SUBMISSION 05-03-16 CONFIDENTIAL KENNEBUNK LIGHT AND POWER DISTRICT HYDROPOWER FACILITY ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT STUDY MA9 2016 SUBMISSION 05-03-16 KENNEBUNK LIGHT AND POWER DISTRICT HYDROPOWER FACILITY ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT STUDY KENNEBUNK, MAINE TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 1.1 Prequel ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Summary of Alternatives .......................................................... 1-3 1.3 Alternative #1 – Seek New License to Continue Operations ................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Alternative #2 – Seek License Exemption to Continue Operation ................................................................... 1-4 1.5 Alternative #3 – Seek FERC Non-jurisdiction Only for the Kesslen Site ................................................................... 1-5 1.6 Alternative #4 – Cease Operation and Surrender the FERC License for All Three Sites ............................................ 1-5 2 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE #1 2.1 Alternative Description ............................................................ 2-1 2.2 Environmental Implications of this Alternative ....................... 2-2 2.3 Secondary Economic Implications of this Alternative ............ 2-7 2.4 Benefits of the Alternative ....................................................... 2-8 2.5 Impacts and Challenges of the Alternative .............................. 2-9 2.6 Cost Assessment of the Alternative .......................................... 2-10 3 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE #2 3.1 Alternative Description ............................................................ 3-1 3.2 Environmental Implications of the Alternative ........................ 3-1 3.3 Secondary Economic Implications of this Alternative ............ 3-2 3.4 Benefits of the Alternative ....................................................... 3-2 3.5 Impacts and Challenges of the Alternative .............................. 3-2 3.6 Cost Assessment of the Alternative .......................................... 3-2 4 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE #3 4.1 Alternative Description ............................................................ 4-1 4.2 Environmental Implications of this Alternative ....................... 4-2 4.3 Secondary Economic Implications of this Alternative ............ 4-4 4.4 Benefits of the Alternative ....................................................... 4-5 4.5 Impacts and Challenges of the Alternative .............................. 4-5 4.6 Cost Assessment of the Alternative .......................................... 4-6 12397L i Wright-Pierce TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 5 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE #4 5.1 Alternative Description ............................................................ 5-1 5.2 Environmental Implications of this Alternative ....................... 5-2 5.3 Secondary Economic Implications of this Alternative ............. 5-7 5.4 Benefits of the Alternative ....................................................... 5-10 5.5 Sediment Transport and Management ...................................... 5-10 5.6 Impacts and Challenges of the Alternative .............................. 5-12 5.7 Cost Assessment of the Alternative .......................................... 5-13 6 COST COMPARISON 6.1 Analysis Development and Assumptions ................................ 6-1 6.2 Summary of Net Costs for the Alternatives ............................. 6-3 6.3 Impacts to Electric Rates .......................................................... 6-4 6.4 Approximate Cost to Generate Electricity via Relicensing ...... 6-7 APPENDICES A SUMMARY OF KEY FERC LICENSING AND LICENSE EXEMPTION FILING AN PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS B SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE FERC LICENSING PROCESSES C EXISTING UNIT REPLACEMENT/REFURBISHMENT ASSESSMENT D ADDITIONAL GENERATION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT E CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED IN RECENT (2007-2014) NEW ENGLAND FERC LICENSES F FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR DECLARATION OF NON-JURISDICTION G LICENSE SURRENDER FILING REQUIREMENTS H CONCERNS RAISED AT THE MARCH 31, 2015 PUBLIC MEETING I COST ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVES J CORRESPONDENCES FROM RESIDENT, NGOS AND STATE & FEDERAL AGENCIES K ALDEN LAB FISHERIES REPORT L STREAM MODELING MEMORANDUM LIST OF TABLES TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-1 ESTIMATED COSTS TO OBTAIN A NEW LICENSE AND CONTINUE OPERATIONS.................................................... 2-11 4-1 ESTIMATED COSTS TO FILE FOR NON-JURISDICTION AND IMPLEMENT REQUIRED MEASURES AT DANE PERKINS AND TWINE MILL ......................................................... 4-7 12397L ii Wright-Pierce TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 5-1 ESTIMATED COSTS TO FILE FOR LICENSE SURRENDER AND DAM REMOVAL .................................................................... 5-14 6-1 NET VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COST ANALYSIS (2016 DOLLARS) ........................................................................ 6-3 6-2 NET VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COST ANALYSIS (2% COST INFLATION AND 1% GROWTH IN ENERGY PRICES) ............. 6-4 6-3 NET VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COST ANALYSIS (2% COST INFLATION AND 3% GROWTH IN ENERGY PRICES) ............. 6-4 6-4 APPROXIMATE COST TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY (LONG-TERM) ........................................................................ 6-7 12397L iii Wright-Pierce SUBMISSION 05-03-16 SECTION 1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 1.1 PREQUEL The Kennebunk Light & Power District (KLPD) owns three dams and associated hydropower facilities on the Mousam River: Kesslen, Twine Mill and Dane Perkins, all located in the Town of Kennebunk, Maine. The three hydropower facilities are licensed under a single FERC license (P-5362 - Lower Mousam Project) which expires on March 31, 2022. The KLPD is currently in the process of determining the future of these dams, which have been narrowed to 4 Alternatives; these alternatives will be discussed at length throughout this document. The existing dams vary in age, and if a new license is pursued, there is a potential for significant capital improvements at each location in order to continue operations. Bulleted below is a brief history on each dam and its improvements: • The Kesslen dam is the most downstream of eleven dams on the Mousam River. Kesslen dam is a concrete gravity dam, which has been reported to have been reconstructed in the 1950s, replacing an older timber crib/earthen dam located at the current dam site. The power generating equipment at this site is located on the ground floor of the adjacent Kesslen Mill building. Hydropower has been in place at this location since the 1800s to provide power to the Kesslen Shoe Factory. Early power generating facilities could not be documented but manufacturing facilities of this vintage typically used water power to directly power equipment by direct coupling using belt drives or similar equipment. There are no existing upstream or downstream fish passage facilities at the site, although a minimum flow release is required at the site for attraction water for spawning alewives. The impoundment has a surface area of approximately 20-25 acres, as reported on the Project Data Sheets submitted to FERC dated 02/12/97. The impoundment is not used to re-regulate the river and the power generating facility is operated as a run-of-river facility. The turbine powers an electric generator manufactured by General Electric and installed in 1928. The generator nameplate is rated at 150 KW and produces 2,400 volt, 12397L 1 - 1 Wright-Pierce SUBMISSION 05-03-16 3-phase power at a frequency of 60 Hz. Power appears to be distributed directly to electric transformers which are located on the floor of the powerhouse adjacent to the generator. Due to the location of the generator being beneath an existing restaurant, it would require significant reconstruction and deconstruction costs to replace this generator. • The Twine Mill dam is located approximately 2.0 linear (“as-the-crow-flies”) miles upstream of the Kesslen dam, and approximately 3.6 river miles upstream of the Kesslen Dam. This dam is also a concrete gravity dam. The original dam, consisting of a wood- crib spillway with concrete base and abutment, was breached around 1960, and reconstructed in 1980-1981 as a concrete gravity dam with a crest-type spillway. The impoundment has a surface area of approximately 12 acres. There are no existing fish passage facilities at this dam. A small powerhouse housing the generating equipment is located at this site. Similar to the other KLPD facilities, the impoundment is not used to re-regulate the river and the power generating facility is operated as a run-of-river facility. • The Dane Perkins dam is located approximately 0.5 linear and river miles upstream of the Twine Mill dam. The original dam, consisting of a wood-crib spillway with concrete base and abutment was breached in 1977, and was reconstructed with a concrete spillway in 1980-81. The impoundment has a surface area of approximately 25 acres. There are no existing fish passage facilities. A small powerhouse is located at this site. The generating equipment was completely replaced and overhauled in 1980 at Twine Mill. The Twine Mill powerhouse sustained significant damage from flooding in May 2006 and again in the "Mother's Day Storm" on April 16, 2007. This damage has been repaired and the facility is fully operational. • The equipment at the Dane Perkins and Kesslen sites has been operational for over 75 years and is inefficient but operable. Given the age of the generating equipment, it still