the
recommendations of the SHP and shall be conducted and prepared
by a qualified cultural resources specialist.
If the licenee discovers any previously unidentified
arcbeoloqical or historic sites durinq the course of constructinq
or developinq project works or other facilities at the project,the licenee shall stop all land-clearinq, land-distbinq, and
spoii-producinq activities in the vicinity of the sites, shall
aqain consult with the SH, and shall file for Commission
approval a culturl resoures maaqement plan, prepared by a
qualified culturl resources manaqement specialist, to avoid or
mi tiqate impact to siqnificant resources.
The surey and the. plan shall be docuented in a report
containinq the followinq: (1) a description of each discovered
site, showinq whether it is listed or eliqible to be listed on
the National Begj"ster qf ijistoric Places; (2) a description of
the potential effect on each discovered site; (3) proposedmeasues for avoidin or mi tiqatinq the effect; ( 4)
dOCUentation of the nature and exent of consul1:tion: and (5) aschedule for mi 1:iqatinq effect and conductinq addi tionalstudies. The Comssion may require changes to the plan or thereport.
The licensee shall not beqin any land-clearinq, land-
disturbinq, or spoil-producinq activities, other than those
specifically authorized in this license, or resume such
EXIB 1
CA NO 1f-£PA.IP
PAGE7OF35
---- -~-.
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
8
activities in the vicinity of a site discovered durinq
construction, until informed by the Commission that the
requirements of this aricle have been fulfilled.
Aricle lO§. The licensee shall construct, operate, andmaintain, or arranqe for the construction, operation, and
maintenace of, recreational facilities and improvements proposed
in the revised recreation plan. Within 3 months after eompletinq
these facilities or improvements, the licensee shall file with
the Commission as-built drawinqs, showinq the type and location
of the facilities or improvements.
Article 407. Duinq the first 2 years of operation of the
new powerhouse, the licensee, after consultinq with the Bureau of
Lad Manaqement . (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), and the
Idao oepartent of Parks and Recreation (IDPR), shall monitor
the effects of siltation caused by powerhouse flow releases on
the downstream canoe-raft launchinq facility.
Within 3 months after completinq monitorinq studies, the
licensee shall file with the Comssion monitorinq results,
includinq a description of the methodoloqy used to monitor 1:eproj ect t s impae1s on the canoe-raft launch facility.
If monitorinq shows operation of the new powerhouse is
adversely affee1inq the caoe-raft launch facility, the licensee
shall include in ths filinq, for Commission approval, an
amendment to the recreational plan, prepared after consultinq
with BLM, NPS, and IDPR, 1:0 relocate or to modify the canoe-raft
launch facili1:y to avoid adverse effect from powerhousereleases. The licenee also shall docuent consultation with the
aqencies in the filinq.
(H) The licensee shall sere copies of any Commssion
filinq required by this order on any entity specified in this
order to be consulted on matters related to the Commission
filinq. Proof of service on these entities must accompany the
filinq with the Commission.
.. (I) This order is issued under authority deleqated to the
Director and is final unless appealed to the Commission by any
party within 30 days from the issuance date of this order.
Filinq an appeal does not stay the effee1ive date of this order
or any date specified in this order. The licenee's failure toappeal this order shall constitute accep1:ce of the term ofths iidi of licose. ~
Fréd E. Sprin r
Director, Office of
Hydropower Licensinq
EXBI 1
CA NO 1f2PA.IP
PA 8 OF 35
I"
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
....-:,:.:-
DlRONHAL ASSESSKENT
J'DER ENRGY REGt1TORY COHJSSION
OITIC3 OJ' KYROPOWER LICESING
DIVSION OJ' PROEC' REEW
Date: pecemer 1, 1982
Project name: SWan Falls nRC Proj ect No. .;-.Q
A. AlLICA'1IOH
1. Application type: Amendment of license
2. Date filed with the Comission: April 24, 1282
3. Applicant: Idabo powe;: Company (IPC)
4. Water body: Snake Rlve;: River basin: U~per Snate Rive;:
s. Nearest city or town: ¡una, IdAho eSee figure ,=.) J;
6. county: Aga,. OWbee State: Igaho
B · POlS:B AN DED poa AC'ON
1. Purpose.
IPC proposes to redevelop the Swan Falls Project by retirinq
the existinq powerhouse that has a an installed capacity of 10.4
meqawa1:ts (MW) and cons1:ctinq a new powerhouse with a total
in1:led capacity of 25 MW.
The proposed project would anually produce about 166.1
qiqawattours (GW) of power. IPC would use the renewable energ
from the project to méet its system load requirements.
2. Need for power.
Our review of the need for power shows it is in the public
interest to amend the Swa Falls license as proposed.
IPC plan to use the addi 1:ional proj ect pow.r on the IPC
sys1:em and 1:0 marke1: excess power until all the amended" proj ect
Power can be used. IPC plan the development of their electic
power system on the basis of median water eondi tions, even thouqh
most power producers in the Pacific Nortwest plan system
development on the basis of critical water conditions.
JI Illustrations and attachments referenced in the text areomitted "from this docuent because of reproduction requirements.
--_._-.-- .__._--------
EXie1CANOIP-E2PAC,IPC
PAGE9OF35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
2
IPCl S Mach 1989 Resource Manaqement Report shows
pea-load electic power resource deficits on its electric power
system abu1: 2001, under median water and medium load conditions.
It shows energ deficits about 2003 under the same conditions.
The report also shows peak-load power deficits occurrinq under
hiqh load and median water conditions about 1996. Under medium
load and critical water conditions, a peak-load deficit would
occu as early as 1989.
The IPC report does not show a resoure deficit until 2001
under the medium load conditions. But ¡PC's most recent economic
forecast--developed after it made the report--forecasts economic
gro~~ in the applicant's service area. IPC says the increased
economic growt will let it absorb the additional Swan Fallscapabili ty close to the 1993 on-line date for the proj ect
amendment.
This is a reasonable position, because increased economic
growt WOuld brinq IPC's projected medium load closer to the hiqh
load IPC projects in the report. The high load in the report
produced a resource deficit in 1996. '
IPC is located in the Nor-~west Power Planninq Council
(Council) Area. The Council's 1989 supplement to the 1986 power
plan shows a need for power could exist in the Council area any
time from the early to late 1990.s. The Council projects an area
resource deficit under medium-hiqh load in 1995 and says a
deficit could occu on the investor-owned utility (IOU) systems
in the Council area in 1992.
The supplement shows power-resource deficits would occu in
the COuncil area in 1995 uner the medium-hiqh load and in the
year 2004 under the medium-low load. The medium load would
create a power resource deficit abou1: 1998 and the hiqh load
,would cause a deficit in 1992. The Council projects deficits on
iou syS1:em by about 1992 with medium-hiqh loads and by about
1998 with medium-low loads.
The supplement also projects a surlus of only 400 to 800
averaqe megawa1:ts in 1990. The Council notes that this level of
surlus requires action in the nex few years in order to meet
the area electical requirements.
In Karch 1989, the Pacific Nortwest Utility Conference
Commit1:ee (PNCC) issued the Nortwest Reqional Forecast of Power
Loads and Resources. This report shows resource deficits in the
Council area in 1993 under medium-load conditions. PNUCC shows
an iou power-resource deficit could occu as early as 1991.
EXBl1
CA NO 1P-E2PAKW.lP
PA 10 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
3
PNCC says comparinq loads and resources for the entire area
is academic at best. They note that the picture of each utility
can be quite different from the area-wide perspective.
Hydropower, comiq on-line in 1993, could be useful in
meetinq a. smll par of the above need for power. When
operational, IPC' s proposed additional capaci ty and enerqy would
be available to displace thermal qeneration in the Western
system Coordintinq Council--which encomasses the Council
area-until needed to serve load directly on IPC's system.
Displacinq of thermal qeneration would conserve fossil fuels and
reduce atmospheric pollution.
c. PROPOSED PROJE~ AN ALTE1W~IVS
1. Description of the proposed action. (See fiqure 2.)
IPC proposes to do the followinq: (a) replace the existing
powerhouse, which con'tins qeneratinq units with a total rated
capacity of 10.4 MW, with a new powerhouse on the east bank,
containinq two identical generating units with a total rated
capacity of 25 MW: (b) remove all equipment from the existinq
powerhouse and fill the àraft tubes and turl;ine pits with
concrete to elevation 2,315 feet mean sea level (msl); (c)
constrct a new switchyard on the east bank, 200 feet downstream
from the powerhouse; and (d) build a new, 1.2-mile-lonq, 138-
kilovol t (kV) tranission line. The existinq powerhouse would
be left in place.
IPC cutly releases flows over the spillway about 60
percent of the time. The tubine capacity would increase from
the cuent 8,000 cuic feet per second (cfs) to about 14,000
cfs, and spillway releases would occu only about 15 percent of
the time. There would be no chanqe in the maximum and minimum
operating levels of the reservoir.
The existing Swan Falls dam impounds a reservoir about 12miles long. At the normal maxim surface elevation of 2,314.0
feet msl, the reservoir has a surface area of approximately 900
acres, ~nd a total storaqe capacity of about 4,800 acre-feet. The
upper 4 feet of the Swan Falls reservoir is used to rerequlate
the dischare from the C.J. Strike Project, about 38 milesupstream.
IPC releases a minimum flow of 5,000 cfs from April 1
through Septemer 30, except when the averaqe daily inflow is
less than 5,000 cfs; then IPC releases the averaqe inflow. From
October 1 though March 31, ipC =eleases 4,000 cfs or the average
daily inflow, whichever is less. ¡PC controls chanqes in ~~e
existinq powerhouse discharge so that tailwater elevation chanqes
El1CA NO 1f2fWlP
PA 11 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
4
do not exceed 1 foot per hour and limits the maximum dailyfluctuation of the tailwater elevation to 3 feet.
2. Applicant's proposed mitiqative measures.
¡PC would do the followinq: contour spoil areas, cover them
with topsoil, plant suitable veqetation, and determine the type
of veqetative cover it would plant in the spoil areas as a part
of a reclamtion plan.
3. Federal lands affected.
__No. AXYes; Bure;u of Land Mapaaement CBLM); acreage- 338;
(aqency)__Conditions provided by letter dated: I I
AXCondi tions have not been provided.
4. Al ternati ves to the proposed proj ect.
a. XXNo reasonable action alternatives have been found.__Action al te~a1:i ve:
The available al ternati yes are to modify or to replace the
existinq generatinq plant to eliminate safety and operational
problems. Replacinq the plant, as IPC proposes, would provide
about 50,000 meqawatthours more enerqy annually than wouldmodifying the plant.
b. Alternative of no action.
. No action, denial of the license, would preclude IPC from
const:ucting the proposed project. No action would involve no
alterations to the exis1:inq environment and would preclude IPC
0.. from producing electical power at the site.
D. CONSt7nTION Am COKPLIACE
1. Fish and wildlife agency consultation (Fish & WildlifeCoordination Act).
a. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (rwS):
b. S'tate (s) :
c. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMS):
~Yes.~Yes.~Yes.
_No._No._No.
2. Section 7 consutation (Endanqered Species Act).
a. Listed species: __None. Ã4Present: Bald eagles, which are
federally listed as endangered, are present in the proj ect area
(letter from Jonathan P. Deason, Director, Offii:e of
Environmental Project Review, Depa~~ent of the Interior,
Washington, D. C., October 20, 1989).
EX1CA NO FC-EPAKW.IP
PA 12 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
5
b. Consultation:' . ~N'O required;
~Required; completed: I I
Remarks: As many as. i2 pald. eagles have been reported in~he proj ect areQ during" the "winter. We discuss L~e effects of
the proposed .amenèìent -on :bald eagles and" other raptors in
section G.
3. Section 401 cer.ication (Clean Water Act) .
_Not required.
ÄARequired: IPC requested certif ica tion on 04/17/89.
Status : XXGranted by the certifying agency on 06/28/89.
4. Cultural resource consultation (Historic Preservation Act) .
a. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): XXYes.b. National Park Service (NPS): XXYes.c. National Reqis1:er status: __None. XXEliqi:bled. Council: _Not required. -XCompleted: i I
e. Fuer consultation: -XNot required. __Required.
__No._No.or listed.
Remarks: Swan Falls Dam and Powerhouse (Dam and Powerhouse)
is listed on the National Reqister of ijistgric Places. An
archeoloqical site near the dam (site 10AA17) is a component of
the Guffey Butte-Black Butte Archeological District, which is
also listed on the National Register. Next to the Dam and
Powerhouse, IPC' s project operators have residences and other
buildinqs that are eligible for inclusion in the NatioPêl
Registe;. No other National Req~ster listed or eligible sites
a~e lo~ated in the immediate vicinity of the project.
The SHPO only recently desiqnated the project operators'
residences and buildinqs as eliqible for inclusion for the
NêtioDêl Register (letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer, Boise, Idaho, March 16, 1989).
These structures would not be affected by IPC i S proposed land-
clearinq Or land-distur:binq activities at the project (Idaho
Power Company, 1989a).
s. Recreational consultation (Federal Powèr Act) .
a. U. S. Owners:
b. NPS:
c. State ( s) :
XLYes.~Yes.~Yes.
__No._No._NO.
6. Wild and scenic rivers (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act).
Status: XX None. __Listed. Determination completed: / /
EX1CA NO If2PiIF
PA 13 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
6
7. Land and Water Conservation Fund lands and facilities (Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act).
Status: Ã4None._Designated.
8. Pacific Nortwest Power Planninq and Conservation Act
Under section 4 (h) of the Pacific Nortwest Power Planningand Conservation Act, the NPPC developed the Columia River Basin
Fish and Wildlife Proqram to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish
and wildlife resources associated with development and operation
of hydroelectric proj ects within the Columia River Basin.
Section 4 (h) states that responsible federal aqencies should
provide equitable treatment for fish and wildlife resources, in
addi tion to other purposes for which hydropower is developed, and
that these aqencies shall take into account, to the fullest
extent practiCable, the proqram- adopted under the Act.
The proqram directs agencies to consult with federal and
state fish and wildlife aqencies, appropriate Indian Tribes, and
the NPPC durinq the study, .desiqn, constrction, and operation of
any hydroelectric development in the basin. At the time the
application was filed, our requlations required applicants to
initiate prefilinq consultation with the appropriate federal and
s~ate fish and wildlife aqencies, the Tribes, and after filinq,
to provide these qroups with opportunities to review and to
comment on the application. IPC has followed this consultationprocess.
The proqr~ states that. ~uthorization for new hydroelect=ic
projects should include conditions for development that would
mitigate the impacts of the project on fish and wildlife
resources. The relevant fede=al and state fish and wildlife
agencies have reviewed and commented on the application. Inaëdi tion, any order amendinq the license would require IPC to
take mi tiqative measures to protect fish and wildlife resources,
and therefore is consistent with section 1103 of the program.
Further, article 44 of the license qi ves the Com=ission the
authority to require future altera~ions in project structures and
operation so as to take into account, to the fullest extent
prac~icable, the applicable provisions of the proqram.
E. COMHS
1. The followinq aqencies and entities provided cor~ents on the
application or filed a motion to intervene in response to the
public notice dated 08/04/89.
EXBI 1CA NO 1f2PA.IP
PA 14 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
7
Commenting agencies and other entities Date of 1 ette::
Department of the Interior 10/20/89
Motlons tgiptervene Dat:E' of motion
Idaho Departent of Water Resources 9/13/89
2. XXThe applicant responded to the comments or motion (s) to
intervene by letter(s) dated 09/18/8~.
F. AFFECTED ENVRONJn
1. General description of the locale.
a . Description of the Upper Snake River Basin.
The Upper Sn.ke River Basin comprises an area of about70,000 squre miles, exendinq from the river's headwaters in
Wyominq at Yellowstone National Park downstream to Weiser, Idaho.
The Snake Riv.er is the larqest tributary of the Columia
River, and the Opper Snake River Basin makes up about 28 percent
of the Columia River Basin. Major tributaries within the Upper
Snake River Basin are the Henry's Fork, Teton River, Big Wood
River, Brueau River, Boise River, Owyhee River, Payette River,
and Weiser River. The water resources of the basin have been
developed extensively for irrigation, flood control, power,
municipal and industrial supplies, livestock water, pollution
abatement, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement (Federal
Power Commission, 1967).
b. Exi~tinq licensed proj ects and exempted proj ec~s in the ri ver
basin, as of 12/01/89.
There are 49 licensed proj ects and 6:3 exemptions from
licensing in the Upper Snake River Basin.
c. Pendinq license and amendment to license applications
in the river basin, as of 12/01/89.
P:¡Qi act No.
18
4797
5090
5797
6329
8497
9452
Pro; ect nAme
'.in Falls
Auqer FallsShelleyStar Falls
OXbow Bend
Mesa II
Hardy Box Canyon
Water bodv
Snake RiverSnake RiverSnake River
Snake River
South Fork Payet~e RiverMiddle Fork Weiser River
Box Canyon Creek, Snake River
è. Target reso~rces.
El1
CA NO 1P..PA.IP
PA 15 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1------ .. --_...-
8
We have identified riparian veqetation, winterinq waterfowl,
and nesting raptors as target resources in the bas in based on
their regional importance, existence of these resources in the
-projeCt area, and ~~e effect of past development on these
. resources .
The construction of water projects that .have flooded
lowlying areas and diverted water from the river accounts for
much of the past losses of riparian veqetation in the basin.
siqnificant losses of riparian vegetation are closely associatedwi th the conversion of free-flowinq reaches of the Snake River to
pools. and impoundments. About 30 percent of the Snake River,
from its headwaters to Weiser, Idaho, has been converted from its
former free-flowinq conditions as the result of dam construction
(Federal Enerqy Regulatory Commission, 1987). Wildlife
populations associated with the riparian communities have been
reduced.
The creation of imoundments have also neqati vely affected
waterfowl wintering habita1:. Increases in ice cover durinq
severe winters reduces winter restinq habitat. Conversely,
cereal grain crops associated with agricultural development
provides feeding areas for ducks and qeese.
Nestinq raptors have been adversely affected by the
conversion of larqe areas of native ranqeland to aqriculture.Raptor nestinq has also been affected by loss of sui table nest
sites and ~ortality from electrocution.
e. cuulative impacts.
Because the proposed action would not alter t.~e flow reqimeof the Snake River, no impacts to riparian communi ties or ...wintering waterfowl would occur.. The proj ect could have long-
term impacts on nestinq raptors if the project transmission line
is not desiqned to minimize electrocution hazards. Appropriate
rapt or . protection measures are discussed in Section G.
2. Descriptions of the resources in the proj ect impact area
(Source: Idaho Power Company, 1981, application, exhibit E,unless otherwise indicated).
a. Geoloav And s01ls: The project lies within the Columia
Intermountain qeomorphic province, commonly referred to as the
Coluinia Plateau. The area is c:aracterized by thick accumula-
tions of nearly horizontal sheets of basalt.
The portion of the Snake River that is affected by the
existing proj ect generally flows in a narrow canyon several
hundred feet below the surroundinq plateau. The Swan Falls dam
lies 650 feet below the rim of the canyon; the canyon is about
EX1CA NO 1f2PA.1f
PA 16 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9
1,400 feet wide at the damite. The canyon walls decrease in
heiqht at the upper end of the reservoir.
Throuqhout the lenqt of the reservoir, basalt isinterbedded with volcanic tuff and sedimentary deposits. A
reservoir shoreline stability survey conducted in 1989 revealed
no serious erosion or slope stability problems: no areas in need
of stabilization were identified.
b. Streamflow:
low flow: 7,421 cfs: flow paraeter:
hiqh flow: 18,999 cfs: flow parameter:average flow: 10,878 cfs.
These flows are based on the period of record from 1928 to
1985.
averaqe monthly low flow.averaqe monthly high flow.
c. Water aua:iity: Water quality of the Snake River in t.i.eproj ect vicinity is of poor to fair quality, imaired by hiqhnutrient concentrtions and elevated sumer temperatures. IPC i Swater quality samlinq of Swa Falls reservoir durinq July to
Septeier 1981 showed dissolved oxygen levels to be between 6.4
and 10.8 milligram per liter and water temperature between 16-
and 23 - Celsius.
d. fÏ!iheries:
Anaciromous: XXAbsent._Present.
Re.s~dent: _Absent.X2Present.
The fish populations of Swan Falls reservoir is made up
.aimost exclusively of nongame species, primarily largescale
sucker, car, and nortern squawfish. These nonqame fish and
smallmouth bass, black crappie, mountain whitefish, and white
sturqeon are found in the Snake River, downstream of Swan Falls
dam.
e. veaetation:
ÇOVe¡ type Dominant species .
Annual grassland Chea1:qrass brome.
Shru-(rassland Big sagebrush,shadscale saltbush,
black qreasewood,
ruber rabbitbrush,
cheatgrass brome,
El1CA NO 1f2PA.lP
PAGE 17 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
inland sal tgrass,
broom snakeweed.
Herbaceous riparian'Small willows,
begqarticks, common
cocklebur, sneeze-
weed, qoldenrod.. - ". . . - ... ". ....
Riparian woodland Willows and common
cottonwood.
f. Wildlife: Mamls in the project area are mule deer, coyote,
badger, mountain cottontail, black-tailed jack rabbit, yellow-
bellied marmot, and Townsend's ground squirrel. California quail
is the most abundant upland game bird in the proj ect area. Other
. upland game birds are rinq-necked pheasant, chukar, gray
partridqe, and mourninq dove. Many of these species depend on
riparian vegetation for part of the year.
Substantial numers of ducks and geese use the proj ect area
for nestinq, winterinq, and restinq durinq miqration. The
stretch of the Snake River between Grandview and the Swan Falls
reservoir tyically contains 10,000 to 15,000 winterinq ducks.
Islands within the project area are valuable nestinq areas for
Canada qeese, mallards, and other ducks.
The project is located within the Snake River Birds of Prey
Area (BOPA), administered by BLM. OVer 700 pairs of raptors nest
in the BOPA each year. Prairie falcons are the most abundant:
approximtely 5 to 10 percent of the entire Nort American
prairie falcon population nests in the BOPA. Other raptors are
bald eaqles, qolden eaqles, red-tailed hawk, ferrginous hawk,
Swainson's hawk, marsh hawl:, and qreat horned owl (Idaho PowerCompany, 1989a). .
g. Cpl tural :
__National Register (listed and eliqible) properties have notbeen recorded.
-XThere are properties listed on, or eliqible for listinq on,
the Natignal R.eglster .2 Histgric places in the area of theproj ectl s potential environmental impact.
Description: The Swan Falls DU and Powerhouse (Dam and.
Powerhouse) was built in the early 1900 i s. Since 1920, there've
been four significant modifications of the facility: (1)
replacing a section of the oriqinal dam at the west abutme:itand
extendinq the concrete spillway (1936): (2) replacinq two i50-kW
generatinq units with two 1,100-kW units (1944): (3) improvinq a
project access road (1983); and (4) building a new spillway
(1986). At the time it was constructed, the Dam and Powerhouse
EX 1CA NOIP-EPAIP
PA 18 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
was an important source of power for southwestern Idaho,
contributinq siqnificantly to the early economic development of
the area.
Archeoloqical site 10AA17 contains the remains of a
prehistoric dwellinq and several layers of refuse. The site is
siqnificant as a contributinq component of the Guffey Butte-Black
Butte Archeoloqical District. The District contains more than
114 archeoloqical sites alonq a 3S-mile section of the SnakeRiver within the Snake River Birds of Prey Area. The District t s
sites are relatively undisturbed, givinq archeoloqists a unique
data base for determininq in some detail the prehistory of a
large s~ction of southern Idaho and the arid West.
h. Visual gyalitv:
The proposed proj ect would replace a section of the existinqSwan ralls. dam with a new powerhouse. The existinq dam is
situated in the broad Snake River Canyon, carved into an open,predominantly qrass-covered landscape.
Canyon walls are mostly high, steep, and qrass-covered at
the lower slopes, rock talus in the steeper slopes, and capped
with dark, vertical rock at the top. Cottonwood trees and otherriparian vegetation occu only on the east side of the river,
near the dam. The existing dam has a powerhouse with attractive
architecture characteristic of the early 1900 iS. This powerhouse
is a valuable visual resource of the project site.
i. Recreation: Fishinq, huntiriq, powerboatinq, canoeing,
raftinq, pienickinq, and nature study are the primary recre-ationaluses that ocèur in the -proj ect area. Recreational
facilities at the project are: a picnic area just above the dam;res~oom On the nor-~ end of the dam; a boat launch and docks on
tte reservoir; a canoe-raft launch downstream of the dam; a walk-
way around the exterior of the existinq powerhouse to allow
recreationists to cross the river; and a portage trail around the
south end of the dam for boaters. In 1987, approximately 11,000
people visited the project area.
The primary. access to the Swan Falls dam area is by the Swan
Falls Road, which originates in the town of Kuna.
j. LaP~ use: Land in the project area is used for irriqated
agriculture, cattle grazinq, and wildlife manaqement.
~. SocioegoPsmlgs: The project area is thinly populated. In
~9S0, the town of Kuna, 18 road miles nort of Swan Falls, had a
population of 1,765 and the community of Melba, 5 miles northwest
ot the Swan Falls dam, had a population of 276.
El1CANO~PA. lP
PA 19 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12
G. ENVRONKAL ISSUES AN PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
There are nine issues addressed below. ..
1. Reintroduction of anadromous fish: Construction 9f fish~aysat Swan ralls dam may be desirable in thefuture-~ .. Fv~S is.. ..
evaluatinq the possibility of returinq .anadromous fish .to the
Snake River basin, upstrea of Brownlee res.ervoir.. To mal~e anyreintroduction attempts easier, the Departent of L~e Interior
(Interior) wants to reserve authority.under section.is oft;he
Federal Power Act to prescribe f ishways if needed in the future.
If the aqencies find anadromous fish can be reintroduced to
the basin, fish passage at Swan Falls may be needed. Fish
passage would enance the use of the middle and upper Snake River
basin by anadromous fish. Reservinq to interior the authority to
prescribe fishways would ensure appropriate facilities are
constructed, if needed.
2. Gaglns: Proper gaqinq is necessary to ensure compliance with
the rampinq rates required by article 39 of the license. IPC
proposes to install a recording qaqe, downstream of the dam, that
would allow accuate moni torinq of the rampinq rates. FWS and
the Idaho Departent of Fish and Game (IDFG) aqree with IPC'sproposal.
IPC's proposed rampinq rate qaqinq plan is sufficient to
ensure compliance with article 39. Therefore, ¡PC should install
the proposed qaqe at a suitable location downstream of the dam,
determined after consultation with FWS and IDFG.
3. aeegetition: Constructinq proj ect facilities would cause thetempora loss of about 23 acres of veqetative cover at areas
used for equipment iaydown and assemly, temporary construction
offices, and spoil disposal. This veqetati ve cover, primarily
qrasses and scattered shrus, prevents soil erosion and provides
. food and cover for wildlife. IPC has a reclamation plan for
areas disturbed in the course of the proposed construction. The
plan, prepared after consul tinq with FWS, BLM, and IDFG, provides
for diskinq compacted soils, seeding, and moni torinq the success
of reveqetation.
Game and nonqame animals use the qrasslands and shru-
qrasslands that the proposed construction would affect.
Reveqetatinq disturbed areas after construction would speed the
restoration of the wildlife habitat v~lue of the area and wouldminimize erosion. IPC's reclamation -clan would ensure the
revegetation of disturbed areas and the plan should be approved.
4. Biator proteçtlon: Raptors found in the proj ect area include
bald eagles, golden eagles, prairie falcons, ferruginous hawks,and owls. Transmission lines may constitute an electrocution
EX 1
CA NO 1f2PAIPPA20OF35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
13
. hazard for raptors and other birds large enough to simultaneously.. .~'~ '-toù'ch- twCf energized wires or other hardware. ¡PC proposes to
install a new, 1~2-mile-long, 138-kV transmission line. As
required by article 42 of the license, IPC developed a plan to. .prev:nt, .the accidental electrocution of raptors. -This plan,
" æpprove~ on January 13, 1984, would adequately protect bald
eaqles and other raptors usinq the project area. Therefore, IPC
should construct the new, 1.2-mile-lonq transmission line
accordinq to its approved raptor protection plan.
5. Coniyl tatlon with the Advisory Councll on Historic
preseryatlon gn the impacts to slte Svan Falls Dam and Pgwerhguse
and'site'lOAA17: The SHPO says that his office has no record of
a memorandum of aqreement between the Commission and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation on the measures necessary to
mi tiqate the proj ect 's impacts to the Swan Falls Dam and
Powerhouse and site 10AA17. The SHPO says the Advisory Council
should be allowed to comment on the proj ect 's effects on these
sites. In his comments, the SHPO includes a draft memorandum,
whic: contains the conditions required in article 40 of the
project license, notinq that no chanqes in mitiqative measures
are necessary (letter from Dr. Thoms Green, Deputy State
Historic Preservtion Officer, Idaho State Historical Society,
Boise, Idaho, March 16, 1989).
Before the Commission issued the license for the proj ect, we
consul ted the Advisory Council on. Historic Preservation on the
proj ect 's effect on the Dam and Powerhouse and on site lOAA17.
wi th minor revisions, the council aqreed with our recommended
mitigation (letter from Louis Wall, Chief, Western Project
Review, Advisory council on Historic Preservation, Golden,
Colorado, Decemer 16, 1982). The impaCts to the Dam 'and
Powerhouse and to site 10AA17 of IPC's proposed license amendment
are the same as those we addressed when the project was licensed.
Aricle 40 of ~e proj ect 's iicense contains our mitigation
and the Advisory Council's revisions. The SHPO states, and we
aqree, that the conditions in article 40 are adequate to mi tiqate
the effects of the amended proj ect and do not need to be upèa ted
(letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise, Idaho, March 16,
1989). We ~old the Advisory council we've included article 40 in
the license for the project and that it addresses their concerns
(letter from Lawrence Anderson, Director, Office of Electric
Power Requation, Federal Energ Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C., May 26, 1983). Because the effects of ~~e
proposed action on the Swan FallS Dam and Powerhouse and site
10AA17 are the same as those ~reviously reviewed by the Advisory
Council, we conclude that further consultation is unnecessary.
Article 40 requires the protection of site lOAA17 by
fencinq; the archeological excavations cited in the article have
-.- ..- _ '___a '.._. ._ _
El1CA NQ1f2PA.1P
PA 21 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14
been completed since issuance of the license. The article
requires the following mitiqative work at the Dam and Powerhouse:
(a) restoration of the external appearance of the existinq
powerhouse; (b) docuentation of the impact areas accordinq to
the standards of the Historic American Engineering Record. (HAER). of the National Park Service; (c) filing of copies of the
existinq enqineerinq drawinqs with the SHPO; (d) construction of
a public educational display concerninq the historical signifi-
cance of the facility: and (e) offering of the historical
electrical equipment that will be disposed of to the Smithsonian
Institution or other appropriate institution. This work shall be
undertaken in a manner satisfactory to the SHPO and the HAR.
6. Maintemmce of the historical inteqritv of the operator's
villaae adjacent to the Swan Falls Dam and Powerhouse: The SHPO
recommends that IPC develop a lonq-term preservation plan for the
historical residences and buildings used by the proj ect operators
(letter from Dr. Thomas Green, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise, Idaho, March 16,
1989). Such a plan would. maintain the historical inteqrity ofthese structures.
We aqree with the SHP. Althouqh these residences and
buildinqs would not be aftected by proposed land-clearinq and
land-distubinq activities, use of the structures and maintenance
and repair work associated with continued operation of the
project could alter the historical integrity of these structures.
Removinq or destroyinq a structure also could result in the loss
of historic information and could affect the historical inteqri ty
of the strcture and other structures in the area. We therefore
recomm~~d that IPC maintain, repair, and docuent the historic
residences and buildings identified by the SaPO, if re~oval or
destruction would occu, in accordance with the Secretary of theInterior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeoloqy and Historic
Preservation. Suc: work should be undertaken in a manner
satisfactory to the SHPO.
¡PC should file for Commission approval a cultural resources
manaqement plan, describing the standards and guidelines it would
f?llow in maintaininq or repairing historic structures, togetherwi. th the comments of the SHPO on the plan.
If IPC plans to alter or remove any s'tructure, at least 90
days before any alteration or removal of the structure, IPC
should file for Commission approval: Ca) a specific mitigative
plan to docuent the significant information that would be lost
a~d 'to minimze impacts to associated his'toric structures, and
(b) a copy of a letter from the SHPO, cOMmentinq on the
acceptabili ty of the plan.
7. brcheoloO'icgl 0; historic sl tes ê;¡;COVeëeè du;;ina çopstryctlon
0; ooeratlon of the oro; ect r or that msv be itioacted from chanaes
El1CA NO 1f2PN. IP
.. .- --_.... -. .. .__. ... ....- PA 22 OF 35
-----.--
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15
.
in the location of pro;ect facilities: . Although article 40 of
the license requires mitigative.- work;. to protect archeological
sites that may be discovered--d.uring land-clearing and land-
disturbing work associated with. project construction, it does notoutline the specific - procedur~s tbat should be undertaken toprotect such sites- -orr~.;irë "Cul t.3iai. resources investigationsin previously unsureyed -areas' that -are affected by changes in
,the location of project facilities. We therefore recommend the
inclusion of a more comprehensive article to include suchprocedures. and to mitiqate._ impacts.from changes in the location
of project facilities. Here is our rationale for such mitiqative
work.
The SHPO i S co~~ents on the proposed proj ect are based on the
premise that the project would be constructed as described in theapplication without significant chanqes. Changes to the proj ect,
especially chanqes in the proposed location and design of a
project, are occasionally found to be necessary after a license
has been issued, and may require an applicant to amend a license.
Under these circutances, whether or not an application for
amendment of license is required, the SHPO's comments would no
lonqer reliably depict the cultural resources impacts that would
result from developinq the project. Therefore, before bèqinninqland-clearinq or land-disturbinq acti vi ties wi thin the proj ect
boundaries, other than those specifically authorized in the
license and previously commented on by the SHPO, I?C should
consul t with the SHPO about the need to conduct a culturalresources surey and to implement avoidance or mitigativemeasures.
Also, land-clearinq and land-disturbing activities could
adversely affect archeoloqical and historic sites not identified
in the vicinity of the proposed projeet. Therefore, if IPC
encounters such sites durinq the development of proj ect works or
related facilities, IPC should stop land-clearinq and land-
disturbinq activities in the vicinity of the sites, should
consult with the SHPO on L~e eligibility of the sites, and should
carry out any necessary measures to avoid or to mitigate impactsto t.iie sites.
Either before starting land-clearinq or land-disturbing
activities associated with any changes to the proj ect, both
proposed and necessitated, or before resuminq land-clearing andland-disturbir.g acti vi ties in the vicinity of any previously
undiscovered sites, IPC should file with the Commission a plan
and a schedule for conduct.ing the appropriate studies, along with
copies of the SHPO i s written comments on the plan and theschedule. ¡PC should not start or resume land-clearing or land-
disturbinq activities, other than those specifically authorized
in any order amending the license and commented on by the SH?O,
or resume such activities in the vicinity of an ar=heological or
his~oric site discovered during construction, until info=med by
El1CA NO lf2PAIP
PAGE 23 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16
the Commission that the requirements discussed above have beenful:illed.
s. Recreational facili ties: providinq improvements a~ existing
project recreational facilities would enhance recreational
oppo~unities at the project site. In its revised recreational
plan, IPC proposés to provide the following: (a) an extension of
the upstream boat ramp and additional docks at this location, (b)
a public drinkinq water fountain at the upstream picnic area, and
(c) a display of a turbine in the existinq powerhouse. In
addi tion, IPC proposes to renovate the powerhouse walkway and
upqrade the restrooms to accommodate the handicapped. Providing
these improvements would enhance existing opportunities and
bet~er accommodate recreational use at the proj ect site.
Therefore, IPC's revised recreational plan should be approved.
9. !meaçts of powerhouse releases on downstream canoe-raft
laupchinafacili tv: Water releases durinq operation of the
proposed project powerhouse could adversely affect the existinq
downstream canoe-raft launchinq facility. Over time, chanqes in
streamflow could cause silt to collect in the launch area andinterfere with normal operation of the facili ty . This could
adversely affect recreational use of the river by reducing
downstream access for canoeinq and raftinq.
rpc proposes to monitor effects of tailrace discharges on
the launchinq facility within the first 18 months after project
operation begins; if adverse effects are found, then IPC proposes
either to modify or to relocate the launching facility. Several
sites downstream of the dam would be suitable for relocating the
facility (personal coinunic:ation, John Barnes, Idaho Department
of Parks and Rècreation~ Boise, Idahö; October 11, 1989). To
ensure that downstream recreational opportunities are maintained
and existinq use is accommodated, IPC, after consultinq with the
appropri~te agencies, should monitor the project's effects on the
launchinq facility durinq the first 2 years of operation of ~he
new powerhouse. If monitoring shows project operation is having
an adverse effect on canoe and raft launching, IPC should
relocate or modify the facility to avoid adverse impacts from
powerhouse releases.
R. ENROmæAL IKPAC'S
1. Assessment of impacts expected from the applicant t s proposed
project (P), with the applicant's proposed mitiqation and any
conditions set by a federal land management aqency; the pro-
posed proj ect with any additional mi tiqation recommended by
~~e staff (Ps); and any action alternative considered (A).
Assessment symols indicate the following impact levels:
o = None;3 = Major;1 = l-1inor;2 = Moderate;
El1CA NQlfPA lP
PA 24 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
17
.A = Adverse; B = Beneficial; L = Long-ter.~ S.= Short-term.
Impact l Impact
Resource P I Ps A Resource i p r PsJ . A .. .I .. t. -
a.f!e...' ....._~o; , Cl 'll~f.Wild' ; 'fe lAS
q.CUltural: .I ..b. st .- "'w 0 Archen1 OCT; ca 1 -iÄL i .-
c.Water quality:Tj:'It)e 0 Histo"";ca1 LAT."tAL
Dissolved lÄLInh.Visua 1 m1a 1 i tv
Turbidity and 2AS
I~ed; 1f~ntation lAS i.~ec"'lIation i'RT,
d.Fisheries:
I"'-- .n I; .T.and USé n
~ee;,;....of n i Ik.c:,.,.; ,..,.0......; f""'n I
e.VlICTAtsof; ....i Ä~I
Remarks:
a. Constructing the new powerhouse and swi tchyard would require
the disposal of 70,000 cuic yards of spoil materials. Existinq
roads, supplemented by short, temporary construction roads, would
give access to construct the new powerhouse.
e., f. Constrctinq the new facilities would necessitate theshort-te:m loss of about 23 acres of annual grassland and shru-
qrassland habitat.
i. The downstream canoe-raft launch and the powerhouse walkwaycouldn i t be used durinq the proposed construction; this would :be
an unavoidable adverse impact on recreation in the immediate dam
area. Improvements to existinq recreational facilities would
enhance recreation opportunl ties in the proj ect area.
2. Impacts of the no-action al ternati ve.
Onder the no-action al ternati ve, there would be no
construction of project facilities or chanqes to the existinq
physical, bioloqical, or cultural components of the area.
Electrical power qenerated by the proposed hydroelectric proj ect
would have to be qenerated from other available sources or offset
by 'conservation measures.
EX 1CA HOIf2PA IP
PAGE 25 OF 35
. .
I'
I
I
I- '. -....
I... -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
18
.3. Recommended alternative (includinq proposed, required, and
- - recommended ~i tiqa ti ve measures) :
xx Proposed proj ect._No action.__Action alternative.
. -
k.. Reason (s) for selectinq the preferred alternative.
The proposed redevelopment would generate more electrical
energ from a renewable resource without siqnificantly affectinq
the existing environmental conditions of the project area.
I. UNVOIDABLE ADVEUE IMPAC'S OF Tm iuCOHMNDED ALTERNTIVE
Excavation for the proposed powerhouse would qenerate spoil
materials, consistinq mostly of rock fraqments. Wildlife would
experience a minor, short-term adverse impact as a result of human
disturbance and the loss of 23 acres of habitat during the 3.5-
year constrction period. Use of the downstream canoe-raft launch
and the powerhouse walkway would be precluded durinq construction,
causinq a moderate, short-term imact on recreational use in the
imediate area of the dam.
J. COKPSIV DEVPME
Section 4 (e) of the Federal Power Act (Act) states that in
decidinq whether to issue a license, the Commission, in addition
to considerinq the power and development purposes of the proj ect,
must qive equal consideration to the puroses of energy
conservation for the protection of, mitigation of, damaqe to, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, the protection of recreational-
opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects ofenvironmental quali ty.
.
In section 10 (a), the Act furter requires that the project
adopted, in the judqment of the Commssion, must be best adapted
to a compTehensi ve plan for improvinq or developinq a waterway for
the use or benefit of interstate or foreiqn commerce; improving
and usinq water power development for the adequate protection,
utilization, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (includinq
related spawninq qrounds and habitat), and other beneficial public
uses, including irriqation, flood control, water supply, andrecreational and other puroses discussed in section 4 (e).
As we said, the proposed redevelopment would generate 166.1
G~"h of electrical energy per year. The proj ect also would provide
for displacement of fossil-fueled electric power plant qeneration,
improved air quality, and conservation of fossil fuels.
EXBI1CA NOIP.£2PA.1P
PAGE 26 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
19
We've evaluated the effects of project redevelopment on the
resources of the project area and discussed mitiqative and
enhancement measures that should be implemented.
The mitiqative measures we reco~end are: (1) installinq a
streamflow recordinq qauqe, downstream from the proj ect; (2)
reclaiminq areas disturbed durinq construction; (3) raptor-
proofinq the new transssion line; (4) developinq a cultural
resource manqement pian; (5) developinq additional recreational
facili ties; and (6) moni 1:orinq siltation at an existinq canoe-raft
launchinq facility and, if necessary, modifyinq or relo.catinq thefacility.
Based on our review under sections 4 (e) and 10 (a), we
conclude that the proposed amendment, with proposed and
recommended mi tiqati ve and enhancement measures, would be best
adapted to a. comprehensive plan for developinq the Snake River.
It. CONCLUSION
ÃÃ!'iZl4iii of No SiCjificait Impact. Approval of the recom-
mended alternative (H(3)) would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affectinq the quality of the
human environment; therefore, an environmental impact
statement (ZIS) will not be prepared.
_Intent to Prepare an EIS. Approval of the recommendedal ternati ve (H (3)) would constitute a maj or federal action
siqnificantly affectinq the quality of the human environ-
ment: therefore, an EIS will be prepared.
L. LInn'l CI'1ED
Federal Energ Requlatory Commission. 1987. Draft environmental
impact statement for the Twin Falls (FEC No. 18), Milner
(FERC No. 2899), Auqer Falls (FEC No. 4797), and Star Falls
(FERC No. 5797) Hydroelectric Projects on the mainstem of the
Snake River, Idaho. Washinqton, D.C. November 1987.
Federai Power Commission. 1967. Planninq status report for the
Upper Snake River Bas in: Wyominq, Idaho, Uta, Nevada, andOreqon. Washinqton, D.C. 23 pp.
Idaho Power Company. 1981. Second amended application for new
license for the Swan Falls Project, FEC Project No. 503,
Idaho. October 30, 1981.
Idaho Power Company. 1989a. Application for amendment of license
for the Swan Falls Project, ?ERe Project No. 503, Idaho.
April 24, 1989.
EX 1
CA NO. IP-E2PAC IF
PAGE '0 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- . .
(-
20
Idaho Power Company. - 1989b... ---Response - to staff request for
additional information" for the Swan Falls Project, FERC
Project No. 503, Idaho. September 19, 1989.
H. L.S~ OF PIæPARRS" . ~.
l! .position tj,tle
Ecoloqist (C60rdinator)
Environmental ProtectionSpecialist
Landscape Architect
Civil Enqineer
Wri ter-edi tor
Supervisory Ecoloqist
Soil ConservationistArcheoloqist
Electrical Enqineer
Diane Rodman
Suzanne Brown
. . .-.... -
Thomas C. Cam, Jr.
Timothy Looney
John Hi tchell
Alan Hitc:nick
Kathleen. Sherman
Edwin Slatter
Martin Thorpe
EX1CA NO IfPA. lP
PA 28 OF 35
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAFTY AND DESIGN ASSESSMENT
SWAN FALL PROJECT
FERC NO. 503, IDAHO
Project Design
The existinq Swan Falls Proj ect is on the Snake River, in Ada
and Owyhee Counties, Idaho about 40 miles southwest of Boise.
Idaho Power Company (IPC) proposes amendinq the -license to dothe followinq:
(1) retire the existinq powerhouse, remove the turbines and
qeneratinq equipment, and fill the draft tubes and
turbine pits with concrete:
(2) remove the existinq fish ladder, sluiceway, and part of
the qravi ty dam to const~ct the new powerhouse:
(3) construct a new powerhouse on the east bank containinq
two qeneratinq units with a rated capacity of 12. 5
meqawat1:s (MW) each:.
(4) construct a new swi tchyard on the east bank:
(5) construct a new 1. 2-mile-lonq, 13S-kilovolt transmission
line: and
(6) construct appurenant facilities.
For the last few years, the proj ect has produced an averaqe
annual energy of about 83 qiqawatthours (GW) with a total rated
capacity of-l0.4 MW.- With the proposed new turbines, the project
would produce about 166.1 GWh of electrical enerqy per year.
Oetetminatlon of Licensable Transmission Facilities
The new primary transmission line seqment included in thelicense would extend from the proj ect qenerators, thouqh vol taqe
transformation, to an interconnection with an existinq _Idaho Power
Company (IPC) 138 kV transmission line. The primary line segment
would include about 1.2 miles of sinqle circuit, 138 kV overhead
transmission line to connect the project switchyard to the IPC i S
existinq transmission line between the Strike power plant and the
Bowmont and Caldwell substations, and appurenant facili ties.
pam Satetx
The hazard potential of a dam is the potential for loss of
human life or property damaqe that would result from failure of
the dam. Our Portland Reqional Office (PRO) rates the Swan Falls
dam as havinq a hiqh downstream hazard potential.
- .._.._.. --_..._--_.. .._--._.._- ._..-
EX 1CANO~PA.lP
PA 29 OF 35
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
In a letter of April 13, 1989, to IPC, PRO raised the hazardpotential from low to hiqh, basinq the change on :rC I.s-revised
probable maximum flood levels, in the 1987 safety inspectionreport to the Commission. The studies show that at floys. uP. to
the probable maximum flood, a dam failure woul~ signif~cantiyinundate several downtream residences.,
For the 1987 safety inspection report,. IPC hired a consultant
to study the underwater concrete and rock foundat;Qn_of the
powerhouse disehare area. Leakaqe though the wicket qates of
the powerhouse form curents that make it hard to inspect the
downstream side of the powerhouse. Because the consultantcouldn i t determine the condition of the powerhouse foundation--
other than erosion--he recommended:
(1) investiqatinq the structural condition of the
powerhouse, and
(2) makinq a plan to deal with the erosion of the powerhousefoundation.
On April 11, 1989, IPC told PRO that they'd seen a new crackin the powerhouse section that contains units 7 thouqh 10. IPC's
consul tant reviewed the safety of the powerhouse, said that the
powerhouse could be unstable under norml loadinq conditions, and
told IPC it should not let the reservoir water surface elevation
exceed 2,312.5 feet mean sea level until it completes foundationrepairs.
On May 18, 1989, IPC sent the Commission a report from the
consultant, recommendinq that IPC repair voids beneath the
powerhouse before the end of the year.
To insure a safe and adequate project, we recommend includinq
license article 303 in any order issued. The article requires the
licensee to file final contract drawinqs and specifications and a
supportinq desiqn report for the new powerhouse and for modifyinq
the existinq powerhouse.
To allow us to review and approve the sequence of the
construction of project features, we also recommend includinq
license article 304 in any order issued. The article requires the
licensee to file a plan and schedule for constructinq the new
powerhouse and for ~odifyinq the existinq powerhouse.
Water ResQui;e Planning and Comrehensiye peve19pment
The existinq powerhouse was built in three different
sections, housing a total of 10 turbine-generatinq units with a
total installed capacity of 10.4 MW. Units 1 and 2 have been in
service for more than 40 years and are fast approaching the end of
EX1CA NO 1f-EPAKWIP
PA 30 OF 35
I'
I
I--
I
I-
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~. ~ . " ~ ..
3
their sevicible life. Units 3 throuqh 10 have been in service for
- -~ore than 70 years and have reached the end of their serviciblelife.
" IPC 's expenditures for operation and maintenance of the-- . "existinq project are much qreater than the system average and are
increasinq annually. ¡PC estimates overall plant efficiency is
presently about 74 percent--about 16 percent lower than the
efficiency of a modern plant--and therefore proposes to replace
-. the existinq powerhouse with a new powerhouse containinq two bulb-turbine qeneratinq units.
The two proposed bulb-turbine units would have a total .
installed capacity of 25 MW--an increase of 14.6 MW for the
project. The bulb-turbines would have a total hydraulic capacityof 14,000 cuic feet per second (cfs), an increase of 6,000 cfs.
The project's hydraulic capacity would be exceeded about 15
percent of the time, and the project would generate about 166.iGW annually with a plant factor of about 75 percent.
_ Section 10 (a) (2) of the Act requires the Commission to
consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal
or state comprehensive plans for improvinq, developinq, orconservinq a waterwy or waterways affected by the proj ect.
We reviewed IPC' s proposed license- amendment to see if it is
consistent with the Northwest Power Planninq Council's (Council)
Northwes1: Conservation and Electric Power Plan. The Council's
plan envisions meetinq the qrowinq reqional enerqy requirements in
the most economical manner with environmentally acceptable
resources. The Council considers any environmentally acceptable
resource that is less exensive than coal-fueled steam electric
qeneration as an acceptable resource for development before the
development of coal-fueled power plants (the Council's plariedmarginal resource).
We developed life-cycle costs of power from the Council's
planed qeneric coal plant, which we assume would be needed about
the year 1998, for determininq if proposed hydroelectric proj ects
are, in the lonq term, consistent with the Plan, as required bysection 10 (a) 2 of the Act. Our determination that the reqion,
when treated collectively, would need new coal -fueled steamgeneratinq plants about 1998, is based on the Council's proj ection
of reqional power needs under the medium-hiqh load forecast in its
1989 supplement to the 1986 plan.
Since the life-cycle levelized cost of IPC's proposed project
addition, as of its projected on-line date, is less than the
levelized life-cycle cost of the least-cost or marginal lonq-term
alternative, in the plan, IPC' s proposed license amendment is not
inconsistent with the Council's plan and is economically
beneficial within the lonq-term objectives of the plan. On
EX1CA NOIP2PA.lP
PA 31 OF 35
1\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. "
4
Septemer 14, 1989, the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IOWR)
filed a motion to intervene arquinq that the Swan Falls Proj ect
should be consistent with statewide comprehensive plans for
developinq the water resources of the state. We find that the
proposed addition to the Swan Falls Proj ect is consistent with the
Idaho State Water Plan.
iow also said we should require IPC to do the followinq:
(1) consider the potential for future water developmentupstrea from the proj ect and consider the need to
assure tht project operation will not interfere withthe cuent and future beneficial uses of water;
(2) address any effects on the proj ect of IPC l S complyinq
with comprehensive statewide plans, recommendations of
state resource aqencies, and applicable Idaho laws.In a Septemer 19,' 1989, response to' IOWR, IPC says they
considered items 1 and 2 in preparinq their application 21
for amendment.
~ ¡PC says the proposed license amenàment does not conflict
with the followinq state and reqional comprehensive water
resource development plans and proqram:
o The Idaho State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan, Idaho Departent of Parks and Recreation,
1983.
o The Snake River Birds of Prey Area Manaqement Plan,
Bueau of Lad Manaqement, 1985.
.0 The Idaho Deparbent of Fisheries Manaqement Plan:
1986-1990, Idaho Departent of Fish and Game, 1986.
o The Nortwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan,Nortwest Power Planninq Council, 1987.
o The Columia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Proqram,Nortwest Power Planinq Council, 1987.
o The Idaho State Water Plan, Idaho Oeparent of
Water Resources, 1988.
o The Idaho Protected Rivers Bill, Idaho Leqislature,
1988.
o Existing Land Use Policies and Plans of the
Counties of Ada, Elmore and Owyhee.
EX1CA NO IfPA lP
PA 32 OF 35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. . ..
5
Federal and- state agencies filed 24 comprehensive plans
discussinq various-resources' 'inIdaho.- We have reviewed these
plans and have determined- the proposed license amendment does not
conflict with any of these plans or with any existinq or plannedwatar resource development in the snake. River Basin.. .. - '..
In the .letters :òf~"comment',-Iio' other state aqency i federal
agancy, or individual says -the proposed expansion c~nflicts with
any existinq or. planned water resource developments in the basin.
No one made specific. camnts orrecommendations. about .flood
control, water supply , or irriqation requirements for the SnakeRiver.
Our Planninq Status Report for the Upper Snake River Basin
and our Hydroelectric Site Oata Base show no existinq or proposed
projects that would conflict with the proposed expansion of theSwan Falls Proj ect.
EC9D9mic Eyalusiti9n
A proposed proj ect is economically beneficial so lonq as its
levelized cost is less than the lonq-term levelized cost of
alternative power to any utility in the reqion that can be seredby the project.
IPC plans to use the additional power from the redeveloped
proj ect on their system and to market excess power until all theproject power çan be used. Our economic analysis of IPC i s license
amendment is based on IPC i S maketinq of proj ect power in the
Pacific Nortwest Reqion.
We calcuate the SO-year leveli:ed alternative power cost in
the reqion in 1993 will be about 89.4 mills per kilowatthour
(kWh) .
The alternative cost is the levelized unit cost of power from
coal-fueled steam electric plants we assumed will be needed in the
reqion by 1998 and the value of only displaced fuel consumption in
existinq coal-fueled, steam-plants until that time. Based on the
Council i s projec1:ed collective reqional need for additional
qeneratinq resources in the Pacific Nortwest, as shown for the
medium-hiqh load forecast in the Council IS 1989 supplement to the
1986. Power Plan, we assume that new coal plant qeneratinq
resources will be required within the reqion by 1998 ~
The 89.4 mills/kWh value includes an average capacity-value-
reduction component equl to the cost of addinq combustion 1:urbine
capacity to a hydro project to allow it, under critical water
conditions, to perform at the level of a coal plant.
El1CA NO 1P-EPAIf
PA 33 OF 35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.t. -.
6
As we stated, IPC proposes to redevelop the Swan Falls
Proj ect by retirinq the existinq powerhouse and constructinq a new
powerhouse containinq two 12.5 MW bulb-turbines.
The existinqpowerhouse and qeneratinq units are in poor
condition. In the amendment application, IPC estimates the
development cost of the new powerhouse would be $45.3 million. OnSeptemer 19, 1989, IPC filed additional information showing the
estimated cost to repair or replace the civil, mechanical,
and electrical systems in the exstinq powerhouse to be $37.4
million. The 14. 6 MW increment of capacity would cost $7. 9
million to develop.
The refurbished proj ect would qenerate about 112. 5 GWh
annually; the new powerhouse would qenerate about 166.1 GWH
annually. Buildinq the new powerhouse, would increase the annual
qeneration of the project by 53.6 GWbannually.
Using the reqional power value, we examined the economics of
the proposed increase' in intalled capacity. We estimte the
levelized annual cost of power from the proj ect would be 32.5
mills/kwh and the levelized net benefit would be 56.9 mills/kwh.
Because the added capacity of the new powerhouse would be
economically beneficial, we recommend that IPC build it.
Exhibits
The followinq parts of exhibit A and the followinq exhibit F
drawinqs conform to the Commission i s Rules and Requlations are
approved and made a part of the license:
Exhibit A .§: New Power Plant section on paqe A-9, SlÙstationsection on paqe A-I0 and Trn~ssion Line section on paqe A-l1.
ExhiSit F:
Sheet §.
1 of 6
FEC No.
:S03 -Showing
ios General Plan
3 of 6 107 Existing Powerhouse Structure
Plan and Section
4 of 6 108 Existinq Powerhouse StructureSections
6 of 6 109 New Powerhouse Plan and Sections
.§ Filed with the Commission on April 24, 1989.
El1CA NO IfPAKW.IP
PA 34 OF 35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
d .
..._.._------_.._---
,--
I'
7
List of Preparers
Timothy Looney, Civil Enqineer.
Martin Thorpe, Electical Enqineer.
.;
El1CA NO 1f-EPAIP
__ _.___ PA 35 OF 35
~I..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BEFORE TH
IDAH PULI UTUTS COMMSSION
CASE NO. PC-E-92
IDAH POWE COMAN
EXHIIT 2
..
i lXlllá'
I:. ù
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BEFORE 'IdE DEP.aim'IENT OF WATE RESOUCES
OF 'IdE
STATE OF IDAO
In the matter of Application for
Perm t No. 02-7379 in the Nare of
Idaho Pow r Company
MEORAUM DECISION
AN
elIER
This matter having come before the Idaho Department of Water Resources(departmnt) as a resut of revie..ing Application for Permit 02-7379 for
approval, the department Finds, Concludes and Orders as follow:
FINDINGS OF FACl
1. On March 31, 1982, the Idaho Powr Comany (applicant) filed an
application for permt with the department proposing the diversion of 6,550
cuic feet per second (ds) of water of the Snae River at a point within lots
10 and 11, Section 18, 1'S, RlE, at'!, Ada an Owhee couties. The proposed USe
of the water is for por generation purpses at the existing Swa Falls dar
site located in Lot 11, Section 18, T2S, RlE, aM and the proposed season of useis Janary 1 through Decemr 31 of each year.
2. The application was pulished on May 5 and 12, 1982 in the Owhee
Nugget, a newpaper of general circuation in Owee County, Idao and on May 6
and 13, 1982 in The Idaho Statesm, a newspaper of general circuation in AdaCouty, Idao.
3. On May 20, 1982, the application was protested by the South Board of
Control, Owee Project. On October 25, 1982, the protest wa withrawn.
4. The appropriation sought is for a ruf-river project and there
will be no chge in the upstream or dowstream flow of the river. Storage willnot be increased over the storage imped for the existing project.
5. On Decembr 22, 1982, the Federal Energy Regulatory Comssion
(FmC) issued a new license (Major) in connection with the existing Swa Falls
project (No. 503). The license authorized redevelopmnt of the projectincluding a ne'", spillway, a ne.. porhouse an an increased total installed
capacity of 25 MW, replacing the existing capacity of 10.4 MW.
6. On April 30', 1987, FEC issued an amended license deleting author-
ization to add 14.6 MW of new capacity to the existing facility.
7. The applicant is in the process of sutting a second application
to amnd the P'C license which wod allow the applicant to again add 14.6 MW
of new capaci ty to the existing facili ty.
8. Section 42-203A(S), Idao Code, provides tht an application may be
rejected or partially approved if the proposed use is such:
MEORA DEC!S¡ON AN ORDER - Page 1
El2
CA NO 1P-EPA lIPA1OF4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a) that it will- reduce the quantity of water under existing
water rights, or
b) that the water supply itself is insufficient for the
purpose for whi~~ it is sought to be appropriated, or
c) where it appears to the satisfaction of the departmnt
tht such application is not made in good fai th, is madefor delay or specuative purpses, or
d) that the acolicant has not sufficient finacial resources
with which. to comlete the work involved therein, or
e) that it will conflict with the the local pulic interest.
9. The applicant is a party to the contract and agre~ment affecting
rights to water use at Swan ralls dam and to use of water tributary to the Snake
River upstream from Swa ralls da.
COCLUSION OF LA
1. The propsed use of water is non-consutive in nature and will not
increase or decrease the flow of the Snae River which exist in coection wi ththe exsting project.
2. The proposed use will not increase the. amt of water stored over
the amunt already stored in connection with the existinq project.
3. The propsed use is non-contive in nature an will not reduce
the qutity of water uner existing water rights.
4. The flow of the Snake River are sufficient at tims to provide the .
water to increase the por generation capaility of th Swa Falls facility.
S. The application is made in go faith, since _ the applicat is in
the process of obtaining other permts needed to cotruct and operate theproject.
6. The applicat has sufficient fincial' resources with which to
colete the project.
7. The application is in the local pulic interest.
S. The departmnt should approve the application an issue a permt,
provided., howver, such perm t should include contions as necessary to
acknowledge certain agreements and contracts.
ORER
It is therefore, hereby, OBER that Aplication for Permt No.
02-7379 be approv suject to the following condtion:
1. The Idaho Powr Company (permt holder) shall either install ameasuring device or provide a certified measurement or flow comtation prepared
MEORA DECISION AN OP,oER -- Page 2
EXBI 2CA NO 1P-a2PA.II
PAGE2OF4
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
by a professional engineer based upon system design to show the amount of water
beneficially used in the power generating facility.
2. The diversion and use of water under this permit is subject to the
control of the watermaster of any water district established on the reach of the
Snake River which includes Swan Falls dam.
3. This permt is suject to the provisions of Sections 42-205 through
42-210, Idao Cooe, restricting the sale, transfer, assignent, or mortgage of
this pennt. Failure to comply with these provisions is cause for immdiate
cancellation of this perm t.
4. The diversion and use of water under this pennt and any licensesusequently issued is subject to review by the di rector on the date (s) of
expiration of any license issued by FERC. . Upon appropriate findings relative to
the interest of the pulic, the director may cancel all or any part of the useauthorized herein an may revise, delete or add conitions under whch the right
may be exercised.
5. The water right acqired under this permt shall be junor an
surdinate to all rights to the use of water from the Snae River an sources
tributary thereto upstream from Swa Falls da wi thin the state of Idaho thtare initiated later in time than the priori ty date of ths penn t an shall not
give rise to any right or claim against future rights to the use of water withinthe state of Idaho initiated later in tim th the priority of this permt.
6. The director retains jurisdiction of this pennt in order to limit
the use of water for hydropowr generation purposes to a specific term of years
as required by Section 42-203B( 7), Idao Code.
7. Use of water uner ths permt shall be non-consutive.
8. This pennt is specifically subject to the agreemnt amng thestate of Idao, the Goernor, the Attorney Genetal and Idao Por Compy dated
October 25, 1984. It is also suject to the Contract betwen the state of idao
and the Idaho Powr Coman dated OCtober 25, 1984.
9. Wi thout regard to the right granted to the perm t holder to the
beneficial use of 6,550 cfs pursuat to Permt 02-7379, water may ony beclaimd and used thereunder if an when the water is physically available ansuch permt shall not give rise to any claim on the part of the permt holder to
a flow reqirement in the Snake River whch exceeds 3,900 cfs during the sur
season and 5,600 cfs during the winter season as specified in the abve
described agreement and contract.
10. Diversion an use of water by the reconstructed Swa Falls por
projeet shall be pursut to water rights held by the permt holder (includingPermt 02-7379) an as such rights are mofied by the aqreemet an contract
and not otherwise.
11. Aprovl of this permt is suject to the reqrement that the
permt holder shall advise the FtC through its licensing process (Section 9(b)
FPAJ that the permt holder has been issued a water right permt for the flowrequired to operate the planned por project subject to conditions.
MEO~ DECISION AN OP.ER - page 3
EX2
CA NO IlPA IfIPA3OF4
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12. The failure of the permt holder to comply with the coditions of
the permt or to obtain appropriate approvals from the FEC to construct and
operate this proposed project pursuant thereto is cause for the department tocancel this permt.
13 . Plans of the proposed redevelopmnt of the project shall besub tted to the departmnt for review and approvl pursut to provisions ofSectons 42-1709 through 42-1721, Idao Code, ar.d the Safety of Da Rules andReguations before construction is authorized.
14. Proof of construction of works an aoolication of water to
beneficial use shall be su tted to the departmnt on õr- before April 1, 1994.
Dated this )tJ tJ day of ¡;g.t , 1989.
¡
a:nCA Of' MALING
I SEy CEFY Tht on ths the IIdaY of April, 1989, a true
and correct copy of thé foreiing ~ll DECISIal AN O!D. was
mailed postaçe prepaid to:
Idah Powr Comy
P. o. Bo 70
SOiSé, ID 83707 Q.--ftotRITA I. P'Secretary/Rcords Maçer
MERA DECISIal AN OEDER - Page 4
EXIB 2
CA NO 1P-E2PA.lP
PA 40F 4
i'
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BEFOR TH
DAH PUBLI UTTIES COWSSION
CASE NO. PC-E-92
DAH POWE COMANY
EXIT 3
'"- IX"."Tf
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. .ro
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
SWAN FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
COMMITMENT ESTIMATE
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLAS)
PROJECT
ESTIMATE 1/
1 NEW POWERHOUSE:
2 DIRECTS:
3 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS $
4 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS
5 OTHER CONTRACTS & FACILITIES
6 TOTAL DIRECTS $
7 INDIRECTS
8 OVERHEADS
9 AFUDC
10 TOTAL NEW POWERHOUSE $
23,065
19,192
926
43,183
404
9,504
6,843
59,934.............
11 DECOMMISSION OLD POWERHOUSE:
12 DIRECTS:
13 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRCTS $ 2,90014 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS 0
15 OTHER CONTRACTS & FACILITIES 9
16 TOTAL DIREcTs $ 2,90917 INDIRECTS 018 OVERHEAS 43519 AFUDC 108
20 TOTAL DECOMMISSION OLD POWERHOUSE $ 3,452.............
21 RESTORATION OLD POWERHOUSE:
22 DIRECTS:
23 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS $ 66824 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS 0
25 OTHER CONTRACTS & FACILITIES 0
26 TOTAL DIRECTS $ 66827 INDIRECTS 028 OVERHEAS 15529 AFUDC 19
30 TOTAL RESTORATION OLD POWERHOUSE $ 842.............
31 TOTAL SWAN FALLS PROJECT 21
32
33 TOTAL COMMITMENT ESTIMATE
$64,228
1.25
80,285$....'..._....-
1/ COST ESTIMATE REPORTED IN DOLLARS AT COMPLETION.
2/ COST ESTIMATE EXCLUDES 'REMOVAL COSTS' OF $804,000.
ATTACHMENT 3.
SUPPLEMENT TO INITIAL APPLICATIONEXBI 3CA NOlf2PAIP
PAGEl Cll
'"
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
BEFOR TH
IDAH PlUC UTES COMSSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-92
IDAH POWE COM ANY
EXtBI 4
) .
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNAXE RIVEREk~""~..""";' ~~ .~.-~~~., . ,.' .
~... ..
. -. . .' J.
i . .~ . ,.'HYJ:RO POER
IDAHO POVVER COMPAN.Y
iox 10. IOISE. IDAHO 13101
March 16, 1990
of
Mr Ronald A CorsoDirector .
O-D-S-I
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 North Cap i ta 1 Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project
Proj ec t No. 503, Idaho
Dear Mr Corso:
This is in reference to our March 12, 1990 meeting with you and
staff on the schedule and existing powerhouse stabi 1 ization plans for the Swan
Fa 11 s Project.
As agreed, the presented schedu 1 e , opti on 2, wi 11 be adopted.
Ou ri ng the progress of the des i gn and constructi on, our effort wi 11 be con-
centrated on finishing the stabilization of the existing powerhouse one year
earl ier than our previous schedule, dated Januar- 22, 1990.
Resubmitted' for your approval under Article 304 of the Swan Falls
Amended License are an original and fourteen (14) copies of the revised
schedule, dated March 14, 1990, with a revised plan. The plan also includes
these additional features as agreed in our meeting:
o Prior to the new powerhouse excavation:
- Piezometers for monitoring existing powerhouse uplift under the
east bay adjacent to unit 110, and under the wall between units
18 and 9 will, be installed.
- Concrete backfill will be placed in the east bay adjacent to
unit 110. Concrete backfill will also be placed in the bay .
between units 16 and 17 if it will not interfere with access
and operation of the powerhouse.
o The current monitoring program for the existing powerhouse in-
cludes:
El4CA NOIP-E2PA.IPPA1OF8M'. 4St or IN APCAON
I..
i I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" . ~
Mr Ronald A Corso
Page 2
March 16, 1990
- Continuation of the current crack monitoring that consists of:
1. Read and record the Avongaard moni tors at least once per
month. Additional measurements shall be taken prior to,
during, and immediately after any dewatering activfty or a
reservoir drawdown in excess of 3.5 feet. There are two
monitors located below the generator floor; one on the
right wall of unit 110, and one on the left wall of unit #7.
'2. Measure and record the generator floor longitudinal crack
at locations in units 3, 4, 5 and 10 every three months.
3. Survey and record horizontal and vertical movement of points
located on the generato r floor over each wall between all
un i ts every six months.
These monitoring intervals are in atcordance with FERC's region-
a 1 di rector's 1 etter of January 26, 1990, our 1 etter of Feb~Jar.
22, 1990, and the March 13, 1990 confinnation phone discussion
with Mr Nonn Weseloh of the regional office.
o Monitoring of the existing powerhouse during the new powerhouse
excavation includes:
- The current monitoring will be continued until the existing
powerhouse is stabilized, except during blasting for the new
powerhouse excavation. During this period, the monitorin9'
interval will be increased to daily for monitoring numbered (1),
ever, week for monitoring numbered (2), and monthly for monit-
oring numbered (3). However, if conditions change for the
numbered (1) or (2) moni tori ng, then more frequent i nterv a 1 for
monitoring numered (3) will be established consistent with
need. Intervals for monitoring numbered (1) and (2) will also
be adjusted to ref1 ect any changed condi tion.
- Read and record piezometers dai ly during blasting for the new
powerhouse excavation and existing powerhouse stabilization.
Monitoring intervals will be aåjusted to reflect any changed
condition. At other times during new powerhouse construction~
moni tori ng wi 11 be 1 ess frequent, but respons i ve to encountered
conditions.
- Seismic monitoring of the existing powerhouse for each blast
during new powerhouse excavation.
- Monitoring by one person and prompt dissemination of the in-
fonnation to those designated.
EX4CA NO lP-EPA,lf
PAGE2OF8
I..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.
. .
Mr Ronald A Corso
Page 3
March 16, 1990
o Pool lowering elevations during blasting for the new powerhouse
excavation will be established to satisfy requirements for the
existing powerhouse stability. The pool levels will be coordi-
nated with headwater concerns including irrigation.
"
o As-built drawings for the entire project, including the prev.iously
constructed new spi 1 1 way and tail race channel, wi 11 be submi tted
after project completion.
o Monitoring data will be summarized and provided to the Portland
Regional Office at the end of each month unless unusual instru-
mentation data developes. When unusual readings of the instru-
mentation data occurs, it will be reported to the regional office
iimediately, along with .plans for assessing the significants of
the da ta as it may affect the proj ects structura 1 i ntegri ty.
Correspondence on Swan Falls was received on March 13, 1990, fro
your regional offi ce relative to Part 12, Safety of Water Power Projects..
However. our response to this matter will be addressed by separate letter.
Sincerely,
r: £ ÆI!4dU/ tf /)t,t
Steven L HerndonAttorney -
SLH:EOG:cy
Encs
cc: Arthur Marti n, FERC
Lee S Sherline, Leighton & Sherline
L E Lanham
E a Groff
EX4CANQ~2PAlPPA3OF8
"""'-',"";'.._'..-:.:_-~,,....
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SWAN FALLS PROJECT
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
FERC Project No 503
Idaho
PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Revi sed March 16, 1990
Subject
.'
Plan and schedule for constructing the new powerhouse and for modifying
the existing powerhouse.
Reference
Order Amending License issued December 8, 1989, Project No 503-006,.
Articl e 304.
Schedule
Attached is a detailed schedule showing each activity of work. Also,
attached is a sunmary schedule showing the project by major feature.
Plan-
o Work began on January 22, 1990, to actively pursue the design, con-
struction and begin operation of the new 25 MW powerhouse as scheduled.
o The earlier 1980s design effort expended toward building the new plant
at that time is being utilized to the fullest extent feasible. How-
ever, a review of each feature is being made to talce advantage of
recent experience of similar pl ants and the latest technology for the
most efficient and safe construction and plant operation. The bulb
turbine with a speed inci;easer and high-speed generator has been
determined to be most cost effective and efficient for operation.
o The initial critical item ;s to develop specifications for a single
supply contract for the two 12.5 MW turbines with speed increasers,generators and governors. Informtion from the turbine supplier for
turbine setting, water intake and waterway configurations is needed
earlier to finalize the powrhouse bid solicitation drawings. The
powerhouse contractor will install the turbines and associated equip-
ment with diretion from the turbine erection engineer.
o The powerhouse contract will be awarded by April 15, 1991. The overall
excavation and concrete placing durations allow for winter weather in
1991.92 and 1992.93. Installation of the first turbine will begin by
February 1, 1993.
o Major accessory equipment will be suppl ied by individual contracts and
furnished to the powerhouse contractor for installation.
o Power on-line is scheduled for the first unit on November 1, 1993, and
the second unit on January 1, 1994.
EX4CA NO IPc-e2~.IP
PAGE4OF8
I..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. . .
o The existing powerhouse will be operated until the first unit in the
new powerhouse is on line. Then the existing powerhouse will begin
deconuissioning, turbine/generators and accessory equipment will be
removed, draft tubes and scro 11 cases wi 11 be fi 11 ed wi th concrete, one
complete generating unit will be prepared for public exhibit, and the
powerhouse superstructure will be repaired and preserved.
o The existing powerhouse is near the new powerhouse, som cracks have
developed in the structure, and stability of the structure is a concern
especially during excavation for the new powerhouse. Therefore, thisprogram is established. .f
A. Prior to the new. powerhouse excavation:
- ~iezometers for monitoring existing powerhouse uplift under the
east bay adjacent to unit #10, and under the wall between units
#8 and 9 wi 11 be i ns ta 11 ed.
- Concrete backfi 11 wi 11 be placed in the east bay adj acent to
unit #10. Concrete backfill will also be placed in the bay
between units #6 and #7 if it will not interfere with access
and operation of the powerhouse.
B. The current monitoring program for the existing powerhouse in-
cludes:
- Continuation of the current craclc monitoring that consists of:
1. Read and record the Avongaard monitors at least once per
month. Additional measuremnts shall be taken prior to,
during, and iimediate1y after any dewatering activity or a
reservoir drawdown in excess of 3.5 feet. There are tw
monitors located below the generator floor; one on the right
wall of unit #10, and one on the left wall of unit 17.
2. Measure and record the generator floor longftudinal crack
at locations in units 3, 4, 5 and 10 every three months.
3. Survey and record horizontal and vertical movement of pointslocated on the generator floor over each wall betwen all
units every six months.
These moni tori ng i nterva 1 s are in accordance wi th FERC' s reg; on-
al director's letter of January 26, 1990, our letter of February
22, 1990, and the March 13, 1990 confirmtion phone discussion
with Mr Norm Weseloh of the regional office.
C. Monitoring of the existing powrhouse during the new powerhouse
excavation includes:
- The current monitorino will be continued until the existing
powerhouse is stabi1ižed, except during blasting for the new
EX 5CA NO 1f2PA. lPPASOF8
...._-...:..._:.-.-.---._---- ~- .....__....._.~.
I..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" . .
powerhouse excavation. During this period, the monitoring
interval will be increased to daily for monitoring numbered (1),
every week for monitoring numbered (2), and monthly for monit-
ori ng numbered (3) . However, if condi ti ons change for the
numbered (1) or (2) monitoring, then more frequent interval for
monitoring numbered (3) will be established consistent with
need. Intervals for monitoring numbered (1) and (2) will also
be adjusted to refl ect any changed condi ti on.
.. Read and record piezometers daily during blasting for the new
powerhouse excavation and exi sting powerhouse stabi 11zation.
Monitoring intervals will be adjusted to reflect any changed
condition. At othe.r times during new powerhouse construction,
mon i tori ng wi 11 be 1 ess frequent, but respons i ve to encountered
condi ti ons.
.. Seismic monitoring of the existing powerhouse for each blast.
during new powerhouse excavation.
.. Monitoring by one person and prompt dissemination of the in-
formation to those designated.
O. Pool lowering elevations during blasting for the new powerhouse
excavation will be established to satisfy requirements for the
exi sti ng powerhouse stab; 11 ty. The pool 1 eve 15 will be coordi..
nated with headwater concerns includfngirrigation.
o As-built drawings for the entire project, including the previously
constructed new spillway and tailrace channel, will be submitted after
project completion.
o Monitoring data will be suinarized and provided to the
Portland Region-
al Office at the end of each month unless unusual instrumentation data
developes. When unusual readings of the instrumentatiol' data occurs,
it will be reported to the regional office immediately, along with
plans for assessing the significants of the data as it may affect the
proj ects s tructura 1 f ntegri ty.
o The entire project will be complete by October 1, 1994.
El6CA NOIfPAIPPA6OF8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Il
S
W
"

N
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
CO
N

T
R
O
l

S
DR
A
F
T
TU
B
E
CA
T
E
S
I
D
.

r
.

G
A
1
£
,
SO
l
l
C
l
f

I
I

.
I
v
I
_
I
D
A
O
"
'
I
N
C
.
I
:
'l
o
a
~
~
W
;
=
~
c
"
,
1~
¡
~
0
I
I
i
f
I
:
ro
A
H
O
l
l

C
A
'
;
lO
I
C
I

I
i
O
~
VI
I
I
O"
"
'
I
N
C
'
IN
T
A
K
E
ST
O
P
L
O
C
S
AN
D
TR
A
S
H
R
A
C
K
S
CR
A
N
E
S
~A
C
P
A
R
C

P
~
l
l
s
(

P
L
A
o
l

.

"
,
c
c

I
.
X
r
h
l
l
W

I
ME
e
H
A
N

I

C
A
L
EO
U

I

P
M
E
N

T
PO
W
E
R
H
O
U
S
E
I I I l I I I I I~'I
1
~
I I I I I I I I I I I
.A
r
c
TU
R
B
I
N
E
,
;
CE
N
E
R
A
T
O
R
,
;
CO
V
E
R
N
O
R
,
;
SP
E
E
D

I
N
C
.
,'
:
"
L
L
S
PR
O
J
E
C

T
50
3
OU

I
V
I
\
\
.
C
'
m
~

l

:
i
"
¡
¡
a

'
l
(
C
I

r

1
1
0
'
:
.
.
'
.

'
'
'
I
H
O
C

.
:
M
A
W
t
A
C
l
U
I
l

'
I
O
l
O
G
'
1
'
R
A
'
I
d
A
C
'
"

:

:

D
.
.
.
.
l
l
l
~
A
I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I
~\
\
t
"'
_
O
C
'
,
?
I

C
A
A
N
C

I
Jt
f
c
l
l
å
f
ó
.
.,
-
-
'
'O
l

l
t
i
i

I
I
"
~-
-
-

V
L
_
1I
"
"
l
l
i
S
..
CO
H
"
n
s
O
l

:
SO
l
i
e

I
f

l
I
D
S

:
ox
i
r
i
i
s
I
..
J
.
.
t
a
c
l
u
ø
C
i"
'
s
Ol
l
I
V
I
"-
I I
'r
.
i
I
:
:
W
~
I
=
c:
r
U
D
A
l
Ck
C
O
.
A
l
I
O
H
HÀ
N
\

A
C
'
U
R
t

i
u
l
l
a
.

i

l
C
.
MA

I
N
TR
A
N
S
F
R
M
R

l
o
c
v
.

.
1

o
s
DR
M.

v
.
SW
I

T
C
H
C
E
A
R
CO
G

1

I
'
R
¡'
.
4
/
t
o
L.

v
.
SW
I

T
C
H
C
E
A
R
lO
G

I

I
P
R
11
1
3
"
0
ÐC
1
CA
S
E

N
O
I
P
-
E
2
PA
.
I
P
PA
G
E
1
O
F
8
".

v
.

"
"
'
"
e
l
SO
L
I
C
i
t
i
s:
"
I
'
l
W
i
1
0
"
s
-
v
c
N
l
OR
A
W
I
:
H
'
l:
HA
N
V
I
A
C
t
l
l
£

"
.
v
.
MA
N
U

A
C
1
U
R
f

l
.

v
.

$
W
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-~.
.
(
50
3
l
,

.

l

.
:
I

:

:

:

I

.

,
~A
W
A
R
D

~
O
N
T
R
A
C
t

O
C
T
.
.
l

¡
.
j

I

I
:
I

:

:

:

I

:
:

I

I
.
~

A
W
A
R
o
i

C
O
N
T
R
~
C
T

A
P
R
.
1
1
5

I

I
1
¡
.

¡

l

¡

¡

I

I

'
¡
¡

¡

I

¡

¡

I

I

:

:

"
:
:
:
:

:
:

I

:
"

:
:
:
:

:
:
,

:
:
¡
¡

¡

¡

¡

I

¡

¡
.
.
.

.
.

l

.
.
i
:

i

!
!

l

:
:
:
:

:
:

i

:
:
:
:

:
:

l

¡

~

;
~
:

i

i

l

:
:
:
:

:
'

:

I

:
;
:
.

'
:

i

:

l
¡
I
:

¡

i

~

1
.

t

U
N

T

O
N

L
!

N
E
:
.
"
.
.

I

.
:
I
:

¡

¡

I

:
.
.

.
.

.
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
.
TU
R
e
l

N
V
G
E
N
SP
E
C
S
CO
O
S

T
R
u
e

T
I

O
N
81
0

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
S
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T

'
O
N
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T

I
O
N
SU
P
E
R
V

I

S

1
0
0
CO
O
S
T
R
U
C
T

1
0
0
PO
W
R
H
O
U
S
E
CO
F
F
E

RD
A
H
S
PO
W
R
H
O
U
S
E
EX
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
DE
l
i
V
E
R
EH
S
E
D
D
E
D
PA
R
T
s
PO
W
R
H
O
U
S
E
CO
O
C
R
E
T
£
EQ
U
I
P
H
E
N
T
DE
L
I
V
E
R
Y
EQ
U
I
P
H
£
N
T
IN
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
CO
H
E
R
D
A
H
RE
M
O
V
A
L
Df
i
O
W
R
H
O
S
. OE
W
A
T
E
R
I
N
G
.
E
Q
U
I
P
H
E
H
T
RE
M
O
V
A
L
CO
N
R
E
T
E

F
I
L
L
DE
M
O
i
l
i
Z
E
~
UP
U
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
It
1
R
O
V
E
H
E
H
T
AN
O

D
I
S
P
L
A
Y
.
IC
M
.,
-
1'
1
"
.
.
10
0
i,
_
"1
1
'
'
'
EX

4
CA

N
O

1
P
-
E
2
PA
C
K
W
.
I
P
C
PA
G
l
l
o
F
l
l
SW
A
N

C
'
A
L
L
S

P
R
O
J
E
C
T

D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T

S
'
~
r
l
E
D
U
L
E
...
.
.
I I I I I I I I I ,.
p(
I l l l I I I I I I I I I I l I l I l
NO
V
I
I
.,
~
L
I
N
E

¡
J
A
N
.
'
I I I I I I
..
I
:
..
¡~i
:
l
¡
I
.
I
,
.
I
:
I
¡
I
¡
l
:
l
:
l
;
2n
~

U
N
I
T
,
..
.
'l
BEFOR TH
IDAH PUUC UTTIS COMMSSION
CASE NO.IP---92
IDAH POWE COANY
EXHT 5
~~ EXHIBIT
1fO.;SLtrJ.o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ( .
I "-'
I
- ..:.,I. ~ :'. ..~.
'''.. .
FEOERAL ENE.i~GY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20426
lI 2 6 199
Project No. 503
Swan Falls Dam
Idaho Power Company
Mr. Steven L. HerndonAttorney
Idaho Power Company
P.o. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Dear Mr. Herndon:
We have received your letter dated March 16, 1990 submittinq
your revised plan and schedule for constrction of the new
powerhouse and stabilization of the existinq powerhouse at the
Swan Falls Project No. 503. The revised schedule and thefeatures of the revised plan are acceptale.
The revised schedule, presented as Option 2 in our Mar~ 12,
1990 meetinq, indicates completion of the powerhouse
stabilization one year earlier than that presented in theprevious schedule of January 22, 1990. The revised plan
adequately addresses instrentation and monitorinq proqram
durinq construction, concrete backfillinq in the east bay an the
bay between units no. 6 and 7 durinq the early phases of
construction, and reservoir draw down durinq blastinq for the newpowerhouse.
Sincerely,~d,'~
Ronald A. Corso, Director
Division of Dam Safety andInspections
EX 5CA NO 1P~2PA IfA1 5 PA 1 OF 1~"TO !N APON
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
SWAN FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
COMMITMENT ESTIMATE
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
PROJECT
ESTIMATE 11
1 NEW POWERHOUSE:
2 DIRECTS:
3 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS $
4 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS
5 OTHER CONTRACTS & FACILITIES
6 TOTAL DIRECTS $
7 INDIRECTS
8 OVERHEADS
9 AFUDC
10 TOTAL NEW POWERHOUSE $
23,065
19,192
926
43,183
404
9,504
6,843
59,934
==========:::1==
11 DECOMMISSION OLD POWERHOUSE:
12 DIRECTS:
13 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS $ 2,90014 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS 0
15 OTHER CONTRACTS & FACILITIES 9
16 TOTAL DIRECTS $ 2,90917 INDIRECTS 018 OVERHEADS 43519 AFUDC 108
20 TOTAL DECOMMISSION OLD POWERHOUSE $ 3,452
=============
21 RESTORATION OLD POWERHOUSE:
22 DIRECTS:
23 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS $ 66824 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS 0
25 OTHER CONTRACTS & FACILITIES 0
26 TOTAL DIRECTS $ 66827 INDIRECTS 028 OVERHEADS 15529 AFUDC 19
30 TOTAL RESTORATION OLD POWERHOUSE $ 842
::====i:=======
31 TOTAL SWAN FALLS PROJECT 2/ $ 64,22832 1.25
33 TOTAL COMMITMENT ESTIMATE $80,285
=============
1/ COST ESTIMATE REPORTED IN DOLLARS AT COMPLETION.
21 COST ESTIMATE EXCLUDES 'REMOVAL COSTS' OF $804,000.
ATTACHMENT 3
SUPPLEMENT TO INITIAL APPLICATION
I
SUMY
I SWAN FA~~S HYOR~ECTRIC PROECT
(NEW POIlSE)
I
0(-111118-,. 0(-1111_,. 0(-I'1I2__,. 0( 1113 ,. 0( Il14 ,.
PAlOS 11
ACCM
e/3e 30TR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR
(IN THOSANDS OF OOL~ARSr - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - --
TOTAL CONSTRUCT ION COTS:
0lSTRI8UTEO COSTS:
OIRECT-oSTRUCT ION COSTS:
GEM CONSTR COTRACTS:PWS CONSTR 422 le 2314 1194 1322 1322 1288 211113 ies3 2387 1377 llle
OLD PWHS RESTORWAREHOSE S2 S2
I
I
I
TOT GEN CONStR CON - - -- -- 422 8U 2314 ;¡ 1322 1322 128e un 18S3 2387 ii 1118 - - --
PROCREMENT COTRACtS: - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - - -- -- --PWHS CRANE e3 e3 e3 e3 83DRAFT TU8E CATES 13e 138 138 13e 13eSTP~CS TRSHRCKS 117 117 117 117 117
DRAFT TUBE CRANE
TRASHRACK RAKE
PUWS
CORESSORS
lo I M TRANSFORMER
WED VOLT $WCHCR
LOW VO~ T SWTeNCR
eAT .CHCR.INVRtRS
COTRO~ sn
TR8.COV.GEM.EOP
I
117
28 73
23 46ie 273 8
S8 S872 72LIS ie
4 1171S 78 7. 7.
ieee 21See 2888 2555 isie
73
41S
27
8
58
27i.n
14
73
41S
27
8
S8
28
23
18
3
29
I
29
27
14 14
S872.
18 14
11
14
i.
4,.
16
32 323ee ie 388 311. eei i.
1S18
I
TOTA~
1824S
184
183..
315
648
788
275
182iee
3e3"
27e
14e
42
432
12194
TOT PROREWEMT CO - -- 388 3ll lse9 6i i" 14SS ii i2 mi -m 2SS -- 1S42 -- - - - --
OTHER COTRACTS/FACr; -- -- -- - -- - -- - -- -- - - -- - - - ---tllS ~IME 158 168 318OTH 0 I RECTS 28 18e 88 15 13S 7S 425
TOT OTH COT/FACL. - -- - -i --; -¡ -- -- -- -- -; -- - - -- lî"" - -r
I
I SALES TAX - -- -- -; 33 42 -¡ -¡ lS7 -¡ rn -- ~ -- -- -- -- - - --
SUBTOTAL. DIRECTS - -- ii "" 18U 16 31S17 2ñ 41S11 41S811 4371 347112' 2S52 21ft17lJ -- 75 - 3S789
I TOTAL OISTR COSTS - - 31S7 387 181S4 16 3i 2ñ 4811 4881 4378 347' 2184 2"2 2i 17'7 -- 75 -
UNDISTRI8UTEO COSTS-; - -- - - - -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - --
INOIRECT-CNSTRUCTION/OW COSTS:
TEW BL.OCS/F ACL. :SI T£ F I EL.O OFF 81S 5 S 5 S 5 S S S S 5 5 -21SITE WlHS is 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1SITE SP/L.B BLOC 41 i i i . 8 . . . 8 . 8SITE YARO AREAS 18 ,.
TOT TEW 8L.0CS/FAC - -- - 18 143 -. -. -. -- -- -- -e -e -e -e -e -- - -
I
I -- - - - -- - -.- -- - -- - - - - ---
COstR EQUIP:
TRANS EOUIP
tooLS
OFF FURN I TURE
OTH EQUiP
EOUIP RENTAl.
3
1
31Sie
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
33333
I TOT COSTR EOUIP
SAL.ES TAX
- -- - -"7 -; -. -; -- -¡ -. -- -e -- -- -- - --
- -- -- -- -. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -. -e -. -: - - --
I
3S789
123lS
43
2Ø
281
S
3ll
41S
8--
EilRVCS: - - -- -- -- -- -- - -- - - - - - - --
SU8TOtAL INOIRECtS - - - 18 223 18 -; 18 -i 18 -i -- -- ~ -- ~ -- - - -m
OVERHEAO$-TS i DE
CONTRACT SRVCS:
A/E
ENC STUDIES
OTH ENC SRVCS
IISS 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83111111111111111
1 lSi' 1 1 3 3 i i 3 i 3 3 3 3 3 3
171S6 a¡ -¡ a; S7 87 87 87 87 S7 87 -- -¡ -¡ -¡ -- -- ---¡I
TOT coNT SRVCS
I OVERHEAOS-IPCO ENe SRVCS-; - -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- - - - - - - - -
GEM EMC HOE OFF:EMC 33 14 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47"ELO V I SITS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2VENDOR VISITS 5 5 5 5 5AONN/OTH EXP 1 1 1 1 1
I
1585
15lU2
3232
744
24
24
16
I
SUMRY
I SWAN FALLS HYDROLECTRIC PRECT
(NEW PORHSE)
I
':-1998-:: ':__1991_:: ':-1992-:: .: 1993 :: .: 1994 ::
PAlOS 1/
ACCUi.5/38 30Tft 40Tft 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30Tft 40Tft 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR
(IN THOSANDS OF DOü:S) - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --- --
TOT GEN ENG HO ~ 16 -¡ 4i 54 4i 54 4i -¡ 54 4i -¡ -; -; -¡ -¡ -¡ - --I - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- -- ~ - ----
GEN £NG F i flO OFF:
ENG
INSP/OLTY CNTL
STARTUP/TESTAO
OTM EXP
TOT GEN ENC FO
ENC OTHER:
ENG
DRAFTING
TOT ENGOTH - 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 -i -i -i -i -i-i -i--
I
8 24 34 34 48 48 48 48 iee ,.e ge ge 43 8
52 52 52 11 71 71 71 158 158 158 158 85 18
5 7
14 14 14 19 19 19 19 43 43 43 43 18 5
3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 1
715
1159
12
312
45
- - - 8 -; 184 184 -¡ i4 -¡ i4 385 3ea 295 ~ "" -n - - 2243
I - - _.- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - ----
2
8
2
82e
2
e 2
8
2e 2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
8
I OVERHEADS-IPCO OTHER SRVëš - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - -
ADNH HOE OF F :LCL/ACCTG/PB AFF 1 1 1 1 2 1 2FEES/pERMirS 8 25 28 28 28 27
I
TOTAL--8e8
2
8
29
5
34
TOT AOI NO -¡ 1 2 2 2ë 27 2 2 1'27 - -- -- -V -i -- -- -i -- --
21
133
I
OV£ftHES-eLI ANCËeSTS: - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- -
ENVlftNTAL COSTS:
SlRED COSTSNOSHAED COSTS 5 8 21 3 22 22 22 22 137
TOT ENVIR COSTS - 8 -- 211 3 11111 -- -- -- -- -i -n -n -n --- - -¡ 8 -¡ . -¡ . -¡ . -¡ -- -- -. -- -- -- -- -- 1SALES TAX
I SU8TOTAL OVERHEADS 1199 189 145 158 254 272 258 2i 2i i1 2i 445 -- -¡ -¡ 297 198 ~ 2ë
OV£ftHEADS-oTHER COSTS: - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
EXPENSES/ ALLOCA T IONS:AD VALOREM TAX 4 4 5 5 8 5 28 28 28 28 77 77 77 53INSURAE 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115PUfCHASI NG EXP 5 5 5 7 5 5 8 7 8 1 4 3 1
AOIGEN EXP
INTERESTAFUDC 2/ 165 189 183 245 349 458 579 744 949 "7' 1198 814
TOT OV15-THER COS 165 -- -- . 128 235 289 373 m -¡ 7i 894 1148 1284 1394 -; -; - -- -
I
I TOT OVERHEADS 1' 1' 149 294 m W 823 rn 885 1841 '1 15.3"" 18se i4 -¡ -m "i 2ë
TOTAL UNDISTR COST 1' 113"" ii 722 571 U8 788 899 1851 '1 Ii 1728 iã 1449 424 -- ~ 2ë 15787
--1'451
I SUI TOTAL CONSTR CO 1953 113 515 898 1785 2237 4253 3517 55" 5748 ;; Si iã 4422 3515 22 388 2' --COTINGENCY 72 79 218 277 588 434 717 732 581 555 349 41. 343 297 38 28 4ESCALATION 3/ 8 . 88 113 258 184 283 211 212 372 255 29. 287 187 58 2. 8
8.18
435
158e
52
8843
8841
$14g8
5881
2537
I
TOTAL COSTR COSTS 1' 113 5i rn 2.72 2827 5878 ¡¡ 8429 i6 844.8ee9 -¡ 5141 -¡ 2885 482 258 ~ 51.34--.- - - -- -- - --- -- - -- -- -- ...-- ~ -- -- --
1/ ACTUALS THRU 4/", ESTIMATES 5-/'8.
2/ PAlOS ACCUIoLATEO 8/38/9' INCLUDE COSTS PRIOR TO 1/1/98 (SEE PROJECT ORDER 1.2).
3/ ESCALATION REMAINING 'TO-'. DIRECTS, INDIRECTS AND OVERHEAD COSTS ARE IN 30TR 1998 (7/98) BASE YER OOLLARS.
I SFE093A.8/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIAY
SWAN FALLS HYDLECTRIC PROJECT
(DECCMUSSION OlD PORHOSE)
I
~-199"-~ ~__19tl--~ ~-199'2_~ ~ 1$93 ~ ~ 1994 ~PAIDS 1/
ACCU
e¡3e :STR 40Tl 10TR '20TR ioTR 4QTR IOTR %OTR 30TR 4QTR 10TR 20TR :STl 4QTR 10TR 2QTR ioTR 4QTR TOTAL
(IN THOSANDS OF DOü:S) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- --_TOTAL COSTRUCTION COSTS:
01 STR 18UTED COSTS:
DIRECT-oSTRUCTION COSTS:
CEM COSTR COTRACtS:PWHS COSTR 7et 189 719 nee
OLD PWHS RESTOR
WAlEHOSE
I
I
I
TOTOENCONSTRCON--------------- '7e9 7e9 7~i0-- 23ee
PROEWNT CONTRACTS: - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- -- -- -- -- -
PWHS CRAN£
DRAFT TU8E GAtES
STPLCS TRSHRCKS
DRAFT TU8E CRANE
TRASHRACK RAKE
PlNPS
CORESSORS
WAIN TRANSFORMER
lÆD VOT SWTCHCR
LOW VOLT SWTCHGR
BAT .Cl.I"VRT"RS
COTROl SYS
TR8. GOV. CE". EOP
I
I
I
I
TOt PItRElÆNT CO - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - ----
OTItER COTRACT$/FAC~ - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
TRANS LINEOTH DIRECTS e .. ... 3 3 7
TOT OTH COT/FACL - - - - - 8 8 8 - - . -- -- -- -- -i -i -- -- --I SALES TAX - - - - - 8 8 . - - 8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - --
I
SUaTOTAL DIRECTS - - - - - 8 . 8 - - . -- -- -- 77 781 181 -- -- 2342
TOTAL DISTR COSTS - - - -- - . 8 8 - - 8 -- -- -- 778 -¡ 181 -- -- 2342
UNDISTRIBUTED COTS~ - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
INDIR£CT-oNSTRUCTION/ON COSTS:
TEM 8LDCS/FACL:
SITE FIELD OFF
SITE WR"S
SIT£ SP/L8 8LDC
S I t£ YARD AREAS
I
I
TOT TEM 8LDGS/FAC - - - - - -- --- - - - -- - _.. - -- - ---
I
COSTR EQUIP:
TRANS EOUIP
TOOLS
OFF FuRN I TURE
aT" EQUIP
EQUIP RENTAL
TOT COSTR tou i P
SALES TAX
.-.. - - - - -- - -- - - -- -- - - ~ -- - ---
- - - -- - --~ -- -- - - - - ~ - -- - ----- - - -- - - - - - --- - - -- - _.-- -- ----
I SU8TOTAL INDIRECTS - -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --.-
I
OVERHEAOS-TS I DE
COTllACT SRVCS:
AlE
ENC STUOIES
OTH ENG SRVCS
TOT COT SRVCS
- - - - - - -- - -- -- - - _.-- - -- --.
ENG SRVCS:
II e II II e II II e e II e II e II e e e II e l811
.. e .. -¡ -¡ 8 e 8 -¡ 8 e -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -;
I OVEltHEAOS-IPCO ENC SRs~ - - - - - - - -- - -- -- -- -- -- - -- ---
OEN ENC HO OFF:
ENe
FIELD vISITS
VENDO v I SITS
AOIN/OT" EXP
4 '2 2.'2 '2
e
2 2.3 3.7.II.5.2.52
3
I
I
SUIoY
I SWAN FALLS HYDROLECTRIC PROJECT
(DECOISSION OLD PORHOSE)
I
':-1$9e-~ ':__1991--~ (--1992--~ .: 1993 ~ .: 199. ~
PAIDS 11
ACCUM
6/38 30TR 40TH 10TR 20TR JOTR 40TR 10Tft 20TR JOTR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR 10Tft 20TR JOTR 40TR TOTAL
(IN THOSANDS OF DOLLARS) - - - - -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - -- --
I TOT CEN ENG HO
CEN ENG FIELD OFF:
!HG
INSP/OLTY CNTL
STAlTUP/T£STAO
OTN UP
TOT CEN ENG FO
ENG OTNER:
ENG
DRAFTING
-¡ 11 -; 1 2 2 "2 "2 2 2 -- -- -- "" -- -i - - ---- - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - -- ----
I
5
8
5
8
5
8
7
1
15
24
7
1
15
24
7
1
15
24
7
1
68
lH
26
4
-- -- - -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -V -- -- -- - - --
I - - - - - -- --- -- - - -- - - - -- -- - ----
8 8
1
8
1
8
2
1
I
TOT ENG OTH -- -- - -- - - -. -- - - -- - -..-. -- -- --- ~
OVERHEAOS-IPCO OTHEiiVCS:' - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - --
ADM HOE OFF:LGL/ACCTG/PS AFF 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2
FEES/PERlAl TS
I TOT AOI HO - -- - -- -- -- -¡ -- -¡ e -- -- -- - -. -- - -..--
I
OYRHEA$-LIAIlCE COsTs: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - .. - - - - - .. --ENYIRONNTAL COSTS:
SHAlED COSTS
NOSHAED COSTS
TOT ENYIR COSTS
SALES TAX
- - - - - - - _.-- - - - - - -. _..- - ---- - - - - - ---.. -.. - - -- _... - --
I
I
SUBTOTAL OVERHEADS 1' -¡ -¡ -¡ -¡ a a -¡ -a -¡ -a -i -i ~ -- -- -- -- -- --
OVERHUD5-THER COSTS: -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.. - - - - - ---
EXPENSESI ALLOCA T I ON$:AD VALORElA TAX 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 3 7
INSUANCEPURCHSING EXP 8 8 8 8 e 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 e e
AO/G£N EXP
INTERESTAFU 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 14 34 37 188
TOT OVl5-THER COS - -- 8 -¡ 11 -, 2 2 2 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- - .. --
TOT OVRHEADS 1' -¡ -- -- -- -; Ië -; 1' 1ë 1ë ~ -n "" -¡ -- -- -- -- --
TOTAL UNDISTR COST 1' -¡ -¡ -- 8 -; 1ë -; 1' Ië 1ë ~ -n "" -¡ -- -- -- ----
SU8TOTAL CONSTR co -; -¡ -- -- -- -; 1ë 1ë Ië 1ë 11 ~ ~ ~ 11511 878 1177 -- -- -wCOTINCNCY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 121 121 121 1 1 378ESCALATiON 2/ 8 8 8 e 8 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 81 lS 12 1 1 21S2
TOTAL COSTR COSTS 1' -¡ -- -- .. 1ë '" 1i '" '" 13 -- -- -- HIIS8 1881 1888 -- -- 3m-.. --.. ..... - - - - - - _.-.. -- - _._--
I
I
I 11 ACTUALS THRU 4/98, ESTIMATES 5-/'8.
21 ESCALATION REMAINING 'To-. DIRECTS, INOIRECTS AND OVERHEA COSTS ARE IN JOTR 1998 (7/98) SASE YEAR OOLARS.
I SFEG838. 1S/98
I
I
I
I
I.
I
SlY
SWAN FAL.L.S HYDROL.ECTRIC PRJECT
(RESTORATION OL.D PORH)
I
O(-llllle-~ o(-'"'_~ 0(--lllll2-~ 0( lllJ ~ 0( Ill94 ~
PAlOS 1/
ACCUN
. lI/Je JOTR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30TII 40TR 10TII 20TR 30TR 40TR 10TR 20TR JOTR 40TR 10TR 20TII 30TR 40TR TOTAL.
(IN THOSANDS OF OOL.LARS) - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- ----TOTAL. COSTRUCTION COSTS:
0ISTRI90TEO COSTS:
OIREeT~TRUCTION COSTS:
GEN COSTII COTRACTS;
PWHS COSTROLD PWHS RESTOR 2411 2411 4t2
WAREHOSE
I
I
1
TOT GEN COSTR CON - - - -- -- -- - -- - - - - - -- -- -- -- 2411- ~
PROCUREWNT CONTRACTš - - - -- -- - -- - - - -- - - -- -- -- - -- --
PWHS CRANE
DRAFT TUBE GATES
STPL.GS TRSHRCKS
ORAFT TUBE CRANE
TRASHRACK RAKE
PUMPS
CORESSORS
WAIN TRANSFORMER
IÆO VOLT SWTCHGR
L.OW VOl. T SWCHGR
BAT .CHCR, I NVRTRS
CONTROL. SYS
TRB,COV.GEN.EOP
I
I
I
I TOT PROREMENT CO - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - -- ----
OTHER COTRACTS/FACr; -- - -- - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- -- -- - - --
TRAS L.INE
OTH DIRECTS
I TOT OTH CONT /FACL.
SAUS TAX
- - - - - - -. - - - - - - -- - - -- _.-- -- - -- -- - - -- -- -- -- - - - -- -- -i -i ----
I
SUBTOTAL. DIRECTS -- - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - -- -- -- -- 2411 248 -- --
TOTAL. DISTR COSTS - -- -- -- - -- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -- -m . 248 -- --
UNDISTRIBUTED COSTS-; -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - -- -- -- -- ----
I NO I RECT-cS TRUCT i ON/OM COSTS:
TEMP BL.OCS/FACL.:
SITE FIEL.O OFF
SITE WIHS
SITE SP/L.B BL.OG
SITE YARD AREAS
TOT TEM BL.OGS/FAC
- - - - -- -- - -- - -- - - - - -- -- --
I
I - - - -- - -- -- - - - -.-.- -- --.- - --
I
COSTR EQUIP:
TRANS EQUIP
TooL.S
OFF FURNITURE
OTH EQUIP
EQUIP RENTAL.
TOT COHSTR EOU I P
SAL.ES TAX
- - -- - - -- -- - - _.- -- -- - _.- _.. ---- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- ---
I - - -- - -- -- -- -- - -- _. -- - -- - .. .-- -- --
SOB TOTAL. I NO I RECTS
I
OV£RHEADS-TS I DE
COTRACT SRVCS:
A/E
ENO STUDIES
OTH ENO SRVCS
ENO SRves: - -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- ---
2 2 24
TOT CONT SRVCS 11111111111 -- -- -- -- -- -i -i -- --
I OVRHEA05-IPCO ENG SRVCS-; - - - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -
GEN ENC HOE OFF:ENe 1 1 1 1 . II 111FIEL.DVISITS e e e e e 2 2 5
VENDO VISITSAD/OTH EXP e e e e eI
I '.
SUIY
I $WAH 'ALlS NYORUECTRIC PRfCT
(RfSTORATlON OlD PORH)
I
"-1~.e-~ "-1"1-~ "-1~'2-~ " "'3 ~ " 1~94 ~PAIDS 1/ACC
e/3. 30TR 40tR 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR 10TR 20TR 30TR .tTR 10TR 20TR 30TR 40TR TOTAL
(IN THOSANDS OF DOLLARS) -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -- -- - ---
I TOT C£N fNC HO
- -- - - -- ~ -- - -- -- .- -- -- -- .. .. .. .. --.--
I
G£N fNG "flD OFF:
fMC
INSP/Ot.y CNTL
STARTUP/TESTAl
OTN fXP
TOT G£H fHG FO
INC OTNER:
ING
DRAFTING
TOT tMC OTN
- - - -.-- -- -- -- - - ~ -- - -- -.-.. -- ~-
1.
UL
l'ie
.
1
.
1
2.
32
17
1-- -- - - -- -- - - - -- - -- - -- - - ~ --.. ~
I - - - - - -- - --.. - - -- - -- -- - -- - --.
2
1
2
1
4
2
I
- - --- - - - - -- -- - -- - -- -- ----
OV£RNEADS-IPCO OTHER SRVëš - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- -- -AOM HO OFF:
LGL/AOCTG/PB AFF
FEES/PERM I TS
I TOT Al HO _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _i_ _ -- _ _. _ _ __.__ __ ~
QVRHEAs-LIANCE COSTS: - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- --
ENVIROHTAl COSTS:
$lRfD COSTSNOfD COSTSITOT EHIR COSTS
SAUS TAX
- -- -- - - - -- - - -- - -- - ~ - -- -- --.- --- - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- -- .. .. ...-- -- ~
I
SUBTOTAL OViiRHEADS -i -i -i 111 -i 1 - 11 -- -- -- -- -- -¡ -- -- ~
OV!RHE05-THER COSTS: - -- - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
EXPENSiis/ ALLOÇ T IONS:AD VALORE.. TAX .............. .IH$UCEPUSING EXP
Al/CEN EXP
INTIEiiSTAFUDC 4 14 1~
TOT OVS-THER COS - e -¡ 8 8 e 8 8 -¡ -- 8 -- -. -- -. - -- -- -- --
I
I TOT OVERHEADS -i 1 -i 1 -i 1111 - 1 -- -- -- -- -- -; -- - -;
I
TOTAL UNOISTR COST -i 1 -- 1 -i 111 -i 11 -- -- -- -- -- -s -- - -;
SUBTOTAL. CONSTR CO 11 -i -i -i -i 1 -i 111 -- "" "" -- -- 3e -m -- -wCOTINCNCT 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4' 4' 84ESCALATION 2/ . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 57 58 118
TOTAL COSTR COSTS -i -i -i 12 -- -- -- 2 -- -- -- "" ~ -- -- 3" 41t -- -m- - _.. -.. -..-.. - - - - -- - -. -- ----I 1/ ACTUALS THRU 4/'8. ESTIMATES 5-/98,
2/ ESCALATION REMAINING 'TO-'. DIRECTS, INDIRECTS AHD OV!RHE COTS AR IN 3OT. 1... (7/") BASE YE DOLLARS.
I SFEGe3C. e/~.
I
I
I
I
I '.: .-.;_..~.:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THOMAS G, NELSON
JOHN A. ROSHOLT
I. EVAN ROBERTSON
STEVEN K. TOLMAN
JAMES C, TUCKER
TERRY R. McDANIEL
GARY O. SLETTE
F. BRUCE COVINGTON
JERRY JENSEN
CAROLYN M. MINDER
BRUCE M. SMITH
G. RICHARD BEVAN
GARY L. QUiGLEY
TIM I. WILLIAMS
SHARON F. DUNKIN
IUSTIN R. SEAMONS
NELSON, ROSHOLT, ROBERTSON, TOLMAN & TUCKER
Chartered
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1020 MAIN STREET
SUITE 400
P.O. BOX 2139
BOISE, IDAHO 83701-2139
TELPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
Twin Falls Office
142 Jrd AVENUE NORTH
P.O. BOX 1906
TWIN FAllS, IDAHO 83J.l9(
Iflfl'll(l'lE (;¡l 7:i~701lfA'" (.!l 7J61
June 6, 1990
J.W. Marshall
Chief Execu ti ve Officer
and Chairman of the Board
Idaho Power Company
Post Of fice Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Re:Wa ter Rights at the Swan Falls Dam
Dear Mr. Marshall:
YOU have advised me that the existing powerhouse at:the Swan Falls Dam has developed age-rela ted structu ral
deficiencies. Pursuant to a 1989 FERC-required independentconsul tant' s reporti IPCO must correct the deficiencies wi thin
five years or risk fines of up to $10,000 per day and loss of
its federal license for the pro ject. (FERC has actually
imposed such fines and has withdrawn licenses in some cases.)
FERC has determined that the best alternative for correcting
the deficiencies is to stablize the existing powerhouse by
filling it wi th concrete and building a new powerhouse that
more fully utilizes the resources available for generation at
the site. If IPCO refuses to implement the FERC-selected
alternativei IPCO would be subject to the noted fines and loss
of the FERC license.
Loss of the FERC license and the resul ting non-use of
water for generation would consti tute an abandonment of the
water rights associated with the Swan Falls project. If
another project sponsor were to build a new dam at the site,
the water rights for the new project would have to be
separately obtained. The new water rights would be completely
subordinated to later upstream depletion.
An understanding of the possible impacts of the
abandonment of the Swan Falls project by Idaho Power and
resulting abandonment of Idaho power's water rights requires a
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J . W. Ma r s hall
June 6, 1990Page -2-
review of the background of the water rights at Swan Falls and
of the development of the Hells Canyon complex (Project 1971).
The company's water rights at Swan Falls date back to 1900 and
are the Company's oldest hydropower rights on the Snake River.
The water rights at Swan Falls total, on paper, an amount in
excess of the 8,400 cfs hydraulic capacity of the power plant.
The rights have priority dates ranging from 1900 to 1920.
When FERC licensed Project 1971 in Hells Canyon in
1955, the license contained Article 41 which has been called a
"subordination clause.. It provides that the Company will notopera te the project so as to int er fer e wi th ups t r earn depl etion
of Snake River waters for uses within the watershed. At the
time of the compromise which led to the company' s agreement to
insertion of Article 41 in the license, the Company also agreed
to the insertion of similar language in the State water license
for the C.J. Strike Project which was then nearing completion.
The subsequent dispute over the validi ty and
protectability of the company's water rights on the mainstem ofthe Snake River became known as the Swan Falls Controver sy.The Swan. Falls Controver sy was so named because most issues
relative to the company's water rights on the Snake River were
involved at the Swan Falls site. The Swan Falls Agreement,
which set tIed the controver sy, established the company' s water
rights at its projects on the Snake River from Milner Dam toand including Swan Falls Dam as being unsubordinated up to
3,900 cfs in the summer and to 5,600 cfs in the winter. These
flows are measured at the Murphy USGS gaging station, about 4miles downstream from Swan Falls Dam. The Agreement requires
that the State impose additional criteria on new development
affecting river flows in the reach between Milner Dam and Swan
Falls. The State is also required to recognize the company's
water rights above the 3,900/5,600 limits in order to protect
the river from depletion by junior appropriations which do not
meet the new criteria. Thus, the company's senior water rights
on the Snake River continue to be valid and important in the
administration of water rights on the Snake Ri ver below Milner
Dam.
The Company's rights at its Snake River projects below
Milner Dam and above Hells canyon in excess of the 3,900/5,600
limits are subject to subordination only as to new development
which meets the additional criteria. Until new development is
shown to conform to those criteria, the Company's rights
effectively make the river fully appropriated. Since both the
c. J. Str i ke Project and Project 1971 ar e completely
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
J.W. Marshall
June 6, 1990page -3-
subordinated, the Company's only unsubordinated water rights
below the Bliss Project are at Swan Falls. Wi thoul: the Swan
Falls rights, the company and the State may lose the ability to
rely on unsubordinal:ed senior rights to force compliance withthe addi tional development cri ter ia. Arguably, if the Swan
Falls water rights are abandoned, the portion of the Snake
Ri ver protected by the Swan Falls Agr eement would be shor tened
to the r each from Mi lner Dam to Bliss Dam.
The Company's pre-1928 water rights at Swan Falls are
central to the permanent viability of the Swan Falls Agreement
and the protection of the Snake River from future upstream
depletions that violate the Swan Falls Agreement.~t:;~
Thomas G. Nelson
TGN/dj
43641
cc: R. w. Stahman
,
I~
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
QUALIFICATIONS
OF
Thomas G. Faull, P.E.
of the
Idaho Public utilities Commission
Mr. Faull received a Bachelor of Science
degree from the Uni versi ty of Idaho in 1970. His
major was Mechanical Engineering wi th emphasis on
Nuclear Engineering and Stress Analysis.His minor
was Business Administration with emphasis on Economics
and Manag.ement.
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRTIORS AND HONORS:
Mr. Faull is a member of Sigma Tau, the
collegiate engineering honorary society.He has
received registration to practice Professional
Engineering in the following states:
1974 :
1975 :
1977 :
1979 :
Idaho; Mechanica 1
Colorado; General
New Mexico; General
Oregon; Civil
He is also registered to practice before the U. S.
Office of Patents and Trademarks as a Patent Agent.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
A. From 1970 through 1978, Mr. Faull worked
for the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation in the capaci ties of
Mechanical Engineer,Contract Administrator,and
0;w I DAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-2
Exhibit No. 101
T. Faull, Staff11/9/90 Page 1 of 4
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Resident Engineer.As a Mechanical Engineer he
provided quality control for mechanical, electrical,
and ci vi 1 works at major hydroelectric construction
projects. As a Contract Administrator he analyzed and
made recommendations pertaining to claims for addi-
tional compensation under contracts to build and supply
equipment for major hydroelectric and irrigation
projects, negotiated settlements thereto, and wrote
contract addenda to reflect negotiated settlements. As
a Resident Engineer he supervised up to 50 engineers,
surveyors, and technicians providing quali ty control of
electrical, mechanical, and civil works of a 100,000
acre irrigation project; including roads, highways,
canals, pumping plants, pipelines substations, and a
115kV transmission line.
From 1978 through 1986 Mr. Faull worked in
various capacities of consulting engineering. As such,
he did (or supervised) financial feasibility analyses,
design,construction management,cons t ruct ion,and
start-up of chemical, water, and energy projects,
including PURPA hydro, coal, and MSW projects. He also
did business development, bi 1 ling, personnel manage-
ment, and hiring/firing.
I DAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-2
Exhibit No. 101
T. Faull, Staff11/9/90 Page 2 of 4
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
From 1987 through the present Mr. Faul I has
served as a Uti Ii ties Engineer at the Idaho Public
utilities Commission. In that capacity he has analyzed
Cogeneration and Small Power Producers'(CSPPs' )
projects;developed computer models to represent
utilities' Avoided Costs, power supplies, cash flows,
and other features; testified in electric avoided cost
cases; authored Proposed Orders pertaining to avoided
costs,CSPPs'securi ty arrangements,uti Ii ty sur-
charges, and utili ties' conservation/least-costplanning
programs; and authored proposed Idaho comments to
Federal Notices of Proposed Rulemaking.He has also
attended several related training programs and con-
ferences, including the NARUC 1987 Western uti Ii ty Rate
Seminar,the NARUC 1987 19th Annual Williamsburg
Regulatory Conference, The 1988 First Annual Utility
Least-Cost-Planning Conference, the 6th NARUC Bienni a I
Regulatory Information Conference, a NARUC Conference
on Transmission Issues in Washington D.C., two pri-
vately sponsored conferences on CSPP regulation, and
one privately sponsored conference on bidding for CSPP
power.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-2
Exhibit No. 101
T. Faull, Staff11/9/90 Page 3 of 4
I'
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
."
PUBLICATIONS:
Mr, Faull has authored and presented three
papers that were published in the "Proceedings of the
Sixth NARUC Biennial Information Conference", The
papers were entitled:
1."Irreconcilable ConflictsInherent in Vertically
Electric utilities",
of InterestIntegrated
2. "Solving the Overpayment Dilemma for
Levelized Rate PURPA Contracts", and
3, "Bid Price and Reserve Margin: Chicken
and Egg? An Approach to Pricing Power
in the Post-Spi ral Wor ld",
= = = =-=-. ___a ____=__.... __=. - = __. =____ ___ ==...-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No, IPC-E-90-2
Exhibit No, 101
T. Faul l, Staff11/9/90 Page 4 of 4
1 ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
qi
..
,i
I
I
(f ii-J
(f i
!0 i
I iÜI ~~W--tai-c ¡
.
¡-
I0:
~!I
"'
I
~
~0"i ~0: Io~Q
)-¡i !
.'"
~
0ü
CL
a ~0
~I I e a R 0 0-
(MJV zaai) isoo .LINn
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-2
Exhibi t No. 102
T. Faull, Staff11/9/90 Page 1 of 2
I r
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
CJl-
CJoü
W--
CDc:-0:
~!
o co0: I:OC)-I
.
C)
~
oüa.
/
&I IS = :¡= = ! ~ ~ ~ ! . . ~ co 0
(w ,;.. L) .1= JJNn
8-
i
S
i':E..
~
~~
~
$a
i
2
o
I DAHO POWER COHPANY
Case No. IPC-E-90-2
Exhibit No. 102
T. Pau11, Staff11/9/90 Page 2 of 2
1--
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNIT COST
HYDFO P~ANT YEAR (1992 $/MWh)
TWIN FALLS '89 1989 AVG.
TWIN FALLS '88 1988 AVG.
TWIN FALLS '87 1987 $3.34
TWIN FALLS '86 1986 AVG.
TWIN FALLS '85 1985 AVG.
SWAN FALLS '89 1989 AVG.
SWAN FALLS '88 1988 AVG.
SWAN FALLS '87 1987 $8.05
SWAN FALLS '86 1986 AVG.
SWAN FALLS '85 1985 AVG.
CASCADE '89 1989 AVG.
CASCADE '88 1988 AVG.
CASCADE '87 1987 $5.93
CASCADE '86 1986 AVG.
CASCADE '85 1985 AVG.
SHOSHONE FALLS '89 1989 AVG.
SHOSHONE FALLS '88 1988 AVG.
SHOSHONE FALLS '87 1987 $5.58
SHOSHONE FALLS ' 86 1986 AVG.
SHOSHONE FALLS ' 85 1985 AVG.MALAD '89 1989 AVG.
MALAD '88 1988 AVG.
MALAD ' 87 1987 $1.99MALAD '86 1986 AVG.
MALAD '85 1985 AVG.
UPPER SALMON '89 1989 AVG.
UPPER SALMON '88 1988 Ava.
UPPER SALMON ' 87 1987 $2.81
UPPER SALMON ' 86 1986 Ava.
UPPER SALMON '85 1985 Ava.
LOWER SALMON '89 1989 Ava.
LOWER SALMON '88 1988 Ava.
LOWER SALMON '87 1987 $2.99
LOWER SALMON '86 1986 Ava.
LOWER SALMON '85 1985 Ava.BLISS '89 1989 Ava.BLISS '88 1988 Ava.BLISS '87 1987 $1.29BLISS '86 1986 Ava.BLISS '85 1985 Ava.
STRIKE '89 1989 Ava.
STRIKE '88 1988 Ava.
STRIKE '87 1987 $1.32
STRIKE '86 1986 Ava.
STRIKE '85 1985 Ava.
AMERICAN FALLS ' 89 1989 Ava.
AMERICAN FALLS '88 1988 Ava.
AMERICAN FALLS '87 1987 $3.02
AMERICAN FALLS '86 1986 Ava.
AMERICAN FALLS '85 1985 AVG.OXBO '89 1989 Ava.
OXBO '88 1988 Ava.
OXBO ' 87 1987 SO. 96
OXBOW '86 1986 Ava.OXBO '85 1985 Ava.
HELLS CANYON '89 1989 AVG.
HELLS CANYON '88 1988 Ava.
HELLS CANYON ' 87 1987 $0.56
HELLS CANYON '86 1986 Ava.
HELLS CANYON '85 1985 Ava.
BROWNLEE ' 89 1989 Ava.
BROWNL EE '88 1988 Ava.
BROWNLEE '87 1987 $0.53
BRONLEE ' 86 1986 Ava.
BROWNLEE '85 1985 Ava.
UNIT COST
(1992 S/kW)
Ava. ***************
AVG.
$25.15
Ava.
AVG.
AVG.
Ava.
$68.28
Ava.
Ava.
AVG.
Ava.
$16.42
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
$25.14
AVG.
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
$12.89
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
AVG.
$21. 35
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
$13.83
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
$6.79
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
$7.73
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
$11.35
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
Ava.
S4.81 OXBOW
AVG. 190.0 MW
Ava. 29.0 YEARS OLD
AVG.
Ava.
$2.90 HELLS CANYON
AVG. 391.5 MW
Ava. 23.0 YEARS OLD
AVO.
AVO.
$2.08 BRONLEE
Ava. 585.4 MW
Ava. 23.0 YEAS OLD
TWIN FALLS
8.4 MW
55.0 YEARS OLD
SWAN FALLS
10.3 MW
45.0 YEARS OLD
CASCADE
12.4 MW
6.0 YEARS OLD
SHOSHONE FALLS
12.5 MW
69.0 YEARS OLD
MALAD
20.7 MW
42.0 YEARS OLD
UPPER SALMO
34.5 MW
43. 0 YEARS OLD
LOWER SALMON
60.0 MW
41.0 YEARS OLD
BLISS
75.0 MW
40.0 YEARS OLD
STRIKE
82.8 MW
38.0 YEARS OLD
AMERICAN FALLS
92.3 MW
12.0 YEAS OLD
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No. IPC-E- 90- 2
Exhiòi t No. 103
T. Faull, Staff11/9/90 Page 1 of 3
I,CAPACITY GENERATION AVERAGE CAP. FACT.c HYDRO PLANT YEAR (MW)(MWh)(aM)(~)
I
------------------------------------------------------
TWIN FALLS '89 1989 8.4 63,593 7.3 86.0~
TWIN FALL.S '88 1988 8.4 54,367 6.2 73.6~
TWIN FAL.L.S '87 1987 8.4 66,036 7.5 89. 3~
I
TWIN FALLS '86 1986 8.4 73,261 8.4 99.1~
TWIN FALLS '85 1985 8.4 74,005 8.4 100.1~
SWAN FALLS ' 89 1989 10.3 88,451 10.1 98.4%
SWAN FALLS '88 1988 10.3 92,710 10.6 103.1%
SWAN FALLS '87 1987 10.3 88,302 10.1 98.2%
I SWAN FALLS '86 1986 10.3 80,345 9.2 89.4%
SWAN FALLS '85 1985 10.3 34,495 9.6 94.0%
CASCADE '89 1989 12.4 37,264 4.3 34. 3~
CASCADE '88 1988 12.4 22,328 2.5 20.5%
I CASCADE '87 1987 12.4 30,021 3.4 27.6"
CASCADE '86 1986 12.4 52,624 6.0 48.4"
CASCADE '85 1985 12.4 39,051 4.5 35.9"
SHOSHONE FALLS '89 1989 12.5 99,258 11. 3 90.6"
I SHOSHONE FALLS '88 1988 12.5 94,546 10.8 86.3~
SHOSHONE FALLS '87 1987 12.5 69,558 7.9 63.5"
SHOSHONE FALLS '86 1986 12.5 37,334 4.3 34.1%
SHOSHONE FALLS '85 1985 12.5 48,528 5.5 44.3"
I
MALAD '89 1989.20.7 78,047 8.9 43.0"
MALAD '88 1988 20.7 180,474 20.6 99.5%
MALAD '87 1987 20.7 185,584 21. 2 102.3"
MALAD '86 1986 20.7 155,989 17.8 86.0%
I
MALAD '85 1985 20.7 180,612 20.6 99.6~
UPPER SALMON '89 1989 34.5 249,042 28.4 82.4~
UPPER SALMON '88 1988 34.5 235,512 26.9 77 .9~
UPPER SALMON '87 1987 34.5 274,806 31. 4 90.9'
UPPER SALMON '86 1986 34.5 282,465 32.2 93.5"
I UPPER SALMON '85 1985 34.5 290,873.0 33.2 96.2~
LOWER SALMON '89 1989 60.0 235,299 26.9 44.8"
LOWER SALMON '88 1988 60.0 221,461 25.3 42.1"
LOWER SALMON '87 1987 60.0 263,047 30.0 50.0%
I LOWER SALMON '86 1986 60.0 457,749 52.3 87. '"
LOWER SALMON '85 1985 60.0 379,213 43.3 72.1~
BLISS '89 1989 75.0 349,575 39.9 53.2"
BLISS '88 1988 75.0 333,319 38.1 50.7"
I
BLISS '87 1987 75.0 391,367 44.7 59.6~
BLISS '86 1986 75.0 484,596 55.3 73.8"
BLISS '85 1985 75.0 508,491 58.0 77.4"
STRIKE '89 1989 82.8 439,626 50.2 60.6~
STRIKE '88 1988 82.8 .l03,106 46.0 55.6"
I STRIKE '87 1987 82.8 465,243 53.1 64. '"
STRIKE '88 1986 82.8 681,166 77 .8 93.9~
STRIKE '85 1985 82.8 592,109 67.6 81.6~
AMERICAN FALLS '89 1989 92.3 269,790 30.8 33.4~
I AMERICAN FALLS '88 1988 92.3 234,808 26.8 29.0"
AMERICAN FALLS '87 1987 92.3 327,622 37.4 40.5"
AMERICAN FALLS '86 1986 92.3 667,174 76.2 82.5"
AMERICAN FALLS '85 1985 92.3 536,430 61.2 66.3"
I OXBO '89 1989 190.0 980,413 111.9 58.9"
OXBO '88 1988 190.0 677 ,644 77.4 40.7"
OXBO '87 1987 190.0 878,563 100.3 52.8"U~t5 . tlti 1986 190.0 1,397,061 159.5 83.9"
I
OXBO '85 1985 190.0 1 , 194, 306 136.3 71. 8"
HELLS CANYON '89 1989 391.5 2,032,046 232.0 59.3"
HELLS CANYON '88 1988 391.5 1,370,368 156.4 40.0"
HELLS CANYON '87 1987 391.5 1,727,751 197.2 50.4"
HELLS CANYON '86 1986 391.5 2,509,024 286.4 73.2"
I HELLS CANYON '85 1985 391. 5 2,405,854 274.6 70.2"
BROWNLEE '89 1989 585.4 2,351,817 268.5 45. '"
BROWLEE '88 1988 585.4 1,587,272 181.2 31.0"
BROWLEE '87 1987 585.4 2,103,407 240.1 41. 0"
I BROWNLEE '86 1986 585.4 3,887,256 443.8 75.8"
BROWNLEE '85 1985 585.4 2,983,072 340.5 58.2"
I IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No.IPC-E-90-2ExhihitNo.103
I T.Faull,Staff
11/9/90 Page 2 of 3
I,COSTS COSTS UNIT COST UNIT COST
HYDR PLAI ($)(1992 $)(1992 $/MW)(1992 l/kW)--------------------------------------------------------
I TWIN FALLS '89 $219,050 $246,401 $3.875 $29.20
TWIN FALLS '88 $263,923 $308,753 $5.679 $36.60
TWIN FALLS '87 $139,252 $169,421 $2.566 $20.08
TWIN FALLS '86 S 132,680 $167,883 $2.292 $19.90
I TWIN FALLS '85 $127,9:3 $'68,338 $2.275 $19.95
SWAN FALLS '89 $952,425 $1,071,349 $12.112 $104.37
SWAN FALLS '88 $575,638 $573,415 $7.264 $65.60
SWAN FALLS '87 $484,351 $589,28'7 $6.674 $57.41
I
SWAN FALLS '86 $466,493 $5)0,262 $7.347 $57.50
SWAN FALLS '85 $441,014 $580,344 $6.868 $56.54
CASCADE '89 $131,255 $147,644 $3.962 $11.89
CASCADE '88 $152,297 $178,166 $7.979 $14.35
I
CASCADE ' 87 $155,118 $188,725 $6.286 $15.20
CASCADE '86 $183,334 $231,976 $4.408 $18.68
CASCADE '85 $207,783 $273,428 $7.002 $22.02
SHOSHONE FALLS '89 $278,917 $313,744 $3.161 $25.10
SHOSHONE FALLS '88 $175,099 $204,841 $2.167 $16.3';
I SHOSHONE FALLS '87 $196,672 $239, ,82 $3,440 $19. ~ 4
SHOSHONE FALLS '86 $306,024 $387,218 $10.372 $30.)8
SHOSHONE FALLS ' 85 $323,892 $426,220 $8.783 $34. . 0
MALAD '89 $244,868 $275,443 $3.529 $13.31
I MALAD '88 $203,374 $237,919 $1.318 $11. ~9
MALAD '87 ($66,145)($80,476)($0.434)(S3.39)
MALAD '86 $511,085 $646,686 $4.146 $31. ':4
MALAD '85 $193,131 $254,147 $1. 407 $12.28
I UPPER SALMON '89 $762,935 $858,198 $3.446 $24.88
UPPER SALMON '88 $711,545 $832,407 $3.534 $24.13
UPPER SALMON '87 $534,441 $650,229 $2.366 $1 E. 85
UPPER SALMON '86 $566,535 $716,848 $2.538 $10.78
I
UPPER SALMON '85 $474,928 $624,973 $2.149 $18.12
LOWER SALMO '89 $914,930 $1,029,172 $4.374 $17.15
LOWER SALMON '88 $696,710 $815,052 $3.680 $13.58
LOWER SALMON ' 87 $780,201 $949,234 $3.609 $15.82
LOWER SALMON '86 $498,667 $630,973 $1.378 $10.52
I LOWER SALMON '85 $550,449 $724,353 $1.910 $12.07
BLISS '89 $483,908 $544,331 $1. 557 $7. 2')
BLISS '88 $474,894 $555,559 $1.667 $7. ..1
BLISS '87 $469,001 $570,611 $1.458 $7. '31
I BLISS '86 $427,579 $541,024 $1. 116 $7.21
BLISS '85 $254,431 $334,814 $0.658 $4. ~6
STRIKE '89 $746,261 $839,442 $1.909 $10.14
STRIKE '88 $596,342 1697,636 $1. 731 $3.43
I
STRIKE '87 $429,668 $522,757 $1.124 $6.31
STRIKE '86 $353,651 $447,481 $0.657 $5.4C
STRIKE '85 $527,101 $693,629 $1. 171 $8.33
AMERICAN FALLS '89 $877 ,496 $987,064 $3.659 $10.69
I
AMERICAN FALLS '88 $919,701 $1,075,920 $4.582 $11. 65
AMERICAN FALLS '87 $865,762 $1,053,332 $3.215 $11.41
AMERICAN FALLS '86 $739,771 $936,046 $1.403 $10.14
AMERICAN FALLS '85 $903,766 $1,189,294 $2.217 $12.88
OXBOW '89 $932,351 $1,048,768 $1.070 $5.52
I OXBO '88 $812,699 $950,743 $1.403 SS.OC
OXBO '87 l732.162 S890,787 $1.014 $4.69
OXBO '86 $603,416 $763,514 $0.547 $4.02
OXBO '85 $695,998 $915,886 $0.767 $4.82
I HELLS CANYON ' 89 $673,591 $757,698 $0.373 $1.94
HELLS CANYON ' 88 $831,940 $739,280 $0.539 $1.89
HELLS CANYON '87 $813,807 $990,121 $0.573 $: .53
HELLS CANYON '86 $1,133,393 $1,434,104 $0.572 $3.66
I
HELLS CANYON '85 .1,333,740 $1,755,111 $0.730 $4.48
BROWNLEE ' 89 $1,223,548 $1,376,325 $0.585 $2.35
BROWNLEE '88 $1,148,502 $1,343,702 $0.847 $::.30
BROWNLEE '87 $1,032,048 $1,255,644 $0.597 $2.14
I
BROWNLEE ' 86 $905,745 $1,146,056 $0.295 $1.96
BROWNLEE ' 85 $141,394 $975,624 $0.327 $1. 67
I IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Case No.IPC-E- 90- 2
Exhibi t No.103
I
T.Faull,Staff
11/9/90 Page 3 of 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENIX I
QUALFICATIONS
Present OCcupation
Q. WHT is YOUR PRESENT OCCUPATION?
A. i am a consulting economist with Ben Johnson
Associates, Inc., a firm of economic and analytic
consultants specializing in the area of public utilityrequlation.
Educational Background
Q. WHT is YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND?
A. I graduated from Utah State University in 1962 with a
Bachelor of Science degree in economics. I earned the
Master of Science deqree in economics at the University
of Oregon in 1964. Finally, I received a Ph. D. in
economics from Utah State University in 1972. The
ti tle of my doctoral dissertation was New Deal
Expenditures in the 48 States r 1933-1939.
Q. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY ACADEMIC HONORS OR AWARDS?
A. Yes. I am a member of Omicron Delta Epsilon, the
national economics honorary, and was awarded a
National Science Foundation Fellowship in 1967.
Clients
Q. WHT TYPES OF CLIENTS EMPLOY YOUR FIRM?
A. Much of our work is performed on behal f of pub 1 icagencies at every level of government involved in
utility regulation. These agencies include stateregulatory commissions, public counsels, attorneys
general, and local qovernments, among others. We are
also employed by various private orqanizations andfirms, both regulated and unregulated. The diversity
of our clientele is illustrated below.
of:i IXM"lT
I iw:.~
Exhibit 201, Page 1Reading, Di
Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power
IPC-E-90-2
It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regulatory Commissions
Alabama Pulic Service Commission - Pulic staff for utility
Consumer Protection
Alaska Pulic utilities Commission
Arizona Corporation Commission
Arkansas Pulic Service Commission
District of Columia Pulic Service Commission
Idaho Pulic Utilities Commission
Idaho state Tax Commission
Kansas State Corporation Commission
Maine Public utilities Commission
Missouri Public Service Commission
North Carolina utilities Commission - Public Staff
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications
Texas Pulic utilities Commission
Virginia Corporation Commission
Washington utilities and Transportation Commission
West Virqinia Pulic Service Commission - Division of
Consumer Advocate
Wisconsin Pulic Service Commission
Public Counsels
Arizona Residential utility Consumers Office
Colorado Office of Consumer Services
Connecticut Consumer Counsel
District of Columia Office of People t s Counsel
Florida Public Counsel
Georgia Consumers t utility Counsel
Illinois Small Business Utility Advocate Office
Indiana Office of the Utility Consumer CounselorMaryland Office of People t s Counsel
Minnesota Office of Consumer Services
Missouri Pulic Counsel
New Hampshire Consumer Counsel
Ohio Consumer Counsel
Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate
Utah Department of Business Regulation - Committee of
Consumer Services
Exhibit 201, Page 2
Readinq, Di .
Industrial Customers
of Idaho PowerIPC-E-90-2
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attorneys General
Arkansas Attorney General
Florida Attorney General - Antitrust Division
Idaho Attorney General
Kentucky Attorney General
Michiqan Attorney General
Minnesota Attorney General
Nevada Attorney General's Office of Advocate
for Customers of Pulic utilities
South Carolina Attorney General
Virginia Attorney General
Washington Attorney General
Local Governments
ci ty of Austin, TX
ci ty of Corpus Christi, TX
ci ty of Dallas, TX
ci ty of El Paso, TX
City of Fort Worth, TX
ci ty of Galveston, TX
City of Houston, TX
City of Lubbock, TX
ci ty of Norfolk, VA
ci ty of Phoenix, AZ
ci ty of Richmond, VA
ci ty of San Antonio, TX
City of Suffolk, VA
ci ty of Tucson, AZ
County of Augusta, VA
County of Henrico, VA
County of York, VA
Town of Ashland, VA
Town of Blacksburg, VA
Town of Pecos City, TX
Other Government Agencies
Canada - Department of Communications
United States Department of Justice - Antitrust Division
State of Florida - Department of General Services
Provincial Governments of Canada
Exhibit 201, Page 3
Reading, Di .
Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power
IPC-E-90-2
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regulated Firms
Americall LDC, Inc.
E. Ritter Telephone Company
Florida Association of Concerned Telephone Companies, Inc.Holywell, Inc.
Louisiana/Mississippi Resellers Association
Madison County Telephone Company
Mountain View Telephone Company
Nevada Power Company
Network I, Inc.
North American Telephone Company
North Carolina Long Distance AssociationPan-Alberta Gas, Ltd.
Peninsula Communications, Inc.
RDM Telephone Systems
South Carolina Long Distance Association
Stanton Telephone
Teleconnect CompanyTransamericall, Inc.
Yelcot Telephone Company, Inc.
Other Private Organizations
Arizona Center for Law in the Pulic Interest
Casco Bank and Trustci tizens' Util i ty Board of Wisconsin
Colorado Energy Advocacy Office
East Maine Medical Center
Georgia Legal Services Program
Harris Corporation
Interstate Securities Corporation
J .R. Simplot Company
Merrill Trust Company
PenBay Memorial Hospital
Prior Exerience
Q. BEFORE BECOMING A CONSULTANT, WHERE WERE YOU
PROFESSIONALLY EMPLOYED, AND IN WHT CAPACITIES?
A. From 1981 to 1986 I was Economist and Director of
Policy and Administration for the Idaho Public
utilities Commission. My duties at the IPUC included,
in addition to my testimony, the preparation of special
reports in the areas of forecasting, demand studies,
and economic analysis. As Staff Director I was charged
Exhibit 201, Page 4Reading, Di
Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power
IPC-E-90-2
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
wi th overseeing the personnel and budget functions, andwi th representing the Commission before the state
legislature, at the governor i s office, before the
utility commissions of other states and before such
federal and regional entities as the Bonneville Power
Administration, the Northwest Power Planning Council,
and the Pulic Power Council.
Before that time I taught economics at Middle
Tennessee state University (Assistant Professor,
1968-70), Idaho state University (Assistant and
Associate Professor, 1970-80), and the University of
Hawaii at Hilo (Associate Professor, 1980-81).
Subjects tauqht included economic theory and history,quanti tati ve analysis, econometrics, statistics, labor
economics, financial institutions, and internationaleconomics.
In addition, between 1970 and 1986 I prepared
reports and expert testimony on loss of earnings in a
numer of legal actions respectinq wrongful injury and
wronqful death. Al thouqh many of these cases were
settled without trial, I gave expert testimony in court
on numerous occasions.
Q. HAVE YOU TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN
THE ARA OF PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION?
A. Yes. I have provided or am preparinq expert testimony
on 19 occasions in proceedings before regulatory
commissions in Alaska, California, Colorado, District
of Columbia, Idaho, Nevada, Texas, Utah, and
Washington, and before the Interstate Commerce
Commission. In addition, I have served as a hearing
examiner in Idaho.
My testimony in these proceedings dealt with
electric power planning and forecasting, power supply
models, avoided costs, demand elasticity models,
regional economic conditions affecting public
utilities, and cost of service.
Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS?
A. Yes. I have authored or co-authored more than 15 books
and articles, including the following:
Exhibit 201, Page 5
Reading, Di .
Industrial Customers
of Idaho PowerIPC-E-90-2
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"Post-PURPA views," Proceedings of the NARUC Biennial
Regulatory Conference, Septemer 1982.
An Input-Output Analysis of the Impact from Proposed Mining
in the Challis Area (with R. Davies), Pulic Policy Research
Center, Idaho State University, February 1980.
"The Paradox of Voting," Reason 10 (April 1979): 39- 41
"Index of Prices Received by Idaho Farmers," Idaho Economic
Indicators, July 1978 (also continuing series published
monthly) .
"Income Distribution in Idaho Counties," Idaho Business and
Economics Review.
Future-Gram, , C ' Series: CUrrent Trends and Forecasts, , C '
Series (with R. Foster, et al.), Government Research
Institute of Idaho State University and the Southeast Idaho
Council of Governments, Pocatello, Idaho ,June 1977.
An Empirical Analysis of Predictors of Income Distribution
Effects of Water Quality Controls (with J. Keith, et al.),Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State Uni versi ty ,
Logan, Utah, September 1976.
Regional Growth and Fiscal Impact in Southeast Idaho (with
V. Hj elm et al.), Government Research Institute of Idaho
State University and the Southeast Idaho Council of
Governments, Pocatello, Idaho, January 1976.
Phosphate and Southeast: A Socio Economic Analysis (with J.
Eyre et al.), Government Research Institute of Idaho stateUni versi ty and the Southeast Idaho Council of Governments,
Pocatello, Idaho, August 1975.
Estimating General Fund Revenues of the State of Idaho (with
S. Ghazanfar and D. Holley), Center for Business and
Economic Research, Boise State University, June 1975.
"Pocatello/Bannock County Economic Impact through 1978"
(with R. R. Johnson), funded by the City of Pocatello (A
Regional Input-Output Model), December 1975.
"A Note on the Distribution of Federal Expenditures: An
Interstate Comparison, 1933-1939 and 1961-1965," American
Economist 18, no. 2 (Fall 1974): 125-128.
Exhibit 201, Page 6Reading, Di .
Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power
IPC-E-90-2
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
"New Deal Activity and the states, 1933-1939," Journal of
Economic History 33 (December 1973): 792-810.
"Utah's Steel Industry" (with Reid R. Durtschi and Bartell
Jensen), Utah state University Research Paper, 1965.
Exhibit 201, Page 7Reading, Di
Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power
IPC-E-90-2
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:rNDUSTR CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWERCAE NO. IPC-E-90-2
SCHEDULE 1
IDAHO POWER COMPAN
CHGE IN COST OF EQUITY(000) .
Amount
Common Equity
Preferred Stock
Lonq-term Dèbt
$ 589,46258,923
557. §51
$1,206,236
Investment in Swan Falls
and Milner
Equity Ratio
Swan Falls and Milner
financed by Equity
$ 150,29048.9%
$ 73,492
Amount
Swan Falls and Milnerfinanced by Equi ty
1989 Common Equity
Ratio
48.9%4.9
46.2
100.0%
Rate Cost
$ 73,492 x 10.00% =
589.462 x 12.25% =
$662,954
$ 7,34972,209
$79,558
Cost of Equity: $79,558 I $662,954 = 12.00%
Source: Idaho Power Company, 1989 Annual Report: Exhibit 3,
Case No. IPC-E-90-8 : Attachment 3, Supplemental
Application, Case No. IPC-E-90-2 : and Idaho Pulic
Utilities Commission, Order No. 20924.
..ii
Exhibit 202, Page 1
Readinq, Di
Industrial customers
of Idaho Power
IPC-E-90-2