Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission

2004 Annual Report
2

FEDERAL ENERGY 

REGULATORY COMMISSION

2004 ANNUAL REPORT
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEMBERS OF THE

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Nora Mead Brownell

Commissioner

Joseph T. Kelliher

Commissioner

Suedeen G. Kelly

Commissioner

Pat Wood, III

Chairman

Letter from the Chairman

FERC Organizational Chart

Regulatory Responsibilities

Strategic Plan

Information Techonology

Oversight and Investigations

Energy Markets

Energy Projects

Hydroelectric Power Table

3

4

5

7

10

11

15

21

37
4

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I am pleased to submit to the Congress the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s annual report, covering the fi scal year from October 1, 

2003, through September 30, 2004.

This is the 84th report issued by the Commission and its predecessor, the 

Federal Power Commission. As an independent agency, the Commission 

oversees key operating functions of the natural gas, electric utility, 

hydroelectric power, and oil pipeline transportation industries.

For fi scal year 2004, Congress appropriated $204,400,000 to support 

Commission activities. Under the authority of the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1986 and other laws, the Commission recovers all 

of its costs from regulated industries through fees and annual charges. 

Revenues generated from these sources completely offset congressional 

appropriations and therefore result in a net cost to the treasury of zero 

dollars. As a result, the users and benefi ciaries of the Commission’s 

services—not the general taxpayers—pay its operating costs.

 Best regards,

 Pat Wood, III

 Chairman

LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN
5

2004 FERC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

INVESTIGATIONS 

AND ENFORCEMENT

COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF 

EXTERNAL 

AFFAIRS

OFFICE 

OF THE 

SECRETARY

OFFICE OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

LITIGATION

OFFICE OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

LAW JUDGES

OFFICE OF THE 

EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR

FINANCIAL POLICY 

DIVISION

FINANCIAL SERVICES 

DIVISION

HUMAN CAPITAL 

AND RESOURCE 

INTEGRATION

BUDGET

DIVISION

LEGAL DIVISION

TECHNICAL 

DIVISION

DIVISION OF 

PRESS SERVICES

DIVISION OF 

CONGRESSIONAL, 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL

AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROCUREMENT 

DIVISION

RESOURCE

INTEGRATION

DIVISION

LOGISTICS 

MANAGEMENT 

DIVISION

DEPUTY 

EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR

GENERAL AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

LAW

SOLICITOR

ENERGY

PROJECTS

MARKETS, TARIFFS 

AND RATES

DISPUTE 

RESOLUTION 

SERVICES

OFFICE OF MARKETS, 

TARIFFS AND RATES

OFFICE OF THE 

GENERAL COUNSEL

DIVISION OF 

ADMINISTRATION 

AND DATA SUPPORT

DIVISION OF TARIFFS 

& MARKET 

DEVELOPMENT–

EAST

DIVISION OF TARIFFS 

& MARKET 

DEVELOPMENT–

SOUTH

DIVISION OF TARIFFS 

& MARKET 

DEVELOPMENT–

CENTRAL

DIVISION OF TARIFFS 

& MARKET 

DEVELOPMENT–

WEST

DIVISION OF POLICY 

ANALYSIS & 

RULEMAKING

OFFICE OF ENERGY 

PROJECTS

DIVISION OF 

OPERATIONAL 

AUDITS

DIVISION OF 

MANAGEMENT AND 

COMMUNICATION

DIVISION OF 

ENFORCEMENT

DIVISION OF 

INFORMATION 

DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF 

INTEGRATED 

MARKET ASSESSMENT

DIVISION OF

FINANCIAL MARKET 

ASSESSMENT

DIVISION OF ENERGY 

MARKET OVERSIGHT

MARKET

OVERSIGHT AND 

ASSESSMENT

OFFICE OF MARKET 

OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS

DIVISION OF 

PIPELINE 

CERTIFICATES

DIVISION OF GAS 

ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENGINEERING

DIVISION OF 

HYDROPOWER 

ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENGINEERING

DIVISION OF 

HYDROPOWER 

ADMINISTRATION 

AND COMPLIANCE

DIVISION OF DAM 

SAFETY AND 

INSPECTIONS

FERC REGIONAL 

OFFICES: 

ATLANTA

PORTLAND

CHICAGO

NEW YORK

SAN FRANCISCO

DEPUTY CHIEF 

INFORMATION 

OFFICER

DIVISION OF 

FINANCIAL 

AUDITS

DIVISION OF 

RELIABILITY

IT 

OPERATIONS 

DIVISION

HUMAN RESOURCES 

SERVICES 

DIVISION

SYSTEMS

ENGINEERING

DIVISION

SECURITY & 

SYSTEMS ASSURANCE 

DIVISION
6

REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES

THE COMMISSION’S REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES

 The Commission is a fi ve-member independent regulatory agency, which succeeded to the regulatory 

responsibilities of the Federal Power Commission in 1977. The Commission’s responsibilities include the 

licensing of non-federal hydroelectric facilities, the certifi cation of natural gas pipelines, regulating the rates 

of natural gas pipelines and pipelines transporting crude oil and oil products, and regulating the rates and 

other aspects of electric utility activities.

 Hydropower is the oldest area of Commission jurisdiction. The Commission’s predecessor began 

federal regulation of non-federal hydroelectric generation in 1920, authorizing the construction of projects 

in interstate commerce and overseeing their operation and safety. The Commission now regulates more than 

1,600 hydropower projects that utilize approximately 2,600 dams. These projects generate in excess of 22 

gigawatts of electricity, representing more than fi ve percent of all electric power produced in the United 

States. 

 Since 1935, the Commission has regulated certain electric utility activities under the Federal Power 

Act (FPA). Under FPA sections 205 and 206, the Commission oversees the rates, terms and conditions of 

sales for resale of electric energy and transmission service in interstate commerce by public utilities. The 

Commission must ensure that those rates, terms and conditions are just and reasonable, and not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential. Under FPA section 203, the Commission reviews mergers and other asset 

transfers involving public utilities. The utilities regulated under FPA sections 203, 205 and 206 are primarily 

investor-owned utilities. Government-owned utilities (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the federal 

power marketing agencies, and municipal utilities) and most cooperatively owned utilities are not subject to 

the Commission’s regulation, with certain exceptions. 

 The Commission may not regulate retail sales or local distribution of electricity. These are matters 

left to the states by the FPA. Nor does the Commission have a role in authorizing the construction of new 

generation facilities (other than non-federal hydroelectric facilities) or transmission facilities. These too are 

state or local responsibilities.

 The Commission’s role in the natural gas industry is largely defi ned by the Natural Gas Act of 1938 

(NGA). Under the NGA, the Commission regulates the construction of new natural gas pipelines, liquefi ed 

natural gas terminals and related facilities and oversees the rates, terms and conditions of sales for resale 

and transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce. Pipeline and terminal siting and construction is 

authorized by the Commission if found to be required by the public convenience and necessity. As with 

hydropower licensing, the Commission’s actions on pipeline projects typically require consideration of 

factors under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act and other such legislation. The wellhead price of 

natural gas, which the Commission previously regulated, was gradually deregulated by Congress beginning 

with the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. All wellhead price controls on natural gas ended on January 1, 

1993. Regulation of retail sales and local distribution of natural gas are matters left to the states.

 Finally, the Interstate Commerce Act gives the Commission jurisdiction over the rates, terms and 

conditions of transportation services provided by interstate oil pipelines. The Commission has no authority 

over the construction of new oil pipelines, or over other aspects of the industry such as production, refi ning 

or wholesale or retail sales of oil.
7

Shoshone Falls powerhouse and falls located on the Snake River in Idaho. 

Idaho Power holds the license for the project. A new license, issued in 2004,

 requires environmental protection and enhancement measures, including 

aesthetic fl ows over the falls. Photo courtesy of Alan Mitchnick. 
8

STRATEGIC PLAN 

VISION

Dependable, affordable energy through sustained competitive markets.

MISSION

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates and oversees energy industries in the economic and 

environmental interest of the American public. 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

GOAL 1: Promote a Secure, High-Quality, Environmentally Responsible Infrastructure 

through Consistent Policies. 

Objective 1.1: Expedite Appropriate Infrastructure Development to Ensure Suffi cient Energy 

Supplies. 

Identify projects with high public interest benefi ts and facilitate their speedy completion, consistent with the Commission’s statutory mandates and due process. 

Implement power plant interconnection rules; complete small plant interconnection rules. 

Firmly establish regional electric system expansion planning, with a variety of technology solutions to meet reliability, security and market needs. 

Implement integrated licensing process and interagency agreements facilitating hydropower licensing, pipeline certifi cation and liquefi ed natural gas (LNG) facility authorization.

Objective 1.2: Provide for Timely Cost Recovery to Infrastructure Investors. 

Establish clear cost recovery process for transmission investment. 

Ensure that revenue levels and rate designs for regulated company services are just and reasonable 

and support long-term competitive markets, through formula rate or other administratively effi -

cient means, when possible. 

Encourage balanced innovative proposals that provide incentives for appropriate infrastructure 

investment.

Objective 1.3: Address Landowner and Environmental Concerns Fairly. 

Encourage potential applicants for licenses or certifi cates to utilize the Commission’s collaborative 

pre-fi ling process. 

Incorporate reasonable environmental conditions into permits, licenses and certifi cates and ensure 

compliance with conditions.

Objective 1.4: Protect the Reliability, Security and Safety of the Energy Infrastructure. 

Oversee the development and enforcement of mandatory grid-reliability standards to protect the 

bulk power supply. 

Complete the establishment of the Commission’s Reliability Division. 

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●
9

Serve as the lead U.S. agency on the siting and authorization of LNG facilities, hydroelectric facilities, and interstate natural gas pipelines, and ensure adherence to prudent safety practices. 

Work with other agencies and industry to address and improve infrastructure security. 

Allow prompt recovery of prudently incurred expenses to safeguard reliability, security and safety 

of the energy infrastructure.

Goal 2: Foster Nationwide Competitive Energy Markets as a Substitute for Traditional 

Regulation. 

Objective 2.1: Advance Competitive Market Institutions Across the Entire Country. 

Encourage continued development of cost-effective wholesale regional power markets in ISO-New 

England, New York ISO, PJM Interconnection, Midwest ISO, Southwest Power Pool and California, and further development of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) in Southeastern and 

Western (outside California) regions. 

Support creation of regional state committees to advise Independent System Operators (ISOs) and 

RTOs. Coordinate operation of ISOs and RTOs to reduce or eliminate seams issues. 

Promote transparency of competitive electric and gas markets. 

Ensure that mergers and consolidations are consistent with the public interest.

Objective 2.2: Establish Balanced, Self-Enforcing Market Rules. 

Complete revisions to market-based ratemaking policy to prevent exercise of market power. 

Work with states to support robust programs for customer demand-side participation in energy markets. 

Encourage standardized business rules and practices to maximize market effi ciency, ease market entry 

and reduce transactions costs, relying on North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), North 

American Electric Reliability council (NERC) and the RTO/ISO where appropriate. 

Provide regulatory certainty through clear market rules and case specifi c decisions. 

Prevent undue preference and self dealing in affi liate transactions. 

Ensure renewable energy resources are accommodated in interconnection and transmission rules.

Goal 3: Protect Customers and Market Participants through Vigilant and Fair Oversight 

of Both Traditionally Regulated and Transitioning Energy Markets.

Objective 3.1: Provide Vigilant and Effective Oversight of Market Operations. 

Promote understanding of energy market operations and technologies through maintaining expert 

skills, keeping abreast of trends and innovations, and reporting fi ndings as appropriate. 

Assess and report on market and infrastructure conditions using objective benchmarks. 

Encourage effective RTO and ISO market monitoring units. 

Identify and remedy problems with market structure and operations, and periodically review market 

rules for consistency with long-term market development.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

STRATEGIC PLAN
10

Objective 3.2: Prevent Market Manipulation and Enforce Commission Rules. 

Investigate statutory and rule violations, and impose appropriate remedies. 

Use expedited dispute resolution to accelerate settlements and minimize customer expense. 

Act swiftly on third-party complaints, using litigation before Administrative Law Judges as needed 

to determine factual issues. 

Advocate enhanced penalty authority.

Management Initiatives Supporting all Goals and 

Objectives. 

Human Capital 

Implement the Human Capital Plan to meet challenges of new Commission roles and changing 

workforce demographics. 

Use the right mix of internal workforce and contracted services from the private sector to meet the 

agency’s statutory mandates effi ciently and effectively.

Information Technology

Complete the implementation of e-government initiatives to expedite interactions with customers. 

Build effective electronic workload/time-management and case-processing systems to expedite 

work processes.

Agency Resources 

Integrate budget, business plan, and performance measurement to improve performance and accountability. 

Generate accurate and timely fi nancial information to support operating, budget, and policy decisions.

Communication 

Reach out to groups affected by agency actions in a timely manner. 

Build strong partnerships with all stakeholders, legislators and regulators. 

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

STRATEGIC PLAN
11

GOALS

 The Commission plans to continue implementing and to expand FERC Online, its set of e-government 

initiatives that expedite interactions with customers. FERC Online provides the integrated receipt, storage, 

disposition, publication, and dissemination of documents and information related to the conduct of FERC 

business with regulated industries and the public as well as workload tracking and business planning support 

for regulatory activities. 

 During FY 2005 the Commission plans to complete the availability of all services planned for FERC 

Online by deploying eService (providing automated electronic distribution by the Commission of documents 

to parties in Commission proceedings), eTariff (improving the means for utilities to fi le tariffs with the 

Commission electronically and the ability of the public to retrieve those tariffs), and ATMS (providing 

an integrated, Commission-wide Activity Tracking Management System that will cut across all business 

units in the Commission). The Commission plans to continue to improve and extend those services already 

available by improving Virtual Agenda (which provides FERC orders electronically to staff at different 

stages of the Commission’s decision-making process and to the public as fi nal orders, and enables electronic 

notational voting by the Commission) printing and searching features, working on extending documents that 

can be electronically fi led with the Commission to include those with non-public information, and improving 

the usability of the Commission’s eSubscription service (individuals subscribe to specifi c dockets and are 

notifi ed by email about future correspondence).

ACHIEVEMENTS

During FY 2004, the Commission continued to implement and extend FERC Online and: 

Deployed the Virtual Agenda system. 

Completed development and began testing the fi rst release of eService.

Deployed an eTariff prototype application. 

Deployed eForms updates to allow the quarterly fi ling of fi nancial data previously fi led only 

annually with Form Nos. 1, 2, and 6.

Deployed eLibrary releases to improve performance, reliability, and usability; began digitizing legacy 

microfi lmed documents in order to reduce our cost of operations; and completed development and 

began testing of releases to streamline the Commission’s process for publishing notices and making 

those notices easier to use online.

Completed development and began testing of the fi rst phase of the Activity Tracking Management 

System. 

Improved the ability of the public to query and retrieve Electric Quarterly Report market data 

collection information. 

Continued to focus on and improve the usability of the FERC public website, www.ferc.gov, and 

improve the speed with which the Commission publishes content to the site.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
12

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

GOALS

 The Commission’s Offi ce of Market Oversight and Investigations works to assure the public and market 

participants that the Commission will identify and remedy energy market problems, remedy improper 

behavior and maintain just and reasonable rates. Such actions promote competitive energy markets, improve 

effi ciency and benefi t energy customers. The two main objectives in meeting the goal of full and fair market 

oversight are to:

Provide vigilant and effective oversight of market operations; and

Prevent market manipulation and enforce Commission rules.

 Going forward, the market oversight and investigations function will need to increase its efforts in two 

areas:

DETAILED MONITORING OF INDIVIDUAL ELECTRIC MARKETS. Wholesale electric markets differ 

considerably from region to region. Dedicated staff specializing in each individual market is 

required to understand how each market works, to identify potential problems, and to respond to 

individual behavior problems.

FULLY DEVELOPED AUDIT FUNCTION. Auditing represents an essential intermediate function between 

market oversight and enforcement. While the Commission has developed an initial market audit 

capability, more is necessary. Audits are more focused on particular companies and practices than 

the Commission’s broader oversight function. Through its audits, the Commission can investigate 

many forms of behavior that affect markets without violating rules or requiring a full enforcement 

effort. The auditing function will also let the Commission follow the performance of regional 

transmission organizations much more closely in the future. A strong auditing function will enhance 

the Commission’s tool kit for monitoring energy markets and help establish the Commission’s 

presence throughout the industry. 

ACHIEVEMENTS

Quick, Cogent Response to Emerging Market Issues 

 The Commission analyzed key market events in detail, such as the New England Gas – Electric 

Market Events study. In January 2004, natural gas prices rose to unprecedented highs in New England. 

The Commission’s investigation found the high prices were consistent with market fundamentals (lateseason cold weather, low storage pressure, limited gas supplies). A detailed examination of thousands of 

transactions available from electronic exchanges showed no symptoms of market manipulation. High prices 

were paid for just a small fraction of the gas sold in the market during this period.

Improving Market Performance 

 The Commission identifi ed two major problems in market operation: the validity of published price 

indices and the abuse of affi liate relationships between market and energy affi liates and their transmission 

providers. 

●

●

●

●
13

 To address the fi rst issue, the Commission initiated an effort to promote price transparency in competitive 

electric and gas markets. The Commission issued its Policy Statement on Natural Gas and Electric Price 

Indices setting out standards for natural gas and electricity price index developers and the companies that 

report transaction data to index developers. Furthermore, the Commission issued two orders adopting 

behavior rules for market participants. Both of these orders adopt a behavior rule requiring that, to the extent 

a company reports natural gas or electricity transaction data to price index developers, they must report such 

transactions in accordance with the policy statement standards. 

 In order to address potential problems of affi liate abuse between market and energy affi liates and 

their transmission providers, the Commission issued an order on standards of conduct. The Commission’s 

statutory mandate proscribes unduly discriminatory service and the order guides the behavior of transmission 

providers toward their affi liates who compete with non-affi liates for access to transmission capacity and 

compete in wholesale commodity markets. 

MARKET OVERSIGHT

 Regular reports now provide the Commission with timely updates on energy market developments. 

These include: 

The Market Surveillance Report is a comprehensive report on new and ongoing developments in the 

natural gas and electric power markets, delivered at each closed Commission meeting in FY 2004. 

The annual State of the Markets Report is an overall evaluation of how well energy markets are working 

in each region of the country. The Commission issued its fi rst full public report in January 2004.

Semi-annual prospective assessments of natural gas and electric power markets highlight key 

issues in each industry prior to the peak heating and cooling seasons, respectively. The Commission 

issued two assessments, one for Summer and one for Winter, in public Commission meetings 

during FY 2004. 

 These reports give the Commission a comprehensive overview of market events and an early warning 

of new market developments. 

DEVELOPING MARKET INFORMATION

 To assure public confi dence in the Nation’s energy markets, the Commission must provide trustworthy 

analyses based on strong empirical evidence, and make fair and farsighted decisions. This requires access 

to relevant and timely information about electric and natural gas markets. To do this the Commission has 

maintained, updated, and expanded data systems, largely consisting of the resources available through its 

state-of-the-art Market Monitoring Center. The Commission supplements those resources by improving 

access to RTO/ISO data, engaging states and other federal agencies in market oversight, and continuing 

to develop and enhance the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR). The EQR collects data on all electricity 

transactions from jurisdictional companies that occur within a quarter of a year. Companies report the 

transactions within a month of the quarter’s end and the Commission makes the results public. During FY 

2004, the Commission continued to upgrade and standardize its fl agship market data collection by issuing 

Order 2001-E, which increased standardization of the data in order to make analysis more useful. This order 

and continually educating EQR fi lers have resulted in an increasingly useful report. It has become the source 

of data for many market analyses.

●

●

●

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
14

PARTNERSHIP WITH MARKET MONITORING UNITS

 During FY 2004, the Commission focused on developing strong partnerships with Market Monitoring Units 

(MMUs) associated with regional transmission organization (RTO) markets. The Commission’s relationships 

with the MMUs is changing due to the December 2003 behavior rules that indicated a need to coordinate 

more closely on matters of market intervention. The Commission, along with the MMUs, is implementing 

procedural changes designed to increase interaction between the Commission and the MMUs. 

 In addition to the behavior rule, the Commission is developing an RTO report card to help measure the 

performance of RTOs and Independent System Operators (ISOs). RTOs and ISOs are responsible for reliable 

and effi cient operation of electric systems and markets over signifi cant areas of the country, encompassing 

two-thirds of the $10 trillion U.S. economy. Since they operate under Commission-approved tariffs, the 

Commission must ensure that they are publicly accountable for their performance. To address the challenge 

of assessing RTO/ISO performance, the Commission is creating a series of common performance measures 

for RTOs and ISOs that focus on aspects of the business that are important to the public and that the RTOs 

and ISOs can improve. These measures will focus on cost management, reliable service, business processes 

and corporate governance. An initial set of business measures has been developed for the fi rst test of the 

RTO report card. The Commission plans to issue a report on its fi ndings in FY 2005. Over the next two 

years, the Commission will refi ne the measures as necessary.

MARKET INVESTIGATIONS

 The Commission opened 320 investigations in FY 2004. Despite the lack of signifi cant statutory remedies, 

such as meaningful civil penalty authority, several of the investigations resulted in successful settlements 

that led to signifi cant fi nancial remedies. Some settlements also included strict compliance programs. Some 

notable examples are:

CALIFORNIA REFUND PROCEEDING SETTLEMENTS. The Commission has been instrumental in 

settlements of refund proceedings that arose from the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001. 

These settlements will result in $628 million in refunds to consumers. The companies were Williams 

($140 million), Dynegy ($281 million) and Duke ($207 million).

ANOMALOUS BIDDING INVESTIGATION. The Commission investigated inconsistent bidding behavior and 

practices in the California markets, settling with four companies for a total of $77.5 million in disgorged 

profi ts. 

●

●

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

FERC’s Market Monitoring Center 

allows Commission personnel to 

monitor energy markets.

FERC photo.
15

GAS STORAGE INFORMATION INVESTIGATION. This investigation centered on companies sharing nonpublic natural gas storage information data with affi liates and favored customers. Settlements were 

reached with three companies imposing $8.1 million in refunds and civil penalties and strict compliance 

stipulations to thwart future violations. The companies were Dominion Resources, Inc. ($4.5 million in 

refunds and $500,000 civil penalty), Nicor ($600,000 civil penalty) and Columbia Gas Transmission 

($2.5 million civil penalty).

 These cases, among others, demonstrate the Commission’s ability to investigate market abuses and 

its continuing commitment to effectively police tariff and rule violations despite its limited statutory 

remedies.

●

Transmission lines near Tucson, Arizona. 

Photo courtesy of Tucson Electric Power Company.

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
16

ENERGY MARKETS

GOALS

 One of the Commission’s continuing priorities is making wholesale natural gas and electric power 

markets operate well in order to support a strong, stable national economy. To accomplish this objective, the 

Commission continues to: 

Encourage cost-effective market design elements that promote adequate energy supplies and 

infrastructure development; 

Advance competitive market institutions; and 

Establish clear, self-enforcing and pro-customer market rules across the Nation’s regional bulk power 

markets that balance the interests of all market participants. 

 Another priority, especially in the wake of the August 2003 blackout, is to promote electricity grid 

reliability. The Commission assists in creating a more reliable electric system by: 

Fostering regional coordination and planning of the interstate grid through independent system 

operators and regional transmission organizations; 

Adopting transmission policies that provide price signals for the most reliable and effi cient operation 

and expansion of the grid; and 

Providing pricing incentives at the wholesale level for investment in grid improvements and ensuring 

opportunities for cost recovery in wholesale transmission rates.

 The Commission continues to seek ways to enhance regulated oil and natural gas pipeline 

transportation services while safeguarding against the exercise of market power. The Commission 

pursues policies that: 

Encourage fair, transparent, non-preferential rules for the development of new energy infrastructure; 

and 

Prevent undue preference and self-dealing in affi liate transactions.

ACHIEVEMENTS

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE

RELIABILITY OF THE ELECTRICITY GRID

 Immediately after the August 2003 power blackout that affected parts of the Midwest, Northeast and 

Canada, the Commission participated in the Joint U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force. The 

electric system investigation was co-chaired with the Department of Energy and Natural Resources Canada, 

and was a collaborative endeavor with industry, coordinated through the North American Electric Reliability 

Council (NERC). The investigation resulted in the following work products during FY 2004 to explain what 

happened and why, and possible solutions to avoid such future blackouts:

An interim report on the blackout followed by a Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the 

United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations; and

An interim report on Utility Vegetation Management and its role in causing the blackout, the Utility 

Vegetation Management Final Report, and a report to Congress on utility vegetation management 

practices, with recommendations for needed practices and guidance.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●
17

 In January 2004, the Commission established a reliability group within the Offi ce of Markets, Tariffs 

and Rates. The group has undertaken many specifi c tasks that will have a substantial impact on improving 

the Nation’s bulk power system reliability. These include: 

Participating in NERC’s reliability and readiness audits of the transmission operations and reliability 

coordinators in the U.S. and Canada; 

Supporting the re-issuance of NERC standards with specifi c, defi nable terms that may be used to 

judge the performance of the participating utilities;

Working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on issues of grid reliability and nuclear plant 

safety; 

Developing reports to identify best practices, standardized operations, and area defi ciencies for 

control area operators and for certifi cation of operators, reliability coordinators, and operator support 

staff;

Identifying best practices available to the industry to ensure reliability of the interconnected power 

system along with identifi cation of “gaps” within the industry;

Initiating development and implementation of cyber security tools and practices to prevent the 

disruption of the bulk power supply;

Coordinating reliability efforts with other federal and state agencies, such as the National Association 

of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Canadian provincial regulators; and

Holding a technical conference on July 15, 2004 to address what steps have been taken to prevent a 

blackout recurrence. 

 The Commission also took a number of actions to implement recommendations from the Blackout Final 

Report, including:

Issuing a policy statement related to bulk power system reliability, in which the Commission 

recognized that many aspects of system reliability are within the purview of the states and stated the 

necessity for all those with responsibility for the bulk electric system to work together to achieve the 

common goal of a reliable electric system;

Announcing its intent to work closely with the states to address various reliability-related issues of 

mutual concern; 

Directing all designated transmission owners to fi le reports with the Commission explaining their 

vegetation management practices for designated transmission facilities and rights-of-way;

Working with the leadership of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to 

analyze reports to look for signifi cant patterns and potential problems in the vegetation management 

practices of the electric industry; 

Holding a joint workshop in May 2004 with the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force 

focusing on steps needed to get enforceable reliability standards; and 

Proposing development of a regulator-approved mechanism for funding NERC and the regional 

reliability councils – after consulting with numerous parties including NERC, the regional reliability 

councils, states, utilities, and other industry participants – to ensure their independence from the 

parties they oversee.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ENERGY MARKETS
18

POWER PLANT INTERCONNECTION RULES

 In March 2004, the Commission issued an order on rehearing (Order No. 2003-A) that reaffi rmed, with 

only minor adjustments, its July 2003 fi nal rule establishing generic procedures for the interconnection of 

generators larger than 20 megawatts to the electric transmission grid (Order No. 2003). The rule established 

standard procedures to accomplish interconnection as well as a standard agreement covering the terms and 

conditions between transmission providers and generators regarding the facilities needed to interconnect 

large generators to the transmission grid. Order No. 2003-A also clarifi ed the Commission’s pricing policies 

regarding recovery of costs associated with interconnecting generators to the transmission grid. During FY 

2004, compliance fi lings were processed to update the open access transmission tariffs of jurisdictional 

public utilities to include provisions for the interconnection of large generators consistent with the fi nal 

rule. Implementation of the rule will reduce the time and cost associated with interconnection, help protect 

reliability, increase energy supplies, reduce incentives for transmission owners to favor affi liated generation, 

and encourage effi cient generation and transmission siting decisions. 

 A companion interconnection rule for small generators was proposed in July 2003. The proposal will 

provide benefi ts similar to those for large generator interconnection. It also should increase the number and 

diversity of new generation resources, including the use of non-polluting, renewable energy sources, which 

often are smaller-capacity projects.

ENERGY MARKETS

Commissioner Nora 

Mead Brownell attended a July 2004 event celebrating the expansion 

of California’s Path 15 

transmission bottleneck. 

With Commissioner 

Brownell, from the left, 

are Trans-Elect President Robert Mitchell, 

California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey 

and Kevin Coughlin, 

advisor to Mr. Peevey. 

A helicopter lifts a 

transmission tower in 

the background. Photo 

courtesy Trans-Elect.
19

RELIABILITY COMPENSATION POLICY

 In February 2004 the Commission held a technical conference to explore issues related to appropriate 

pricing and infrastructure development incentives in circumstances when generators are required to operate 

due to local reliability issues but may not be receiving adequate compensation under current market rules. 

In a May 2004 order the Commission announced a generic reliability compensation policy, which set out a 

process to implement market designs that, while protecting against the exercise of market power, provide 

for appropriate price signals that: (1) allow an opportunity for recovery of an adequate revenue stream by 

generators so that they have incentive to remain in the market; and (2) provide incentives to attract new 

infrastructure investment. The Commission indicated that use of improved market design features is the 

preferred choice for solving reliability compensation issues, where possible. 

 The Commission further indicated that whether a reliability compensation issue requires a market design 

fi x, an infrastructure investment response, or both, the choice of remedy should demonstrate that the proposed 

solution: (1) can be implemented; (2) is feasible; and (3) is expected (with a high degree of probability) to 

solve the problem or problems. The demonstration must include a showing that the revenue produced by the 

proposed solution is adequate to actually solve the problem at hand and that the proposed solution includes 

safeguards to prevent the unwarranted exercise of market power beyond the recovery of such revenue.

RTO/ISO ACCOUNTING, FINANCIAL REPORTING AND COST RECOVERY PRACTICES

 In September 2004, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry in order to explore whether changes to 

regional transmission organization/independent system operator (RTO/ISO) accounting, fi nancial reporting, 

and cost recovery practices are necessary to provide greater transparency and more effective oversight 

of transactions and business functions, and to ensure the rates charged by RTOs/ISOs and their member 

transmission-owning public utilities are just and reasonable. Comments are due in early FY 2005 and will 

help determine whether: 

The Commission needs to adopt new regulations to better account for RTO and ISO cost 

information; 

RTOs and ISOs have appropriate incentives to be cost effi cient; and 

The Commission’s rate review methods for RTOs and ISOs are suffi cient. 

COMPETITIVE MARKETS

DEVELOPMENT OF COST-EFFECTIVE WHOLESALE REGIONAL POWER MARKETS

 Several signifi cant steps in the development and expansion of RTOs were accomplished in FY 2004:

The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) fi led to establish an RTO encompassing the States of Kansas and 

Oklahoma, and parts of the States of Missouri, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. In 

February 2004 the Commission granted RTO status to SPP conditioned upon fulfi llment of certain 

requirements. SPP participants are currently in the process of implementing important elements 

of effi cient market development and operations. The Commission also established a fi eld offi ce in 

Little Rock, Arkansas, to permit a daily interface between staff and SPP RTO market participants 

and regulators.

ISO New England, on behalf of entities in the region, fi led to establish an RTO for the six-state 

New England region. In March 2004 the Commission granted ISO-NE RTO status subject to the 

fulfi llment of certain requirements and the outcome of a limited hearing. 

●

●

●

●

●

ENERGY MARKETS
20

ENERGY MARKETS

The Commission approved a fi ling by PJM RTO to establish “PJM South” within its RTO by adding 

Dominion Virginia Power as a member. PJM RTO also successfully integrated American Electric 

Power and Dayton Power into its RTO at the close of the fi scal year.

Three more electric utilities (First Energy, Ameren, and Northern Indiana Public Service) were 

added to the Midwest ISO during the fi scal year and Illinois Power joined Midwest ISO at the 

close of the fi scal year. In addition, the development, coordination and testing of market platform 

elements continues at the Midwest ISO in preparation of commencement of operations as an RTO 

in FY 2005. 

RESOLUTION OF SEAMS ISSUES

 The Commission continues to facilitate discussions between industry and states regarding seams issues 

that occur at RTO and ISO boundaries. Seams issues are trade barriers and ineffi ciencies resulting from 

equipment limitations and differences in market rules and designs, operating and scheduling protocols, 

and other control-area practices that inhibit or preclude the ability to transact capacity and energy between 

regions. Power products and differences in pricing and market rules can differ signifi cantly between ISO and 

RTO markets and result in reduced competition between suppliers across regional boundaries. Resolving 

seams differences between regions can lower the cost of transacting power sales between regions, permit 

dispatch of lower cost power and, ultimately, lower costs to customers. Activity during the fi scal year to 

revise rules and improve market pricing at the seams include:

A Northeast Seams Initiative designed to reduce the seams among the RTOs and ISOs located in 

the MidAtlantic and Northeastern regions of the country and neighboring systems in Canada. This 

initiative is intended to harmonize market rules, eliminate seams and develop larger markets among 

ISO-New England, the New York ISO, PJM RTO, and the Ontario Independent Market Operator.

●

●

●

At the stroke of midnight on September 30, 2004, American Electric Power (AEP) and Dayton Power and Light successfully integrated into the PJM system. In the PJM control for the event were, 

from left: Craig Glazer, PJM; Patrick Clarey, FERC; Karl Pfi rrmann, PJM; Carl English, AEP; 

Craig Baker, AEP; Holly Koeppel, AEP; Phillip G. Harris, PJM; James Mahoney, Dayton Power 

& Light Company; Pat Wood, III, Chairman of the FERC; Jim Hinton, PJM; and Ken Laughlin, 

PJM. Photo courtesy PJM.
21

ENERGY MARKETS

Midwest ISO and PJM RTO continue to work toward creating seamless operations to serve wholesale 

electricity customers in 22 states, the District of Columbia and parts of Canada. The joint efforts are 

intended to improve coordination of inter-regional congestion management, operational data exchange, 

real-time communications, emergency protocols, system planning, and market monitoring. In addition, 

the Commission held hearings and interested parties have developed proposals for eliminating 

transmission charges for power originating in one region and transmitted to another region (“through 

and out rates”). Implementation of the new pricing will take effect in FY 2005 after Commission 

review of the merits of the competing proposals. This will enhance opportunities for more effi cient 

trading while permitting recovery of costs of operating the transmission grid. 

MARKET-BASED RATES POLICY

 In an April 2004 order and an order on rehearing in July 2004, the Commission adopted a new generation 

market power analysis to be applied to market-based rate applications. Two new indicative screens were 

adopted, one which analyzes whether an applicant’s supply is pivotal at the time of system peak use, 

and one which evaluates an applicant’s market share in relation to seasonal market supply and demand. 

Taken together, the Commission is able to measure the potential for the exercise of market power in both 

peak and off peak hours, both unilaterally and in conjunction with other sellers. Should an applicant fail 

one or both of the indicative screens, it has the option to provide additional, more detailed information 

or to propose mitigation measures. Public utilities with authorization to charge market-based rates, 

as well as entities requesting initial authorization, were required to fi le updated information during FY 

2004. This would allow the Commission to use the new indicative screens to determine whether marketbased rate authorization should continue. Commission action on these fi lings will continue into FY 2005. 

AFFILIATE TRANSACTIONS POLICY GUIDANCE

 The Commission issued policy guidance on the showing that must be made to support the reasonableness 

of wholesale power sales contracts between affi liates and solicitation principles to support asset transfers 

between affi liates. This will ensure that transactions with affi liates do not receive preferential treatment or 

result in self-dealing. In an order issued in February 2004, the Commission announced that it would require 

all future cost-based power sales contracts between affi liates to satisfy the same standards that are applicable 

to affi liate market-based sales. The policy (referred to as the Edgar standard based on a 1991 Commission 

affi liate sales case decision) requires a showing that the utility will not pay more than a non-affi liate would 

pay for comparable power. In orders issued in July 2004, the Commission established new guidelines for 

approval of transfers of jurisdictional facilities between affi liates. The Commission announced that the 

Edgar standard would be applied in all future asset transfer applications involving affi liate generation. The 

Commission also established solicitation principles that should be satisfi ed in support of power procurement 

processes that involve affi liate participation. The principles include: (1) transparency; (2) precise product 

defi nitions; (3) standardized evaluation criteria; and (4) independent third-party oversight of the process.

 In June 2004 the Commission held a technical conference to explore the solicitation process for power 

procurement, including solicitations whereby utilities sell to their affi liates. 

●
22

ENERGY PROJECTS

GOALS

 The Commission’s challenge is to continue to promote a secure, high-quality, environmentally 

responsible energy infrastructure through consistent policies. The objectives for meeting these challenges 

include:

Expediting appropriate infrastructure development to ensure suffi cient energy supplies;

Addressing landowner and environmental concerns fairly; and

Promoting measures to improve the security and safety of the energy infrastructure.

NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE

 The primary focus of the natural gas industry in FY 2004 has been on the development of new Liquefi ed 

Natural Gas (LNG) import terminals in the United States. Between 1992 and 2002, low natural gas prices 

and plentiful domestic supply resulted in no new LNG import terminals proposed in the lower 48 states. 

Beginning in 2003, however, higher prices and concerns about domestic production delines brought renewed 

interest in LNG. The Commission began to feel the impact of this trend, and in FY 2004 the Commission 

staff was reviewing proposals for the construction of eleven new import terminals and expansion of two 

existing terminals.

 The Commission expects an increase in storage expansion projects to improve and maintain the integrity 

of the overall natural gas transmission network. In addition, there will be a continued pattern of pipeline 

●

●

●

Construction of a natural gas pipeline owned by Cheyenne Plains Gas 

Pipeline Company, LLC. The 380-mile interstate pipeline begins in northern 

Colorado near Cheyenne, Wyoming and ends near Greensburg, Kansas.

Photo courtesy of Stephen Bacon, El Paso Western Pipelines.
23

ENERGY PROJECTS

system modeling to refl ect the impact on existing infrastructure vis-à-vis takeaway capacity from new LNG 

terminals and capacity constraints associated with delivering Rocky Mountain gas to market.

 The expeditious processing of certifi cate applications, while ensuring due process for those affected 

by natural gas projects, remains an ongoing goal for the Commission. The Commission has continued 

to encourage early stakeholder involvement in project development through the use of tools such as the 

Pre-Filing Process and the gas outreach program. The environmental review process includes numerous 

opportunities for stakeholder involvement. The Commission has expanded those opportunities by: (1) 

strongly encouraging the applicants to develop and implement deliberate public involvement programs as 

part of the project development process; (2) giving stakeholders access to information earlier in the process; 

and (3) holding additional, issue-specifi c meetings in the project areas.

 In FY 2004, 16 projects used the Pre-Filing Process to engage stakeholders in the identifi cation and 

resolution of stakeholder concerns before the fi ling of a certifi cate application with the Commission. The 

staff’s leadership in these efforts allowed for more effi cient and concise Commission deliberations for those 

projects ripe for decision. Overall processing time for applications requiring an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) dropped from 469 days in FY 2003 to 448 days in FY 2004. 

 The gas pipeline industry continues to aggressively pursue new markets. In this competitive environment, 

pipelines are proposing to serve markets already served by other pipelines. Competing pipelines and 

landowners, who question the need for the new projects, vigorously contest many of these proposals. Others 

with environmental concerns also question the need and any associated impacts. Processing these contested 

proposals requires signifi cant resources, and the Commission remains fully committed to ensuring that 

multiple competing interests and timeliness issues are not only addressed, but that any decision authorizing 

the construction and operation of facilities refl ects a balancing of these concerns. To that end, the Commission 

ensures that reasonable, but effective conditions and environmental mitigative measures are placed in 

certifi cate authorizations.

HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE

 Twenty applications to relicense existing facilities were fi led in FY 2004. These applications, along with 

others that will be fi led over the next 10 years represent over 40 projects with installed capacities in excess 

of 100 megawatts. Many of these applications are for regionally important cases that affect the full spectrum 

of environmental concerns ranging from shoreline development (marinas vs. residential development vs. 

public access) to confl icting uses of instream fl ows for water supply, irrigation interests, whitewater boating 

and endangered fi sh species. 

 The Commission has two goals in the licensing process. One is to ensure that the end product of the 

licensing process balances the multitude of competing interests and represents the most comprehensive 

development of the waterway as required by the Federal Power Act. The second goal is to facilitate the 

timely completion of the licensing process. In meeting these goals the Commission is confronted with many 

challenges. One challenge is to ensure that entities with an interest in the outcome of the process (federal 

and state resource agencies, private citizens, developmental interests, environmental organizations, Indian 

tribes, and hydropower developers) are afforded an opportunity to fully participate in the process. Another 

challenge is to ensure that the licensing process occurs in parallel with processes required by other laws. 

Two key examples are the state water quality certifi cation and endangered species consultation processes 

that can sometimes delay license issuance for several years. 

 The Commission has effectively met these challenges through encouraging the use of settlement 

agreements. In ever increasing numbers, stakeholders are formulating settlement agreements designed to 
24

ENERGY PROJECTS

comprehensively address a wide variety of issues. The Commission’s adoption of these settlements has 

clearly sent a message that development of such comprehensive agreements empowers the groups to fi nd 

local solutions to local problems. 

 Most importantly, the Commission promulgated the Integrated Licensing Process through a rule issued 

in July 2003. It is designed to meet the challenges of ensuring that interested stakeholder groups are fully 

engaged in the preparation of the license application and ensuring that the many state and federal processes 

are undertaken in concert with the licensing process. Extensive outreach efforts throughout 2004 have 

culminated in almost one-third of eligible licensees choosing this new process.

 To further the Commission’s commitment to promoting effective relationships with Native American 

tribal governments as well as the President’s commitment to working with tribal governments on a 

government-to-government basis, the Commission’s fi rst tribal liaison was announced in FY 2004. The tribal 

liaison will be responsible for establishing effective relationships with tribal governments before and during 

Commission proceedings, ensuring that tribal concerns are timely and adequately addressed, providing 

guidance to Commission staff on tribal governments and culture, and informing tribes of Commission 

statutes and processes. 

ACHIEVEMENTS

NATURAL GAS PIPELINES

CERTIFICATION

 In FY 2004, the Commission certifi cated 20 major pipeline projects, resulting in 5.7 billion cubic feet 

(Bcf) per day of additional capacity; 91,000 horsepower of compression; and 611 miles of new pipeline. 

With regard to storage facilities, the Commission authorized three storage projects and two LNG projects, 

resulting in 0.99 Bcf of peak day deliverability; and 7 Bcf of storage capacity and 2.1 Bcf per day of 

deliverability from LNG storage facilities. In addition to the authorized LNG capacity, six other LNG 

proposals, representing approximately 44 Bcf of storage capacity, are currently under analysis.

 The additional pipeline capacity (or throughput) provided by the new pipeline projects certifi cated in FY 

2004 represent a 9.3 percent increase in the market share for natural gas. The new LNG projects represents 

3.3 percent of the national daily consumption. The enhanced seasonal operations provided by the storage 

expansions provide 7 percent more deliverability into the pipeline grid.

 During FY 2004, the Commission staff completed the environmental review of 397 gas pipeline and LNG 

fi lings, including 47 environmental assessments (EAs) and four environmental impact statements (EISs). 

Concurrently, the Commission staff continued work on 17 additional EAs and 18 additional EISs, primarily 

for new LNG import terminal both onshore and offshore. The EIS for the Cheyenne Plains Project and the 

EA for TransColorado Expansion Project were completed in record-setting times and in full coordination with 

stakeholder groups, Indian tribes and others. The consequent Commission decision resulted in the addition of 

needed transportation capacity out of the Rocky Mountain production areas. The completion of the EISs for the 

Freeport LNG Project and for the AES and Calypso pipelines entering the U.S. from proposed LNG facilities 

in the Bahamas enabled timely Commission decisions on these key projects.
25

ENERGY PROJECTS

COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

 In FY 2004, Commission staff conducted 203 inspections of natural gas pipelines to ensure compliance 

with environmental regulations and certifi cate conditions. Of the 79 projects that were inspected, three 

involved more environmental issues and affected populated areas and were inspected at least once every 

four weeks during construction, and at least once following the completion of construction.

SECURITY AND SAFETY OF NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE

 In response to an increase in LNG facility development, the Commission undertook and participated in 

a number of initiatives. An Interagency Agreement between the Commission, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s Offi ce of Pipeline Safety was signed in February 2004 to ensure the 

seamless and coordinated review of safety and security aspects of LNG facilities. In addition, in accordance 

with the agreement signed by the Commission regarding the review of offshore LNG facilities under the 

Deepwater Port Act, the Commission cooperates actively with the U.S. Coast Guard in the environmental 

review of three applications involving associated onshore pipelines.

 With increased stakeholder concern about LNG safety, the Commission adopted methodologies for 

modeling LNG spills on water and on May 14, 2004, issued its study in Docket No. AD04-6-000 titled 

Consequence Assessment Methods for Incidents Involving Releases from Liquefi ed Natural Gas Carriers. 

The study established the basis for further research and analysis of the site-specifi c issues at each proposed 

facility. In FY 2004, the environmental and safety analysis of the Freeport LNG project included the fi rsttime application of the study.

 Further, as part of the Commission’s commitment to enhancing and maintaining its LNG expertise, a 

new branch consisting of LNG engineers was established within the Offi ce of Energy Projects to provide 

leadership and focus on this important component of the Commission’s work. The new branch issued 

a contract in September 2004 to commence a review of its entire LNG review process, focusing on the 

cryogenic design review and inspection program.

Dominion’s Cove Point liquefi ed natural gas import facility on the 

Chesapeake Bay in Cove Point, Maryland. © 2002 Cameron Davidson
26

ENERGY PROJECTS

As part of its continuing inspection program, Commission staff conducted 10 biennial inspections 

of jurisdictional LNG peak-shaving and import facilities, placing increased emphasis on plant security 

measures and improvements. In addition, the Commission staff conducted a review of specifi c safety and 

security issues at each of the four existing LNG import facilities and the 12 peakshaving facilities under its 

jurisdiction. 

 Lastly, in FY 2004 the staff continued its involvement with the National Association of State Fire 

Marshals (NASFM). This organization represents those who are among the “fi rst responders” to any 

natural gas pipeline emergency. The staff was successful in getting agreement from NASFM’s Government 

Strategy Committee to expand its education efforts to include LNG terminals and engage in pilot partnering 

programs with several LNG facilities.

INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY GROUP

 During FY 2004, the infrastructure policy group completed a staff report to Congress entitled New 

England Natural Gas Infrastructure. The report, required by the Pipeline Safety Act of 2002, was conducted 

to determine if there was adequate interstate pipeline capacity and storage in New England to meet the 

increasing demand from gas-fi red electric generation and other uses. In addition, the group conducted a 

regional study on the energy infrastructure in the Northeast and held a conference in New York City. 

COMMUNICATION AND PARTNERS

 In FY 2004, the Commission continued its partnership efforts in ensuring that energy matters spanning 

the North American continent are addressed in concert. These efforts included:

Signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Canadian National Energy Board (NEB) 

regarding the coordination of projects involving the common border between the United States and 

Canada;

Signing an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the United States 

Coast Guard in an effort to coordinate review of land and marine safety and security issues at the 

nation’s LNG import terminals; and

Continuing to organize and participate in trilateral meetings between the Commission, the NEB, and 

the Mexican Comision Reguladora de Energia to discuss regulatory issues of mutual concern.

 The Commission also participated in the: 

National Energy Plan (NEP) group for streamlining energy projects;

NEP task force to provide effi cient federal response to a pipeline from Alaska;

Department of Energy/Canada Energy Consultative Mechanism to discuss cross-border gas and 

electric issues;

NEP North American Energy Working Group to foster communication and cooperation 

among the governments and energy sectors of the United States, Canada, and Mexico;

Connecticut State Task Force reviewing siting and need for natural gas and electric projects; and 

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●
27

ENERGY PROJECTS

IMPROVED INFORMATION AVAILABILITY AND OUTREACH

 In FY 2004, the Commission continued its outreach program to collect and disseminate information on 

ways for applicants, citizens, and state and other federal agencies, to identify and resolve disputes before 

natural gas companies fi le their applications. The Commission staff actively sought out opportunities 

to educate stakeholders about Commission processes. In addition to attending open houses and public 

meetings on specifi c projects, the staff participated in a variety of conferences and seminars to facilitate 

the dissemination of policies, practices, and procedures to stakeholder groups with wide-ranging interests. 

Specifi cally, the Commission staff sponsored a workshop in Phoenix, Arizona, in August 2004 to provide 

Native Americans and the pipeline industry with a forum to discuss issues surrounding natural gas pipeline 

construction and operation. 

 Since 1992, the Commission has actively promoted outreach through its industry training sessions. 

Commission staff conducted four sessions of its Environmental Report Preparation (ERP) Seminars and 

Post-Certifi cate Environmental Compliance Seminars. 

 The Commission staff furthered the goals of the e-Government initiative by developing the capability of 

disseminating Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data to Commission staff thereby enhancing the value 

of having maps fi led electronically. Commission staff has been coordinating with the Interstate Natural Gas 

Association of America, other pipeline industry representatives, and other federal agencies in developing 

appropriate GIS data fi ling specifi cations to ensure that all parties realize the benefi ts of using GIS in the 

processing of pipeline certifi cate applications.

The St. Lawrence 

project, licensed to 

the New York Power 

Authority, received 

a license in record 

time due to extensive 

collaboration among 

interested parties. 

The project is part 

of an international 

hydroelectric facility 

that spans the U.S.-

Canadian border.

Photo courtesy of 

the New York Power 

Authority.
28

ENERGY PROJECTS

HYDROPOWER LICENSING, ADMINISTRATION, 

COMPLIANCE AND SAFETY

LICENSING

RELICENSING EFFORTS

 During FY 2004, the Commission acted on a total of 46 applications, which included a total of 44 license 

applications and two surrender applications. These applications represented an installed capacity of more 

than 2,000 megawatts. The Commission also initiated the processing of 20 relicense proposals, eight of 

which have an installed capacity in excess of 100 megawatts.

 The Commission’s practice of approving comprehensive settlements and incorporating the terms of the 

settlements recommended by stakeholder groups into the license has encouraged stakeholders to formulate 

such agreements. In essence, through this practice, the Commission has empowered the various stakeholder 

groups to resolve, in large part, the issues during the licensing process through reaching consensus. 

 The following are examples of licenses issued in FY 2004 that included settlement agreements. In 

October 2003, the Commission issued a license for the 912-MW St. Lawrence Hydropower Project located 

on the Canadian border on the St. Lawrence River near Massena, New York. The Commission approved 

a settlement agreement signed by more than 30 stakeholder groups and included provisions in the project 

license that addressed issues from power allocation to multimillion-dollar fi sh and wildlife enhancement 

measures. For the 278-MW Lake Gaston Project, located on the border of North Carolina and Virginia, the 

Commission in March 2004 issued a license and approved a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement, 

signed by 14 parties, addressed a myriad of issues designed to, among other things, enhance the water quality 

and fi shery in approximately 130 miles of the Roanoke River. A settlement agreement signed by the licensee 

and seven federal fi sh and wildlife agencies that set forth a number of fi shery protection and enhancement 

measures was made part of the license issued in November 2003, for the 185-MW North Umpqua Project 

located on the North Umpqua River in Oregon. For the 22-MW Bull Run Project on the Sandy River in 

Oregon, 22 stakeholder groups signed a settlement agreement, approved by the Commission in May 2004, 

providing for the removal of two power generating developments as well as a variety of measures to protect 

and enhance populations of listed salmon species. In August 2004, the Commission licensed fi ve Snake 

River Projects, with a combined capacity of more than 264-MW that affect more than 120 miles of the Snake 

River in Idaho. These licenses included settlement provisions agreed to by the Department of the Interior 

and the licensee that were designed to protect listed species. A license for the 85-MW Bear River Project in 

Idaho was issued in December 2003, incorporating terms of a comprehensive settlement agreement, signed 

by 14 agencies and nongovernmental organizations, that provided for signifi cant recreational and fi shery 

enhancements.

INTEGRATED LICENSING PROCESS

 In FY 2004, the Commission successfully implemented the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) 

which, among other things, merges the prefi ling consultation with the development of the environmental 

analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Throughout FY 2004, the Commission 
29

ENERGY PROJECTS

has undertaken numerous outreach efforts to educate the industry, resource agencies, Indian tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, citizen groups and other stakeholder groups on the ILP. Regional 

workshops and intensive project-specifi c conferences with multiple stakeholder groups were undertaken 

to encourage the use of the ILP. As a result, approximately one third of the eligible projects have proposed 

to use the ILP. These projects include Canaan (New Hampshire/Vermont), Tacoma-Ames (Colorado), 

Mystic Lake (Montana), Packwood Lake (Washington), Morgan Falls (Georgia), De Sabla (California), 

and Smith Mountain (Virginia). 

 To ensure the successful implementation of the new process, the Commission revised its “Guide to 

Hydropower Licensing and 5 Megawatt Exemption” to include guidance on the ILP. In addition, on March 

12, 2004, the Commission issued a notice soliciting panel members for the study dispute component of the 

ILP. Finally, the Commission developed the framework for an effectiveness study to monitor the extent 

the ILP achieves its goals of reducing processing time and costs while ensuring appropriate environmental 

protection. 

TRIBAL POLICY STATEMENT

 At the same time the Commission issued the rule implementing the ILP, it also issued a Tribal Policy 

Statement. With regard to the licensing process, the policy statement set forth the Commission’s expectations 

that the Indian tribes be afforded every opportunity to become fully engaged in the licensing process through 

consultation with the Commission staff. In FY 2004, consultation began for more than 45 relicensing cases 

due to be fi led over the next three years. In addition, the Commission held more than 40 meetings with tribes 

for 15 licensing actions.

A marina near the 

New York Power 

Authority’s Long 

Sault Dam provides 

recreational 

opportunities for 

the public.

Photo courtesy of 

the New York Power 

Authority.
30

ENERGY PROJECTS

HYDRO LICENSING STATUS WORKSHOP

 In December 2003, the Commission sponsored the third in a series of workshops on hydropower licensing 

proceedings that are fi ve years or older. Interested stakeholders were invited to discuss, on a project-specifi c 

basis, procedural impediments that precluded the Commission from taking fi nal action. At least in part due 

to the actions spurred by the fi rst two workshops, the number of prolonged cases dropped from 51 identifi ed 

in the fi rst workshop to 21 cases discussed in the last workshop. As with the other workshops, this last 

workshop identifi ed a key source of licensing delay in the applicant’s receipt of necessary state certifi cations 

and permits. For the workshop planned for December 2004, the Commission has lowered the threshold to 

include those cases that will be three years and older. 

INTERAGENCY ESA WORKSHOPS

 In addition to state certifi cations and permits, consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) was also identifi ed as an impediment to processing some of the licensing cases presented during the 

above-mentioned workshop. In an effort to address this issue, the Commission established workshops with 

federal fi sh and wildlife agencies, primarily in the western part of the country where most ESA consultations 

occur. This effort has included multiple conferences designed to address a variety of issues, such as better 

coordination of project processing schedules as well as developing procedures and training programs 

designed to make the process more effi cient for the Commission, license applicants and resource agencies. 

These workshops have substantially reduced delays.

NONCONVENTIONAL HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT

 During FY 2004, interest in nonconventional hydropower development has grown. The Commission 

has more than 15 preliminary permit applications for proposals to develop wave action and tidal action 

hydropower facilities. There are currently three different proposals where applicants are proceeding with 

development of license applications. These proposals include AquaEnergy Group Ltd.’s (AquaEnergy) 

preparation of a license application for the Makah Bay Wave Energy Project. It is a pilot project designed 

to test the relatively new and developing wave energy technology off the coast of Washington State which, 

according to the proposal, would consist of up to four, 250-kW units. Similarly, Verdant Power is proposing 

to install what can best be described as underwater windmills, capable of producing 16-kW of energy, in the 

East River in New York City. It has been estimated that the total expansion potential of this site could range 

from 5 to 10 megawatts. Lastly, Energetech proposes to build a 500-kW wave action facility off the coast of 

Rhode Island. 

ADMINISTRATION AND COMPLIANCE

AUTHORIZING FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR NEW HYDROPOWER PROJECTS

 In FY 2004, the Commission continued to receive a large number of preliminary permit applications. 

A preliminary permit may be issued to an applicant for up to three years so they can study a particular site 

and determine if they want to develop it in the future. It gives the permittee priority over the site during the 

life of the permit. During FY 2004, the Commission authorized feasibility studies, through the issuance of 

preliminary permits, for 950-MW of hydropower capacity.
31

ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

 Commission staff met in Columbia, Tennessee, with plant operators and city managers in December 

2003 to discuss public safety at a boat launch at the Old Columbia Project No. 11351, and the requirements 

necessary to resume project operation.

 In January and February 2004, Commission staff met with the licensee of the Swinging Bridge Project 

No. 10482, located on the Mongaup River in New York, on two occasions to discuss issues at the project 

related to recreation. During the fi rst meeting, trespassing and other concerns of adjacent landowners were 

addressed. At the second meeting, town offi cials and local developers joined the licensee and Commission 

staff to assist in further analyzing the recreational issues at the project. During these meetings, staff explained 

the Commission’s policies and license requirements concerning public recreation at the project. 

 The staff met with representatives of the Grand River Dam Authority, licensee for the Pensacola Project 

No. 1494 in Oklahoma, in March 2004 to discuss various administrative and compliance matters. During the 

meeting, the licensee’s representatives and Commission staff engaged in discussions on how to effectively 

work together to fulfi ll both the licensee’s and the Commission’s responsibilities.

 At the 2004 Boating and Water Safety Congress held in April 2004, Commission staff focused on 

improving the safety of the nation’s waterways and continued to build upon working relationships with its 

licensees. Commission staff held discussions with participants from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. 

Coast Guard, and non-governmental organizations such as the American Canoe Association, the National 

SAFE KIDS Campaign, and the National Safe Boating Council. They discussed various issues concerning 

water safety, docks, and security at reservoirs. Other issues discussed were shoreline management, public 

safety, and recreation at licensed projects

 During a June 2004 meeting with property owners and developers at the Lake of the Ozarks, the project 

reservoir for the Osage Project No. 459 in Missouri, staff provided licensee guidance concerning adjacent 

landowners’ use of project lands and waters. 

COMPLIANCE WORKLOAD PROJECTION

 The issuance of 220 new licenses between FY 2000 and 2010 will add about 2,200 more license articles, 

requiring numerous compliance fi lings and amendment applications. The annual workload receipts in this 

area have become increasingly complex as agencies and the public participate more fully and vigorously in 

setting license requirements and negotiate settlements and agreements that are incorporated as conditions of 

the license. As a result, average annual workload receipts are expected to increase about 15 percent each year.

ENERGY PROJECTS

FY

2000

FY

2001

FY

2010

FY

2009

FY

2008

FY

2007

FY

2006

FY

2005

FY

2004

FY

2003

FY

2002

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Projected Additional Articles

(Cumulative)
32

COMPLIANCE PLANS AND REPORTS 

 Licenses include conditions that will protect and enhance environmental resources. These conditions 

require licensees to prepare and fi le plans or reports with the Commission that may deal with project 

operation, development of recreational resources, improvements to fi shery habitat, water quality protection, 

wildlife benefi ts, wetlands and vegetation improvements, and cultural resources protection. In FY 2004, 

the Commission completed reviews of about 1,000 of these applications. For example, in June 2004 the 

Commission approved project-specifi c anadromous fi sh agreements and habitat conservation plans regarding 

the operation of Rocky Reach Project No. 2145 and Rock Island Project No. 943, which are licensed to 

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington, and the Wells Project No. 2149, which is 

licensed to Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington. The approvals provide increased 

minimum fl ows and spills at each project to assist migrating salmon and steelhead trout. 

COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

 In FY 2004, the Commission completed more than 300 reviews of non-compliance reports related to 

environmental requirements and completed 20 reviews of reports of non-compliance incidents related to 

engineering. The Commission is increasing its capability regarding the use of state-of-the-art modeling 

techniques. For example, fl ow modeling will enable the Commission to resolve more effi ciently various 

fl ooding scenarios, and better demonstrate the relationship between licensed projects and unavoidable 

upstream or downstream fl ooding events. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

 In FY 2004, the Commission continued to review the results of its monitoring efforts to evaluate 

whether the environmental measures in licenses were providing the appropriate levels of protection, 

mitigation, and enhancement for environmental resources. The Commission issued a fi nal report entitled 

Mitigation Effectiveness Studies at Hydropower Projects: Fish Passage and a draft report entitled 

Mitigation Effectiveness Studies at Hydropower Projects: Recreation. The fi nal fi sh passage report 

analyzed 269 licensed projects with requirements concerning upstream and/or downstream fi sh passage 

(See map next page for geographical distribution of projects.) 

FISH PASSAGE REVIEW

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 269 PROJECTS WITH AT LEAST ONE LICENSE ARTICLE

ADDRESSING FISH PASSAGE

 The draft recreation report analyzed recreation reports fi led by our licensees to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the recreational measures required in licenses. This review found the total number of visitors to recreation 

facilities at licensed projects increased from 103.4 million visitors in 1996 to 105.7 million visitors in 2002, 

a total increase of 2.2 percent (see chart for list of top 10 projects in 2002). These reviews will allow for 

improvements to environmental measures included in future licenses and, consequently, to the hydropower 

program objective of improving the environmental performance of hydropower projects.

ENERGY PROJECTS
33

JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW

 The Commission’s jurisdictional review program entails evaluating the jurisdictional status of all 

hydroelectric projects with licenses expiring within fi ve years. In addition, staff evaluates the jurisdictional 

status of proposed projects, as well as licensed and unlicensed operating hydropower projects. Staff completed 

jurisdictional reviews for eight projects. 

HEADWATER BENEFITS STUDIES

 During FY 2004, pursuant to section 10(f) of the FPA, staff completed the determination of headwater 

benefi ts for the Yakima River basin using the Commission’s Headwater Benefi ts Energy Gains computer 

model and issued assessments for Pacifi Corp’s Naches Project. 

 In FY 2004, about $6 million was collected in headwater benefi ts assessments for energy benefi ts 

provided by federal headwater storage projects in several river basins. Headwater benefi ts assessments are 

returned to the U.S. Treasury to offset headwater project construction costs.

Safety

 The Commission’s dam safety program, through its many components, helps ensure dam safety, public 

safety, environmental resource protection, and reliability in the electric industry.

ENERGY PROJECTS

4

6

6

2

1

5

9

51

2

39

2

1

1 4 9

7

10 1

28

14

12

29

9

16

1

Fish Passage Review: Geographical distribution of 269 projects 

with at least one license article that addressed fi sh passage.
34

ENERGY PROJECTS

PROJECT INSPECTIONS

 Inspections verify the structural integrity of dams and compliance with engineering, environmental, 

and public safety conditions and regulations. They also identify necessary maintenance and remedial 

modifi cations. The Commission is responsible for inspecting about 2,600 dams and related water retention 

structures. It conducts periodic inspections starting from the receipt of an application for a proposed 

jurisdictional project, throughout the term of a license. Types of inspections are prelicense, construction, 

operation, instrumentation, exemption, and special. The Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and 

Inspections with its fi ve regional offi ces conducts the inspections.

RESOLVING SAFETY DEFICIENCIES

 During FY 2004, the Commission was actively resolving safety defi ciencies at 65 dams and overseeing 

remedial and other construction at 110 projects totaling $1.3 billion in construction costs. Most notable is the 

construction progress of the $275 million backup dam at the Saluda Project in Columbia, South Carolina.

PERFORMANCE MONITORING

 Applying instrumentation to dams and related water-retaining structures, to monitor otherwise 

undetectable changes in these structures, is a critical component of the Commission’s dam safety program. 

By applying the correct technology and instrumentation to each unique situation for early detection and 

evaluation of defi ciencies, serious problems are identifi ed, evaluated, and corrected before they fully 

develop. In FY 2004, the Commission entered its second year of implementation of an important aspect of 

its performance monitoring program called potential failure modes analysis. This program helps safeguard 

important hydropower infrastructure, and provides cost-effective, targeted results. 

Top Ten Hydropower Developments 

for Daytime Visitors in 2002

 Project Name Project Number State Daytime Visitors

 Santee-Cooper 199 SC 17,173,000

 Niagara Power Project 2216 NY 7,708,100

 Pensacola 1494 OK 4,000,000

 Tallapoosa River 349 AL 2,535,883

 Rock Island 943 WA 2,213,560

 Snoqualmie Falls 2493 WA 1,606,500

 Roanoke Rapids/Gaston 2009 NC/VA 1,589,830

 Coosa (Logan Martin) 2146 AL 1,438,400

 Osage Project 459 MO 1,423,159

 Coosa (Weiss) 2146 AL 1,366,647
35

PROVIDING DAM SAFETY ASSISTANCE TO FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES

 The Commission is an active member of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, the U.S. Society on 

Dams, and the Association of State Dam Safety Offi cials, and shares its dam safety expertise internationally 

as well. During FY 2004, the Commission also provided dam inspection and evaluation services to the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy, and assisted the Director of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency in implementing the National Dam Safety Program. 

EMERGENCY ACTION PLANNING

 During FY 2004, Commission staff developed and held a workshop on Security and Emergency 

Preparedness at Dams. The importance of a well-functioning Emergency Action Plan (EAP) has been 

heightened because of the threat of terrorist attacks on infrastructure. The EAP role has now been expanded 

to further provide a secondary line of defense against terrorist attacks. In the event that a security plan at a 

project does not thwart an attack, the project EAP serves as an additional mechanism to protect the public. The 

ENERGY PROJECTS

From left — Chairman Pat Wood, III, James Landreth, South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G), 

Gus Tjoumas, Director of the Commission’s Dam Safety Program and Commissioner Joseph Kelliher visit the Saluda Dam in South Carolina. The dam, which is licensed to SCE&G, 

is undergoing remediation to ensure that it can withstand the impace of a major earthquake. 

Photo courtesy of Lawrence Crocker.
36

ENERGY PROJECTS

importance of emergency management personnel working closely with the dam owner to complete the EAP 

test continues to be a point of emphasis and program development. The presence of emergency management 

personnel provides valuable information and insight to dam owners on how the emergency response and 

recovery system operates. Commission staff continues to hold training courses and informational meetings 

with state emergency managers to search for ways to further develop coordination between dam owners and 

emergency management personnel to improve any potential response to an emergency, and encourage an 

exchange of emergency action plan information among dam owners. 

SECURITY AT DAMS

 During FY 2004, the Commission furthered the FERC Hydropower Security Program by creating 

and launching the Dam Assessment Methodology for Security and Vulnerability Risk (DAMSVR), in 

coordination with other federal agencies. The Commission distributes the methodology that identifi es 

and assesses vulnerabilities at dams. There are already 191 registered organizations using DAMSVR in 

fi ve countries. The Commission continued security efforts with the Federal Bureau of Investigations and 

the Offi ce of Homeland Security. Staff participated in workgroups, including the Interagency Forum on 

Infrastructure Protection, a Security Task Force of the National Dam Safety Review Board, and the FERC 

Hydro Security Task Force, comprised of FERC staff and licensee representatives, to assist in developing a 

unifi ed and effective national response to security at dams. 
37

Hells Canyon dam and powerhouse located on the Snake River 

in Idaho. Idaho Power Company holds the license for the project. 

Photo by Alan Creamer.
38

(Projects For Which Licenses Will Expire Between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2009)

License FERC Period Facilities

Expiration Project Installation of Under Subj.

Date Licensee No. State County River {KW} Years License Fed.

3/31/2004 PUD No. 1 Chelan, WA 637 GA Harris Chattahoochee 129300 50 DM PH Y

3/31/2004 S. D. Warren Company 2984 CA Tuolumne M Fk Stanislaus 63990 50 DM PH N

4/10/2004 Midwest Hydro Inc 287 CA Tuolumne M Fk Stanislaus 87900 50 DM PH Y

4/30/2004 United Water Cons Dist 2153 ID Fremont Buffalo R 250 24 DM PH Y

4/30/2004 Merimil Limited Partnership 2574 UT Iron Parowan CR 600 30 DM PH N

4/30/2004 Madison Paper Industries 2364 ME Cumberland Presumpscot R 1800 20 DM PH Y

4/30/2004 Madison Paper Industries 2365 WI Marathon Wisconsin R 3050 22 DM PH Y

6/30/2004 Wisconsin Public Service 1979 WI Lincoln Wisconsin R 4200 30 DM PH Y

7/31/2004 Norway City of Michigan 2720 MI Marinette Menominee R 5636 20 DM PH N

7/31/2004 Idaho Power Co 2726 ME Kennebec Kennebec R 6915 35 DM PH Y

9/30/2004 PPL Holtwood, LLC 487 ME Somerset Kennebec R 9000 40 DM PH Y

9/30/2004 Barton Village Inc 7725 ME Somerset Kennebec R 16977 40 DM PH Y

10/31/2004 Fall River Rural Elec Coop 1413 CA Calaveras Stanislaus R 17100 50 DM PH N

10/31/2004 Pacifi c Gas & Electric Co 2105 OR Lackamas Willamette R 17500 50 DM PH Y

11/16/2004 Portland General Elec Co 477 OR Clackamas Bull Run R 21000 30 DM PH Y

11/30/2004 International Paper Co 4914 PA Pike Wallenpaup’K 44000 24 DM PH Y

12/30/2004 City of Parowan, UT 1273 WA Chelan Chelan R 48000 30 DM PH N

12/31/2004 Oakdale & S San Joaquin 2005 CA Plumas N Fk Feather R 342628 50 DM PH Y

12/31/2004 Oakdale & S San Joaquin 2067 VT Orleans Clyde R 1300 20 DM PH N

12/31/2004 Pacifi c Gas & Electric Co 2130 IL La Salle Fox R 3680 25 DM PH Y

12/31/2004 Georgia Power Co 2177 ID Gooding Malad R 21770 25 DM PH N

12/31/2004 Mosinee Paper Mills Co 2207 CA Ventura Piru CR 1420 50 DM PH Y

12/31/2004 Portland General Electric Co 2233 WI Brown Fox R 1078 20 DM PH Y

2/28/2005 Tapoco Inc 2169 NC Blount Tennessee 326500 50 DM PH Y

2/28/2005 Southern Calif Edison Co 382 CA Kern Kern R 12000 30 DM PH Y

3/31/2005 Northern States Power Co 2181 WI Dunn Red Cedar R 5400 50 DM PH Y

3/31/2005 Northern States Power Co 2697 WI Dunn Red Cedar R 6000 20 DM PH Y

3/31/2005 Southern Calif Edison Co 2174 CA Fresno Rancheria Cr 10800 50 DM PH Y

4/30/2005 Alabama Electric Coop 2586 AL Covington Conecuh R 8250 25 DM PH Y

4/30/2005 Pacifi c Gas & Electric Co 178 CA Kern Kern R 9540 30 DM PH Y

5/31/2005 City of Marshall, Michigan 6514 MI Calhoun Kalamazoo R 319 20 DM PH N

5/31/2005 Grand River Dam Auth 2183 OK Mayes Neosho R 100000 50 DM PH N

6/30/2005 N. E. W. Hydro Inc Et Al 7264 WI Outagamie Fox R 1390 20 DM PH N

6/30/2005 FPL Energy Maine Hydro 2194 ME York Saco R 4000 50 DM PH Y

7/1/2005 Pacifi corp 2630 OR Jackson N Fk Rogue R 36760 25 DM PH Y

7/31/2005 Duke Power 2603 NC Macon Little Tennessee 1040 25 DM PH N

7/31/2005 Duke Power 2602 NC Jackson Tuckasegee R 225 25 DM PH N

7/31/2005 Duke Power 2601 NC Swain Oconaluftee R 980 25 DM PH N

7/31/2005 Idaho Power Co 1971 ID Adams Snake R 1166900 50 DM PH Y

8/1/2005 Duke Power 2619 NC Cherokee Hiwassee R 1800 25 DM PH Y

10/4/2005 Norquest Seafoods, Inc. 620 AK Aleutian Div Indian Cr 60 30 DM PH N

10/31/2005 Erie Boulevard Hydropower 7387 NY St Lawrence Raquette R 2700 20 DM PH Y

10/31/2005 Grant CTY PUD 2 2114 WA Grant Columbia R 1755000 50 DM PH N

11/10/2005 Louisville Gas And El Co 289 KY Jefferson Ohio R 80320 30 DM PH Y

12/31/2005 Public Service Co of NH 1893 NH Merrimack Merrimack R 29700 25 DM PH Y

1/31/2006 Duke Power 2686 NC Jackson Tuckasegee R 24600 25 DM PH N

1/31/2006 Duke Power 2698 NC Jackson Tuckasegee 26175 25 DM PH N

2/14/2006 Monroe City Corporation 632 UT Sevier Monroe Cr 250 28 DM PH N

2/28/2006 Duke Power 2692 NC Macon Nantahala R 43200 25 DM PH Y

2/28/2006 Pacifi corp 2082 OR Klamath Klamath R 151000 50 DM PH Y

HYDROELECTRIC POWER TABLE
39

License FERC Period Facilities

Expiration Project Installation of Under Subj.

Date Licensee No. State County River {KW} Years License Fed.

2/28/2006 Union Electric Co 459 MO Miller Osage R 176200 25 DM PH Y

3/31/2006 SC Public Service Authority 199 SC Berkeley Santee R 134520 27 DM PH Y

4/12/2006 N Y St Elec & Gas Corp 2738 NY Clinton Saranac R 38950 26 DM PH Y

4/30/2006 Cowlitz Co PUD No 1 2213 WA Skamania Lewis R 70000 50 DM PH N

4/30/2006 Puget Sound Pwr and Lt Co 2150 WA Whatcom Baker R 162400 50 DM PH Y

4/30/2006 Pacifi corp 2111 WA Skamania Lewis R 240000 50 DM PH Y

4/30/2006 Pacifi corp 935 WA Clark Lewis R 136000 23 DM PH Y

6/30/2006 Chelan Co PUD No 1 2145 WA Douglas Columbia R 1237400 50 DM PH N

8/31/2006 Portland General Elec Co 2195 OR Clackamas Clackamas R 136600 50 DM PH Y

11/30/2006 Erie Boulevard Hydropower 7321 NY Franklin Salmon R 1000 20 DM PH N

12/31/2006 City & County of Denver 2204 CO Grand Williams Fk R 3000 50 DM PH N

1/31/2007 CA Dept of Water Res 2100 CA Butte Feather R 762850 50 DM PH N

2/28/2007 Holyoke City of MA 7758 MA Hampden Holyoke Cnl 760 20 PH N

3/27/2007 Pacifi c Gas & Electric Co 606 CA Shasta Cow Cr 4440 30 DM PH Y

3/31/2007 Flambeau Hydro, LLC 9185 WI Burnett Clam R 1200 20 DM PH N

4/30/2007 Garkane Power Assoc, Inc. 2219 UT Garfi eld W Fk Boulder 4300 50 DM PH Y

4/30/2007 Chugach Elec Assn ,Inc 2170 AK Seward Div Cooper Cr 15000 50 DM PH Y

6/9/2007 Flambeau Hydro, LLC 9184 WI Burnett Yellow R 1076 20 DM PH N

7/31/2007 Pacifi c Gas & Electric Co 2155 CA El Dorado S Fk American R 7000 45 DM PH Y

7/31/2007 Alabama Power Co 618 AL Elmore Coosa R 100000 27 DM PH Y

7/31/2007 Alabama Power Co 82 AL Chilton Coosa R 170000 32 DM PH Y

7/31/2007 Sacramento M U D 2101 CA Placer Gerle Cr 640950 50 DM PH N 

7/31/2007 Alabama Power Co 2146 AL Elmore Coosa R 690900 50 DM PH Y

8/1/2007 Avista Corp 2545 ID Spokane Spokane R 1366000 35 DM PH Y

8/29/2007 Alaska Power & Tel Co 1051 AK Skagway-Yak Dewey Cr 943 30 DM PH N

8/31/2007 Alabama Power Co 2165 AL Tuscaloosa Black Warrior 203250 50 DM PH Y

8/31/2007 South Carolina Elec & Gas 516 SC Newberry Saluda R 207300 23 DM PH Y

8/31/2007 New York Power Authority 2216 NY Niagara Niagara R 2755500 50 DM PH Y

11/30/2007 Wolverine Power Corp 2785 MI Midland Tittabawassee 3300 20 DM PH Y

11/30/2007 Southern Calif Edison Co 2085 CA Fresno San Joaquin R 150938 50 DM PH Y

12/31/2007 Montana Power, L.L.C. 2543 MT Missoula Clark Fk R 3200 40 DM PH Y

3/31/2008 Sitka City of & Borough AK 2230 AK Sitka Division Medvetcha R 7540 50 DM PH N

4/30/2008 Hyrum City Corp Utah 946 UT Cache Blacksmith Fk 400 27 DM PH N

4/30/2008 Ottumwa City of Iowa 925 IA Wapello Des Moines R 3250 26 DM PH N

4/30/2008 Progress Energy Carolinas 2206 NC Stanly Pee Dee R 108600 50 DM PH Y

4/30/2008 Alcoa Generating 2197 NC Davidson Yadkin R 209520 50 DM PH Y

6/15/2008 Virginia Elec & Pwr Co 906 VA Amherst James R 7500 30 DM PH Y

8/9/2008 Crisp County Power Comm 659 GA Worth Flint R 15200 30 DM PH N

8/31/2008 Duke Power 2232 NC Alexander Catawba R 804940 50 DM PH Y

9/30/2008 Pend Oreille Cty PUD 1 2225 WA Pend Oreille Sullivan Cr 0 50 DM PH N

11/30/2008 Eugene City of OR 2242 OR Linn Mckenzie R 124500 50 DM PH N

2/28/2009 Georgia Power Co 2237 GA Fulton Chattahoochee 16800 50 DM PH Y

2/28/2009 Eagle & Phenix Hydro Co 2655 AL Muscogee Chattahoochee 27660 50 DM PH Y

2/28/2009 Southern Calif Edison Co 2175 CA Fresno Big Cr 150150 50 DM PH Y

2/28/2009 Southern Calif Edison Co 120 CA Fresno San Joaquin R 165675 32 DM PH Y

2/28/2009 Southern Calif Edison Co 67 CA Fresno Big Cr 373320 38 DM PH Y

3/31/2009 Oroville-Wyandotte Dist 2088 CA Butte S Fk Feather R 104100 50 DM PH N

5/31/2009 Augusta Canal Authority 9988 GA Richmond Augusta Cnl 2050 20 DM PH Y

7/31/2009 Public Service Co of NH 7528 NH Coos Connecticut R 1100 25 DM PH N

8/31/2009 Boulder, City of 1005 CO Boulder Boulder Cr 20000 28 DM PH Y

10/11/2009 Pacifi c Gas & Electric Co 803 CA Butte Butte Cr 26650 30 DM PH Y

10/31/2009 Littleville Power Co Inc 2801 MA Berkshire Housatonic R 1140 30 DM PH N

HYDROELECTRIC POWER TABLE
40

License FERC Period Facilities

Expiration Project Installationof Under Subj.

Date Licensee No. State County River {KW} Years License Fed.

12/31/2009 Moss, Richard 6885 CA Mono Middle Cr/Birch Cr 175 50 DM PH N

12/31/2009 PP&L Montana, L.L.C. 2301 MT Stillwater W Rosebud Cr 10000 33 DM PH Y

*INCLUDES TYPES OF FACILITIES AT EACH PROJECT, BUT NOT TOTAL NUMBER OF EACH TYPE (E.G. A PROJECT MAY CONSIST 

OF MULTIPLE POWERHOUSES OF DAMS). DM DAM, RS RESERVOIR, CL CANAL, TU TUNNEL, FM FLUME, PL PIPELINE, PK 

PENSTOCK, PH POWERHOUSE, TR TURBINE, GN GENERATOR(S), TC TAILRACE, TL TRANSMISSION LINE OR CONNECTION 

THERETO.

HYDROELECTRIC POWER TABLE
41

For Additional Information, Contact:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Offi ce of External Affairs

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

202/502-8004

Printed 2002