Non-Federal Participation in AC Intertie : Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1: Environmental Analysis [report]

1994 unpublished
DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any
more » ... herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expres_d herein do not nexessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Abstract: BPA is consideringactionin two areas: (1) non-Federalaccess to theAC Intertie,and, (2) BPA Intertiemarketing. BPA'spreferredalternativefor non-Federalaccess is the Capacity Ownershipaltemative combinedwiththe IncreasedAssuredDelivery--Accessfor Non-Scheduling Utilitiesalternative;the preferredalternativefor BPA Intertiemarketingis the Federal Marketingand JointVentures altemative. BPA consideredthesetwo areas previouslyin its IntertieDevelopmentand Use EIS of April 1988. The EIS resultedin BPA decisionsto participatein theconstructionof the Third AC Intertie,to allownon-Federalaccessto 3PA's share of the PacificNorthwest-PacificSouthwest (PNW-PSW) Intertie(AC and DC lines)pursuantto a Long-TermIntertieAccessPolicy(LTIAP), and to pursue BPA'sexportmarketingalternative. The decisionon allowingdirectfinancialnon-Federal participationin the Third AC linewas deferredto a later, separateprocess,examined here. Also,BPA's export marketingobjectivesmust nowbe examined in view of changed operationsof ColumbiaRiver hydro facilitiesfor improvedfish survival. In the No Action altemative, non-Federal access is allowedonlypursuantto the May 1988 LTIAP and no new long-termBPA orjointventurecontractswith Califomia partiesare assumed. Differentmeansof providingnon-Federalaccess arecontainedinthe followingaltematives: Capacity Ownership (nonfacilityspecificcapacity ownershipupto 725 MW), Capacity Ownership with Limited PSW Access (a scenario in which PSW parties in the ThirdAC have limited accessarrangementsin California), Increased Assured Delivery (non-Federalaccessto additionalMWs butcontrolledby provisionsof the LTIAP), Increased Assured Delivery With Intertie Access for Non-Scheduling Utilities (directLTIAP accessis expandedto entitieswhichnowmustgain access througharrangementswith BPA orother PNW schedulingutilities),and Economic Priority (Intertieaccess determinedbased on neteconomic benefit of proposedtransactions). The No Actionalternativewith respectto BPA Intertiemarketing includesexistingBPAcontracts with PSW parties and existingjoint ventures. The Federal Marketing and Joint Venture alternative(preferredBPA Int.ertiemarketingalternative)containsa BPA marketing proposaldesignedto increasethe value of hydroflowsprovidedfor fish. The alternativewould include potential BPA bilateralcontractswithCaliforniaparties and jointventures involvingother PNW parties. BPA's preferredalternativesare Capacity Ownership combinedwith Increased Assured Delivery With Intertie Access for Non-Scheduling Utilities, and Federal Marketing and Joint Ventures. The Draft EIS was mailed to over 1,500 agencies,groupsand individuals.(See Chapter 7.) Public commentswere received duringa 45-day commentperiod,duringwhicha publicmeetingwas held in Portlandon September21, 1993. The Final EIS includesthe publiccommentsand responses.
doi:10.2172/10119267 fatcat:s6t656kn2rhuzfsrqcq6f6zsme