July 17, 1979
Page 18924
Mr. LEAHY. I yield for the purpose of a question.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know how the Senator from Vermont and I can look at the same facts and come up with different conclusions.
I am for solar energy. With respect to the question of the potential for solar energy in Maine, let me read from a publication entitled "Maine Business Indicators," issued by the Maine National Bank, on the potential of solar power for Maine:
Solar power will not make any significant dent in Maine energy needs in the near term, although supplemental solar home heating is becoming more popular in Maine. There is, however, insufficient sunlight at Maine's latitude to justify the cost of present day solar collectors, pumps and storage systems. The average hourly solar energy falling on a square foot of roof in Maine in the winter is7 watts or about enough to light a Christmas tree bulb. While the energy is free, the means of collecting that energy is expensive, and this disproportionate cost-benefit situation will prevent solar energy from becoming a major source of energy in Maine for some time.
The question I put to my good friend from Vermont is this: I do not know what percentage of New England's power needs he has in mind as a fair benchmark, but something more than it is now. In his judgment, Dickey-Lincoln should be discarded. In other words, he is not for any project or any source of energy that does not by itself solve a major portion of New England's energy needs.
With this assessment of solar power, the Senator would have a very difficult time persuading me that solar energy, in the terms we are talking about, if we were to go ahead with construction of Dickey-Lincoln, by the time Dickey Lincoln were on line, would supply much more than the amount he finds ridiculous for Dickey-Lincoln.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Maine, of course, is free to characterize my internal thinking any way he wishes. He has the right to interpret how I am thinking.
Mr. MUSKIE. I can only rely on the Senator's words.
Mr. LEAHY. I have an equal right to rely on how I might be thinking.
I have not seen the report the Senator refers to on solar energy, but I am perfectly willing to concede it is absolutely accurate. I do not know quite what that has to do with anything I said before.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then, I suppose the Senator was saying something that was irrelevant to the debate, because I heard him suggest solar energy as a source of energy that would provide more and cheaper power than would Dickey-Lincoln. That is what I understood. If I understood incorrectly, I apologize.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was facing the Chair, and I do not know whether the Senator from Maine was in and out of the Chamber when I was talking. I recall that I had referred to combinations of wood—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. I would like 1 minute.
I recall that I had spoken of the combination of low head hydro, solar, and wood. I understood from the question of the Senator from Louisiana that he understood me that way.
However, my whole statement is a matter of record. I have taken far more time than I had intended, and my minute is up.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22½ minutes.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. COHEN. I will yield in a moment.
Mr. President, I simply point out that the Corps of Engineers is not in the business of promoting low head hydro. It is in the business of building large projects.
It is interesting that in assessing alternatives to Dickey-Lincoln, the corps used a 10-percent interest rate and a repayment period of 50 years. The repayment period for Dickey-Lincoln was 100 years. So they are not exactly objective in that report.
The New England River Basin Commission is doing a study for the corps. The 1978 report indicated that low head hydro had, in Maine alone, four times the potential power capacity. So I think we should take a look at the study as well.
Finally, I think it is erroneous to suggest that solar power is going to be a substitute for Dickey-Lincoln. No one here, certainly not the Senator from Maine, is suggesting that solar power is in any way a substitute for Dickey-Lincoln. What I am suggesting is that there are a number of alternatives that have been outlined by the New England Energy Congress which include wood, low head hydro, solid waste, and especially solar, and that if we develop those alternative sources of energy; we can do so at a lower cost and a more efficient and productive rate for our country and for our region.
I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HEINZ. I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding.
Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the junior Senator from Maine, and to take a moment to add a few of my own comments. I can well understand his concerns about the Dickey-Lincoln project, for there is a similar project in my State. I refer, of course, to the Tocks Island project which has been effectively halted. The reasons for stopping Tocks Island are in many ways similar to the reasons for stopping Dickey-Lincoln.
The need for a nonoil supply of energy for New England still exists. As the junior Senator from Maine has pointed out, we do need to deal with it. He has indicated a variety of what I believe are feasible alternatives, and so he has addressed that question quite well.
But just as with the Tocks Island project, I find the Dickey-Lincoln project just as unacceptable, because it would be an environmental failure of the worst magnitude, a true environmental disaster, and like Tocks Island, its costs would vastly exceed benefits when the proper interest rate is applied. Dickey-Lincoln, as a result, will simply not solve our oil import problems.
Let me just give Senators a few numbers. I understand that we are talking about possibly displacing 2.3 million barrels of oil a year. That sounds like a lot, 2.3 million barrels. But New England used 400 million barrels of oil last year. Indeed, we import 2.3 million barrels every 6 hours in this country. So what we are being asked to do is spend $1 billion, perhaps more than that, for only 6 hours of oil.
In fact, Mr. President, that is simply not a good investment. It is bad economics.
The senior Senator from Maine points out that Dickey-Lincoln could supply 17 percent of New England peak electricity. That is an impressive number. But I think it is one we also should examine closely. Dickey-Lincoln would only operate 2½ hours a day, 15 percent of the time. That is not very long. And what is peaking capacity? That is only the capacity for the extra demand for electricity for a couple of hours a day. Dickey-Lincoln will not provide 17 percent of New England's electricity for 2½ hours a day. It will provide 17 percent of the extra demand — almost entirely residential demand — for 2½ hours a day. Only 17 percent of the extra demand for 15 percent of the day. When you combine all those fractions, it becomes a very small number.
It is a very, very small number, especially in New England where only 10 percent of the energy that people use is electricity. So now, we can see just how little 17 percent of peaking capacity is: It is 17 percent of the extra demand for 15 percent of the day for 10 percent of the total energy. That is a lot of fractions, even if it is not a lot of energy. The bottom line — and I want to emphasize this — the bottom line is that Dickey-Lincoln would replace only one-half of 1 percent of the oil which New England uses in a year. Is that how we are going to escape from the grip of OPEC? By spending $1 billion for one-half of 1 percent of New England's oil consumption? I think the answer to that should be self-evident. I think not.
The Dickey-Lincoln project would destroy the largest and most beautiful wilderness ecosystem in New England, just so that we can tell the Arab nations that New England needs one-half of 1 percent less oil a year. I believe it is time that we recognize that and put Dickey-Lincoln behind us so that we can focus attention on real ways of meeting our energy problems. Dickey-Lincoln, I fear, is just a smokescreen. It has really no substance. It is time we focus our full attention on real alternatives to oil. In solving our oil import problems, we must choose the most cost-effective energy alternatives if we are to maximize our effort. As the deteriorating energy situation weakens our economy, and as the need for a balanced budget increases, we must make very wise investments.
Indeed, I wish I could say that I felt that the Dickey-Lincoln project was one of them. But I do not feel that way.
I recognize, Mr. President, there are feelings on both sides of this issue. I know many of the supporters of this are men of good intentions and great honor, and I do not wish to take issue with their integrity. I think everyone has a point of view and that he has tried to arrive at such just as carefully as possible.
I have stated mine based on some personal experience in my own State and also from having had some personal experience and many years of study of this issue when I was a Member of the House of Representatives and a colleague of the junior Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I hope we can bring the matter to a vote at this point. I think it has been adequately debated unless the Senator from Maine wishes to say something further.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have two brief points to make.
One, I wish to read something to my good friend from Pennsylvania and my good, friend from Vermont. I hope that their wisdom with respect to this project is based upon having visited the area, because most of them have referred to the prime forests that would be decimated by this project.
Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana listened to the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives on this subject, and I wish to read what he had to say before the committee. He comes from that area. He has lived there all his life. He knows the St. John River. He knows the Allagash River. He knows the people of the area. He knows it better than I do, and I have lived with this project for 17 years. But this is what he said about those prime forests. I just wish to read it, and it is very brief :
The second point that has to be made, which is in that light, also is that since Maine has been a State, since 1820, that area has never really been accessible to Maine people. It cannot be reached by Maine people. That particular area has been harvested by Canadian-bonded labor. It has been hauled by Canadian trucks. It has been manufactured in Canadian mills across the border and it has come back to compete with other lumber of Maine on the Boston market at tremendous disadvantage to us. As a matter of fact, close to 50 percent of that land that would be flooded is owned by one Canadian company, J. G. Irving of St. Johns, New Brunswick.
This is the prime Maine economic resource to which my friends from Pennsylvania and Vermont make reference. And these Canadians have no interest in preserving that woodland. They come across the line and strip it. They have helped create the flood problems for which this project is designed in part to deal, and to have it referred to, as we have this afternoon, as the prime forest resource of Maine is ridiculous.
May I make one other point? Maine is about 87 percent forest covered. If this project is built Maine will only be 86 percent forest covered. Is that not a tragedy, that we take 1 percent of 87, 1 percent of forest land and devote that to the energy and economic needs of the people of the area?
Why then do we not convert the other 13 percent of Maine to forest, eliminate the pulp and paper mills, eliminate the towns, eliminate the people? That is 1 percent of Maine's forests — less than that — one-half of 1 percent to produce energy that we do not now have, that no one is in the process of generating for us. The major oil companies are beginning to pull out of Maine and Vermont. And here we act as though there is no problem. We cancel this Maine project. We will find the energy somehow.
Conservation — Maine people have conserved 18 percent in heating oil since the Arab oil embargo, and they are cold.
The letters I get every day tell me, "Senator, find some energy for us." Here is the Maine energy source.
I listened to Senators coming on that, "There is another way for you to do it. Just go find it."
Then on the interest costs, I checked this out. Six and seven-eighths percent is what it cost the Government on the average to borrow money. That is the test that we have used for these water projects all these years — 6 7/8 percent. That is the test I am willing to meet.
Should Uncle Sam make a profit out of the energy distress of the people of this area — 6 7/8 is a fair test, and by that test this project meets it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the fact sheet from Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes, Maine, be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the fact sheet was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL LAKES, MAINE
THE PROJECT IN BRIEF
The purpose of the proposed Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Hydroelectric Project is to convert the natural energy of the upper St. John River in northern Maine for use as a source of electricity to meet future needs of New England consumers.
The project, which would be initially financed by the Federal Government, is located in a remote part of Aroostook County in the St. John River Valley, adjacent to the Canadian border. The proposed project would involve about 127,000 acres, including approximately 8,000 acres of water and wetland areas. The land area is presently utilized principally for commercial lumbering operations and wildlife habitat.
Electricity would be produced by storing the annual spring runoff of the river in a large reservoir behind a 335-foot high earth fill dam located in the village of Dickey. The power plant at Dickey Dam would be capable of generating 1,183 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually for use during periods of peak energy demand.
Operating as a peaking plant, large surges of water would be released from Dickey Dam intermittently. A second dam, 11 miles downstream at Lincoln School, would be constructed to impound the releases from Dickey Dam and reregulate discharges to the river before it flows through New Brunswick to the Bay of Fundy. Electrical generation at Lincoln School would supply 262 million kilowatt hours of energy annually to Maine consumers.
Additional power resulting from increased generation of 350 million kilowatt hours per year would be realized at downstream hydroelectric plants in New Brunswick. It has been assumed that the United States would receive one-half of this energy although final terms would be dependent upon formal negotiations with Canada.
Impoundment of spring snowmelt would further protect downstream communities from damaging floods which have been severe in past years.
Development of the Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project would have an extensive impact on the natural environment, social and economic character of the immediate area. Some 267 miles of streams, including 55 miles of the free-flowing St. John River, would be flooded to create an 86,000-acre reservoir above the Dickey Dam.
The Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes facilities would be the largest public works project ever undertaken in New England. If built, it would cost $744.7 million to construct at October 1978 prices ($587.0 million for the dams and related features and $157.7 million for the transmission facilities). All costs allocated to the production and transmission of power, totaling some $731.4 million would be recovered through the sale of energy to consumers. The remaining cost of $13.3 million, representing costs allocated to flood control, would be borne by the Federal government.
I. HISTORIC BACKGROUND
Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes evolved as a result of a study of the Development of Tidal Power at Passamaquoddy, a system of tidal bays studied since 1919 by both private and public engineers. The most comprehensive report was that completed by the International Joint Commission in April 1961 after 3 years of study at a cost of $3 million. The Commission concluded that the project was not economically feasible under the then existing conditions. At the request of President John F. Kennedy, the Commission report was reviewed to determine if the project was feasible in view of the advanced engineering techniques and prevailing economic conditions. In July 1963 a report to the President concluded that application of a different use-concept of power coupled with advanced engineering techniques would result in a favorable project.
On 16 July 1963, the President directed the Departments of Interior and Army to make additional studies to supplement the July 1963 report. An Army-Interior Advisory Board on Passamaquoddy and upper St. John River was formed. Interior performed studies on power facilities, power transmission, marketing benefits and other economic aspects. The Corps of Engineers developed the physical components of the project.
The Study Committee completed its evaluation in August 1964, and submitted its report to the Secretary of the Interior. Recommendations included: early authorization of the Passamaquoddy Tidal Project and upper St. John River developments and early construction of the project to develop low cost firm power for Maine and peaking power for the remainder of New England.
The Secretary of the Interior submitted a report on 9 July 1965 to President Johnson summarizing the August 1964 report. Subsequent to August 1964, a review was accomplished to update the power benefits. The power rates had decreased due to larger, more economical developments by the power industry since the previous analyses. The reduction caused the benefit-to-cost ratio for the Passamaquoddy Power Project to fall below unity (.86 to 1). However, the benefit-to-cost ratio for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes remained above unity with a value of 1.81 to 1.
One recommendation contained in the July 1965 report approved by President Johnson was:
"Immediate authorization, funding, and construction of the Dickey and Lincoln School Projects on the St. John River and their associated transmission system. Construction would be contingent upon completion of necessary arrangements with the Canadian Government. This would also have the immediate and major byproduct of preserving the famed Allagash River in Maine, one of the few remaining wild rivers east of the Mississippi River."
The Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project was authorized by the 1965 Flood Control Act, Public Law 89-298 dated 27 October 1965, substantially in accordance with the plans included in the August 1964 report.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location:
The Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project is located on the upper St. John River in Aroostook County, northern Maine, adjacent to the Canadian border.
The St. John River rises in Little St. John Lake in the extreme southwestern corner of the basin on the international boundary between Quebec, Canada and Maine. As the Southwest Branch, it flows in a northerly direction along the boundary for about 38 miles and then through Maine for about 12 miles to its confluence with Baker Branch. From this point, as the main St. John River, the waterway flows generally in a northeasterly direction through Maine for about 95 miles to the mouth of the St. Francis River, then easterly forming the international boundary for about 70 miles to Hamlin, Maine where it enters New Brunswick Province and flows for about 200 miles generally in a south-easterly direction past Fredricton, New Brunswick to its mouth at St. John, New Brunswick on the Bay of Fundy. Its total length in 415 miles.
The St. John River drains an area of 21,600 square miles located between the watersheds of the St. Lawrence River to the north and the Penobscot River to the south. Approximately 7,400 square miles are located in Maine. The upper St. John watershed, above Fort Kent, Maine, has a drainage area of 5,960 square miles and above the Dickey and Lincoln School dam sites drainage areas of 2,700 and 4,086 square miles, respectively.
B. Physical Characteristics:
Dickey Dam is located immediately above the confluence of the St. John River with the Allagash River, near the village of Dickey in the Town of Allagash, and 28 miles upstream of Fort Kent, Maine. As authorized, the dam would be an earth fill structure impounding a reservoir with gross storage capacity of 7.7 million acre-feet (2,500 billion gallons) for power and flood control. The reservoir water surface would total 86,000 acres (134.4 square miles) at maximum pool elevation of 910 feet mean sea level (msl). Five dikes would be located in low areas along the reservoir perimeter at Campbell Brook, Cunliffe Brook, Falls Brook, Hafey Brook and South Dike adjacent to the Dickey Darn, to prevent overflow into adjacent watersheds.
Dickey Dam would have a total length of 10,200 feet and a maximum height of 335 feet above the streambed. Its outlet works would include a low level tunnel 2,170 feet long at streambed elevation and an upper tunnel 970 feet long, approximately 100 feet above the streambed, each concrete-lined and 26 feet in diameter. The power facilities would include four generating units at 190,000 kilowatts (kw) each, one of which would be a reversible pump-turbine, for a total initial installed capacity of 760,000 kw. This value reflects the manufacturer's generator capacity rating at minimum head. However, the dependable capacity of the units, i.e. the generating capacity to meet maximum system load during the severest hydroperiod, totals 874,000 kw.
Basic provisions would be included in the initial project to accommodate the potential future installation of two additional reversible units at 190,000 kw each for an ultimate installed capacity of 1,140,000 kw (1,311,000 dependable capacity) . These provisions would include excavation for the adjoining approach and discharge channels, construction of the adjoining headworks, construction of the powerhouse foundation and raising Lincoln School Dam an additional eight feet. The installation of the additional units would require Congressional authorization and would not be added until required by future power demands and an adequate source of off-peak energy was available for pumping. The project would be operated to meet peaking power requirements.
Lincoln School Dam would be located on the St. John River, 11 miles downstream from Dickey Dam in the Town of St. Francis. It would be an earth fill dam impounding a reservoir with a storage capacity of 67,150 acre-feet. The reservoir would serve principally to regulate releases from the Dickey Dam as power pondage. The lake would also serve as lower pool storage for the Dickey Dam pumped-storage feature. Its reservoir would ultimately encompass 2,620 acres with 86,355 acre-feet of storage at its maximum pool elevation of 620 feet msl. However, until the installation of future reversible units at Dickey Darn is required and authorized, the maximum pool elevation would be 612 feet mid with an area of 2,240 acres.
Lincoln School Dam would be 2,100 feet long, including the powerhouse and spillway structures, and have a maximum height of 90 feet, Its power facilities would consist of two units at 30,000 kw each and one unit at 10,000 kw, for a total installed capacity of 70,000 kw. This facility would be operated as an intermediate load power plant.
The estimated construction first cost for the project totals $744.7 million, based on 1 October 1978 price levels, consisting of $587.0 million for the dams and related features, and $157.7 million for the transmission facilities.
The total real estate required for the project is approximately 127,000 acres (additional acreage, yet to be determined, will be needed to mitigate loss of wildlife habitat). Of this total, 106,000 acres are timberland. The acreage required for the Dickey Dam and reservoir is 124,000 acres, including 5,700 acres in Canada, and the requirement for the Lincoln School Dam and reservoir is 3,000 acres. The project would require the relocation of 156 year-round households (112 in Allagash; 44 in St. Francis). Also, 16 commercial properties and 14 miscellaneous properties would be displaced.
C. Operational characteristics:
The project would be operated principally as a peaking power plant. In this role, the project would not be a high energy producing (i.e. kilowatt-hours) facility. A peaking power plant is designed to operate for short periods of time, at high capacity, to meet critical peak demands. It has quick starting capability and provides spinning reserve for load protection. Typical peaking plants are hydroelectric projects — both conventional and pumped storage — and gas turbine units.
On the other hand, baseload power is provided by large fossil-fueled or nuclear steam plants which operate most economically on a continuous basis and are high energy producing installations. Baseload plants are not suitable for peaking use and load protection because of economic considerations and operational constraints. The 1970 National Power Survey published by the then Federal Power Commission noted that the trend towards construction of very large fossil-fueled and nuclear steam-electric base-board units has increased the need for plants designed specifically for meeting daily peak demands.
In addition to its reliability, a hydroelectric facility has a lower operating cost than alternative power sources because it does not rely upon costly fuels. Water is a continuous and clean source of power. Beyond the economic aspects, there would also be an annual savings in natural resources. To produce an equivalent amount of electrical energy, annual fuel consumption — dependent upon the type of alternate — would total 2.3 million barrels of oil, 636,000 tons of coal or 16.6 billion cubic feet of gas.
D. Power availability:
The operating time of the project is very flexible and basically would be responsive to system power demands. Under normal operating conditions, the project could generate energy to meet varying demands 12 months per year. The electrical energy producing potential of the project is a function of the river basin hydrologic characteristics such as amount of annual discharge, reservoir storage and hydraulic head available at the damsite. This energy potential can either be realized through small power units operating for long periods of time, i.e baseload operation, or through large size units for short periods of time, i.e. peak load operation. From the standpoint of economic and operational efficiency, hydroelectric sites have their greatest value as peaking plants, such as Dickey Dam.
The annual plant factor for Dickey Dam is approximately 15 percent, i.e. the project could be operated at full dependable capacity for 15 percent of the time on an annual basis to meet peak power demands. The project would also have "load following" capability on a daily and seasonal basis with potential to operate for longer periods at reduced capacity.
The operational time should not be assumed as a uniform daily occurrence, i.e. three to four hours each day. Rather, the project would be highly flexible and capable of generating for varying periods of time dependent upon the demands on the New England system. For example, the spring season historically is a period of minimum power demand, thus project generation would be minimal. Weekends and nights are times of minimum demand during which the project would usually not generate electricity. However, during periods of maximum power demand; namely December and January, the project could be operated for periods of eight to nine hours daily. The quick starting, flexible and reliable nature of a hydroelectric plant are assets to a coordinated power system.
The Lincoln School reregulating dam with an annual plant factor of approximately 43 percent would normally operate 10 hours per day, 7 days a week. With the Dickey facility operating 7 or more hours per day, the Lincoln School facility would be capable of generating energy 24 hours per day at full capacity.
In addition, the project would benefit the New England system in a reserve capacity. In the event of an electrical blackout, the project would be capable of generating electricity at full capacity continuously up to 35 days.
E. Transmission:
A plan of service to interconnect Dickey-Lincoln School power with the New England electrical system was developed in 1976 by engineers of the U.S. Department of Energy (formerly an activity of the U.S. Department of the Interior) in cooperation with engineers and staff of New England utilities.
Transmission facilities for Dickey-Lincoln School, as presently conceived, consist of three general components: transmission lines, power substations, and communications.
At the authorized level of project development, the proposed transmission route would extend a total length of 365 miles to include: (a) Two 345-kv a.c. circuits from the project site to Moore Substation northwest of Littleton, New Hampshire, over a route through western Maine and northern New Hampshire. The two circuits would be suspended from a single row of double circuit, lattice steel towers, (b) A single circuit 345-kv a.c. wood pole transmission line from Moore Substation to Granite Substation near Barre, Vermont, (c) A single circuit 345-kv a.c. wood pole line from Granite Substation to Essex Substation, a proposed facility near
Burlington, Vermont, (d) A single circuit 138-kv a.c. wood pole line from Dickey Dam to Lincoln School Dam, and (e) A single circuit 138-kv a.c. wood pole line from Lincoln School Dam to Fish River Substation near Fort Kent, Maine.
Substations and terminals have been proposed in Maine at Dickey Dam, Lincoln School Dam, Fort Kent and near Moose River, and at existing facilities at Moore Station in New Hampshire and Granite, Vermont and at the planned station at Essex, Vermont.
Communications and control facilities would be located along the transmission corridor at 12 sites where they would function as an extension of the existing New England shared microwave communication system.
The planned transmission facilities would link the project output to the existing backbone New England power grid system providing delivery capability throughout the region.
F. Construction Period:
Construction of the project, including all necessary land acquisition, would require approximately eight years. Initial power-on-line would be scheduled some six years after initiation of construction and incrementally increased until total power-on-line capability would be realized approximately 1½ years later.
Construction of the proposed transmission facilities would be completed in time for energization when the first generating units in the project's powerhouses are ready for testing. To meet this schedule, work would commence about five years prior to that event.
III. PROJECTS ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
A. General:
The project economics have been computedon the basis of both the 31/4 percent rate authorized for the project and at 6 7/8 percent which is the prevailing water resource development rate prescribed by the Water Resources Council for Fiscal Year 1979 (1 Oct. 1978-30 Sept. 1979). An explanation of the history of the authorized 3 1/4 percent interest rate is presented in Section III C, Economic Analyses.
The benefit-to-cost ratio for the initial planned development is 2.1 to 1 at the 3 1/4 percent interest rate. At the 6 7/8 percent rate, the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.2 to 1.
B. Benefits:
The project's average annual benefits (1 October 1978 Price Levels) are tabulated as follows:
Amount
[Table omitted]
1. Power:
Power would be the primary benefit derived from the Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project. On-site annual power generation of 1.45 billion kilowatt-hours (kwh) would result from the total initial installed capacity of 830,000 kw (944,000 kw dependable capacity) including 190,000 kw of pumped-storage capability. Additional annual power generation of 350 million kwh would also be gained at downstream Canadian powerplants due to seasonally regulated flows from the project. Thus, the total electrical generation attributed to the project would be 1.8 billion kwh annually.
Peaking generation at the Dickey power plant would amount to 1,182,600,000 kwh annually from a dependable capacity of 874,000 kw. The Lincoln School facility .would generate intermediate power amounting to 262,800,000 kwh annually from a dependablecapacity of 70,000 kw. The increased generation at downstream Canadian plants is assumed to be off-peak energy.
The power benefits for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes are equated with the cost of the most feasible privately-financed equivalent alternative sources of power likely to be developed in the absence of the Federal project. The at-market unit power values, furnished by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), are based on gas turbines for that portion of project power expected to be marketed for peaking purposes and a combined cycle of generation plant as an alternative for that portion to be marketed as intermediate power. The downstream energy is assumed to be off-peak energy and equivalent to fuel saving coats.
2. Flood control:
The Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project would substantially reduce flooding along the St. John River between Allagash and Hamlin, Maine. Spring flooding from snowmelt runoff or runoff combined with rainfall currently damage urban structures and crops, and erode riverbanks. Urban flooding consists of damages to structures, contents, and associated lands due to inundation. Crop loss refers to potato crops lost in the field because of sustained flooding. Bank erosion is the loss of land of varied use (idle, forest, urban, crop) as a result of high velocity water flows.
Three economic damage zones (determined by correlation with hydrological data) were used for computing benefits, namely: I, St. John and St. Francis; II, Frenchville and Fort Kent; and III, Van Buren, Grand Isle, Hamlin and Madawaska. In addition, the Fort Kent flood-prone areas in Zone II abovethe 100-year level of protection afforded by the local protection project recently constructed, have been treated separately inasmuch as the proposed Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project is credited only with those damages prevented, acting after the local protection dike.
Flood control benefits would accrue from the prevention of the urban, crop, and bank erosion losses. Flood damage prevention to urban structures by the project applies to the currently unprotected flood-prone area along the St. John River downstream of Allagash and to the Fort Kent protected area for events rarer than a 100-year flood. The dollar value of this urban flood prevention at October 1978 price levels is $547,000. A reduction in crops lost in the field is estimated to be $188,000. Finally, streambank erosion control is estimated to effect a modest reduction of 10 percent of current annual losses. This latter reduction provides a benefit of $33,000 at the authorized interest rate of 3 1/4 percent or $21,000 at the 6 7/8 percent rate. Total tangible flood control benefits amount to $768,000 at 3 1/4 percent and $756,000 at 6 7/8 percent.
3. Employment (formerly described as "Redevelopment") .
Employment benefits represent compensation to local labor for project construction and which, in the absence of the project, would otherwise be unemployed or under-employed.
Aroostook County has had areas of substantial and persistent unemployment since 1966. The five major labor market areas in Aroostook County are presently designated by the Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce as Title IV Redevelopment Areas under Public Law 89-136.
Based on studies of the economic impact of public works projects on local areas conducted by EDA, it has been estimated that 45 percent of the unskilled workers, 30 percent of the skilled workers and 35 percent of other job categories needed to build the project would be supplied through direct hire of the unemployed or underemployed.
Employment benefits include only initial construction work and do not reflect benefits from future operation and maintenance.
C. Economic analyses:
The justification for authorization of all Corps of Engineers' projects is measured in terms of the benefit-to-cost ratio. The economic analysis used to develop this yardstick for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes is based on standards prescribed by Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, entitled Policies, Standards and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation and Review of Plans for Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources. As previously noted, total project benefits for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes are comprised of at-market power, total downstream energy, flood control, and employment benefits.
The project cost is computed on an annual basis reflecting amortization of the investment and annual operation and maintenance expenses over a 100-year project life. The total estimated project cost includes the cost for construction and operation and maintenance of all required transmission facilities. Attached as Table I is a summary of the economic analysis for both interest rates.
Retention of the 3 1/4 percent interest rate used in the economic analysis has been the subject of considerable discussion. The interest rate complies with a Water Resources Council (WRC) regulation adopted in December 1968. This regulation revised the method of computing the interest rate as previously outlined in Senate Document No. 97. The regulation permitted exceptions, however, for those projects already authorized such as Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes which was authorized in 1965. The original interest rate would be retained on those previously authorized projects which did not have any requirements for local cooperation. For those projects having local cooperation requirements, the exception noted that if an appropriate non-Federal agency provided — prior to 31 December 1969 — satisfactory assurances that requirements of local cooperation associated with the project would be met, then the previous interest rate would be retained. At Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes, local cooperation would have been required for the cost-sharing of the then planned recreational facilities. Assurances were received from the Governor of Maine by letter, dated 24 February 1969, that the non-Federal requirements would be fulfilled at the appropriate time. As a result, the interest rate was retained at 3 1/4 percent. With the subsequent deletion of recreational development, no conditions of local cost-sharing now exist and the 3 1/4 percent remains the authorized rate for the project.
The WRC subsequently established new principles and standards for water resource planning, effective in October 1973, and the new standards included a provision for increasing the interest rate. However, the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, enacted by the Congress on 7 March 1974, included a section which requires that interest rates for water resources projects remain consistent with the December 1968 WRC regulation. Accordingly, the 3 1/4 percent interest rate remains applicable to Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes.
The Corps of Engineers also employs an "Economic Efficiency Test". The objective of an ideal system operation is to meet area power demands at least cost to consumers. Therefore, the least costly addition to a region's capacity could be considered as a yardstick for purposes of making a decision regarding such expansion. The test provides for such a determination by comparing the project's costs to the costs of providing an equivalent amount of power from the most feasible alternatives likely to be developed in the absence of the Federal project, evaluated on a basis comparable with the determination of the project costs, i.e. 3 1/4 percent and excluding taxes. The test indicates that the annual cost for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes amounts to $38,742,000 while alternative equivalent costs, with an appropriate adjustment for benefits foregone, amount to $61,909,000 resulting in a favorable comparability ratio of 1.6 to 1. Using the 6 7/8 percent interest rate, the comparability ratio is 1.0 to 1. The attached Table II illustrates the derivation of the "Economic Efficiency Test" for each interest rate.
D. Financial Analysis:
The economic analysis defines the economic worth of the project. The financial value of power, however, is determined through a repayment analysis. Marketing of electric power from Federal projects, as authorized by Section 5 of the 1944 Flood Control Act, is the responsibility of the Department of Energy (DOE). Repayment rates are established to recover costs of power production and transmission including annual operation and maintenance expenses. The total investment allocated to power must be repaid over a reasonable period; administration policy specifies 50 years. The interest rate used for repayment purposes is based on criteria instituted by the Department of Interior (the agency with marketing responsibility prior to establishment of DOE) in 1970. The interest rate for Fiscal Year 1978 was 7 percent and was used for the latest Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes repayment analysis included in the Financial Feasibility Study completed by DOE in 1977.
Tentative wholesale rates derived in the feasibility study were $56/kw for capacity and 15 mills (1.5c) /kwh for energy. DOE noted that these charges were competitive with existing bulk power rates in New England and could immediately bring substantial savings to some customers and modest savings to others. At these rates, DOE concluded that sufficient revenue could be obtained from the sale of electricity to repay the entire Federal investment associated with the production and distribution of power. Consequently, the project's power features would be financially feasible because the investment would be recovered over a 50-year period.
E. Comparison of economic/financial analyses:
The difference between the economic analyses previously described and the repayment analysis warrants further clarification. This has caused a considerable misinterpretation. The economic analyses — both for the benefit-to-cost ratio determination and the "Economic Efficiency Test" are economic parameters measuring a project's worth. These analyses are not unique to Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes. The benefit-to-cost ratio is employed universally by the Corps in measuring a project's economic justification. The "Economic Efficiency Test" is also universally used by the Corps in conjunction with projects having generation of electric power as a project purpose. The economic analyses utilize 3 1/4 percent and 67/8 percent interest rates and 100-year period of evaluation. On the other hand, the repayment analysis, which is computed by DOE, is a financial measure that determines the appropriate price at which bulk power must be marketed to return the total annual investment allocated to power. As previously noted, the latest analysis uses an interest rate of 7.0 percent and a 50-year repayment period.
IV. POWER MARKETING
The DOE would be responsible for marketing the electric power from Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes per authority of Section 5 of the 1944 Flood Control Act. This statute requires that power be sold in such a manner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business practices. Section 5 further directs that preference in the sale of power and energy is to be given to public and cooperative power interests.
The Financial Feasibility Study for the project power, prepared by DOE, addressed the marketing aspects. The report notes that after considering transmission losses and offsetting load diversities, approximately 900,000 kw of capacity and 12 billion kwh of stream flow energy would be available for sale at the customers' premises. The energy value excludes about 290 million kwh from the initial pumped-storage operation which is proposed to be marketed on a split-the-savings arrangement. The present concept envisions marketing of 700,000 kw (667 million kwh) as peaking power to New England outside of Maine and marketing of 200,000 kw in Maine, 50 percent as intermediate load power (438 million kwh) and 50 percent as peaking power (95 million kwh). These allocations include the assumed United States portion of additional energy generated at downstream Canadian projects.
Preliminary marketing studies currently indicate that the 100,000 kw of peaking power allocated to Maine and 250,000 kw of the peaking power allocated elsewhere in New England could initially be sold to investor-owned utilities. Contracts would provide that this power may be withdrawn for sale to preference customers should the latter utilities experience increased demand by customers in their service areas.
However, it should be understood that until construction is underway and the power-on-line date is relatively firm, DOE does not proceed with definitive marketing and transmission arrangements. Meanwhile, DOE studies are of sufficient depth to determine marketability and to assess the financial feasibility of the power installation.
The existence of the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) — comprised of all major utilities within New England — provides an effective vehicle through which Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes output could be utilized to the mutual benefit of New England.
V. Environmental studies:
With the resumption of planning activity in 1974, studies needed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) received priority attention. As a first step, an independent contractor was engaged to develop a scope-of-work to identify impacts and to recommend methods for measuring and evaluating these impacts. This phase of work is described in a report completed in August 1975.
In developing the scope, numerous contacts were made with public agencies, private organizations, interested citizens and Canadian agenices to solicit recommendations concerning topics and issues for the impact statement.
To assure objective professional judgment, major component studies were conducted by independent contractors who acquired and interpreted background data and identified project effects for the impact statement.
Specific studies undertaken for the EIS focused on:
Terrestrial Ecosystems.— Including wildlife habitats, rare and endangered species and forest resources.
Aquatic Ecosystems.— Including fisheries analysis, water quality and insect populations.
Social-Economic Factors.— Including profiles of local communities, labor force impacts, housing, forestry economics and municipal services.
Power Alternatives: Including conservation and load management.
Recreation Resources.
Archeological and Cultural Resources.
Geologic and Geotechnical.— Including earthquake studies.
Hydrologic, Hydraulic and Water Quality Investigations and Analyses.
Special Studies of climatology, air quality and noise:
In general the many studies developed three conditions for comparative analysis, i.e., existing and projected conditions without the project and projected conditions with the project.
Public workshops held in the summer of 1977, prior to publication of a draft EIS, provided an opportunity for interested citizen groups to identify gaps or omissions in the information contained In various study reports.
The initial draft EIS and supportive documents were issued by the Corps of Engineers in August 1977. An extended 90-day period was allotted for public comment and review.
Early in 1976, studies and field reconnaissance commenced on the impacts of the transmission facilities needed to link the project's power stations to the New England system. A special resident team from the Bonneville Power Administration, DOE, managed the effort leading to publication of a separate transmission draft MS in April 1978 followed by public meetings and review.
Both drafts have now been consolidated into a single document and circulated by the Corps of Engineers in December 1978 as a revised draft MS for further public review. That draft EIS also contains responses to comments received during the previous public review period. The document is designated a "revised draft" pending completion of a recommended fish and wildlife mitigation plan when a final EIS will be processed at that time.
Copies of the revised draft MS are available by writing to: Division Engineer, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, New England Division, 424 Trapelo Road, Waltham, Massachusetts 02154.
The drafts are supported by a series of 24 detailed documents — 20 Appendices and 4 technical Design Memoranda. Copies of the Appendices and Design Memoranda have been distributed to depositories throughout New England for public review. A list of these depositories is included as an attachment to this Fact Sheet.
STATUS OF THE PROJECT
A. General:
One of the confusing aspects encountered by those who wish to better understand the project relates to the unusual sequence of events associated with the history of the Dickey-Lincoln School proposal.
Of paramount significance is the fact that since project authorization by Congress in 1965, new priorities and policies have been adopted to assure that decision makers are well informed of the environmental consequences of major Federal projects and that opportunities must be provided for public involvement in an open planning process.
As an arm of the Executive Branch of the Federal government, Corps of Engineers activities depend on appropriations approved annually by Congress. Preconstruction planning started following the 1965 authorization measure and was interrupted in 1967 when Congress declined to appropriate additional funds.
The deteriorating worldwide energy situation resulting from the 1973 OPEC embargo prompted Congress to fund resumption of planning.
When work was resumed in the fall of 1974, attention focused on activities to bring the project into conformance with newly enacted Federal statutes. The most significant of these laws are:
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The Preservation of Historic and Archeological Data Act of 1974.
The 1977 Amendments to the Clear Water Act.
Under today's procedures, compliance with these statutes would be required before Congressional authorization. In the case of an already authorized project such as Dickey-Lincoln School, it has been necessary to assure compliance while the project was already in an authorized status but before construction funds can be requested.
Because decisions about the future of the project will be made within the context of frequently changing national energy and environmental priorities and policies, the Corps of Engineers will extend every effort to obtain and impartially present information that elected officials will need in reaching a decision about the future of the project.
C. Current Activities:
No determination to proceed to construction is possible until environmental studies are completed and until engineering plans and economic aspects have been updated. Much information appeared in the draft EIS circulated for public review in August 1977. A revised General Design Memorandum was issued in September 1977 (the earlier version was completed in 1967) containing up-to-date engineering and economic data. More data became available in a draft EIS prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy separately addressing the impacts associated with the transmission system.
Public meetings were conducted to facilitate public comment on each of the draft impact statements. Responses to formal comments received during the official review period have been compiled and appear in a composite revised draft EIS published in December 1978 covering both the project and the transmission features.
Publication of a final EIS has been postponed pending formulation of a recommended plan to mitigate loss of fish and wildlife habitat caused by implementation of the project. Further studies of impacts on Canadian lands and waters must also be completed before a final EIS can be issued. Both of these requirements reflect new Federal policies introduced subsequent to issuance of the initial draft impact statement.
Ongoing preconstruction planning activities scheduled during the 1979 Fiscal Year commencing 1 October 1978, will concentrate on the formulation of mitigation measures encompassing fisheries, wildlife and protection and endangered species. This effort is being coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so that timely recommendations for mitigating fish and wildlife losses can be submitted for Congressional authorization. Details of the recommended plan will be fully described and discussed in the final EIS.
Concurrent with this primary effort, environmental studies will be conducted to closer examine project impacts on Canada's natural and physical environment. Attention will also be given to collection of additional field data, including subsurface explorations which will clarify environmental questions and further refine technical data contained in general engineering and economic studies.
The FY 1979 schedule will also permit preparation of responses to comments received on the revised composite draft EIS.
Much interest has been focused on the effects of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 on the future of the project. Significant aspects of this question are summarized below.
In mid-1976 New England Division staff and University of Maine scientists, under contract to the Corps, conducted a reconnaissance of the project area to determine if certain rare or potentially endangered plant species were present. This field survey led to the identification of colonies of the Furbish lousewort (Pedicularis furbishiae) at locations which would be inundated if the project were implemented. Because this species had been nominated for listing and protection under the Act, informal consultations were initiated promptly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A series of scientific studies were pursued to assess the physical and biological characteristics of the plant, its habitat requirements, and to determine whether specimens could be found at other sites. This investigation identified additional colonies along the St. John River downstream of the proposed project site. The lousewort was officially listed in April 1978 as an endangered species eligible for protection from Federal action which might jeopardize its future survival.
Pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, formal consultations were requested by the Corps. On 27 June 1978, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted its biological opinion that the project, as planned, would jeopardize the continued existence of the Furbish lousewort. However, the service outlines a specific conservation program which — if successful — would preclude jeopardy to the plant. The program includes:
1. Development of information which will lead to a functional understanding of the habitat needs and propagation techniques of the Furbish lousewort.
2. Acquisition and protection of existing habitats below the project impoundment area currently supporting lousewort populations.
3. Acquisition of habitat identified as capable of supporting new populations of louseworts.
4. Establishment of new, self-sustaining colonies through transplantation, seeding or other appropriate techniques.
5. Obtaining,. better information on what the effects will be of downstream flows, after construction of the project, on the lousewort and its habitat.
6. Development of a monitoring program capable of detecting any changes in lousewort biological status, such as habitat changes, population increases or decreases, and microclimatic conditions.
Studies for Items 1, 4 and 6 are to be initiated during the summer of 1979 and will continue as necessary to achieve the required information. Items 2 and 3 will be included in the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation proposal. Item 5 will be addressed at a later date:
HISTORICAL MILESTONES
Origins of the Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes project can be linked to the continuing scientific interest in harnessing the natural energy concentrated in the coastal regions of Northern Maine and neighboring Canadian provinces.
The idea of harnessing the powerful tidal pools in Passamaquoddy Bay and in tapping hydroelectric power holds a special appeal in a region historically short of energy resources.
Some important milestones should be noted in understanding the evolution of the Dickey-Lincoln School idea over the last twenty years.
Chronology of events
1956
August — In accordance with provisions of the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909, the U.S. and Canadian governments requested the International Joint Commission to study the feasibility of constructing a tidal power project at Passamaquoddy Bay for the purpose of supplying baseload electricity to Maine and New Brunswick.
1959
October — An exhaustive three-year engineering study concluded that the tidal project at Passamaquoddy, including an auxiliary conventional hydroelectric facility on the St. John River at Rankin Rapids, Maine, was not economically justified. The Rankin Rapids component had been added to compensate for the inherent inability of a tidal system to generate a sustained volume of base power.
The study estimated that development of the project would cost $630 million to install 700 megawatts of capacity to meet the projected baseload requirements for Maine and New Brunswick.
1961
May — President Kennedy ordered the Department of the Interior to review the joint commission's findings to determine if advances in energy technology, consumption patterns and overall economic considerations would make the project economically feasible.
1963
July — On the basis of new forecasts by the Federal Power Commission, the Department of the Interior asserted that the Passamaquoddy project could be justified if redesigned to generate peak, rather than baseload, power for a wider geographic area encompassing the New England states, portions of upstate New York, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Because of adverse environmental impact on the Allagash River, now a designated "wilderness waterway," the proposed Rankin Rapids component was discarded in favor of an alternative location on the Upper St. John River at Dickey, Maine, just upstream of the point where the two rivers converge.
Construction of a re-regulating dam at Lincoln School, 11 miles downstream, was proposed to counter the problem of extreme fluctuations in river flow caused by the intermittent peak power operation of Dickey's power plant.
Total ultimate installed capacity of the combined Passamaquoddy and Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes projects was projected at 1,750 megawatts with total construction costs of nearly $1 billion.
To perform further studies ordered by the President, an advisory board was formed comprised of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Interior examined economic aspects, power and transmission requirements, marketing and downstream benefits. The Corps concentrated on field studies and engineering design.
1964
August — The advisory board findings were incorporated in the Secretary of Interior's review of the original joint commission report. The review, as circulated to State and Federal officials for comment, proposed immediate authorization for construction of both the International Tidal Power Project and the Upper St. John River Hydroelectric Complex.
1965
July — Results of the review with comments from Federal and State officials were transmitted to President Johnson for action.
However, new power values provided by theFederal Power Commission, reflecting the development of larger more economical generating plants by the industry, showed that Passamaquoddy, by itself, could not be economically justified. Dickey-Lincoln School still retained its favorable benefit-to-cost ration and was reindorsed for immediate authorization.
For the first time Dickey-Lincoln School had assumed an independent identity.
President Johnson recommended that Congress authorize immediate construction of Dickey-Lincoln School based on an installed capacity of 794 megawatts at a cost of $218.7 million.
October — Congress adopted the President's recommendation by authorizing the project in the Flood Control Act of 1965. Funds were appropriated for preliminary planning and design for the project to contain 830 megawatts of installed capacity.
November — Planning and design work was begun by the New England Division, Corps of Engineers.
1966
September — The House Committee on Public Works ordered its staff to reexamine the project's economic feasibility.
October — Funds to continue planning and design were included in the Public Works Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 1967 (July '66-June '67).
Studies dating back to 1919 addressed the technical and economic aspects of a number of tidal power proposals. In essence, the present Dickey-Lincoln School hydroelectric project concept is a distillation of these investigations.
1967
March — The report of the staff investigation, noting that the project continued to have a favorable benefit-cost ratio, was inserted into the record of hearings conducted by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Works.
November — Funding for ongoing planning and design was deleted from the FY 1968 Appropriation Act; thereby terminating all project activities.
1968 and 1969
The project's economics were reviewed annually by the Corps of Engineers and continued to show a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. However, no funds were appropriated by Congress to resume planning.
1970
January — Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act established the Council on Environmental Quality. The Act requires the preparation of an impact statement for any proposed Federal activities likely to affect the environment.
1970 to 1973
Benefit-to-cost ratios still showed the project to be economically justified on the basis of annual updating. No funds were made available for additional planning.
1974
July — Congress requested the General Accounting Office to review the project's benefit-to-cost ratio.
August — Renewed Congressional support for the project as a response to the energy crisis resulted in action to add $800,000 to the FY 1975 Public Works Appropriation Act to resume advanced planning and engineering.
November — The New England Division of the Corps of Engineers resumed work on the project seven years after prior activity had been terminated.
1975
June — The GAO audit report suggested that because of the project's size and complexity that no definitive assessment of its economic worth could be made until planning and environmental studies were completed.
In its analysis, the GAO reviewed the Corps construction estimates of $522 million for an 830 megawatt facility including transmission and the resultant 2.6 to 1 benefit-to-cost ratio.
1975
December — The Public Works Appropriation Act for FY 1976 passed by Congress included an allocation of $2.5 million to continue planning, engineering and environmental studies for a fifteen month period.
1976
March — Department of Interior establishes field office in Bangor to administer transmission planning studies.
April — Governor James B. Longley announces formation of a Maine Citizens' Committee to determine State impacts of Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes.
July — An additional $2.0 million appropriated by the Congress to continue environmental and economic studies during FY 1977 (Oct. '76-Sept. '77).
October — Modification in the design of the power plant at Dickey Dam recommended to include pumped storage capability and to permit future addition of 380 megawatts of generating capacity increasing the ultimate overall capacity of the project — including 70 megawatts at Lincoln School — from 830 to 1210 megawatts. The addition of a pumped storage feature would increase total production of electricity to 1.4 billion kilowatt hours annually for the initial installation with an ultimate annual output of 2.0 billion kilowatt hours following the future added units.
On the basis of current price levels, construction costs of the project including initial provisions for future expansion and pumped storage — estimated at $533 million. Benefit-to-cost ratio computed to be 2.1 to 1.
Public meetings conducted by Department of Interior at seven locations to discuss selection of transmission corridor linking Dickey power to the New England power grid.
1977
February — President Carter requests deletion of funds for Dickey-Lincoln School from the FY 1978 Budget indicating that the project failed to meet new environment criteria.
March — Following review by Interagency Task Force, White House decides to retain budget recommendation to complete environmental studies.
April-June — Fourteen technical workshops conducted with Maine organizations to obtain pre-publication public comment on elements contained in the draft environmental impact statement.
August — The draft environmental impact statement for the dams and reservoirs published marking start of 90-day formal public review period.
October-November — Six public meetings conducted to disseminate information and receive public comment following circulation of draft impact statement.
November — The Governor's Citizens Committee voted 6-4 in opposition to the project. In the absence of a consensus, the Committee's report recommended that final decision should also consider state and national energy policies.
1978
March — A draft environmental impact statement published by the U.S. Department of Energy described impacts of transmission facilities. Concurrent with the 60-day period allotted by the Department of Energy for public review, the Corps of Engineers reopened the period for comment on its earlier draft to permit review of entire project.
April-May — The Department of Energy conducted eight public meetings to discuss transmission and overall project impacts.
June — The White House submitted a water policy message outlining new criteria for evaluating proposals for developing water resources.
October — Based on current price levels, construction cost for initial development of the overall Dickey-Lincoln School project was estimated at $744.7 million. The project's benefit-cost ratio remains 2.1 to 1 at the authorized interest rate of 31/4.
November — Governor Longley informed President Carter that he would oppose implementation of the project on the basis of excessive adverse impacts on Maine.
December — The Corps of Engineers published a revised draft impact statement combining earlier drafts into a single document. The revised draft also contains responses to comments received as a result of public review. A forty-five day period, ending 12 February 1979, was allotted for additional public comment.
Pursuant to the June White House water policy message, priority has been directed to expediting the preparation of a recommendation to Congress for mitigating loss of wildlife habitat that would occur as a result of project implementation and to incorporate the recommended plan into the final impact statement.
1979 January — President's Executive Order directs agencies to extend environmental studies so that impacts of Federal projects outside U.S. borders can be considered.
President's FY 1980 Budget announced. Includes $710,000 for continuation of environmental and environmentally-related studies for Dickey-Lincoln School.
February Maine Governor Joseph E. Brennan expresses conditional support for the project reserving final decision pending his review of final impact statement.