2/21/2014

Some Dam – Hydro News TM And Other Stuff i

Quote of Note: “If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these State of the Union speeches, there wouldn't be any inducement to go to heaven.” Will - Rogers

Some Dam - Hydro News Newsletter Archive for Back Issues and Search http://npdp.stanford.edu/ Click on Link (Some Dam - Hydro News) Bottom Right - Under Perspectives

“Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: 2010 Sebastiani US Red Blend "Secolo" “No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.” - - Thomas Jefferson

Dams: (PMF - Gotcha! Ouch, I bet it’s cold!) UPPCO set to draw down reservoir at Victoria Hydroelectric site February 7, 2014 by Rick Tarsitano, abc10up.com

Victoria Hydroelectric The Upper Peninsula Power Company’s Victoria Hydroelectric Project in Ontonagon County is nearly finished. The 2013 construction project will make the dam safer for higher in flows of water, and allow the facility to generate more power. The Ontonagon River reservoir has been refilled, but with the annual draw down expected to begin this weekend, officials are warning residents to be careful if they plan to venture out onto the ice. UPPCO is still waiting for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s final approval before they begin lowering the reservoir, but once they start the process it may cause “bridging,” a condition that creates gaps or spaces underneath the ice due to changing water levels. The increased river flow erodes deep-seeded ice that isn’t visible from above, compromising its stability. UPPCO has warning signs posted locally, but sometimes snowmobile riders don’t see them depending on when they join the trail. 1

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu Crewmembers will be on location this weekend as the draw down begins, deicing spillway gates ahead of the spring run off which could see flow speeds upwards of 100 thousand gallons a second. The crew will also be monitoring stumps and other debris as they head downstream so that they can pass safely through the spillway gates and allow water levels to remain unaffected. Again, if you’re planning on crossing the ice on the Ontonagon River near the facility, be careful.

(Trying to make rational arguments against dam removal seldom are heard.) LETTER: WHY THE DAM SHOULD STAY recorder.com, February 10, 2014

The Jan. 23 My Turn column, “The case for dam removal,” describes the ways in which the Green River, after removal of the Wiley & Russell dam, would provide recreation and education for residents and visitors. It fails to note that these are also the major reason for retaining the dam! Maintenance costs after repair of the abutments and damaged concrete would not be the recurring expense described. The column also fails to mention the dam’s hydro power potential, a widely recognized new green power source. The walking trail and tours, historic markers, a viewing platform are planned regardless of retention or removal. But they would be greatly diminished by absence of the central exhibit — the dam, which holds a unique lesson from its wood species and design to its long use. The Green River Industrial Area, including the Museum of Our Industrial Heritage, is envisioned as an outdoor recreation and teaching tool and it would attract visitors to the downtown. The dam is its central exhibit and attraction. Would hundreds of visitors visit Lowell if the water power structures were removed?

The writers forget that museums are educational institutions that exist to preserve and interpret objects and outdoor museums, in particular, depend on all the parts of its large objects and landscapes to verify its lesson. These lessons include: Why did John Russell site it there, rather than in another spot? It also includes lessons on stonework, the use of specific wood species and timber crib design. Few of these historic structures survive and we are just now learning from and about them. This is also why Old Sturbridge Village is today gathering funds to repair and modify its dam for hydro power after more than 40 years powering its grist and carding mills. OSV says it will save the museum money and add a teaching exhibit. In addition to preservation of the existing ecosystem, other very serious reasons compel dam retention, including preserving water quality, protection of the Green River Cemetery and of homes on the river bank’s highly erodible soils along this meltwater stream. It’s a matter of location. No dam removals in similarly developed town centers with highly erodible soils are known. - Marcia Starkey, Tower Hill Consultants.

(That’s for sure! A failure would cause chaos!) WE’LL HAVE CHAOS,’ INVESTIGATING OKLAHOMA’S MOST DANGEROUS DAMS kfor.com, February 11, 2014, by Lance West

Arcadia, Okla - It is the Main Street of America. Historic Route 66 stretches hundreds of miles over old bridges, past nostalgic icons and through picturesque communities like Arcadia, Oklahoma. Arthur Ganther, 76, is a volunteer at Arcadia’s Round Barn. He’s seen it all through the years, including an alarming increase in strong earthquakes. Nobody really considered earthquakes when a giant earthen dam was constructed in 1986, to protect Arthur’s town from flooding. Ganther said, “No, that wasn’t probably on their itinerary, to think about that.” The dam at Arcadia is one of 376 state structures classified as a “high hazard” by the Oklahoma Water Resource Board. If there were a breach, there would be “a probable loss of human life.” Ganther said, “We’ll have chaos because we’re in the lower level. All the water would come right down on us. We would be flooded out.” The Arcadia dam is inspected annually by the Army Corps of Engineers. Inspectors have a routine inspection scheduled for Feb. 12 and Feb. 13, but officials say it has nothing to do with the recent swarm of quakes. Many of the state’s 4,600 dams are showing signs of age. Cracks, leaks and cave in’s are becoming more frequent. Lake Hefner, for 2

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu example, was built in 1947 and has had no major updates since its construction. Brian Vance, from the Oklahoma Water Resource Board, confessed, “I don’t think I’d live there even if I knew that dam was the best dam in the world. I still would be a little gun-shy.” Authorities say a dam failure is very unlikely. However, central Oklahoma’s tremors have the attention of our state’s decision makers. Vance said, “We are definitely taking the earthquake risk seriously.” Last year, the Oklahoma Water Resource Board passed a new rule requiring an unscheduled dam inspection if a magnitude 5.0 earthquake strikes within 50 miles of any dam structure. If you’re curious about the condition of a dam in your area, the inspection reports are public record and available for review at the Oklahoma Water Resource Board.

(If you fix it, get something out of it) UTILITY WILL REPAIR MIRROR POND DAM Repairs scheduled for April Feb 11, 2014, bendbulletin.com

PacifiCorp announced this afternoon that it will repair the leak in Mirror Pond dam in April, in time for people to enjoy higher water levels on the Deschutes River this summer. One of the wooden panels in the dam began leaking in October and since then, the water level has sunk, leaving visible the mud flats that have been building up in the Mirror Pond section of the river. The utility stopped generating power at the dam after it discovered the leak, and executives have been meeting with a Bend city councilor and the executive director of the Bend Park & Recreation District to discuss the possibility of transferring ownership of the dam to a government agency. PacifiCorp plans to install a steel sheet pile upstream of the leaking panel, according to a news release from the utility. Once the dam is repaired, PacifiCorp will once again begin generating electricity at the dam, Mark Tallman, PacifiCorp’s vice president for renewable resources, said in a statement. Park district Executive Director Don Horton recently called for the utility to repair the dam, to prevent further damage to the structure and ensure the river will be safe for boaters and others recreating on the river this summer.

Hydro: (All you need is the money!) Hydroelectric Project Focus of Energy Hearing By Phillip Manning, KTNA - Talkeetna | February 7, 2014 - alaskapublic.org

The Alaska House Energy Committee heard testimony this week from the Alaska Energy Authority. While the meeting was not initially intended to focus on the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, a multitude of questions from legislators, as well as the presence of members of the Susitna River Coalition, prompted a shift that saw about half the meeting center around the proposed dam. The first half of Wednesday’s Alaska House Energy Committee meeting was largely a combination of updates on AEA’s various projects as well as an information session for representatives trying to learn more about how the organization operates. About half way through, however, questions and discussion shifted heavily toward one project in particular, the proposed multi-billion dollar hydroelectric project which would be built on the Susitna River. In response to a question from Rep. Shelley Hughes (R-Wasilla), AEA Executive 3

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu Director Sara Fisher-Goad said that the land-access issues that led Gov. Sean Parnell to cut more than 90 percent of the project’s budget may be resolved soon. “We are targeted to receive permit approval or land access approval this month, sometime,” Fisher-Goad said. “The issue is open to be able to revisit the budget issue with respect to where we’re at to be able to complete the studies.” Wayne Dyok, Project Manager for Susitna-Watana, was asked by Rep. Andy Josephson (D-Anchorage) about the safety of the ongoing field work, specifically concerning the death of bulldozer operator Donald Kiehl last May. Dyok said he believes that the layers of separation between AEA and Donald Kiehl’s company mean that the accident is not a reflection on what he described as a safe and successful field season. “To me, it was like a supplier to a Hilton providing information,” Dyok said. “These days, what we’ve tried to do–I mean, anything where someone gets hurt is unacceptable–so we actually, after that, implemented safety procedures for even our consultants, our subcontractors, making sure they had safety plans all the way down.”

Both Fisher-Goad and Dyok expressed belief that the Susitna-Watana Project and gas-line projects are not in competition for energy, but are actually compatible, with the proposed dam providing energy, freeing natural gas to be used as a heating resource. In a time when the governor is very clear about the state needing to “tighten its belt,” however, there are only so many dollars to spread around. At a press conference later in the day, the governor was noncommittal regarding whether he would recommend funding be restored to the Susitna-Watana Project if AEA is able to secure land access agreements this month. “Once we’re to that point, I can make a determination of what is necessary to ask the legislature for’” he said. “Until that time, I don’t have a basis to go ask legislators for more money.” Whether or not the governor recommends funding the $110 million that AEA says is needed to complete the dam’s pre- licensing process, there is indication that tight purse strings could stop legislators from signing off on the increase. Senators Pete Kelley (R-Fairbanks) and Mike Dunleavy (R-Wasilla) have both said that there may simply not be room to start adding zeroes to the project’s budget for this year. Currently, the budget constraints have led AEA to delay the overall timeline for the dam by one year. If the current schedule holds, they plan to apply for a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission near the end of 2016.

(Hydro got a little research money – yeah) Hydro power contracts inked February 07, 2014 09:02:29 PM, by -- C. A. M. C. Feliciano, bworldonline.com

The Energy Department has awarded renewable energy (RE) service contracts for four hydropower projects with combined capacity 54-megawatts (MW) in Agusan del Sur, according to a statement on Friday. The department said Energy Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla executed hydro power service contracts with Global Sibagat Hydro Power Corp’s President James G. Ong through a ceremonial signing held on Thursday, Feb. 6. “The RE power projects are the Managong Hydro Power (6MW), Wawa Hydro Power (13MW), Bugsukan Hydro Power (5MW) all located in Sibagat, Agusan del Sur and the Upper Tago Hydro Power (30MW) located in Lanuza, Agusan del Sur,” the department said. The new hydro projects add to the 265 projects -- with total capacity of 4,005.72 MW -- that had been awarded as of Dec. 31, the department said. Mario C. Marasigan, director of the department’s Renewable Energy Management Bureau, said granting of the service contracts would allow Global Sibagat to conduct “pre-development activities including feasibility studies.” Late last year, the department also granted eight service contracts to Hydrotec Renewables, Inc., which plans to develop hydro power projects along the Marikina River. Hydrotec, last month, said it would invest up to P2.7 billion to develop the projects with capacity ranging from 25 MW to 30 MW. Six of these plants will be located in the province of Rizal -- two in Antipolo City, three in the municipality of Rodriguez and one in San Mateo. The remaining two will be built in Marikina City. Hydrotec had said site preparation for construction work has begun and construction period is expected to take six to eight months. Project completion is targeted by 2016.

(Interesting effects of CA drought.) 4

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu John Hanger's Facts of The Day Discussion about key facts in energy, environment, the economy, and politics. Tired of ideological junk? This is your place. johnhanger.blogspot.com, February 7, 2014

Stunning Fact: California Drought Slashes Hydropower & Causes 34% Rise In Natural Gas The California drought impacts substantially how the Golden State powers itself. In 2011, California got 21.3% of its electricity from hydro. With drought slashing river flows, hydro now generates 13.8% of its power. Ouch! http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/01/droughts-worrisome-for- california-hydroelectric-power-operators.

Falling hydro production must be replaced by something else. And natural gas generation has provided the replacement. The fall in hydro production causes a sharp rise in natural gas generation that has shot up from 45% to 61% of California's total electricity. In other words, the share of its electricity that comes from gas has increased 34%, as a result of the drought.

(Great looking hydro site but to get it built doesn’t sound easy! The NMFS vetoed the original proposal, they can veto this one! With the fish issues and the scenic designation, maybe they ought to look elsewhere.) Dam proposal runs into opposition over costs, fish Mark Mulligan / The Herald , February 9, 2014, heraldnet.com

The Snohomish County PUD has proposed building a mini-dam above Sunset Falls on the South Fork Skykomish River, shown last week. Salmon are trapped at a structure at the falls and transported to habitat upstream. Driller Jacob Hansen, with Tacoma Pump & Drilling, pulls out a section of core rod from a bore hole next to Sunset Falls last week. Engineers are taking core samples of the rock underneath the falls to examine the viability of a hydroelectric project above the falls. Matt Call (left) and Jacob Hansen, with Tacoma Pump & Drilling, pull out a section of core rod from a bore hole next to Sunset Falls. Engineers are taking core samples of the rock underneath the falls to study the viability of a hydroelectric project above the falls. Signs advocating against Snohomish County PUD’s proposed hydroelectric project above Sunset Falls sit near the South Fork Skykomish River east of Index last week. Matt Call with Tacoma Pump & Drilling, holds the type of drill bit used to bore a hole for core samples last week. Engineers are taking core samples of the rock underneath Sunset Falls to study the viability of a hydroelectric project. Matt Call with Tacoma Pump & Drilling pulls out a section of core rod from a bore hole next to Sunset Falls along the South Fork Skykomish River last week. When the Snohomish County Public Utility District built its Youngs Creek mini-dam four years ago, it did not face much opposition.

The 12-foot dam is on a small stream high in the Cascade foothills, south of the Skykomish River near Sultan. It's a remote location above salmon spawning. The PUD's possible power-generating mini-dam on the South Fork Skykomish River at Sunset Falls, however, is another story. More than 100 people packed a hearing last June at a firehouse in Index, nearly all of them opposed to the proposed $133 million project. National environmental groups have weighed in, including a local branch of a national river advocacy group that had taken a neutral stance on Youngs Creek 5

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu The Tulalip Tribes, which supported Youngs Creek, have lent conditional backing to the Sunset Falls project but are challenging the PUD's study plans for determining the effect on fish. Two of the three state legislators representing the district in which the power project would be located have come out against it. The other has questions.

Home-grown electricity Officials at the PUD say Snohomish County needs home-grown power for the future. Choices are few, they say, and small hydro projects provide low-cost power in the long term with minimal, if any, impact on the environment. "This is an area that's continuing to grow and likely to grow significantly more in the future," PUD general manager Steve Klein said, citing more Boeing jobs possibly coming to the county. Opponents say the mini-dam could cause flooding, could keep salmon fry from getting downriver, could affect scenic views and won't create enough power to justify the cost. "I don't support it because I think it will do more harm to the environment than the projected benefits are worth," said state Rep. Elizabeth Scott, R-Monroe. The PUD is unmoved by the pushback. In an attempt to diversify electricity sources, the PUD also is planning a $20 million tidal turbine pilot project in Admiralty Inlet. Among other opposition, that project is being fought by the Tulalips over the potential effect on fish. Opposition goes with the territory, Klein said. "We don't have any project that doesn't have opposition," he said. So far, few supporters of the mini- dam project have spoken up. People who are in favor of projects tend not to be as vocal as opponents, PUD officials said. One backer of the Sunset Falls project is Sultan Mayor Carolyn Eslick. "My feeling is that I believe the PUD is very reputable, we've had nothing but good experiences working with PUD," she said. "I don't see that it is invasive to the world."

An old idea revived The mini-dam would actually be a seven-foot inflatable weir above Sunset Falls that would divert some water into a 2,200-foot tunnel. A 30-megawatt generator would be at the other end of the tunnel, just below the falls. It's expected to create enough power for more than 10,000 homes. The weir would be inflated about nine months a year, when flow is highest, PUD officials say. It would be deflated during low flow in the summer. A long study period lies ahead. The PUD last year submitted a study plan to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will make a final decision that might not come for five years or more, FERC officials have said. The PUD expects to spend about $1 million on the studies, spokesman Neil Neroutsos said. Those studies, PUD officials stress, will decide the fate of the project. Opponents note that a similar plan for the same location was studied more than 20 years ago. Tacoma Public Utilities, when Klein was the power manager there, applied to build a small dam near Sunset Falls. The plan was rejected by the federal government. Klein said he was not involved in the previous project. His signature is on the preliminary permit application from 1991, but he said it was only to fill in for the deputy director, who was out of the office. Otherwise, "I didn't have anything to do with it," Klein said. "I'm not on a Steve Klein crusade to build a dam at Sunset." In 1992, the federal energy agency followed a recommendation by the National Marine Fisheries Service to reject the project. "The proposed Sunset Falls project would have unacceptable adverse impacts on the fish and wildlife resources of the South Fork Skykomish River and full mitigation of resource losses is most likely unattainable," according to a letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior to FERC in 1992. Unlike the current plan, the former project called for a 15-foot stationary concrete dam and a tunnel of 9,000 feet — more than four times longer than the tunnel in the new plan. "Night-and- day difference," said Kim Moore, an assistant general manager for the PUD. Opponents say it's not different enough. The earlier project was rejected not for its design but because of the location, said opponent Andrea Matzke, whose family has had a cabin on the river for decades. "If the location does not have enough water to supply hydro and let the fish pass downstream safely, then it doesn't," she said.

Crucial fish habitat Salmon historically did not spawn above Sunset Falls. Due to loss of habitat downstream, however, the state in 1958 built a structure just below the falls where fish are trapped, loaded into trucks and hauled upstream to more pristine stretches of the river. The habitat there is the best in 6

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu the entire Snoqualmie-Skykomish-Snohomish river system, said Daryl Williams, environmental liaison for the Tulalip Tribes. Chinook, coho, pink and chum salmon spawn and head downstream through the falls. "Some years we get as much as half of our chinook (salmon) production for the entire basin from above Sunset Falls," Williams said. The Tulalip Tribes gave the PUD a list of five conditions under which they would support the project. They include ensuring stream flow, effective screening of fish from intakes and establishing a reliable fish-counting system. These points were "largely ignored" by the PUD in its latest study plan, Williams wrote in comments to FERC on Jan. 14. "The tribes have little confidence that the proposed study plans will provide adequate information to assess what the likely impacts of the project might be to out-migrating fish, especially the small fry and fingerlings," Williams wrote. The Tulalips want a study period spanning at least two years to address fluctuations in water flow and differing migration seasons among salmon species, Williams said later. The PUD is discussing the matter with the Tulalips, Neroutsos said. "We are confident that the study plan will meet their environmental concerns," he said. Moore said the PUD is aware of the importance of fish to the project. "Fish come first, fish come second, fish come third," he said. That's one reason why the PUD has agreed to pay for rebuilding the aging trap-and-haul structure as part of the project. It's one of the conditions set by the Tulalips in exchange for their support. Otherwise, state Fish and Wildlife officials have said, the department doesn't have the estimated $1.5 million needed to pay for a new structure.

Costs and benefits The stated costs and benefits of the Sunset Falls project, and the PUD's small dams in general, have been challenged by opponents. In the year ending Sept. 30, 2012, power from the Youngs Creek dam cost three times as much as that for the system overall, according to a PUD document. The $29 million Youngs Creek project will be paid off in 2040, according to the PUD. The electricity generated by the 30-year-old Jackson Hydroelectric Project on the Sultan River still costs slightly more than the system average, according to another document. That project is expected to be paid off in 2019. The system also includes Culmback Dam, built on Spada Lake in the 1960s to create a reservoir for drinking water, and a tunnel and powerhouse downriver built in 1983. Officials say they don't have a date for when Sunset Falls would be paid off. "Whenever you get into a hydro project or a dam, you're doing it for the long haul, not for the short term," said Glenn McPherson, the PUD's assistant general manager for finance. He likened the hydropower bonds to a mortgage on a house. "So those principal and interest payments for the first 20 to 30 years are going to be high and create the situation where the power coming from that dam is going to be expensive," McPherson said. "Once you pay it off, it's cheap." The PUD buys about 80 percent of its electricity from the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency that owns and operates the large dams built decades ago on the Columbia River. The Snohomish County PUD is the Oregon-based agency's largest customer. The low-cost power from those dams keeps overall rates down in the utility district. Some have said the PUD would do better buying more power from the BPA, but it's not available, according to Klein. The power is spoken for, and no more large dams are being built.

Alternatives The utility also has applied to FERC for small hydropower projects on Hancock and Calligan creeks above Snoqualmie Falls in King County, and could consider more, Neroutsos said. All the planning for future hydro has some wondering whether the PUD is stuck on dams. "They don't think outside the box, in my personal opinion," said former Monroe mayor Donnetta Walser, a Sunset Falls project opponent. State Sen. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe, and Rep. Dan Kristiansen, R- Snohomish, say they favor hydropower but have doubts about this particular project. Pearson has come out against it. "I think there are much better locations," he said. Kristiansen is more measured in his opposition but questions the design. He said in a visit to Norway several years ago, he saw micro-dams operating on fjords to generate power. These were less obtrusive, he said. Tom O'Keefe, Northwest stewardship director for American Whitewater, a national river advocacy group, said the group sees hydropower as an important source of energy. They stayed neutral on Youngs Creek because of its minimal impact, O'Keefe said. They don't believe Sunset

7

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu Falls qualifies on that front. "We have pretty serious concerns with a project that is taking one of our mainstem rivers that is undammed and putting it through a penstock and powerhouse," O'Keefe said. Opponents also have said that if the PUD were to take the $133 million for the mini- dam and put it into rooftop solar power, it could generate as much electricity or more with no effect on the environment. Klein and others at the PUD say that sounds good, but it doesn't pencil out for a host of reasons. They note that they also are buying more wind power and have done test drilling in the Cascades for geothermal power. Though the latter endeavor didn't pan out, those potential alternative sources are some of the projects for which they've been criticized, he said. Wind power makes up 7 percent of the PUD's power mix, while other alternative sources such as solar and biogas are now at 4 percent. The utility has a $78 million fund from the sale of a share in a Centralia coal plant that it's using to fund research on new sources of power, including mini- dams, PUD Commission President Dave Aldrich said. Regarding the Sunset Falls project, "I'm aware of the arguments against it," Aldrich said. "I haven't seen anything so far that's a fatal flaw. I'm most concerned about costs. If we didn't spend the money here, where else could we spend it, where could we get the most bang for the buck? That's always been the question."

Work in progress The South Fork Skykomish River is part of the state's Scenic Rivers System. Under this designation, development is discouraged but not prohibited. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a regional planning group based in Portland, lists that part of the Skykomish as an area that should remain free of dams. That designation in itself does not prevent development, but the FERC must take it into account in its decision. The PUD has asked the council to add a provision to its planning document that would "allow new hydropower in a protected area when beneficial and appropriate," when it can be shown that it's helpful to fish and wildlife. The provision was in the council's original documents and was taken out several years ago, spokesman John Harrison said. Klein and other PUD officials stress that no final Sunset Falls plan has been submitted or a decision made. "I ask people to hold judgment," Klein said, "until they see the final proposal."

(Never saw it that low! They need more reservoirs. You can’t conserve your way out of this drought!) No water means no power for Modesto area hydroelectric producers By J.N. Sbranti, February 8, 2014, modbee.com

This year’s devastating drought may cost Northern San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts more than $20 million in lost hydroelectric power. Severely reduced water flows from Sierra reservoirs means turbines won’t be generating nearly as much electricity as usual. That’s going to cause multimillion-dollar losses for the Modesto, Turlock, Merced, Oakdale and South San Joaquin irrigation districts, all of which use water flowing down from the mountains to produce energy. Modesto and Turlock, which sell electricity directly to customers, will have to spend millions more than usual to buy power from other sources this year, rather than using the relatively bargain-priced hydroelectricity they typically generate themselves. Other irrigation districts count on selling the energy their water supplies generate, but now they’re bracing for budget cuts because they’ll have less power to sell. Despite this weekend’s welcome wet weather, water in the region’s reservoirs – Don Pedro, New Melones and Lake McClure – 8

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu remains very low. During an average year, the Turlock Irrigation District generates about 400,000 megawatt hours of hydroelectricity from Don Pedro. About 150,000 megawatt hours are expected to be generated this year. That’s 37.5 percent of normal. “The drop in hydroelectric generating capacity will ultimately cost more money,” TID spokesman Calvin Curtin confirmed. The current estimate is “approximately $6 million in additional costs for 2014.” The Modesto Irrigation District’s financial hit is expected to be $3.5 million to $4 million, depending on how much it spends to find alternate sources of power, according to MID spokeswoman Melissa Williams. MID typically generates about 200,000 megawatt hours of hydropower at Don Pedro, but it expects 125,000 megawatt hours this year. That’s 62.5 percent of normal. Williams said the shortfall will force MID to buy more electric power on the short-term market, where prices vary

Hydropower is one of the least expensive and environmentally clean sources of electricity available, so replacing it can be financially painful. Electricity from gas-fired power plants, for example, is at least three times more expensive than hydropower in normal years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. MID and TID generate and purchase electricity from a variety of sources, and neither expects problems meeting customer demand for energy this year. “In a normal year, Don Pedro hydropower accounts for approximately 8 percent of MID’s resource mix. In a dry year, Don Pedro is about 4 percent of our resource mix,” Williams said. “MID maintains a diverse, balanced power resource mix. … (That diversity) is the best insurance for MID customers. It limits exposure to all kinds of risks – marketplace, legislative, regulatory, technological, and weather- and climate-related.” TID also assures its diverse energy-generating portfolio will enable it to meet the electricity needs of its customers. Nevertheless, Curtin encouraged everyone “to conserve both water and electricity and to make every effort to use both as efficiently as possible.

Merced’s circumstances The financial hit for the Merced, Oakdale and South San Joaquin districts will be different, and in some cases more acute. The drought’s timing couldn’t have been much worse for the Merced Irrigation District, where the hydroelectric power loss could approach $10 million this year. The Merced district has owned New Exchequer Hydroelectric Project on Lake McClure since 1967. But Pacific Gas and Electric Co. historically has received the benefit of all electricity produced there, explained Merced Irrigation District spokesman Mike Jensen. That deal with PG&E ends June 30. Merced will inherit the hydroelectric plant’s two generators on July 1, but Jensen said it will be “under the worst possible circumstances.” “With a near-empty reservoir and projected historic low inflows, the (Merced Irrigation District) will have minimal ability to produce hydroelectricity,” Jensen said. The New Exchequer generators are expected to “cease to operate sometime in May 2014, based on a low reservoir level.” That will leave only a small generator at Lake McSwain producing electricity. Jensen said his Merced district expects to produce fewer than 10,000 megawatt hours this year, compared with the average annual production of 330,000 megawatt hours. That’s 3 percent of normal. The loss will cost Merced “more than $5 million and less than $10 million,” Jensen said. So his district “has begun the process to temporarily increase water rates to get through this worst-case year. It expects to rely on reserves and is deferring capital improvement projects.” That district also provides electric power to customers in Merced County, but Jensen assured “electric rates will not be affected by any water rate increases.” He said that’s because hydroelectric generation is a component of the district’s water department budget, not its electric department budget. OID and SSJID Revenues from hydroelectric generation also have benefited irrigation water users in the Oakdale and South San Joaquin districts since 1958. Those districts jointly own the Tri-Dam Project, which generates hydropower at the Donnells, Beardsley and Tulloch dams. The Tri-Dam facilities will produce less power this year than at any time in their history, according to Steve Knell, OID’s general manager. That’s because water levels are so low. Example: Precipitation at Beardsley Lake this year has been about 16 percent of normal. “Income from hydro generation depends on both output and pricing,” Knell said. Tri-Dam’s current estimate is that it will generate $3.8 million 9

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu to $5.2 million in revenue each for OID and SSJID. But back in October when OID developed its annual budget, Knell said his district did not anticipate such a significantly dry winter and low hydroelectric output. So it budgeted for $9 million in revenue, which is about double what Oakdale may end up getting. SSJID, which serves Escalon, Ripon and Manteca, also will have to make due with millions less than usual.

(When the price starts with a “B”, some people get scared away! Pike Island Dam hydroelectric power plant permit pulled Feb 07, 2014. By Linda Harris, Legal Reporter, statejournal.com

The City of Oberlin, Ohio, and American Municipal Power have withdrawn their application for a permit for a hydroelectric plant at the Pike Island Locks and Dam north of Wheeling, just three months after Massachusetts-based Free Flow Power withdrew its competing application. Oberlin Electric Director Steve Dupee said they have already invested in a variety of renewable energy projects and couldn't justify another. "We're in our sixth year of declining power sales, so at the moment we don't have a need for an additional power supply," Dupee said. Oberlin had sponsored the preliminary permit application for AMP, its wholesale power provider. Dupee said the city has partnered with AMP on a variety of projects, including several other hydroelectric projects on the Ohio River as well as two wind projects, a solar project and three landfill gas projects, which use excess methane generated by landfill decay. "By the time two of the hydro projects come on line and start producing in 2015, 90 percent of the power in Oberlin will be from renewables," Dupee said. "That's been key to our community, certainly since I started working here." Dupee said it was AMP, in fact, that recommended they pull the plug on the Pike Island proposal, which would have involved a plant on the Ohio side capable of generating 256,000 megawatt-hours annually. "At AMP's recommendation, we did that," he said. "AMP is developing a number of other projects at various dam sites on the Ohio River, Oberlin is participating in a number of them. But we will not be proceeding as it relates to the Pike Island Dam." Free Flow Power, which originally proposed a 225,000 MWh project, had withdrawn its preliminary application Nov. 8, saying it didn't want to "interfere with the progress" of the AMP proposal.

AMP's Kent Carson said the timing just wasn't right to proceed with Pike Island, though he said the company remains committed to hydroelectric power. "We have four projects under construction right now," he said. "It was a decision by our board, along with Oberlin, that the timing wasn't right." Oberlin City Manager Eric Norenberg said when the city stepped up to be AMP's municipal sponsor four years ago, "we were actively engaged as a community in trying to seek additional renewable power." "We're already involved in a number of long-term commitments, and we remain committed to those projects," Dupee said. "But we don't want to continue to add commitments if we don't have the future load requirement out there." While the city's power portfolio relies heavily on landfill gas generation as well as hydroelectric power, Dupee said wind and solar projects add balance. "The city has actually been going through a transition of its power portfolio. We've tried to move away from large-scale fossil fuels that had been our driver ... but we have to do it in a way that provides diversity across our total energy requirements," he said. "Because wind generates more power in winter months and not-so-much in summer, we package it with solar and landfill gas. "We're taking a diverse look at various types of renewable resources that in some small way can meet our around-the-clock energy requirements." Carson, meanwhile, points out AMP's hydro plant under construction at the Willow

10

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu Island Locks & Dam near St. Marys is progressing on schedule, while its plant at the Belleville Locks and Dam "is very successful; it's been a good project for us" since it came on line in 1999.

He also noted AMP currently has four plants under construction along the Ohio River. "Obviously, we're committed to hydroelectric, both operationally now and for our plants under construction," he said. "We're still looking at a project at the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, but it would be built on the Ohio side of the river. It's currently under environmental review. we're hoping to get a license issued this year." Carson said the four projects under construction have a combined price tag of about $1.5 billion, although individual costs vary significantly. AMP has 129 members in seven states, though not all members participate in every project. "When we do projects, each one of those member communities makes a decision locally as to whether to participate and at what level," he said. "We arm them with information to make decisions, feasibility studies and beneficial use analyses produced by a third party."

(Guess this assumes the drought is over! PG&E had a good deal!) WATER AGENCY HOPES TO SELL HYDRO POWER TO BART By Jim Johnson, Herald Staff Writer, 02/10/2014, montereyherald.com

Seven months after a previous deal fell through, Monterey County Water Resources Agency officials now want to sell hydroelectric power from Nacimiento Dam to a joint powers agency that represents the Bay Area Rapid Transit system and others. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors are set to consider a proposed 20-year power purchase agreement with the Roseville-based Northern California Power Agency, a not-for-profit organization that represents more than a dozen agencies in Northern and Central California including BART, the Port of Oakland, Silicon Valley Power, and Alameda Municipal Power. County water agency General Manager David Chardavoyne said he's pleased to have reached an agreement with the agency after a deal with a Southern California city disintegrated last year following The Herald's reporting. "Given what happened last time, contracting with (a joint powers agency) is easier," Chardavoyne said. Chardavoyne said the deal would start April 1 and earn the water agency about $1 million per year when the Nacimiento power plant is fully operational and producing about 15,000 megawatt hours per year. When factoring in the value of renewable energy credits, Chardavoyne said the water agency will earn about $75 per megawatt hour, more than twice what it had been getting from PG&E since 1987, before it began exploring other potential purchasers. PG&E had been paying about $35 per megawatt hour, said Chardavoyne. The proposal also calls for hydro power rate to increase 1.5 percent each year, Chardavoyne said.

A report to the supervisors on the power purchase deal redacted the exact price per megawatt hour. Chardavoyne said the redaction was to avoid preempting the NCPA board's consideration of the agreement, but did not provide an unredacted version of the price list. The NCPA board approved the agreement on Jan. 23, and the water agency board approved the deal on Jan. 27. The increased revenue is expected to play a key role in helping restore the water agency to fiscal health after struggling for the past few years to balance its budgets. When water agency officials began looking for other hydro power purchasers last year, BART submitted one of the two top- ranked proposals, but agency officials decided to seek a deal with the city of Corona, which submitted the other top proposal. Chardavoyne said Corona was chosen because city officials indicated they were willing to move quicker on a potential agreement. However, after The Herald reported the terms of the deal, which included about the same price per megawatt hour, and supervisors approved the deal in a special session on June 28, Chardavoyne said Corona officials suddenly stopped communicating with water agency officials even after they repeatedly assured him the terms were acceptable. Chardavoyne later said he believed The Herald's reporting prompted a competing power provider to step in and undercut the water agency's price. Eventually, the water agency was forced to terminate the agreement in early August. Corona city officials never responded to The Herald's requests for comment. In the meantime, water agency officials hired an energy scheduling coordinator, Viasyn, Inc., to help sell its hydro power on the 11

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu California Independent System Operator Corporation power grid for about $20,000 per year, and then reached a short-term deal with Manhattan Beach-based 3 Phases Renewables until a long- term agreement could be reached. Chardavoyne and other water agency officials declined to reveal the price 3 Phases agreed to pay, arguing that doing so might ruin the deal and the information could be kept confidential under a "trade secrets" exemption from public disclosure rules. A report suggested the water agency expected to collect about $300,000 for about 4,500 megawatt hours, a price of about 67 cents per unit. Chardavoyne said the Nacimiento power plant is again able to operate at full capacity since the water agency spent about $1.4 million repairing it after it was damaged in mid-2012.

(If they took the drinking water from a privately-owned licensed reservoir, they would have to pay for the kWh’s lost! Maybe, there’s an argument here.) Hydropower new weapon in Alabama-Florida-Georgia water wars Consumption in Georgia raises power rates in Alabama, Jeff Sessions says Feb. 11, 2014, Written by Mary Orndorff Troyan , Gannett Washington Bureau, montgomeryadvertiser.com

Washington — Alabamians pay more Thurlow Dam on the Tallapoosa River in Tallassee for electricity when Georgia taps federal reservoirs for drinking water, according to an Alabama senator who is working a new angle in the tri-state water wars. Sen. Jeff Sessions, normally a champion of nuclear reactors and coal- fired power plants, has lately become a cheerleader for hydroelectricity. The Alabama Republican accuses Georgia of siphoning off so much water upstream that it’s hurting clean-energy customers downstream. “Alabama electric customers are paying for Atlanta’s excess water consumption,” Sessions complained to colleagues in a recent letter. Alabama and Florida have battled Georgia for more than two decades over how much water moves through two river basins they share. After Georgia won a big legal victory in 2011, the fight moved to Congress, where the Alabama and Florida delegations have become increasingly confrontational in challenging Georgia’s water consumption. While Florida officials calculate the economic damage that low-water flows do to the seafood industry in Apalachicola Bay, Sessions is holding up higher power bills in assessing the damage to Alabama. “When there’s less water to generate electricity at hydroelectric dams, this clean, renewable low-cost electricity is not available in a larger quantity,” Sessions said in a recent interview. “As a result, more expensive energy — perhaps produced by carbon fuels — will have to replace it.”

Last summer, Sessions summoned leaders of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water management officials from all three states before a congressional committee and angrily alleged that one Georgia county was taking more out of Lake Allatoona than its contract allowed. Brig. Gen. Donald Jackson, commander of the South Atlanta Division of the Army Corps, told lawmakers at the hearing he was aware Cobb County had exceeded its allowed usage of Lake Allatoona water in the past, and the Corps has notified county officials of the breaches. But he said the county is now in compliance. Lake Allatoona is at the top of the Alabama-Coosa- Tallapoosa River Basin, which supports dams, lakes, rivers and streams throughout most of central Alabama, including Montgomery. The state has argued for years that the Corps, which operates the federal reservoir, has been too stingy releasing water during dry periods and too deferential to metro Atlanta’s needs for drinking water. In the months following the hearing, Sessions tried to calculate how those extra withdrawals affect hydroelectric turbines in Alabama, which contribute cheaper energy to the power grid. An exact dollar figure hasn’t been identified, 12

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu but the government office that markets the hydroelectric power generated at reservoirs operated by the Corps confirmed that the extra withdrawals do affect prices. Hydropower and water supply contracts help pay for the operation of Corps reservoirs, so the more money the Corps collects from water supply contracts, the less money it has to raise selling hydropower. “If the Corps were to bill and receive additional water supply revenue from water supply users exceeding their contract withdrawal amount, additional water supply revenues would decrease preference (hydropower) customer rates,” according to the Southeastern Power Administration at the federal Energy Department. Those power customers in Alabama agree. “Hydro is a big part of our energy, so when we have a reduction of hydro in kilowatt hours generated, you have to replace it with very high-cost energy,” said Fred Clark, president and CEO of Alabama Municipal Electric Authority (AMEA). The authority serves customers in 11 Alabama cities, including Tuskegee and Opelika.

The AMEA tends to rely on hydroelectricity during peak hours of consumption, Clark said, like early morning and early evening. Without it, they turn to electricity from plants fueled by natural gas. The cost difference is significant primarily because in hydroelectric, the fuel is “provided by the Good Lord at zero cost,” Clark said. The water wars’ effect on hydroelectricity has been debated in the courts before. Settlement talks in one of the cases about a decade ago revealed that Southeastern utilities wanted $37 million to make up for their lost hydropower, plus changes in the Corps’ management of the reservoirs to prevent further losses in the future. That agreement was never implemented, said Alan Williford, president of Southeastern Federal Power Customers, a group of electric cooperatives and municipal power companies representing more than 6 million power customers in the region. “We want to do what we can to minimize the impact to our ratepayers,” Williford said. He said his organization will update its financial impact estimates after the Corps writes new water control manuals for the federal reservoirs and establishes new contracts for water withdrawals. Sessions has similar concerns about Georgia’s withdrawals from Lake Lanier, which is on a different river basin than Lake Allatoona. Georgia officials say they’re not to blame. Atlanta consumes less water per capita than other cities, and Georgia reservoirs comprise only a small portion of the total water storage capacity in the river basins, they told Congress. “Georgia has gone to great lengths to become a responsible custodian of water resources and has requested minimal operational changes to ensure the viability of its communities and users,” Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson said. Sessions said he hopes a public debate over hydropower will lead to a settlement among the governors of Alabama, Georgia and Florida. “Maybe it will help begin refocusing all three states on how to reach some sort of accord,” Sessions said.

(The whole west is bone dry! There’s no snow in them thar’ hills!) DROP IN HYDRO PRODUCTION FORESEEN By Steven Johnson | ECT Staff Writer, February 11th, 2014, ect.coop

A lingering drought in several western states is bad news for hydroelectric production this year, a government analysis said.

Drought conditions are likely to persist or intensify through the end of April in parts of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California and Nevada. That’s a particular concern for the Northwest states, where utilities might have to rely on fossil fuel generation to meet electricity needs, if hydro generation continues to fall. “Absent an abundant supply of hydroelectric output, wholesale power prices may be increasingly determined by the cost of natural gas generation in the region,” the Energy Information Administration said in an analysis of Northwest hydro conditions. Electric

13

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu cooperatives in the Northwest rely heavily on low-cost hydropower marketed by Bonneville Power Administration. Since Oct. 1, precipitation totals across the Columbia River basin have been about half of their normal 30-year average, according to data from the federal Northwest River Forecast Center. The center said about 83.5 million acre-feet of water will flow from the mountains in the Northwest into the river system. That would be the 11th lowest total since recordkeeping started in 1960. Because of the dry conditions, the center downgraded its forecast for runoff at the Dalles Dam, which spans the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington, by 11 percent, compared with an analysis it issued a month ago. EIA said forecasts for the water supply at nearly every major water gauge in California and Nevada were less than half of average as of Feb. 5. California Gov. Jerry Brown declared a drought emergency in the state last month, though a representative of the California grid operator said the drought has not yet affected system reliability. “We do not have a forecast for blackouts this summer as a result of the drought. It doesn’t mean we’re not keeping a close eye on it,” said Stephanie McCorkle of the California Independent System Operator.

(Excerpts, That’re keeping the good stuff.) FIRSTENERGY COMPLETES SALE OF ELEVEN HYDROELECTRIC POWER STATIONS TO HARBOR HYDRO HOLDINGS, LLC Press release, Feb. 12, 2014, marketwatch.com

Akron, Ohio, Feb. 12, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- FirstEnergy Corp. FE +0.58% has completed the sale of 11 hydroelectric power stations to Harbor Hydro Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of LS Power Equity Partners II, LP, for approximately $395 million. The two companies originally announced the sales agreement in September 2013. The hydroelectric power stations included in this sale are owned by FirstEnergy Generation, LLC, Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC and Green Valley Hydro, LLC and have a total capacity of 527 megawatts, which represents less than 3 percent of FirstEnergy's generation fleet output. The sale includes: Seneca Pumped Storage (451 MW) in Warren, Pa.; Allegheny Lock & Dam 5 (6 MW) in Schenley, Pa.; Allegheny Lock & Dam 6 (7 MW) in Ford City, Pa.; Lake Lynn (52 MW) in Lake Lynn, Pa.; Millville (3 MW) in Millville, W. Va.; Dam 4 (2 MW) in Shepherdstown, W. Va.; Dam 5 (1.2 MW) in Falling Waters, W.Va.; Warren (750 kW) in Front Royal, Va.; Luray (1.6 MW) in Luray, Va.; and Shenandoah and Newport (860 kW and 1.4 MW, respectively) in Shenandoah, Va. The 35 current employees at these power stations are being retained by the new owner.

FirstEnergy subsidiary Allegheny Generating Company continues to own 1,200 MW of the 3,000 MW Bath County Pumped-Storage Hydro facility in Warm Springs, Va. In addition, FirstEnergy subsidiary Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) continues to own 200 MW of the 400 MW Yards Creek Pumped-Storage Hydro facility in Blairstown, N.J. ------.

(Too many fingers in the pie!) Local hydro projects may get boost By David Hurst, tribdem.com, February 12, 2014

A Colorado company wants to help the Cambria Somerset Authority jump-start a long-planned effort to create small hydroelectric operations at two area dams. CSA officials said they are in early discussions with Boulder, Colo.-based Gravity Renewables about the possibility of several “partnership” options that could put electricity-generating hydroelectric turbines at Quemahoning Reservoir and Peggy’s Run. Given the lengthy and expensive federal process required to get small hydro projects off the ground, a little help might be a good thing, CSA Chairman Jim Greco said. “This is all still very early in the (discussion) process, but it could be a positive step,” Greco said. “It certainly won’t hurt to explore it.” The CSA has been working toward developing hydroelectric generating stations at its three dam sites for years. The authority’s energy consultant, Maine-based Kleinschmidt Associates, has been working on designs for potential hydroelectric stations at the Que, Peggy’s Run and a smaller effort at Hinckston Dam. The firm’s 2012 study for the CSA indicated the projects would cost $5.2 million to build but would generate 14

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu $534,000 yearly in revenue. Kleinschmidt is now in the early stages of moving the project through a multiyear federal permit process, but CSA manager Earl Waddell said the consultant referred the authority to Gravity in recent weeks.

“The company has extensive experience in small hydros and are operating a few currently,” Waddell told the board in a report last week. “They are also in the permitting process on a couple new hydros.” Gravity’s website describes the company as an investor-backed owner, operator and developer of small U.S. hydroelectric power plants. An online portfolio shows it operates several hydro projects in North Carolina and New York. The largest, the Saxapahaw Hydro Project, generates enough energy to power 592 homes a year. Three other projects are in development, including one at an Army Corps of Engineers site in eastern Kentucky, the company’s website shows. Once operational, it could power nearly 3,000 homes a year, a project description adds. Waddell said Gravity has only expressed interest in the CSA’s proposed Peggy’s Run and Que sites, whose flows would produce most of the estimated 1.8 megawatts of annual energy the project’s owners could then sell to utility companies. If the negotiations continue, project ownership would likely be a main talking point. “There are a lot of options. We could own it. They could own it. They could manage it and we could retain ownership or we could share it,” Waddell said. “Even if it was their project, they’d be buying the water from us.” “But all of this is very preliminary,” he added. A lot can change when you start talking about numbers and dollar figures.” Kleinschmidt’s studies are being sent to Gravity for review, Waddell said. Gravity will review the information and respond with a proposal, he said. At that point, a meeting likely would be scheduled with the CSA’s property and finance committee, which is comprised of Greco and fellow members Jim Edwards, William Hoppel and Dave Mankamyer.

(If you put your head in the sand, you can’t see where you’re going!) TIDAL SHOCK: COLORADO DEMS SAY HYDROPOWER NOT RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE February 12, 2014 by ColoradoPeakPolitics, coloradopeakpolitics.com

Democrats’ war on rural Colorado is nothing more than a smash-and-grab job for their “green energy” cronies already fattened-up by government subsidies. How else can we interpret what The Colorado Observer reported - that under the rural renewable energy mandate passed last year hydroelectric power is not considered a source of renewable energy? While we strongly disagree and think it is an unfair dictate for Denver Democrats to jack-up the prices on rural Coloradans’ electricity rates, we know that the enviro masses think they are doing the right thing by crusading for clean energy. But, legislators…. With this new revelation, in which water and hydropower have been grouped with oil, gas, and coal, we can only see this bill as a way for Democrats to fatten-up their environmentalist cronies off the backs of hard-working, rural Coloradans.

As Valerie Richardson writes: Democrats rejected a Republican-sponsored bill last week to add all hydropower to the state’s renewable-energy standard, which includes Senate Bill 252, the 2013 law requiring rural power providers to meet a 20 percent green-energy threshold by 2020. State Rep. Lori Saine (R- Firestone) said the defeat shows “that last year’s disastrous SB 252 is about preferred energy, not responsible energy.”

… The 8-4 party-line vote… came after advocates of wind and solar power testified against the bill, saying their industries would struggle if they had to compete with hydropower, which already supplies 23 percent of the electricity to rural coops. [the Peak emphasis] Cronyism at its worst. Let us be clear – if legislators really cared about the environment, hydroelectricity would be included in renewable energy. The fat-cat enviros’ last defense of creating jobs smacks of using spoons over shovels. If they wanted to create jobs at rural Colorado’s expense, why the need to dress it up in green energy? Now, every word a Democrat uttered defending this bill under the guise of slowing global warming rings hollow, and their cries of fighting for the environment 15

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu smack of disingenuous doublespeak as all they cared about was taking money from rural Colorado to stuff in the pockets of windbags and the sun-stroked.

(It’s about time!) Colorado bill to ease hydroelectric development passes House Today February 13, 2914, blogs.denverpost.com

Colorado House of Representatives approved HB14-1030, legislation to streamline development of small hydropower in Colorado, by a vote of 62-3. HB14-1030 streamlines state environmental review by directing the Colorado Energy Office to facilitate project review by Colorado state agencies in a timely manner commensurate with federal agency timelines, making it possible for a project to simultaneously clear federal and state review. The bill also streamlines the electrical inspection process, calling upon the State Electrical Board to treat small hydro the same way that small wind is treated for inspection purposes. The bill was introduced in the House by Reps. Mitsch Bush and Coram, with additional sponsorship from Reps. Fischer, Sonnenberg and Vigil. Senator sponsorship includes Senators Schwartz and Roberts as well as Hodge. Witnesses testifying in support of the bill at a February 5th hearing included representatives from COSHA, American Rivers and the Colorado Energy Office. As a next step, the bill will be considered by the Colorado Senate. Additional information, including COSHA testimony in support of the bill, is available on the COSHA homepage at www.smallhydro.co

(Hydropower for sell!) MILL RESTART PLAN INCLUDES SELLING HYDROPOWER February 13, 2014, mainebiz.biz

The owners of the idled Great Northern Paper mill in East Millinocket want to sell hydropower from Penobscot River dams owned by another company back to the power grid, opening a new revenue stream amid tough times. The Bangor Daily News reported representatives from mill owner Cate Street Capital met with Gov. Paul LePage's staff and state lawmakers to discuss changing a 2002 law that limited the 48-megawatt dam system owned by Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners to producing power only for the East Millinocket paper mill. Verso's paper mill in Bucksport and others in the state generate electricity and make paper. Company officials also met with members of Maine's congressional delegation Wednesday. Those lawmakers did not release details of that discussion. George Gervais, commissioner of the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development, told the newspaper that the governor's staff and lawmakers are now working on a bill that would allow the mill to work out a deal with Brookfield to sell power back to the grid. The company said it plans to bring back some of the 212 workers it laid off Feb. 6 by May 1.

MILL RACE CANAL TO BECOME SOURCE OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER wndu.com, Feb 13, 2014, By: NewsCenter 16, Courtesy: Jennifer Shephard/ Elkhart Truth

Goshen, IN, The Mill Race Canal may soon be a source, once again, of energy in Michiana. After more than a year of negotiations, the Goshen City Commission has reached an agreement with Falling Waters, Inc. that will allow the company to generate hydroelectricity. However The Elkhart Truth reports that it will take several years to get the appropriate permits and finish construction at the powerhouse on the north end of the canal. Eventually, Falling Waters plans to sell the electricity they create to NIPSCO.

16

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu Water: (Now, here’s an interesting perspective! Never mind that there’s no way you’ll ever get water from the NW! It’s at least a good laugh!) DITCH THE RAILROAD FOR A WATER CANAL INSTEAD: LETTERS 02/10/14, dailybulletin.com

Ditch the railroad for a water canal instead California’s main problem is water. Gov. Jerry Brown’s vision of the inland canals and wetlands in back-bay San Francisco isn’t where he should be looking. As with the not-so-fast Central Valley railroad being basically a massive boondoggle: There’s a much more massive, not-so-slow surge of free water available; it’s just not in California. The Columbia River Gorge, every day, spills thousands of acre-feet of fresh clean water out into the Pacific Ocean, when with just a touch of Jerry Brown magic, it could be heading our way. For about a century and a half, L.A. has taken its water and hydroelectric power from the Hoover (nee Boulder) Dam, which in its inception (before Roosevelt’s New Deal) was but another massive political boondoggle, but with the masses of unemployed laborers teaming up in Black Canyon of the Colorado, the dam began to take shape and that boondoggle wound up supplying us Southern Californians with fresh, clean water and all of the hydroelectric power that our industries-to-be would need for the next 100 years. Which brings us to where we are today: The mighty Colorado River and its headwaters in Lake Mead are getting to be bone-dry. If we think we need water, where are we going to get it if the Colorado River dries up? This is precisely what is happening. It’s time Ol’ Jerry and the governors of the other states get their heads together and give us a really good boondoggle which we can live with — a big canal from the Columbia River Gorge to Lake Mead. — Arthur M. McAlister, Rancho Cucamonga

 

Other Stuff: (Solar is too intermitant to replace dependable power!) CAN SOLAR FILL THE HYDROPOWER GAP DURING CALIFORNIA’S DROUGHT? By Geoffrey Styles on Feb 12, 2014, energytrendsinsider.com

Solar Is Growing, But Hydro Remains Much Bigger A tweet this morning sent me on a fact-checking expedition into state-level electricity statistics. The subject was a San Jose Mercury article with the unwieldy title, “Drought threatens California’s hydroelectricity supply, but solar makes up the gap.” The article’s quote from the head of the California Energy Commission implied that solar power additions were sufficient to make up for any shortfall in hydro, historically one of the state’s biggest energy sources. My gut reaction was to be skeptical: Solar has been growing rapidly, especially in California, but even with nearly 3,000 MW of photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal generation in place, it’s still well short of the scale of California’s 10,000 MW of hydropower dams, especially when you consider that the latter aren’t constrained to operate only in daylight hours. However, I also know better than to respond to a claim like this without checking the data on how much energy these installations actually deliver.

The Comparison Has Shifted In the Last Year

17

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu My first look at the Energy Information Administration’s annual generation data seemed to confirm my suspicions. In 2012 California’s hydropower facilities produced 26.8 million megawatt-hours (MWh), while grid-connected solar generated just 1.4 million MWh. However, when I looked at more recent monthly data, the mismatch was much smaller, due to solar’s strong growth in the Golden State. For example, in October 2013 California solar power generated 435 MWh, or nearly 24% of hydro’s 1.8 million MWh. The potential drought benefits of solar stand out even more sharply when we compare the growth in solar generation to the change in output from hydro. On a January-November basis — December 2013 data isn’t yet available — solar electricity in the state increased by 1.5 million MWh, compared to the same period in 2012, while hydropower fell by nearly 1.8 million MWh. That added solar power won’t provide grid operators the same flexibility as the lost hydropower, because of its cyclical nature, but it is clearly now growing at a rate and scale that makes it a serious contributor.

The Benefits of Installing Solar Where It’s Sunny I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that solar in California is still nowhere near the scale of the state’s biggest electricity source, natural gas generation, which in that same 11-month period produced over 93 million MWh, or 56% of the state’s non-imported electricity supply. It’s mainly gas that is filling the roughly 18 million MWh shortfall left by the early retirement of Southern California Edison’s San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station last summer, and if the state’s drought worsens, gas will be the main backup for further declines in hydropower. Yet solar’s growing contribution to the state’s energy mix provides a clear demonstration that while generous state and federal policies can make installing PV economically attractive nearly anywhere, it’s abundant sunshine like California’s that makes it a useful energy source, especially when drought conditions reduce the output of other, water-dependent energy supplies.

18

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu iThis compilation of articles and other information is provided at no cost for those interested in hydropower, dams, and water resources issues and development, and should not be used for any commercial or other purpose. Any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment from those who have an interest in receiving this information for non-profit and educational purposes only.