SUMMERSVILLE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT...SUMMERSVILLE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT INTRODUCTION By Jim Price President of Noah Corporation July 2004 We set up Noah Corp.in1980 to beneﬁt

SUMMERSVILLEHYDROELECTRIC

POWER PLANTTHIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO ALL

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORKTO MAKE THEIR DREAMS A REALITY

Written and designed by Gwen Hagaman

G. H. Bailey CompanyMount Nebo, West Virginia

FIRST EDITION

Printed in the United States of AmericaCopyright © 2007 by Noah Corp.

All rights reserved

SUMMERSVILLE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT

INTRODUCTION

By Jim PricePresident of Noah Corporation

July 2004

We set up Noah Corp. in 1980 to benefit from the law that passed in 1978, which requiredutilities to buy power from small power producers, which included hydroelectric projects lessthan 80 MW. After searching for existing dams that could be developed, we began to focuson existing federal dams in the eastern U.S., particularly in the Appalachian Mountains,where there were a number of flood control dams which did not have power generationfacilities in place. We looked at federal projects in Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania,Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, etc.

In considering the power generating features of these dams, Summersville Dam stoodheads above the crowd. It was being examined by the Army Corps of Engineers for afederal project and was receiving some consideration by private companies for developmentof hydropower.

I first visited the site in July 1980. I was captured by the power potential as evidenced bythe water rushing out of its penstocks (tubes) below the dam. It was so impressive. We didnot know at that time how difficult, expensive and time-consuming the development wouldbe – with so many setbacks. We also had no idea of the multiple uses of the lake and GauleyRiver. At that time whitewater rafting was unknown as a commercial venture with anythinglike the public participation that now exists.

The dream of developing power at that site, the potential profit and our feeling of accom-plishment sustained us through the next 21 years until the hydroelectric plant was operatingcommercially. The potential of the Summersville Hydroelectric Project has captured theimagination and enthusiasm of several other key parties and individuals. It has so muchpotential compared to other available projects that it eventually gained the support of thevarious parties necessary to make it a reality.

I am so pleased that our company was able to start it off and contribute importantly to itscompletion and successful operation.

Summersville Hydroelectric Project

i

SUMMERSVILLE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW

The Story of the Summersville Hydroelectric Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 1 – INITIAL PLANNING

The Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Noah Corp.’s Early Hydropower Project Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Building Public Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Defending Against Permit Suspension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CHAPTER 2 – LICENSE APPLICATION

Competitive Opposition Continues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Planning the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Citizens for Gauley River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Wild and Scenic River Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Filing the License Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

CHAPTER 3 – INTERVENTIONS

More Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Interventions and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Wild and Scenic River Study Kills Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table of Contents

ii

CHAPTER 4 – STARTING OVER

Legislative Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Permits and Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Project Financing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Interventions on the Second License Application (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

CHAPTER 5 – LICENSING

Competing with Manassas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Working Through Licensing Process Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Finally a License is Issued! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CHAPTER 6 – STRATEGIC AGREEMENTS

Selling Electric Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Project Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

West Virginia Tax Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Project Design and Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Amending the License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

CHAPTER 7 – TRANSMISSION LINES

Public Protest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Financing the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

CHAPTER 8 – CONSTRUCTION

Ground Breaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Legal and Contractual Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Catamount Sale to CHI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Putting the Plant into Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table of Contents

iii

APPENDICES

A. Excerpts of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a-i

B. Agreement between Town of Summersville, WV and Noah Corp.authorizing Noah Corp. to act as Agent to develop HydroelectricPower at Summersville Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b-i

C. 1992 FERC Order Issuing License (Background and discussion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c-i

D. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d-i

Table of Contents

iv

Dept

. of I

nter

ior h

alts

Lic

ense

issu

ance

due

to W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c Ri

ver S

tudy

Ja

nu

ary

11

, 19

84

Appl

icat

ion

for P

relim

inar

y Pe

rmit

filed

Se

pte

mb

er

22

,19

80

Sum

mer

svill

e fil

es L

icen

se A

pplic

atio

nN

ove

mb

er

1, 1

98

2

FERC

dis

mis

ses

Lice

nse

Appl

icat

ion

Ma

y 9

, 19

84

Appl

icat

ion

File

d fo

r 2nd

Pre

limin

ary P

erm

itA

ug

ust

7, 19

84

Lice

nse

dism

issa

l uph

eld

by U

.S. C

ourt

of A

ppea

lsJ

an

ua

ry 1

0, 19

86

Sum

mer

svill

e su

rren

ders

2nd

Pre

limin

ary

Perm

it.D

ec

em

be

r 1

, 1

98

6Su

mm

ersv

ille/

Noah

file

join

t per

mit

appl

icat

ion

Ja

nu

ary

2, 1

98

7

WV

Natio

nal I

nter

est R

iver

Con

serv

atio

n Ac

t pas

ses

Oc

tob

er

26

, 1

98

8

FERC

issu

es 2

nd P

relim

inar

y Pe

rmit

Au

gu

st 1

2, 1

98

6

Sum

mer

svill

e/No

ah fi

le 2

nd li

cens

e ap

plic

atio

nA

ug

ust

8, 19

88

Sum

mer

svill

e fil

es 3

rd li

cens

e ap

plic

atio

n J

uly

28

, 19

89

FERC

issu

es L

icen

se to

Sum

mer

svill

e/No

ahS

ep

tem

be

r 2

5, 1

99

2

FERC

reje

cts

2nd

licen

se a

pplic

atio

n

De

ce

mb

er

5, 1

98

9

FERC

acc

epts

3rd

lice

nse

appl

icat

ion

Ja

nu

ary

11

, 1

99

1

AEP

Appa

lach

ian

Pow

er a

gree

s to

pur

chas

e en

ergy

De

ce

mb

er

16

, 1

99

4Ca

tam

ount

con

tract

s to

dev

elop

and

ope

rate

pro

ject

Ju

ly 3

1, 1

99

5

Equi

pmen

t and

sup

plie

r sel

ectio

n co

mpl

ete

Ap

ril 1

7, 1

99

6

FERC

file

s ap

plic

atio

n fo

r lic

ense

am

endm

ent

Oc

tob

er

16

, 1

99

5

Fede

ral c

ourt

supp

orts

FER

C ap

prov

al

Ma

y 1

, 19

98

FERC

app

rove

s fin

al tr

ansm

issi

on li

ne d

esig

nJ

uly

2, 19

98

FERC

aut

horiz

es p

roje

ct g

roun

d br

eaki

ngD

ec

em

be

r 2

6, 19

98

FERC

ord

er a

men

ding

lice

nse

Oc

tob

er

18, 19

96

AWA

and

prop

erty

ow

ners

app

eal t

o fe

dera

l cou

rtM

arc

h 2

1, 19

97

Fede

ral c

ourt

dism

isse

s AW

A ap

peal

Fe

bru

ary

26

, 19

99

“Firs

t Ene

rgy”

gen

erat

ed a

t Sum

mer

svill

e pl

ant

Ju

ly 2

9, 2

00

1Ca

tam

ount

inte

rest

sol

d to

CHI

De

ce

mb

er

4, 2

00

2

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990198919881987198619851984198319821981

■ OVERVIEW

The Story of the SummersvilleHydroelectric Project

This document recounts the story of theSummersville Hydroelectric Project from theinception of the idea in 1980 until commercialoperation began in 2001. It is a story of the manypeople involved in the project’s developmentand construction. Some of their viewpoints arerepresented in the text. Many others contributed,even though their names are not mentioned.The details of the development history showthe difficulty of bringing a complex project,such as this, into being.

Now complete and operating, theSummersville Hydroelectric Plant providesmany benefits to its community. It generatesabout 220 million kilowatt-hours annually –enough energy to power 22,000 homes. Itavoids the emission of about 221,000 tons ofcarbon dioxide annually that would be emittedby an equivalent energy from fossil-fueledgeneration. The project has paid the federalgovernment over $2 million in annual feesfrom initial operation in 2001 through 2007.

Summersville Dam was built by the federalgovernment in 1967 and is operated by theArmy Corps of Engineers (the Corps) for

several purposes: flood control, low flowaugmentation, lake recreation and fishing,enhancement of fish and wildlife, fishing in theriver below the dam and whitewater rafting onthe Gauley River. The hydropower addition tothe dam had to be coordinated with theseexisting activities without adverse impact.

The story begins with the concept and basicactions described in the INITIAL PLANNINGchapter. This section describes the competitionfor a preliminary permit to add hydropower atSummersville Dam. Obtaining a preliminarypermit from the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) is usually the first step indeveloping a hydropower project. It provides apriority to the holder for up to three years toconduct initial studies and prepare to file for alicense to construct and operate the project.

A preliminary permit was issued to the Cityof Summersville (the City) in 1981 after exten-sive competition and a case in federal court.Then Noah Corp., the City’s agent, beganwork on a LICENSE APPLICATION, whichwould allow construction of the plant, uponFERC approval. The license application out-lined specifics of the projects design, location,operation and included extensive environmen-tal review.

During license application preparation,there was further competition from other

Overview

1

potential developers and a federal hydropowerproject at Summersville Dam proposeddirectly by the Corps. These INTERVENTIONScaused a delay in the project’s constructionplans, while competitive issues were resolved.The possibility of designating the Gauley as awild and scenic river became a major obsta-cle. This possible designation, which neveroccurred, caused the license application filedin 1983 to be dismissed by FERC in 1984.

In 1985 Noah Corp. challenged the FERCin federal court to reinstate the license appli-cation on behalf of the City. But the courtupheld the dismissal. With the failure of thisremedy, Noah Corp. began STARTING OVERin the development of the project. During 1986through 1988, two preliminary permit andlicense applications (LICENSING) were filed.The need for multiple filings was created bycompetition for the license by a company andthe City of Manassas, Virginia and FERC’sfailure to accept Summersville’s secondlicense application (filed in 1988).

A license was finally issued to the City in1992, just about four weeks before the four-year deadline stipulated in the WV Rivers Bill,which established the Gauley River NationalRecreation Area. If the license had not beenissued before that deadline, the project wouldprobably never have been built. The Rivers Billtreated the Gauley as a wild and scenic river,requiring approval of the Department ofInterior for any hydropower license. Such arequirement would likely have prevented anyhydro project from ever being built atSummersville Dam.

With the license issued, Noah Corp. begantrying to sell the power and finance the project(STRATEGIC AGREEMENTS). These effortsresulted in a power purchase agreement withAmerican Electric Power (AEP) and a devel-opment contract with Catamount Energy Corp.(Catamount), a subsidiary of Public Service ofVermont. Both agreements were finalized in

early 1996. Catamount provided part of andarranged all project financing and managedconstruction and operation.

The project’s cost indicated that a changeshould be made in the equipment installation.Also, a new transmission line route wasneeded to deliver the power to AEP. Anamendment to the license was filed with FERCin Sept. 1995 to request the revised transmis-sion line route and the change in equipment.Catamount began arranging project financingand took charge of the development andconstruction of the project.

The controversy that arose over theTRANSMISSION LINES almost prevented theproject from being built. It caused significantdelays in construction. Several of the 25landowners along the new route opposed theline passing over their land. A necessaryamendment to the transmission line andgenerating equipment was approved by FERCin late 1996.

Construction at the dam could have begunimmediately, but the transmission line routewas challenged by a group of affectedlandowners and interested parties, includingAmerican Whitewater Affiliation, whichopposed the transmission line passing over

Overview

2

Planning and development of the SummersvilleHydroelectric Plant was a complex process taking21 years to achieve.

the Meadow River. This controversy resultedin a federal court case that eventually sup-ported FERC’s approval of the amendment inearly 1998.

CONSTRUCTION at the site began inearly 1999 and was completed in July 2001,several months behind schedule. The delayresulted in penalties to the builder, Blackand Veatch of Kansas City, MO. They claimedthat actions by Catamount caused part ofthe delay. An arbitration was planned toresolve this dispute, but the parties agreed toa settlement.

After about a year of commercial operation,Catamount decided that it wished to focus onwind energy and sold its interest in the projectto Consolidated Hydro, Inc., a subsidiary ofthe large Italian utility, Enel. Since start ofproduction, the plant has performed asexpected.

Overview

3

Publ

ic U

tility

Reg

ulat

ory

Polic

ies

Act o

f 197

8 Pa

sses

No

vmb

er

9, 1

97

8

Form

atio

n of

Noa

h Co

rp.

Ea

rly

198

0

Reno

tice

of A

pplic

atio

n fo

rPr

elim

inar

y Pe

rmit

issu

edA

pri

l 8

, 1

98

1

City

of S

umm

ersv

ille

and

Noah

Cor

p. re

pres

enta

tives

mee

tJ

uly

4, 19

80

City

of S

umm

ersv

ille

and

Noah

Cor

p.

sign

join

t dev

elop

men

t agr

eem

ent

Se

pte

mb

er

8, 19

80

Appl

icat

ion

for P

relim

inar

y Pe

rmit

filed

Se

pte

mb

er

22

,19

80

Appl

icat

ion

amen

ded

to c

hang

eto

sin

gle

mun

icip

al a

pplic

ant

De

ce

mb

er

12, 19

80

Prel

imin

ary

Perm

it is

sued

by

FERC

Ma

y 2

2, 1

98

1FE

RC N

otic

e of

Inte

nt to

Act

on A

ppea

l by

Virg

inia

Citi

esJ

uly

22

, 1

98

1

FERC

Ord

er D

enyi

ng A

ppea

l and

rein

stat

ing

Prel

imin

ary

Perm

itO

cto

be

r 5

, 1

98

1

19791978 1980 1981

■ INITIAL PLANNING

The Public Utilities RegulatoryPolicy Act of 1978 (PURPA)

In 1928 the United States Congress autho-rized the private development of hydropowerat federal dams in the Federal Power Act.However, such development was infrequentuntil after passage of the 1978 Public UtilitiesRegulatory Policy Act (PURPA). This law stim-ulated development of renewable resourcesand cogeneration. One type of developmentwas adding hydropower to existing damswithout power production. There were manysuch dams in the eastern United States,including Summersville Dam.

The inspiration for PURPA? The UnitedStates was experiencing an energy crisis. Therising cost of crude oil and growing awarenessof environmental pollution resulting from fossil-fired power generation, spurred Congress toenact legislation to encourage more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly energyproduction. PURPA was passed on Nov. 9,1978 (Excerpts in Appendix A).

The new law created a market for powerfrom non-utility power producers. It requiredutilities to purchase power from independentcompanies (qualifying facilities) that couldproduce power for less than the utility’s

marginal generation cost (avoided cost).Qualifying facilities included small-scaleproducers, those generating power for sale orfor their own needs but with surplus production,or those generating usable electric energy asa byproduct of other activity (cogenerators).

The revolutionary new law opened thedoor to competition by enabling non-utilitypower producers to generate power for sale toa utility at their avoided cost. This power salepossibility caught the attention of numerousparties that established companies to exploitthis opportunity, including Jim Price and hisassociates who began Noah Corp.

Noah Corp.’s Early HydropowerProject Activity

Noah Corp. was formed in early 1980,shortly after PURPA began stimulating newpower development. The company establisheditself in South Carolina and West Virginia todevelop hydroelectric projects at existingfederal dams in the eastern United States.Noah Corp. filed preliminary permits for hydro-electric projects in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginiaand West Virginia.

Noah Corp. focused their efforts in thestates of Pennsylvania and West Virginiabecause of the numerous federal flood controldams, such as Summersville Dam.

Chapter 1 – Initial Planning

4

Noah Corp. and a related company, W.V.Hydro, Inc., filed license applications, usingthe priority of their preliminary permits, forhydropower projects at several existing damsites in Kentucky, Illinois, North Carolina,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia and WestVirginia. Licenses on 13 of the sites wereissued – four were in West Virginia. One projectin Pennsylvania was licensed and sold in1985, as construction began. Five projectswere still under development in 2005.

After investigating dams in the easternUnited States without existing power generatingfacilities, the new company focused on

Summersville Dam in West Virginia. It is thelargest rolled-earth dam east of theMississippi River and the largest lake in theState of West Virginia. The facility is owned andoperated by the Corps for flood control, lowflow augmentation and recreational purposes.

The Corps considered adding hydropowerat Summersville Dam and some nearby loca-tions before dam construction concluded in1967. And they proposed adding hydropoweragain in 1982. That proposal met considerablepolitical opposition and was abandoned.

Summersville Dam had the best potentialfor a successful hydroelectric project of anydam examined by Noah Corp. Because thepipes were pressurized, its three release pipescould be adapted to pass flow through hydroturbines without disrupting the existing damstructure. The lake, held by the dam’s 390-footheight, gave impressive speed and power toreleased water flows. The setting was inspira-tional to whitewater rafters and kayakers whoentered the Gauley River just below the dam.

Building Project Support

Noah Corp.’s business plan was to involvecities as partners in its hydropower projects totake advantage of FERC rules which gavepriority to issuing preliminary permits or licensesto government entities. They also planned tofinance projects using industrial revenue bondswhich could be issued by cities or counties. Netrevenues would be shared with the municipalpartner on a 75 (Noah)/25 (City) basis.

The City of Summersville, led by MayorFarrell Johnson and Councilman Steve LeRose,first met with Dr. Jim Price of Noah Corp. onJuly 4, 1980. The men were immediatelysupportive of the Summersville Dam hydro-electric project, visualizing both power supplyand earning potential for the City. Negotiationsfor a joint development agreement began onJuly 10, 1980.


5

Summersville Dam is a 390 foot rolled-earth dam built at the mouth of a deep canyon of the Gauley River.

The three tunnels shown here are set at the bottom of the dam allowing strong capacity for hydroelectric power generation.

During the agreement negotiation process,Noah Corp. began work on technical issues forcompletion of a preliminary permit application.A preliminary permit issued by FERC wouldallow the City of Summersville and Noah Corp.to secure their priority of application whilefeasibility studies, technical and operationalplanning, and other details were compiled forcompletion of the FERC license application.Noah Corp. knew that competition was likelyand it was important to act quickly.

At the City of Summersville Council meet-ing on Sept. 8, 1980, Councilman LeRosemoved that the contracts with Noah Corp. fordevelopment of a hydroelectric power projectat Summersville Dam be signed by MayorJohnson and that resolutions attesting to thesubject be entered into the minutes.Councilman Bernie Cogar seconded themotion and it passed unanimously. Thusbegan the endeavor of the City and NoahCorp. that resulted in an operating power plantalmost 21 years later.

The preliminary permit application wasfiled with the FERC on Sept. 22, 1980 and wasassigned Project No. 3493. It was a joint appli-cation between the City and Noah Corp.proposing a three-year schedule of activities.The first year would be used to conduct feasi-bility studies and generate reports including:surveys, investigations and data collection,alternative siting and power studies, costestimates and layouts, economic and financialstudies, environmental assessment, andpreparation of feasibility reports. The secondyear would be spent preparing permit andFERC License applications. The third yearwould be used for the FERC review process.

By November 1980, it was decided that theSummersville/Noah Corp. application wouldhave a stronger chance of FERC approval if itwere converted to a single municipal applicant.The initial advice from FERC was that a jointapplication with a governmental entity (a

hybrid application) would receive the samepreference in application competitions as anapplication by a governmental entity alone.Later policy clarification decided against equalpreference for hybrid applications. The requestto amend the Application for PreliminaryPermit with the City as the sole applicant wassent to the FERC on Dec. 12, 1980.

Other parties were interested in developingpower projects at Summersville Dam.Competitors who filed applications for pre-liminary permits included Mitchell EnergyCompany, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts(P-3683) filed on Nov. 5, 1980; and, OldDominion Electric Cooperative of Richmond,Virginia (P-3809) filed on Dec. 3, 1980. ANotice of Intent to File Competing Applicationwas filed on Jan. 16, 1981 by the MunicipalElectric Power Association of Virginia, consistingof several cities with small power systems.They later filed an application on March 18,1981 (P-4361). In addition, the Corps wasstudying its own development of hydroelectricpower at Summersville Dam.

In January of 1981, Mayor Johnson andDr. Price began a letter-writing campaign togenerate support from West Virginia legisla-tors. They wrote to Senators Byrd andRandolph and Congressman Mick Staton.Letters went from Noah Corp. to Summersville,from Summersville to the Senate, from theSenate to the FERC. Letters went from theCongress to the Army Corps of Engineers,from the Corps to the FERC, from FERC backto the Senate and to Summersville. The letterscontained statements of support, requestsfor information, clarifications on facts andprocesses, and calls for action.

On April 8, 1981 the FERC issued an official“Renotice of Application for Preliminary Permit”regarding the City’s application. This docu-ment established procedures and a deadlineof May 8, 1982 for competing applications,comments, protests, or petitions to intervene.


6

The FERC issued a preliminary permit tothe City of Summersville, West Virginia andan order denying competing applications onMay 22, 1981. The FERC stated that therewere no significant differences in the competingplans and not enough information at this earlystage to determine the best proposal. The City’sapplication was approved and a preliminarypermit was issued, simply because it was thefirst one filed.

Defending Against PermitSuspension

Shortly after issuance of the City’s prelimi-nary permit, on June 15, 1981, the FERCissued a Notice Granting Interventions whichhad been filed by the Cities and Towns ofBedford, Blackstone, Culpepper, Danville,Elkton, Franklin, Front Royal, Harrisonburg,Manassas, Martinsville, Radford, Richlands,Salem and Wakefield (Virginia Cities) againsteach of the other applicants including the City ofSummersville, West Virginia. A week later theFERC suspended Summersville's preliminarypermit pending action on the appeal for inter-vention filed by the Virginia Cities.

Mayor Johnson and the Councilmembersimmediately drafted a response and deliveredit to the appropriate FERC officials. The VirginiaCities had made accusations that the City ofSummersville was not competent to operatethe project under state law nor was the Cityintending to own and operate the hydroelectricfacility. Mayor Johnson answered each issueand reaffirmed that the City of Summersvillewas the first municipal applicant and should beawarded the preliminary permit.

On Oct. 5, 1981, after a full discussion ofthe issues brought in the appeal, theCommission ruled that:

• Amendment of an application for prelimi-nary permit or license is governed by§1.11(a) of the Commission’s regulation.The amendment was accepted by theDirector as of the date of its filing by NoahCorp., and the application was modifiedaccordingly.

• The Commission need not investigate therelationships between an applicant and otherentities which may underlie the applicationfor preliminary permit.The permit issued tothe City of Summersville is not transferrable


7

Steve LeRose was one of the first supporters of theSummersville hydroelectric project as a City Councilman in 1979and contributed to its development through the end of his Mayorshipin 1999. He saw it as a feasible project that would contribute toSummersville citizens as a revenue source and power source for30 to 50 years into the future. By helping to achieve the project,LeRose sought to fund the Muddlety fresh water project with the first$1 million earned and to eventually reduce the local tax load. “Oncewe had transmission lines in place,” Le Rose explained, “I had hopedwe could develop additional power production facilities.” LeRosehelped to keep communications open throughout the developmentprocess including meeting with dissenting local organizations,meeting with Senators, Delegates and other legislators, testifyingbefore Congress, and speaking with the Reagan and Bush, Sr.Whitehouses.

CouncilmanSteve LeRose

and the applicant must adhere to allrequirements in order to retain its priorityfor licensing.

The FERC issued an order denying appealwhich reinstated the City’s preliminary permitand moved its issue date forward accordingly.


8

■ LICENSE APPLICATION

Competition Continues

On Nov. 4, 1981 the Virginia Cities contin-ued their efforts to gain a preliminary permit todevelop their own hydro project at SummersvilleDam by filing for rehearing of the FERC’sOrder Denying Appeal. Their appeal challengedissuing a preliminary permit to the City ofSummersville for five reasons:

• Citing the need for FERC to investigatethe contractual relationship betweenSummersville and Noah Corp., they allegedthat the City was not a true municipalapplicant but was instead some sort of“hidden hybrid” partnership with Noah Corp.

• They argued that in deciding among thecompeting applicants the FERC had reliedon facts regarding “control” of the projectwhich were conveyed in discussions betweenstaff and parties to the proceedings andwere not part of the official record.

• The Virginia Cities believed the amendmentto the preliminary permit application byNoah Corp., to remove itself and retainSummersville as a sole municipal appli-cant, was invalid because it failed to

include a title and was not verified, asrequired by FERC regulations.

• The Virginia Cities argued that the FERCshould have stated explicitly that they were a“municipality” under the Federal Power Act.

• The Virginia Cities claimed that their motionfor initiation of an evidentiary proceedingto investigate the arrangement between theCity of Summersville and Noah Corp. todetermine actual control of the project anddistribution of its benefits was not addressedin an adequate manner by the FERC.

The Commission gave its reply on April 14,1982 upholding their original ruling and issuingan order denying rehearing. The City’s prelim-inary permit was upheld for a second time.TheFERC answered each issue as follows:

• The Commission need not investigateallegations of a “hidden hybrid” at thepermit stage.

• Facts on record are sufficient to decideamong competing applicants.

• Lack of title and verification is a harmlesserror.

• Municipal status of the Virginia group oftowns and cities is not material.

• The Commission’s denial of an evidentiaryproceeding was proper.

Chapter 2 – License Application

9

Virg

inia

mun

icip

aliti

es fi

leAp

plic

atio

n fo

r Reh

earin

gN

ovm

be

r 4

, 1

98

1

Citiz

ens

for G

aule

y Ri

ver p

rese

ntop

posi

tion

to h

ydro

pow

er a

t Su

mm

ersv

ille

Tow

n M

eetin

gA

pri

l 8

, 1

98

2

Noah

Cor

p. fi

les

appl

icat

ion

for A

rmy

Corp

s 40

4 Pe

rmit

to c

ondu

ct s

tream

bed

cons

truct

ion

Oc

tob

er

9, 1

98

2

FERC

issu

es O

rder

Den

ying

Reh

earin

g A

pri

l 14

, 19

82

Virg

inia

mun

icip

aliti

es fi

le

Petit

ion

for R

evie

w o

f Ord

ers

of F

ERC

Ju

ne

14

, 19

82

Arm

y Co

rps

of E

ngin

eers

sub

mits

crit

cal

com

men

ts to

Noa

h Co

rp. o

n re

view

of d

raft

licen

se a

pplic

atio

n, N

oah

subm

its re

butta

lJ

uly

13

,19

82

Depa

rtmen

t of I

nter

ior i

ntro

duce

s co

ncer

n re

gard

ing

stud

y fo

r Wild

and

Sce

nic

Rive

r de

sign

atio

n fo

r the

Gau

ley

Rive

rA

ug

ust

27

, 19

82

Sum

mer

svill

e re

solu

tion

to fi

le li

cens

e ap

plic

atio

nO

cto

be

r 1

8, 1

98

2

Sum

mer

svill

e/No

ah e

nter

exc

lusi

ve a

gent

agr

eem

ent

De

vem

be

r 1

3, 1

98

2

City

of S

umm

ersv

ille

files

Lic

ense

Ap

plic

atio

n P-

3493

as

a 95

MW

hyd

ropl

ant

No

vem

be

r 1

, 1

98

2

Citiz

ens

for G

aule

y Ri

ver p

ropo

se n

ewla

ngua

ge fo

r 198

3 Ap

prop

riatio

ns B

ill

Ap

ril 3

0, 19

82

1981 1982

Planning the Project

With a permit finally in place after April1982, the Noah Corp. team began conductingfeasibility studies and collecting data neededto establish the project’s feasibility. Energyfrom the Summersville Project No. 3493 couldbe used for municipal power needs, or could besold to public and private utilities. The projectincluded construction of:

• Penstocks which would utilize the existingoutlet works

• A powerhouse containing three large andone small generating units

• A tailrace

• A new transmission line and switchyard

Approximately 150 energy calculationswere made using monthly and daily data toexamine different equipment installations.Exhibits and appendices were prepared forthe license application, especially importantwas the coordination of releases with thegrowing whitewater recreation use of theGauley River.

The Army Corps of Engineers

While PURPA encouraged installation ofhydropower by non-federal entities at federalflood control projects, the Corps was conductingits own study to develop hydropower atSummersville Dam as a federal project, whichit can do outside FERC authority. Their planused a “long tunnel” design that would bypassthree miles of the Gauley River directly down-stream of the dam, raise the summer waterlevel of the lake by 16 feet and raise the winterlevel by 62 feet.

After completion of its studies, environ-mental impact statement and Army approvals,the Corps was expected to seek funding forthe project in the next Appropriations Bill.


10

Working with Ken Halsted, District Hydropower Coordinator forthe Army Corps of Engineers, C. J. Hamilton was the principal pointof contact for Corps Operations at Summersville Dam. “As a co-opstudent from Slippery Rock University I did a study of the Corps’ longtunnel project in 1983 and got really interested in hydropower.” C. J.felt most challenged in the engineering area of the project. Forexample, there were complicated issues to resolve in the relocationof the third Howell-Bunger Valve. In a public/private joint project hefeels that the private interests are primarily concerned with cost andproduction. He sees his role as the public interest is to insure thatsafeguards are built into the program with an eye toward futureissues. “As the federal steward of this resource, we make sure theproject operation is ‘run of river’ as the license dictates,” he said. “Atthe same time, I take great satisfaction in knowing clean, renewableenergy is another benefit of Summersville Dam.”

C. J. HamiltonResource Manager

Army Corps of Engineers

Summersville Dam’s valve house dischargingwater at 1700 cfs.

In contrast, the City’s plan was to utilizethe existing facility as much as possible,particularly the existing tunnels, dischargingflow into the Gauley River at approximately thesame location as the present dam outlet.

During the early part of the preliminarystudies by Noah Corp., the Corps and the FERCwere still working to define their interactingroles in determining the process that neededto take place to insure best use of facilities. OnNov. 2, 1981 the FERC and the Corps entereda memorandum of understanding regardingnon-federal hydro-power development in aneffort to recognize the directives and responsi-bilities of each department and expeditenon-federal hydropower development.

The resulting procedure defined how theHuntington District of the Corps of Engineerswould review Summersville’s draft licenseapplication and provide their approval andrecommendations to the FERC.

In May 1982 the City and Noah Corp.submitted a draft license application to theCorps and other agencies requesting theirreview. In July the Corps responded withspecific comments on 11 points of technicaljudgements and requested a meeting withNoah Corp. to discuss them more fully. Theircomments were as follows:

• Development of the Summersville Lakeproject as proposed in the draft applicationwould result in a less than optimum utiliza-tion of the resources. The Corps’ studieshave shown that about 70 percent moreenergy can be produced through alterna-tive scenarios that would also enhanceother uses of the project particularlyrecreation and fishing both in the lake andin downstream areas.

• A minimum flow must be maintained fromthe project in order to avoid potentialadverse impacts on recreation, water qualityand the downstream ecosystem.

• Removal of the Howell-Bunger valveswould severely limit downstream controland thereby would affect the safety andintegrity of the dam. We cannot tolerateremoval of the valves. (Note: For a 12-monthperiod in 1968 each of the three Howell-Bunger valves were removed in sequenceand machined to alter its critical dimensionfor flow improvement. One valve was out ofservice for 12 months.)

• Details for installation of the penstock inthe existing tunnel are insufficient forproper evaluation. It should be noted thatthe forces on the temporary plug, at winterpool level, are tremendous. The system toresist these forces will of necessity becomplex and it is doubtful that a temporaryplug can be developed and constructed ina reasonable time frame.

• The intake gates are not designed to beoperated under an imbalanced load condi-tion. They must be either fully closed oropened and the tunnel must be floodedwhen this operation is accomplished.

• The proposed maximum flood release ofonly 9000 cfs is not in accordance with ourpolicy of evacuating flood storage asrapidly as possible in anticipation of futurestorm events.

• Any reallocation of storage in the projectmust be carefully considered for impact onproject purposes and may be subject toCongressional approval.

• The impact of rescheduling flows from theproject on downstream industrial usersand recreationists must be evaluated. Thisimpact could be adverse to present hydro-generating facilities on the Kanawha Riverand to water supply, sewage treatment andcooling facilities in downstream areas. Thewater quality augmentation requirementson the Kanawha River are ignored in theproposed operating plan.


11

• Table B-3 indicates a flow of 6000 cfs isusable for whitewater boating while theEIS indicates a range of 1800 to 3500 cfs.Table B-3 is misleading and should berevised.

• It is unlikely that the proposal to pump100 cfs from the lake, if constructioninterfered, could be implemented. Thereare numerous questions unanswered withthis proposal.

• Use of explosives near the control structureis unacceptable.

Noah Corp. immediately penned aresponse to each of the issues and pointedout the bias of the concerns raised. It stated,“The Huntington District initiates its commentsby what we feel is a most inappropriate com-parison between the total energy output of itsown proposal and the City’s... This appears tobe an extreme position that may well havebeen more flexible had the Corps not wishedto develop the site itself.” The Corps’ use ofterms such as “cannot tolerate” and “unac-ceptable” were particularly disturbing to theCity officials and to Noah Corp.

Mayor Tom Trent began a letter writingcampaign to West Virginia’s Senators andRepresentatives asking for help to ascertain if

the federal government was in fact going tofund development of hydropower at Summers-ville Dam. And, if not, to please inform theHuntington District and thereby reduce thelevel of bias for their own project in order toget an objective review of the impacts of theSummersville plan.

The rescheduling of flows referred to inthe Corps’ comments was a plan to increasegeneration during the peak period of electricaldemand, increase flow availability for whitewaterrafting during weekdays and weekends and fortailwater and river fishing on weekends.

Noah Corp. initially designed the powergeneration scheme to optimize on-peakgeneration and flows suitable for whitewaterrafting during the off-peak periods for raftingand fishing. This proposal was abandonedbecause of opposition from the Corps andWest Virginia Division of Natural Resources(WV DNR).

Citizens for Gauley River

A recreation industry organization calledCitizens for Gauley River (CGR) was formed toinfluence legislation and protect the interests ofdownstream recreation, particularly whitewaterboating. CGR was a coalition of West Virginian


12

Jeff Proctor was at the first public hearing in 1979 when theArmy Corps proposed its long tunnel plan. He and other outfitterswere very vocal, making sure that Congressman Rahall understoodthe economic potential of whitewater rafting and that local outfitterswere willing to go “toe-to-toe” with the Corps. “I always felt Jim Pricehad integrity, but political activities left outfitters feeling unsure of theoutcome,” said Proctor. “We wanted to make sure the focus didn’t shiftto maximizing power production at the expense of the rafting industry.”The outfitters became Intervenors in the development process. Proctorwas put in charge of working with Congressman Rahall and keepingthe outfitters informed. Their goals were to: 1) retain ability to put-inat Summersville Dam, and 2) maintain usual river flows including the20-day fall draw down. Proctor believes the outfitters’ discussion andinput resulted in accomplishing both goals and establishment of thethe Gauley River National Recreation Area.

Jeff ProctorClass IV River Runners

sportsmen including hikers, fishermen,backpackers, rafters (private and commercial),kayakers, canoeists, and hunters who use,enjoy and appreciate the Gauley River. Theywere concerned with the responsiblemanagement of the river and the wild lands sur-rounding it. They did not want hydropower tointerfere with these uses.

CGR’s first action was a proposal to theCorps to regulate weekend flow rates toprovide dependability for whitewater raftingtrips. They estimated the economic benefit ofsuch regulated flows at $2-3 million a year.

The group was quick to voice its concernover hydropower development at SummersvilleDam. On Apr. 8, 1982 a public meeting washeld at the Summersville Municipal Building todiscuss the City’s project and CGR’s concerns.Mayor Tom Trent, Recorder Dale Bailes andCouncilmen John Clevenger, Clarence Flesherand Steve LeRose represented the City ofSummersville. Jim Price of Noah Corp. wasthere, along with eight representatives of thewhitewater rafting industry: Don Weidemann,Ed Rhett, Paul Breuer, Kathy Lukacs, FrankLukacs, Kim Casto, Christopher Dragan, andP. R. Brisell.

CGR expressed its support for wild andscenic river designation of the Gauley Riverand its inclusion in the West Virginia NaturalStreams Preservation Act. They expressedtheir opposition to hydroelectric developmentat Summersville Dam if it would detract fromthe recreational or aesthetic potential of thelake or river. They also expressed oppositionto any further development of the Gauley Rivercanyon which would alter its wild nature.

CGR also presented their proposal forregulated water releases to enhance thewhitewater rafting use of the river and support-ing statistics.

Jim Price presented Summersville’s planto use the existing tunnels for hydropowerdevelopment. The resulting facility would havevery few alterations to the downstream sectionof river. He outlined how the developmentwould maintain the recreational opportunitiesprovided by the Gauley River. At that timeNoah Corp. was proposing flow rescheduling,as stated above, to optimize recreational useand power generation of the dam release.

On Apr. 11, CGR sent a letter to NoahCorp. supporting the Summersville development


13

In 1982 Len Hanger was a river guide with New River ScenicWhitewater of Hinton (joined Songer Whitewater in 1987). He was alsopresident of WV Professional Outfitters, an industry association to pro-mote whitewater rafting in the region. As president, Hanger’s personalrole was to be the liaison between Noah Corp. and local outfitters. Hekept the outfitters informed including construction tours. “The Corps’long tunnel idea was a huge concern,” Hanger explains. “My initialreaction was concern for loss of the fall rafting season which is a sig-nificant part of our business. Although I remained skeptical, Noah’sdevelopment followed a reasonable process. The construction teamwas accommodating as to river access, use of parking lots and rampsduring construction; and we were able to work out all major issues.”Hanger’s one regret is loss of the exciting put-in at the base of the damwith the tubes shooting out water. He does, however, acknowledgebenefits of the new launch ramp and improved river access.

Len HangerSonger Whitewater

and stating its opposition to the Corps’ plan.They requested continued cooperation towardweekend flow regulation to provide adependable whitewater experience toenhance tourism.

CGR began sending letters of oppositionto the Corps of Engineers’ plan to legislatorsand the press. They cited as reasons: ruin ofthe east’s premier whitewater river, reductionof the area’s tourism economy, tremendouscosts, and small amounts of power production.In addition, CGR expressed that the sentimentof citizens, locally and nationally, was againstthe Corps’ project.

On April 30, 1982 the group proposed anAmendment to the 1983 Appropriations Bill toadd language requiring the Corps to operateSummersville Dam in such manner to“enhance whitewater recreational opportuni-ties on the Gauley River downstream of theSummersville Dam.” CGR met withCongressman Nick Rahall who issued hisencouragement to the Corps to considerweekend releases to regulate a dependableflow in the Gauley River.

Wild and Scenic River Study

In August 1982, Mayor Trent opened com-munication with the Secretary of the Interior,James Watt, regarding their wild and scenicriver study of the Gauley River. The complica-tion was the timing. The City’s preliminarypermit would expire in October 1983. That wasthe same month the wild and scenic riverstudy was to be completed. This study of theGauley River had been underway for a numberof years and was not required to be completeduntil 1985.

The City’s position was that their projectwould not affect wild and scenic designationshould the Department of the Interior (DOI)decide to designate the Gauley River as such.

Mayor Trent requested that Secretary Wattsend acknowledgement of “no conflict” so thatlicensing review might proceed without delay.

In response, the DOI explained that itwas premature for them to make a decisionwhether there was a conflict or not. Theyrequested to be apprised of progress withproject design and operation plans. In additionthey expressed concern for impact on fisheriesand wildlife.

Filing the License Application

On Oct. 18, 1982 Mayor Trent and theSummersville City Council held a meeting anddecided to move ahead. A resolution waspassed to authorize application for licenseto produce hydroelectric power atSummersville Dam.

A few days later, on Oct. 21, work beganon refinement of the agreement betweenNoah Corp. and the City. Jim Price andHoward Hickey represented Noah Corp.Councilmen Clarence Flesher and SteveLeRose, along with City Attorney Carroll Lay,Recorder Dale Bailes, and Secretary JackieKeiffer represented Summersville. Tim Murphy,President of the Chamber of Commerce alsoattended the meeting. It was agreed that NoahCorp. would assume all financial and legal riskthat might arise as the project proceeded orwas abandoned.

With the City’s approval, Noah Corp. filed alicense application with the FERC on Nov. 1,1982. It's FERC review process would finallybegin only eight days short of two years fromthe initial agreement between the City andNoah Corp.

After making the revisions required by theCity leaders, an agreement was signed onDec. 13, 1982 authorizing Noah Corp. to act asSummersville’s agent (Appendix B). Theagreement remains active.


14

■ INTERVENTIONS

More Competition

In 1983 the Corps continued to pursuefederal development of hydropower at theSummersville Dam site. A recommendationwhether to authorize their proposal was neededfrom the Subcommittee on Water Resourcesand the U.S. Army’s Bureau of Engineers forRivers and Harbors. The subcommittee heldhearings to review support and opposition tothe “Proposed Water Resources Projects ofthe Army Corps of Engineers.”

On Feb. 14, 1983 the Corps’ plan forSummersville Dam was publicly examinedincluding testimony from Howard Hickey ofNoah Corp. “I am here on behalf of the City ofSummersville to oppose the Federal Author-ization of the Corps of Engineers’ proposal toproduce hydropower at the Summersville Damin West Virginia,” he told members of theSubcommittee. He cited the following reasonsfor opposition:

• The City of Summersville was alreadyworking to develop non-federal hydropowerat the site with a license to construct alreadypending with the FERC.

• Federal development would cost muchmore than the City’s project in lost sale of

power due to a longer schedule, and indelay of job creation.

• Summersville’s plan has already workedthrough the complex environmental settingand usage issues of the lake and river tothe satisfaction of all involved.

• Income from power production will providethe City of Summersville with funds tostabilize the area’s fresh water supply.

Congressman Bob Wise led a town meetingin Summersville in early March 1983. It washeld at Nicholas County High School and waswell attended. “It is obvious that many peoplefeel strongly about this issue,” said Wise. “Thismeeting was important because the testimonythat was presented will provide the PublicWorks Subcommittee on Water Resources,which has jurisdiction over the project, a clearrecord of the views of the people who live inthe area.”

In May 1983, Citizens for the Gauley Riverpublished a press campaign accusing theCorps of overstating the economic benefits oftheir development plan by 50 percent. Theypresented contradictory power marketingprojections from independent engineeringconsultants who questioned the power produc-tion levels and price projections for power sales.

The House Public Works Committeepassed the 1983 Omnibus Budget Resources

Chapter 3 – Interventions

15

Subc

omm

ittee

on

Wat

erRe

sour

ces

Hear

ing

Fe

bru

ary

14

, 19

83

Sum

mer

svill

e Re

solu

tion

Requ

ests

Issu

ance

of

FERC

Lic

ense

Ap

ril 11

, 19

83

FERC

acc

epts

Lic

ense

Appl

icat

ion

for f

iling

Au

gu

st 1

7, 19

83

FERC

dis

mis

ses

Lice

nse

Appl

icat

ion

due

to W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c Ri

ver S

tudy

issu

esM

ay

9, 19

84

Virg

inia

mun

icip

aliti

es fi

le

Requ

est f

or F

ERC

Rehe

arin

gS

ep

tem

be

r 16

, 19

83

Dept

. of I

nter

ior h

alts

Lic

ense

issu

ance

due

to W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c Ri

ver S

tudy

Ja

nu

ary

11

, 19

84

Effo

rts b

egin

to re

mov

e Su

mm

ersv

ille

Dam

from

Wild

and

Sce

nic

Rive

r Stu

dyF

eb

rua

ry 2

3, 19

84

Noah

resp

onds

to c

ompe

ting

appl

icat

ions

from

Sou

thea

ster

n Re

new

able

Res

ourc

es

and

Virg

inia

mun

icip

aliti

esM

arc

h 2

6, 19

84

FERC

gra

nts r

ehea

ring

of S

umm

ersv

ille

Proj

ect

Ju

ly 6

, 19

84

Appl

icat

ion

filed

for W

V DN

R w

ater

qau

lity

certi

ficat

ion

Ma

y 18

, 19

84

Sum

mer

svill

e/No

ah fi

le n

ew A

pplic

atio

n fo

r Pr

elim

inar

y Per

mit

Au

gu

st 7

, 19

84

FERC

uph

olds

app

licat

ion

dism

issa

lA

ug

ust

24

, 19

84

FERC

den

ies

Rehe

arin

g S

ep

tem

be

r 3

0, 19

83

Ener

gy a

nd W

ater

Dev

elop

men

tSu

bcom

mitt

ee H

earin

gO

cto

be

r 18

, 19

83

Noah

resp

onds

to In

terv

entio

ns

No

vem

be

r 2

3, 19

83

1983 1984

Legislation (H.R. 3678) on Aug. 3. The Corps’Summersville hydropower project was notauthorized or funded. But, according toCongressman Wise, the Corps would bemoving ahead with project design in hopesthat it would be approved in the future.

April 1, 1983 was the five-month mark fromthe day the City filed their license applicationwith the FERC. Why the long delay in accep-tance? That’s exactly the question Mayor Trentand other City leaders were asking. On April 11they passed a resolution encouragingaccelerated review and acceptance fromthe FERC.

The City sent copies of their resolution withletters requesting political help to all federaland state legislators who represented theregion. FERC replied citing that Summersvillehad filed several supplements that were takingadditional time to review, that the proposalwas quite lengthy requiring extensive technicaland environmental analyses, and that theVirginia Cities had made allegations thatneeded to be resolved prior to acting on thelicense application. There was no indication ofhow long their review might take.

August arrived and nine months hadpassed with still no decision from the FERC.Mayor Trent once again appealed to SenatorByrd and other legislators to push for licensingacceptance. Finally, on Aug. 23 the FERCannounced that the City’s license applicationhad been accepted for filing. Notices weresent to all the agencies that needed to reviewthe plans, legislators and other involved parties.A 60-day period began for comments to besubmitted to the FERC before issuance of alicense to construct the facility. These sameagencies had commented on the draft licenseapplication before it was filed.

The coalition of Virginia Cities, which hadbeen a competing applicant since the outset ofthe hydropower project, filed an Application forRehearing on Sept. 30, 1983 after receiving

notice of the Summersville application’sacceptance. It states that the FERC erred inissuing acceptance without first ruling on theirmotion to hold the proceedings in abeyance.The FERC rejecting the rehearing requestonly a few days later, on Sept. 30.

If persistence is a virtue, then virtueabounds in the Virginia Cities. On March 1, 1984the Virginia Cities once again took legal actionto thwart the development of the project by theCity and Noah Corp. by filing a Petition forDeclaratory Order. In response, Noah Corp.claimed that the Virginia Cities simply missedthe deadline for submitting a competing licenseapplication and were looking for a way to extendtheir filing opportunity and defeat Summersville’sapplication without spending the risk money toprepare their own application.

A competing application was filed bySoutheastern Renewable Resources (SRR), aprivate developer from New York. Noah Corp.reviewed the plan and filed its comments withthe FERC. In Summersville’s opinion the SRRproject was a repackaging of a previous Corpsplan, including documents which were publiclyavailable. It also included two diagrams thathad been plagerized from Summersville’s ownNovember 1983 filing.

Interventions and Responses

Once an application for license has beenfiled with the FERC, any party with an interest“which may be directly affected by the outcome”of a proceeding may petition for intervention. Ifintervention is granted, the FERC is requiredto consider the opinions presented beforemaking a decision to issue a license. TheCity’s accepted license application had manyinterested parties, which requested to benamed as intervenors.

• Friends of the River Foundation

• Citizens for the Gauley River


16

• State of West Virginia Department ofNatural Resources

• WV Council of Trout Unlimited

• Friends of the Earth

In addition to the interventions, the FERCrequested additional information, which wassupplied by Noah Corp. on Jan. 5, 1984. Theinformation included a copy of the contractbetween the City and Noah Corp., the City’sintended ownership of permits, land andequipment, proposed financing arrangements,duties and responsibilities of the City andNoah Corp. and a copy of the City’s resolutionto construct the facility.

The Corps reviewed the Summersvilleproject and returned a long list of harshlycritical comments. In summary they stated,“... we have serious reservations concerningthe applicant’s design proposal. Therefore,as presently formulated, this proposal isunacceptable.” On March 8, 1984 the Corpsrequested that the FERC delay issuance of alicense to allow time for a study of whitewaterboating below Summersville Dam. Noah Corp.responded immediately stating the financialand job loss hardships that such a delay wouldcause. Unemployment in Nicholas County in1983 was 26 percent.

Representatives of Noah Corp. and WVDNR met on Jan. 31, 1984 to discuss projectdetails. WV DNR agreed to issue state waterquality certification and submit their projectcomments to the FERC in early March. Theyrequested $500,000 in recreational enhance-ments be included when the project was built.The enhancements included two boat launchfacilities, fish stocking roads, fishermanaccess trails, a walkway crossing the riverbelow the dam, fish attractant structures, andgame development areas. Noah Corp. agreedto these conditions, believing these were goodadditions to the project.


17

“When I first learned of this project, adding hydro power produc-tion to Summersville Dam seemed reasonable. I became veryinterested because of the intensity of local support for the project,”said Governor Bob Wise. “Congressman Staton, Mayor LeRose andthe community were enthusiastic.” Serving as a Congressman dur-ing early project development, Wise participated in town meetings toallow people’s questions and concerns about the hydro project to beanswered. Working with Congressman Rahall, Wise made a strongcase for the importance of the project in providing clean renewableenergy and economic strength for the region. He was convinced thatneeds of concerned parties could be met. The two worked togetherto provide legislative opportunity for the project to be completed.“This project is an example of how many groups with a variety ofinterests can come together to accomplish something in the bestinterest of their community,” Wise explained.

Bob WiseGovernor

To make fish attractants, brush is tied together withnylon rope into bundles. Groups of 100 bundles areplaced in desired locations of the lake and river.

Wild and Scenic River Study Kills Licensing

The DOI reviewed Summersville’s licenseapplication and submitted its comments onJan. 11, 1984. DOI stated general support of theproject and requested clarification on relativelyminor points. The big problem was its positionthat the FERC could not legally issue a hydro-power license, as the Gauley River was understudy for inclusion in the Wild and ScenicRivers Act. The study period would end onSept. 30, 1984 with a three year Congressionalreview period following. According to the DOI,a license for Summersville’s project could notbe issued until Oct. 1, 1987, over three and ahalf years after their comments.

Ironically, in DOI’s draft study their recom-mendation was that the Gauley River not bedesignated a wild and scenic river, andCongress did not designate the river after theDOI study was complete. The moratorium onhydropower development expired in 1987,because Congress had not acted to eitheraccept DOI’s recommendation of no designa-tion, or acted in opposition to designate theGauley as a wild or scenic river.

Mayor Trent appealed to DOI for its help inenacting legislation to remove the SummersvilleDam area of the Gauley River from their wildand scenic river study. Senator Byrd andother legislators were also asked to help.On March 6, 1984 the DOI responded to


18

LEGEND

Wild Segments

Scenic Segments

Non-qualifying Segments

Swiss

Rainelle

Donaldson

SummersvilleLake

Lowe

r Gauley River

U.S. Route 19

PantherCreek

Junction

Up

p

e r

Gauley

Cranberr y

River

River

Meadow

River

Meadow CreekJunction

U.S. Forest ServiceCranberry

Campground

N

0 5MILES

Dam

Qualification and Classification of theGauley, Cranberry and Meadow Rivers

Mayor Trent, explaining that legislation couldnot be introduced to amend the study until thePresident had reviewed their recommendations.

In spite of diligent efforts to excludeSummersville Dam from the wild and scenicriver study, the FERC dismissed the City’slicense application on May 9, 1984. The SRRlicense application was also dismissed. NoahCorp. and the City, and SRR, appealed thedismissal and FERC granted rehearing onJuly 6.

Anticipating a loss of their appeal, theSummersville City Council passed a resolutionon July 23, 1984 to file all appropriate docu-ments to continue its efforts to develophydropower at Summersville Dam. A newpreliminary permit application was filed withthe FERC on Aug. 7 to preserve the City’sability to develop the project.

On Aug. 24, 1984 the FERC upheld itsdecision to dismiss Summersville’s licenseapplication. With no other recourse, NoahCorp. sued FERC in federal court on behalf ofthe City to overturn their decision to dismissthe license application, citing the fact thatDOI had indicated that the Gauley River waseligible for designation as a wild river despiteSummersville Dam, but had not recommendeddesignation. Noah Corp. also claimed thatFERC had issued a preliminary permit to theCity and accepted its license application; allthis work would be wasted if the dismissal wasupheld. Noah Corp. further claimed that FERCcould have waited a few months until DOI hadissued its report on the designation of theGauley River, or even held the application inabeyance for three years to let the Presidentialand Congressional action periods expire. FERCcould have saved the license application inseveral ways, but they chose to dismiss it. Thecase was heard by the U.S. Court of Appealson Oct. 10, 1985.

Regrettably, the District Court did notagree with Noah Corp. and found that FERChad acted within the jurisdiction of its discretionto dismiss the license application. So eventhough the Gauley River was never designatedas a wild river, the possibility brought threeyears of work on the project to an unsuccess-ful end.


19

■ STARTING OVER

Legislative Issues

Who could help? The City of Summersvillelaunched intense efforts to raise politicalawareness and support for excluding theproject area from the wild and scenic riverstudy. Their efforts focused on the federal levelwith Senators Byrd and Randolph andCongressman Wise. Meetings were held andletters were exchanged. However, the sessionof Congress had ended, and the issue couldnot be introduced until January 1985.

1985 was an election year. CongressmanWise was looking for re-election. On April 12,1985, he brought a mobile office to the NicholasCounty Courthouse in Summersville wheremembers of the community could discussissues and ideas including the hydroelectricdevelopment at Summersville Dam. The Cityof Summersville elected a new mayor, SteveLeRose. He had been serving as deputy mayorunder Mayor Trent, and had acted as mayorafter Mayor Trent’s death from a heart attack.Mayor LeRose had been a strong supporter ofthe hydropower project from its beginning.

Persistently, the legislative campaign torevise the wild and scenic river legislation

continued. In June 1986, Noah Corp sentletters encouraging legislators to take action.This round of letters explained that the delay inthe development of hydropower – and resultingdelay in income – had prevented a fresh watersupply project, which would provide drinkingwater to citizens of Nicholas County.

Mayor Steve LeRose, Councilman MikeHughes and Jim Price of Noah Corp. met withrepresentatives of Senator Byrd and Congress-man Wise on June 9, 1986 in Washington, DC.The Nicholas County Commission sent letters tothe legislators in July asking for their supportof the project.

Congressman Nick Rahall was planning tointroduce a bill to create a National RecreationArea surrounding the Gauley River. Noah Corp.and the City were hopeful that this legislationwould eliminate the wild and scenic rivermoratorium period and allow immediateissuance of an FERC license. But like the wildand scenic river study, the version introducedto Congress on Jan. 10, 1987 would excludenew development at Summersville Dam andinclude the hydro power development areawithin park boundaries.

A Congressional hearing was held onApril 23. Mayor LeRose made a statementrequesting an upstream boundary revision thatwould allow construction of the hydropower

Chapter 4 – Starting Over

20

Lice

nse

dism

issa

l uph

eld

by U

.S. C

ourt

of A

ppea

lsJ

an

ua

ry 1

0, 19

86

FERC

acc

epts

Sum

mer

svill

e pe

rmit

appl

icat

ion

Ja

nu

ary

17

, 19

86

Sum

mer

svill

e ap

plie

s fo

r FER

C Ce

rtific

atio

n as

a

Qual

ifyin

g Sm

all P

ower

Pro

duct

ion

Faci

lity

Fe

bru

ary

6, 1

98

6

Subc

omm

ittee

on

Natio

nal P

arks

hea

ring

on

Gaul

ey R

iver

Nat

iona

l Rec

reat

ion

Area

Ap

ril 2

3, 1

98

7

FERC

not

ice

of S

umm

ersv

ille

perm

it ap

plic

atio

n fil

ed

Fe

bru

ary

25

, 1

98

6

Sum

mer

svill

e su

rren

ders

pre

limin

ary

perm

it.D

ec

em

be

r 1

, 1

98

6Su

mm

ersv

ille/

Noah

file

join

t per

mit

appl

icat

ion

Ja

nu

ary

2, 1

98

7

Legi

slat

ion

pass

es a

ddin

g w

hite

wat

erre

crea

tion

as a

pur

pose

of S

umm

ersv

ille

Dam

No

vem

be

r 1

0, 1

98

6

FERC

not

ice

of S

umm

ersv

ille

perm

it ap

plic

atio

n fil

ed

Fe

bru

ary

18

, 1

98

7

FERC

dim

isse

s app

licat

ions

and

app

eals

by a

ll pa

rties

Ju

ly 7

, 19

88

H.R.

900

pre

sent

ed to

Con

gres

sM

ay

18, 19

87

WV

Natio

nal I

nter

est R

iver

Con

serv

atio

n Ac

t pas

ses

Oc

tob

er

26

, 1

98

8

FERC

cer

tifie

s Su

mm

ersv

ille

as a

Qual

ifyin

g Sm

all P

ower

Pro

duce

r A

pri

l 3

, 1

98

6FE

RC is

sues

pre

limin

ary

perm

itA

ug

ust

12

, 1

98

6

19851984 1987 19881986

Man

assa

s file

s per

mit

appl

icat

ion

Au

gu

st 8

, 19

88

Sum

mer

svill

e/No

ah fi

les l

icen

se a

pplic

atio

nA

ug

ust

8, 19

88

facility and still support recreational uses ofthe dam and river. He requested that the com-mittee express its intent to allow the addition ofhydropower at Summersville Dam in its report.

Jeff Proctor of Class VI Whitewater alsoaddressed the committee, focusing on theeconomic importance of whitewater rafting tothe area. The issues he discussed were:

• New River National River boundary modifications

• The Cunard access

• Flow management of the New River out of Bluestone Dam

• Hydropower at the Summersville Dam

When submitted to Congress by theCommittee, the bill provided a four-year timeperiod to allow Summersville, or any other party,to receive a license to construct a hydropowerfacility, including opportunity for the City ofManassas, Virginia to compete. The bill waspassed on Oct. 26, 1988 setting a deadline ofOct. 26, 1992 for any license to be issued.

Congressman Bob Wise was instrumental ingetting this provision included in the WV RiversBill (West Virginia National Interest RiverConservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-534,102 Stat. 2699). The WV Rivers Bill estab-lished national recreation areas on the GauleyRiver below Summersville Dam and on theNew River, and provided restrictions on otherrivers within the state.

The uses of Summersville Dam grew morecomplex as time passed. On Nov. 10, 1986Congress passed the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1986, which revised theproject purpose of Summersville Dam toinclude whitewater recreation.

Permits and Licensing

After the license application was dismissedin 1984, Noah Corp. filed a preliminary permitapplication at the first opportunity. With anapplication for preliminary permit pending,Noah Corp. appealed to the FERC to issue athree-year permit to coincide with the wild and


21

On Sept. 17, 1984 a meeting took place in Senator Byrd’s office to discuss the impact the Wild and ScenicRivers Study had made on development of hydroelectric power at Summersville Dam. Present are (left to right)Gerald Rader, owner Rader’s Flying Service, Councilwoman Donna Mazzei, Councilman Steve LeRose,Senator Robert C. Byrd, Mayor Thomas Trent, Summersville Fire Chief Joe Boso, and Jim Price of Noah Corp.

scenic river study period. That would allow alicense application to be accepted about thetime the three-year legislative action periodwould expire.

In December 1984 Noah Corp. received aletter of application deficiencies from the FERC.The issues in question were immediatelyaddressed with the issuance of revised exhibitsand clarification of points in West Virginia law.

To receive benefits outlined in PURPA, theCity needed to be recognized by FERC as a“Qualified Small Power Production Facility.”On Jan. 17, 1986, Summersville submittedtheir application for certification by FERC.Certification went through the same processas a permit application, with opportunity forinterested parties to intervene. On April 3 theFERC granted certification, stating that theSummersville project met all criteria of theCommission’s regulations.

FERC issued Notice of Application Filedfor the Summersville Preliminary Permit onFeb. 25, 1986. Once again comments, protestsand interventions were invited.

The DOI reminded the FERC of the mora-torium period for legislative action on the wildand scenic river study ending April 26, 1988.The DOI supported issuing a preliminary

permit as long as no ground disturbingactivities were to take place until after themoratorium period ended.

WV DNR filed comments stating that,although they had fully worked through all issueswith the identical project prior to its dismissal,some regulations had changed and there werenew concerns to be addressed if a new permitwas issued.

Comments were also received from theCorps. They requested close involvementwith project engineering and constructionphases to assure uninterrupted operation ofthe dam.

With the intervention period almost at anend, the FERC extended the filing deadline forthe Virginia Cities to intervene because aSection 4(f) notification may not have beensent to them. The opportunity for comments,intervention or competing applications wouldexpire on Aug. 4, 1986.

Project Financing Plan

On Aug. 12, 1986 FERC issued the City apreliminary permit, which was valid for a three-year period. This was a short-lived success.


22

From its beginning, Donna Mazzei was a continuous supporter

of the City of Summersville’s group effort to construct the

hydropower facility. “I never thought it would take so long,” said Ms.

Mazzei. “Jim Price was very dedicated and kept everyone on board.”

She remembers their important trip to Washington to ask for help

overcoming the Wild and Scenic River Study from Senators

Randolph and Byrd. “I didn’t see why the Gauley was being consid-

ered as a wild and scenic river when it already had a dam on it,” she

explained. Two of her most challenging issues were finding project

funding and exercising the eminent domain process. “Now that it’s

complete, the hydropower facility is a great project and runs very

smoothly,” she said. “The City’s new fresh water project is a direct

result of income received from our hydropower plant.”

Donna MazzeiSummersville City

Councilwoman

The original plan to finance the projectusing municipal revenue bonds becameimpractical with 1985 changes in federal taxlaws. Financing the project as a West VirginiaLimited Partnership would allow privatefinancing and appropriate liability protectionfor the City. In addition, Summersville wouldreceive an annual royalty payment, which wasnot dependent upon the financial performanceof the facility.

On Sept. 22, 1986, the Summersville CityCouncil decided to amend the permit applica-tion from a single municipal applicant to a jointapplication between the City and Noah Corp.To accomplish this amendment, the City hadto surrender its permit and reapply – again.Once surrendered, it would be 30 days beforea new permit application would be acceptedby the FERC. The first day Summersville couldfile again would be Jan. 2, 1987.

This was just the opening that the City ofManassas, Virginia was waiting for. During atelephone conversation, the Mayor of Manassashad advised Mayor LeRose and Jim Price ofNoah Corp. that Manassas was no longerintending to pursue the hydropower develop-ment at Summersville Dam. But when the daycame, the Summersville representative arrivedat the FERC office first and filed only a fewminutes before the Manassas application wasfiled. A complaint was filed with FERC byManassas claiming that the check-in processhad been unfair. Noah Corp. responded at therequest of the City, stating that they filed firstbecause they arrived earlier and waited forsome time for the filing office to open.

On Feb. 18, 1988, the FERC issued Noticeof Summersville’s Permit Application Filedwith the commission. On April 7, the FERCissued Notice of Manassas' Permit ApplicationFiled with the commission.

Two weeks later Manassas filed a Motionfor Clarification or, in the Alternative, Appeal

from Staff Action of the City of Manassas,Virginia. Their issue was still the timing of notfiling first. They wanted their application to beconsidered “initial” instead of “competing”. Thesame day they filed a Motion to Reject, Protest,Comments, Motion for Waiver of Rules, Motionto Intervene, and Better Adapted Statement ofthe City of Manassas, Virginia.

The City and Noah Corp. answered theissues raised by Manassas in a Responseto the FERC on April 30, 1987. Noah Corp.responded stating that the Manassas motion“... was characterized as a request for expeditedissuance, but was instead a restatement of thecompeting applicant’s position.” Further, thatSummersville was also eager for a FERCdecision, which could be made if Manassasremoved their appeal. Manassas replied with arebuttal letter.

On July 7, 1988 the FERC issued itsdecision to dismiss both the Summersville andManassas permit applications and appeals.The decision was based on a case precedentwhere a license had been dismissed becauseof a Congressional study. FERC set a newdate to accept permit applications for theSummersville Dam site on Aug. 8, 1988, whichwas intended to give all parties fair opportunityto file.

On Aug. 8 the City of Manassas filed a newapplication for preliminary permit. On the samedate, the City and Noah Corp. filed an applicationfor licensing. Initially, a FERC docketing errorindicated that Summersville had filed on Aug. 9,but that was later corrected based on theevidence of docketing provided by Noah Corp.

Interventions on the SecondLicense Application (1988)

Once the Summersville/Noah and Manassaspermit applications had been dismissed andthe City’s license application refiled in August


23

1988, the City of Manassas filed a Motion toIntervene and to Reject or Deny LicenseApplication, which was sent to Summersvilleand Noah Corp. Their response was sent toFERC on Dec. 15, 1988.

Another intervention came from a localteam of the Fayette County Chamber ofCommerce, West Virginia Outfitters, andEastern Professional River Outfitters (EPRO).Although members of these groups had beenworking closely with Noah Corp. throughoutthe planning process, they wanted to insuretheir position to negotiate, if needed, by beingrecognized as official intervenors.


24

■ LICENSING

Competing with Manassas

In early 1989, the FERC had two applica-tions for development at Summersville Dam.One was for a preliminary permit from the Cityof Manassas, Virginia filed on Aug. 8, 1988.Manassas’ permit application was acceptedfor filing by the FERC with a public notice onJan. 30, 1989. The other application was for alicense from the City and Noah Corp. TheFERC found deficiencies in the applicationand on Jan. 5, 1989 Noah Corp. filed therequested information with the FERC.Additional supplements were submitted toFERC on Jan. 12 and 23.

The FERC had not taken action to acceptthe license application. The deadline wasapproaching for submission of license applica-tions competing with Manassas' acceptedpreliminary permit application, so on July 31,1989 Noah Corp. filed an additional licenseapplication on behalf of the City, docketed asProject 10813. It was similar to the previouslyfiled license application, but had considerablymore information resulting from recent consul-tation and studies. This license application wasalso the subject of a request for additionalinformation by the FERC on Dec. 1, 1989.

A few days later, Summersville wasinformed that the information it supplied to theFERC to cure deficiencies in its first licenseapplication (Project 10635) had not coveredall the issues, and FERC dismissed thatapplication. The City appealed the decision.

The issues found deficient and the subse-quent dismissal and appeal were, surprisingly,not about the development plan itself. The firstwas a delivery issue. FERC had rejected bothapplications and reset a filing date of Aug. 8,1988. When Congress enacted the West VirginiaNational Interest River Conservation Act of 1987,establishing the Gauley River National Recrea-tion Area, it allowed a four-year window forhydropower development. It also contained aclause limiting development to project applicantswith a permit or license application on file as ofAug. 8, 1988. Together, these two rulingsmeant there was only ONE DAY that a permitor license application could be filed.

Manassas sent a messenger with theirpermit application and it was stamped receivedby FERC personnel on Aug. 8. Summersville’slicense application was sent using courier deliv-ery by the U.S. Postal Service, who documenteddelivery at 9:30 am on Aug. 8. However, theapplication was stamped received by FERCpersonnel on the following day, Aug. 9 –one day too late. FERC later corrected thedocketing date to Aug. 8.

Chapter 5 – Licensing

25

Sum

mer

svill

e fil

es th

ird li

cens

e ap

plic

atio

n J

uly

28

, 19

89

Agre

emen

t rea

ched

with

WVD

NR a

nd N

PSO

cto

be

r 1

8, 1

98

9

FERC

issu

es L

icen

se to

Sum

mer

svill

eS

ep

tem

be

r 2

5, 1

99

2

FERC

reje

cts

seco

nd li

cens

e ap

plic

atio

n D

ec

em

be

r 5

, 1

98

9

FERC

acc

epts

Sum

mer

svill

e’s

third

lic

ense

app

licat

ion

Ja

nu

ary

11

, 1

99

1

WV

DNR

issu

es S

tate

401

Cer

tific

atio

nS

ep

tem

be

r 1

8, 1

99

1

FERC

gra

nts

appe

al a

nd d

ism

isse

s M

anas

sas

perm

itN

ove

mb

er

26

, 1

99

0

FERC

com

plet

es e

nviro

nmen

tal a

sses

smen

t J

an

ua

ry 1

0, 1

99

2

Sum

mer

svill

e ap

peal

s di

smis

sal o

f sec

ond

licen

se a

pplic

atio

nJ

an

ua

ry 2

9, 1

99

0

1989 1990 1991 1992

The next issue was about conformance tothe consultation process outlined by FERC inthree stages. Although the City and NoahCorp. had extensive consultation over eightyears with the key agencies and had, in fact,achieved mutual understandings with allinvolved, they failed to put the steps takeninto the form FERC required. These issueswere addressed and resolved to the FERC’ssatisfaction in the Project 10813 applicationwhich was still pending at date of this appeal.

Competition and FERC policy wereaddressed in the appeal. FERC policy is tofavor a development or license applicationover the preliminary studies planned duringthe term of a preliminary permit. The questionat hand was whether Manassas should havebeen issued a preliminary permit, while theSummersville license application was stillbeing examined by the FERC.

The City of Manassas accusedSummersville of abusing Municipal Preferenceand claimed that Noah Corp. was using theCity to obtain a license for the project that itwould actually own and operate. This was nota new charge. It had been part of Manassas’competitive strategy since the first permitapplications were filed in 1980.

On Nov. 26, 1990, the FERC announced itsdecision on the appeals. The issues wereresolved in this way.

• The docket entries for Project 10635were corrected to show submission forfiling on Aug. 8, 1988.

• Project 10813 would be accepted for filing.

• The notice accepting Manassas’ prelim-inary permit application was rescinded;the application was dismissed twomonths later.

• FERC indicated it would examine projectownership by Summersville during thelicense review.

On the day after Christmas 1990, the Cityof Manassas filed a Request for Rehearing,maintaining that the FERC was mistaken indismissing the acceptance of their preliminarypermit application. On May 23, 1991 the FERCruled on Manassas' rehearing, reinstatingacceptance of their preliminary permit buttaking no action against the Summersvillelicense application in progress.

The tone of the decision was clearly infavor of Summersville’s diligent and extensiveefforts to develop the site. The ruling stated,“Summersville and Manassas have known ofeach other’s interest in developing this sitesince 1980, and have been competing with eachother ever since. Intervening legislation gaveboth applicants fresh and equal opportunitiesto renew that competition on an equal footingin 1988. The inequality of their respectivepresent postures derives not from actionstaken by this Commission but, fundamentally,from the strategies pursued by the competitorsthemselves. Manassas chose to file anapplication for a preliminary permit, whileSummersville chose to file an application for alicense. Since competition for the SummersvilleProject began in 1980, Summersville andManassas have each had 11 years in which toprepare and file an acceptable application fora license.”

Working Through LicensingProcess Issues

Summersville and Noah Corp. had spent11 years preparing a development plan anddiscussing project issues with interestedparties and agencies. They had arrived atagreement, or were very close to agreement,with most parties. However, among the mostcomplex, was addressing environmental andrecreational concerns of the National ParkService (NPS) and WV DNR. The NPS hadbeen brought into the project by formation ofthe Gauley River National Recreation Area in


26

the WV Rivers Bill, and they had authority overrecreation issues downstream of the dam.

In addition, Section 401 of the FederalClean Water Act requires applicants for federallicenses or permits to conduct activities thatinvolve discharges into waterways to obtaincertification from the appropriate state agency,in this case WV Division of EnvironmentalProtection (WV DEP), which deferred to WVDNR on wildlife issues.

Memorandums of Understanding betweenthe City and Noah Corp. and NPS and anotherwith WV DNR were developed to minimize andcompensate for any impacts of the hydropowerconstruction and operation. A Mitigation,Compensation and Enhancement Plan, anintegral part of the agreement with WV DNR,addressed operational procedures to reducepotential effects on fish and wildlife resourcesas well as providing cash for enhancementmeasures approaching $1 million.

The City passed a resolution approving theMemorandum and embedded Mitigation, Com-pensation and Enhancement Plan on July 22,1991. WV DNR issued 401 Certification onSept. 18, 1991.

Finally A License Is Issued!

Motions to Intervene in the acceptedlicense application for Project 10813, all filedon March 19, 1991, were received from thewhitewater rafting community including:

• Fayette County Chamber of Commerce,West Virginia Professional River Out-fitters (WVPRO) and Class VI RiverRunners

• American Rivers, Inc.

• American Whitewater Affiliation

This group of intervenors shared concernfor protecting the quality of the whitewater raft-

ing experience available on the Gauley Riverincluding:

• Locations, construction style and accessof commercial and public put-ins

• Protection of access to the first rapid

• Loss of access and intrusion ofequipment into staging areas duringconstruction

• Effects on river flows

• Loss of nation’s most dramatic put-in

• Clarification of schedule


27

Rafters participating in the growing whitewaterindustry carrying rafts down a gravel pathway tothe original launch area.

Whitewater rafts were put-in just below the dam’srelease tubes providing an exciting start for theirtrip down the Gauley River.

A meeting was held at Summersville CityHall on April 30, 1991 to discuss and agree onrecreational aspects of the project. It wasattended by the following: Frank Pelurie,Barbara Taylor, Dan Cincotta, Bert Pierce, andMike Shingleton, all of WV DNR; Dan Haas,Linda Romola, and Lorrie Sprague, all of NPS;Jody Hoffman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;Vince Yearick, FERC; Jim Price, and AnnePrice of Noah Corp.; Mayor Steve LeRose,Gary Evans, Director of Public Service, andLarry Persinger, Assistant Director of PublicService, all of the City of Summersville; JeffProctor, Class VI River Runners; Anita Adams,American Whitewater Affiliation; MatthewHuntington, American Rivers, Inc.; RogerHarrison, WV Rivers Coalition; Keith Spangler,New/Gauley Expeditions; and Skip Heater,New River Adventures.

Attendees discussed project economicsincluding local tax revenues, location of thetransmission lines, establishing hours forconstruction to avoid interference with raftlaunching, use of access roads, restroom andother public facilities, fish stocking roadwaysand the elimination of a fish passage study.The group relocated to the site below the damand visually inspected affected areas. Theattendees left with a fuller understanding of

the project site and expressed willingness towork through the remaining issues, whichthey did.

An environmental assessment (EA) wascompleted by FERC staff on Jan. 10, 1992.The FERC characterized the project as notbeing a “major federal action”; however, NPSdisagreed stating its position that an environ-mental impact statement should be requiredrather than an assessment. The whitewatercommunity also had comments regarding theEA report. Noah Corp. answered their concernswith a Response to the FERC dated May 7,1992. There was insufficient time for FERC tocomplete an environmental impact statementbefore the legislative deadline for licensing;the choice of the level of study is determinedby the authorizing agency, in this case theFERC.

On Sept. 25, 1992, only one month beforethe legislative deadline imposed by the WestVirginia National Interest River ConservationAct of 1987 (WV Rivers Bill), the FERC issueda License to the City of Summersville.Although pleased to accomplish licensing after12 years of effort, there were two licensearticles that Noah Corp. suggested should berevised. A Notice Requesting Rehearing ofthese articles was promptly filed with the


28

Bert Pierce was Supervisor of Reservoir Management for WestVirginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR) and later became theDNR Fisheries Chief. “It was my responsibility to review anything thatimpacted public waters,” explained Mr. Pierce. “When there is privateuse of a public resource, DNR’s goal is to enhance the resource, or toprovide mitigation for unavoidable damages.” The DNR had donemost of their investigation for this project during the earlier Army Corpsfeasibility study. Pierce admits that the DNR staff did not believe thisproject could be built because of the complexity of purposes alreadyin place at Summersville Lake. “Always a gentleman, Jim Price wasvery persistent with questions and efforts to resolve issues,” saidPierce.“I believe we negotiated the best deal that could happen.”Mitigation enhancements that Pierce was pleased with include anew fishing access trail that crosses the Gauley at the tailwaters andimproved boating access to enter the lake at Persinger Creek.

Bert PierceSummersville Lake Biologist,WV DNR Fishery Manager

FERC. Article 303 required a Board ofConsultants to be hired to review projectstructures. This was redundant and expensive,because the Corps was already performingthat function for Summersville Dam, whichthey operate.

Secondly, article 309 granted the Corpsunlimited rights to modify the dam’s structuresor operation. The broadness of this privilegewas a concern as it potentially could decreasethe ability to obtain a construction loan.

Rehearing was granted for reconsiderationby the FERC on Nov. 25, 1992 and then deniedon both requests on April 7, 1993.


29

Upon receiving a license approval in 1991, Jim Priceand a National Park Service representative visit thehydropower site in preparation to begin construction.

This photograph shows the development site in1991 before any construction took place.

The powerhouse and equipment arrangement isshown as it was approved in the Sept. 1992 license.

■ STRATEGIC ■ AGREEMENTS

Selling Electric Energy

The product of the planned hydropowerfacility was electric energy. Selling power fora price that would support the cost of con-struction was an economic necessity for thisproject, which was being financed as a privateventure. It was not supported or funded by anygovernmental funds; in fact, the project had topay fees or taxes to state, local and federalgovernments for the right to operate. Theproject never received any governmentalfunds or grants.

Finding a buyer for the energy producedwas a critical step. Because of their closeproximity to Summersville Dam, AlleghenyPower Systems was approached. They werenot in the market for additional capacity at thattime, and declined the proposal.

Several other utilities and large power userswere approached about buying the power. InJuly 1993, Elkem Metals Company, operator ofnearby Hawks Nest Hydropower facility, metwith Noah Corp. in hopes of supplementingtheir fall production. To insure the steady24 MW of power needed by Elkem, theSummersville plant would need to be supple-

mented with a gas-fired generator. The cost ofa secondary power source made the energycost too high to be practical.

During 1993 power sale proposals weresent to Duke Power Co., Appalachian PowerCo. (APCo), Carolina Power and Light Co., theCity of Philippi, AMP-Ohio (a municipal groupin Ohio), and Blue Ridge Power Authority (amunicipal group in Virginia).

A proposal to purchase power was receivedfrom Duke Power Company. However, Dukerefused to pay as much as it paid to hydro-power producers in North Carolina, becausethe Summersville power was delivered fromoutside Duke’s system. Noah Corp.’s attorneysdisagreed with this position and a complaintproceeding was filed with the North CarolinaUtility Commission (NCUC). Duke won thatcase in early 1995, because the NCUC agreedthat the project was ineligible for the in-statepower price.

On Jan. 11, 1994 Noah Corp met with RayMaliczewski, senior vice president of AmericanElectric Power (AEP) Service Corp. and hisstaff. AEP is the parent for APCo. Maliczewski,clearly a decision-maker, viewed the project ina positive light because of the low priceoffered and the renewable aspect of the power.AEP was not currently purchasing power fromany qualifying facilities and had opposedPURPA before the Supreme Court in 1979.

Chapter 6 – Strategic Agreements

30

FERC

den

ies

Man

assa

s re

hear

ing

oppo

sing

is

suan

ce o

f lic

ense

to S

umm

ersv

ille/

Noah

Ap

ril 7

, 1

99

3

AEP

Appa

lach

ian

Pow

er o

ffers

term

s fo

r pu

rcha

sing

ene

rgy

De

ce

mb

er

16

, 1

99

4

1993 1994 1995 1996

Cata

mou

nt a

gree

s to

dev

elop

and

ope

rate

Sum

mer

svill

e Pr

ojec

t for

25

year

sJ

uly

31

, 1

99

5

Verif

icat

ion

of s

tart

of c

onst

ruct

ion

filed

at F

ERC

Se

pte

mb

er

17

, 1

99

6

WV

DNR

gran

ts e

ntry

for c

offe

rdam

con

stru

ctio

nM

arc

h 1

3 , 1

99

6

Equi

pmen

t and

sup

plie

r sel

ectio

n co

mpl

ete

Ap

ril 1

7, 1

99

6FE

RC g

rant

s de

adlin

e ex

tent

ions

Ju

ly 1

1, 1

99

6W

V DN

R gr

ants

ent

ry fo

r whi

tew

ater

laun

ch ra

mp

Ju

ly 1

9, 1

99

6

Noah

file

s ap

plic

atio

n fo

r lic

ense

am

endm

ent

Oc

tob

er

16

, 1

99

5Su

mm

ersv

ille

pass

es O

rdin

ance

aut

horiz

ing

cont

ract

s fo

r pow

er s

ale

and

deve

lopm

ent

Oc

tob

er

25

, 1

99

5

Revi

sed

pens

tock

layo

ut s

uppl

ied

to C

orps

J

uly

23

, 1

99

3Co

rps

gran

ts S

umm

ersv

ille

site

acc

ess

priv

iledg

esA

ug

ust

31

, 1

99

3

Paym

ent i

n lie

u of

tax

agre

emen

t sig

ned

Ap

ril 1

, 1

99

6

In December 1994, AEP met with NoahCorp. and presented an alternative powerpurchase proposal, which appeared to befeasible. On Sept. 5, 1995 representatives ofNoah Corp., APCo and Catamount (a firmbeing contracted by the City and Noah Corp.to finance, construct and operate the facilityfor its first 25 years) met and discussed powersale. APCo requested a reduction in the costpaid for energy to 90 percent of their avoidedenergy after year 20 of the contract. Thisconcern was resolved. By the end ofSeptember, the power purchase agreementwas nearing its final form.

The City had their attorney, DennisVaughan of Vaughan & Withrow, examine thecontract. They engaged Southern Engineeringto review the design proposal and offer theircomments. Suggestions to the power salecontract proposal were drafted and sent toAPCo. Most of the suggestions wereaccepted. Lee Hill of Jackson & Kelly Law Firmhelped the parties find agreement on the fewremaining issues.

The Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)was authorized by passage of a CityOrdinance on Oct. 25, 1995. In early February1996, the agreement was presented to thePublic Service Commission (PSC) forapproval. Instead of the immediate approvalexpected, it was denied on April 27. Theissues found deficient were addressed in arevised joint application to the PSC, and thePPA was approved in early May 1996.

Project Financing

A likely power purchase agreement madethe hydropower development attractive toinvestors that would supply at least $5 millionin equity funds. The project needed fundingthrough commercial debt from a bank andequity providers. American Tractebel, a Belgianutility, became interested in providing the

equity. Their representatives visited the siteand began feasibility studies.

A second interested party was CatamountEnergy Corp., a subsidiary of Central VermontPublic Service Company. Their representa-tives visited the site in March 1995.

Noah Corp. contacted the Jackson & KellyLaw Firm, which had been involved withnegotiating financing for the hydropowerproject at Hannibal Dam on the Ohio River.They helped develop a simple financing struc-ture that would allow beneficial ownership tothe investor and provide more cash flow to theCity, which provided no equity and took nocredit risk.

By July 31, 1995 Catamount was chosenand had agreed to finance and construct theproject. Catamount submitted an independentcontract to the City and Noah Corp. They wereprepared to provide $7 million as equity to theproject and arrange a commercial loan for thebalance of costs estimated at $28 million. TheCity and Noah Corp. would receive royaltypayments and Catamount would be benefi-cial owner with all tax benefits and net profitsfor the first 25 years of operation.

Summersville would own title to the project,but Catamount would finance, construct, operateand receive all revenues for the first 25 years.Catamount would then exit the project with nofurther interest or income due.

Catamount president Bob Young flew intoSummersville to meet informally with CityCouncilmembers in early August 1995. Butby Sept. 21 the City had still not taken actionto execute a contract with Catamount.Catamount wrote a letter to Noah outlining themany tasks with deadlines to be met, costincreases associated with delay, and the needto resolve any issues keeping the City fromsigning an agreement.

On Sept. 25, Jim Price wrote to MayorLeRose with some facts. The City had hoped


31

These 1993 drawings show details of the powerhouse design.

to fund a new fresh water project with initialproceeds from the project. They neededabout $1.5 million. Price said, “If we try toforce a large initial payment for a water projecton Catamount, there will be no hydro project;the project simply cannot afford it.”

On Oct. 25, 1995, the City passed anOrdinance authorizing many transactions whichwere required for the development of thehydropower project. Among them were thecontracts for Catamount’s participation. By

month’s end, Catamount was already shoppingfor commercial lenders.

West Virginia Tax Law

In mid-March 1995, the West VirginiaLegislature revised the B&O tax law, removingthe exemption for utility property. The changewould add an expense of $725,000 a year,crippling chances of financing the Summersvilleproject. Jackson & Kelly Law Firm requested the


32

WV Tax Commission to rule on exemption fromB&O taxes for the new hydropower project.The exemption from B&O taxes was grantedbecause the City was owner of the facility.

In addition, a Payment in Lieu of Taxes(PILOT) agreement was needed to keepproperty taxes low during the early years ofthe project, a period with initially lower powersale prices. Although the project would beowned in title by the City and potentially exemptfrom property taxes, it would be used benefi-cially by a private company, Catamount, actingthrough its subsidiary Gauley River PowerPartners (GRPP). Nicholas County is the primarytaxing agent. Fayette County was also involved,because two miles of transmission linecrossed over the county boundary to connectwith the closest APCo substation at MeadowRiver Mining.

A draft PILOT agreement with the NicholasCounty Commission was prepared by Jackson& Kelly and sent to Noah Corp., Catamountand the City in early 1996. The payment sched-

ule to Nicholas County was based on a fixedamount that increased each year. The paymentto Nicholas County in the first year was$40,000, gradually increasing to $190,000 inyear 21. The agreement was signed by allparties on April 29, 1996.

Nicholas County received no tax revenuefrom Summersville Dam because it wasowned by the federal government. The PILOTagreement allowed the County to receive taxrevenue on the hydropower facility, eventhough it was owned by a government entity,the City, and was located on federal property.The Nicholas County Commission shares thisincome with the Board of Education.

Project Design and Engineering

Sogreah Engineering was working closelywith the Corps to finalize details of using atemporary plug in an existing tunnel duringconstruction of the powerhouse. Sogreah, aFrench engineering firm, was chosen for this


33

A generator being placed on a turbine during pro-ject construction.

A penstock in the valve house.


34

Drawing of the two-turbine powerhousedesign which was approved in the 1996license amendment and constructed.

difficult task by Noah Corp. because of theirextensive experience in hydropower projects.Details of a concrete tunnel plug were submittedto the Corps on March 18, 1992. The benefit ofsuch a plan would be a cost saving, simplerpowerhouse layout. The Corps liked the idea,as did Noah Corp.

Eventually, the plan was abandoned infavor of using one of the three outlets fromthe dam. A new penstock would be attachedto the existing pipe, just downstream of theclosure valve and conduct water to a power-house on the bank. The existing Howell-Bungervalve on that pipe would be relocated to a newpipe ending beside the powerhouse. The newdesign, with two turbines instead of four,reduced the 1993 estimated construction costssubstantially. This simpler powerhouse andequipment installation allowed a competitiveprice for the sale of energy that made theproject feasible under the AEP power salecontract. The design revision required goingthrough FERC’s review process once again.

The new layout plan was sent to the Corpson July 23, 1993 along with a letter requestinga meeting to discuss design options. The plancontained options for a powerhouse with twoor three units. The least cost facility, based onthe price per unit of energy, would be built.When completed in 2001, the project costabout $58 mill ion for an 80 MW plant.

Richard Woodruff, a hydropower consultantformerly of Southern Company Services, wasretained by Noah Corp. to review the Sogreahconceptual design and verify the cost estimates.Mr. Woodruff also was invited to attendthe meeting with the Corps. The Corps wasrepresented by their engineering, hydraulicsand structural groups who were very positivein their review of the revised powerhouseand equipment.

By May 1995, more detailed designs of thesimpler, two-unit powerhouse were completed

and used to acquire preliminary equipmentbids and revised constructions costs.Catamount, acting as the project developer,selected Kleinschmidt Associates of Maine topre-qualify suppliers and prepare technicalspecifications for a “water-to-wire” hydroelec-tric generation package. In April 1996, thepackage was sent to several suppliers toreceive bids and select the lowest costs.

Amending the License

During the summer of 1995, a licenseamendment was prepared and submitted toagencies for their comments regarding revi-sions to the powerhouse size, location andgenerating equipment and to revise the trans-mission line route to deliver power to AEP.Changes in the powerhouse location and lay-out proposed the simpler two-turbine plan,rather than the four turbines and extensive pip-ing in the approved license.

Changing the transmission line route wasmore involved. The route had to connect to theAPCo substation about 10 miles south of thedam, so the route proceeded south from thedam rather than north. It needed to avoid theNational Recreation Area (NRA) as requiredby the NPS. The West Virginia Division ofTransportation (WV DOT) would not allow useof their right-of-way along U.S. Route 19 southof the dam.

The amendment application was filed withFERC in September 1995 with new plans forthe powerhouse and equipment and the newtransmission line route. Letters showing theproposed transmission line route were sentto all affected landowners.

A survey was conducted to avoid distur-bance of endangered plants.The Gauley RiverNRA was avoided by locating the transmissionline route within developed areas near thedam. On Oct. 16, 1995 the FERC sent out a


35

Notice of Application Filed to initiate a period ofcomments and interventions regarding issuesin the license amendment.

There were project benchmarks andFERC deadlines to meet. The FERC hadgranted several extensions of deadlines. In theJuly 1996 extension, the following deadlineswere set:

• Final contract drawings by Sept. 16, 1996

• Start of construction by Sept. 24, 1996 (required by WV RIvers Bill)

• Filing of approved cofferdam constructiondrawings by Oct. 15, 1996

• Complete construction by Sept. 24, 1999

In March 1996, WV DNR issued an entrypermit for the purpose of constructing atemporary cofferdam so the powerhouse couldbe built. In July, an entry permit was issuedfor constructing a new whitewater launchramp facility.

Noah Corp. filed Verification of Commence-ment of Construction paperwork with theFERC on Sept. 17, 1996, one week before thecritical deadline. This filing showed that GRPP(Catamount) had begun equipment fabricationby paying the equipment provider, IMPSA ofArgentina, approximately $200,000 to beginmanufacturing the initial equipment.


36

Chapter 7 – Transmission Lines

37

Publ

ic m

eetin

g in

Sum

mer

svill

eS

ep

tem

be

r 19

, 19

96

1996 1997 1998

Nich

olas

Cou

nty

Com

mis

sion

med

iate

sbe

twee

n pr

ojec

t and

land

owne

rsO

cto

be

r 3

, 19

97

Oral

arg

umen

ts p

rese

nted

to 4

th C

ircui

t Cou

rtJ

an

ua

ry 2

6, 19

98

4th

Circ

uit C

ourt

supp

orts

FER

C ap

prov

al o

fpr

ojec

t am

endm

ent

Ma

y 1

, 19

98

FERC

lifts

sta

y of

con

stru

ctio

nJ

un

e 1

, 19

98

FERC

app

rove

s fin

al tr

ansm

issi

on li

ne d

esig

nJ

uly

2, 19

98

FERC

aut

horiz

es p

roje

ct g

roun

d br

eaki

ngD

ec

em

be

r 2

6, 19

98

Fina

ncin

g ag

reem

ent e

xecu

ted

De

ce

mb

er

18, 19

98

FERC

mov

es fo

r dis

mis

sal o

f AW

A ap

peal

De

ce

mb

er

4, 19

98

Cour

t of A

ppea

ls a

ccep

ts A

WA

appe

alD

ec

em

be

r2, 19

98

12 R

eque

sts

filed

for F

ERC

rehe

arin

g of

tra

nsm

issi

on li

ne a

ppro

val

Ju

ly 3

1, 19

98

Visu

al Im

pact

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

sent

to F

ERC

Se

pte

mb

er

23

, 19

96

FERC

ord

er a

men

ding

lice

nse

and

liftin

g st

ayO

cto

be

r 18

, 19

96

Requ

ests

file

d fo

r FER

C re

hear

ing

No

vem

be

r 15

, 19

96

FERC

gra

nts

rehe

arin

g fo

r fur

ther

con

side

ratio

nD

ec

em

be

r 5

, 19

96

FERC

ord

er d

enyi

ng re

hear

ing

Ja

nu

ary

21

, 19

97

FERC

app

rove

s vi

sual

reso

urce

pro

tect

ion

plan

Fe

bru

ary

19

, 19

97

AWA

and

MM

PPA

appe

al to

4th

Circ

uit C

ourt

Ma

rch

21

, 19

97

■ TRANSMISSION LINE

Public Protest

When the draft license amendment appli-cation was circulated for comments, whitewaterinterests were concerned about changing fromfour to two larger generating units believing itwould reduce the amount of flexibility in flowreleased for power production. Potentially,they stated, placing more importance onpower profitability might be at the expense ofrecreational interests. Their concern wasunfounded, because the license required theproject to operate with the flow normallyreleased by the Corps. The amount and timingof flow releases is chosen solely by the Corps,not the licensee.

The most contentious issue was the changein transmission line route, caused by the need todeliver power to APCo. The revised transmissionline was almost two miles longer and ran in adifferent direction than the original plan, whichwas to connect with the Monongahela PowerCompany, the closest potential energy buyer.

To answer questions of affected propertyowners, Catamount and Noah Corp. held apublic meeting in Mount Lookout in the springof 1996 to discuss the expected location andimpact of the transmission line. It was attended

by about 30 residents, including some partiesinterested in whitewater rafting.

The amendment application was originallypublished by FERC in October 1995 withcomments due by December. No adversecomments were filed. An agreement on thetransmission line route was resolved with NPS,which insisted that the Gauley River NRA beavoided by the transmission line and that theview of the line be minimized from the NRA.FERC prepared an environmental assessmentwhich was noticed in April of 1996. Commentson the assessment were due by the end of May.

As the FERC began preparing a final envi-ronmental assessment, they began to receivequestions from residents along and around thetransmission line route, who were concernedabout whether their comments were beingheard. Numerous comments were filed. In aneffort to be fair, FERC held a public meeting inSummersville to allow public comments tobecome part of the record. They sent noticeto landowners by Priority Mail, which wasdelivered on Thursday, Sept. 12, one weekbefore the meeting date. The meeting wasalso announced in local newspapers.

The public meeting was held on Thursday,Sept. 19, 1996. Heather Campbell andMohamad Fayyad, FERC representatives,conducted the meeting. Speakers makingcomments were: Steve LeRose, Summersville


38

Mayor; Jim Price, Noah Corp.; CouncilmanMike Hughes; Jim Marsh, AssociateSuperintendent of Schools, Nicholas County;Councilwoman Mary McCallister; Spurgeon(Jenks) Hinkle, Nicholas County Commission;Len Hanger, WVPRO President; Dan Boone,local businessman and Chamber of Commercemember; Greg Johnson, AdministratorSummersville Memorial Hospital; RoyHenderson, retired broadcaster and localresident; Donna Mazzei, local resident andCouncilwoman; Dale Jones, local resident;J. B. Boso, City of Summersville Fire Chief;Thomas Smith, county resident; Mike Mathews,representing local trades unions; SteveFairchild, local resident and businessman;Kathy Zerkle, local resident and rafting guide;Richard Lilly, local resident and rafting outfitter;Gary Normoyle, Catamount Energy Corp.;James Neil, WV DNR fishing and boatingrepresentative; and, Steve Ferguson, PresidentSummersville Convention and Visitors Bureau.

A firestorm of public protest was set off bythis meeting. Several landowners along thetransmission line route presumably did notrealize their properties would be affected untilnotice of the public meeting was delivered.Some were upset by the short notice they hadreceived. On the following Monday, Sept. 23,1996 more than 35 letters of protest were filedat the FERC – including a petition with morethan 250 signatures. A group of landownershad earlier formed a coalition called "MountNebo-Mount Lookout Property ProtectionAssociation" (MMPPA). The group hired anattorney and began doggedly opposing thenew route of the transmission line.

A radio show, answering questions fromcallers, was held by Gary Normoyle ofCatamount, C. J. Hamilton of the Corps ofEngineers, Mayor Steve Le Rose and JimPrice of Noah Corp.

Summersville, Noah Corp. and Catamountwere busy responding, too. On Sept. 23, theyfiled a Visual Impact Improvement Plan with

FERC, addressing many of the concernsexpressed by property owners.

The MMPPA took their case to the WestVirginia Public Service Commission (PSC)and the NPS. The PSC was being pressuredto require the project to acquire a certificationof public convenience prior to constructing thetransmission lines. The question was one ofjurisdiction The FERC apparently had jurisdic-tion of transmission lines that were included ina federal hydropower license. On Sept. 28,1996, Governor Arch Moore issued ExecutiveOrder 12-88 to require the PSC to insist oncertification. The PSC later conceded thatFERC had jurisdiction and dismissed thecomplaints on Feb. 7, 1997.

Congressman Rahall and West VirginiaProfessional River Outfitters (WVPRO) beganto question the project’s compliance with the lawestablishing the Gauley River National Recrea-tion Area. Congressman Rahall asked the FERCto give him information about the project’scompliance with established deadlines.

American Whitewater Affiliation (AWA) filedcomments and a motion for late interventionwith the FERC on Oct. 7, 1996 (this filing wasmade almost a year after the deadline forintervention). A similar intervention request wasfiled by Attorney James McNeely, representing


39

Land owners along the transmission route placedhigh value on the pristine views of their properties.The route crossed large areas of undisturbed forest.

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

of J

ack

McC

lung

MMPPA, who kept working on the PSC certifi-cation issue. FERC granted the interventionrequests, which allowed the parties to laterchallenge FERC’s amendment approval infederal court.

In the meantime, FERC staff continued theirwork on the final environmental assessment.On Oct. 17, they issued notice of its availability.The next day the FERC issued an order allowingthe license amendment, lifting the stay ofconstruction and granting interventions forAWA and MMPPA, even though the requestswere filed more than a year late. On Nov. 15,both intervenors filed requests for rehearingchallenging FERC's order approving the licenseamendment on the grounds of inadequatenotice.

In his quarterly report to the City ofSummersville, Dr. Price of Noah Corp. expressedconcern at the protest of landowners. Hefeared the appeals of FERC decisions couldmean long delays in obtaining project financing.Mick Staton led a public information campaignfor the project including political support,media advertising and an informational video.

The project continued to make requiredfilings during this period while FERC consid-ered the rehearing requests. On Nov. 22 therecreation monitoring plan was approved. On

Dec. 5 rehearing was granted to AWA andMMPPA. Several deadline extensions wereneeded by the project, because of theappeals. On Jan. 21, 1997 the FERC deniedboth rehearings. On Feb. 19, 1997, the project’svisual resource protection plan was approved.MMPPA was quick to request rehearing of thisFERC decision, too.

AWA and MMPPA both appealed to theCircuit Court of Appeals challenging FERC’srefusal to reverse its decision to authorize thelicense amendment. Construction and financingcould not proceed with the potential regulatoryreversal in the Court of Appeals, which couldrescind FERC’s approval of the plannedinstallation.

All the delays resulting from continuousappeals required updates in all the relatedagreements including the Power PurchaseAgreement, WV DNR Rights of Entry, WVDNR Memorandum of Agreement, and theIndependent Contract with Catamount EnergyCorp. After their renegotiation, the changes toall of these agreements had to be approved bythe various appropriate agencies… again.

The FERC granted a rehearing for furtherconsideration to MMPPA on approval of thevisual resource protection plan. Then deniedtheir appeal on July 1, 1997.


40

“We got a puzzling letter that said the license was already granted,”explains Jack McClung, a Mount Lookout landowner who did not wanttransmission lines crossing his land. “Several landowners formed anassociation and we started to get attention.” McClung notes “crossingyour land” means clear-cutting an 80-foot wide strip along with anybranches or trees that reach into that area. The group of landowners didnot feel that alternate routes were fully considered and that FERC wasready to approve the project regardless of dissent. Landowners foundthe public meetings informative but were dissappointed that the CountyCommission did not help represent their position. “We felt bullied,” saidMcClung. When it was clear the transmission route would not bechanged, McClung and others negotiated their best deal and the projectmoved ahead. “I hope the City of Summersville makes good money fromthe hydro plant,” concludes McClung. “The structures are a sore spot inthe gorgeous view of my family’s homeplace.’

Jack McClungMount Lookout

Landowner

Nicholas County Commission contactedthe City, Noah Corp. and Catamount on Oct. 3,1997.They had been asked by MMPPA to act asmediators to help negotiate alternate routes forthe transmission lines. This was not successful,because there was no practical alternative tothe route chosen, as stated in FERC’s orderapproving the license amendment.

Oral arguments were presented to theCourt of Appeals on Jan. 26, 1998. TheAppeals Court’s May 1, 1998 ruling upheldFERC's decision approving Summersville’slicense amendment. On June 1, the FERCremoved their stay of construction and on July 2approved the final transmission line design.

By the end of July 1998 there were adozen requests for rehearing submitted to theFERC including the AWA, MMPPA and severalprivate citizens. They were all rejected onAug. 28, 1998. Only AWA requested rehearingon the rejection. In addition, AWA appealed tothe U.S. Court of Appeals. The FERC filed amotion to dismiss AWA’s federal appeal, asthey had not yet ruled on the most recentrequest for rehearing.

A long awaited moment came, whenFERC authorized commencement of groundbreaking on the day after Christmas 1998. Thepersistent delays had seriously jeopardizedthe project’s feasibility.

Financing the Project

Catamount Energy Corp. was looking for alender to finance the balance of the project.Before approval of the license amendment inOctober 1996, two lenders were interestedpending the outcome of FERC’s decision.They were Canadian Imperial Bank ofCommerce, Inc. and GE Capital Corporation.

The long delays created by continuousappeals caused the cost of building the projectto climb. Not only were costs of material,equipment and labor rising, costs for renegoti-

ating strategic contracts, additional mitigationrequirements, and legal fees to defend in courtwere all putting the project at financial risk.Project costs had risen by nearly $5 million.Catamount told the City and Noah Corp. thatthey had found a new lender, New York LifeInsurance Company. But to make the projectfeasible, it was necessary to extend the debtterm to 26 years.

Because Catamount was to exit the projectat the end of 25 years, the new debt term wasa problem. Catamount requested extension oftheir independent contract to 30 years to allowsufficient returns in the last five years to makethe project feasible. In July 1998 Summersville,Noah Corp. and Catamount renegotiated theindependent contract and participation agree-ments to keep the project viable for financing.

As a concession for the extended term,Catamount agreed to provide $800,000 to theCity for a water supply project when the hydroproject was financed. The five-year extensionresulted in less revenue to the City and NoahCorp. from year 26 through 30 of operationbecause a portion would go to Catamount.Summersville’s funding of a water supplyproject was made more likely by the paymentfor the extension.

On Sept. 1, 1998 Catamount gave draftcopies of a financial term sheet to Summersvillefrom New York Life Insurance Co. The City andNoah Corp. both approved the agreement, firstverifying that Summersville had not pledgedany taxpayer assets or assumed any debt forthe project.

New York Life Insurance Co. had a periodof “due diligence” in making sure all the agree-ments and amendments were acceptable andfully in place. By Dec. 18, 1998, the financingagreement was fully executed, and closingtook place on Jan. 15, 1999. Dr. Price of NoahCorp. told Summersville City Council thatCatamount Energy was to be commendedfor their commitment to the project.


41

■ CONSTRUCTION

Ground Breaking

After 19 years, it was time to start building.Black and Veatch Construction, Inc. (B&V)was selected to construct the powerhouse andtransmission line. They were the successfulbidder and had done some preliminary work.In early January 1999, B&V submitted the

necessary bonds to the City of Summersvilleand began site work.

It was also time to recognize the greatachievement of the project team includingpersonnel from the City, Noah Corp.,Catamount and many others – whose 19 yearsof efforts had been responsible for reachingthis important benchmark. A Ground BreakingDedication was held on Wednesday, Feb. 17,1999. It began with a luncheon at NicholasCounty Memorial Park Dining Room, followedby a ceremony at Summersville Dam. Theinvitation list held the names of more than200 community and political leaders. A privatedinner was held the evening before for coreproject participants.

Legal and Contractual Details

Although the project had a green light toget started building, FERC had not acted onthe American Whitewater Affiliation’s (AWA)motion to intervene in and oppose the finaltransmission line design. Anticipating a nega-tive decision from FERC, AWA filed an appealwith the U.S. Court of Appeals to challengerejection of their rehearing request. FERCruled that the AWA appeal was premature,as they had not yet rendered a decision.

Chapter 8 – Construction

42

FERC

den

ies

AWA

appe

als

Fe

bru

ary

11

, 19

99

1999 2000 2001

Grou

ndbr

eaki

ng c

erem

ony

for p

roje

ct h

eld

Fe

bru

ary

17

, 19

99

U.S.

Cou

rt of

App

eals

dis

mis

ses

AWA

appe

alF

eb

rua

ry 2

6, 19

99

WV

DNR

licen

se a

gree

men

ts s

igne

dA

pri

l 5

, 19

99

WV

DEP

wat

er p

ollu

tion

cont

rol p

erm

it is

sued

Ap

ril 9

, 19

99

Stan

Adk

ins

appo

inte

d M

ayor

of S

umm

ersv

ille

Ju

ne

28

, 19

99

Emin

ent d

omai

n su

its fi

led

agai

nst l

ando

wne

rsJ

un

e 3

0, 19

99

Mot

ions

hea

ring

for e

min

ent d

omai

n su

itS

ep

tem

be

r 13

, 19

99

FERC

am

ends

lice

nse

No

vem

be

r 5

, 19

99

FERC

app

rove

s as

-bui

lt tra

nsm

issi

on li

nes

De

ce

mb

er

27

, 2

00

0

“Firs

t Ene

rgy”

gen

erat

ed a

t Sum

mer

svill

e pl

ant

Ju

ly 2

9, 2

00

1

Oper

atin

g ag

reem

ent s

igne

d by

all

parti

esN

ove

mb

er

6, 2

00

2Ca

tam

ount

inte

rest

sol

d to

CHI

De

ce

mb

er

4, 2

00

2

FERC

aut

horiz

es c

onst

ruct

ion

to p

roce

edJ

an

ua

ry 2

4, 2

00

1

On Feb. 26, 1999 the U.S. Court of Appealsdismissed AWA’s case.

AWA challenged FERC’s refusal to grantintervenor status with a petition for review inthe U.S. Court of Appeals in April 1999. TheCity intervened in their proceeding. Catamountoffered to take the cost they and AWA wouldtogether spend on legal fees and use itinstead to benefit kayaking and rafting. AWAagreed to this proposal and the funds wereprovided to NPS to augment whitewater boat-ing on the Gauley River.

Negotiations for right-of-way easementsalong the transmission line route continuedin 1999. Several property owners held out.The City began eminent domain suits in lateJune 1999. Mayor Stan Adkins, newly elected,pursued the right-of-way agreements asrequired. A hearing was held at the U.S. Courtin Charleston, WV on Sept. 13, 1999. ByNovember, all of the right-of-way issues hadbeen resolved.

In April 1999 the project received licenseagreements from WV DNR Public LandCorporation for the transmission line routeand a water pollution control permit fromWV DEP.

By 2001, deadline extensions and shifts inresponsibilities made it necessary to amendthe Power Purchase Agreement betweenGRPP, the City, Noah Corp. and APCo.

Catamount Sale to CHI

In February 2001, James Moore becamePresident of Catamount Energy Corp. (CEC)and Senior Vice President of parent CentralVermont Public Service Corp. In August heannounced his strategy to pursue wind powerprojects exclusively.

In February 2002 CEC announced itsintent to sell its interest in the Summersvilleproject to CHI Energy, Inc. (CHI), a largehydroelectric company headquartered inConnecticut. CHI was owned by Enel, a largeItalian utility. The City and Noah Corp. wouldneed to approve the sale, which they did. Thesale was finalized on Dec. 4, 2002.

Putting the Plant into Operation

Design revisions and construction were acollaborative effort. Each portion of the projectrequired the review and approval of both theCorps and the FERC prior to its construction.


43

When the project began in 1980 Stanley Adkins was the City ofSummersville’s independent accountant. He attended all the earlydiscussion meetings. “It seemed like a pipe dream. It was like oneman against the world,” Adkins explains his first impression of theproject. “But if the hydropower project could happen, it would bereally amazing.” Although completed and put into operation duringAdkins’ tenure as mayor, he says the person that really made theproject happen was Jim Price, who conceived and kept the projectalive. Adkins is pleased to see a renewable energy source beingoperated in Summersville. He said early operational income will beused to pay the debt for construction, but that future income couldfund fresh water projects, health care expansion, improved sewerfacilities and environmental protection programs. “The people whostarted this project in the early 80’s provided benefits for our citizensthat will continue more than 50 years into the future,” Adkins said.

Stanley AdkinsSummersville Mayor


44

On a site visit, FERC inspectors foundconstruction had moved ahead of the allowedprotocol with support piers for the penstock inplace before the plans had been approved. OnApril 28, 1999 FERC sent a stern warningletter to Catamount reiterating the process ofplan submissions and required approvals.Thiswas corrected immediately.

Project construction remained close to theprojected schedule until early 2000. Work onpouring concrete and installing embeddedturbine parts was delayed by poor weather.GRPP continued holding progress meetings withthe Corps and interested agencies to discussthe construction schedule and any other issues.

There was concern among the raftingoutfitters that construction might interfere withriver access during the height of rafting season.Construction activities were suspended onsome weekends to avoid inconvenience duringperiods of heavy rafting traffic.

By April 2000, clearing was completed inpreparation for construction of the transmissionline. B&V was testing for leaks on the scrollcase of one turbine prior to pouring concretearound it. Several tests were required to deter-mine the strength of the concrete to be usedprior to pouring penstockanchor blocks.

B&V was havingdifficulty with the Corps’approval process andrequested a meeting toresolve a number ofconstruction issues,including:

• Concrete mix design

• Marine support structures

• Encapsulation of existing marine support structures

• Required anchorage

• Howell Bunger valve structure

• Penstock pressure testing

• Ownership and maintenance of all new construction

• Corps of Engineers’ list of required submittals

• Other issues and concerns relevant tocompletion of the project

Difficulties in obtaining the Corps’ approvalof the concrete used in penstock anchorblocks caused significant construction delaysby August 2000. GRPP became concernedabout meeting the sunset date in the PowerPurchase Agreement.

The schedule was really slipping bySeptember; there was little hope of meetingthe November schedule for completion. B&Vindicated to Catamount that they were entitledto additional fees due to delays in constructionand increased costs required by the Corps. Asecond shift was added in an effort to get theproject back on schedule.

The powerhouse and transmission line wereboth essentially complete by February 2001.In mid-May 2001 the concrete work and most

of the new piping had been


45

Summersville City Council constructed a plaque in2005 to memorialize the effort and accomplishmentof building the hydropower plant.

completed. Final testing and commissioning ofthe generating equipment was complete inJune. One structural part failed during testingand had to be replaced.

Catamount generated the “First Energy”required by the Power Purchase Agreementon July 29, 2001. It was about a month laterthan allowed by the agreement – a heftypenalty was paid by Catamount – but everyonewas pleased to have the plant operatingcommercially. By August, all work exceptsome minor finishing was complete.

From start of generation in early July 2001through the end of June 2007 (six years ofoperation), the fully operational SummersvilleHydropower Production Facility generatedand delivered 1,264,000,000 kilowatt-hours ofelectric energy.


46

REFERENCES

Summersville Files Preliminary Permit Application, September 22, 1980

FERC Issued Preliminary Permit P-3493 to City of Summersville, 15 FERC 62,218, May 22,1981

Federal Court Upheld Permit Issuance Against Challenge by VA Cities, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C.Circuit, No. 82-1655 and 82-1656, October 7, 1983

Summersville Files First License Application, P-3493, November 1, 1982

National Park Service Letter Advised FERC that License Cannot Be Issued During Wild River StudyPeriod, January 11, 1984

FERC Dismisses Accepted License Application P-3493, 27 FERC 61,206 and 28 FERC 61,257, May1984

Federal Court Upholds FERC Dismissal of License Application P-3493, Town of Summersville v.FERC, No. 84-1517, 780 F.2d 1034 (D.C. Circuit 1986)

Permit Application P-10634 Filed By Manassas, VA, August 8, 1988

Second License Application P-10635 Filed By Summersville, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .August 8, 1988

West Virginia National Interest River Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-534, 102 Stat. 2699passed October 26, 1988

Third License Application P-10813 Filed By Summersville, July 31, 1989

FERC Order Accepting Application P-10813 and Dismissing Application P-10635, 53 FERC 61,259,1990.

WV Department of Natural Resources Issued Water Quality Certification, September 18, 1991

FERC Order Issuing License P-10813, 60 FERC 61,291, September 25, 1992

License Amendment Application for Different Equipment and Transmission Line Filed bySummersville, September 25, 1995

Power Purchase Agreement with American Electric Power Approved by WV Public ServiceCommission, Case No. 96-0503-E-PC, May 21, 1996

FERC Order Amending License, 77 FERC 61,046, October 18, 1996

FERC Order Rejecting Challenge to Amendment Order by MMPPA and AWA, 78 FERC 61,051,January 21, 1997

Federal District Court Upheld Amendment, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Record Nos. 97-1376, 97-1377 and 97-2058, May 1, 1998

FERC Order Approving Final Transmission Line Plan, 84 FERC 62,008, July 2, 1998

Appendix D

d – i

Appendix D

Documents

SUMMERSVILLE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT...SUMMERSVILLE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT INTRODUCTION By Jim Price President of Noah Corporation July 2004 We set up Noah Corp.in1980 to beneﬁt