DOCSLIB.ORG

United States of America 125 Ferc ¶ 62,064 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States of America 125 Ferc ¶ 62,064 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 125 FERC ¶ 62,064 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Project Nos. P-2150-033, 027 ORDER ON OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, ISSUING NEW LICENSE, AND DISMISSING AMENDMENT APPLICATION AS MOOT (October 17, 2008) INTRODUCTION 1. On April 30, 2004, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget) filed an application for a new license pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 to continue operation and maintenance of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project No. 2150. Puget subsequently amended the application on January 31, 2005. The project’s current authorized capacity is 170.03 megawatts (MW). Puget proposes to increase the authorized capacity to 200.03 MW. The project consists of two developments, Upper Baker and Lower Baker, located on the Baker River in Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington, and currently occupies 5,207 acres of federal lands2 within the Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest administered by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service).3 2. Puget’s license application is based on a comprehensive Settlement Agreement filed November 30, 2004, and signed by Puget, 11 government agencies, three tribes, eight non-government organizations, and one citizen representative. For the reasons discussed below, this order issues a new license for the Baker River Project and incorporates the Settlement Agreement’s proposed measures. Issuing a new license is in the public interest because it would allow the project to continue generating electric energy to serve growing regional demand while protecting and enhancing environmental, recreation, and cultural resources. 3. As discussed in more detail below, this order also dismisses as moot Puget’s application of June 14, 2002, to amend the previous license to include interim protective 1 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 808 (2006), respectively. 2 This order incorporates new recreation, wildlife, and fisheries measures into the license that will increase the amount of federal lands occupied by the project, as discussed below. 3 The project is required to be licensed under section 23(b)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 817 (2006), because it occupies federal lands. Project Nos. 2150-033 and 027 - 2 - measures for threatened fish pending relicensing. These measures were subsequently included in the Settlement Agreement and are now required under the new license. BACKGROUND 4. The Federal Power Commission issued an original license for the Baker River Project on June 4, 1956.4 The original license expired on April 30, 2006, and, since that time, Puget has operated the project under an annual license pending the disposition of its new license application.5 5. On July 1, 2004, the Commission issued a notice accepting Puget’s license application and setting a deadline of September 30, 2004, for filing protests and motions to intervene.6 Timely motions to intervene were filed by Washington Department of Ecology (Washington Ecology); U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior); Washington Department of Natural Resources; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Washington Fish and Wildlife); Forest Service; Upper Skagit Indian Tribe; Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; The Nature Conservancy; National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Skagit County; and Seattle City Light.7 None of these motions to intervene were in opposition to the project. 6. On January 19, 2005, the Commission issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis and solicited comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions.8 In response, comments and recommendations were filed by the Forest Service, Interior, NMFS, and Washington Fish and Wildlife. 4 15 FPC 1496 (1956). The original license authorized the construction of the Upper Baker development and incorporated the Lower Baker development, which had previously been issued a separate, minor part license on April 13, 1927, as Project No. 777. Id. at 1497. 5 See Puget Sound Energy, Inc, Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation, May 5, 2006 (unpublished). 6 69 Fed. Reg. 41,468 (2004). 7 The motions were timely and unopposed, and therefore, automatically granted pursuant to Rule 214(c)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure at 18 CFR § 385.214(c)(1)(2008). 8 70 Fed. Reg. 4,844 (2005). Project Nos. 2150-033 and 027 - 3 - 7. On April 7, 2006, the Commission staff issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that evaluated the potential effects of operating the project under several alternatives.9 Comments on the EIS were filed by Dan O’Donnell; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Puget; Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; NMFS; Larry Kunzler; The Nature Conservancy; Washington Ecology; Interior; Washington Fish and Wildlife; Forest Service; Upper Skagit Indian Tribe; City of Mount Vernon, Washington; Skagit County Dike Districts No. 1, 12, and 17, and the City of Burlington, Washington; Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group; and Skagit County. Commission staff’s notice of the EIS provided another opportunity for interested entities to intervene in this proceeding.10 A timely motion to intervene was filed jointly by Skagit County Dike Districts No. 1, 12, and 17 and the cities of Burlington and Mount Vernon, Washington, on May 4, 2006. 8. Commission staff issued a final EIS on September 8, 2006.11 We received comments on the EIS from Skagit County and the Forest Service. These comments are discussed in this order. 9. The motions to intervene, comments, and recommendations have been fully considered in determining whether, and under what conditions, to issue this license. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Facilities 10. The Upper Baker and Lower Baker developments adjoin one another with the total project boundary covering a distance of about 18 miles along the Baker River, and forming Baker Lake at the Upper Baker development and Lake Shannon at the Lower Baker development. The project has an installed capacity of 170.03 MW, which Puget proposes to increase to 200.03 MW. The two developments are described below with a more detailed description in ordering paragraph (B)(2). 11. The existing principal features of the Upper Baker development are: a 312-foot- high concrete gravity dam; a 115-foot-high earth and rock-fill dike (West Pass dike); a 9- 9 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was a cooperating agency because of its role in directing project operations for flood control. 10 71 Fed. Reg. 19,494 (2006). 11 All further references in this order to the EIS are to the final EIS, unless otherwise noted. Project Nos. 2150-033 and 027 - 4 - mile-long reservoir (Baker Lake) having a surface area of about 4,980 acres at a normal full pool elevation of 727.77 feet mean sea level (msl); a 22-foot-high earth-filled dike (Pumping Pond dike) which impounds a 0.7-mile-long pond (Depression Lake, which collects leakage from the reservoir) having a surface area of about 44 acres at a normal full pool elevation of 698.77 feet msl; a water recovery pumping station that pumps leakage flows back into Baker Lake; two steel penstocks; a powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 90.70 MW; downstream fish passage facilities; and appurtenant facilities. 12. The existing principal features of the Lower Baker development are: a 285-foot- high concrete arch dam; a 7-mile-long reservoir (Lake Shannon) having a surface area of about 2,278 acres at a normal full pool elevation of 442.35 feet msl; a pressure tunnel; a concrete surge chamber; a powerhouse containing a single turbine-generator unit with an installed capacity of 79.33 MW; a 750-foot-long, 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line; upstream fish passage facilities; and appurtenant facilities. 13. To meet proposed new minimum flows and ramping rates, and to generate power, Puget proposes to construct a new auxiliary powerhouse adjacent to the existing powerhouse at the Lower Baker development, and to install two new turbine-generator units with a combined installed capacity of 30 MW. The new units would increase the total installed capacity at the Lower Baker development from 79.33 to 109.33 MW and the project’s total installed capacity from 170.03 to 200.03 MW. Puget also proposes to upgrade the existing upstream and downstream fish passage facilities and the existing fish propagation facilities, and to construct a salmon hatchery at its Sulphur Creek facility near the Upper Baker development. B. Project Boundary 14. The project boundary at the Upper Baker development generally follows contour elevation 732.77 feet (NAVD 88)12 and encloses Baker Lake. At the northern and southern ends of Baker Lake, additional lands are included to enclose the Upper Baker dam, West Pass dike, Pumping Pond dike, and Depression Lake (at the southern end of Baker Lake) and to enclose fish propagation facilities (at the northern end of Baker Lake). At the Lower Baker development, the project boundary generally follows contour elevation 445.47 (NAVD 88) and encloses Lake Shannon. At the southern end of Lake Shannon, additional lands are included to enclose the Lower Baker dam. 12 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Project Nos. 2150-033 and 027 - 5 - 15. Puget proposes to modify the project boundary at the southern end of Lake Shannon to remove about 40 acres of lands which are not needed for project purposes. As discussed in the EIS, these lands contain only unimproved vacant lots or lands needed for local Highway 20.13 None of these lands are used for any project-related purpose nor are they managed by Puget to benefit any specific resources. I therefore approve their removal from the project boundary. 16. In addition, this order incorporates certain recreation, wildlife, and fisheries measures into the new license that require lands to be added to the project boundary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 20090601-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/01/2009
    20090601-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/01/2009 127 FERC ¶ 62,174 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Project No. 2493 -084 ORDER AMENDING LICENSE June 1, 2009 1. On December 6, 2007, and supplemented on January 14, 2008, February 1, 2008, February 25, 2008, June 2, 2008, August 22, 2008, and January 27, 2009, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget), licensee for the Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2493, filed an application to amend its license. The licensee proposes to construct different proj ect facilities from those authorized in the 2004 license . As discussed below, this order grants the amendment request. Background 2. On June 29, 2004, the Commission issued a new license for the Snoqualmie Falls Project , located on the Snoqualmie River in the City of Snoqualmie, King County, Washington .1 3. As authorized in the 2004 license order , Plant 1 works would incl ude: (1) a concrete intake structure with trashracks, gates, and hoists on the south bank of the river about 300 feet upstream from the da m; (2) one 8 -foot -diameter and one 6 -foot -diameter steel penstock in 270 -foot -long vertical rock shafts; (3) a 200 -foot -long, 40 -foot -wide, 30 -foot -high underground powerhouse containing one horizontal Francis turbine rated at 15,300 horsepower (hp) direct ly connected to a synchronous generator rated at 11,500 kilowatts ( kW ) and one Turgo Impulse turbine rated at 6,875 hp directly connected to a synchronous generator rated at 4,500 kW for a total capacity of 16,000 kW; (4) a 450 - foot -long tailrace tunnel, w hich returns the flow to Snoqualmie Falls plunge pool; and (5) a 0.06 -mile -long, 115 -kilovolt ( kV ), three -phase transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Baker, Washington
    WATER-QUALITY EFFECTS ON BAKER LAKE OF RECENT VOLCANIC ACTIVITY AT MOUNT BAKER, WASHINGTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1022-B Prepared in cooperation with the State of Washington Department of Ecology Water-Quality Effects on Baker Lake of Recent Volcanic Activity at Mount Baker, Washington By G. C. BORTLESON, R. T. WILSON, and B. L. FOXWORTHY VOLCANIC ACTIVITY AT MOUNT BAKER, WASHINGTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1022-B Prepared in cooperation with the State of Washington Department of Ecology UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1977 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bortleson, Gilbert Carl, 1940- Water-quality effects on Baker Lake of recent volcanic activity at Mount Baker, Washington. (Volcanic Activity at Mt. Baker) (Geologic Survey Professional Paper 1022-B) Bibliography: p. 30. Supt.ofDocs.no.: I 19.16:1022-6 1. Water quality-Washington (State)--Baker Lake. 2. Volcanism-Washington (State). 3. Baker, Mount, Wash. I. Wilson, Reed T., joint author. II. Foxworthy, Bruce, La Verne, 1925- joint author. III. Washington (State). Dept. of Ecology. IV. Title. V. Series: Volcanic activity at Mount Baker, Washington. VI. Series: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1022-B. TD224.W2B67 363.6'1 77-21097 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-001-03008-0 CONTENTS Conversion factors _________________________. Ill Quality of surface waters draining to Baker Lake ______B16 Abstract__________________________________. Bl Water in Sherman Crater __________________ 16 Introduction ______________________________. 1 Boulder Creek and other streams _____________.
    [Show full text]
  • CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN Baker River Alluvial Fan Enhancement
    SKAGIT COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN Baker River Alluvial RESTORATION STRATEGY CONCEPT ELEMENTS 1. Increase off -channel rearing habitat by excavating a 11. Replace the existing shoreline stairway 66.6. Substitute pervious, natural-surface pedestrian channel connecting the mainstem Skagit with an off - shoreline access trails for impervious road surfaces. Fan Enhancement channel pond. 22.2. Reduce imperviousness of vehicular and pedestrian access along river banks 77.7. Provide channels to link habitats of the historic Little BACKGROUND 2. Improve instream complexity by adding large woody Baker River channel and alluvial fan as a backwater debris. 3.3. Replace invasive plant species with native trees and The Baker River Alluvial Fan area at the confl uence with 3 channel. shrubs. the larger Skagit River is located partly within the Town 3. Substitute pervious pedestrian trails for impervious 88.8. Provide low-impact recreational improvements such of Concrete and partly in unincorporated Skagit County. vehicular access road and parking areas where feasible 44. Improve the existing WDFW boat launch site as campgrounds outside the fl oodway. For more than a decade, various stakeholders including in areas adjacent to the Baker and Skagit Rivers. user groups, landowners, local governments, and other 55.5. Improve sinuosity of lower Baker River, establish 99.9. Place boulders, log structures, and/or engineered log interested parties have been considering habitat and 4. Remove invasive plant species and replace them with fl oodplain benches and meanders. jams to increase low-fl ow complexity and improve recreational improvement opportunities along the lower native trees and shrubs to provide riparian functions salmonid fi sh habitat for juvenile rearing and adult Baker River and its associated alluvial fan.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Record of Fish Related Issues on the Skagit River
    HISTORICAL RECORD OF FISH RELATED ISSUES ON THE SKAGIT RIVER SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1897 THROUGH 1969 By Larry Kunzler June 4, 2005 Updated and republished June 2008 www.skagitriverhistory.com Historical Record of Fish Related Issues On The Skagit River Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 2 PREFACE....................................................................................................................................... 4 Levees and Fish Discussed Early in Skagit History ....................................................................... 5 Flood Control Projects Impacted Fish Runs ................................................................................... 5 Fish Hatchery At Baker Lake Stops Work For Winter................................................................... 6 Seattle To Build State Hatchery On Upper River........................................................................... 6 Forest Service To Survey Road From Here To Baker Lake........................................................... 7 O’malley Is Appointed As Fish Commissioner.............................................................................. 7 Fish Hatchery Man Has Exciting Trip To Lake.............................................................................. 7 Preliminary Work On Baker Lake Road Started This Week.......................................................... 8 Power Company To Continue
    [Show full text]
  • Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC No
    Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2150 PDEA Initial Review Comments 1/16/04 The documents available to the general public, apparently Volume I, Part 1 of 2, and Volume II, Part 1 of 2, exclude key information including the results of numerous studies and other documents that are part of the license submittal. Because so many studies are incomplete and have therefore not been incorporated into the substantive compilation of factual material relevant to the current re-licensing effort, it is difficult to comment from the County’s perspective regarding addition of flood storage in the Baker Project. For example, there are several references to study “A09,” as yet incomplete, which will provide essential information regarding salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. It is also difficult to comment on a report that does not include the recommended conditions considered necessary to protect fish and wildlife from the federal resource agencies. In numerous instances, the PDEA refers to future actions that will be undertaken after the license is issued. (See page 5-117.) The mechanism to ensure these actions are completed is not clear. It should be noted that Puget Sound Energy (PSE) has refused to conduct a flood control study1 requested by Skagit County on December 2, 2002, to verify the County’s reservoir elevation recommendations, primarily based upon a concern that this study will not be complete in time to include with the license submittal. Yet in several other areas of the re-licensing effort, results of other studies are clearly
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System
    PNNL- 23040 Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System Volume 1: Financial Feasibility Analysis December 2013 Patrick Balducci, PNNL Patrick Leslie, Puget Sound Energy Chunlian Jin, PNNL Charles Daitch, Puget Sound Energy Di Wu, PNNL Andy Marshall, Primus Power Michael Kintner-Meyer, PNNL PNNL-23040 Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System Volume 1: Financial Feasibility Analysis P Balducci, PNNL C Jin, PNNL D Wu, PNNL M Kintner-Meyer, PNNL P Leslie, Puget Sound Energy C Daitch, Puget Sound Energy A Marshall, Primus Power December 2013 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 and the Bonneville Power Administration. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary For more than a decade, the Pacific Northwest has been capable of generating more electric energy than the region’s utilities required for meeting customer demand. Now, however, the Regional Resource Adequacy Forum’s five-year forecast indicates the region will soon reach load-resource balance. As capacity constraints loom, the percentage of renewables on the grid continues to grow, driven by renewable portfolio standards throughout the region, production tax credits and decreasing costs. In the Bonneville Power Administration region, with a total of 6 gigawatts of wind power, the need to manage the variability and intermittency of renewable energy resources has become a very real challenge, sometimes necessitating wind curtailments to sustain reliable operations. The continued increase of these renewable sources will necessitate the deployment of technologies that can address intermittency in an environmentally sustainable fashion. Energy storage systems have the potential to improve the operating capabilities of the electricity grid.
    [Show full text]
  • Propagation and Distribution of Food Fishes
    U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE R. P. LAMONT, Secretary BUREAU OF FISHERIES HENRY O'MALLEY, Commieeioner Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 1098 PROPAGATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD FISHES FISCAL YEAR 1930 By GLEN C. LEACH APPENDIX XVI TO REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1930 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON i 1931 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. - - - - - - - - - Price 15 cents PROPAGATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD FISHES, FISCAL 1 YEAR 1930 By GLEN C. LEACH, Chief, Division of Fish Culture CONTENTS Page Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1125 Part 1.—Fish Production: Propagation and Rescue Work Species handled _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1126 Output 1127 Cooperation with other conservation agencies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1128 Cooperative fish nurseries - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1129 State fish-cultural activities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1132 Salvage of food fishes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1135 Transfers of eggs between stations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1136 Shipments to foreign countries - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1137 Output of stations and substations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1137 Egg collections - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    [Show full text]
  • Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan
    TOTAL DISSOLVED GAS ABATEMENT PLAN BAKER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 2150 Puget Sound Energy Bellevue, Washington November 2, 2009 Baker TDG Abatement Plan.Doc PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Doc ID: BAK.20091102.0201.PSE.DOE 2 November 2009 Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan CONTENTS CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this TDG Abatement Plan .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Organization of This TDG Abatement Plan...................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Project Features............................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 TDG Information........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 TDG Sources at Hydroelectric Projects...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PSE's Green Direct Governmental and Commercial Customers Begin Receiving Renewable Energy from the Skookumchuck Wind Facility
    MEDIA RELEASE PSE’s Green Direct governmental and commercial customers begin receiving renewable energy from the Skookumchuck Wind Facility Largest Western Washington wind project is fully operational BELLEVUE, Wash. (Dec. 1, 2020) – Puget Sound Energy is excited to announce its Green Direct customers are now receiving renewable energy from the largest western Washington wind project, Skookumchuck Wind Facility. The Green Direct program is a ground-breaking initiative designed to provide PSE corporate and governmental customers the ability to purchase 100 percent of their energy from a dedicated, local, renewable energy resource, while providing them with a stable, cost efficient solution. By adding more renewables to PSE’s portfolio, Green Direct also furthers PSE’s deep decarbonization goals and move toward 100 percent clean energy by 2045, as called for in Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act. “Our customers have been asking for clean energy, and we have taken those requests to heart and created programs like Green Direct,” said PSE President and CEO Mary Kipp. “I’m proud that we were able to work in partnership with our customers to structure an industry-leading renewable energy program that meets their needs.” The project, owned by Southern Power, will produce enough renewable energy to power the equivalent of nearly 30,000 Washington homes. It is located on Weyerhaeuser timber land, located in Lewis and Thurston Counties. It is the first large wind project located in Western Washington; and the first in the state to be located on working forest land. “Green Direct is the result of King County, regional cities, and others uniting to work with Puget Sound Energy to tackle climate change,” said King County Executive Dow Constantine.
    [Show full text]
  • Puget Energy 2003 Annual Report FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
    generations Puget Energy 2003 Annual Report FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Puget Energy Summary of results Dollars in thousands, except per share data Year ended December 31 2003 2002 % Change Operating revenues $2,491,523 $2,392,322 4.1)% Income for common stock $ 116,197 $ 110,052 5.6)% Earnings per share (basic) $ 1.23 $ 1.24 (1.1)% Earnings per share (diluted) $ 1.22 $ 1.24 (1.7)% Return on average common equity 7.3% 7.6% (3.9)% Common stock dividend per share $ 1.00 $ 1.21 (17.4)% Diluted common shares outstanding (weighted average) 95,309 88,777 7.4)% Common shareholders of record 43,200 45,200 (4.4)% Total assets at year end $5,674,685 $5,772,133 (1.7)% Puget Sound Energy Summary of results Dollars in thousands Year ended December 31 2003 2002 % Change Operating revenues $2,149,736 $2,072,793 3.7)% Income for common stock $ 114,735 $ 101,117 13.5)% Return on average common equity 7.7% 7.5% 2.7)% Total assets at year end $5,334,787 $5,453,390 (2.2)% Electric customers 977,743 957,982 2.1)% Gas customers 644,629 621,967 3.6)% Senior debt ratings (S&P/Moody’s) BBB/Baa2 BBB/Baa2 Commercial paper ratings (S&P/Moody’s) A3/P2 A3/P2 Number of employees 2,155 2,113 2.0)% InfrastruX Group Summary of results Dollars in thousands Year ended December 31 2003 2002 % Change Operating revenues $ 341,787 $ 319,529 7.0)% Income for common stock1 $ 1,643 $9,455 (82.6)% Return on average common equity 1.6% 10.2%(84.3)% Total assets at year end $ 342,332 $ 319,248 7.2)% Number of employees 3,009 2,547 18.1)% 1 Net of minority interest of $177 and $867 for 2003 and 2002, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Resource Adequacy Studies the Results and Data from These Three Studies of Regional Load/Resource Balance Were Used in the Preparation of the 2017 PSE IRP
    Appendix F: Resource Adequacy 2017 PSE Integrated Resource Plan F Regional Resource Adequacy Studies The results and data from these three studies of regional load/resource balance were used in the preparation of the 2017 PSE IRP. Contents 1. NORTHWEST POWER AND CONSERVATION COUNCIL (NPCC) Pacific Northwest Power Supply Adequacy Assessment for 2021 Published September 27, 2016 (attached) 2. PACIFIC NORTHWEST UTILITIES CONFERENCE COMMITTEE (PNUCC) Northwest Regional Forecast of Power Loads and Resources 2017-2026 Published April 2016 (attached) 3. BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION (BPA) 2016 Pacific Northwest Loads and Resources Study Published December 22, 2016 Access this document at the following links: • Summary https://www.bpa.gov/power/pgp/whitebook/2016/2016-WBK-Loads-and- Resources-Summary-20161222.pdf • Energy Analysis https://www.bpa.gov/power/pgp/whitebook/2016/2016-WBK-Technical- Appendix-Volume-1-Energy-Analysis-20161222.pdf • Capacity Analysis https://www.bpa.gov/power/pgp/whitebook/2016/2016-WBK-Technical- Appendix-Volume%20-2-Capacity-Analysis-20161222.pdf F - 1 PSE 2017 IRP CONTENTS Forward...................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 4 The Council’s Resource Adequacy Standard ............................................................................. 6 Recent Adequacy Assessments ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Utility Best Practices Guidance for Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
    Utility Best Practices Guidance for Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data A RESOURCE OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY NOVEMBER 2008 About This Document This document, Utility Best Practices Guidance for Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data, presents the major fi nd­ ings of an important year three activity of the National Action Plan for Energy Effi ciency. The Action Plan Sector Collaborative identifi ed the need for this guidance during a June 2007 workshop that included representatives from commercial real estate, grocery, hospitality, retail, and municipal sectors. An Action Plan Work Group helped defi ne the vision for this report and guided its development. This document outlines the need to align utility practices for providing customers with energy use and cost data with both increasing cus­ tomer needs and state and local government policy initiatives. In doing so, utilities can meet customers’ requirements on a consistent basis nationwide. Gas and electric utilities and utility regulators can use this guidance to understand the benefi ts and challenges of increasing cus­ tomer access to their energy consumption and cost data in a standard­ ized format. This guidance summarizes current data practices, outlines the business and policy cases for action, and presents both basic and advanced approaches for providing consistent, standardized electronic energy consumption and cost data to business customers, as well as the key considerations when implementing these approaches. The primary intended audiences for this report are gas and electric utili­ ties and utility regulators. Utility Best Practices Guidance for Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data A RESOURCE OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY NOVEMBER 2008 The Leadership Group of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency is committed to taking action to increase investment in cost-effective energy efficiency.
    [Show full text]