FERC last week granted PacifiCorp’s request to suspend the relicensing proceeding for the 169-MW Klamath Hydroelectric Project in order to give the utility more time to transfer the facility to new owners ahead of the removal of four dams (Project No. 2082-027).

The fate of the project — which straddles the California-Oregon border along the Klamath River — became the subject of negotiations among state and federal agencies, Native American tribes, environmental groups and local farmers in 2008. Two years later, PacifiCorp reached a settlement agreement to remove four of the project’s dams, contingent on passage of federal legislation authorizing the removal.

Congressional inaction triggered dispute resolution proceedings early this year, resulting in PacifiCorp agreeing to transfer the project’s license to a new entity — the Klamath River Renewal Corp. — in July. That entity is expected to immediately file with FERC to surrender and remove the dams under the commission’s process, rather than await approval from Congress.

“Requiring the parties, other stakeholders and commission staff to simultaneously proceed with both a relicensing proceeding and a transfer and surrender proceeding would be burdensome and an inefficient use of resources,” the commission said in its ruling.

FERC OKs NextEra Tariff Revisions Covering CAISO Competitive Projects

FERC last week accepted a NextEra Energy compliance filing revising a tariff for two transmission projects the company has been awarded through CAISO’s competitive selection process (ER15-2239-002).

The commission agreed with NextEra’s explanation that the tariff’s formula rate would only apply a 150-basis-point adder to an initial assessment of the long-term cost of debt for the projects — a figure based on the company’s debt cost for a Texas project. The adder, the company clarified, would be recalculated once long-term debt is actually issued.

The commission also rejected a request by the California State Water Project that NextEra’s tariff clarify the term “third-party debt,” ruling that the argument was outside the scope of the proceeding.

“The commission has repeatedly held that compliance filings are limited to the specific directives of the commission’s order,” the commission wrote. “The sole issue on review is whether the filing party has complied with those directives.”

– Robert Mullin