Derby Dam comment from FirstLight re fish passage

[Teresa Gallagher]

The attached comment from FirstLight (Stevenson Dam) regarding the timing of the fish passage at the Derby/Shelton Dam is interesting.

 

Teresa Gallagher

Natural Resources Manager

City of Shelton

54 Hill Street, Shelton, CT 06484

203-924-1555 x1315

 

[thomas harbinson]

As I read the attachment, a summary: First Light, through various entities, owns the dams and hydro-electric facilities upstream of the Derby Dam.  Their permitting thru the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission notes that the implementation of fish passageways are moot until the Derby Dam has constructed their passage and a stable population is established so that their fish passage upstream at Stevenson dam would have any impact upon potential migration.  First Light alludes to statements regarding the notes from First Light in their FERC permitting for Stevenson Dam are being miss-chategorized in the Derby Dam's application to FERC by McCallum Enterprises (owner of the Derby Dam), with McCallum implying that their fish passage design has some dependency upon those activities upstream.  First Light is seeking clarity in McCallum's plans for the fish passage design and timing of implementation.

Teresa has maintained a Google Site collecting information specifically related to the FERC licensing for the Derby Dam, and the issues such as this fish ladder as well as the Recreational Access component.  https://sites.google.com/site/sheltonopenspace/sheltoncanal

Background knowledge: McCallum at Derby Dam has a long-term contract with UI (Power Purchase Agreement) that establishes a set price for power generated.  First Light does not have a contract with power company, but rather sells their generation on the spot market to highest bidder.  When a brown-out is occurring, and the grid operators need extra power, First Light can open up the gates, spin the turbines, and transmit the on-demand energy into the grid.  It can be lucrative (First Light is owned by a large conglomerate in Spain).  The result is a volume of water sent downstream, which Derby's facility can not take advantage of.  Derby is a "run-of-river" facility.  They can only take so much through their turbines at once, and the rest of the flow spills over the dam to be non-generative.  When CL&P owned the Housatonic River facilities prior to selling them to First Light (divesture of generation facilities), there was an agreement to manage river flow to benefit all parties with steady generation.  I get a sense that there is animosity between McCallum as owner of the Derby Dam, and First Light as owner of the upstream dams due to these erratic water flows.

The Derby Dam generates 8MW annually.  As example, the "Locational Marginal Prices" for today, MonAug16, fluctuated between $60-$64/ MWH.  At the middle of that range, the dam generated about $1500 today.  That's over 1/2 a million per annum, but it is likely that the contract agreement in place is much lower than the spot LMP.  The stability of a long-term power-purchase-agreement allows a business to sell it's value as a futures-contract, converting it to a present-day-value that can be used for construction of the facility.  Construction of a fish-passage will directly eat into the profit-margin of the facility as an extra cost of construction that has not been completed over several licensure periods from FERC.

Tom Harbinson

Tel: 203SirTomH

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shelton Conservation Commission" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sheltoncc+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sheltoncc/7caa443980b0476dad51d4c64ae06206%40mail.ex2013.local.