# Amicus Curiae Brief — PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Washington Dept. of Ecology > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0401%3A05 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1994 - **Citation:** 511 U.S. 700 ## Text ame VOUT, ess x i + xu UV AUG 0 6 1993 No. 92-1911 | GL ERA —_— IN THE Supreme Court of the Wuited States OCTOBER TERM, 1993 PUD No. 1 oF JEFFERSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF TACOMA, . Petitioners, STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NORTHWEST HYDROELECTRIC ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS RICHARD M. GLICK Counsel of Record ELIZABETH A. SUMMERS DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE 2300 First Interstate Tower 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97201 (503) 241-2300 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Northwest Hydroelectric Association WILSON - Eres PRINTING Co.. INC. - 789-0096 - WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 QUESTION PRESENTED Does § 401 of the Clean Water Act grant the states authority to condition a water quality certificate for a hydroelectric project on minimum flows to protect fish habitat in excess of the flows necessary to meet adopted water quality standards. (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS SIT IID sss sctrssenseccaseasnassssesocsnnecensesssens TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .2000...20.......ccceccccccceeceeeeeeeees INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE |W... a aceacciatialaiedieniatintitenmemennedes ibinithinitiinesiais SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .......000..... — ARGUMENT ..................... enews iiiasiasdiineaineen fitehihiettiaiensinens I. Il. THIS CASE PRESENTS AN ISSUE OF REGIONAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PaA- CIFIC NORTHWEST HYDROPOWER IN- DUSTRY ...... Setiaiaidicaailisvenestinpesencstapsecas Saeiiiaccbiovensees A. The Pacific Northwest Hydropower Indus- OS EEE a B. The Hydropower Industry Will Be Signifi- cantly Affected If States Are Able To Im- pose Minimum Flow Conditions For Fish EEE 1. A recognition of state authority to set minimum flows for non-water quality conditions will disrupt the FERC licens- TAS Se janbeiiendinnes 2. State imposed non-water quality condi- tions result in unauthorized veto power.. UNLESS ADDRESSED BY THIS COURT THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT'S DECISION CREATES UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE STATE AUTHORIY GRANTED UNDER § 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND WILL DISRUPT THE HYDROELEC- TRIC LICENSING PROCESS .............. ouiatin . (iii) iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page A. The Washington Supreme Court’s Decision Misinterprets State Authority Under § 401 Of The Clean Water Act... 7 1. The Washington Supreme Court’s Opin- ion Fails to Recognize FERC’s Exclusive ERE Se coed eal salen ee ee fe 2. The Washington Department of Ecology Exceeded Narrow Authority to Limit Discharge of Pollutants ....... 9 B. The Washington Decision Regarding The Scope Of State Authority Under § 401 Con- tributes To National Confusion Which Re- quires This Court’s Direction 10 C. This Court Is The Only Forum To Resolve The Conflict Regarding The Scope Of State Authority Under § 401 ......0.0... 11 CONCLUSION .........W...... senishnaenniminidalaieaepsbdiniatenniianaioe 12 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Arnold Irrigation District v. Department of Envi- ronmental Quality, 79 Or. App. 136, 717 P.2d FO GF 8 ee 11 Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co. v. Board of Environmen- tal Protection, 595 A.2d 438, 440 (Me. 1991)... 10 California v. FERC, 495 U.S. 490 (1990) 5, 6, 7,8 First lowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 328 U.S. 152 (1946) .......00000000........ 5, 7, 8, 12 Hi-Line Sportsmen Club v. Milk River Irrigation Dist., 241 Mont. 182, 786 P.2d 13 (Mont. 1990) .. 10 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 187 A.D.2d 7, 592 N.Y.S.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), motion for leave to appeal granted, N.Y. Ct. of App. May ee a 10 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Re- sources Cons. & Dev. Com’n., 461 U.S. 190, 201- ES en aan anae 11 Sayles Hydro Ass'n v. Maughan, 985 F.2d 451, 453 a eee 5 Simpson Paper (Vermont) Co. v. Department of Envtl. Conservation, petition for cert. filed, 61 U.S.L.W. 3504 (Dec. 12, 1992) (No. 92-1012). 10 Summit Hydropower v. Commissioner of Envtl. Protection, No. CV91-050-26-43, 1992 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2177 (Conn. nate July 20, 1992) . aa AL CAPR ete EE ; 10 Administrative Decisions Central Maine Power Co., 52 FERC ‘* 61,033 (1990) ......... Lee oe Tee ae ea RO 11, 12 Noah Corporation, 57 FERC © 61,170 (1991)... 11 Town of Summerville, 60 FERC © 61,291 (1992). 11 Statutes Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791-828 (1988)... 6, 7,8 § 10(j) (2), 16 U.S.C. § 803(j) (2) ~ vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251-2623 (1988)... 2, 3, 5, 7,9 I a 2 § 401, 33 U.S.C. § 138411 ..................... 2,5, 7,9, 10,11, 12 § 401(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1341 (d) —....0 2,7,9,11 Other Authorities National Hydropower Association, Hydroguide: Hydroelectric Resources of the United States, “Introduction” (NHA, Washington, D.C. 1989) .. 4 Northwest Power Planning Council, 1991 North- west Conservation and Electric Power Plan, “Generating Resources”, Volume II, Part II RENTS Lee EC AAR AS NN cae Rts VaR TN AE : 3 IN THE Supreme Cant of the Wuited States OcTOBER TERM, 1993 No. 92-1911 PUD No. | oF JEFFERSON COUNTY AND THE City OF TACOMA, Petitioners, Vv. STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NORTHWEST HYDROELECTRIC ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE THE AMICUS The Northwest Hydroelectric Association (NWHA) submits this brief Amicus Curiae. NWHA is the trade association of the Pacific Northwest hydroelectric indus- try. Its members include publicly owned and investor owned utilities, municipalities and independent power producers located in Idaho, Montana, Northern Califor- nia, Oregon and Washington. 2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT In its order granting Tacoma’s water quality certifica- tion request, the Washington Department of Ecology im- posed minimum flow requirements based on its purported authority under § 401(d)' of the Clean Water Act to condition water quality certificates on the water quality factors specified in § 401(d) and “any other appropriate requirement of state law.” This order conflicts with the FERC’s exclusive authority to regulate hydroelectric projects. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the conditions imposed by the Washington Department of Ecology in the Tacoma license. The Court’s decision incorrectly concludes that § 401 grants the State of Washington the authority to impose minimum stream flow conditions to protect fish habitat. The Washington Supreme Court's decision contradicts the express provisions of the Clean Water Act, the balance of authority in the federal licens- ing scheme created by Congress and this Court’s opinions interpreting that licensing scheme. The Washington Supreme Court’s opinion will cause disruption in the FERC licensing process. If allowed to stand, the opinion will permit an unauthorized state veto power by imposing minimum flow standards which render the projects uneconomical. Further, the opinion contrib- utes to the uncertainty surrounding the definition of the scope of state authority under § 401 of the Clean Water Act. FERC refuses to review the validity of water quality certifications issued pursuant to § 401 of the Clean Water Act, and licensees therefore cannut expect clarification from any federal agency. In the absence of direction from the United States Supreme Court, the scope of state au- thority to condition a § 401 certification will remain in 1The Clean Water Act is codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., (1988). 3 question. This case presents an issue of national impor- tance to the hydropower industry in the Pacific Northwest. ARGUMENT I. THIS CASE PRESENTS AN ISSUE OF REGIONAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST HYDROPOWER INDUSTRY. A. The Pacific Northwest Hvdropower Industry. The Northwest Hydroelectric Association membership represents numerous entities that have a significant in- terest in this petition for certification. The Pacific North- west is a largely hydrobased system. Hydropower gener- ates two-thirds of the region’s energy and makes up three quarters of the region’s generating capacity. The hydro- power industry provides more of the region’s electricity than all other sources of power combined. Hydropower will continue to develop and remain the primary regional source of electricity. The Northwest Conservation and Power Planning Counsel 1991 plan calls for continued development of hydropower in the Northwest. Indeed, the region’s new hydropower poten- tial is substantial. The highest potential for new hydro- power projects in the Pacific Northwest is approximately 2,300 megawatts of hydropower capacity, which produces 1,100 megawatts of average energy and 900 megawatts of firm energy at 13.4 cents per kilowatt-hour.’ Other factors assure hydropower’s continuing impor- tance to the Northwest. The low operating and mainte- nance costs of hydroelectric power projects cause hydro- power to be among the lowest cost sources of electricity 2 See the membership list in the attached Appendix. 8 Northwest Power Planning Council, 1991 Northwest Conserva- tion and Electric Power Plan, “Generating Resources,” Volume II, Part II (1991). 4 in the country... From an environmental perspective, hydroelectric generation is a clean, renewable source of energy. Additionally, hydroelectric projects accomplish more than simply the production of electricity. Such projects provide recreational opportunities to visitors and benefits to fish and wildlife. Some projects enhance flood control, navigation, irrigation and domestic water supplies in addition to their primary purpose of generating power. As a result of these benefits, hydropower has become an integral part of a majority of the Northwest’s communi- ties, businesses and industries. In order to maintain the viability of hydropower as the traditional major resource for electrical energy in the Pacific Northwest, it is essen- tial that the FERC licensing process be definitive and comprehensive. B. The Hydropower Industry Will Be Significantly Affected If States Are Able To Impose Minimum Flow Conditions For Fish Habitat. If states are allowed to mandate minimum flows for non-water quality conditions, such as fish habitat, despite the balancing assessments made by FERC, the effect on the hydroelectric industry will be severe. An increase in minimum flows at a hydroelectric project results in the release of stored water at a time when it is uneconomical to produce energy. With respect to run-of-river projects (i.e. those with no water storage capability), the increased minimum flows result in a loss of water for power genera- tion. A special attribute of hydropower is the ability to generate at the moment when power is needed. This ability is lost when water is released from storage before peak demand periods. To replace that lost generation, electric suppliers rely on more costly forms of production. Combustion turbines, which produce air emissions, are the most common alternate energy source. 4 National Hydropower Association, Hydroguide: Hydroelectric Resources of the United States, “Introduction” (NHA, Washington, D.C. 1989). 5 FERC’s job is to balance these competing values. FERC’s decision is final and must be so if developers are to have the certainty needed for financing. Section 401 is not about balancing, but applying approved stand- ards to protect water uses from pollution. 1. A recognition of state authority to set minimum flows for non-water quality conditions will dis- rupt the FERC licensing process. State exercise of undelegated authority under the guise of the Clean Water Act will disrupt the FERC licensing process, If states can set minimum flows for fish habitat and other non-water quality conditions, disputes over § 401 conditions will result in substantial delays in the licensing process. Such delays will increase costs and create an uncertain regulatory environment. A recent Ninth Circuit case involved a hydro licensee that had been refused a hearing on its state water rights application. The licensee was not willing to undertake additional studies regarding concerns which had already been addressed by FERC. Following this Court’s deci- sions in California v. FERC, 495 U.S. 490 (1990), and First lowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152 (1946), the Ninth Circuit stated: The hardship is the process itself. Process costs money. If a federal licensee must spend years at- tempting to satisfy an elaborate, shifting array of State procedural requirements, then he must borrow a fortune to pay lawyers, economists, accountants, archaeologists, historians, engineers, recreational con- sultants, environmental consultants, biologists and others, with no revenue, no near-term prospect of revenue, and no certainty that there ever will be rev- enue. Meanwhile, politics, laws, interest rates, con- struction costs, and costs of alternatives change. Sayles Hydro Ass'n v. Maughan, 985 F.2d 451, 453 (9th Cir. 1993). State imposed non-water quality standards 6 will present the procedural consequences that the Ninth Circuit envisioned. 2. State imposed non-water quality conditions re- sult in unauthorized veto power. A state’s power to impose non-water quality conditions such as minimum flows for fish habitat is equivalent to a veto power. For example, in the instant case, the state imposed conditions make the proposed hydroelectric power project economically unjustifiable. As a result, FERC would be unable to license the Project under the comprehensive development standard of § 10(a) of the Federal Power Act. In light of the significant policy con- siderations inherent in the Federal Power Act, it is im- proper to give state water resource agencies such veto authority. The costs required to meet the state conditions are much greater than the expense of meeting the FERC conditions. The state imposed conditions could result in a veto of a proposed project. Indeed, this court has recently recognized that permit- ting the states to exercise veto authority over non-federal hydroelectric development improperly disturbs the Com- mission’s comprehensive regulatory authority. In Califor- nia v. FERC, 495 U.S. 490 (1990), this Court reaffirmed that the Federal Power Act preempts state authority to set minimum flow requirements for Commissicn licensed hydroelectric projects. The Court reasoned taat “allow- ing California to impose the challenged requirements would be contrary to congressional intent regarding the Commission’s licensing authority and would constitute a veto of the project that was approved and licensed by FERC.” Z/d. at 506-7. In the face of California v. FERC, we now see the State of Washington trying to reach the same result via § 401 of the Clean Water Act. The prin- ciple against a state imposed veto remains the same. 7 Il. UNLESS ADDRESSED BY THIS COURT THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT’S DECISION CREATES UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE STATE AUTHORITY GRANTED UNDER §401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND WILL DISRUPT THE HYDROELECTRI’ LICENSING PROCESS. A. The Washington Supreme Court’s Decision Mis- interprets State Authority Under § 401 Of The Clean Water Act. According to the Washington Supreme Court’s inter- pretation of § 401(d), a state may impose any condition on a license as long as the condition is water quality related. By this definition, the Washington Department of Ecology has authority to take actions, such as specify- ing minimum stream flows to protect fish habitat, which directly conflict with the authority granted FERC under the Federal Power Act. Congress did not intend for § 401(d) to have such expansive application. Rather, in allowing states to condi- tion water quality certificates pursuant to § 401(d), Con- gress provided the states with specific authority to estab- lish water quality standards designed to protect particular identified beneficial uses from discharges or other activities which add pollutants or degrade the receiving waters. In contrast, FERC is charged with balancing all competing interests in deciding whether a project is in the public interest. California v. FERC, 495 U.S. 490 (1990). The Supreme Court of Washington’s interpretation of § 401(d) greatly exceeds the narrow state role prescribed by Congress and consequently disturbs the balance of authority which Congress established in its federal licens- ing scheme. 1. The Washington Supreme Court’s Opinion Fails to Recognize FERC’s Exclusive Authority. This Court has recognized a pervasive federal hydro- electric licensing scheme which preempts conflicting state action. In First lowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. Federal Power 8 Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152 (1946), the Court rejected the State of Iowa’s efforts to impose a state permitting re- quirement on a licensee which was attempting to obtain a hydroelectric license from the Federal Power Commis- sion. The Court concluded that allowing the state to impose a permitting requirement would in effect grant the state veto power over the license and therby subvert Con- gress’ intention to concentrate comprehensive hydropower planning authority in the FPC. First Iowa, 328 USS. at 164. In California v. FERC, 495 U.S. 490 (1990), the Court considered the State of California’s authority to impose minimum flow requirements to protect fisheries. California argued that § 27 of the Federal Power Act, which reserves certain authority regarding proprietary water rights to the states, provided the state with author- ity to impose mandatory flow requirements on a licensee. The Court rejected this argument and unanimously held that the flow requirements mandated by California were preempted by the federal licensing scheme. In making this determination, the Court specifically recognized that the addition of § 10(j) to the FPA reaffirmed “First lowa’s understanding that the FPA establishes a broad and paramount regulatory role” in the area of fish and wildlife license conditions. See California v. FERC, 495 U.S. at 499. Pursuant to § 10(j) of the FPA, FERC is required to include fish and wildlife conditions in hydroelectric licenses based mainly on the recommendations of state fish and wildlife agencies. While § 10(j) requires FERC to give the recommendations of state fish and wildlife agencies special deference in establishing fish and wildlife conditions in the license, FERC possesses the authority to reject the states’ recommendations when its finds that such recommendations are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act. 16 U.S.C. § 803(j)(2). Under the Washington opinion, the state can engage in regulatory activity that is outside its 9 narrow authority. § 401 does not allow states to define non-water quality minimum flow requirements. 2. The Washington Department of Ecology Ex- ceeded Narrow Authority to Limit Discharge of Pollutants. In 1973 the Clean Water Act granted the states nar- row authority for the purpose of regulating the discharge of pollutants into the Nation’s waters.’ In the Clean Water Act, Congress empowered the Environmental Pro- tection Agency (“EPA”) with authority to limit the dis- charge of pollutants through a permitting process and by developing water quality standards which are applied to determine the specified levels of discharge in the permit. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, states can assume responsibility for developing these water quality stand- ards subject to the approval of EPA. Specifically, § 401 grants states the circumscribed authority to certify that applicants for a federal license comply with the state’s criteria concerning the discharge of pollutants developed as part of the state’s water quality standards. The Clean Water Act further provides that the state may condition water quality certificates on the effluent limitations, water quality standards and monitoring provisions specified in § 401(d), as well as other appropriate requirements of state law. The Washington Department of Ecology exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act by imposing stream flow conditions for fisheries. Water quality standards con- cern the discharge of pollutants. Specifically, Washing- ton’s published water quality standards pertain to such things as fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, dissolved gases, 5 The term “pollutant” is defined as specific materials including, among other things, dredged soil, solid waste, chemical wastes, biological materials and radioactive materials. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). Pursuant to the Act, the discharge of a pollutant “is any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1862(12). 10 and other micro characteristics. The State of Washing- ton did not limit its action to a determination of the levels of discharge of pollutants from the dam that would com- ply with water quality standards. Therefore, the state exceeded the limited authority which Congress granted it under § 401. B. The Washington Decision Regarding The Scope Of State Authority Under § 401 Contributes To Na- tional Confusion Which Requires This Court’s Direction. State courts have produced divergent decisions inter- preting the scope of state authority under § 401 to con- dition certifications. For example, the Vermont Supreme Court has determined that it is proper for its state agency to regulate aesthetic flows under § 401.° In Connecticut, however, minimum spill requirements based on subjective aesthetic impact are beyond the scope of the state agen- cies.’ Courts in Montana * and Maine * have upheld man- datory § 401 conditions regarding fish passages and habi- tat. By contrast, in Pennsylvania and New York,” courts have found that such conditioning is beyond the scope of authority provided to states under § 401. In Oregon, it ® See Simpson Paper (Vermont) Co. v. Department of Envtl. Conservation, petition for cert. filed, 61 U.S.L.W. 3504 (U.S. Dee. 12, 1992) (No. 92-1012). 7 See Summit Hydropower v. Commissioner of Envtl. Protection, No. CV91-050-26-43, 1992 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2177, 1992 WL 175241, (Conn. Super. July 20, 1992), Supreme Court of Connecticut Nos. SC14618 and 14619, argued May 4, 1993. 8 See Hi-Line Sportsmen Club v. Milk River Irrigation Dist., 241 Mont. 182, 786 P.2d 13 (Mont. 1990). ® See Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co. v. Board of Environmental Protec- tion, 595 A.2d 438, 440 (Me. 1991). 10 See Nigara Mohawk Power Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 187 A.D.2d 7, 592 N.Y.S.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), motion for leave to appeal granted, N.Y. Ct. of App., May 11, 1993. 11 has been held that compliance wtih state land use laws is not sufficiently water quality related to be included in §$ 401 review." Each state court decision complicates the body of law with which an applicant for a federal hydroelectric project license must comply. The licensing process is becoming increasingly unpredictable. As this Court has explained: “to require the industry to proceed without knowing whether the [state regulation] is valid would impose a palpable and considerable hardship on the utilities. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Cons. & Dev. Com’n., 461 U.S. 190, 201-202 (1983). The differing state interpretations have created the current confusion. This confusion requires the Court to examine this issue. C. This Court Is The Only Forum To Resolve The Conflict Regarding The Scope Of State Authority Under §401. FERC has taken the position that it lacks the authority to view conditions contained in state certifications. See Town of Summerville, 60 FERC © 61,291 at 61,990 (1992) (“since pursuant to § 401(d) of the Clean Water Act all of the conditions in the water quality certification must become conditions in the license, review of the appropriateness of the conditions is within the purview of State courts and not the Commission’); Noah Corpora- tion, 57 FERC € 61,170 at 61,601 (1991) (“we recog- nize that review of the appropriateness of water quality certification conditions is a matter for state courts to decide”); Central Maine Power Co., 52 FERC € 61,033 at 61,172 (1990) (“review of the appropriateness of water quality certification conditions is the purview of the state courts”’). 11 Arnold Irrigation District v. Department of Environmental Quality, 79 Or. App. 136, 717 P.2d 1274 (1986). 12 In Central Maine, 2 FERC at 61,172, FERC noted that although several of the conditions imposed by the state were unrelated to water quality, FERC was never- theless bound by § 401 to include the conditions. FERC’s position appears to require that a state water quality cer- tification be automatically included in any license issued by FERC. The consequence of this position is that states are free to impose minimum flows or other conditions in § 401 certifications, regardless of whether such conditions are indeed related to water quality standards. Until this Court provides guidance, “a dual final au- thority, with a duplicative system of state permits and federal licenses required for each project, [is] unwork- able.” First lowa, 328 U.S. at 169. This Court should therefore grant certiorari and clarify the authority granted the states under § 401 of the Clean Water Act with the comprehensive federal licensing scheme established by Congress. CONCLUSION The Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, RICHARD M. GLICK Counsel of Record ELIZABETH A. SUMMERS DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE 2300 First Interstate Tower 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97201 (503) 241-2300 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Northwest Hydroelectric Association APPENDIX iv be -“s — —_— APPENDIX Name ABB Phoenix Controls Alaska Power & Telephone Central Oregon I.D. Chelan PUD Chelan PUD CHI West, Inc. City of Tacoma/Utility Consolidated Hydro, Inc. Consolidated Pumped Stor. David Evans and Associates Davis Wright Tremaine Deschutes Valley Water Dist. Douglas County PUD EBASCO Services, Inc. EDAW EG&G Idaho, Inc. Falls Creek HB Limited P. Grant County PUD Harza Northwest, Inc. HCI Publications HDR Engineering, Inc. Hydro West Group, INc. Hydro Y.E.S. Ida-West Energy Impsa International, Inc. Kvaeme-Hydro Power, Inc. Lilliwaup Falls Generating Co. Middle Fork Irrigation Dist. National Hydro Northrop Devine & Tarbell, Inc. NW Pipe & Casing Co. NW Power Planning Council Okanogan County PUD Pacific Hydro Consulting Group Pacific Water Works Supply PacifiCorp Pend Oreille County PUD Portland General Electric City Bothell Port Townsend Redmond Wenatchee Wenatchee Boise Tacoma Grenich Plaza Greenwich Portland Portland Madras E. Wenatchee Bellevue San Francisco Idaho Falls Eugene Ephrata Bellevue Kansas City Bellevue Bellevue Ferndale Boise Pittsburgh Stamford Seattle Parkdale Boston Portland Portland Portland Okanogan Alameda Seattle Portland Newport Portland State Name Precision Machine & Supply Puget Power Puget Power R W Beck & Associates Ray Toney & Assoc. Resource Management Santiam Water Control Dist. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Siemens Power Corporation Sithe Energies USA, Inc. Snohomish County PUD STS HydroPower, Ltd. STS HydroPower, Ltd. Tetragenics Van Ness, Feldman & Curtis Van Ness, Feldman & Curtis Warm Springs Power Ent. Washington Water Power Co. 2a City Lewiston Bellevue Bellevue Seattle Redding Portland Aumsville Seattle Wes Allis New York Everett Issaquah Sacramento Butte Seattle Washington Warm Springs Spokane De. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0401%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.