HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.7 Relicense PG&E Hydroelectric Facilities CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 22, 1985
SUBJECT Written Communication Regarding Relicensing of PG&E
Hydroelectric Facilities
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from Mr. Lou Holveck of PG&E dated March 22 ,
1985 ; Hydro Update Newsletter; Draft Resolution
RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION In August of 1982 , the City Council adopted Resolution
No . 38-82 which urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to promptly
grant Pacific Gas & Electric Company' s relicensing applications and to
reject the applications of those municipalities and associations which were
seeking to take these projects away from PG&E.
The City has received a letter from Lou Holveck, PG&E Area Manager dated
March 22 , 1985 requesting that the City Council take a similar action by
supporting HR 4402 and SB 2710 which are presently being considered by
Congress . These bills would deny the municipal utility preference in
relicensing certain PG&E owned and operated power plants .
It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution supporting HR 4402 and SB 2710 and direct Staff to send copies to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the City' s representatives in
Congress .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES T0 : Lou Holveck, PG&E
ITEM NO . �i .
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC NY
JID(r7-=nw713 —}— 998 MURRIETA BOULEVARD LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550
L. R. (LOU) HOLVECK
MANAGER-LIVERMORE
March 22, 1985
Mr. Peter Snyder, Mayor ---
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin , CA 94568
Dear Mayor Snyder:
With the commencement of the 99th Congress , we at PGandE have begun once again
to focus on legislation which is critically relevant to all PGandE customers. In
particular, we are still concerned about the relicensing of hydroelectric
facilities owned and operated by PGandE. House bill HR 44 (the 1985 bill number
for HR 4402) and the newly numbered Senate companion legislation deny the
apparent municipal utility preference in relicensing certain PGandE owned and
operated power plants . Should this legislation fail , a few privileged
municipal utility customers would pay significantly less while PGandE customer
rates would increase by $100 million a year.
I am writing today to urge your support of this legislation . I have attached
some background information on this issue . You can show your support of this
legislation by:
1) Personally writing to your Congressional Representative and U.S. Senators
urging support for the new bill .
2) Preparing and distributing a new resolution from the City of Dublin
stating support of the 1985 version and citing your 1984 stand on this
issue .
3) Completing the enclosed , postage paid , hydro support card so I may create a
data base of the support in my area .
Thank you for your consideration of this critically important bill . I will
phone you in a week or so to answer any questions you may have .
Sincerely, /
Lou Holveck
Enclosure
MIMI
log
HYDRO UPDATE
January 11, 1985
NEW HYDRO LEGISLATION INTRODUCED!
The 98th Congress adjourned in September, 1984, without taking action on H.R. 4402 in the House of Representatives or on
the companion bill S.B. 2710 in the United States Senate.
Deferred action on both bills was due primarily to a heavy legislative calendar. However, when Congress adjourned, there
was growing support for both bills in both the House and the Senate. H.R. 4402 had 120 co-sponsors, including 17 members of
the important Energy and Commerce Committee. S.B. 2710 had 13 co-sponsors, including three members of the Energy and Na-
tional,Resources Committee. Both California U.S. Senators (Cranston and Wilson) are co-authors of S.B. 2710.
Although Congress did not act on the bills, the growing support in the House and Senate is very encouraging.As of this date,
HR 44(the 1985 bill number for HR 4402) has been reintroduced in the House,and newly-numbered companion legislation-is ex-__
pected in the Senate.
WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE REGULATORY FRONT
On the regulatory front, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission apparently is withholding further action on PGandE's
four relicensing applications until a District of Columbia Appeals Court rules on the Merwin Dam case. (In that case,the FERC ruled
that municipal utilities do not have a preference on relicensing applications. The municipal utility appealed the FERC's decision.)
The Court heard arguments on the case in October, 1984, and probably will reach a decision within the first half of 1985.
Depending on the Court's decision, the FERC will decide whether to:
a) schedule hearings on PGandE's relicensing application;
b) defer hearings until after all Supreme Court appeals are exhausted; or
c) follow any applicable legislative mandate.
HYDRO RELICENSING - A CONSUMER ISSUE
The consequences of takeover of our hydro facilities are clear- if the licenses are lost to the challenging munici-
palities, PGandE customers' rates will go up more than $100 million a year.
Relicensing these hydro projects to the munis clearly is not in the public interest.
WHAT THE OPPONENTS ARE DOING
The challenging municipalities are actively lobbying members of the House and Senate in an effort to convince them to vote
against any legislation that would clarify the intent of the Federal Power Act in removing"preference"for municipal entities at the
time of relicensing existing investor built-owned hydro facilities. They undoubtedly will renew their efforts in 1985. If the munici-
palities are successful in their lobbying efforts, millions of California consumers could pay higher electric utility bills while the few
thousand consumers served by municipally-owned utilities would benefit out of all proportion.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Now that 1985 legislation has been introduced,write or send a new resolution to your Congressional representative and U.S.
Senators urging support for the new bills, citing your 1984 support. In addition, if you have not already done so, write to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stating your support for relicensing PGandE projects:
Mokelumne River Project No. 137
Haas-King Rivers Project No. 1988
Phoenix Project No. 1061
Rock Creek-Cresta Project No. 1962
We appreciate all your work on behalf of California consumers and we will do our best to keep you informed about progress
on the hydro relicensing issue in future Hydro Updates.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Members of Congress U.S.Senators
Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary House Office Building U.S. Senate
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510
825 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
19851 HYDRO SUPPORT PLEDGE CARD,,
fur
Af YES, I support HR 44 in the U.S. House of Representatives and companions
legislation in the U.S. Senate which would amend the Federal Power Act regarding t= ;
'relicensing of hydroelectric power facilities.
You may use my-name in support of this legislation.
3:
(Print name and tide) ^
w 1
signature),'
s :. a �,. r - •�`
I know other people/organizations interested in supporting this legislation
.tom S _ .p
�. Please contact me , .. �: r � kuti` 'r�'�, �4
^ —Name,
`Address City zip 00 t
Phone(o) (h)
S yip 1 ,
ol
. —• '' tt.r,.1 .e...y r t �iF .) - .. ,+e-�.cF .aD-i� �p.�'��
u t s ii;
1: r`J
fly;'
.fie >•J
4 t t� •4 Ze1 '
�' 9 i .♦ ,.
i _j
i�
t
RESOLUTION NO . - 85
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
--------------------------------------
IN SUPPORT OF RELICENSING OF HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
TO THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
WHEREAS , the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. has , over the past 100
years , developed a safe , reliable and economic system of hydroelectric
generating facilities for the benefit of its customers living throughout
central and northern California; and
WHEREAS , PG&E' s 3 . 4 million customers represent an area population
of over 9 million people who now enjoy the benefits of this power PG&E
generates -without the use of fossil fuels ; and
WHEREAS , certain of these hydroelectric facilities , consisting of
projects licensed by the Federal Power Commission, now known as the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC ) are subject to consideration for
relicense by FERC ; and
WHEREAS , efforts are being made by certain municipal entities to
secure for themselves six PG&E powerhouses on the Mokelumne and Feather
Rivers through application to FERC ; efforts which, if successful , would
transfer ownership and operation of these hydroelectric facilities away
from PG&E and divert the low cost power away from PG&E ' s customers and into
their hands ; and
WHEREAS , it would be directly contrary to the best interests of
the citizens of Dublin and to the best interests of the millions of PG&E
customers throughout northern and central California whose rates have
supported PG&E' s ownership and operation of these facilities , if the Rock
Creek and Cresta plants on the Feather River (Project No . 192 ) and the
Mokelumne River Project ( Project No . 137) were cut out of the hydroelectric
generating system PG&E uses to serve them; and
WHEREAS , if these projects were to be transferred to the
municipalities seeking them, PG&E ' s customers will be forced to pay , every
year., increased costs for electricity from oil or gas fired generating
facilities in amounts up to $100 ,000 ,000; and
WHEREAS , the continued ownership , operation and improvement of its
hydroelectric generating facilities by PG&E is essential to the social and
economic well being of the people of northern and central California; and
WHEREAS , retention of these projects by PG&E is the only course
providing for the fullest improvement and utilization of these resources in
the public interest .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin hereby
urges members of the U. S . House of Representatives, and United State
Senate to support HR 4402 and SB 2710 respectively.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin urges the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission to promptly grant PG&E' s relicensing
applications upon resolution of this issue in the courts and in congress .
PASSED , APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April , 1985 , by the
following vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk