|
Toledo Bend Bi-State Alliance
c/o 210 Hillcrest Drive
Anacoco, Louisiana 71403
October 19, 1998
The Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Mail Code: HL-11.2
888 First Street NE
Washington D.C. 20426
Subject: Toledo Bend Reservoir (Project No. 2305) Water Level
References:
1. Letter from Office of Hydropower Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, dated July 31, 1998, Subject Project No. 2305—Texas and Louisiana Toledo Bend Project, Sabine River Authority—LA & TX
2. Letter from Toledo Bend Project Joint Operations Between Sabine River Authority of Texas and Sabine River Authority of Louisiana, dated September 15, 1998, in answer to reference 1
We request you issue an order, requiring the Sabine River Authorities of Louisiana and Texas to change the operating schedule of the reservoir to that operating schedule described in Simulation # 6 of the Brown & Root Operating Guide Re-evaluation Study, July 1998.
The Bi-State Alliance disagrees with portions of the information submitted by the Sabine River Authorities of Louisiana and Texas in reference 2 above. We believe some of the information is erroneous or at least misleading. Each statement with which we take exception is addressed below.
The SRA states that the present operating guide provides for prime generation May through September. What is not stated is:
The Power Sales Agreement establishes an annual requirement of an estimated prime power production of 65,700 MWH during May through September. The Power Sales Agreement does not establish a requirement for monthly power or water to produce power during the peaking period.
The present Operating Guide Rule Curve does use the following monthly allocation of water for production of prime power:
May 113,000 Ac. Ft. of water allocated for prime power generation.
June 115,000 Ac. Ft. of water allocated for prime power generation.
July 270,000 Ac. Ft. of water allocated for prime power generation.
August 290,000 Ac. Ft. of water allocated for prime power generation.
September 270,000 Ac. Ft. of water allocated for prime power generation.
Secondary power is also generated during this same period when the water level is above 172’ msl. Secondary generation frequently occurs in May and June (See Attachment 1.).
Under the present operation such generation above the monthly allocation outlined above is not counted towards the estimated prime power of 65,700 MWH.
The Operating Guide Rule Curve is established by the SRA’s. The Operating Guide Rule Curve is not a part of the contract (Power Sales Agreement) between the power companies and the SRA’s.
The data found in Attachment 1 was extracted from SRA records. The data indicate, if the secondary power produced during the peaking period had been counted towards the estimated 65,700 MWH of prime power, the estimated prime MWH would have been met in 8 additional years. Also, it would have been possible to cease generation when the water level was at or above 168’ msl in most of those years.
The power sales agreement states in Section 4.06 "To the extent water is made available by the Authorities as per Article V of this agreement, the Companies may schedule power generation as best fits their needs." (See page 5, Attachment 2.) Article V of the Power Sales Agreement is found at page 6, Attachment 2.
Article V, Section 5.05, 3rd paragraph states; "Electric generation will be scheduled in the same months that the water is made available except that upon request of the Companies and with the agreement of the Authorities, such water may be stored in the reservoir and released for power generation at a later time." Yet, when power is produced above the established water allocation, during the peaking period, that power is not counted towards the estimated 65,700 MWH of prime power. This accounting method for power production results, in many years during the period of least inflow, in the continued generation of power to "meet the 65,700 MWH of prime power", when in fact the estimated prime power stated in the Power Sales Agreement has been met or exceeded.
The SRA in their letter states that Prime Power generation in 1995 resulted in a low level of 165.95‘ msl on September 30 and a low of 165.00’ msl for the calendar year on December 30.
It was not just prime power production that took the lake to 165.99’ msl during the Peaking Period of 1995. Rather, it was the production of what the SRA classifies as secondary and prime power. SRA records show that in 1995, 65,700 MWH of power had been produced by early to mid July. However, following the accounting method described above, power production continued until the reservoir level had been reduced to 165’ msl by the end of September. The drought that followed caused the reservoir not to recover until late 1996. The reservoir level hovered between or near 165’ msl & 166’ msl for approximately one year. Had routine power production been stopped when either 168’ msl was reached or a total of 65,700 MWH had been produced during the Peaking Period of 1995, the reservoir level would likely have remained around 167’/168’ msl instead of the 165’/166’ msl level.
The SRA’s letter contradicts our assertions that businesses lose money and tax collections are adversely affected during low water level. We are investigating the tax issue at this time. We are trying to determine what factors may be affecting tax collection. Additional information will be provided as it is consolidated. However:
One marina owner reports a $14,000 loss when comparing gross receipts from the first three quarters of this year to the same period last year. He attributes this loss to low water.
Another marina owner reports having had to spend approximately $10,000 on his boat launch in order to stay open during this period of low water.
The owner of Motel 8 located near the Pendleton Bridge on Texas Hwy. 21 reported that The Skeeter Boat Bass tournament had been cancelled due to low water level. The owner stated this cancellation cost his establishment $5,000 in room rental.
Another Texas marina owner states she is losing business because of cars and boats damaged at her launch.
The SRAs state that the Toledo Bend Project Joint Operations Board at its August 24, 1998, meeting accepted the Operating Guidelines Re-Evaluation Study and no changes to the current Operating Guide were made. What they do not state is:
Members of the Toledo Bend Bi-State Alliance were present at that meeting and also heard the briefing by Brown & Root. The members of the Joint Board had not had any previous access to the Brown & Root Study. In fact they were not told until late in the meeting that a copy of the study had been placed at each members desk location. The information in the briefing did not provide adequate data for a board member to make an intelligent recommendation concerning change of the Operating Guide at that time. As you can see from the study, Brown & Root made no recommendations, they only stated their conclusions. The undersigned made a brief statement after Brown & Root completed their presentation and did not recommend changing the guide at that time. We did not believe anyone had had adequate opportunity to study the information at that point.
Note: A month after the meeting of the Joint Operations Board, the Board of Commissioners Sabine River Authority of Louisiana met on September 24, 1998. With the exception of the two members of the Joint Operations Board, none of the Commissioners had been provided a copy of the referenced study. At that meeting the undersigned made a presentation concerning the study, the purpose of the reservoir and the amendment to the Louisiana State Constitution that authorized Louisiana’s participation in the Toledo Bend Project. The Board of Commissioners was requested to adopt Simulation # 6 of the Brown & Root Study as the new Operating Guide Rule Curve. Brown & Root also presented their briefing. After these presentations the Commissioners appeared ready to adopt Simulation # 6. However, they deferred the decision until they could meet with an attorney.
The SRA states in their September 15, 1998, letter that the present Power Sales Agreement prohibits curtailment of peaking generation during the May-September period at any elevation higher than 162.2’ msl.
There are no words in the Power Sales Agreement which state the Authorities can not cease generation at any level.
You are again referred to Article V of the Power Sales Agreement. Please read closely Section 5.05. This section clearly states the reservoir will normally be operated between elevation 162.2’ msl and 172.0’ msl. Insofar as practicable, the reservoir will be maintained above elevation 169’ msl. It goes on to say the Authorities will cooperate with the Companies in obtaining maximum production consistent with Authorities’ other obligations. (Emphasis added).
Recreation is definitely another obligation under the Louisiana Constitution and the FERC License.
The license to operate this dam was issued by your office to the SRAs of Louisiana and Texas, not the power companies.
The SRA further states that the Brown & Root study points out that the reservoir is a water conservation project with hydroelectric benefits as well as having various other operating considerations and that, considering the complexity of the inter-relationships between these considerations, current operation of the reservoir is in no way deficient.
Brown & Root simply did not state the complete purpose of the reservoir. According to the Feasibility Study conducted by Forrest and Cotton Engineers in 1958 (see Attachment 4), this reservoir was built for one purpose. There were four parts to that one purpose. In volume 1 of that study the purpose is stated, "Purpose: Hydroelectric power, water conservation, improvement to navigation and recreation". (Emphasis added).
The Brown & Root Study of 1998 states " Increasing the Reservoir level in the spring (current Guide Rule) and including a May through September bench for power production that is higher than the current 162.2 feet (Simulations 6 and 8) appears to provide a good balance between power production and Reservoir level. This reflects the professional judgement that is part of current operation during dry periods. The risk in adopting this as a standard operation is that, during dry periods, it may not be possible to achieve full pool in May or June, resulting in minimized power production."
Please refer to Table 3-6.2 Comparison of Key results – Simulation # 6 to Simulation # 1. (Attachment 3). From this table you can compare current operations to both Simulation # 1 and Simulation # 6. You will note that Simulation # 6 provides the best compromise for operation of the reservoir. Actual operation of the lake was much closer to Simulation # 6 than to Simulation # 1. While Simulation # 6 results in more days when the water level goes below 168’ msl, there are fewer days below 167’ msl, 166’ msl and no days below 165’ msl. (Please note we asked Brown & Root and the SRA to provide a spreadsheet illustrating the number of times and how far below 168’ msl the water level dropped in Simulation # 6. That information we believe is pertinent as the computer simulation will place any fraction below 168’ msl as below 168’msl. If the water level goes only to 167.99’ most of the time, that is very minor. We have not been provided that information.) The number of days the water level was below 166’ msl in Simulation # 6 was one day. 165.99’ msl was the lowest water level shown in Simulation # 6. Data from actual operations indicates 50 days below 165’ msl and Simulation #1 indicates 1,086 days below 165’ msl.
Simulation # 6 also provides for the highest annual power production. Simulation # 6 indicates two more years when the estimated prime power was not achieved than was actually recorded. (Note: this is in accordance with the method the computer calculated data. If you refer to attachment 1 you will notice that in actual practice there were five additional years where the SRA information indicates the estimated prime was not achieved.) Simulation # 6 indicates that the monthly water allocation required to produce estimated prime power was reached more frequently than it was attained in actual practice.
The SRA states they have submitted and comply with recreational plans in accordance with Article 35 of the FERC license.
The SRA may have complied with providing facilities along the shoreline but that does not ensure that individual landowners have access to the lake from their property or that marinas can access the lake from their landings when lake levels fluctuate as they do under the present operating schedule. We have also been unable to obtain a copy of or locate a zoning plan for the reservoir.
The SRA states the Oilman’s Bass Classic was a success due to 780 of 800 registered teams attending this year’s tournament. However it should be noted:
In a three-hour period of time, 550 of the participants of the Oilman’s Bass Classic signed a petition supporting 168’ msl as the minimum water level for routine power generation.
Tournament personnel repeatedly issued an SRA caution to participants of hazards resulting from low water. These announcements were further reinforced by large warning bulletins posted at every boat launch and business on both sides of the lake.
The SRA approved emergency spending of $25,000 to dig out launches at the SRA facilities and suspended launching fees as many private launches could not be used due to low water. To remain open for business, some marina owners spent funds to dig out their launches. Were it not for the low water, these funds would have been profit, not operating funds.
One couple reported the wife was thrown from the boat when they hit a submerged stump when approaching a boat landing.
One marina owner in Texas reported three boats had their motors knocked off by stumps. (The owners of the boats were not identified.)
The SRA discusses the funding for the dam and states "This long term (50 year) Power Sales Agreement provides for a guaranteed 65,700 MWH of peaking power." (Emphasis added).
That is a blatant misstatement of the Power Sales Agreement. There is no guarantee for any amount of power. There is an estimated amount of prime and secondary power, please refer to Section 1.16 Power, and Section 1.17 Project, of the Power Sales Agreement. (See Attachment 2, page 3.)
Adopting Simulation # 6 will not result in the Sabine River Authorities being any less likely to make bond payments than the current Operating Guide. In fact, the data shows more power should be produced under the criteria of Simulation # 6 than is produced under the present Operating Guide.
Recreation and fish spawn are better served under the criteria of Simulation # 6.
Adoption of Simulation # 6 would provide better assurance that water would be available for fire fighting as well as for domestic use. (Note: According to Mayor Freeman, had a tropical storm not brought rain on September 11, 1998, the water system of Many, Louisiana, was within days from being unable to draw water from Toledo Bend. The reservoir was at 163.77’ mean sea level. Had the rain not come when it did in the volume it did, an estimated 40 percent of the residents of Sabine Parish would have been without water for drinking or fire protection.)
In summary, our request to have 168’ msl established as the minimum water level for routine power generation (three exceptions noted) is in no way an attempt to have power generation discontinued at this reservoir. Power production is very necessary to the operation and welfare of the reservoir. We simply want to see the recreational benefits of the reservoir placed on an even scale with power production. The investments by home and camp owners, marinas and other commercial establishments are large. The adverse affect of a water level below 168’ msl is an undue hardship. We lose the use of our property for the purposes that we purchased it, tourism is reduced, profits are lost for reasons such as lack of access to rental boat stalls etc., increased cost of doing business, e.g. increased maintenance costs all because of low water level.
Adoption of Simulation # 6 of the Brown & Root Operating Guidelines Re-evaluation Study will provide the best compromise to attain the varied operating goals of Toledo Bend.
Again, we request the FERC issue an order requiring the Sabine River Authorities change the Operating Guide for the reservoir to the criteria established in Simulation # 6 of the Brown & Root Operating Guidelines Re-Evaluation Study dated July 1998.
Sincerely,
Larry E. Kelly
Chairman
Power Production
Prime Period
During the Peaking Period the Guide Rule Curve requires that only the following acre-feet of water used per month be counted as prime power. Secondary Power is produced during the Peaking Period only when the lake level is above 172’ msl and the prime production requirement is exceeded. Note: The Power Sales Agreement states that the Prime Period is May-September and that an estimated 65,700 MWH of prime power will be produced annually (See Section 1.16 & 1.17 Power Sales Agreement.)
May 113,000 Acre Feet
June 115,000 Acre Feet
July 270,000 Acre Feet
August 290,000 Acre Feet
September 270,000 Acre Feet
Power Produced May - September 1973 - 1997 in MWH
Year Prime Secondary Total
1997 56,515 43,067 99,582 *
1996 11,733 0 11,733
1995 65,764 59,771 125,535
1994 65,700 24,214 89,914
1993 58,419 72,363 130,782 *
1992 61,778 12,790 74,568 *
1991 55,319 66,661 121,971 *
1990 54,207 82,916 137,123 *
1989 67,843 ** 91,546 159,389 **
(3,292 MWH Dec.)
1988 27,693 0 27,693
1987 46,867 0 46,867
1986 107,062 0 107,062 ***
(No secondary?)
1985 57,664 0 57,664
1984 31,105 0 31,105
1983 44,967 23,227 68,194 *
1982 65,700 0 65,700
(NOTES)
1981 57,010 0 57,010
1980 44168 29,416 73,584 *
(**5,966 MWH Mar.)
1979 71,876 67,546 139,422
1978 50,473 0 50,473
1977 74,857 0 74,857 ***
(No Secondary)
1976 130,950 0 130,950
1975 74,466 72,085 146,551 ****
(Sec & Prime?)
1974 70,562 31,726 102,288 ****
(Sec & Prime?)
1973 65,520 80,860 146,380 *
* = Yr. Secondary Power was produced in the Peaking Period.
** = Yr. Prime Power was produced in months other than the Peaking Period.
*** = Yr. Prime Power exceeded estimate and no secondary power was produced.
**** = Yr. Prime Power exceeded the estimate & secondary power was produced.
If all power produced in the Peaking period had been counted through the production of 65,700 MWH there would have been 8 additional years when the estimated Prime Power capability would have been met. These figures are based on 5 years fewer data than was used in the Brown & Root study.
>>> See Attachments
|
