[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24043-24044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11161]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Addition of Electric Generation Baseload Capacity in Franklin 
County, TN

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and 
TVA's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. 
TVA has decided to adopt the No Action alternative identified in its 
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Addition of Electric 
Generation Baseload Capacity in Franklin County, Tennessee.
    The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was made available 
to the public in August 2001. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the 
FEIS was published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the 
Federal Register on August 31, 2001. The U. S. Air Force is a 
cooperating agency in the development of the EIS. In the FEIS ,TVA 
identified the construction of a natural gas-fired combined cycle power 
plant with a nominal output of 510 Megawatts (MW) for intermediate/
baseload capacity at a site on the Arnold Air Force Base (AAFB) in 
Franklin County, Tennessee to be operational as early as June 2003 as 
the preferred alternative, contingent upon Air Force approvals. 
However, because projections for near-term baseload power demand 
changed to indicate that ample power from other generation sources 
within the TVA service area should be available to meet TVA's near-term 
power needs at competitive prices, TVA concluded in March 2002 that the 
most prudent course of action was to not proceed with the project.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce L. Yeager, Senior Specialist, 
National Environmental Policy Act, Environmental Policy and Planning, 
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, mail stop WT 
8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499; telephone (865) 632-8051 or e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In December 1995, TVA completed and published Energy Vision 2020--
Integrated Resource Plan/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 
Energy Vision 2020 projected demands for electricity in the TVA power 
service area through 2020 and evaluated and recommended ways of meeting 
the projected increases. Energy Vision 2020 evaluated an array of power 
supply technologies, both supply-side and demand-side. A portfolio of 
options drawn from several effective strategies was chosen as TVA's 
preferred alternative. This preferred alternative included the 
following portfolio components:
    [sbull] Supply-side alternatives, including combined cycle plants, 
purchasing and exercising call alternatives, purchasing power from 
independent power producers, developing renewable energy resources, 
improving the existing hydroelectric generating system, and converting 
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant to an alternative fuel source, such as natural 
gas or gasified coal;
    [sbull] Customer service alternatives, including demand-side 
management and beneficial electrification;
    [sbull] Environmental control alternatives to reduce pollutant 
emissions including switching to cleaner fuels; and
    [sbull] Resource management alternatives to reduce risks, including 
increased use of natural gas to meet future environmental regulations.
    TVA projections in its annual report to the Southeastern Electric 
Reliability Council (SERC) indicate continued growth of baseload energy 
need at a rate of approximately 2% per year from 2001 through 2009 
(equivalent to the medium growth projection of TVA's Energy Vision 
2020). Recent experience indicated that the demand for baseload 
generation had been slightly greater than projections. When the FEIS 
was completed in August 2001, it appeared that without TVA-owned and 
operated new capacity, none of the other programs or portfolio 
components identified above, either individually or collectively, would 
be adequate to meet TVA's power generation need. Events in the interim 
period altered this perception.
    Tiering from the Energy Vision 2020 EIS, the FEIS for Addition of 
Electric Generation Baseload Capacity in Franklin County, Tennessee 
presented a site-specific analysis of the impacts

[[Page 24044]]

expected to result from the addition of a new combined cycle power 
plant to TVA's power system for meeting baseload and intermediate 
electricity needs. In addition to adding baseload/intermediate capacity 
to the TVA system, location of the plant in the project area would have 
increased system reliability.

Alternatives Considered

    The No Action alternative would result in TVA not constructing a 
combined-cycle generating plant at either of the proposed sites in 
Franklin County, Tennessee. Under this alternative, TVA's overall 
ability to supply low cost, reliable power would rely upon other 
options from the Energy Vision 2020 portfolio. Although the FEIS states 
that relying on those approaches alone might not allow TVA to meet 
future customer demands for low-cost, reliable power, TVA's perception 
of the risk changed based on changes in economic and power supply 
conditions.
    Feasible action alternatives for meeting the stated purpose and 
need include the entire portfolio of actions recommended in Energy 
Vision 2020. These actions include various supply-side actions, 
customer service alternatives, and environmental control alternatives. 
TVA is currently using all of these Energy Vision 2020 recommended 
options, and managing their use in a way which provides optimum 
flexibility at the lowest cost. However, at the time the FEIS was 
prepared, TVA's generation (or avoidance of demand) was not expected to 
be sufficient to meet near-term baseload demands. Within the time frame 
for which additional generation capacity was needed, the only action 
alternatives considered reasonable for detailed assessment in the EIS 
were the proposed construction and operation of a combined cycle power 
plant at one of two sites in Franklin County, Tennessee.
    Two candidate sites were selected for detailed evaluation in the 
EIS based upon extensive screening using the following criteria: 
Transmission system connection (system support and connection cost); 
natural gas supply (pipeline availability, capacity and delivered fuel 
cost); air quality impacts (likelihood of the area being able to 
incorporate additional emissions); and water supply (surface or 
groundwater availability). The EIS assessed the impacts of one plant 
configuration. Infrastructure requirements for the site alternatives 
are very similar. Road upgrades, potential routes for a new 500-kV 
transmission line from the substation to the alternative sites, water 
supply/discharge pipelines, a construction/emergency power line, and a 
natural gas pipeline for connecting with an East Tennessee Natural Gas 
(ETNG) pipeline were evaluated for potential impacts. In addition, the 
EIS assessed the impacts of upgrading 26.5 miles of existing natural 
gas pipeline by ETNG to ensure adequate gas supply for the project.

Decision

    Due to changing economic conditions and reduced forecasts of 
electric power supply requirements, TVA re-evaluated whether and under 
what conditions to proceed with the proposed combined cycle power plant 
project. Current projections indicated that ample power from generation 
sources within the TVA service area should be available to meet TVA's 
near-term power needs at competitive prices without the power from the 
proposed combined cycle plant. After careful consideration, in March 
2002, TVA concluded that the most prudent course of action was to not 
proceed with the proposed project.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    Except for four environmental criteria the impacts of constructing 
and operating the proposed 510-MW combined cycle plant and its 
associated infrastructure would be indistinguishable at the two 
alternative sites. Use of Site 2 would involve longer utility lines for 
connection to natural gas, water, potable water, etc., which would 
result in greater disturbance to the environment for trenching and 
equipment activity. However, these impacts would be minor with the use 
of best management practices. Considering all environmental factors, 
including, as discussed below, socioeconomic impacts and the 
speculative impacts of purchased power generation, the FEIS selected 
the construction and operation of a combined cycle combustion turbine 
electric generating plant at Site 4 in Franklin County, Tennessee as 
the marginally environmentally preferred alternative.
    The No Action Alternative would have no known local impacts at 
either of the sites (i.e., baseline conditions would continue). 
Adoption of the No Action Alternative however, could increase the risks 
of TVA's possible inability to meet electricity demand and the 
consequent socioeconomic impacts to residents of the region. However, 
in light of changed projections for near-term demand and available 
known baseload generation sources, the risk of adverse socioeconomic 
impacts from TVA's possible inability to meet electricity demand is 
minimal. TVA has determined that the current mix of available and 
planned generation sources is sufficient to meet electricity demand. 
The FEIS also asserts that there would be speculative environmental 
impacts associated with generation of electricity from other unknown 
sources. While these impacts are too speculative for detailed analysis, 
it is unlikely that they would, by themselves (i.e., without the risk 
of socioeconomic impacts from not meeting power demand) outweigh the 
impacts of constructing and operating the proposed new generation 
plant. Therefore, TVA has concluded that the No Action Alternative is 
environmentally preferable.

Environmental Consequences and Commitments

    With the continuance of baseline conditions under the No Action 
Alternative, no environmental consequences are anticipated, and, 
therefore, no commitments are required.

    Dated: April 2, 2003.
Joseph R. Bynum,
Executive Vice President, Fossil Power Group,
[FR Doc. 03-11161 Filed 5-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P