20030179 Ver 6_Public Comments_20071029 (2)

t
PAUL V. NOLAN, Esq.
5515 North 17th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22205
E-mail: [e-mail]
October 25, 2007
Mr. Steve Tedder
c/o Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
Parkview Building
Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Work: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
Truck: 703-946-8153
~~c~~od~G
OCi 2 9 ZOOI
pEN1F~ - iNAI'ER QUAll71'
WETtAtrpg PuVD STORMIN.ATER BRANCH
RE: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Section 401 Water Quality Certification & Section 404 Permit
Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse Removal
DWQ Project No. 2003-0179, Ver. 6, et. al.
Request to Lodqe Documents and for Administrative Notice
Dear Hearing Officer Tedder:
In response to the public notice for the above captioned water quality certificate
proceeding, the Jackson County Government, the Macon County Government, the
Town of Franklin ("Local Governments"), respectfully request that you accept the
following documents into the record and take notice of the public policies and interests
noted therein with regard to renewable power and the implications thereof for the
current certificate proceeding:
August 23, 2007 order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, Docket
No. E-100, SUB 113, In the Matter of Rulemaking Proceeding to Implement
Session Law 2007-397 -Order Initiating Rulemaking Proceeding.
2. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC - 2007 RFP for renewable power.
As noted therein, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC was seeking Proposals for a
supply portfolio of energy and capacity generated from new (placed in service on
or after Jan. 1, 2007) renewable or existing NC Green Power sources including
low impact hydro.
3. Jackson County FERC Preliminary Permit Application for studying the
development of hydroelectric power at the Dillsboro Dam.
These three documents unequivocally support the position of Jackson County
Page 1 of 4

that the redevelopment of the hydraulic resources of the Dillsboro site is in the public
interest and in furtherance of State and Federal laws and policies encouraging the
development of renewable resources.' Thus, the issuance of any 404 permit and/or
401 certificate is contrary to the public interest, More so because the Duke application
for relicensing of the Dillsboro Project unequivocally states that the continued operation
of the project will not adversely affect existing water quality standards and/or
endangered species such as the elktoe mussel
The developments proposed by Jackson County in its permit will allow for the
passage of fish upstream and down as well as afford kayak passage. Moreover, given
the lack of any evidence in the current record to the contrary, the additional annual
generation proposed to be developed, along with the non-power facilities and operation
of the project in a run-of-river mode and with minimum flows sufficient to accommodate
fish passage, etc., far exceeds the speculative benefits of dam removal, which entails
significant, long term (based upon their life-cycles) adverse impacts to existing mussel
communities located downstream of the dam as well as upstream (for which no studies
exist assessing their ability to accommodate successfully additional mussels in an
existing colony).
As noted in the RFP, Duke would accept bids from low-impact hydros (certified).
Jackson County is familiar with the certification process, which entails paying a fee for
certification, and alternatives thereto, and is confident that the redeveloped Dillsboro
Project can meet the requirements for certification based upon the installation of better
equipment, better PLC systems, run-of-river operation (which is the product of and
subject to upstream operation of Duke's other projects), the provision of minimum flows
as agreed to by DWQ for the upstream projects and under the previous license for the
project.2
As DWQ is well aware, Jackson County has an aggressive green power program
in place. Thus, redevelopment of the Dillsboro site along with the County's efforts with
regard to the development of landfill gas, a winner of a recent EPA award (see attached
public notice), is in the public interest.
Based upon information taken from Duke's application for relicensing,
' Though Duke's 2007 RFP bid period has closed, other RFPs will be forthcoming
from Duke, its affiliates and/or from other utilities in response to the ongoing NCUC proceeding.
The permit application was erroneously dismissed by FERC as being in competition with
the relicensing application for Dillsboro Project 2602. The County's response is attached.
As noted in the 2003 relicensing application at E.2.11 -- Existing Water Quality
Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures - "[t]he Froject currently has a minimum flow
requirement of 160 cfs or inflow on the Tuckasegee River for the protection of water quality and
aquatic life, as required by the existing license."
Page 2 of 4

redevelopment of the project will not have any adverse impacts upon existing water
quality standards, see Section E.23, and will not affect adversely the existing elktoe
mussel populations. See Section Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, ES 10- 11 of 2003
application, wherein Duke states:
Water quality in the Little Tennessee River Basin, as assessed using benthic
invertebrates indices, is generally Good or Excellent (NCDENR-DWQ 2002). Two
hundred seven ratable samples representing 112 sites, have been collected
since 1983. Good or Excellent ratings have been assigned for 77 percent of
these samples. The remaining 23 percent of the samples are rated as Good-Fair,
Fair, and Pour. Relicensing studies produced bioclassifications for the two
stations in the immediate upstream and downstream vicinity of the Dillsboro
Project of Good and Good, respectively. These are within the range of the results
of the NCDENR studies.
The Little Tennessee River in Subbasin 02, which includes the Dillsboro Project
area, is critical habitat for two federally listed endangered species of mussels: the
Appalachian elk-toe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and the littlewing pearly mussel
(Pegias fabula). Other important mussel species in this subbasin include the
slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta vtridis) and the Tennessee pigtoe (Fusconaia
barnesiana). Both species are listed as endangered in North Carolina. The wavy-
rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola), a species of Special Concern in North
Carolina, is also found in this area. Appalachian elktoe were found both upstream
and downstream of Dillsboro Dam and were the most abundant species in both
areas.
The presence and operation of the Dillsboro facility has had relatively little effect
on mussel populations in the Tuckasegee River. The Dillsbom Dam appears to
be only slightly detrimental to mussel species by producing unfavorable habitat in
its detention pool and isolating upstream. The present mussel species richness in
the Tuckasegee River appears to have been limited primarily by past events that
were unrelated to any action associated with Dillsboro Dan Reproducing
populations of the same species occur both upstream and downstream from the
dam and detention pool, suggesting that the linear distribution of these species is
not significantly affected by the Dillsboro facility (Fraley 2002).
Section E2.10 -Project Effects on Water Quality states:
The Project is in compliance and in support of all applicable state water quality
standards and designated uses. Due to the upstream influence of the West Fork and
East Fork Hydroelectric projects, the Dillsboro Project has little impact, if any, on water
temperatures in the Tuckasegee River. Comparison data of the daily mean temperature
upstream and downstream of the Project indicates very little difference between the two
areas.
(Emphasis added).
Page 3 of 4

Based on this information, it was determined that the Dillsboro Project will
not negatively affect the macro invertebrate populations and assemblages
in the Project area due to the fact that there will be no change in Project
operations.
(Emphasis Added).
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by Paul V. Nolan
P a u I V Nolan DN: cn=Paul V. Nolan, o, ou=Paul V.
Nolan, email=pvnpvn@aoLcom, c=US
Date: 2007.10.25 15:54:52 -04'00'
Paul V. Nolan
Cc: Ken Westmoreland, Jackson County Manager
Sam Greenwood, Macon County Manager
Verlin Curtis, Town of Franklin Alderman
Tom Walker, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Office
Encl.: NCUC Order
Duke Energy Carolinas - 2007 RFP
Jackson County Preliminary Permit
Jackson County Response to FERC
Page 4 of 4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RALEIGH
DOCKET NO. E-100, SUB 113
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION
In the Matter of
Rulemaking Proceeding to Implement ) ORDER INITIATING
Session Law 2007-397 ) RULEMAKING PROCEEDING
BY THE CHAIRMAN: Session Law 2007-397 (Senate Bill 3) was signed into law
on August 20, 2007. This comprehensive energy legislation, among other things,
(1) establishes a Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (REPS)
for (~~orth Carolina, G.S. 62-133.7; (2) provides for cost recovery of demand-side
management and energy efficiency expenditures, G.S. 62-133.8; (3) amends the fuel
charge adjustment and certification statutes, G.S. 62-133.2 and 62-110.1; (4) provides
for Commission review of the construction of out-of-state electric generating facilities,
G.S. 62-110.6; (5) provides for Commission review and cost recovery for project
development costs associated with potential nuclear generating facilities,
G.S. 62-110.7; and (6) alters the statutory rules governing the inclusion of construction
work in progress associated with base load electric generating facilities in a public
utility's rate base, G.S. 62-133.
As most of the above changes become effective January 1, 2008, the Chairman
finds good cause to initiate this rulemaking proceeding to adopt new rules and modify
existing rules, as appropriate, to implement Session Law 2007-397. Because the
relevant sections are so interrelated, the Commission, except as provided below, is
initiating this single rulemaking proceeding to implement Session Law 2007-397 on a
comprehensive basis. Although some details may be left to future proceedings, it is the
Commission's intent to adopt final rules to implement Session Law 2007-397 by the
end of this year. Thus, although the Commission is aware that there are a number of
other pending proceedings involving many of the parties who will be interested in this
proceeding, the Commission is establishing an expedited schedule in order to have
rules in place by January 1, 2008.
To begin this rulemaking process, the Chairman invites interested persons to
petition to intervene and file proposed rules, rule revisions, or any other comments or
suggestions to assist the Commission in drafting proposed rules to implement Session
Law 2007-397. The Commission requests that the Public Staff prepare proposed rules
or rule revisions to implement Section 4 of Session Law 2007-397, G.S. 62-133.8. After
considering the parties' initial filings and the proposed rules or rule revisions to be
submitted by the Public Staff, the Commission will prepare proposed rules or rule
re~:~isions to implement the sections of Session Law 2007-397 within its jurisdiction.
Parties will be permitted to file comments and reply comments addressing these
proposed rules or rule revisions.

While not intending to limit the parties' initial filings in this proceeding in any
way; the Chairman has set forth in Appendix A a number of issues about which the
Commission is specifically interested in receiving comments or suggestions. The
Commission will issue separate orders in the near future regarding the net metering
and interconnection rulemaking provisions of Session Law 2007-397 and the analysis
required by Section 4.(c).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
1. That Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas,
Inc.; Duke Power Company LLC dlb/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Virginia Electric
and Po`~~er Company d/b/a Dominion North Carolina Power; North Carolina Electric
Membership Corporation; and ElectriCities of North Carolina, Inc., are hereby made
parties of record in this proceeding;
2. That other parties desiring to become formal participants and parties of
record in this proceeding shall file petitions to intervene in accordance with the
applicable Commission rules on or before Friday, September 21, 2007;
3. That parties may file initial comments, suggestions, or proposed rules or
rule revisions as provided herein on or before Friday, September 21, 2007;
4. That the Public Staff, after considering the parties' initial filings, shall
prepare and file proposed rules or rule revisions implementing Section 4 of Session
Law 2007-397 on or before Wednesday, October 10, 2007;
S. That the Commission, after considering the parties' initial filings and the
proposed rules or rule revisions filed by the Public Staff, shall issue an order setting
forth proposed rules or rule revisions as provided herein implementing those sections
of Session Law 2007-397 within its jurisdiction and establishing a further schedule for
the filing of comments and reply comments; and
6. That the Chief Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to all parties of record
in Docket No. E-100, Sub 109.
ISSUED BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.
This the 23`J day of August, 2007.
NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION
~,ai l l..'~(lour~r
Gail L. Mount, Deputy Clerk
2

Appendix A
Page 1 of 2
DOCKET NO. E-100, SUB 113
Rulemaking Proceeding to Implement Session Law 2007-397
Specific Issues About Which The Commission Is Seeking Comment
1. Should the Commission convene a generic proceeding each year to consider
compliance with the REPS requirement, or is a periodic reporting requirement
sufficient to allow the Commission to monitor and report on compliance as
required by G.S. 62-133.7(1)(1)?
2. Should the rate recovery mechanisms affecting public utilities be coordinated to
provide for a single annual change in rates for each utility? If so, how should this
coordination be accomplished?
3. How should the Commission interpret per account" in considering REPS
compliance and in determining the annual assessment of charges under
G.S. 62-133.7(h)? Must the Commission approve a uniform charge "per
account," or may the charge vary according to usage?
4. What procedures should be adopted regarding potential future requests to
modify or delay implementation of the REPS requirements, G.S. 62-133.7(1)(2)?
5. What procedures should be imposed upon electric power suppliers or others to
ensure that energy credited toward REPS compliance not be credited toward
any other purpose, including another renewable energy portfolio standard or
voluntary renewable energy purchase program in this State or any other state,
G.S. 62-133.7(1)(3)?
6. What procedures should be imposed upon electric power suppliers or others to
ensure that the owner and operator of each renewable energy facility that
delivers electric power to an electric power supplier is in substantial compliance
with all federal and state laws, regulations, and rules for the protection of the
environment and conservation of natural resources, G.S. 62-133.7(1)(5}?
7 What procedures, if any, should the Commission adopt to track and account for
renewable energy certificates (RECs), G.S. 62-133.7(1)(7)?
8. Should the Commission allow aggregators or brokers to resell RECs? If so,
what rules should apply to these entities?
9. Since a renewable energy facility interconnected on the customer's side of the
electric power supplier's meter may earn RECs, how should the output of these
facilities be determined? Should the Commission allow entities other than
electric power suppliers to meter these facilities? If so, what rules should apply
to these entities?
10 Since renewable energy facilities include both solar thermal energy facilities and
combined heat and power (CHP) systems earning RECs, G.S. 62-133.7(a)(7),
how should the non-electric output of these facilities be determined? Should the
Commission allow entities other than electric power suppliers to meter these
facilities? If so, what rules should apply to these entities?

Appendix A
Page2of2
11 Ho~~1 should the Commission determine the value of RECs for CHP systems and
solar thermal energy facilities? What information is required, and what is the
appropriate conversion factor?
12. What procedures should the Commission adopt to determine if an electric
power supplier is in compliance with the solar energy resources REPS
provision, G.S. 62-133.7(d}, if a new solar electric facility or a new metered solar
thermal energy facility fails to meet the terms of its contract with the electric
power supplier?
13. How should the Commission evaluate cost-effectiveness for demand-side
management and energy efficiency options for purposes of G.S. 62-133.8(c}?
Should the Commission adopt new procedures for the approval of such
programs, or are current Commission rules sufficient and appropriate to comply
with G.S. 62-133.8(c)?
14. What procedures should the Commission adopt to measure and verify avoided
costs and capacity and energy savings achieved by demand-side management
or energy efficiency measures, G.S. 62-133.8(d}? Specifically, what reporting
requirements, if any, should the Commission adopt to monitor demand-side
management and energy efficiency measures for purposes of ratemaking, cost-
recovery, and REPS compliance?
15. How should the Commission determine the appropriate assignment of costs
and benefits of new demand-side management and energy efficiency
measures, G.S. 62-133.8(e}?
16. What procedures should the Commission adopt to comply with G.S.62-
133.8(e}, (f), and (g}, including, but not limited to, procedures and standards
addressing how the Commission should evaluate notifications of
nonparticipation by industrial customers. Specifically, with regard to the
provisions in subsection (f), how should the Commission apply them to
commercial customers who establish the threshold level of significant annual
usage; and what should that threshold level be?
17 What filing requirements and procedures should be required for generators
exempt from certification pursuant to amended G.S. 62-110.1 (g}? Should these
generators be required to file the same information as those required to file for
certification? Should the Commission issue a certificate of exemption? Should
the Chief Clerk assign each generator a separate docket? Should the same
filing requirements and procedures apply to generators exempt due to their size
as those exempt due to self-generation?
18. To what extent are revisions required to the following Commission rules: Rules
R1-37, R1-38, R8-52, R8-55, R8-60, R8-61, and R8-63? What other
Commission rules, if any, should be revised?

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
1.0 Purpose of Request for Proposals 1
2.0 Instructions to Bidders 2
2.1 General 2
2.2 Overview of Process 3
2.3 Notice of Intent to Bid 3
2.4 Deadline and Method for Submitting Proposals 3
2.5 Questions and Interpretation of RFP 4
2.6 Requirements of the Proposals 4
3.0 Proposal Organization 7
3.1 Executive Summary 7
3.2 Statements 7
3.3 Contract Terms 7
3.4 Proposal Limitations 7
3.5 Relevant Experience 7
3.6 Cost Proposal 7
4.0 Proposal Content 8
4.1 Price Proposal 8
5.0 Proposal Evaluation and Contract Negotiations 9
5.1 Screening 9
5.2 Short List Development 10
5.3 Contract Negotiations 10
Exhibit A Schedule 12
Exhibit B Notice of Intent to Bid 13
Exhibit C Certification and Indemnity Agreement 14
Exhibit D Bidder Response Data 16

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Page 1
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
1.0 Purpose of Request for Proposals
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), is seeking Proposals for a supply portfolio of
energy and capacity generated from new (placed in service on or after Jan. 1, 2007)
renewable or existing NC Green Power sources including:
• Wind
• Solar
• Biomass,
• Hydro - as certified by the Low Impact Hydro Institute
• Incremental Improvements in Large Scale Hydro,
• Landfill Methane
• Biogas Digesters
• Biomass Co-firing of All Woody Waste including mill residue, but excluding painted
or treated lumber.
• Hydrogen derived from a renewable energy resource
• Geothermal
• Ocean current or wave energy resource
Duke is seeking up to 2100 MW of capacity by 2012 to meet its generation requirements
and energy to meet expected Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligations from both
State or Federal regulations. Duke reserves the right to revise this RFP to align with
developing RPS requirements (for example, the proposed NC Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard currently in working committee).
General characteristics applicable to any proposed resources:
• The supply resource can be intermittent in nature; however, firm or dispatchable
supply may be assigned a capacity value in the review process.
• Resources must be capable of being delivered to the Duke Carolinas
transmission or distribution system and suitable for use as a network resource for
Duke, with preference given to (but not limited to) those assets within North
Carolina and South Carolina.
• Resources must be operational and delivering power by January 1, 2012.
Duke desires to diversify its supply portfolio through the addition of competitive
renewable and environmentally friendly sustainable resources. As such, Duke is
accepting bids from any and all renewable resource options that meet the RFP criteria.
Duke seeks bid proposals that provide the greatest value to Duke and its customers.
Value, for purposes of this solicitation, is the combination of price, reliability, and
flexibility. Flexibility includes, but is not limited to, bid proposal structure and physical
resource characteristics (delivery scheduling requirements, dispatch capability, etc). The
bid proposals that have greater value to Duke and its customers may not necessarily be
the lowest price proposals.
Bid proposals may be in the form of:
a. power purchase
b. power purchase and buyout option, and
c. sale/purchase of generating facility.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Page 2
Bid participants should prepare offers with the understanding that the offer is binding
and may result into a Power Purchase Agreement, aPurchase/Sale Agreement, or both.
Duke retains the right to reject any or all offers on the basis that the bids do not provide
sufficient customer benefits or would impose conditions that Duke determines are
impractical or inappropriate.
2.0 Instructions to Bidders
2.1 General
2.1.1 Nothing contained in this Request for Proposals (RFP) shall be
construed to require or obligate Duke to select any proposals or limit
the ability of Duke to reject all proposals in its sole and exclusive
discretion. Duke further reserves the right to withdraw and terminate
this RFP at any time prior to the execution of a contract.
2.1.2 The submission of a proposal to Duke shall constitute a Supplier's
acknowledgment and acceptance of all the terms, conditions and
requirements of this RFP.
2.1.3 Subject to 2.1.4, all proposals submitted to Duke pursuant to this RFP
shall become the exclusive property of Duke and may be used for any
reasonable purpose by Duke.
2.1.4 Duke shall consider materials provided by Bidders in response to this
RFP to be confidential only if such materials are clearly designated as
"Confidential". Bidders should be aware that their proposal, even if
marked "Confidential", may be subject to discovery and disclosure in
regulatory or judicial proceedings that may or may not be initiated by
Duke. Bidders may be required to justify the requested confidential
treatment under the provisions of a protective order issued in such
proceedings. If required by an order of an agency or court of
competent jurisdiction, Duke may produce the material in response to
such order without prior consultation with the Bidder.
2.1.5 Bidders shall be responsible for all costs and issues associated with
bids; contract negotiations; completion of the contract; all taxes,
duties, fees and other charges associated with the delivery of capacity
and energy under the contract; and compliance with all local, state
and federal laws that may affect the contract.
2.1.6 Duke anticipates that transmission access and capacity will be a
factor in selection of the final bid(s). All costs and coordination
required for any applicable Transmission Service Requests to the
point of delivery are the responsibility of the Bidder.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
2.2 Overview of Process
Page 3
2.2.1 Duke has designated an individual to manage the RFP process and to
collect all Internet communication from potential bidders as well as to
provide uniform communication including updates and specific detail
as may be provided from time to time through this bidding process.
Please address all questions and communications to Kathy Dunn at
the following e-mail address: [e-mail].
2.2.2 The bid process will include the activities and events as indicated on
the schedule in Exhibit A. Following the release of the RFP,
interested Bidders will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to Bid
form with credit information and product experience. Proposals will be
screened and offers that do not meet the requirements of this RFP will
be rejected as non-conforming. Bidders on any short list developed
will be invited to begin negotiations of final details of the offers. Final
evaluation of the offers, considering contract terms and transmission
service requirements, will then be performed.
2.3 Notice of Intent to Bid
2.3.1 Each potential Bidder is required to advise Duke by May 21, 2007 of
its intent to submit a proposal by submitting a Notice of Intent to Bid,
attached hereto as Exhibit B. Only those bidders that submit a
Notice of Intent to Bid form will be eligible to submit a final proposal.
Bidders are asked to provide information on the makeup of the
company and its parent organization along with the most current
annual financial reports and SEC Form 10-K as applicable. A credit
screening of all potential Bidders will be performed by Duke Energy
Risk Management group prior to entering into any negotiations.
Bidders who fail the initial screening shall be given an opportunity to
cure credit deficiency by providing additional financial assurances,
such as a letter of credit, cash, or a parent corporation guarantee
accompanied by an appropriate credit rating from a major credit-rating
agency in a form and format acceptable to Duke.
2.4 Deadline and Method for Submitting Proposals
2.4.1 Proposals must be submitted in the complete name of the party
expecting to execute any resulting contract with Duke. The proposal
must be executed by a person who is duly authorized to bind the
Supplier to a contract.
2.4.2 All proposals submitted in response to this RFP must be received no
later than 4:00 PM EST July 2, 2007.
2.4.3 Duke will not accept proposals received after the specified date
and time set forth in Section 2.4.2 for any reason, and said_
proposals will be disqualified from further evaluation.

Duke Energy Carolinas. LLC Page 4
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
2.4.4 Bidders are required to provide three (3) bound sets of all documents,
including exhibits, as part of its proposal. It is further requested that
multiple proposals submitted by each Supplier be identified
separately. Proposals must be delivered to the following address:
Duke RFP
c/o Kathy Dunn
Strategic Business Consultant
Duke Energy Corporation
MC EC12H
526 S. Church St
Charlotte, NC 28202
Only hard copies of the proposals will be allowed. Emailed
proposals will not be accepted as meeting the time requirements
for submission.
2.5 Questions and Interpretation of RFP
Duke requests that all questions concerning this RFP be submitted in writing to
the e-mail address indicated in Section 2.2.1. Answers will be provided through
written email correspondence or an addendum to the RFP to all bidders who
have passed the prescreening process. Duke is not responsible for other
explanations or interpretations of the RFP.
Written questions will be accepted until 7 days before the proposal submittal
deadline. Answers will be provided by e-mail to all bidders as quickly as
possible.
It shall be the obligation of the bidder to identify any conflicting statements, need
for clarification, or omissions of pertinent data from the RFP before bids are due.
Any questions not resolved by the bid date shall be identified in the proposal and
a statement made as to the basis of the proposal.
2.6 Requirements of the Proposals
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), is seeking Proposals for a supply portfolio
of energy and capacity generated from existing or planned renewable and/or
environmentally friendly sustainable sources including:
• Wind
• Solar
• Biomass
• Hydro - as certified by the Low Impact Hydro Institute,
• Incremental Improvements in Large Scale Hydro,
• Landfill Gas
• Biogas Digesters
• Biomass Co-firing of All Woody Waste including mill residue, but excluding
painted or treated lumber
Hydrogen derived from renewable resource
Geothermal
Ocean current or wave energy resource

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Page 5
2.6.1 Duke is interested in bids for both purchase power agreements (PPA)
as well as asset acquisitions. However, Duke reserves the right to
include a "regulatory out" provision in any PPA that will allow Duke, in
its sole discretion, to terminate or modify the agreement if the
agreement does not receive appropriate regulatory treatment.
2.6.2 All transmission interconnected resources bid pursuant to this RFP
must be capable of meeting the requirements of a Designated
Network Resource pursuant to the Duke Open Access Transmission
Tariff (GATT). Duke does not propose to conduct interconnection
studies or develop estimates of interconnection charges for bidders in
the initial response phase of this RFP. Therefore, initial bids do NOT
need to have submitted a Generator interconnection Request or
Transmission Service Request under the GATT. However, bids that
pass the initial screening may be required to submit an
interconnection request or Transmission Service Request pursuant to
the GATT and provide the results of such request to Duke to be
included in the evaluation of the bids.
2.6.3 Duke needs up to 2100 MW of capacity by 2012 to meet its
generation requirements. There is no predetermined limit on the
amount of MWs that will be obtained pursuant to this RFP other than
managing the generation requirements. However, Duke will only
obtain those resources that provide value to the Duke portfolio of
generating resources and its customers. In the determination of such
value, Duke will consider the financial impact on Duke Energy and its
customers as compared to investing in more traditional generation
alternatives.
2.6.4 Bids can be from assets both inside and outside the Duke Control
Area with preference given to assets in North Carolina and South
Carolina. An additional preference will be given for resources located
in the Northern part of Duke Carolinas service territory. See map
below.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Page 6
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Duke Energy Preferred Generation Area
":C~anvill~ vlRCwln
` ` PJORTH CAROLINA
;'~: . :-.; R Paul !::.~;~.~.; ~ ~_ .~ Il:,~m~.l
~,.
_ ~ . ~t~.n,. rcw,'' ~ .~~ .
AC;n
G;xoi~ensk~nri~
` ` C%;i
_ ~rlHiiah P~iird
n.,. ,~ c„~~~r
Rnndnlp~rou~r ~ ~ ~
~. ~. Cha;riarr. Coun.Y
~___~
~ ~ ~Y
~ ~
~ ~ Ga
' ~___~
~~
2.6.5 Bidder shall provide delivery to the Duke transmission system. All
issues and costs associated with delivery to the delivery point,
including congestion risk, losses, transmission costs, interconnection
costs, or any other delivery costs, will be the responsibility of the
Bidder.
2.6.6 The minimum contract acceptable contract term for any PPA is three
(3) years. Contract terms up to 30 years will be considered.
2.6.7 Any bids containing assets or projects that qualify under any existing
rate schedules have the option of participating in the RFP or
participate on the existing eligible rate schedule.
2.6.8 Qualifying projects must have a nameplate capacity of 2 MW or
greater and must be capable of delivering at least 3,500 MWH per
year at the interconnection point.
2.6.9 Qualifying projects must be operational and delivering power no later
than January 1, 2012
2.6.10 Bidders are advised that prior to Duke signing a power supply
agreement, the Bidder will be required to provide substantial evidence
of credit assurance. All forms of credit assurance will be approved by

Duke Energy Carolinas. LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Page 7
Duke before entering into an agreement. The form and quality of
credit assurance shall be approved by Duke and its lending
institutions, as applicable, prior to further negotiations.
2.6.11 Proposals must be provided in the format outlined in Section 3.0. The
content of proposal(s) shall be subject to the requirements of this
RFP. Duke requests that all exhibits, documents, schedules, etc.
submitted as a part of a proposal be clearly labeled and organized in
a fashion that facilitates easy location and review. All proposals
should conform, as applicable, to the requirements within this RFP.
3.0 Proposal Organization
All Proposals should include the following minimum components in the order provided:
3.1 Executive Summary
An "executive summary" of the highlights and special features of the Proposal.
3.2 Statements
3.2.1 A statement from the Supplier must be provided clearly indicating the
time period during which the proposal will remain effective.
3.2.2 A signed Certification and Indemnity Agreement must be provided,
which is to be completed entirely by the Supplier, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
3.2.3 All documentation and signatures required depending on the nature of
the proposal must be provided.
3.3 Contract Terms
A comprehensive listing and description, including a rationale if warranted, of all
contract terms and conditions that the Bidder would seek during contract
negotiations.
3.4 Proposal Limitations
A listing of any economic, operational or system conditions (including sensitivities
to anticipated dispatch levels) that might affect the Supplier's ability to deliver
energy as offered.
3.5 Relevant Experience
A description of transaction experience with similar products as well as
references for similar transactions.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
3.6 Cost Proposal
Page 8
Information on the cost of the product or acquisition price must be provided.
Information shall be included as discussed in Section 4.1.
4.0 Proposal Content
For consideration in the evaluation process, proposals must contain the information
outlined in the following paragraphs and any applicable information as specified in
Exhibit D.
4.1 Price Proposal
Proposals must provide a detailed description of the pricing terms and conditions.
For consideration in the evaluation process, proposals must contain the
information outlined in the following paragraphs, as applicable.
4.1.1 Contract Purchase
The Bidder must demonstrate that it has the requisite regulatory
authorization to make sales contemplated by its proposal.
4.1.1.1 The fixed cost for the bid shall be provided for each year of
the agreement.
4.1.1.2 Proposed energy rates shall include all fuel; startup,
losses, ancillary services, transmission and other charges
associated with delivery to designated delivery point.
4.1.1.1.1 The Bidder shall provide the initial energy
rate and applicable formula for escalation, if
any, with proposed indices or a schedule of
energy rates for the proposed contract term.
Where the energy rate is a function of the
price of coal, natural gas, or any other
commodity, Bidders shall use an industry-
accepted standard basis to build the energy
rate, and shall specify the index, type of
fuel, and any transportation costs.
4.1.1.1.2 The actual hourly delivered energy, in any
month, shall be determined in accordance
with the metering procedures as set forth in
the contract which will be negotiated
between Duke and the successful Bidder.
4.1.1.3 As applicable, the Bidder's proposal should include all
formulae that will be used to calculate the full energy rate,
or any other rate that the Bidder may specify, with all its

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Page 9
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
respective components well defined. A sample calculation
illustrating the application of each formula is also required.
4.1.1.4 The Bidder must provide a printed schedule projecting for
each contract year, quarter, or month, as appropriate,
depending upon how frequently the Supplier's rate(s) or its
respective components will be updated, for the full term of
the proposed contract of the following:
4.1.1.4.1 energy and/or capacity payment
It is the Supplier's obligation to provide
sufficient explanatory information to allow
Duke to replicate this schedule.
4.1.1.4.2 projections of any independent variables
that are to be used in the calculation of
payments
5.0 Proposal Evaluation and Contract Negotiations
5.1 Screening
5.1.1 After the proposal submittal deadline, the proposals will be reviewed
for completeness and responsiveness.
5.1.2 An initial screening will be developed to identify those proposals that
meet the minimum criteria. These minimum criteria will include the
following:
a. The proposal is from a Bidder that submitted a Notice of
Intent to Bid form and successfully passed the credit
screening.
b. The proposal provides substantially all the information
outlined in Part 3.0 and Part 4.0.
c. The proposal designates a specific delivery point.
Those proposals not considered to meet the required threshold will be
rejected. Notification will be provided to the unsuccessful Bidders.
5.1.3 Duke may request that a Bidder provide additional information or
clarification to its original proposal. Duke shall make such requests in
writing and will also specify a deadline for compliance. Failure to
provide the requested information or clarification by the deadline will
result in the disqualification of the proposal.
5.1.4 Duke may select any number of proposals for further consideration.
Further, Duke may at any time withdraw and terminate this RFP
pursuant to Section 2.1.1, as it, in its sole and exclusive judgment
deems appropriate.

Duke Energy Carolinas. LLC Page 10
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
5.2 Short List Development
5.2.1 After the initial screening, the remaining proposals will be evaluated
based on present value economic analysis, cost of delivery, contract
extension options, relevant experience, or other evaluation criteria.
The short list will be developed based upon the results of this initial
analysis.
5.2.2 During the evaluation process, Duke may choose to initiate
discussions with one or more Bidders and to obtain refreshed pricing.
For purposes of this RFP, discussions shall simply indicate Duke's
interest in a particular proposal and its desire to obtain from the
Supplier additional detailed information that may not necessarily be
contained in the proposal. Discussions with a Bidder shall in no way
be construed as commencing "negotiations" with a Bidder. Duke
intends to use such discussions as a method of reducing the number
of proposals to those, if any, that it determines warrant further
evaluation and, possibly, contract negotiations. If Duke intends to
initiate discussions, it will notify the Bidder of such intention and
require the Bidder of such proposal to confirm, in writing, the offer and
representations contained in its original proposal.
5.2.3 If Duke is not interested in a particular proposal, it will notify the
Bidder as soon as practical after such determination is made.
5.3 Contract Negotiations
5.3.1 The Bidder will be notified in writing of Duke's interest in commencing
contract negotiations with that Bidder. Duke's commencement of and
active participation in such negotiations shall not be construed as a
commitment from Duke to execute a contract. If, however, a contract
is successfully negotiated, it shall not be effective unless and until
fully executed by Duke in accordance with its procedures and any and
all required regulatory approvals have been received.
5.3.2 Duke reserves the right at any time, during contract negotiations, at its
sole discretion, to terminate or, once terminated, to resume
negotiations with a Bidder.
5.3.3 Duke may require that certain provisions be included in its contracts.
Such provisions may include, but are not limited to, financial
assurance (depending on the financial means and historical
performance of the Bidder), indemnification, liquidated damages for
non-performance, ability of Duke to reassign its entire rights, or a
portion thereof, to the contract to another party, and a "regulatory out"
provision.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Page 11
5.3.4 This RFP contains general guidelines and requirements for
developing and submitting proposals. Nothing herein shall be
construed to bind Duke unless and until a contract with a Bidder has
been successfully negotiated, executed, and is effective. Once
effective, the contract will govern the relationship between and
responsibilities of the parties.
5.3.5 The costs for responding to the RFP are the responsibility of the
Bidder.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Exhibit A
Schedule
Page 12
The schedule as outlined below and referred to throughout this document is based on Duke's
expectations as to the release date of this RFP.
Release of RFP Aril 20, 2007
Notice of Intent to Bid Ma 21, 2007
Bidder Conference TBD
Pro osal Submittal Deadline Jul 2, 2007
Initial selection of Short List Au ust 31, 2007
Duke and Bidders negotiate and execute
Agreements pending Regulatory Approval; Duke
submits A reements for Re ulator Approval
By December 31,2007
Duke reserves the right to extend or otherwise modify any portion of the schedule or terminate the
RFP process at its sole discretion. All parties that have submitted an Intent to Bid as described in
Section 2.3 will be notified in writing of any changes to the schedule that occur prior to completion
of the evaluation phase.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Exhibit B
NOTICE OF INTENT TO BID
Due May 21, 2007
Page 13
CONTACT INFORMATION
Company
Contact:
Name
Title
Telephone /Fax
E-mail
Mailing Address
Signature of Respondent Date
Fax: [phone]
Duke Energy
Attn: Kathy Dunn
Duke Renewable RFP
Email: [e-mail]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Page 14
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Exhibit C
Certification and Indemnity Agreement
THIS CERTIFICATION AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered
into this day of , 2007, by and between duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ("Duke")
and , ("Supplier").
WHEREAS, Supplier has submitted a Proposal to Duke in response to Duke's Request for
Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources Beginning January 1, 2008 ("RFP"), and
WHEREAS, the RFP provides general guidelines for the development and submission of such
Proposal and entails the evaluation of such Proposal on the basis of its individual
characteristics, as assessed by Duke in accordance with economic assessments and
operational considerations, and other pertinent factors, and
WHEREAS, Duke will rely on the information set forth in the Proposal when making its
assessments and determinations.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Supplier hereby certifies and agrees as follows:
Certification
Supplier hereby certifies, represents and warrants Duke as follows:
The Supplier understands that Duke will rely on the representations contained in the
Proposal and this Agreement in its evaluation and consideration of proposals submitted
pursuant to the RFP. The Supplier further understands that its inability to substantiate
and verify any such representation may result in the termination of further consideration
and/or evaluation of the Proposal. All such representations made in the Proposal are
true and accurate to the best of the Supplier's knowledge and belief.
Covenants
The Supplier covenants that:
At its own cost and expense (including reasonable attorney fees), Supplier shall defend
Duke and its respective subsidiaries, affiliates, successors and assigns, and each and
every one of its respective past, present, or future officers, directors, trustees,
employees, shareholders, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, from and
against any and all manner of past, present, or future claims, demands, disputes,
controversies, complaints, suits, actions, proceedings, or allegations of any kind which in
any manner relate to, arise out of, or result from any false statement in the Proposal or
breach of any covenant or representation set forth in this agreement by the Supplier.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Page 15
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Successors and Assigns
If the Supplier transfers the ownership, or an interest therein, in the Supplier's rights, interests or
property, whether real or personal, the Supplier warrants that such transfer shall be pursuant to
a transfer agreement that shall provide Duke, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors and assigns,
and each and every one of its respective past, present, or future officers, directors, trustees,
employees, shareholders and agents, as well as their heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns with a degree of protection at least equivalent to that afforded them
under this Agreement.
Certified and Agreed:
By:
Title:
Date:
Attest:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
Exhibit D
Bidder Response Package
A. General Information
Project Name:
Project Location:
Offer Type (PPA or Sale/Purchase):
Project Status: (New or existing)
Project Term (Start/Stop):
Technology:
Page 16
Electrical Interconnection Location (Owner of interconnection point, transmission or distribution
line)
Delivery: Duke Energy Control Area
Term:
(A minimum of 3 years)
Brief project Description (include proposal overview, current facility status, expected facility life,
general description of agreements or rights in place, facility size, type, and manufacturer of
technology, current project developer experience, and environmental
benefits of project:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
B. Operational Information
Net Capacity (based on Summer peak conditions on 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM):
(At minimum of 2 MW)
Expected Annual Energy:
(At minimum of 3, 500 MW)
Baseload/Intermittent/Peaking:
Dispatchable/Nondispatchable(must take):
Expected Capacity Factor:
Primary Fuel Source:
Secondary Fuel Source:
Availability (%):
Heat Rate (BTU/kwh(HHV)):
Forced Outage Rate (%):
Minimum Run Time (hrs):
Minimum Down Time (hrs):
Planned Outage Rate (%):
Page 17

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Page 18
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1, 2008
C. Energy Profile
Please provide a generation profile forecast of each month's average-day net output energy
production, stated in MWs by hour and month.
Month 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Doke Energy Carolinas. LLC
Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy Resources
Beginning January 1.2008
D. Pricing Information:
a. Purchase Power Agreement (PPA)
Capacity Pricing ($/kw)/year
Capacity Price Escalation per year (% or index)
Energy Pricing (~/kwh)
Energy Price Escalation/year (% or index)
b. Sale/Purchase
Capital Cost:
Closing Date:
Primary Fuel Pricing:
Secondary Fuel Source:
Secondary Fuel Pricing:
Variable O&M ($lkwh):
Start Cost (~/turbine/start):
Fixed O&M (~/kw-yr):
Page 1 y

BEFORE THE
FEBERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
APt~'LICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PERMIT
~~.
f..

c::°. - ~ i.?

~ ~'C~_ ~ ~ri~I
FOR THE ~~~~
--~
-~ -
ca ~~~'r
, ,_.., ~, r i
~'~ ~ ~~
;:, - ~.
cnG_, ~ ~
CJ) ~
DILLSBORO c' T
HYDROPOWER PROJECT
JACKSON COUNTY GOVERNMENT,
NORTH GAROLI NA
SEPTEMBER 2007

TABLE O~ CONTENTS
Initial Statement ................................... ............. 3
............ 5
Exhibit 1 -Description of Project .............
Exhibit 2 -Study Plan ........................................ 8
Exhibit 3 -Statement of Casts and Financing ..... 9
Exhibit 4 -Project Maps ........ ..~•.•••••••••••••••~••••~ 9
Section 4.32 Information . ..............." ............,..,. 11
Verification Statement ........................... ~ .......... 13
Attachments:
Map I Vicinity Map
Map fl Principal Project Features and Photos
from 2004 Public Operation Rcpart
Map i11 Proposed Project Boundary
Proposed fish passage facility and kayak portage facility

INITIAL STATEMENT
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PERMIT
1 j The Jackson County Government of North Carolina herein applies to the
Federal Fnergy Regulatory Commission for a Preliminary Permit for the proposed
Diilsboro Hydropower Project, a water power project, as described in the attached
exhibits.
The application is made in order that the applicant may secure and maintain
priority of the application for a license or other development application for the
proposed project under Part 1 of the Federal Power Act while obtaining the data
and performing the acts required to determine the feasibility of the project and to
support an application for a license or other development application.
2) The location of the project is:
State: North Carolina
County: Jackson
Township or
other nearby town: Dillsboro
Stream: Tuckasegee River
3) The exact name and business address of the applicant:
Jackson Count Government
c/o Kenneth L Westmoreland
County Manager
401 Grindstaff Cove Rd
Sylva, NC 28779-3250
The exact Warne, business address, and telephone number of the persons
authorized to act as agent for the applicant in this application are:
Kenneth l_ Westmoreland
County Manager
Jackson County Government, North Carolina
4Q1 Grindstaff Cove Rd
Sylva, NC 28779-3250
Tel. [phone]
All correspondence and service of fillings with the Commission must be sent
to the following persons:
-3-

Kenneth L Westmoreland
County Manager
Jackson County Government, North Carolina
401 Grindstaff Cave Rd
Sylva, NC 28779-3250
And
Paul V. Nolan, Esq.
5515 17th Street North
Arlington, VA 22205-2722
Tel, No.; 703-534-5509
Fax No.: 703-53$-5257
Email: [e-mail]
4) Jackson County Government is a governmental entity of the State of North
Carolina. Municipal preference under Section 7(a) of the federal Power Act is
claimed.
5) The proposed term of the requested permit is 36 months,
6) The existing dam is owned by or may be owned by the successor-in-interest
to:
Duke Power, a division of Duke Energy Corporation, Nantahala Area
301 NP&L Loop Road
Franklin, NC 28743
7} The existing hydroelectric facilities and property are awned by Duke Power, a
division of Duke Energy Corporation, Nantahala Area and may be owned by
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
-4-

EKHIgiT 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
{1){a} General Description of the Existing Project
The proposed development consists of an existing reservoir, dam, and
powerhouse plus a small amount of land surrounding the dam, tailrace, and
reservoir. Duke Power, and or its successors-in-interest ("Duke Energy"), owns
approximately 17 acres of land within and adjacent to the project. The Dillsboro
Reservoir has nearly 2 miles of shoreline.
The current project, which had been licensed, does not operate. Previousiy
the project, depending upon the time periods selected, had an average annual
generation of 900,000 to approximately 1,200,00 kWh.
The proposed project is expected to generate 3,000,000 to 3,500,000 kWh,
The studies to be conducted for proposed project also encompasses an alternative
("Downstream Powerhouse") for a powerhouse located downs stream of the
existing project using the Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse as an intake structure and
for incremental generation. The Downstream Powerhouse project is capable of
generating approximately 4.0 MW of capacity with an expected annual generation of
18,000,000 to 22,000,000 kWh.
The existing darn is a concrete masonry structure about 310 feet long and 12
feet high. The main components include a concrete non-overflow section with the
crest elevation 197$.2 feet, an uncontrolled 14 foot wide spillway section with a
crest elevation at 1972.0 feet, a 20.0 foot wide spillway section with two six foot spill
gates, a 197 foot uncontrolled spillway with a crest at 1072.0 feet, a 64.4 foot wide
powerhouse with a concrete substructure, an 80 foot long intake section, and a
concrete non-overflowing section with crest elevation at 1980 feet.
The existing powerhouse consists of a reinforced concrete substructure and
a wood-steel superstructure. Inside the powerhouse are two generating units. The
unit closest to the open spillway, Unit No. 1, consists of an S. Morgan Smith vertical
Francis-type turbine rated at 276 hp under 12 feet head and 225 rpm. It is
connected to a 219 kva Westinghouse generator at 0.80 power factor and a DC
exciter. UniE No, 2 has a Leffel Type Z turbine rated at 44 hp under 12 feet head
and 20 rpm. It is connected to a 62.5 kva General Electric generator at 0.80 power
factor and a DC exciter. Each unit is set in an open pit configuration. The rated
hydraulic capacities of the turbines are 190 cfs. for Unit 1 and 44 cfs. for unit 2.
Additional information regarding the existing project works is available in a
Special operation Report filed with the Commission by the Atlanta REgianal Office
(Accession no. 20030328-0356 in docket P-2602, public document}, This document
-5-

contains drawings and photos of the existing facilities, some of which are included
in this application,
(b) General Description of the Proposed Project
The existing project works have not operated since September 2004 and at a
significantly reduced level of production prior to 2004. The existing installed
capacity of the hydraulic turbines is less than 235 cfs. This is well IE5S than 50
percent an the annual flow duration curve, Consequently there is a substantial
amount of flow that can be used to generate power,
In supported of this application and incorporated by reference is the following
CEII Material; The July 17, 1981 Nantahala Power end Light Company's study of
the feasibility of increasing the pillsboro project's capacity including an alternative
for a down stream powerhouse with significantly more installed capacity and power
production.
The proposed new project facilities include the installation of one or more
new turbine-generator units within the existing powerhouse or a new powerhouse
with a total capacity of approximately 750 to 900 kWs.
The alternatives to be investigated for the proposed 750 to 900 kW proposed
project are as follows:
a. Proposed Project: Rehabilitation of Existing GenerationlTurbine
Units and New Unit in Open Turbine Bay.
This proposed project should provide, at a head of 12-feet, and utilizing a
flow of approximately 500 cfs. will result in an installed capacity of 450 kW
and an expected annual generation of 1,500,000 kWh.
b. Alternative 1: Rehabilitation of One Existing
Generation/Turbine Un'rt and Two New Turbine Generator/TurbineOnits
in one exiting bay and the open bay. Vertical and or horizontal units will
be assessed.
This proposed project alternative should provide, at a head of 12-feet, and
utilizing a flow of approximately 650 cfs. to 900 cfs, will result in an installed
capacity of 550 kW to $00 kW and an expected annual generation of
2,500,000 kWh to 3,100,000 kWh.
-6-

Alternative 2 a and b : Rehabilitation of One Existing
Generation/Turbine Unit and Twa New (a) VERTICAL or (b)
HORIZONTAL Turbine GeneratorlTurbine Units in one exiting bay and
the open bay.
This proposed project alternative should provide, at a head of 12-feet, and
utilizing a flow of approximately 1,000 cfs. will result in an .installed capacity
of 900 kW and an expected annual generation of 3,500,OOa kWh
d. Alternative 3: Construction of a new downstream power
house with new generator units. The applicant proposes the assessment
and possible development of a downstream project with an approximate net
operating head of 60 to 80 feet, an installed capacity of 3.0 MW to 4.5 MW,
and average annual generation of 18 GWI-i to 22 GWH.
The existing units would be returned to operation for the provision of
minimum flows, generation when the down stream plant is down, etc.
A penstock would run from the existing powerhouse to the downstream plant.
This proposed alternative is not included in the permit's project boundary.
Should this alternative be selected for development a subsequent permit
amendment will be filed,
(2) Project Reservoir
The reservoir referred to herein as Dillsboro Reservoir has a surface area of
15 acres at full pond elevation 1972.0 feet and is approximately 0.8 miles iong. The
drainage area upstream of the dam encompasses 290 square miles,
Under one or more of the proposed alternatives, a fish passage facility
capable of passing kayaks will be added at the left bank. Conceptual drawings are
attached.
Further, base upon one or mare alternatives, the height of the dam may be
reduced and/or a portion thereof replaced with a rubber dam to facilitate the
seasonal passage of downstream flows and/or high flows,
(3) Transmission Line(s)
The project is an interconnect to a Duke Power Company three phase
-7-

12,470 volt distribution line ioaated at a pole next to the powerhouse.
The proposed studies will evaluate the capacity of the existing distribution
line to determine its suitability for use to transmit the power from the new unit,
Studies of additional interconnection alternatives may be undertaken as necessary.
(4) Energy and Capacity
The average annual generation for the Dillsboro Hydropower Project is
estimated to be approximately at 3,200,000 to 3,600,000 kWh. This is
approximately 3.5 times as much energy as was produced at this site until 2004. If
the downstream powerhouse alternative is selected then average annual generation
I s expected to be in the range of 18,000,000 to 22, 000,000 kWh.
(5) Lands of the United States
While the project will not use any lands owned by the United States, lands
near the project are owned by the United States and administered by the US Forest
Service. These lands are a part of the Nantahala National Forest.
(6) Public Interest
The restoration of the site to the predication of renewable power as proposed
by this application will displace both natural gas and anal fired generation, the
project will result in significantly less carbon dioxide, oxides of sulphur, and oxides
of nitrogen emissions into the atmosphere,
In addition, the rehabilitation and enhanced operation of the project will have
a strong positive economic benefit to the local community through increased
property taxes, employment, tourism, etc. The project will provide needed capacity
and energy in the southeast.
The project will provide enormous environmental benefits which cannot be
economically acquired in any other manner. Far example, the applicant estimates
that the project will prevent the following amounts of pollution' from entering the
'/ NOx -Nitrogen Oxides such as nitrogen dioxide.
SOx -Sulfur OxidES such as sulfur dioxide.
COx -Carbon Oxides such as carbon dioxide .
-8-

atmosphere on an annual basis:
NOx 15,000 pounds
SOx 23,000 pounds
COx 6,600,000 pounds
Over a 40 year license term, the total amount of pollution prevented from entering
the atmosphere will be;
NOx 600,000 pounds
SOx 920,000 pounds
COx 26,400,000 pounds
While no estimates of additional pollutants such as mercury and small particulates
had been made, clearly these pollutants will also be prevented from being released
to the atmosphere.
Operation of the project, a renewable source of energy, will save the
equivalent of approximately 1,850 barrels of oil or 6,450 tons of coal per year. The
downstream alternative wiil save approximately sis to seven time those amounts.
-9-

EXHIBIT 2 STUDY PLANS
The investigations preceding the submission of a license application far the
construction of hydroelectric facilities will occur in two phases. Phase I will be a full
scale feasibility study to determine the technical, economic, financial,
environmental, legal, and institutional feasibility of the proposed additions. Phase ll
will be the studiES and coordination necessary to prepare an application for a
license, Detailed design and related investigations will follow only if a license
granted.
The strategy for preparing the feasibility study and license is to formulate a
power project that is consistent with modern concepts of water resource planning
and management. Of necessity, this study will encompass multiple water, land and
air resource objectives such as recreation, water quality, air quality, and fish and
avildlife issues. The final recommendation will then be that which most fully
develops and conserves the water and related land resources of the affected
region.
The project coordination with various federal, state, and local agencies will
be initiated upon issuance of the permit and will continue through the completion of
the license application and beyond,
No new roads are expected to be built for the purpose of conducting the
study or preparing the license application. No new dam construction is expected far
which the studies will require test pits, borings, or other explorations. However, if
field explorations are required, the activities would cause only minor alterations or
disturbances of lands and waters, and that any land altered or disturbed would be
adequately restored.
project pevelc~pment Schedule
In the performance of detailed planning for licensing, the applicant has
developed a preliminary project development schedule. The schedule outlines the
expected time of filing a license application with the Commission and for the
commencement and completion of studies, and investigations to be performed
during the term of the permit.
Project Planning & Feasibility Stage
FERC License Development
Evaluate Existing Studies &
Commence Com lets
(Months from issuance date of
Permit)
~ 18
-10-

First Stage Consultatian 12 24
Secand Stage Consultation 18 32
Power Marketing 12 36
Project Finance 12 36
File License Application 30 36
EXHIBIT 3 STATEMENT ~F COST AND FINANCING
1. The estimated cost of completing the studies and investigations is
$100,000.
2. The expected source of financing to conduct the studies is the
applicant.
3. The applicant will produce power by creating a project that will utilize a
renewable resource at an existing dam. Power produced from the project may be
sold to a wholesale electric utility, a private entity, and a public agency or,
depending upon the state and national deregulation status of the electric power
industry, used by the applicant.
Based upon studies conducted to date, net project revenues are expected to
be adequate to construct and operate the project.
BXHIBIT 4 MAPS AND BOUNDARY iNFQRMATION
1. A vicinity rnap is enclosed (Map I).
2. A map is enclosed that shows the relative locations and physical
interrelationships of the principal praject features (Map I I}.
3. A map is enclosed provided which shows the proposed project
boundary (Map III). The proposed boundary inciudes only those areas
necessary for the additions as proposed above.
4, There are no areas within or in the vicinity of the proposed project
boundary that have been included in or have been designated for

study far inclusion in, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
5, There are no areas within the project boundary that, under the
provisions of the Wilderness Act, have been:
i, Designated as wilderness areas;
ii. Recommended for designations as wilderness areas; or
iii. Designated as wilderness study areas.
-12-

Section 4.32 Information
a.1. The Jackson County Government, NC is the only entity that hes or intends to
obtain and will maintain any proprietary right necessary to construct, operate, or
maintain the project;
a.2.i. Jackson County, NC is the only county in which any part of the project would
be located. Its address is:
Attn: Mr, Kenneth Westmoreland, County Manager
Jackson County Government
401 Grindstaff Cove Rd
Sylva, NC 2$779-3250
a.2.ii.a . Ail of the project's features will be located in the following city, town, ar
similar local political divisions:
Kenneth ~. Westmoreland
County Manager
Jackson County Government, North Carolina
401 Grindstaff Cove Rd
Sylva, NC 28779-3250
To4vn of Dilisboro
Attn; Herb Nolan, Town Clerk
Jean Hartbarger, Mayor
42 Front Street
P.a. Pox 1088
Dillsboro, NC 28725
a.2,ii,b. The following towns have a population of 5,000 or more and are
located within 15 miles of the project's reservoir:
None.
-13-

a.2.ii.c, The following are the irrigation district, drainage district, or similar
special purpose political subdivision, in which any part of the project, and any
federal facilities that would be used by the project, would be located, or that owns,
operates, maintains, or used project facilities or any Federal facilities that would be
used by the project,
None.
iv, The following are the other political subdivisions in the general area of the
project that the applicant is aware of that would likely be interested in, or effected by
the application:
Town of Sy1va
Attn: Mayor Brenda Oliver
PQ Box 36
Sylva, NC 28779
3.i.a. Property owners of alE project lands and existing facilities:
Duke Pawer, a division of Duke Energy Corporation, Nantahala Area
301 NP8~L Loop Road
Franklin, NC 28734
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
1500 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC, 27699-1500
Thomas J. Walker, Jr,
Dillsboro Inn
225 River Road
P,O. Box 270
Dillsboro, NC 2$725
-14-

VERIFICATION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the applicant, Jackson County Government, NC
has caused it name to be hereunto signed by Mr. Paul V. Nolan, its authorized
limited representative, whose duties include responsibility for making the instant
application this 18`h day of September 2007,
Paul V. Nalan
5515 17`h Street North
Arling#on, VA 22205-2722
Commonwealth of Virginia
ss.:
COUNTY OF Arlington
Mr. Paul V. Nolan, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the
duly authorized, limited agent of the Jackson County Government, North Carolina,
the applicant for a preliminary permit, and is authorized to execute this application
on the applicant's behalf; that he has read the foregoing application and knows the
contents thereof; that the same are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
. --~)
j
c-/ ~ r
Paul V, Nolan, Agent fpr Date 1 ~~81~'~%
Jackson County Government
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
Notary Public ~} l
My commission expires: ~r f ;,1~,~~
1 ~ day of S~.y•Icw~ L~•• 2007.
,u,,, I u, u!u/,
\\\\~~~~,~p,N ESy~'~~ii,~
~:Gp , Pi,~1 S..
~ ~ ~ _
~~~/i NOTARY P~ ~~`~~,~
~~~/1l l!l l l 111 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~\`\
-15-

Jackson County Government
North Carolina
Application For A Preliminary Permit
Dillsboro
Hydropower Project
Map 1
VICINITY MAP
-16-

~ ~~
~~\
~~~ '~
~r r ~' ~
f
J~ ~
'~~~~ f+ f_
~ `~ ~~ ~
~, y ~ ~~
---~
f~f r .-~--~-- ti~1
u ~ t' ~~
_~
`-~ « ~
r S ~ ^ii~
~````~~((/N r~~ ~~
1'~.-,-1, 1~
r~ ``
~ ~t ~~~~~
i~ ~
'ti
-..~ , ~ -.~ ,~ y
~t
rt
~~ ``
~~~ tt
.J ~ 1~ ~.... ~:
~~~ I~~
d~
~~ yy Jti .°
,~F` 1 f ~~ ~,
1 1-' !j /
_- rr
cv ~~~
fJ ,.~ } ~
,~ '~.- .~
~~~;-
::~ o
::.,~~~
~,~
i _ r'„ ll ~'~~' f.J
,r-,
/r I f~` 1 ~ ~ T% rte' `~ ~\~-. \ k~ ~% l ~.` A~._~'' ~. ~' ~~,,,
1r ~j ~ ~ S L y~.
.~
v, i11 1/ 1
_; ~ ~ - ~

Jackson County Government
North Carolina
Application For A Preliminary Permit
Dillsl~aro
Hydropower Project
Map II
PRINCIPAL PROJECT FEATURES
ANa PHOTaS FRC1M 20x4 PUBLIC
OPERATION REPORT

^~ ~ F ~
s-
~• rte- ~
N ~n
_O
G Q
V ~
v u
~ ''
~.
°~ ~ ~.
~ a
y U
C :~
G C„J
z ~.
y
C
,~ z
~:~
~~
w
L
c~
~~
a
•'1
iJ
f
~,
G:
4-1
L=.
~.
ij
.7
i `1
i'J
' - ~~~~ .,., - - ..,.. t VRQ1ECi AREA a
J t 9 15 it I - -~.- l .. ~ F ~~'ii - i ~.wd~-•
- ~ i ~.
~'_ Gr~?€ S~QkY.Nfour~i~in~s.t~a#~ n~~ Falk 1 r ,~-
yz _ m >+>
~ ~ Y1. iu = - aJ s1's SLZ ~s
Cherokee ~~ „ ~ ~ ~,~'~ _ -~ ~~ v:,-~ir.lo-e. kj~tsjy~,~-F s.
- 't 4'L~ ~~.~-`~ Z'- ~ ~ ~,~.,~r+iari'~;,Ax.rc ~'oatcaw ~vri~+owi~~fl ~~y~~~G'~3w'v+
'~ ~.. +, oo., ovary sw~[.~t L. rw~ r~ _ ~ GiFM+4E W'~-ys7 `s >~`~`~~_
4i~ k _ rF~i-~[~"~j~ 1~ `s,{ \~ ~-ivx~.'~E'~~r .3~rs
K s ~.
~~~,o,,,,;,._ _.,, ~:, ~~'h'~r:tahala t~FafioR~l Forest
_ _ -L - _ r __.~_____.._ .~.~_ ~ -." _ 1 - ~~'_ ~~-.
_ 1
I~~ _ - __ _- '-
~~~~It~+I:~~~~fif~e ~•~.atir~~a1 Fnrez# -_- -,
- - - i -eJ
_ _ \
- ~" 1
_ ~~==J
f~- , - - _.
7ti {f ,
} ~ r~ ~ -~ _ _ --
-~ :y
fl-vrs £i.l-i
~:nn~l V~:.J n:s.l r~~ Slip

~;~ i,__ -. -. ?` . ~ ;e%: "'Vr'ci:C (=~SiC )3i 39, ;'OU'? 111 UoCkeC#~, P-2603-000
t'rojcct Na 2(~0?.
Name of Project Dillsboro
~7ame nt Developmenf(5)DillSboYo
.r^~ -
,~
~ I~W47OGF2APH ~..aGATI(~d1 MAf'
~
-~.
~' ~71~ts~or~t~ pN 26t~2

~ hhDZ~!!
a
J
.a
a
N
W ~ ~
~#
d
[1
K
~ ~ = N
r
Z ~
~
Y .--
a
~ ~
~ CK ~ _

m
~' R
a
0
u,ti,r~
¢}{~ ,
r
-,°~ ~ ~
~ W
~ ~
W
;
~
~

-- ~~j F: ... `il`F~.1 L,Y _ R; (lc'Gi_ .., ~.. i ~,i l._ _: CiOc: ~'~. F,. ff L~ _.: (. ~•. i~. `~
Project Nu 260?.
Name of Project Dillsbora
Namc of De~'elopment(s)Dillshoro
0030328-0356
Photograph 1 Dillsboro dam and ~owerh~ntse tailrace, Mote high flows from
recent rainPalJ.

;~) r'_"~.~-.~,_~h Z~.,,_-, ci ~~y eE9.~' i~~EC 03 ~•1./??03 iri Dr,C!:eC# P-;'6`.1 ,-.-GUD
T'roject Nu 2602,
~1amC of Project Dillsboru
Nance of Develop~nenl(s)Dillsbnro
bar? k,
P'hoto~;raph 2 Upstream side of Dilishoro dam and powerhouse as seen from the right

.t. L'0-~- ._-;35n I.~.-,u,d by ?ERC )c~EC 0~~~4/~0~3 ir. '";rck:eCx. G-'LU:3-Gpp
Project \0 2G0?.
1~'ame of ProjCCt Dillshoro
:1CL
Photograph 3 Dillsboro ~owcrhouse interior, both units visible.

Jackson County Government
North Carolina
Application For A Preiiminary Permit
Diilsboro
Hydropower Project
Map iii
PR(~P(JSED PRC3~lECT BaUNDARY MAP

Unofficial FERC-Generated PDF o~ 20060728-0226 Received by FE RC OSEC 07/ 6/2406 an DocketN: P-127,~,Q_pnf,~^
^

UnoffiCiaW r'6'RC-Generated PUF of 20060726-0226 Received by FExC USEC o7/26i200fi ir. Uockett~: P-12,20-Oppr1~
I
~~
~~
~ ~~ ~
j' ~ ~ -'~
~.. ~ ~
? ~
.•.
4.
-LDiE-d =S]*7I~G n~ ~POa/et/Cb ~afo pa/11 ~4 1~~5~~ ~giD0.Yb40~00E 3a lOd q~~~~aMO-~7ta/ ZRe~S]3~A
,,.ter n~aan nn Z3 ~Q PanTao°~I L600~LOZLtr00L 3n 3dd Pa~elaua~j-~233d T T~T3,7~ufl

Jackson County Government
North Carolina
Application For A Preliminary Permit
Dillsboro
Hydropower Project
PI~oPoS~l~ FISH PASSAGE FAGILITLY
ANa
KAYAK PoI~TAGE FAGILITY

Unaff.icial FERC-Generate8 PDF of 2006072$-0226 Received by FERC 0$RC 07/26/2006 in Docka~N: P-12']20-pb0~
Suggested Fish Passage Device
for Dillsboro Dam
Roof Ra~x~p ~'ish,way
Plan view
Dam Crest
I°`'
Dahl Apron
I-3' Boulders
' evith I "- G" Cobble ~~~
>,J T=idy Ftc.li~gc Pool
5~111Ce gate
Arched Boulder Weirs c~~
~ ~ ~ Ux~-o
O ~ °
~~ ~ o
0

Un4~'wicial F'EEc,-~~en~r~ted YDF of 2006U7,~.B~0226 Rec+~iv2d by FERL ~SEr U7/,~,F/2006 it Joer_etp: P-127tip_000`~

Llno~ficia~ FERC-Generated Pp~ of 20060728-U'~~fi ~eCeived by FEixC OSEC 07/25/X05 in DacYet~: P-12720-0 ^.,0.~~

Jackson County Government
North Carolina
Application For A Preliminary Permit
Diilsboro
Hydropower Project
July 17, 19$1 Fe~$ibility Report
(Incorporated by Reference'}
* Please Obtain Under
cE[I Regulations

PAUL V. NOLAN, Esq.
5515 North 17th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22205
Admitted D.C. Bar
Energy Practice Limited to
State and Federal Agencies
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Via Email
Mr. William Guey-Lee
Chief, Engineering & Jurisdiction Branch
Division of Hydropower
Administration and Compliance
Work: (703) 534-550
Fax: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Truck: 703-946-8153
R~: Project No. 13024-OOO~North C~r~~olina
Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project
Jackson County Government, North Carolina
October 16, 2007 Rejection Letter for Preliminary Permit Application
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION
Dear Mr. Guey-Lee:
The Jackson County Government ("County") is in receipt of your letter of
October 16, 2007 rejecting for filing the County's permit application for the Dillsboro
site, which proposed redevelopment of the site of the Dillsboro dam and powerhouse and
proposed three alternatives for further consideration. In response to your letter, the
County requests reconsideration and clarification of several statements made therein.
The County also submits herein its clarification regarding the need for or use of existing
civil works located at the site.
Stated as clear as possible, the County will proceed with the licensing or
exemption from licensing of the site with or without the current civil works in place.
Therefore, the application as set forth herein is clarified. No less effort is demanded by
the cun-ent drought conditions in North Carolina, the need for renewable power in the
Local vicinity ,which comports with recent State legislation encouraging small hydro
power and other renewable projects, diversity of power sources, reduction of the
Cou~Itry's use of foreign oil, which recently has exceeded $80.00 per barrel. Moreover,
the redevelopment of the Dillsboro to its full hydroelectric potential site is necessitated

by the recent proposals by Duke Energy to construct coal and nuclear projects, which will
increase local energy costs if not abated by local sources of green power, of which
Jackson County is a recognized proponent of in light of its recent national awards for the
development of a Green Energy Park. See attached EPA award notice.
Existing Dillsboro Project.
Your letter refers to the proposal to develop generating capacity at the existing
Dillsboro Project No. 2602. (Par. I). Please clarify what is meant by "existing." The
generating facilities located at the powerhouse have not operated since 2004. ~ There are
no existing facilities that are operable and have been inoperable for several years. If you
are referring to the project's FERC license in the context of existing, then whatever
happen to implied surrender? See, e.g., SR Hydropower, Inc. rn~d SR Hydropower- of
Broclwnv Mills, Irrc., Project No. 3131, 86 FERC ¶61,279 and subsequent history
resulting in a new licensee and project restored to operation), and Montana Power
Cona~ar~}' crrad Gr-a~rite Cou~~ty, Morrta~~a, Project No. 1473-00662 FERC 1161,166,
wherein the Commission stated:
The implied-surrender provisions of Article 30 are invoked only when the
licensee, by its actions or inactions, has clearly indicated its intent to abandon the
project, but has not filed a surrender application with the Commission. The
Commission has only rarely had to resort to the implied-surrender procedure to
address a licensee's failw~e to live up to the obligations of its license. In almost
all cases the Commission obtains compliance with license requirements, including
the obligation to keep project facilities operational and in good repair, by
contacting the licensees and monitoring their remedial efforts. When warranted,
the Commission uses its broad authority under sections 31 and 309 of the FPA, 16
U.S.C. ~ X523 b and 825h, to impose civil penalties or take other actions to obtain
a licensee's compliance with its license. If less drastic measures do not suffice,
the Commission can also seek revocation of a license pursuant to section 31(b) of
the FPA.
(footnotes omitted). The County would also ask you to reconsider your determination in
light of the successful rehabilitation of Project No. 6032 and the reinstated license for
Project No. 2696, wherein both projects had been issued previously license surrender
orders.
Dillsboro Site is not Subiect to a Relicensin~ Proceeding.
Your letter also states that the project "is the subject of a relicensing proceeding
that has resulted in a Commission order, currently on rehearing, approving a settlement
Source: Duke Energy March 23, 2007 Application for 401 Water Quality Certificate for dam and
powerhouse removal, Project Narrative, Section 3.2 -Project History: "The Project has been inoperable
since it was damaged by flooding in 2004." 2

for sui7-endcr of Duke's license and dam removal." (Par. 1). Please clarify what is meant
by the phrase "subject to a relicensing" proceeding.
Ordering Paragraph (A) of the July 19, 2007 Order states:
(A) Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's application for a subsequent license for the
Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project No. 2602, filed July 22, 2003, is dismissed.
The County is of the opinion that there is no relicensing proceeding. The application for
a subsequent license was dismissed on July 19, 2007. The implications of the application
for a subsequent license are not insignificant. As the Commission stated in footnote 6 to
its Juty 19 Order:
5 U.S.C. ~ 558 (c) (2000) (stating that where a licensee has timely filed for a
renewal or new license, the existing license does not expire until the agency acts).
Because the Commission waived sections 14 and 15 of the FPA with respect to
the Dillsboro Project, the project could not on license expiration receive an annual
license which is authorized under section 15. Therefore, as is the Commission's
practice in such cases, the Commission authorized continued operation of the
project pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 16.21 (2006).
At Par. 14 of the July 19 Order, the Commission unequivocally states:
Because Duke's surrender of its license is accepted, its application for a
subsequent license is dismissed.
Proposed Project and Alternatives and Competition with Development Application.
Paragraph 3 of the October 16 letter states:
The proposals to use existing Duke facilities each significantly conflicts with
Duke's unexpired license for Project No. 2602 and Duke's initially-filed
relicensing application (if it is reinstated on rehearing), and consequently, sections
4.33(a)(2) and (3) of the Commission's regulations preclude our accepting any of
them. The proposal to develop incremental capacity may also conflict with Duke's
license, but in any event, all of the proposals, including the proposal for
incremental capacity, would of course require that the dam of Project No. 2602
remain in place, and therefore, they conflict not only with the Commission policy,
described in A~~izor~a Public Service Company, against discouraging settlements
that involve license surrender and dam removal at projects subject to relicensing,
but also with the Commission's order approving license surrender with dam
removal for Project No. 2602.
(footnotes omitted).
3

The County respectfully submits that there is no "unexpired" license or annual
License, etc. See July 19 Order, Ordering paragraph (A) and footnote no. 6.
Furthermore, NO Stays of any portion of the July 19 Order have been issued.
Renee, the reinstated on rehearing is speculative and should not be considered in
accepting the pei-~nit application for filing.
Sections 4.33(a)(2 and (3) state:
(2) Would interfere with a licensed project in a manner that, absent the
licensee's consent, would be precluded by Section 6 of the Federal Power Act.
(3) Would develop, conserve, and utilize, in whole or in part, the same water
resources that would be developed, conserved, and utilized by a project for
which an initial development application has been filed unless the
preliminary permit application is filed not later than the time allowed under
§4.36(a) for the filing of applications in competition against an initial application
for a preliminary permit that would develop, conserve, and utilize, in whole or in
part, the same resources.
The County respectfillly submits that neither of the above provisions is applicable.
There is no licensed project. Moreover, there is certainly no licensed project that the
current licensee intends to operate. Hence, there is no interference with the non-
operating project's current or previously license operation. Furthermore, and as made
clear by your reference to subsection (3), the permit application does not propose to
utilize any water resources that are subject to a development application. The
Commission follows the following strictures for defining what is a development
application --- § 4.32(b)(5) Development applrcrrtion means any application for either
a license or exemption from licensing for a proposed water power project.
The County submits that there is no development application pending before the
Commission since the July 19 Order and earlier when the Commission accepted the
surrender license application and certainly declined to process the subsequent license
application as a consolidate proceeding, which may have caused the Commission to
consider the alternatives not being proposed by the permit application.
The definition of development does not include surrender of licenses and/or the
demolition of project works.
Dam In Place, Competition, etc. Please be advised that the County's preliminary
permit proposal is not premised upon the future condition of the existing civil works
being in place.
Hence, there is no conflict with existing licenses (NONE) and/or development
applications (NONE), and though not raised in your letter, there is no issue with regard to
4

Section ~.32(j) - "Any application, the effectiveness of which is conditioned upon the
future occun-ence of any event or circumstance, will be rejected." Quite simply, the
permit is not a competing permit. It is a permit to study the potential of the site with or
without the dam in place. Neither Jackson County, nor even the settlements referenced in
the July 19 order, precludes the future hydro development of the site.
The County is the proponent of Green Power. It has received national recognition
for it Green Power initiatives. The historic Dillsboro Dam is a renewable resource that
the County will seek to develop and control development thereof by acquiring the site
whether with or without the dam and powerhouse in place.
Therefore, and as the Commission is well aware of the fluid nature of permit
proposals, the County will shldy and assess the hydraulic potential of the site with and
without the dam and/or powerhouse. It appears that the crux of the letter's concern is
unstated. Specifically, it appears that the Commission may be concerned that the County
would seek an advantage in acquiring the site as is -not operating, not licensed and
subject to a very expensive dam removal process, etc.
Therefore, to allay this concern, the Commission is hereby informed that the
County is seeking the passage of legislation similar to that resulting in the successful
reinstatement of the license for the Stuyvesant Project, FERC Project No. 2696. The
Convnission should also be informed that the County has offered to buy the site as is-
where is and has received confirmation that its written offer has been received by the
office for the current CEO for Duke Energy, a process far superior to the County's
c~crcise of condemnation under state law or as a license Linder a Shlyvesant-like license
reinstatement and transfer.'
Therefore, contrary to the statement at Par.4 of the October 16 letter, the permit
application is not filed out of time as it is not filed in competition with the dismissed
application.
Settlement.
The County respectfully submits that it permit application does not discourage
any settlement involving the Dillsboro site. (Par. 3). The reference settlements are not
contingent upon the surrender and removal of the dam and/or powerhouse. For example,
the Tuckasegee settlement has an alternative provision should the dam not be removed
that calls for alteration of proposed minimum flows and the provision of a kayak portage
facility, etc., which could be accommodated by the portage/fish-passage facility proposed
in the County's permit application. See Section 6.12 of the TCST Agreement.
The County also notes that there is no settlement subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction as the settlements referenced in the July 19 Order were not approved by the
The County is info~7ned that the clu~rent licensees for the Shryvesant project recently have
negotiated a purchase price in settlement of the protracted condemnation proceedings.

order. Thus, the County takes strong exception to the inference that the surrender is part
of an approved FERC settlement. As such the reference to Ari~of7a Public Service
Compar7v is inapplicable as a matter of law and fact as the project was not being used as a
pawn for upstream minimum flows for by-pass reaches, recreation flows, etc.
Permit Abuse.
Paragraph 4 of the October 16 letter states that:
Finally, since, as described above, Jackson County Government's
application conflicts with Duke's existing license; it conflicts and
competes with Duke's initially filed relicensing application and Duke's
license surrender proposal; and it conflicts with the Commission's order
approving license surrender and dam removal, it is filed out of time with
respect to the relicensing proceeding and its processing would be an abuse
of the Commission's permit process.
Jackson County respectfully asserts that the processing of its application would
not be an abuse of the permit process. Moreover, in light of the current significant
drought conditions within the state and the entire Northeast, redevelopment of the
Dillsboro site is in the public interest as a secondary source of water supply for
emergencies, e.g., fire protection, etc.
As this application is for the future dcvclopment of the site, which is not
precluded by law, the application is not filed in competition with or to discourage any
settlements, especially as those settlements provided for non-removal of the dan~, etc.
More importantly, it should be stressed that the County is still a stakeholder in the
dcvclopment of the Tuckasegee River's hydroelectric resources and it did not loose that
status by not executing the TCST settlement agreement or due to its opposition to the
July 19 Order. Neither of these positions should preclude the processing of its permit
application, which was not filed in competition with any existing license or pending
dcvclopment application for the site.
sincerely,.
Paul V. Nolan, Esq.
6

cc: FIRC Secretary
Jackson COUllty Board
Macon County Board
To~,vn of Franklin Board
Senator Dole
Senator Burr
Con<~ressman Shiner
Encl: EPA Award Announcement
October ?-~. ?007
Certificate of Seri-ice
I hereby certify that I have this day served the forcgoin~ document on the partirs
dcsi~~nated on the oflicial service list compiled by the Sccret~~ry in these proccedin~~s.
Dated this 24`~'_day of October ?007
S incercly,.
Paul V. Nolan, Esq.

Ei~~ iro~uncntal Protection .a~~ency - LMOP: LFG Enemy Project Profiles

Page 1 of 2
~ :. J . ~ irr ~.~ ~~ ~~ J f r ; i ~,' ~ ~ r ;,I ~ t' i ri ..~~ . , ., >+ ~ ~f 1 "~ .' ~ f' ~;
K ~ni Additions Contact Us Print Version Search ~~
EPA Hgme > Climate Change > Methane > Voluntary. Programs > LMOP > Energy Projects and
C ndidale Landfills > LFG Energy Project Profiles > Jackson County NC_Green Energy Park
Jackson County NC ~~ -~
green Energy Park `._j ~ ' ; ~ } Q!
1d.lill;4 M1511'1l.dhi ~ !+ 1.~'+ ~j,~~
,. rin~.uif,., .:Ka~.~ , ` ,n,z, qi J
~ ~.
`;~ {;
{__~
~.d~oN r,.v.~np.u
wtr;raeN.
Location Dillsboro, North Carolina
End User(s) Jackson County Green Energy Park
Sector(s) Greenhouse, Heritage crafts, Industrial (biodiesel)
Landfill(s) Jackson County Landfill
Landfill Size 0.75 million tons waste-in-place (1996)
Project Type Greenhouse and Direct Thermal (blacksmithing and
biodiesel)
Project Size 40 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)
Environmental Annual greenhouse gas reductions equivalent to
Benefits planting 1,300 acres of forest, removing the emissions
of 900 vehicles, or preventing the use of 11,100
barrels of oil. Annual energy savings equate to heating
300 homes. Estimated emissions reductions of 0.0013
million metric tons of carbon equivalents.
LMOP Partners Jackson County Green Energy Park, McGee
Involved Environmental, Inc., North Carolina Department of
Environment & Natural Resources
Jackson County, NC went all the way in creating
an energy park to fuel the local economy. In
October 2006, the county celebrated the initial
phase of its conversion of a closed and aging
landfill site into a thriving energy park that will
provide up to 20 new jobs. The park includes a
biodiesel refinery, three professional blacksmith
studios, and a series of greenhouses-all using
landfill gas (LFG) as fuel.
Using hot water from aLFG-fired boiler, Smoky
Mountain Biofuels makes biodiesel using
vegetable oil recovered from restaurants or
grown from crops such as rapeseed. Heat
exchangers mounted on the neighboring
blacksmith forges recover enough waste heat to
leave the biodiesel refinery with anear-zero
energy footprint. For its creative use of LFG, the
Jackson County Green Energy Park earned
', ~ --
~~ .
I ,
`~ v~
\, >~
P n' ..~
y~ ~
~ ,'r ~~~~
w
}. , S+q
~)-
r
:~
~~ ~ E
'~ y~ ~
http: ~ ~~~~w~~.~~.cpa.gov~'Imr~}~ ~proj;'prof/profile/jacksoncountyncgreenenerg.htm ] 0/24i'2007

Fns ironn~ental Protection .~~uene~~ - Lti~tOP: LFG Energy Project Profiles Page 2 of 2
Lf~10P's 2006 Project of the Year award.
The project's highlights include the following:
Local production of biodiesel may provide new energy crop for local farmers.
First to fire LFG in a blacksmith forge, reaching temperatures of 1,900°F.
. Over 7,000 square feet of greenhouse space heated with LFG allows county
to grow its own landscaping plants.
Future phases include pottery and glass blowing studios, retail gallery,
classrooms, and abotanical/agricultural products drying facility.
The Jackson County Green Energy Park will offer students, energy professionals,
engineers, and tourists alike the opportunity to see and experience first-hand LFG
being used as a fuel. The energy park will have a significant impact on the local
economy for many years to come and will be a model for LFG utilization and
renewable energy applications.
Last Updated: 1/1512007
~.aarir rw~
EPA Home Privacy and Security Notice Contact Us
Last updated on Wednesday, January 24th, 2007
URL: http /Iwww.epa.gov/Imop/proj/prof/profile/jacksoncountyncgreenenerg.htm
I~ttp: ~~'~~«~.ep~t.~z~~~ Itl~op hr~~j ploy,'profilejacksoncow~tyncgrecnenerg.httl~ IO/24i2007