Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4183 

20426) and must be served on each 

person whose name appears on the 

official service list. Please put the 

project name ‘‘King Mill Project’’ and 

number ‘‘P–9988–015’’ on the front 

cover of any motion. If no such motions 

are filed, the restricted service list will 

be effective at the end of the 15-day 

period. Otherwise, a further notice will 

be issued ruling on any motion or 

motions filed within the 15-day period. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–1357 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Southwestern Power Administration 

White River Minimum Flows—Final 

Determination of Federal and NonFederal Hydropower Impacts 

AGENCY: Southwestern Power 

Administration, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of final determination. 

SUMMARY: Section 132 of Public Law 

109–103 (2005) authorized and directed 

the Secretary of the Army to implement 

alternatives BS–3 and NF–7, as 

described in the White River Minimum 

Flows Reallocation Study Report, 

Arkansas and Missouri, dated July 2004. 

The law states that the Administrator, 

Southwestern Power Administration 

(Southwestern), in consultation with the 

project licensee and the relevant state 

public utility commissions, shall 

determine any impacts on electric 

energy and capacity generated at 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) Project No. 2221 caused by the 

storage reallocation at Bull Shoals Lake. 

Further, the licensee of Project No. 2221 

shall be fully compensated by the Corps 

of Engineers for those impacts on the 

basis of the present value of the 

estimated future lifetime replacement 

costs of the electrical energy and 

capacity at the time of implementation 

of the White River Minimum Flows 

project. 

The law also states that losses to the 

Federal hydropower purpose of the Bull 

Shoals and Norfork Projects shall be 

offset by a reduction in the costs 

allocated to the Federal hydropower 

purpose. 

Further, such reduction shall be 

determined by the Administrator of 

Southwestern on the basis of the present 

value of the estimated future lifetime 

replacement cost of the electrical energy 

and capacity at the time of 

implementation of the White River 

Minimum Flows project. 

Southwestern’s draft determination 

was published by Federal Register 

Notice (73 FR 6717) dated February 5, 

2008. Written comments were invited 

through March 6, 2008. All public 

comments received were considered, 

and Southwestern’s draft determination 

was revised as necessary to incorporate 

the public comments. Since there were 

significant changes to Southwestern’s 

draft determination, Southwestern 

published a proposed determination for 

additional public review and comment 

prior to its final determination. 

Southwestern’s proposed 

determination was published by Federal 

Register Notice (73 FR 38198) on July 3, 

2008. Written comments were invited 

through August 4, 2008. After receiving 

several requests for additional time to 

provide public comments, Southwestern 

reopened the public comment period 

through September 18, 2008. All public 

comments received were considered in 

revising the proposed determination, 

and Southwestern is publishing 

notification of its final determination. 

Southwestern’s final determination is 

fully documented in its Final 

Determination Report dated January 

2009, which was prepared in 

consultation with the licensee and the 

relevant public service commissions. 

Southwestern’s Final Determination 

Report documents the procedure to be 

used to calculate the present value of 

the future lifetime replacement cost of 

the electrical energy and capacity lost 

due to the White River Minimum Flows 

project at the non-Federal FERC Project 

No. 2221 and the Federal Bull Shoals 

and Norfork projects. The actual 

hydropower compensation values are to 

be calculated using the method 

presented in the final determination and 

current values for the specified 

parameters based on the official 

implementation date. 

Assuming a January 1, 2011, date of 

implementation for the White River 

Minimum Flows project and November 

2008 values for the specified 

parameters, Southwestern’s 

determination results in a present value 

for the estimated future lifetime 

replacement costs of the electrical 

energy and capacity at FERC Project No. 

2221 of $41,319,400. Southwestern’s 

determination results in a present value 

for the estimated future lifetime 

replacement costs of the electrical 

energy and capacity for Federal 

hydropower of $109,920,200. 

An electronic copy of Southwestern’s 

Final Determination Report is available 

on Southwestern’s Web site at http://

www.swpa.gov/pdfs/WRMF_SWPA_

FinalDeterminationReport.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

George Robbins, Director, Division of 

Resources and Rates, Southwestern 

Power Administration, U.S. Department 

of Energy, One West Third Street, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma 74103, (918) 595–6680, 

george.robbins@swpa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Originally 

established by Secretarial Order No. 

1865 dated August 31, 1943, as an 

agency of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Southwestern is now an agency 

within the U.S. Department of Energy 

which was created by an Act of the U.S. 

Congress, entitled the Department of 

Energy Organization Act, Public Law 

95–91 (1977). Southwestern markets 

power from 24 multi-purpose reservoir 

projects with hydroelectric power 

facilities constructed and operated by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

These projects are located in the states 

of Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Texas. Southwestern’s marketing area 

includes these states plus Kansas and 

Louisiana. 

Southwestern developed a procedure 

for calculating projected energy and 

capacity losses for FERC Project No. 

2221 and the Bull Shoals and Norfork 

projects, including additional losses 

related to the reallocation for minimum 

flows as appropriate. Based on 

November 2008 values for the specified 

parameters, the calculated 

compensation due to the licensee of 

FERC Project. 

No. 2221 is $41,319,400, and the 

calculated credit due to Federal 

hydropower is $109,920,200. The values 

were calculated on the basis of the 

present value of the estimated future 

lifetime replacement cost of the 

electrical energy and capacity assuming 

an implementation date of January 1, 

2011, for the White River Minimum 

Flows project. 

The final calculation will depend on 

the official date of implementation as 

specified by the Corps of Engineers and 

the value of the specified parameters in 

effect at that time. 

FERC Project No. 2221, the nonFederal Ozark Beach hydroelectric 

project, will be directly affected by the 

minimum flow plan. The 

implementation of the authorized plan 

will result in a reduction of the amount 

of gross head (headwater elevation 

minus the tailwater elevation) available 

for generation at the non-Federal project 

at Ozark Beach. The reduction in gross 

head will result in an annual energy loss 

of 6,029 megawatt-hours (MWh) of onpeak energy and 2,969 MWh of off-peak 

energy, or an annual total energy loss of 

8,998 MWh. Also associated with the 

loss of gross head, there will be a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

4184 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

capacity loss of 3.00 megawatts (MW) at 

the project. 

Section 132 of Public Law 109–103 

(2005) authorized alternative BS–3 at 

Bull Shoals, as described in the White 

River Minimum Flows Reallocation 

Study Report, Arkansas and Missouri, 

dated July 2004. Under the authorized 

plan for the Bull Shoals project, five feet 

of storage for minimum flows will be 

reallocated from the flood control pool 

with provisions to provide a portion of 

the reallocated storage for hydropower’s 

use to maintain the yield of the current 

hydropower storage. The current 

seasonal pool plan will be 

superimposed on the new top of 

conservation pool. As a result, both the 

conservation and seasonal pool levels at 

Bull Shoals will be raised five feet. The 

additional downstream releases for 

minimum flows will be accomplished 

by generating with one of the main units 

at a low, inefficient rate. Since the 

current hydropower yield will be 

maintained, there will be no loss of 

marketable capacity or peaking energy 

at Bull Shoals. 

The energy loss, 23,855 MWh per year 

of off-peak energy, will be the result of 

making the required minimum 

downstream releases by generating 

energy at a much lower plant efficiency 

than normal generation. 

Since the energy that is produced 

from the minimum flow releases will be 

generated at a time when the energy is 

not needed to fulfill Federal peaking 

energy contracts, it is similar in value to 

the off-peak energy normally generated 

during flood control operations. 

Operating a main unit at the lower 

efficiency will also increase the average 

maintenance costs at the project by an 

estimated $68,000 per year. Section 132 

of Public Law 109–103 (2005) 

authorized alternative NF–7 at Norfork, 

as described in the White River 

Minimum Flows Reallocation Study 

Report, Arkansas and Missouri, dated 

July 2004. Under the authorized plan for 

the Norfork project, 3.5 feet of storage 

will be reallocated for minimum flows. 

One-half of the storage for minimum 

flows will be reallocated from the flood 

control pool and the other half from 

hydropower storage. The reallocation 

portion from the flood control storage is 

similar to the storage reallocation at Bull 

Shoals in that the hydropower storage 

yield for that portion will be maintained 

and the existing seasonal pool plan will 

be superimposed on the new top of 

conservation pool. As a result, both the 

conservation and seasonal pool levels at 

Norfork will be raised 1.75 feet. Unlike 

Bull Shoals, all minimum flow releases 

at Norfork, whether from reallocated 

flood or hydropower storage, will be 

spilled through a siphon with no energy 

generated from the water. Although 

there is no marketable capacity loss 

associated with the flood control storage 

portion of the reallocation, there will be 

an off-peak energy loss. The portion of 

the reallocation from the hydropower 

storage will reduce the yield available to 

hydropower and will directly impact 

the marketable capacity and on-peak 

energy available at Norfork. The annual 

energy loss at Norfork associated with 

the reallocation will be 6,762 MWh of 

off-peak energy and 6,762 MWh of onpeak energy, for a total annual energy 

loss of 13,524 MWh. The marketable 

capacity loss will be 3.93 MW. 

Dated: January 12, 2009. 

Jon C. Worthington, 

Administrator. 

Comments on Southwestern’s June 2008 

Proposed Determination 

Southwestern received comments 

from 176 entities and individuals during 

the public comment period. All of the 

comments received were considered, 

and responses to all comments are 

included in Southwestern’s Final 

Determination Report. The major 

comments, by categories, and 

Southwestern’s responses thereto, 

included the following: 

A. Energy and Capacity Losses 

1. Comment. The non-Federal 

licensee reiterated the comments they 

provided on Southwestern’s Draft 

Determination Report concerning the 

SUPER program and Southwestern’s 

calculation of the lost energy. 

Response: Southwestern addressed 

Empire’s previous comments in its 

Federal Register Notice (73 FR 38198) 

dated July 3, 2008. Responses to the 

comments are also included in 

Appendix K of Southwestern’s Proposed 

Determination Report and Final 

Determination Report. 

2. Comment. The non-Federal 

licensee stated its ‘‘calculations have 

resulted in a lost energy value that is 

approximately 40% higher than the 

most recent lost energy value calculated 

by SWPA’’ and suggested that ‘‘there 

must be significant differences in the 

modeling process as well.’’ 

Response: Southwestern’s 

calculations were performed on a daily 

basis for the period of record modeled 

in SUPER and were based on the daily 

calculated value of head available at 

Ozark Beach. Empire’s calculations 

were based on a different period of 

record and assumed that the loss of 

head would be five feet every day. The 

loss of head will vary on a daily basis 

and will not be a constant five feet. 

Southwestern’s analysis correctly 

accounts for the daily variation in 

available head at the project. The 

different head calculation/assumption 

accounts for the majority of the 

difference in the energy loss 

determination noted by Empire. 

3. Comment. The non-Federal 

licensee requested access to the SUPER 

model, including the data files used by 

Southwestern to calculate the lost 

energy at Ozark Beach, and the user’s 

manual. It also requested copies of the 

model output showing benchmarking 

results that correlate the SUPER 

program output with the actual amount 

of energy generated at Ozark Beach 

through the historical period. 

Response: Southwestern has provided 

the data files used in its SUPER analysis 

and the calculations and output used in 

comparing the SUPER output with 

historical generation at Ozark Beach. 

Southwestern advised Empire, and 

Empire acknowledged that the SUPER 

program and user’s manual is the 

property of the Corps of Engineers and 

Empire would need to ask the Corps for 

that material. 

4. Comment. The non-Federal 

licensee agrees with the 67% on-peak 

and 33% off-peak split for the lost 

energy at Ozark Beach. 

Response: Concur. 

5. Comment. The non-Federal 

licensee agrees with Southwestern’s 

determination of the 3.00 MW capacity 

loss at Ozark Beach. 

Response: Concur. 

6. Comment. The commenters stated 

that they ‘‘continue to support 

Southwestern’s technical approach to 

the calculation of lost capacity and 

energy from water storage 

reallocations.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

7. Comment. The commenter 

‘‘strongly supports the process 

Southwestern uses for identifying and 

quantifying the energy and capacity lost 

due to reallocation of storage at Bull 

Shoals and Norfork, as well as the 

process for determining whether 

particular energy lost is peaking energy 

versus off-peak energy.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

8. Comment. The commenter 

‘‘concurs with the use of the drought of 

record to determine the loss of 

dependable capacity’’ and also stated 

‘‘since Southwestern’s system is entirely 

hydro-based and Southwestern markets 

firm capacity, use of the drought of 

record is the only acceptable method to 

determine capacity losses due to storage 

reallocation.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

9. Comment. The commenter 

questioned whether Southwestern’s 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4185 

calculations for Bull Shoals and Norfork 

included Hydropower Yield Protection 

Operation (HYPO) storage and 

Dependable Yield Mitigation Storage 

(DYMS) storage. They stated ‘‘storage 

not available to meet minimum flow 

should not be included in the energy 

compensation calculations at Bull 

Shoals and Norfork.’’ 

Response: Concur. Southwestern’s 

determination of the hydropower 

impacts at Bull Shoals and Norfork due 

to the implementation of minimum 

flows was based on comparing current 

conditions and conditions after the 

implementation of minimum flows. The 

HYPO and DYMS storage provided as a 

result of the flood control storage 

reallocations has never been included as 

part of the minimum flows storage in 

the SUPER simulation or in 

Southwestern’s calculations. 

10. Comment. The commenter 

questioned Southwestern’s 

characterization of all energy produced 

from minimum flow releases at Bull 

Shoals as off-peak. They noted that 

‘‘generation occurring between 6 a.m. 

and 10 p.m. (16 hours) is considered onpeak, and electricity produced between 

10 p.m. and 6 p.m. (8 hours) is 

considered off-peak.’’ They suggested 

that ‘‘a split of 67% on-peak and 33% 

off-peak should be used to value energy 

produced by minimum flows at Bull 

Shoals.’’ 

Response: Southwestern’s marketing 

plan and the limited storage in Bull 

Shoals dictate that in a conservation 

pool operation, the Bull Shoals project 

may be run for only a few hours during 

the day to meet customers’ contractual 

peaking energy demands. Releases for 

minimum flows will be made through 

one of the main units during all other 

hours of the day. Even though minimum 

flows may be released during the 

industry standard on-peak hours of the 

day (6 a.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays, 

excluding holidays), the energy that 

results from those releases will be 

produced at a time when it is not 

needed to fulfill Southwestern’s 

contractual obligations. That energy will 

be marketed by Southwestern to its 

customers as ‘‘supplemental’’ energy. 

While supplemental energy is valuable 

to Southwestern’s customers, it is not 

nearly as valuable to them as firm 

peaking energy. Southwestern will 

continue to consider all energy 

produced by minimum flows at Bull 

Shoals to be off-peak energy. If the lost 

energy were valued as on-peak energy as 

suggested, the credit to the Federal 

hydropower purpose would increase. 

11. Comment. The commenter 

questioned the use of the current 

seasonal pool in the base condition 

SUPER run stating ‘‘Base runs for the 

determining of energy loss at Bull 

Shoals and Norfork should not include 

seasonal pools. If included, we would 

consider the use of seasonal pools on 

both reservoirs a significant federal 

action and subject to NEPA.’’ 

Response: Releases have been 

required from Bull Shoals and Norfork 

since the 1960s in order to maintain 

water temperatures suitable for the 

downstream trout fishery. Those 

releases are dependent on the forecasted 

air temperature to assure more cold 

water releases on hotter days. Since 

storage was not specifically allocated to 

the trout fishery, releases were made 

from hydropower storage. The increase 

in reliability of the cold water for the 

fishery reduced the flexibility of the 

hydropower operation. The water was 

still being used for power production, 

but the schedule was based on fishery 

requirements rather than electrical 

demand. Minimum release requirements 

from Bull Shoals and Norfork were 

increased in the late 1970s in an effort 

to achieve desired water temperatures in 

the river all the way down to Sylamore. 

During the mid-1970s, the Corps and 

Southwestern negotiated the 

development of seasonal use of a 

portion of the flood control storage for 

hydropower use. That seasonal use of 

flood storage was an attempt to 

minimize the losses to power 

production caused by the releases 

necessary to maintain the trout fishery. 

The current seasonal pools at Bull 

Shoals and Norfork Lakes were officially 

implemented as a permanent part of the 

Corps’ water control plan in the late 

1970s in order to provide a more 

dependable supply of water from 

hydropower storage for the trout fishery, 

while partially mitigating the 

hydropower losses due to those releases. 

The seasonal pools are a part of the 

current approved water control plans as 

shown in the Corps’ ‘‘White River Basin, 

Arkansas and Missouri, Water Control 

Master Manual,’’ dated March 1993. As 

such, the seasonal pools were included 

in both the base and minimum flow 

SUPER runs for the Corps’ and 

Southwestern’s analysis. 

Exclusion of the seasonal pools from 

the base condition, as suggested, and 

inclusion of the seasonal pools in the 

‘‘with project’’ condition, as authorized, 

would result in even higher energy and 

capacity losses to the non-Federal 

licensee of FERC project number 2221. 

12. Comment. The commenter 

questioned Southwestern’s computed 

capacity loss at Ozark Beach, stating 

that ‘‘compensation for energy loss 

alone seems to be a more reasonable 

approach.’’ 

Response: Since the Ozark Beach 

project is a run of river project and not 

a storage project, the capacity loss 

calculation was developed with a 

slightly different type of analysis than 

that performed at Bull Shoals and 

Norfork. The capacity loss was 

computed by comparing the plant 

capacity values in the base SUPER run 

and the minimum flows SUPER run. 

The average difference in capacity over 

the 23,376 days in the period of record 

is 1.87 MW. The median difference is 

2.34 MW. A duration analysis of the 

daily differences in capacity revealed 

that the difference was 3.00 MW or 

greater about 30 percent of the time. In 

addition, the difference was 3.00 MW or 

greater about 30 percent of the time 

during the typically high electrical load 

months of July and August. For a storage 

project, a reduction of capacity during 

the critical period is considered to be a 

capacity loss to the project. For a run of 

river project, capacity that is 

unavailable 30 percent of the time, 

especially during the peak electrical 

demand months, is not reliable or 

marketable. Electrical consumers expect 

their lights to work 100 percent of the 

time, not 70 percent. Empire computed 

the capacity loss independently by a 

different method and also determined a 

3.00 MW capacity loss. The capacity 

loss at Ozark Beach is 3.00 MW. 

13. Comment. ‘‘It appears as though 

worst case scenarios and drought 

environmental conditions were used to 

calculate all energy and capacity losses 

for both SWPA and Empire District 

Electric. When SWPA calculated energy 

losses what was the basis of these 

calculations?’’ 

Response: Energy losses for both the 

Federal and non-Federal hydropower 

projects were computed based on 

average annual results over the 1940– 

2003 period of record modeled with the 

Corps’ SUPER reservoir simulation 

model. 

Capacity losses at the Federal projects 

were computed based on the 1953–1954 

drought. Southwestern bases its 

marketable capacity on the worst 

drought in the period of record in order 

to provide reliable, dependable 

electrical capacity. The critical drought 

occurred in Southwestern’s system 

during the period from June 1953 

through August 1954, with August 1954 

being the critical month. Thus, the 

computed capacity loss was also 

determined based on that drought 

period. Any reduction in the yield of the 

hydropower storage will result in a 

reduction of the marketable capacity 

that can be supported by the storage. A 

reduction in the supportable capacity 

results in a capacity loss. There was no 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

4186 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

capacity loss at Bull Shoals. There was 

a capacity loss computed at Norfork that 

was due to the conservation storage 

portion of the reallocation. 

The capacity loss calculated for the 

non-Federal project was discussed in 

the previous response. 

B. Replacement Costs of Energy and 

Capacity 

1. Comment. The non-Federal 

licensee agreed with Southwestern’s use 

of the Platts High Fuel Value energy 

costs for replacement on-peak and offpeak energy and combined cycle plant 

capacity cost for replacement capacity. 

Response: Concur. 

2. Comment. The commenter stated 

that ‘‘on average, the Platts forecast of 

electricity prices provides a reasonable 

basis for estimating the economic value 

of the energy lost by Empire District 

Electric Company at its Ozark Beach 

Hydroelectric Plant on the White 

River.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

3. Comment. The commenter stated 

that they ‘‘believe that Platts Power 

Outlook Research Service offers as 

reliable a forecast as is currently 

available. We have no objection to the 

use of the Platts long-term forecast, on 

the understanding that the forecast will 

be updated at the time the minimum 

flow program is implemented.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

4. Comment. The commenter 

‘‘commends Southwestern for adopting 

recommendations it received in the 

previous comment period to utilize 

Platt’s energy price forecasts as the 

proxy for the value of on-peak and offpeak energy losses.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

5. Comment. ‘‘According to the SWPA 

report, energy and capacity losses were 

calculated utilizing the Platts and FERC 

methods. Is it prudent to assume that 

the methods used for calculating energy 

losses and capacity losses should be the 

same?’’ 

Response: The Corps’ Hydropower 

Analysis Center (HAC) is responsible for 

developing the energy and capacity 

values used by the Corps in their 

evaluation of hydropower projects. Prior 

to mid-2005, HAC typically used the 

PROSYM production cost model, a 

proprietary computer model, to develop 

energy values and used procedures 

developed by FERC to develop capacity 

values. The FERC model also computed 

energy values; however, HAC did not 

use those values in its computations. 

Southwestern concluded based on 

purchasing experience that the 

PROSYM model produced energy 

values considerably below market rates. 

Although the FERC method energy 

values were also typically below market 

rates, they better reflected market values 

than the PROSYM model values. Absent 

another source, Southwestern would 

typically use the FERC method energy 

values to determine the impacts of 

various changes on hydropower 

production. Southwestern, like HAC, 

used the FERC method in determining 

the value of capacity losses. 

Southwestern used the FERC method 

calculations for valuation of both lost 

energy and capacity in its Draft 

Determination Report. Southwestern 

recognized that the FERC-based values 

for energy, particularly off-peak energy, 

were significantly below real-life market 

conditions. However, Southwestern 

used the FERC-based values to be 

consistent with its previous comments 

on Corps reallocation studies. 

The Corps’ HAC began exploring 

other sources to provide realistic energy 

values during the study period. In late 

2005, HAC started using the Platts 

Power Outlook Research Service, a 

North American power market forecast 

subscription service, for determining 

energy values. Although FERC no longer 

supported its model, HAC continued 

using the FERC model for determination 

of capacity values by indexing upward 

to current prices. Southwestern began 

searching for more appropriate methods 

to determine both energy and capacity 

values when it was assigned 

responsibility of determining the 

hydropower impacts of the minimum 

flows to both the Federal and nonFederal projects. Comments on 

Southwestern’s Draft Determination 

Report from electrical industry 

participants strongly supported the use 

of an industry source such as Platts to 

overcome the wide disparity between 

the low energy prices used in the initial 

report and actual market conditions. 

Southwestern’s research revealed that 

the Platts values for on-peak and offpeak energy are much more reflective of 

the current market than the FERC values 

and closely match Southwestern’s 

energy purchases during the 2005–2006 

drought period. A discussion of 

Southwestern’s research is included in 

Appendix L in Southwestern’s Final 

Determination Report. Like HAC, 

Southwestern eventually concluded that 

Platts was the best source for energy 

values and, because of a lack of other 

sources, the FERC method would 

continue to be the best source for 

determining the capacity value. 

Additionally, the Corps and Empire 

had agreed to the use of the Platts 

energy values prior to Southwestern’s 

legislative obligation to determine the 

hydropower impacts. Electrical industry 

participants also commented that the 

FERC-based values for capacity were 

‘‘reasonable’’ but ‘‘conservative’’. 

Sources for valuing energy and capacity 

are limited. Southwestern attempted to 

use sources that closely reflect market 

conditions. 

6. Comment. ‘‘According to the SWPA 

study, energy losses were calculated 

utilizing on peak energy replacement 

costs only. Since generation can occur at 

on and off peak times, shouldn’t on and 

off peak rates be utilized in this 

calculation?’’ 

Response: Both on-peak and off-peak 

energy rates were utilized in the 

calculation as determined appropriate 

according to when the losses were 

expected to occur. The energy loss at 

Bull Shoals was considered 100% offpeak. The energy loss at Norfork was 

considered 50% on-peak and 50% offpeak. The energy loss at Ozark Beach 

was considered 67% on-peak and 33% 

off-peak. The reasoning behind those 

on-peak/off-peak splits is detailed in 

Southwestern’s report. Losses 

considered on-peak were valued as onpeak energy, and losses considered offpeak were valued as off-peak energy. 

C. Maintenance Costs 

1. Comment. ‘‘The sources used by 

Empire do not include fixed O&M costs 

as part of the capacity costs. As long as 

there is agreement that the ultimate 

source is: a) reflective of the current 

market for construction costs and b) 

actually includes fixed O&M costs, 

Empire will accept this assumption.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

D. Inflation 

1. Comment. The non-Federal 

licensee agrees that the inflation rate 

used by Southwestern is ‘‘an acceptable 

assumption.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

2. Comment. The commenter stated 

that ‘‘from 1982 to 2006, inflation has 

averaged 3.1 percent per year’’, and 

reiterated their recommendation that 

Southwestern utilize ‘‘an industry 

specific producer price index which 

more closely mirrors the increased costs 

associated with electric power 

generation.’’ 

Response: Southwestern recognizes 

that historical inflation rates, including 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics data cited 

by the commenter, have been higher 

than the EIA ‘‘reference case’’ rate 

proposed by Southwestern in its 

proposed determination. Economic 

conditions over the next 50 years are 

difficult if not impossible to reliably 

predict. Southwestern has been unable 

to locate a long-term, energy-specific 

inflation forecast. The EIA is an 

independent statistical and analytical 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4187 

agency within the U.S. Department of 

Energy, which is a recognized source of 

policy-neutral data, forecasts, and 

analyses. Southwestern will continue to 

use the ‘‘reference case’’ inflation rate in 

the latest Annual Energy Outlook in the 

determination of the Federal and nonFederal hydropower impacts. 

3. Comment. The commenter urged 

Southwestern to ‘‘search for another 

proxy that better reflects the anticipated 

cost increases to be expected in the 

electric utility industry.’’ 

Response: See response to Comment 

2. 

E. Present Value Determination 

1. Comment. The non-Federal 

licensee ‘‘agrees with SWPA that the 

current rate on 30-year Treasury Notes 

at the time of implementation is the 

appropriate value to use in the 

calculation.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

2. Comment. The commenter stated 

that they ‘‘support Southwestern’s 

selection of the current rate on 30-year 

Treasury notes to be used as the 

discount rate in the present value 

calculation.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

3. Comment. ‘‘Per the SWPA study, 

Empire’s loss of hydropower and 

capacity calculations have been based 

on a 50 year time frame. Since Ozark 

Beach Dam’s FERC license is only good 

for another 14 years—to 2022, why 

would the cost be calculated based on 

50 years when their license (FERC 

license number 2221) expires in 14 

years? There is no guarantee that 

Empire’s FERC license will be reissued 

particularly in light of the potential for 

other energy options to materialize. Is it 

legal or ethical for Congress to 

appropriate taxpayer dollars to pay 

Empire District Electric for future power 

that they are not yet licensed to 

market?’’ 

Response: Southwestern selected a 

50-year period for its analysis of the 

impacts of the White River minimum 

flows project on hydropower production 

at the FERC Project No. 2221 and for its 

determination of the compensation 

owed to the FERC licensee. The 50-year 

period does exceed the 14 years 

remaining on the current FERC license 

for the project. 

The period of analysis used by 

Southwestern in its determination of the 

impacts of the White River minimum 

flows on the Empire District Electric 

Company’s FERC-licensed project is 

based in part on the Economic and 

Environmental Principles and 

Guidelines for Water and Related Land 

Resources Implementation Studies 

(Principles and Guidelines). The 

Principles and Guidelines were 

developed by the U.S. Water Resources 

Council in 1983 to guide the 

formulation and evaluation studies of 

the major Federal water resources 

development agencies. 

Since Empire has successfully 

completed the relicensing process 

several times for the project and there 

are no known environmental or safety 

issues at the project, there is no reason 

to believe that the project would not be 

relicensed again in the future. Empire 

has stated its intends to continue 

operation of the project and pursue the 

relicensing effort when needed. Empire 

has recently invested heavily in 

upgrading the power facility with the 

installation of new turbines. 

The non-Federal licensee provided 

the following response at the request of 

Southwestern: ‘‘Empire agrees that our 

current license will expire in 2022. 

Empire and its predecessors have 

operated and maintained this plant 

since it became commercial in 1913. It 

is our intention to apply for and receive 

a new FERC license in 2022. Our 

conversations with FERC staff in 

Chicago and Washington, DC indicate 

that every expiring license in the 

Midwest that has been applied for in the 

last 20 years has been renewed and that 

given Empire’s excellent record of 

compliance it would be highly unlikely 

that Ozark Beach’s license would not be 

renewed. We are not aware of any other 

energy option that may materialize that 

would be more cost beneficial than 

hydroelectric power. The law as enacted 

requires compensation to Empire for the 

future lifetime costs to our customers. It 

is our belief that a dam will continue to 

exist at the location of the present Ozark 

Beach dam as long as society exists. 

Even if a new dam were constructed, 

there would be 5 feet less head and the 

new dam would have much less 

economic value. The economic and 

biological impacts of removing the 

Ozark Beach dam would be large.’’ 

Regarding the legality of paying 

Empire for losses beyond the 14 years 

remaining on its current license, 

Southwestern believes the law is very 

explicit that payment to Empire be 

based on the ‘‘future lifetime 

replacement costs of the electrical 

energy and capacity’’ loss ‘‘caused by 

the storage reallocation at Bull Shoals 

Lake.’’ The legislation places no 

condition on the status of Empire’s 

license. 

F. Carbon Tax and Renewable Portfolio 

Standard 

1. Comment. The non-Federal 

licensee reiterated previous comments 

concerning a carbon tax and renewable 

risk premium and requested ‘‘that a 

methodology be implemented to 

compensate it for the loss of renewable 

capacity and energy associated with the 

White River Reallocation at its Ozark 

Beach dam.’’ 

Response: Southwestern maintains 

the position stated in its response to the 

previous comments in its Federal 

Register Notice (73 FR 38198) dated July 

3, 2008: Since there is no way to reliably 

estimate if, when, or how a carbon 

dioxide tax would be implemented, 

Southwestern did not include losses 

based on a carbon dioxide tax. The 

impacts to both Federal and non-Federal 

hydropower should be quantified and 

included in the compensation 

calculation if any carbon dioxide tax 

legislation is implemented before the 

final payment or offset is completed. 

Also, since there is no way to reliably 

estimate if, when, or how a renewable 

portfolio standard would be 

implemented, the impacts would be 

difficult to quantify. At the time of 

Southwestern’s Draft and Proposed 

Determinations, the state of Missouri 

had a voluntary standard for adopting 

renewable energy but no mandatory 

targets. Voters in Missouri approved a 

state renewable energy standard in 

November 2008, and the voluntary 

standard was repealed. However, the 

Ozark Beach project does not appear to 

qualify under the new standard. 

Southwestern maintains the same 

position on a renewable risk premium 

as on a possible carbon dioxide tax: If 

a state or Federal mandatory renewable 

portfolio standard that qualifies any of 

the three projects studied is 

implemented before the final payment 

or offset is completed, the impacts to 

both Federal and non-Federal 

hydropower should be quantified and 

included in the compensation 

calculation. 

The authorizing legislation for the 

White River Minimum Flows project 

states that Empire will be compensated 

with a one-time payment ‘‘on the basis 

of the present value of the estimated 

future lifetime replacement costs of the 

electrical energy and capacity at the 

time of implementation of the White 

River Minimum Flows project.’’ If the 

compensation to Empire were changed 

from a one-time payment to payments 

over a number of years, compensation 

for the impacts of a carbon dioxide tax 

or a renewable portfolio standard for the 

remainder of the payments should be 

computed and applied if either were 

implemented during that series of 

payments. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

4188 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

G. Operational Considerations 

1. Comment. The commenter stated 

that they ‘‘support Southwestern’s 

analysis and recommendations 

concerning the operational 

considerations in Section 8.’’ 

Response: Concur. 

2. Comment. ‘‘In Section 8.2 Water 

Temperature Control states minimum 

flows should be considered meeting a 

portion of the 3-day, 6,000 cfs-day 

generation releases designed to maintain 

suitable water temperatures in the 

downstream trout fishery and SWPA’s 

generation requirements should be 

reduced accordingly, or additional 

compensation provided. We agree 

releases are needed to maintain suitable 

water temperatures and commend 

SWPA for providing these releases. 

However, we do not agree these 

volumes should be reduced since (1) 

seasonal pools have been provided to 

mitigate SWPA for these generations, (2) 

neither the timing nor volume of these 

releases are optimal for addressing 

temperature needs of the downstream 

trout fishery.’’ 

Response: Southwestern does not 

concur. The 3-day requirement is for a 

specific amount of water to be released 

over each 3-day period. The modeling 

and computation performed by both the 

Corps and Southwestern of the 

hydropower impacts and associated 

compensation were based upon the 

assumption that the minimum flow 

releases would be used to help meet 

those downstream requirements. If it is 

decided that such an operation is not 

desirable, then the assumption would 

need to be changed, the impact to 

hydropower would need to be 

recomputed, and the compensation 

increased accordingly. 

[FR Doc. E9–1454 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0548; FRL–8765–4] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to OMB for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; Criteria for Classification of 

Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and 

Practices (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 

1745.06, OMB Control Number 2050– 

0154 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document 

announces that an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) has been 

forwarded to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review and 

approval. This is a request to renew an 

existing approved collection. The ICR, 

which is abstracted below, describes the 

nature of the information collection and 

its estimated burden and cost. 

DATES: Additional comments may be 

submitted on or before February 23, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2008–0548, to (1) EPA, either 

online using www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method), or by e-mail to rcradocket@epa.gov, or by mail to: RCRA 

Docket (28221T), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

and (2) OMB, by mail to: Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Dufficy, Office of Solid Waste, 

(5306P), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: 703–308–9037; fax number: 

703–308–8686; e-mail address: 

Dufficy.Craig@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has 

submitted the following ICR to OMB for 

review and approval according to the 

procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. 

On September 05, 2008 (73 FR 51807), 

EPA sought comments on this ICR 

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA 

received no comments during the 

comment period. Any additional 

comments on this ICR should be 

submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 

days of this notice. 

EPA has established a public docket 

for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–RCRA–2008–0548, which is 

available for online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, or in person 

viewing at the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket in the 

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/ 

DC Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Reading Room 

is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 

566–0270. 

Use EPA’s electronic docket and 

comment system at 

www.regulations.gov, to submit or view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the docket, and 

to access those documents in the docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then 

key in the docket ID number identified 

above. Please note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA 

receives them and without change, 

unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, confidential 

business information (CBI), or other 

information whose public disclosure is 

restricted by statute. For further 

information about the electronic docket, 

go to www.regulations.gov. 

Title: Criteria for Classification of 

Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and 

Practices (Renewal) 

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1745.06, 

OMB Control No. 2050–0154. 

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to 

expire on January 31, 2009. Under OMB 

regulations, the Agency may continue to 

conduct or sponsor the collection of 

information while this submission is 

pending at OMB. An Agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information, unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after 

appearing in the Federal Register when 

approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 

are displayed either by publication in 

the Federal Register or by other 

appropriate means, such as on the 

related collection instrument or form, if 

applicable. The display of OMB control 

numbers in certain EPA regulations is 

consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. 

Abstract: The 1984 Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, 

mandated that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) revise the 

Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal 

Facilities that may receive household 

hazardous wastes and conditionally 

exempt small quantity generator 

(CESQG) wastes. In order to effectively 

implement and enforce these 

regulations (found at 40 CFR part 257, 

subpart B) on a State level, owners/ 

operators of construction and 

demolition waste landfills that receive 

CESQG hazardous wastes have to 

comply with reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. This ICR 

documents the ongoing recordkeeping 

and reporting burdens associated with 

the location and ground-water 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES