162 FERC ¶ 61,236

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before Commissioners: Kevin J. McIntyre, Chairman;

 Cheryl A. LaFleur, Neil Chatterjee,

Robert F. Powelson, and Richard Glick.

PacifiCorp Project Nos. 2082-062 and 

14803-000

ORDER AMENDING LICENSE AND DEFERRING CONSIDERATION 

OF TRANSFER APPLICATION

(Issued March 15, 2018)

On September 23, 2016, and supplemented on March 1, June 23, December 1, and

December 4, 2017, PacifiCorp, licensee for the Klamath Hydroelectric Project No. 2082,1

together with the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (Renewal Corporation), filed an 

application to amend and partially transfer the project license from PacifiCorp to the 

Renewal Corporation. Specifically, PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation propose 

that PacifiCorp’s existing license be amended to administratively remove four 

developments, create and administratively place the four developments into a new license 

for the Lower Klamath Project No. 14803, and transfer the Lower Klamath Project 

No. 14803 license to the Renewal Corporation. 

For the reasons discussed below, we grant the application to amend the project 

license, and defer our decision on the proposed partial license transfer.

I. Background

The 169-megawatt (MW) Klamath Project is located primarily on the Klamath 

River in Klamath County, Oregon and Siskiyou County, California and includes federal 

lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). The project consists of eight developments: seven 

developments with hydroelectric generation and one non-generating development. From 

upstream to downstream, the eight developments are the East Side, West Side, Keno 

(non-generating), J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, Fall Creek, and Iron Gate 

developments. All but the Fall Creek development are on the Klamath River between 

 1 The California Oregon Power Company, 13 FPC 1 (1954).
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 2 -

river miles (RM) 190.1 and 254.3.2

 The Fall Creek development is on Fall Creek, a 

tributary to the Klamath River at RM 196.3, about 0.4 miles south of the OregonCalifornia border. 

The original license for the Klamath Project No. 2082 was issued on January 28, 

1954,3 and expired on February 28, 2006. The project has been operating under annual 

licenses since that time.4

 

On February 25, 2004, PacifiCorp filed an application for a new license to 

continue to operate and maintain the Klamath Project No. 2082. In December 2005, the 

Commission issued a notice that the license application was ready for environmental 

analysis and soliciting comments, interventions, protests, terms, conditions, prescriptions, 

and recommendations. In response to the notice, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) filed preliminary mandatory 

fishway prescriptions under Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).5 BLM filed 

preliminary mandatory conditions under section 4(e) of the FPA.

6

 

In November 2007, Commission staff issued a final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) on the application. The final EIS analyzed alternatives that included 

decommissioning and physically removing the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, 

and Iron Gate developments, but ultimately recommended issuing a new license that 

included those four developments with additional mitigation measures.7

 

 2 River miles are measured from the mouth or confluence of a river (RM 0) to a 

point upstream. 

3 The California Oregon Power Company, 13 FPC 1. On June 16, 1961, the 

license was transferred to Pacific Power and Light Company (25 FPC 1154) and then to 

PacifiCorp on November 23, 1988 (45 FERC ¶ 62,146). The original license order was 

for the construction of the Big Bend No. 2 development, also known as the J.C. Boyle 

development. Later orders incorporated the other project developments into the license.

4 16 U.S.C. § 808(a)(1) (2012).

5 16 U.S.C. § 811 (2012).

6 16 U.S.C. § 797(e)(2012).

7 The staff alternative recommended issuing a new license for the Fall Creek 

development, decommissioning the East Side and West Side developments, and 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 3 -

PacifiCorp evaluated the mandatory fishway prescriptions, section 4(e) mandatory 

conditions, and Commission staff’s recommended conditions for relicensing, which it 

determined together would cause the project to operate at an annual net loss.8

 Thereafter, 

PacifiCorp entered into negotiations with federal and state resource agencies, tribes, local 

governments, nongovernmental organizations, and irrigation districts in order to evaluate 

alternatives to relicensing. 

In November 2008, Oregon, California, U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), 

U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce), and PacifiCorp developed a framework, 

known as the Agreement in Principle, for the potential removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 

No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate developments to restore the lower portion of the 

Klamath River to a “free-flowing” condition. In February 2010, PacifiCorp and 47 other 

parties, including Oregon, California, Interior, and NMFS, executed the Klamath 

Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), which provided for the 

removal of the four developments after passage of federal legislation and approval by the

Secretary of the Interior. 

Congress, however, did not enact the required legislation by January 2016, which 

triggered the Settlement Agreement’s dispute resolution procedures.9

 Following several 

dispute resolution meetings, Oregon, California, Interior, Commerce, and PacifiCorp 

proposed amendments to the Settlement Agreement that would eliminate the need for 

federal legislation and instead achieve dam removal through a license transfer and 

surrender process. 

On April 6, 2016, PacifiCorp, California, Oregon, Interior, NMFS, the Yurok 

Tribe, and the Karuk Tribe executed the Amended Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement 

Agreement (Amended Settlement Agreement).10 The Amended Settlement Agreement 

 

removing the Keno development from the project license because it is not necessary for 

power generation. 

8 See Klamath Hydroelectric Project Agreement in Principle, Nov. 24, 2008, at 5.

9 The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which was executed concurrently 

with the Settlement Agreement and was part of the basis for federal legislation to remove 

the dams, expired on December 31, 2015.

10 PacifiCorp attached the Amended Settlement Agreement to its May 6, 2016 

motion to hold the relicensing proceeding in abeyance and to its September 23, 2016 

application for amendment and transfer. The parties have provided the Commission with 

the Amended Settlement Agreement for informational purposes only. The Amended 

Settlement Agreement itself is not for Commission approval.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 4 -

sets out a process by which PacifiCorp would transfer the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, 

Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate developments (with a total of 163 MW) to the Renewal 

Corporation, which would then seek to physically remove the developments under the 

Commission’s license surrender procedures. 

On May 6, 2016, PacifiCorp requested that the Commission hold the relicensing 

proceeding for the Klamath Project in abeyance in accordance with the Amended 

Settlement Agreement. On June 16, 2016, the Commission granted PacifiCorp’s 

motion.11

II. Application and Amended Settlement Agreement

A. Application

On September 23, 2016, PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation filed an 

application to amend the Klamath Project No. 2082 to remove all references to the J.C. 

Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate developments from the current project

license and boundary, create a new Lower Klamath Project No. 14803 license that would 

include those four developments, and transfer the Lower Klamath Project No. 14803 to 

the Renewal Corporation. On the same day, the Renewal Corporation filed an 

application to surrender the Lower Klamath Project license and physically remove those 

four developments from the Klamath River. The transfer and surrender applications, and 

the effects associated with dam removal, are being addressed in separate Commission 

proceedings.

12 The applicants ask that, after our approval of the license amendment and 

transfer, we allow six months for the Renewal Corporation to accept the license for the 

Lower Klamath Project before acting on the surrender application.13

On March 1, June 23, December 1, and December 4, 2017, PacifiCorp and the 

Renewal Corporation supplemented the amendment and transfer application in response 

to additional information requests from Commission staff on the Renewal Corporation’s

 11 PacifiCorp, 155 FERC ¶ 61,271 (2016). 

12 The applicants also request that upon approval of the license transfer, the 

Commission allow six months for the Renewal Corporation to accept the license, because 

the Amended Settlement Agreement requires that the Renewal Corporation satisfy certain 

requirements before accepting the license. The applicants additionally request that the 

effective date of the amendment be made concurrent with the Renewal Corporation’s 

acceptance of the new license for the Lower Klamath Project. We will address these 

requests with the applications for transfer and surrender.

13 See Renewal Corporation’s September 23 Application.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 5 -

legal, technical, and financial capacity to fulfill its contractual obligations under the 

Amended Settlement Agreement. 

B. Amended Settlement Agreement

As noted above, PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation filed the license 

amendment and transfer application in accordance with the Amended Settlement 

Agreement, which provides that PacifiCorp will continue to operate and maintain the 

proposed Lower Klamath Project and will assume the financial and legal liabilities for the 

developments pending surrender of the transferred license.14 PacifiCorp and the Renewal 

Corporation have entered into an operation and maintenance agreement allowing 

PacifiCorp to continue operating the four dams for the benefit of its customers following 

transfer to the Renewal Corporation. However, the Amended Settlement Agreement 

provides that PacifiCorp will not be a co-applicant or co-licensee for the Renewal 

Corporation’s surrender application (although, as discussed below, it allows for that 

possibility) and that the Renewal Corporation alone will remove the dams.

15 The parties 

state that they view this division of the Klamath Project as a necessary precondition of 

the request for approval of the partial license transfer.

The Amended Settlement Agreement provides that, before the license transfer will 

become effective, the Renewal Corporation must demonstrate to PacifiCorp and the 

States that a number of conditions have been met.16 These conditions include the 

following: (a) the Renewal Corporation has provided notice of completion of the Definite 

Plan;

17 (b) the Renewal Corporation has met the requirements of section 7.1.3 

(indemnification of PacifiCorp, Oregon, and California) and Appendix L (contractor 

qualifications) of the Amended Settlement Agreement; (c) PacifiCorp and the States 

agree that the Renewal Corporation has made sufficient and timely progress in obtaining 

necessary permits and approvals to effectuate facilities removal; (d) the Renewal 

Corporation, the States, and PacifiCorp are assured that sufficient funding is available to 

carry out facilities removal; (e) the Renewal Corporation, the States, and PacifiCorp are 

each assured that their respective risks associated with facilities removal have been 

sufficiently mitigated consistent with Appendix L; (f) the Renewal Corporation, the 

States, and PacifiCorp agree that no order of a court or the Commission is in effect that 

 14 Amended Settlement Agreement at 7.1.6.

15 Id. at 7.1.7.

16 Id. at 7.1.4.

17 The Definite Plan, described in more detail below, is to include a detailed plan 

and timetable for dam decommissioning and removal.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 6 -

would prevent facilities removal; (g) the Renewal Corporation and PacifiCorp have 

executed documents conveying the property and rights necessary to carry out facilities 

removal; and (h) the Renewal Corporation accepts license transfer under the conditions 

specified by the Commission in its order approving transfer.

The Amended Settlement Agreement provides that the target date to begin dam

removal is January 1, 2020.18 It also states that the Renewal Corporation will remove the 

four developments in accordance with a decommissioning plan and will have three 

sources of funding for decommissioning and restoration activities: (1) an Oregon 

PacifiCorp Customer Surcharge; (2) a California PacifiCorp Customer Surcharge; and 

(3) a California Bond Funding measure. The Oregon and California Customer 

Surcharges, which will be administered by each state’s Public Utilities Commission

(PUC), are charges to PacifiCorp’s customers in those states to generate funds for dam 

removal. The Amended Settlement Agreement states that the California Bond Funding is 

part of a state water bond that will fund, up to $250 million, the difference between the 

funds raised by the state customer surcharges and the actual cost to complete removal of 

the four dams.

19 In total, these three sources of funding will make $450 million available 

to the Renewal Corporation, which is the maximum monetary contribution of the States 

of California and Oregon. 

The Amended Settlement Agreement provides that the three accounts will be 

managed by trustees selected by the states’ PUCs, who will manage the funds using 

instructions prepared by the states in consultation with the federal parties. Instructions 

will dictate, among other things, whether and when to disburse funds to the Renewal 

Corporation. 

III. Public Notice, Interventions, and Comments

On October 5, 2017, the Commission issued public notice of the license 

amendment and transfer application, establishing November 6, 2017, as the deadline for 

filing comments, interventions, and protests. Timely notices of intervention were filed by 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ), Oregon Water Resources 

Department, California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and 

 18 Amended Settlement Agreement at 7.3.1.

19 Id at 4.1.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 7 -

Wildlife, Interior, California State Water Resources Control Board, NMFS, and U.S. 

Forest Service.20

The following tribes, local governments, non-governmental entities, and 

individuals filed timely, unopposed motions to intervene: Hoopa Valley Tribe; Karuk 

Tribe; Yurok Tribe; Siskiyou County, California; Klamath County, Oregon; American 

Whitewater; Friends of the River; Klamath Irrigation District; Klamath Water Users 

Association; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations together with the 

Institute for Fisheries Resources; Siskiyou County Water Users Association (Siskiyou 

Water Users); Trout Unlimited together with American Rivers, California Trout, 

Northern California Council of Fly Fishers International, Salmon River Restoration 

Council, and Sustainable Northwest; WaterWatch of Oregon; Bart Kent together with 

Mary Cunningham; Chrissie Reynolds; Jan Hamilton; John and Loy Beardsmore; Mark 

and Lisa Fischer; Phil Reynolds; and William Jackson.21 Klamath Riverkeeper, Klamath 

Tribes, Kikaceki Land Conservancy, Oregon Wild, and Humboldt County, California, 

filed late motions to intervene, which were unopposed. The Commission granted the late 

motions to intervene.22 Congressman Jared Huffman, other non-governmental entities, 

and hundreds of individuals filed comments on the proposed amendment and transfer, as 

well as on the proposed surrender application to physically remove the four dams.

Several intervenors and commenters support the amendment and transfer 

application and ask that the Commission take prompt action to ensure that the removal of 

the Lower Klamath Project developments commences no later than January 1, 2020. 

They maintain that the Renewal Corporation has secured the financial, legal, and 

technical capabilities and resources needed and conclude the license amendment and 

transfer is in the public interest and would ultimately result in benefits to Klamath-origin 

salmon, namely by removing physical barriers, increasing fish habitat, and improving 

water quality. 

The Klamath, Hoopa Valley, Karuk, and Yurok Tribes all filed comments 

supporting the proposed amendment, transfer, and surrender of the Lower Klamath 

Project developments. They state that removal of the dams will restore over 400 miles of 

salmon habitat in the Klamath River, which in turn will result in improvements in human 

health in their communities, including decreased rates of diabetes and heart disease. 

 20 Under Rule 214(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the 

agencies filing timely notices of intervention became parties to the proceeding upon the 

timely filing of their notices of intervention. 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(a)(2) (2017).

21 Timely, unopposed motions to intervene are granted by operation of Rule 214(c) 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(c) (2017).

22 December 12, 2017, and January 18, 2018, Notices Granting Late Intervention. 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 8 -

They indicate that many tribal members also rely on salmon and other anadromous fish 

for their livelihoods, and the Yurok Tribe hopes that dam removal will allow it to 

reestablish its commercial fishery, which ceased operation in 2016 due to low salmon 

returns. Additionally, they state that salmon has significant religious and cultural 

significance to the tribes of the Klamath River Basin.

Many commenters assert that the project has operated under the existing license 

without proper mitigation for adverse impacts to fish and other aquatic resources in the 

basin. They state that dam removal will improve water quality in the Klamath River. 

Specifically, the Yurok Tribe explains that warmer and more stagnant water in the 

reservoirs during the fall delays salmon spawning and hatching, which increases the risk 

of exposing juvenile salmonids to higher spring and summer water temperatures and high 

concentrations of disease-causing spores and toxic algae blooms.

Other commenters support dam removal for economic reasons, arguing that 

keeping the dams in place would likely require costly upgrades, including the 

development of fish passage facilities. They allege that, given the relatively low power 

output of the dams, customers would be charged higher rates to finance any upgrades. 

They also state that dam removal and restoration will create hundreds of jobs in the area, 

increase tourism and recreational fishing industries, and may also result in lower 

electricity costs. American Whitewater and others support the amendment, transfer, and 

surrender of the license in order to provide for enhanced recreation, including the 

opportunity for multi-day boating trips on a freely-flowing river.

Those filing motions to intervene in opposition to the proposal include Siskiyou 

Water Users, John and Loy Beardsmore, Chrissy Reynolds, Jan Hamilton, William 

Jackson, Phil Reynolds, Mark and Lisa Fischer, Bart Kent and Mary Cunningham, and 

Siskiyou County. Numerous commenters also oppose the amendment and transfer 

application. Many question whether the Renewal Corporation is technically and 

financially capable of operating the project, removing the developments, and restoring 

the environment. Siskiyou County suggests that the Renewal Corporation is a ‘shell’ 

corporation, created for the purpose of shielding PacifiCorp, California, and Oregon from 

liability associated with dam removal, with limited resources to address costs in excess of 

those anticipated.

Others question the science and engineering in support of dam removal, arguing 

that the developments have not caused declines in anadromous fisheries nor have they 

adversely affected water quality. Further, they maintain that dam removal will adversely 

affect the salmon fishery, release toxic sediment downstream, expose tribal burial 

grounds and artifacts, increase flooding, reduce downstream flows, affect lake recreation, 

and reduce property values. They also maintain that dam removal will adversely affect

private wells, the local tax base, access to potable water, water storage for fighting fires, 

drought and irrigation, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife; will eliminate a source of 

renewable power, resulting in an increase in electricity costs; and will affect local 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 9 -

roadways and traffic, and eliminate jobs. Several commenters suggest that feasible 

alternatives to dam removal exist and have not been sufficiently considered. The 

Kikaceki Land Conservancy and John and Loy Beardsmore note that ceremonial and 

burial sites of the Shasta Nation may be affected by dam removal.

Several commenters raise issues related to the physical decommissioning of the

four dams, including: Commission staff’s evaluation of the environmental and 

socioeconomic effects of the proposed surrender; the conditions that the Commission 

would impose on decommissioning to address the potential loss of property values and to 

improve recreation; and the consistency of dam removal with various federal statutes, the 

Klamath Water Compact, and water rights. Siskiyou County and several local property 

owners state that the Commission cannot transfer the license to the Renewal Corporation 

without completing an environmental review of the entire river system under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that adequately discusses adverse impacts of dam 

removal and alternatives to dam removal.

The Siskiyou Water Users believe that dam removal will result in a substantial 

reduction in flows that will adversely affect salmon and other wildlife in the river. The 

group believes this reduction in flows may also lead to increased pressure to retrieve 

additional water from the Siskiyou Water Users for the benefit of those salmon. The 

Siskiyou Water Users also state that the Amended Settlement Agreement has not been 

approved by the California PUC; that the Renewal Corporation’s dam removal plans will 

violate NEPA, minimum flow release requirements at Iron Gate dam, and the Klamath 

Water Compact, and will lead to the creation of additional water storage projects in the 

basin along the tributaries of the Sycan, Williamson, and Sprague Rivers. The Siskiyou 

Water Users alternatively recommend that the four dams be relicensed to PacifiCorp or 

another entity.

Siskiyou County also notes the potential for adverse impacts, including: release of 

contaminated sediment and its impacts to fish and aquatic resources; the removal of water 

storage that aids in drought mitigation and wildfire protection in the county; increased 

risk of flooding; lower property values; and lower local government revenues. Siskiyou 

County also questions the research supporting the conclusion that dam removal will 

benefit salmon. 

The Klamath Irrigation District (District) filed comments regarding the Amended 

Settlement Agreement and the related Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement and

seeks to ensure that these agreements are carried out and properly considered by the 

Commission to determine the public interest. Although it supports the Amended 

Settlement Agreement, the District expresses concern with other parties’ commitments to 

mitigating the adverse consequences that implementation of the Amended Settlement 

Agreement may have on the District. 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 10 -

The Klamath Water Users Association indicates it has no position on the 

application, but is extremely interested in the future of Keno Dam, which is a significant 

asset to its members for irrigation purposes. Klamath County, Oregon states that it does 

not object to the amendment and transfer, provided that the Renewal Corporation files 

additional information regarding its ability to fund and operate the project in the event the 

Commission fails to authorize surrender of the Lower Klamath Project. Klamath County 

adds that it should not have to absorb the loss of property tax revenue that will result 

from the transfer of the Lower Klamath Project facilities to the Renewal Corporation, a 

non-profit, and thus recommends that the Renewal Corporation make a payment to the 

county in lieu of taxes.

By letters dated October 18 and 26, 2017, Commission staff invited tribes with 

interest in either the amendment and transfer, or surrender proceedings to meet. A total 

of six tribes requested to meet with Commission staff: the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the 

Karuk Tribe, the Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Indian 

Reservation, the Klamath Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, and the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma. 

The meetings were public noticed on December 29, 2017, and January 18, 2018. Tribal 

meetings with all tribes except for the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, were held from 

January 16-19, 2018, at the tribes’ office locations in Oregon and California. A meeting 

with the Modoc Tribe was held on February 5, 2018.23 

The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the amendment and transfer application but 

opposes the transfer of ownership of the Iron Gate Hatchery to the California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, as provided for in section 7.6.6 of the Amended Settlement 

Agreement. The Tribe maintains that operation of the hatchery is necessary to fulfill 

federal trust responsibilities owed to the Tribe and that control of the hatchery should be 

maintained by the federal government, acting through Interior.

The Quartz Valley Tribe expresses concern about the timing of dam removal and 

its impact on salmon and migratory bird species in the Scott River Watershed.24 The 

Klamath, Karuk, and Yurok Tribes are generally supportive of dam removal based on its 

intended effect of opening up hundreds of miles of habitat to salmon, steelhead, and other 

anadromous fish used by the tribes for subsistence, religious practices, and commercial 

activity. The Modoc Tribe expresses concerns about water rights, the Renewal 

Corporation’s liability for damage associated with dam decommissioning and removal, 

the potential for discovery of sensitive cultural resources, and the loss of water storage in 

the reservoirs for fire-fighting.

 23 Written transcripts from these meetings, as well as a presentation from the 

Yurok Tribe, were placed in the Commission record for these proceedings. 

24 The Scott River is a major tributary to the Klamath River in northern California.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 11 -

Many of the comments we received in this proceeding concern the 

decommissioning and removal of the Lower Klamath Project facilities from the river, and 

the environmental impacts from those actions. Those comments are beyond the scope of 

this order, which considers only the application for amendment of PacifiCorp’s license. 

Those impacts will be considered when the Commission takes up the applications for 

transfer and surrender of the Lower Klamath Project facilities. 

IV. Discussion

As explained below, we find it appropriate at this stage of the proceeding to 

consider only the application to amend the license for the existing Klamath Project to 

create the new Lower Klamath Project, and are thus separating the amendment

application from the application to transfer the Lower Klamath Project to the Renewal 

Corporation. 

We see no reason why the proposed amendment should not be approved. The 

amendment would simply move administratively the four dams and their associated 

exhibits and articles from the license for the Klamath Project to the new license for the 

Lower Klamath Project, still under license to PacifiCorp, and without material change. 

To accomplish this, PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation provided certain revised 

exhibits and draft license articles to be included in each license. We have reviewed their

proposed changes and generally agree with them, except as discussed below. 

As noted, the license for the Klamath Project expired on February 28, 2006, and 

the project has been operating on annual licenses since. The proposed amendment does

not alter the license term for the Klamath Project and, likewise, the newly-created Lower 

Klamath Project should have the same license term. Therefore, both projects will 

continue operating under annual licenses until the Commission takes further action on 

them.

A. Amendment

1. Klamath Hydroelectric Project No. 2082

a. Revised Exhibits

Under the proposed amendment, the East Side, West Side, Keno, and Fall Creek 

developments, and appurtenant facilities, would remain part of the Klamath Project. The 

amendment application includes a revised Exhibit M which reflects these four 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 12 -

developments.25 PacifiCorp states that it is in the process of revising the Exhibit K and L 

drawings that show the revised project boundary and features. In this order we approve 

the revised Exhibit M and require the licensee to file revised Exhibits K and L drawings 

for Commission approval, to reflect the four developments that remain in the license for 

the Klamath Project No. 2082. The revised Exhibit K and L drawings must comply with 

sections 4.39 and 4.41(g) and (h) of the Commission’s regulations.26

b. License Articles 

The license as amended over the years since its issuance was subject to terms and 

conditions set forth in Form L-6, December 15, 1953, entitled “Terms and Conditions of 

License for Unconstructed Major Project Affecting Navigable Waters and Lands of the 

United States,” described as Articles 1 through 27, in addition to individual articles 28 

through 73. Previous amendment orders deleted six of the individual articles: 39 through 

43, and 63. In the current proceeding, 13 additional articles will be removed as discussed 

herein. For consistency purposes we will preserve the numbering of the articles in this 

proceeding.

Commission staff reviewed the proposed changes to license articles included in 

the application. We find the articles to be consistent with the Commission’s ongoing 

oversight of these facilities. Therefore in this order, we remove the articles that are 

specific to the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate developments from 

the Klamath Project No. 2082 license and include them in the new license for the Lower 

Klamath Project No. 14803. The specific articles to be removed from the Klamath 

Project license are Articles 28, 31-34, 36, 44-46, 49-51, and 52.

 25 At the time the project was licensed, the naming conventions the Commission 

used were different. Exhibit K referred to project maps, currently referred to as 

Exhibit G in 18 C.F.R. § 4.41(h); Exhibit L referred to general design drawings, currently

referred to as Exhibit F in 18 C.F.R. § 4.41(g); and Exhibit M referred to the project 

description, currently referred to as Exhibit A in 18 C.F.R. § 4.41(b) (2017).

26 We note that there are minor discrepancies in the detailed descriptions of project 

facilities included in the filings in this proceeding, the Final EIS, various operation 

reports, and previously-approved exhibit drawings for the project. These discrepancies 

must be resolved upon the filing of revised Exhibits K and L, as applicable, as required 

by this order. 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 13 -

c. Authorized Installed Capacity and Annual Charges

As amended, the Klamath Project has a total authorized installed capacity of

6 MW. The Commission collects annual charges from licensees for administration of 

Part I of the Federal Power Act.27 To reflect the revised authorized installed capacity, 

this order revises Article 35(a) of the license, which provides for the collection of such 

funds.

As amended, the Klamath Project includes 82.0 acres of federal land administered 

by Reclamation. None of the federal land in the amended project boundary contains

project transmission lines. The Commission collects annual charges from licensees for 

the use of federal lands. Accordingly, this order makes the following changes to 

Article 35: revises item (b) to reflect 82.0 acres of federal lands used by the project for

other than transmission line use; removes item (c) since the 5.75 acres of federal lands for 

transmission line use would be under the new license for the Lower Klamath Project, and 

re-labels item (d) which provides for the collection of compensation for the use of a 

government dam, as (c).

2. Lower Klamath Project No. 14803

a. Revised Exhibits

As amended, the Lower Klamath Project includes the following four 

developments: J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate, and appurtenant 

facilities. The amendment application and supplemental filings included a revised 

Exhibit M which describes the project features. PacifiCorp states that it is in the process 

of preparing the Exhibit K and L drawings that show the project boundary and project 

features. Therefore, in this order we approve the revised Exhibit M and require the 

licensee to file for Commission approval revised Exhibits K, and L, as applicable, to 

reflect these developments.28 

b. License Articles

The Lower Klamath Project No. 14803 should be subject to all the articles under 

the Klamath Project No. 2082, with the exception of those articles that specifically 

 27 16 U.S.C. § 803(e) (2012).

28 As discussed above, minor discrepancies in the detailed description of project 

facilities exist among the various documents we have reviewed as part of this proceeding. 

These discrepancies must be resolved upon the filing of revised Exhibits K and L, as 

applicable, as required by this order. The revised Exhibit K and L drawings must comply 

with sections 4.39 and 4.41(g) and (h) of the Commission’s regulations.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 14 -

pertain to the developments that would remain under the Klamath Project (these articles 

include: 38, 55-57, 60, and 66-71). Therefore, the Lower Klamath Project is subject to 

the terms and conditions set forth in Form L-6, December 15, 1953, described as 

Articles 1 through 27, in addition to individual articles 28-37, 44-54, 58, 59, 61-65, 

and 72-73. 

In addition, we revise Article 35(a), (b) and (c), which address the annual charges 

due for this project, as discussed below.

c. Authorized Installed Capacity and Annual Charges

As amended, the Lower Klamath Project has a total authorized installed capacity 

of 163 MW. As noted, the Commission collects annual charges from licensees for 

administration of Part I of the Federal Power Act. License article 35(a) for this project 

provides for the collection of such funds.

The Lower Klamath Project No. 14803 occupies 395.09 acres of federal land, 

other than for transmission line right-of-way and 5.75 acres of federal lands for 

transmission line right-of-way. These federal lands are under the administration of the 

BLM. The Commission collects annual charges from licensees for the use of federal 

lands. License articles 35(b) and (c) for this project provide for the collection of these 

funds, respectively.

d. Licensee for the Lower Klamath Project

Until the Commission takes action on the transfer application, PacifiCorp is and 

will remain the sole licensee for the Lower Klamath Hydroelectric Project.

B. Transfer 

Section 8 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),29 which governs license transfers, does 

not articulate a standard for approving a transfer application.30 However, the 

Commission has held that a transfer may be approved on a showing that the transferee is 

qualified to hold the license and operate the project, and that a transfer is in the public 

interest.31 Section 9.2 of the Commission’s regulations requires applicants to “set forth in 

 29 16 U.S.C. § 801 (2012); see also 18 C.F.R. §§ 9.1-9.3 (2017).

30 See Potosi Generating Station, Inc., 100 FERC ¶ 61,115 (2002).

31 See 18 C.F.R. pt. 9.3 (2017); See also Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Energy Keepers, Inc., 153 FERC ¶ 61,217 (2015); Gallia Hydro Partners, 110 FERC 

¶ 61,237 (2005); Wisconsin v. FERC, 104 F.3d 462 (D.C. Cir. 1997). 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 15 -

appropriate detail the qualifications of the transferee to hold such license and to operate 

the property under license.”32

The Commission has not previously considered an application to transfer a license 

to a new entity whose sole purpose is to surrender the license and decommission the 

project, as is the case here. Typically, a transferee intends to continue to operate the 

project, and the Commission’s public interest inquiry is limited to the transferee’s 

financial, legal, and technical fitness to carry out its responsibilities under the license. 

Transferring a project to a newly formed entity for the sole purpose of 

decommissioning and dam removal raises unique public interest concerns, specifically 

whether the transferee will have the legal, technical, and financial capacity to safely 

remove project facilities and adequately restore project lands. If a project is transferred 

to an entity that lacks the financial and operational capacity to complete these measures, 

and if the Commission can no longer hold the former licensee liable, the responsibility to 

decommission a project or restore project lands may fall to federal or state authorities. 

To prevent this, Commission staff applies more scrutiny to transfer applications where 

the transferee intends to surrender and decommission the project.33 While the 

Commission itself has not previously considered the transfer of a license to a new entity 

for the purpose of decommissioning and surrender, Commission staff has considered this 

type of application in two notable, uncontested cases. 

The first case concerned the Penobscot River Projects in Penobscot County, Maine 

(Penobscot).

34 There, because a settlement agreement did not allow the transfer of 

project facilities to the Penobscot River Restoration Trust to become effective until the 

Commission’s acceptance of the surrender, the Trust could not comply with the 

conditions in the transfer order and had to request several extensions of time to file the 

conveyance instruments and acceptance of the transfer. The second case involved the 

decommissioning of the Hogansburg Project in Franklin County, New York.

35 In that 

 32 18 C.F.R. § 9.2 (2017).

33 See Policy Statement on Project Decommissioning at Relicensing, 60 Fed. Reg.

339, 346 (Jan. 4, 1995); see also FERC States. & Regs, ¶ 31,011, 31,232-33 (1994); 

Fraser Papers Inc., 87 FERC ¶ 61,177, order on reh’g, 89 FERC ¶ 61,286 (1999). 

34 PPL Maine, LLC, 126 FERC ¶ 62,005 (2009) (approving transfer of the Veazie 

and Howland Projects); PPL Great Works LLC, 126 FERC ¶ 62,004 (2009) (approving 

transfer of the Great Works Project); Penobscot River Restoration Trust, 131 FERC 

¶ 62,238 (2010) (accepting surrender of the three projects). 

35 Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP, 150 FERC ¶ 62,149 (2015). 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 16 -

case, Erie Boulevard Hydropower filed an application to transfer the project license to the 

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, which in turn filed an application to surrender and 

decommission the project. In light of administrative inefficiencies and liability concerns 

that arose in Penobscot, and the Tribe’s lack of experience operating or decommissioning 

a hydroelectric project, staff denied the applications as initially proposed and instead 

advised that Erie and the Tribe become co-licensees. Erie and the Tribe jointly applied to 

partially transfer the license to the Tribe, and as co-licensees applied to surrender and 

decommission the project. Staff approved the license transfer in March 2015 and the 

surrender in June 2016.

In the present case, PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation have made a number 

of filings seeking to demonstrate the Renewal Corporation’s capacity to remove the 

project facilities in a way that is consistent with the public interest, including a Detailed 

Plan to implement dam removal, which describes plans for facilities removal, site 

remediation and restoration, estimated cost, and risk mitigation.

36 The Renewal 

Corporation has stated that the Detailed Plan will serve as the basis for the Definite Plan, 

which will include a complete discussion of the physical and technical aspects of 

facilities removal and remediation, as well as a detailed estimate of costs associated with 

those activities, and procedures for addressing potential cost overruns.37 The Renewal 

Corporation previously stated that it would provide Commission staff with the Definite 

Plan by December 31, 2017.38 However, on December 5, 2017, it requested an extension 

until July 1, 2018, to submit the Definite Plan. Commission staff granted this extension 

on December 14, 2017. 

As discussed below, staff has evaluated the filings concerning the Renewal 

Corporation’s capacity to complete decommissioning and removal of the Lower Klamath 

Project facilities, and has determined that additional information is needed, including 

information to be provided in the Definite Plan, before the transfer application can be 

considered. We agree, and will review this information before acting on the transfer. In 

addition to the information discussed below, we will also require that PacifiCorp provide 

us with all the information required by section 7.1.4 of the Amended Settlement 

Agreement discussed above in paragraph 16 (except for the conveyance documents and 

the Renewal Corporation’s acceptance of the transfer, which must await Commission 

action on the transfer application).

 36 See Renewal Corporation’s December 1, 2017 Filing.

37 See Renewal Corporation’s September 23, 2016 Application for Surrender at 37.

38 Id at 3.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 17 -

1. Funding for Dam Operation and Removal

As discussed above, the Amended Settlement Agreement provides that the 

Renewal Corporation will have three sources of funding for decommissioning, removal, 

and restoration of the Lower Klamath Project, totaling $450,000,000: (1) $184,000,000 

from the Oregon Customer Surcharge; (2) $16,000,000 from the California Customer 

Surcharge; and (3) $250,000,000 from the California Bond Measure. These funds, 

known as the state cost cap, are the maximum monetary contributions available from the 

states of Oregon and California. The applicants have not identified any additional 

sources of funding if the cost of the measures required exceeds the state cost cap. 

The Amended Settlement Agreement provides for the creation of four trust 

accounts – two in each state – to hold and administer charges collected from PacifiCorp’s 

retail customers in California and Oregon. The collection of the customer surcharges 

began in May 2011 pursuant to orders issued by the Oregon and California PUCs.

39 The 

Renewal Corporation is the beneficiary of the trust accounts.

On January 24, 2017, the Oregon PUC approved the Oregon Funding Agreement

for the disbursement of funds from the two Oregon trust accounts over three phases:

startup activities, planning, and regulatory work (Phase 1); development of the Definite 

Plan and procurement of contractors (Phase 2); and implementation of the Definite Plan 

(Phase 3).40 In its March 1, 2017 filing, the Renewal Corporation provided that it had 

entered into an agreement with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for the 

disbursement of $308,369 in initial startup costs as part of Phase 1.

41 The Oregon 

Funding Agreement provides that, before disbursements may be made for Phase 2 or 3 

activities, the Renewal Corporation must submit project descriptions and budgets for 

those activities.42

The Renewal Corporation has not yet entered into a California Funding 

Agreement for the disbursement of the California customer surcharge. In August 2016, 

PacifiCorp filed a motion with the California PUC to modify the May 5, 2011 

 39 Amendment and Transfer Application at Exhibit K.

40 See the Renewal Corporation’s March 1, 2017 Filing at 9.

41 Id. at Attachment F; Oregon Funding Agreement at 7.

42 Id.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 18 -

authorization of the California customer surcharge.

43 In its December 4 filing, the 

Renewal Corporation filed a proposed California Funding Agreement that provided for 

disbursement of funds over three phases, similar to the Oregon Funding Agreement, but 

has not yet filed a final agreement. We will require an executed California Funding 

Agreement before we act on the transfer application. We are concerned, however, that 

these state funding mechanisms are not subject to the Commission’s direction, but rather

are subject to the terms of the Amended Settlement Agreement, to which the Commission 

is not a signatory.

The California bond measure is part of a water bond enacted by the California 

legislature in November 2009 and approved by voters in 2014 to fund the difference 

between the customer surcharges administered by the California and Oregon PUCs and 

the actual cost of dam removal, up to $250,000,000.

44 In 2016, the state legislature 

appropriated the bond funds to the California Natural Resources Agency for 

disbursement to the Renewal Corporation pursuant to the California Natural Resources 

Agency Grant Agreement.45 

The Renewal Corporation has stated that both the Oregon and California Funding 

Agreements have expiration dates of January 31, 2022, and that the California Bond 

Measure has an expiration date of June 30, 2021, with exceptions for funds devoted to 

ongoing mitigation or monitoring activities.

46 In response to staff’s question about 

whether the funding sources would still be available if facilities removal extends beyond 

these dates, the Renewal Corporation only stated that it would seek extensions from the 

states, but provided no assurance that the states would be amendable to those 

extensions.47

In an October 5, 2017 additional information request, Commission staff requested 

that PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation provide the results of an independent 

review of the most probable and maximum cost estimates, adequacy of a projected 

contingency reserve for risks retained by the Renewal Corporation, and proposed 

 43 PacifiCorp moved to amend the 2011 authorization to reflect the 2016 

Amendments to the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement that eliminated the 

need for Congressional authorization for dam decommissioning and removal.

44 See Renewal Corporation’s March 1, 2017 Filing at 11.

45 Id. at Exhibit G.

46 Id. at 11-12.

47 Id.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 19 -

insurance and bonding arrangements. PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation did not 

provide the requested review. Instead, the Renewal Corporation proposed in its 

response48 that review of these matters be deferred to an Independent Board of 

Consultants that Commission staff has required to be convened for the surrender 

application to “review and assess all aspects of the proposed dam removal process,” 

including among other things the adequacy of available funding, reasonableness of 

updated estimates for the most probable and maximum cost of the full removal 

alternative, and adequacy of amounts and types of insurance coverage and bonding 

arrangements for dam removal.

49 The Renewal Corporation stated that it plans to 

convene the Independent Board of Consultants in connection with the surrender 

application to review updated cost estimates, as well as the assumptions used to calculate 

those estimates, and will provide the qualifications of its third-party experts for FERC 

approval, together with a plan and schedule for the requested report, no later than April 5, 

2018.

50 The Renewal Corporation added that it was exploring the possibility of having 

the Board of Consultants review portions of, or the complete, Definite Plan before it is 

filed with the Commission.

51

Also in its December 4 response, the Renewal Corporation stated that its most 

probable cost estimate to carry out decommissioning and removal of the Lower Klamath 

Project facilities is $274,350,000.52 This estimate is based on a budget prepared by 

Reclamation in 2010 and updated by its contractor AECOM in 2017. However, the 

Renewal Corporation did not include an update to Reclamation’s maximum cost estimate 

of $493,100,000 or evaluate the probability that the most probable and maximum cost 

estimates will occur.

53 Instead, the Renewal Corporation deferred these matters to its 

filing of the Definite Plan. 

 48 Renewal Corporation’s December 4, 2017 Filing at 2.

49 See Letter from David Capka, FERC, to Mark Sturtevant, PacifiCorp, and 

Michael Carrier, Renewal Corporation (issued October 5, 2017).

50 Renewal Corporation’s December 4, 2017 Filing at 2.

51Id. at 2, 4.

52 Id at 3. 

53 See Reclamation’s July 2012 Detailed Plan for Dam Removal at 8 (filed as 

Exhibit E.3 to PacifiCorp’s and the Renewal Corporation’s September 23, 2016 surrender 

application). 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 20 -

The Renewal Corporation stated in its December 4, 2017 filing that, “[c]ommitted 

and available funds to implement the [Amended Settlement Agreement] exceed 

AECOM’s verified budget by well over $100,000,000,” but acknowledged that “it is 

theoretically possible that the full amount of the $450 million would not be sufficient” to 

fully remove the project facilities and restore the area. 54 In updating Reclamation’s cost 

estimate, the contractor stated that “[f]ield and engineering studies are underway that are 

expected to result in changes to quantities and production rates, which could result in 

costs going up or down.”55 

We also note that PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation have entered into an

operations and maintenance agreement that provides for PacifiCorp to continue to operate 

and maintain the project until the removal of the facilities is imminent.56 However, the

agreement is not effective until the Renewal Corporation accepts the transfer of license 

for the Lower Klamath Project.

As a result, we require updated maximum and probable cost estimates, the 

probability that each will occur, and a detailed explanation of how the Renewal 

Corporation would provide or obtain the funds necessary to operate and maintain the 

Lower Klamath in the event that the Commission does not approve the surrender 

application. In addition, we require a detailed explanation of how the Renewal 

Corporation would provide or obtain the funds necessary to decommission and remove 

the Lower Klamath Project in the event that funds equal to or greater than the maximum 

cost estimate for the full removal alternative are required. We anticipate that this 

information will be provided in the Definite Plan. 

2. Contingency Reserve, Insurance, and Risk Mitigation

Separate from the issue of the project’s estimated cost is the amount of a 

contingency reserve to address the risk of project delays or additional costs caused by 

circumstances out of the applicants’ control, such as changes in law, force majeure 

events, the discovery of cultural resources, and dam conditions unknown at the time the 

contract for removal is executed. In its December 4 filing, the Renewal Corporation 

provided that its contingency reserve would likely be between 5% and 15% of the 

projected project cost, which it states is typical for development projects of this 

 54 Renewal Corporation’s December 4, 2017 Filing at 3.

55 See Renewal Corporation’s June 23, 2017 Filing, Initial Budget Verification 

Report at 5.

56 Renewal Corporation’s December 4, 2017 Filing at Exhibit D.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 21 -

magnitude.57 The Renewal Corporation also notes, however, that an updated most

probable cost estimate “will be a more reasonable and current cost estimate from which 

to assess the need for and amount of any ...contingency fund.”58 We require an updated 

projected contingency reserve based on the updated project costs discussed above, before 

we can act on the application for license transfer, as well as an assessment of its adequacy 

in light of the probable and maximum cost estimates. 

The Renewal Corporation has also stated that it expects to enter into a fixed-price 

agreement with a contractor to undertake decommissioning and removal of the project 

facilities, and that it expects the agreement to provide that any project costs in excess of 

the contract price would be the responsibility of the contractor, not the Renewal 

Corporation.59 We note that a licensee is responsible for all costs of operating, 

maintaining, and, if authorized, removing project facilities, regardless of what contractual 

arrangements it may enter into. 

In its April 24 and October 5, 2017 additional information requests, Commission 

staff asked the Renewal Corporation to provide information on insurance, performance 

bonds, and risk mitigation measures it planned to obtain in connection with the 

decommissioning and removal of the Lower Klamath Project facilities. In its 

December 4 response, the Renewal Corporation stated that there were “insufficient 

details available at this time to obtain an appropriately-tailored insurance policy,” but 

provided a list of the types of insurance policies it expected to secure, along with 

estimates of coverage limits for each.60

Additionally, the Renewal Corporation stated that AECOM, the contracting 

company secured by the Renewal Corporation to develop the Definite Plan, is working to 

develop a risk-management plan that will identify all potential project risks and develop 

mitigation strategies to avoid and reduce the impact of unexpected events associated with 

facilities removal. As part of the risk-management plan, AECOM is developing a risk 

register to assist in identifying potential risk elements, their likelihood, and expected 

consequences.61 

 57 Id. at 4.

58 Id.

59 Renewal Corporation’s June 23, 2017 Filing at 15.

60 Id. at 5-7.

61 See Renewal Corporation’s June 23, 2017 Filing at 14-15.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 22 -

Accountability and transparency will be paramount in this case. The size of the 

proposed dam removal and estimated cost are unprecedented before the Commission.62 

The Amended Settlement Agreement expressly transfers all liability for dam removal to 

the Renewal Corporation. This is a concern, because it would leave the Commission with 

no authority to require PacifiCorp to take any action required for the removal, or to pay 

for any unexpected costs that might arise. In order to more fully evaluate the risks 

associated with dam decommissioning, removal, and remediation, we will need to review 

the risk register and risk-management plan.

V. Conclusion

The applicants have filed a combined amendment and transfer application. For the 

reasons discussed above, we approve only the amendment application at this time. We 

need additional financial, insurance, and risk management information before any 

transfer can be considered. Therefore, PacifiCorp will remain the licensee for both the 

Klamath and Lower Klamath Project licenses until we receive and review the additional 

information required below. 

In its December 4 response to staff’s October 5 Additional Information Request, 

the Renewal Corporation addressed many of the topics described above by stating that 

this information would be provided in the Definite Plan, to be filed with the Commission 

in July 2018. As a result, we will need to review the information provided in the Definite 

Plan before acting on the transfer application. In addition, we will need the results of an 

independent review of the adequacy of the proposed funding, insurance, and bonding 

arrangements, which the Renewal Corporation proposes to defer to the independent 

Board of Consultants for the surrender application. Depending on how soon the Board of 

Consultants can be convened, this approach may provide an acceptable means of 

obtaining that review. 

We acknowledge that the application before us is the result of a collaborative 

process between a number of parties – many with disparate interests – that began several 

years ago. However, as discussed above, we cannot act on the application for transfer 

until the Renewal Corporation submits the information listed in the Appendix. Because 

of this fact, and since we are not acting on the application for transfer in this proceeding, 

we will defer our determinations on the Renewal Corporation’s legal and technical 

 62 To staff’s knowledge, the most extensive decommissioning plan approved by

the Commission was that for the 14.7-MW Condit Project No. 2342, located on the White 

Salmon River in Washington, which involved the removal of a 471-foot-long, 125-foothigh dam and other facilities, at an estimated cost of $32 million. See PacifiCorp, 133

FERC ¶ 61,232 (2010).
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 23 -

capacity to accept transfer of the license and carry out project decommissioning to our 

review of the transfer application.

The Commission orders:

(A) PacifiCorp and Klamath River Renewal Corporation’s application for 

amendment and transfer, filed September 23, 2016, and supplemented on March 1, 2017, 

June 23, 2017, December 1 and December 4, 2017, is approved for the amendment only, 

and is deferred for the transfer, pending receipt of the required additional information. 

PacifiCorp must file, or cause to be filed, the additional information in the Appendix to 

this order.

For the Klamath Project No. 2082:

(B) The license for the Klamath Project No. 2082 is amended as provided by 

this order, effective the day this order is issued.

(C) The Klamath Project No. 2082 consists of the following four developments, 

three on the Klamath River between river mile (RM) 233 and RM 254, and the fourth 

development on Fall Creek, a Klamath River tributary at about RM 196. The four 

developments are as follows: (1) the East Side development; (2) the West Side 

development; (3) the Keno development; and (4) the Fall Creek development. The 

project consists of:

(1) All lands, to the extent of the licensee’s interests in these lands, described in 

the project description of this order. Project works consisting of:

(2) The East Side development, consisting of: (a) 670 feet of mortar and stone 

canal; (b) an intake structure; (c) 1,729 feet of 12-foot-diameter, wood stave flowline; 

(d) 1,362 feet of 12-foot diameter, steel flowline; (e) a surge tank; and (f) a powerhouse 

containing a single vertical Francis turbine with a rated discharge of 975 cubic feet per 

second (cfs) and a rated capacity of 3.188 MW, a generator with a rated capacity of 3.2 

MW; (g) three single-phase step-up transformers at the powerhouse; and (h) a 69-kilovolt 

(kV) primary transmission line approximately 0.36 miles long connecting to PacifiCorp’s 

Line No. 11.

(3) The West Side development, consisting of: (a) a 5,575-foot-long concretelined and unlined canal; (b) a spillway and discharge structure; (c) an intake; (d) 140 feet 

of 7-foot-diameter steel flowline; (e) a powerhouse housing a single, horizontal, pit-type 

Francis turbine with a rated capacity of 0.78 MW, a generator with a rated capacity of 0.6 

MW; (f) three single-phase step-up transformers at the powerhouse; and (h) a 69-kV 

primary transmission line approximately 0.36 miles long connecting to PacifiCorp’s Line 

No. 11.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 24 -

(4) The non-generating, re-regulating Keno development consisting of: (a) a 680-

foot-long, 25-foot high dam, made of a combination of earth embankment and reinforcedconcrete, with a non-overflow section, and a 265-foot-wide ogee-type spillway section 

with six tainter gates; (b) a reservoir with a maximum surface area of 2,475 acres at 

elevation 4,085 feet mean sea level and a total storage capacity of 18,500 acre-feet; and 

(c) a 24-pool weir and orifice-type fish ladder. 

(5) The Fall Creek development consisting of: (a) a 127-foot-long, 7-foot-high 

diversion dam composed of two earth embankment sections separated by a 32-foot long, 

concrete and timber flashboard spillway structure; (b) a 4,560-foot long earthen and rockcut power canal; (c) 2,834 feet of steel penstock; (d) a powerhouse containing three 

horizontal shaft Pelton turbines; Unit 1 turbine has a rated discharge capacity of 14 cfs 

and a rated output of 0.75 MW and a generator rated at 0.5 MW; Unit 2 turbine has a 

rated discharge capacity of 21 cfs and a rated output of 1.125 MW, and a generator rated 

at 0.45 MW; Unit 3 has a rated discharged capacity of 25 cfs and a rated output of 

1.35 MW, and a generator rated at 1.25 MW, for a total authorized capacity of 2.2 MW; 

(e) three single phase, step-up transformers; and (f) a 69-kV primary transmission line

that taps to PacifiCorp’s Line 18, which runs nearly overhead, and a 69-kV line, 1.65-

mile-long that connects to Copco No. 1 switchyard.

The project works generally described above are more specifically shown and 

described by those portions of Exhibit M shown below for the Klamath Project:

Exhibit M: The following section of Exhibit M filed on September 23, 2016:

M.2.1 entitled: “Project Facilities” and Table M2.1-1 “Key data regarding the 

Klamath Hydroelectric Project developments.”

(D) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the licensee must file for 

Commission approval revised Exhibits K and L, as applicable, to reflect the East Side, 

West Side, Keno, and Fall Creek developments, as-built.

(E) The following articles are deleted from the Klamath Project No. 2082 license: 

Articles 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, and 52. 

(F) Article 35 of the license for the Klamath Project is revised to read as 

follows:

Article 35. The licensee must pay to the United States the following annual 

charges: 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 25 -

(a) For the purpose of reimbursing the United States for the cost of administering 

Part I of the Federal Power Act, a reasonable amount as determined in accordance with 

the provisions of the Commission’s regulations in effect from time to time. The 

authorized installed capacity for that purpose is 6,000 kW, effective the first day of the 

month in which this order is issued.

(b) For the purpose of recompensing the United States for the use, occupancy and 

enjoyment of 82.0 acres of its lands, other than for transmission line right-of-way. 

(c) For the purpose of recompensing the United States for the East Side and West 

Side developments’ use of surplus water or water power from Link River Dam, a 

reasonable amount as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Commission’s 

regulation in effect from time to time.

For the Lower Klamath Project No. 14803:

(G) This license is issued to PacifiCorp with an expiration date of February 28, 

2006, which is currently on annual license, to operate and maintain the Lower Klamath 

Project No. 14803. This license is subject to the terms and conditions of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA), which is incorporated by reference as part of this license, and subject 

to the regulations the Commission issues under the provisions of the FPA.

(H) The Lower Klamath Project No. 14803 consists of the following four 

developments on the Klamath River between river mile (RM) 190 and RM 228. The four 

developments are as follows: (1) the J.C. Boyle development; (2) the Copco No. 1 

development; (3) the Copco No. 2 development; and (4) the Iron Gate development. The 

project consists of:

(1) All lands, to the extent of the licensee’s interests in these lands, described in 

the project description of this order. Project works consisting of: 

(2) The J.C. Boyle development (also known as the Big Bend development) 

consists of: (a) a 68-foot-high by 693-foot-long earthfill and concrete dam with an intake 

structure and spillway section containing three 36-foot-wide by 12-foot-high radial gates 

and a two-bay diversion culvert with stoplogs; (b) a 420-acre reservoir; (c) a 24-inch 

diameter fish screen bypass pipe; (d) a 569-foot-long pool and weir fishway; (e) a 638-

foot-long, 14-foot diameter steel flow line; (f) a 2-mile long concrete power canal; (g) 

two 956-foot-long by 10.5-foot-diameter steel penstocks; (h) a powerhouse containing 

two units with an authorized capacity of 98 MW; (i) a 0.24-mile-long, primary 

transmission line connecting to J. C. Boyle substation ; and (j) two three-phase step up 

transformers. 

(3) The Copco No. 1 development consists of: (a) a 230-foot-high by 415-footlong dam with a spillway section containing 13 14-foot by 14-foot tainter gates; (b) a 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 26 -

1,000-acre reservoir (Copco Lake) with approximately 33,724 acre-feet of total storage 

capacity; (c) three penstocks varying from 8-14 foot in diameter; (d) a powerhouse 

containing two units for a total authorized capacity of 20 MW; (e) four single-phase step 

up transformers; and (f) four associated primary 69-kV transmission lines as follows: (1)

two lines, each approximately 0.07-mile long, connecting Copco No. 1 powerhouse to the 

Copco No. 1 switchyard; (2) a 1.29-mile-long line connecting the Copco No. 1 

switchyard to Copco No. 2; and (3) a 1.66-mile-long line connecting Copco No 1 

switchyard to a tap on the 69-kV line from Fall Creek plant.

(4) The Copco No. 2 development consists of: (a) a 33-foot-high by 278-foot-long 

dam with a 130-foot long spillway section contain five tainter gates; (b) a 40-acre 

reservoir with a storage capacity of about 73 acre-feet; (c) a flowline consisting of 2,440 

feet of concrete-lined tunnel and 1,313 feet of wood-stave pipeline; an addition 1,110 feet 

of concrete-lined tunnel; (d) a surge tank; (e) two steel penstocks, one 405.5 feet long and 

one 410.6 feet long, with a diameter ranging from 8-16 feet; (f) a powerhouse containing 

two units with a total authorized capacity of 27 MW; (g) three single-phase transformers 

connected to three single-phase step-up transformers; and (h) a 0.4-mile-long 69-kV 

primary transmission line connecting to Copco No. 2 switchyard.

(5) The Iron Gate development consists of: (a) a 173-foot-high by 740-foot-long 

dam with a 727-foot-long side channel spillway; (b) a 944-acre reservoir with 58,794 

acre-feet of storage capacity; (c) an intake structure with a 12-foot diameter penstock; 

(d) a powerhouse containing one unit with a total authorized capacity of 18 MW; (e) a 

single three-phase step-up transformer; one 6.55-mile-long, 69-kV primary transmission 

line connecting to Copco No. 2 switchyard; and (f) the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery.

The project works generally described above are more specifically shown and 

described by those portions of Exhibit M shown below for the Lower Klamath Project:

Exhibit M: The following section of Exhibit M filed on September 23, 2016:

M.2.1 entitled: “Project Facilities” and Table M2.1-1 “Key data regarding the 

Lower Klamath Project developments.”

(I) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the licensee must file for 

Commission approval revised Exhibits K, and L, as applicable, to reflect the J.C. Boyle, 

Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate developments, as built.

(J) This license is subject to the articles set forth in Form L-6, entitled “Terms 

and Conditions of License for Unconstructed Major Project Affecting Navigable Waters 

and Lands of the United States (see 12 FPC 1267)” and the following additional articles:
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 27 -

Article 28. The Licensee, having commenced construction of the Iron Gate 

Development, shall continue to prosecute such construction and complete the Iron Gate 

Development not later than December 31, 1961.

Article 29. The licensee must, prior to flooding, clear all lands in the bottoms and 

margins of reservoirs up to high-water level, clear and keep clear to an adequate width 

lands of the United States along open conduits, and must dispose of all temporary 

structures, unused timber, brush, refuse, or inflammable material resulting from the 

clearing of the lands or from the construction and maintenance of the project works. In 

addition, all trees along margins of reservoirs which may die during operation of the 

project must be removed. The clearing of the lands and the disposal of the material must 

be done with due diligence and to the satisfaction of the authorized representatives of the 

Commission.

 

Article 30. The Commission reserves the right to determine at a later date which 

additional transmission lines and facilities, if any, must be included in the license as part 

of the project works.

Article 31. The Licensee shall file for Commission approval revised Exhibits F 

and K for the Iron Gate Development within one year following completion of 

construction of such development.

Article 32. The Licensee must at the J.C. Boyle development: construct, operate, 

and maintain fishways, screens at the intake, and deer escape facilities in and around the 

open portions of the conduit. Plans for fishways, screens, and deer escape facilities must 

be submitted in advance of construction of these facilities for approval by the 

Commission with advice of the Secretary of the Interior and the Oregon State Game 

Commission.

Article 33. The Licensee must replace the egg-taking station on the Klamath 

River at the mouth of Spencer Creek as may be prescribed hereafter by the Commission 

upon the recommendation of the Oregon State Game Commission.

Article 34. The Licensee must for the protection of fishlife maintain in the natural 

channel of the Klamath River immediately below the diversion dam a reasonable 

minimum flow consistent with the primary purpose of the project to be fixed hereafter by 

the Commission after notice to interested parties and opportunity for hearing.

Article 35. The Licensee must pay to the United States the following annual 

charges:

(a) For the purpose of reimbursing the United States for the cost of administering 

Part I of the FPA, a reasonable amount as determined in accordance with the provisions 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 28 -

of the Commission’s regulations in effect from time to time. The authorized installed 

capacity for that purpose is 163,000 kilowatts.

(b) For the purpose of recompensing the United States for the use, occupancy and 

enjoyment of 395.09 acres of its lands, other than for transmission line right-of-way.

(c) Effective January 1, 1981, for the purpose of recompensing the United States 

for use, occupancy, and enjoyment of 5.75 acres of its lands for transmission line rightof-way, a reasonable amount as determined in accordance with the provisions of the 

Commission's regulation in effect from time to time.

Article 36. The J.C. Boyle development must be so operated as to increase or 

decrease gradually the rise or fall of the river at a rate not to exceed nine (9) inches per 

hour at a point one-half (1/2) miles below the powerhouse, subject to conditions beyond 

the control of the Licensee; provided that the permissible limits and rate of change will be 

subject to review and adjustment by the Commission from time to time, after notice and 

opportunity for hearing. 

Article 37. The Licensee must guarantee continuing access to and across lands of 

the United States within the project area for legitimate business and must allow the use 

by any agency of the United States or its permittees of any access road or roads, 

constructed in connection with the project for the purpose of removing forest products 

with the understanding that the user of such road or roads for such purpose must make 

appropriate arrangements with the Licensee to provide for any extraordinary road 

maintenance, that would be required as a result of that use. 

Article 44. Prior to the construction and operation of the Iron Gate Development, 

the Licensee must, to the extent of conditions within its control, operate its existing 

Copco No. 1 and Copco No. 2 plans so as to limit fluctuations of the surface of the 

Klamath River at a recording station located one-half (1/2) mile below the lower of said 

plants to a maximum of nine (9) inches per hour increase or decrease, and so that the 

minimum flow of said river at said point is 500 cubic feet per second (cfs).

Article 45. The Licensee must communicate with the California Archeological 

Surveys Department of Archeology, University of California, Berkeley, California, to 

determine the most satisfactory means of accomplishing any necessary archeological 

reconnaissance and salvage at the Iron Gate site.

Article 46. The Licensee must consult with the California Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Beaches and Parks, Sacramento, California, to determine means 

for protecting and enhancing recreational values at the Iron Gate development. 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 29 -

Article 47. The actual legitimate original cost estimates were not known, and the 

accrued depreciation of the parts of the project completed prior to the effective date of the 

licensee must be determined by the Commission as of such effective date, in accordance 

with the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission, and such cost less such 

accrued depreciation, so determined, must be the net investment in the project as of such 

effective date.

Article 48. The actual legitimate original cost of the parts of the project to be 

completed after the effective date of the license, and of any addition to or betterment of 

the project, must be determined by the Commission in accordance with the Act and the 

rules and regulations of the Commission thereunder.

Article 49. The Licensee must construct or arrange for the construction, at its 

expense, of a fish hatchery at Iron Gate development, together will supplemental 

structures and ancillary equipment as detailed in the agreement filed with the 

Commission on August 17, 1962, by the State of California Department of Fish and 

Game and the Licensee, of a size and capacity to annually hatch and rear 200,000 

yearling steelhead trout to a total weight not to exceed 20,000 pounds, 75,000 yearling 

silver salmon to a total weight not to exceed 5,000 pounds, 6,000,000, fingerling king 

salmon to a total weight not to exceed 20,000 pounds, and 5,500 king salmon swimup 

fry; provided not more than 12,800,000 king salmon eggs must be required to be 

accommodated in any one year at the Iron Gate hatchery facility; and provided further 

that if the total number of king salmon eggs taken at the Iron Gate egg collection facility 

in any one year is equal to or less than 15,800,000, the fish hatchery facilities described 

herein must not be required to accommodate more than 81 percent of the total king 

salmon eggs taken during the year. Plans for the aforesaid facility must be prepared by 

the Licensee, in cooperation with the State of California Department of Fish and Game 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, and must be submitted 

to the Commission for approval no later than October 15, 1963. The facility must be 

constructed within one year from the date of approval of the plans by the Commission.

Article 50. The Licensee must reimburse the State of California Department of 

Fish and Game for 80 percent of the combined annual cost of operation and maintenance 

of the facilities and appurtenances constructed pursuant to Article 49 and of the 

permanent fish trapping, collecting, holding, and spawn-taking facilities and 

appurtenances constructed at Iron Gate dam. Should Licensee and the State of California 

Department of Fish and Game fail to agree on the amount to be paid by the Licensee for 

this purpose, the Commission reserves the right to determine the amount of such annual 

payment, after notice and opportunity for hearing. 

Article 51. The Licensee shall, concurrently with or prior to the construction of 

Iron Gate Development, construct temporary fish and wildlife protective facilities and 

devices together with appurtenant works including, but not limited to, those required to 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 30 -

trap and transport adult and young of both salmon and steelhead trout past the dam site or 

otherwise accommodate such fish during the construction period, the type of such 

facilities and devices to conform to plans and specifications as prescribed hereafter by the 

Commission upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior and California 

Department of Fish and Game, after notice and opportunity for hearing.

Article 52. The Licensee must release to the streambed below Iron Gate Dam not 

less than the flows specified in the following schedule:

Periods Flows, second-feet 

September 1-April 30 1,300

May 1-May 31 1,000

June 1-July 31 710

August 1-August 31 1,000

Provided that the Licensee must not be responsible for conditions beyond its 

control nor required to release more water than it has lawful right to use for hydroelectric 

purposes, and provided further that the Licensee must restrict the changes of release rates 

to not more than 250 second-feet per hour or a 3-inch change in river stage per hour 

whichever produces the least change in stage as measured at a gage located not less than 

0.5 mile downstream from Iron Gate Dam.

Article 53. The Licensee must, construct, maintain, and operate, or must arrange 

for the construction, maintenance, and operation of permanent wildlife facilities and 

protective devices including, but not limited to, deer protective fences, and comply with 

such reasonable modification in the project structures and operation in the interest of 

wildlife as may be prescribed hereafter by the Commission upon the recommendation of 

the Secretary of the Interior, and the California Department of Fish and Game, after 

notice and opportunity for hearing.

Article 54. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the project and any 

work incident to additions or alterations must be subject to the inspection and supervision 

of the Regional Engineer, Federal Power Commission, San Francisco, California, or of 

such other officer or agent as the Commission may designate, who must be the authorized 

representative of the Commission for such purposes. The Licensee must cooperate fully 

with said representative and must furnish him a detailed program of inspection by the 

Licensee that will provide for an adequate and qualified inspection force for construction 

of the project. Construction of the project works or any feature thereof must not be 

initiated until the program of inspection for the project works or any such feature thereof 

has been approved by said representative. The Licensee must also furnish to said 

representative such further information as he may require concerning the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the project, and of any alteration thereof, and must notify 

him of the date upon which work will begin, and as far in advance thereof as said 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 31 -

representative may reasonably specify, and must notify him promptly in writing of any 

suspension of work for a period of more than one week, and of its resumption and 

completion. The Licensee must allow him and other officers or employees of the United 

States, showing proper credentials, free and unrestricted access to, through, and across 

the project lands and project works in the performance of their official duties.

Article 58. The Licensee must, for the conservation and development of fish and 

wildlife resources, construct, maintain, and operate, or arrange for the construction, 

maintenance, and operation of such facilities and comply with such reasonable 

modifications of the project structures and operation as may be ordered by the 

Commission upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the 

Interior, Oregon State Game Commission, or California Department of Fish and Game, 

after notice and opportunity for hearing and upon findings based on substantial evidence 

that such facilities and modifications are necessary and desirable, reasonably consistent 

with the primary purpose of the project, and consistent with the provisions of the Act.

Article 59. Whenever the United States desire, in connection with the project, to 

construct fish and wildlife facilities or to improve the existing fish and wildlife facilities 

at its own expense, the Licensee must permit the United States or its designated agency to 

use, free of cost, such of Licensee’s lands and interest in lands, reservoirs, waterways and 

project works as may be reasonable required to complete such facilities or such 

improvements thereof. In addition, after notice and opportunity for hearing, the Licensee 

must modify the project operation as may be prescribed by the Commission, reasonable 

consistent with the primary purpose of the project, in order to permit the maintenance and 

operation of the fish and wildlife facilities constructed or improved by the United States 

under the provisions of this article. This article must not be interpreted to place any 

obligation on the United States to construct or improve fish and wildlife facilities or to 

relieve the Licensee of any obligation under this license.

Article 61. The Licensee must construct, maintain, and operate, or must arrange 

for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such recreational facilities including 

modifications thereto, such as access roads, wharves, launching ramps, beaches, picnic 

and camping areas, sanitary facilities and utilities, as may be prescribed hereafter by the 

Commission during the term of this license upon its own motion or upon the 

recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or other interested Federal and State 

agencies, after notice and opportunity for hearing and upon findings based upon 

substantial evidence that such facilities are necessary and desirable, and reasonably 

consistent with the primary purpose of the project.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 32 -

Article 62. So far is consistent with proper operation of the project, the Licensee 

must allow the public free access, to a reasonable extent, to project waters and adjacent 

project lands owned by the Licensee for the purpose of full public utilization of such 

lands and waters for navigation and recreational purposes, including fishing and hunting, 

and must allow to a reasonable extent for such purposes the construction of access roads, 

wharves, landings, and other facilities on its lands the occupancy of which may in 

appropriate circumstances be subject to payment of rent to the Licensee in a reasonable 

amount: Provided, that the Licensee may reserve from public access, such portions of the 

project waters, adjacent lands, and project facilities as may be necessary for the 

protection of life, health, and property and provided further, that the Licensee’s consent 

to the construction of access roads, wharves, landings, and other facilities must not 

without its express agreement, place upon the Licensee any obligation to construct or 

maintain such facilities. These facilities are in addition to the facilities that the Licensee 

may construct and maintain as required by the license.

Article 64. On the application of any person, association, corporation, Federal 

agency, State or municipality, the Licensee shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing, 

permit such reasonable use of its reservoirs and other project works or parts thereof as 

may be ordered by the Commission in the interest of comprehensive development of the 

waterway or waterways involved and the conservation and utilization of water resources 

of the region for water supply for steam-electric, irrigation, industrial, municipal or 

similar purposes, consistent with the primary objective of the project. The Licensee shall 

receive such reasonable compensation as may be appropriate for use of its reservoirs or 

other project works or parts thereof for such purposes, any such compensation to be fixed 

either by Commission approval of an agreement between the Licensee and the party or 

parties benefiting or by the Commission in the event the parties are unable to agree. 

Applications shall contain information in sufficient detail to afford a full understanding of 

the proposed use, including satisfactory evidence that the applicant possesses necessary 

water rights pursuant to applicable State law, or a showing of cause why such evidenced

cannot be submitted, and a statement as to the relationship of the proposed use to any 

State or municipal plans or orders which may have been adopted with respect to the use 

of such waters. 

Article 65. The Licensee shall install additional capacity or make other changes in 

the project as directed by the Commission, to the extent that it is economically sound and 

in the public interest to do so, after notice and opportunity for hearing.

Article 72. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Act, a specified reasonable rate of 

return upon the net investment in the project shall be used for determining surplus 

earnings of the project for the establishment and maintenance of amortization reserves. 

One-half of the project surplus earnings, if any, accumulated in excess of the specified 

rate of return per annum on the net investment, shall be set aside in a project amortization 

reserve account at the end of each fiscal year. The extent that there is a deficiency of 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 33 -

project earnings below the specified rate of return per annum for any fiscal year the 

amount of that deficiency shall be deducted from the amount of any surplus earnings 

subsequently accumulated, until absorbed. One-half of the remaining surplus earnings, if 

any, cumulatively computed, shall be set aside in the project amortization reserve 

account. The amounts established in the project amortization reserved account shall be 

maintained until further order of the Commission. The annual specified reasonable rate 

of return shall be the sum of the annual weighted costs of long-term debt, preferred stock, 

and common equity, as defined below. The annual weighted cost for each component of 

the reasonable rate of return is the product of its capital ratio and cost rate. The annual 

capital ratio for each component of the rate of return shall be calculated based on an 

average of 13 monthly balances of amounts properly includable in the licensee’s longterm debt and proprietary capital accounts as listed in the Commission’s Uniform System 

of Accounts. The cost rates for long-term debt and preferred stock shall be their 

respective weighted average costs for the year, and the cost of common equity shall be 

the interest rate on 10-year government bonds (reported as the Treasury Department’s 10-

year constant maturity series) computed on the monthly average for the year in question 

plus four percentage points (400 basis points).

Article 73. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this article, the licensee shall 

have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use and occupancy of project 

lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands and waters for certain 

types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission approval. The licensee may 

exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is consistent with the 

purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and other environmental 

values of the project. For those purposes, the licensee shall also have continuing 

responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which it grants 

permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with the covenants of the 

instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed, under this article. If a 

permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other condition 

imposed by the licensee for protection and enhancement of the project’s scenic, 

recreational, or other environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance made under 

the authority of this article is violated, the licensee shall take any lawful action necessary 

to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action includes, if 

necessary, canceling the permission to use and occupy the project lands and waters and 

requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and facilities.

(b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and water for which the licensee may 

grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape plantings; (2) 

noncommercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and facilities that can 

accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and where said facility is intended to 

serve single-family type dwellings; and (3) embankments, bulkheads, retaining walls, or 

similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline. To the extent 

feasible and desirable to protect and enhance the project’s scenic, recreational, and other 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 34 -

environmental values, the licensee shall require multiple use and occupancy of facilities 

for access to project lands or waters. The licensee shall also ensure, to the satisfaction of 

the Commission’s authorized representative that the use and occupancies for which it 

grants permission are maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and 

local health and safety requirements. Before granting permission for construction of 

bulkheads or retaining walls, the licensee shall: (1) inspect the site of the proposed 

construction, (2) consider whether the planning of vegetation or the use of riprap would 

be adequate to control erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed 

construction is needed and would not change the basic contour of the reservoir shoreline. 

To implement this paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a 

program for issuing permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands 

and waters, which may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the 

licensee’s costs of administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right 

to require the licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for 

implementing this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, 

guidelines or procedures.

(c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of, project 

lands for (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges and roads 

for which all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm drains 

and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor access 

roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project overhead 

electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures within the 

project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone distribution 

cables or major electric distribution lines (69-kV or less); and (8) water intake or 

pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day from a 

project reservoir. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee shall file three 

copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this paragraph (c) 

during the prior calendar year, the type of interest conveyed, the location of the lands 

subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was conveyed.

(d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of 

project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all necessary state 

and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that discharge into 

the project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality certification or 

permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or waters but do 

not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric transmission lines that 

require erection of support structures within the project boundary, for which all necessary 

federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or public marinas that can 

accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and are located at least one-half mile 

from any other private or public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an 

approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) 

other uses, if (i) the amount of land conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 35 -

all of the land conveyed is located at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from the edge 

of the project reservoir at normal maximum surface elevation; and (iii) no more than 50 

total acres of project lands for each project development are conveyed under this clause 

(d) (7) in any calendar year. At least 45 days before conveying any interest in project 

lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee must submit a letter to the Director, Office of 

Hydropower Licensing, stating its intent to convey the interest and briefly describing the 

type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked Exhibit G or K map 

may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any federal or state agency 

official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. 

Unless the Director, within 45 days from the filing date, requires the licensee to file an 

application for prior approval, the licensee may convey the intended interest at the end of 

that period. 

(e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under 

paragraph (c) or (d) of this article: 

(1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall consult with federal and state fish 

and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic Preservation 

Officer.

(2) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall determine that the proposed use of 

the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved Exhibit R or approved 

report on recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an 

approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources, that the lands to be 

conveyed do not have recreational value.

(3) The instrument of conveyance must include covenants running with the land adequate 

to ensure that: (i) the use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create a 

nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; and (ii) the 

grantee shall take all reasonable precautions to insure that the construction, operation, and

maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner that 

will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project.

(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable remedial 

action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the 

protection and enhancement of the project’s scenic, recreational, and other environmental 

values.

(f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this articles does not in itself 

change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude land 

conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised Exhibit G or K drawings 

(project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this 

article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not 

necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, 

public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including 

shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude 
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 36 -

lands conveyed under this article from the project shall be consolidated for consideration 

when revised Exhibit G or K drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes. 

(K) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for 

rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in section 

313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2012), and the Commission’s 

regulations at 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2017). The filing of a request for rehearing does not 

operate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this 

order. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of 

this order.

By the Commission.

( S E A L ) 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 37 -

Appendix

Additional Information Required for License Transfer 

Application

1. An executed California Funding Agreement

2. The Definite Plan

3. The following information, either separately or included in the Definite 

Plan:

(a) An updated maximum and probable cost 

estimate, and the probability that each will occur,

(b) A detailed explanation of how the Renewal 

Corporation would provide or obtain the necessary 

funds to operate the Lower Klamath Project if the 

surrender is not approved before the expiration of the 

California and Oregon Funding Agreements and the 

California Bond Measure,

(c) A detailed explanation of how the Renewal 

Corporation would provide or obtain the necessary 

funds to decommission and remove the Lower 

Klamath Project facilities in the event that funds equal 

to or greater than the maximum cost estimate for the 

full removal alternative are required,

(d) An updated project contingency reserve based 

on updated project costs,

(e) A detailed explanation of how operation and 

maintenance of the Lower Klamath Project will 

continue in the event the surrender is denied,

(f) A complete list of the types and amounts of 

insurance policies and surety arrangements anticipated 

to be secured by the Renewal Corporation, and

(g) A risk register and risk management plan

4. An independent review, either separately or by the independent 

Board of Consultants to be convened for the surrender application 

(depending on the schedule established for the review), of the 

reasonableness of the most probable and maximum cost estimates for the 

full removal alternative, adequacy of available funds for facilities removal, 

adequacy of the proposed contingency reserve, and adequacy of the 

proposed insurance and bonding arrangements,
Project Nos. 2082-062 and 14803-000 - 38 -

5. A detailed explanation of the basis for the determinations required to be 

made by PacifiCorp, the Renewal Corporation, and the States of California 

and Oregon, that the following conditions have been met:

(a) The Renewal Corporation has met the requirements of section 7.1.3 

of the Amended Settlement Agreement for indemnification of 

PacifiCorp, Oregon, and California, and Appendix L of the Amended 

Settlement Agreement regarding contractor qualifications,

(b) The Renewal Corporation has made sufficient and timely progress in 

obtaining necessary permits and approvals to effectuate facilities 

removal,

(c) PacifiCorp, the Renewal Corporation, and the States are each 

assured that their respective risks associated with facilities removal 

have been sufficiently mitigated consistent with Appendix L of the 

Amended Settlement Agreement, and

(d) PacifiCorp, the Renewal Corporation, and the States agree that no 

order of a court or the Commission is in effect that would prevent 

facilities removal.