Some Dam – Hydro Newsnpdp.stanford.edu/.../other_materials/july_2009_some_dam_hydro_ne… ·...

1 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu

i 7/03/2009

“Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: J. Lohr South Ridge Syrah 2005 “No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.” - - Thomas Jefferson OOOttthhheeerrr SSStttuuuffffff::: (Finally, a bit of truth about the costs of wind power, but no mention of hydropower) Wind Energy Infrastructure Would Raise Price 20%, Pew Says By Daniel Whitten, Bloomberg.com, June 23, 2009 June 23 (Bloomberg) -- Harnessing and delivering enough wind power to make it a significant source of energy in the U.S. may raise its cost by 20 percent, according to the Pew Center for Climate Change. Building transmission lines would cost as much as $4 billion a year, and managing its variability would add further to its price, the Pew Center said in a report today. Prices would still be competitive with other energy sources if the U.S. approves legislation to limit greenhouse gases, the group said. With greenhouse-gas curbs in place, power from wind would be “more expensive than that from natural gas, but in many cases still less expensive than that from new nuclear or coal with carbon capture and storage,” Pew said in the report. A climate and energy bill being considered by the U.S. House would mandate that 15 percent of power come from renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass by 2025. The legislation also would require utilities that use coal and natural gas to buy permits for their emissions of carbon dioxide. President Barack

SSoommee DDaamm –– HHyyddrroo NNeewwss aanndd OOtthheerr SSttuuffff

Quote of Note:

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/22250.htmlhttp://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Thomas_Jefferson/


Obama has set a goal for the nation to get 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. “Acting now to regulate carbon through a cap-and-trade system and changing the way we plan and manage our electricity grid can help to make these cleaner energy sources a more significant part of the climate solution,” Eileen Claussen, president of the Arlington-based group, said in a statement. Wind energy now costs between 9 and 12 cents per kilowatt hour, solar power costs between 24 cents and 59 cents, and natural gas ranges from 5 to 10 cents, the report says. (Maybe they don’t want to allow hydro to be a renewable) RENEWABLE ENERGY REPORT IGNORES SOUTHEAST ALASKA PALIN ADVISER: 'I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY AREN'T ON THE REPORT' By Pat Forgey | JUNEAU EMPIRE, 6/25/2009 A proposed electrical intertie between Southeast Alaska and the western power grid has been inexplicably left off of a new report by the Western Governor's Association aimed at promoting the region's renewable energy resources. The report, issued by the association June 15, is a listing of both untapped renewable energy resources throughout the West, as well as the new transmission lines that would be needed to develop them. Southeast Alaska's huge hydroelectric potential is left off the report, however. "I don't know why they aren't on the report, but that doesn't mean they don't exist," said Steven Haagenson, energy advisor to Gov. Sarah Palin. The state of Alaska pays dues of $36,000 a year to be part of the Western Governor's Association. The report it issued, called the Western Renewable Energy Zones Initiative, was developed by western states and provinces between Arizona and Montana in the U.S. and British Columbia and Alberta in Canada. Those states are served by the grid known as the Western Interconnection, separate from other grids in central Alaska, Texas, Quebec and the East Coast. Haagenson said that Palin has announced a goal of getting 50 percent of the state's power from renewable energy by 2025, and meeting that goal will mean developing Southeast's abundant hydroelectric potential. Southeast Alaska needs to be able to export power to develop its untapped hydroelectric resources economically, say long-time proponents of expanding low-cost power across the region. A series of interties between communities within the region is underway which will work to provide backup power to communities that already have hydro, as well as bringing cheap power to those now burning expensive diesel for their power. Really inexpensive power means taking advantage of economies of scale, and because even the largest communities in the region use relatively small amounts of power, that means finding a way to export it, said Ernie Christian, vice mayor of Wrangell and a member of its energy committee. "We believe the AK-BC intertie is the key to developing the Southeast energy grid," he said. Southeast had 3,000 megawatts of resources available, but has so far developed only 200 megawatts. The 78-megawatt Snettisham Power Project that powers Juneau is the largest in the region. Christian was disappointed the AK-BC intertie was not considered by the Western Governor's Association as a new national emphasis on renewable energy, as this could be a good time to advance the project. "I can see us contributing to the nation's energy needs, because once we are on the grid we can export that power anywhere," he said. Getting the intertie in place means not just bringing power to the BC border, but working with Canadian provincial, First Nations and local communities to see that there is transmission capability from there to the Western Interconnection. A the same time, big power projects have to be developed in Southeast to provide power to export, but those projects won't begin until an intertie is available. Juneau's Duff Mitchell, business development manager for Cascade Creek LLC, a private company hoping to develop hydro projects in Southeast Alaska, has spent years trying to put those pieces together. "I see the AK-BC intertie as the Southeast Alaska equivalent to the natural gas line - it's going to create green power jobs and prosperity," Mitchell said. Karen Deike, spokeswoman for the Western Governor's Association, said it is likely that the energy report did not include Alaska because it is not part of the Western Interconnection. Christian said Wrangell has invited Palin to visit, and they hope to explain the need for the intertie then. (There are so many articles on this one, so I picked the shortest one. You either hate it or not. Not a single person who voted for or against this bill has read it or really knows what’s in it. Think about it! Sausage making makes more sense even if the intention here is good. Why are we paying for forestation in foreign countries? There are some tidbits in the legislstion that do help hydro developers.) House passes landmark climate change bill By Edward Felker | June 27, 2009, The Washington Times

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Eileen+Claussen&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/ed-felker/


The House on Friday narrowly approved a sweeping climate change bill backed by Democratic leaders and President Obama. By a vote of 219-212, the chamber approved a bill that, starting in 2012, would limit carbon dioxide pollution, require increased usage of renewable energy and require that consumer products be more energy efficient. Only eight Republicans voted for the bill, and 44 Democrats defected from their party to vote against it. Earlier in the day, the House rejected a Republican alternative to the Democratic climate bill. The proposal, defeated 172-255, would have scuttled a proposed cap-and-trade system to cut greenhouse gases. The focus on climate change legislation now shifts to the Senate, where Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada wants to bring a bill to the floor by mid-September. To do so, however, he will have to overcome regional divisions within his party over renewable energy and over the cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions. The House bill would, for the first time: - Force cuts in domestic greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 percent in 2020 and 83 percent in 2050 through an expensive cap-and-trade permit system on heavy emitters and the oil and gas industry. - Mandate greater renewable energy usage. - Boost appliance and building efficiency standards. - Pay for domestic and overseas plant and forest conservation. The outcome was a victory for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, both of California, who spent most of the day persuading reluctant lawmakers to put aside their concerns and vote for the bill. Passage also gave a boost to Mr. Obama, who personally lobbied wavering Democrats over 24 hours to ensure passage. Mrs. Pelosi said the measure was about creating jobs. Rep. John A. Boehner, the House Republican leader, said the bill was rushed. While it appeared uncertain Friday whether they would have the votes to pass the bill, Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Waxman prevailed on a key procedural test early in the day. A motion to begin debate passed by 217-205, and a handful of known supporters of the final bill missed that procedural vote. Still, a group of 30 Democrats opposed the motion, an illustration of why arm-twisting continued throughout the day. Many lawmakers feared they would be punished by their constituents for voting for a bill that eventually could increase the cost of electricity and gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that households will have to spend between $80 and $340 more a year on energy if the legislation becomes law. That was far less than the $3,000 or more per year cited by opponents. Passage of the bill was a setback for Republicans, who, alongside business and oil-and-gas groups, fought the measure. Republicans repeatedly called the legislation "Nancy Pelosi's national energy tax" and said it would cause huge job losses and higher energy prices. "The jobs will go to China and the economy will go to hell," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican. "The truth about this bill is that it raises taxes, kills jobs and will lead to more government intrusion," said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia. Members of the Democratic coalition behind the bill defended it as a job creator and a boon to needed environmentalism. Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan, the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the bill was a better alternative than doing nothing, because a 2007 Supreme Court decision declared carbon dioxide a public health threat. He said federal regulators might soon decide on their own to demand cutbacks on pollutants that cause global warming. He said the court's decision, which prompted an endangerment finding by the EPA this year that sets the stage for future government regulation of greenhouse gases, is a warning for all lawmakers. "If you want something to shudder about, I beg you to take a look at that. Because, we will see better than 300 different regulations from federal and state bodies in charge of this," Mr. Dingell said. Rep. Eliot L. Engel, New York Democrat, who was presumed to be undecided, declared his support for the bill, despite not winning provisions to encourage the production of more flexible-fuel automobiles. Rep. Bobby L. Rush, Illinois Democrat, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said he would vote for the bill because it included provisions to protect the poor from higher utility costs and would encourage renewable-energy jobs in low-income inner cities. "This is a great bill, this is a good bill, this is a bill that should pass," he said. Mr. Waxman spent time on the House floor assuaging the concerns of Democratic lawmakers. He also discussed plans to revisit the bill's regulation of carbon trading with House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota Democrat. (Don’t you sometimes wish we had the smarts of our good friends to the North when it comes to energy policy? There is some hydro in the legislation, but nothing close to what should be given the huge amount of undeveloped hydro. What the Canadians don’t realize is that hydro not only has to battle the environmental side, they also don’t have friends in the wind and solar industries. Those industries think it’s a competition and to hell with what’s good for the Country.) Shocking gap in U.S. energy bill Calgary Herald, June 29, 2009

http://npdp.stanford.edu/


No matter where one stands on the broader policy initiatives set out in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, there's no debating that hydro-electricity is a renewable and clean energy source. All the more baffling is its omission from the House's version of a renewable electricity mandate. The 1,200-page landmark bill called Waxman-Markey excludes both hydro power and nuclear power from standards set for utilities to bring down their carbon footprint. The omission of nuclear is understandable since uranium, although plentiful now, will someday reach the end of its life cycle. Hydro power, though, uses turbines and the force of rushing water. This predominant source of electricity in Canada is a proven, nonpolluting renewable and effective source of electricity. It's even recognized by environmentalists as a sustainable energy solution. Hydro's exclusion from the bill is both illogical and "astounding," as Environment Minister Jim Prentice described it during a recent meeting with the Herald editorial board. Waxman-Markey sets aggressive targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, primarily by creating a cap-and-trade system to put a price on carbon, but also through standards requiring states to generate or purchase 15 per cent of their electricity from renewable-energy sources. Renewable energy is defined as wind power, solar and some biomass. Such a narrow definition makes the targets unnecessarily more difficult to reach, when Canada could be playing a major role by offering a cheap and clean solution. "It doesn't make any sense," Prentice said. "Accessing Canadian hydro may be the greenest alternative and the lowest cost alternative. . . . Our electricity system in North America is developed on a North-South grid where Canadian electricity has been a salable commodity." Canada is abundant in hydro, with major projects mainly in Quebec and Labrador, but also in British Columbia and Manitoba. Even in Alberta, where water isn't the mighty resource it is elsewhere, companies pursue the possibility of hydro projects, for example along the Slave River. Hydro power, while not perfect, is hardly controversial. Fish get caught in the turbines, and the dams can act as barriers to the migration of organisms, but hydro power is a renewable energy, emissions-free source that is much more reliable and plentiful than wind and solar power. The Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, lists it as a clean and renewable solution. "In Canada, hydroelectric generation can provide clean electricity and a source of income to many remote communities that would otherwise be forced to rely on diesel generation," says the Pembina's web-site. "Hydroelectric energy is a proven technology, and hydroelectric stations have a long life." If the point of the mandate is truly to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, hydro power must be included as an acceptable source of energy. Prentice is optimistic he can gain a provision on the renewable portfolio standards for electricity. And after meeting with him, it's clear he is the person for the job. The minister knows the file inside and out, has the crucial numbers at the ready, and presents a rational case for an American domestic policy that lines up with the interests of a continental, North-South electricity grid. A number of amendments to the Waxman-Markey have already been passed in the House. At least one more concession is needed, to correct this bill's flawed interpretation of renewable electricity. Zoi Confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at DOE Washington, D.C., United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] - June 30, 2009 Cathy Zoi has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate for the post of Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy (DOE). The National Hydropower Association (NHA) congratulated Zoi and said that she will play a key role in carrying out President Obama’s goals to mitigate climate change, improve energy efficiency, and deploy renewable energy technologies. “NHA congratulates Ms. Zoi on her confirmation to this critical energy post,” said Linda Church Ciocci, NHA executive director. “As America forges a new energy policy, conventional hydropower and new marine and instream hydrokinetic technologies will help advance the nation’s economic, energy, and environmental goals NHA stands ready to work with Assistant Secretary Zoi in building America’s energy future.” Scott Sklar, who heads strategic clean energy policy and market firm, The Stella Group, and sits on the Boards of Directors of several national clean energy non-profits, labeled the choice as "excellent" when Zoi was first nominated. "I know of very few people with the diverse and exceptional background of Cathy Zoi in clean energy," Sklar said. “Her technical, management and market experience makes her an ideal choice for Assistant Secretary of U.S. DOE's EERE program that has grown twice in size and must be focused on both aggressive science and deployment." In January 2007, Cathy Zoi joined the Alliance for Climate Protection as its founding CEO. Established and chaired by former Vice President Al Gore, the Alliance is a non-profit organization spearheading a multi-year, multimillion dollar effort aimed at persuading Americans of both the urgency and solvability of global warming. From 2003 until joining the Alliance, Zoi served as Group Executive Director at the Bayard Group. Cathy was Chief of Staff in the White House Office on

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://www.hydro.org/http://www.thestellagroupltd.com/


Environmental Policy in the Clinton-Gore administration, where she managed the team working on environmental and energy issues (1993-1995). She was also a manager at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency where she pioneered the Energy Star Program.

DDDaaammmsss 'Very fast' seepage found at dam upriver from Kent, Renton, Auburn, Tukwila The Army Corps of Engineers is lowering the water level stored behind the troubled Howard Hanson Dam — which provides flood protection for the Green River Valley cities of Kent, Renton, Auburn and Tukwila — after finding signs that water is moving through an earthen abutment "very fast," the agency announced this morning. By Keith Ervin, Seattle Times staff reporter, June 23, 2009

The Army Corps of Engineers is lowering the water level stored behind the troubled Howard Hanson Dam after finding signs that water is moving through an earthen abutment "very fast," the agency announced this morning. The dam, which provides flood protection for the Green River Valley cities of Kent, Renton, Auburn and Tukwila, has been under intense study since January, when engineers found several "anomalies" that suggested excessive amounts of water might be seeping through the right abutment and causing erosion. A recent dye test showed water moving quickly through the abutment at higher-than-expected levels. "This phenomenon continues to be troubling," Hanson

Dam program manager Mamie Brouwer was quoted in a news release. "These tests indicate that there are preferential flow paths within the natural materials of the right abutment that could lead to internal erosion ... if water is held at these higher elevations for extended periods of time." The Corps, which operates the dam and recently raised the water level to 1,169 feet above sea level, is now lowering the water level to a safer 1,155 feet — below the normal summer level for supporting steelhead and salmon runs and providing drinking water for Tacoma, Kent and Covington. The agency is hiring contractors to study the geology of the abutment, install a "grout curtain" to reduce seepage, and drill additional vertical and horizontal drains in the abutment before the next rainy season in November. Those measures are expected to cost more than $20 million. Dam-safety experts from around the country are advising the Corps on those interim measures and possible long-term solutions. Until permanent repairs are made, the dam is likely to be operated to hold less water than in the past, increasing the risk of flooding in the industrialized cities downstream. Seepage through the right abutment — built on soil and rock from a landslide that changed the river's course 10,000 years ago — has caused concerns for much of the dam's 48-year life. In 1965, after excessive seepage was detected, the Corps of Engineers installed a drainage tunnel with wells and horizontal drains. In 2002, a grout curtain was installed to allow water storage at higher levels during the summer. The anomalies found in the abutment in January were higher-than-expected water levels in the abutment; heavy, muddy water flow in one drainage well; and a 10-foot-wide, 6-foot-deep depression in the soil. The reservoir behind the dam, at its highest level since it went into operation in 1961, was quickly drawn down to a lower level in response those disturbing observations. The water level has been raised slowly over recent weeks as engineers and scientists have studied water flow through the abutment. Bolstering the right abutment and determining how much water the dam can hold next winter are among the Corps of Engineers' top priorities nationally, district officials say. Officials with the valley cities, King County and the Corps have been urging businesses and residents in the Green River Valley to obtain flood insurance and have drawn up plans for informing and evacuating residents in the event of flooding. "We don't want to alarm

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://search.nwsource.com/search?searchtype=cq&sort=date&from=ST&byline=Keith%20Ervin


the public, but at the same time we have a problem," Tukwila Public Works Director and flood incident commander Jim Morrow said in a recent interview. "The Corps has done such a marvelous job since the dam was built of controlling floods, people who live in the valley or have a business in the valley have no memory that that's a floodplain."

Seepage found at dam upstream from Walla Walla THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 26, 2009, Seattle Post-Intelligencer WALLA WALLA, Wash. -- The Army Corps of Engineers is taking safety measures at a diversion dam with seepage problems upstream from Walla Walla. Corps district spokesman Joe Saxon says failure of the Mill Creek dam would prevent flood control on the creek, which flows through the southeast Washington town. The dam diverts excess water into a storage reservoir, Bennington Lake. Engineers have found piping, erosion that creates unseen voids or pipes within the foundation of the dam. So far, though, Saxon says there's no indication of any imminent emergency. Last year a study found bigger problems with a separate dam that impounds Bennington Lake. Dam safety officer Mark Lidgren says a long-term fix for those problems will likely cost about $100 million. No cost estimate has been developed for fixing the diversion dam. New Designs for Making Old Dams Safer By Don Comis, USDA.gov, June 26, 2009

A group of Agricultural Research Service (ARS) hydraulic engineers are helping to rehabilitate aging small dams across the country. Efforts are underway to upgrade existing auxiliary spillways or build new spillways for these dams, especially in Oklahoma. These upgraded or new spillways meet current dam safety standards and will increase the useful lives of the dams. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has helped build more than 11,000 earthen dams over the years as part of its Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Operations Program. These dams serve many purposes, but the primary purpose is flood control.

Since the program began in 1944, ARS Hydraulic Engineering Research Unit (HERU) engineers in Stillwater, Okla., have partnered with NRCS in the development of design standards for the dams. When ARS hydraulic engineer Sherry L. Hunt and her colleagues were asked recently by NRCS to help evaluate and design retrofitted Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) stepped spillways for dams in Georgia and North Dakota, they found the same technology also can help increase flow capacity on many of these dams across the country. So they developed generalized criteria for designs that could be used anywhere in the country. Compacting concrete with a roller is a fast way to make a tough surface. With the many changes that have occurred over the years—including deterioration, changes in upstream and downstream land use and population, and changes in dam safety laws—the research by the HERU engineers with this technology is once again helping NRCS, which has the lead for design and construction of these earthen dams. The ARS engineers conduct model studies both indoors at small scales and also outdoors at large scales. This summer Hunt will begin using a large-scale flume outdoors that is the actual size of the RCC spillways being designed for these dams. ARS engineers will use the data from the water flow on their experimental spillways to develop design and construction guidelines. ARS is the principal intramural scientific research agency in USDA. Coal ash update: TVA releases its report on disaster by Ken Ward Jr., Charleston Gazette, June 27, 2009 The Tennessee Valley Authority today released its consultant’s report on the “root cause” of the December failure of a coal-ash impoundment in East Tennessee. The Chattanoogan is describing the conclusions this way:

A combination of the existence of an unusual bottom layer of ash and silt, the high water content of the wet ash, the increasing height of ash, and the construction of the sloping dikes over the wet ash

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/contacts.htm#Donhttp://www.ars.usda.gov/http://www.usda.gov/http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/watershed/http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/watershed/http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=62-17-10-00http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=31928http://www.usda.gov/http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_153774.asp


were among the long-evolving conditions that caused a 50-year-old coal ash storage pond breach and subsequent ash spill at TVA’s Kingston Fossil Plant last Dec. 22, a consultant’s report says.

The full report is available here. http://www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/index.htm EPA makes public the location of 44 potentially hazardous coal ash sites in 10 states June 29th, 2009, taragana.com WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday made public a list of 26 communities in 10 states where residents are potentially threatened by coal ash storage ponds similar to one that flooded a neighborhood in Tennessee last year. North Carolina has the most sites on the list, a dozen. The largest concentration is near Cochise, Ariz., where there are seven storage ponds. The agency said it will inspect each of the 44 coal ash sites located near communities to make certain they are structurally sound. The sites are being classified as potentially highly hazard because they are near where people live and not because of any discovered defect. “The high hazard potential means there will be probable loss of human life if there is a significant dam failure,” said Matt Hale, director of EPA’s office of research, conservation and recovery. “It is a measure of what would happen if the dam would fail. It is not a measure of the stability of the dam.” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., whose Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings on the coal ash risks, hailed the EPA decision. She said making the most high risk sites public is essential “so that people have the information they need to quickly press for action to make these sites safer.” Boxer had called on the EPA to make the information available. Burning coal produces ash, which is kept in liquid, known as slurry, in containment ponds or dams. The EPA lists more than 400 such impoundments across the country, but the 44 singled out Monday represent those that are near populated areas, posing a higher danger. Last year, two days before Christmas, a coal ash pond broke near Kingston, Tenn., sending 5 million cubic yards of ash and sludge across more than 300 acres, destroying or damaging 40 homes. The incident prompted a safety review of storage ponds that hold the waste byproduct near large coal-burning power plants. The storage ponds hold fly ash, bottom ash, coal slag and flue gas residues that contain toxic metals such as arsenic, selenium, cadmium, lead and mercury, although generally at low concentrations. Until now, the national coal ash site list has not been provided to the public. Earlier this month the Army Corps of Engineers said it didn’t want the locations disclosed because of national security and that it could help terrorists target such facilities. Hale said that issue has been resolved. The EPA has been to half the 44 sites and expects to issue reports soon, Hale said. The EPA inspections are continuing. The EPA also is reviewing state inspection reports at some of the sites. The seven ponds near Cochise, Ariz., hold material from the Apache Station Combustion Waste Disposal Facility operated by Arizona Electric Power Cooperative. The 10 states, the number of sites, and communities are:

—North Carolina, 12 (Belmont, Walnut Cove, Spencer, Eden, Mount Holy, Terrell and Arden). —Arizona, 9 (Cochise, Joseph City). —Kentucky, 7 (Louisa, Harrodsburg, Ghent and Louisville). —Ohio, 6 (Waterford, Brilliant and Cheshire). —West Virginia, 4 (Willow Island, St. Albans, Moundsville, New Haven). —Illinois, 2 (Havana, Alton). —Indiana, 1 (Lawrenceburg). —Pennsylvania, 1 (Shippingport). —Georgia, 1 (Milledgeville). —Montana, 1 (Colstrip).

Two electric utilities — Columbus, Ohio-based America Electric Power and Charlotte-N.C.-based Duke Energy Corp. — operate nearly half of the coal ash sites on the list. Spokesmen for both companies said the sites are routinely inspected and are safe. “We go above and beyond to make sure our (coal ash) dams are safe,” said AEP spokesman Pat Hemlepp, whose utility has 11 of the ponds on the list. He said the sites are inspected annually by the corporation and more frequently by the individual power plant officials. Jason Wells, spokesman for Duke Energy, which has 10 sites on the list, said, “We are absolutely confident from our monitoring, maintenance and inspections that the dams have the structural integrity to protect the public and the environment.” On the Net - Environmental Protection Agency: www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/index.htm Cumberland Explores Removing Potomac Dam Jun 29, 2009, wjz.com

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/index.htmhttp://www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/index.htmhttp://blog.taragana.com/n/epa-makes-public-the-location-of-44-potentially-hazardous-coal-ash-sites-in-10-states-94964/http://blog.taragana.com/n/epa-makes-public-the-location-of-44-potentially-hazardous-coal-ash-sites-in-10-states-94964/http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/index.htm


CUMBERLAND, Md. (AP) ― Cumberland is exploring the possibility of removing the Potomac River Industrial Dam. The city is taking bids on a study of whether the dam could be removed and what impact that might have on water quality, fish populations and potential recreational river patrons. Bids are due next week and the study could take between 12 and 18 months to complete. The dam was built in 1959 as part of a flood control project. It is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers and maintained by the city. The dam no longer provides flood protection but does help to provide water for the re-watered C&O Canal project. The study will assess how removing the dam will affect recreational uses of the river and the possibility of constructing a whitewater rapids reach and launching facility.

HHHyyydddrrrooo Allegan may revive hydroelectric dam by Rod Smith | Kalamazoo Gazette, June 24, 2009 ALLEGAN, MI -- The city of Allegan is considering going into the electricity-generating business. The Allegan City Council has discussed a proposal to fund repairs to the city dam downtown. It is considering asking voters in November to allow the city to use $350,000 of interest earnings from a sinking fund to pay for the repairs. The sinking fund was established from proceeds of the sale of the Calkins Dam, in the Allegan State Game Area, to Consumers Energy years ago. The council tabled a decision Monday to allow further work on the ballot language. Council member Ed Kowalski said the ballot language should clearly state that the city hopes to reactivate the dam's generators in order to provide power to the city. "I think we need to make a commitment to the people of the community," Kowalski said. The projected cost to get power flowing again from the dam is $1.9 million, including the cost of repairs. 7th Circuit Blocks Wis. Dam Operator's Appeal Courthouse News Service, June 24, 2009 (CN) - A dam operator missed its chance to challenge conditions imposed on a renewed hydropower license, the 7th Circuit ruled. "That delay lies on the company's own doorstep," Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote. The Wisconsin Valley Improvement Co. operates dams and other river improvements in or near the Wisconsin River. The U.S. Forest Service asked the commission to condition the company's license renewal on steps that would prevent flooding of federally owned land. The company claimed it enjoyed "flowage easements" over the land based on its history of use, making the conditions unnecessary and inappropriate. Nonetheless, the commission imposed the requested conditions. "The company had 12 years to negotiate for written easements or to file suit - as the Forest Service invited it to do," Easterbrook explained. "For 12 years and 4 months it did neither." The company countered that the clock does not start running until the United States uses the land. Easterbrook called this argument "incompatible" with the law. "Someone who wants a legal right to use land owned by the United States must act to vindicate the claim; the United States need not evict the interloper by force." VC exploring using hydro power: Process in early stage may fund study eyeing Baldhill, Old Mill dams By Steve Browne, Valley City Times-Record, 25 June 2009 Valley City, NC used to have its own power plant, and if a proposed study pans out the city may have one again. The city has agreed to a study exploring hydroelectric power at two sites: the Baldhill Dam on Lake Ashtabula, 12 miles northwest of town, and the Old Mill Dam on the corner of Fourth Street and Fourth Avenue southeast. Both sites would utilize the Sheyenne River. Hydroelectric power could be a sustainable, low-cost, environmentally sound energy source for the city, said Roger Bischoff, Barnes County director of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. “With the constant flow of water in the Sheyenne River, it may be feasible to place a hydroelectric generator unit at Baldhill Dam and other locations between Ashtabula and Valley City,” said Bischoff, who suggested the study. The process is in an early stage. The city has approved finding an engineering firm to conduct the study and asked the conservancy district to pay for the study. “It’s just in the talking stage now,” said City Commissioner Steve Ondracek, who put the motion on the City Commission’s agenda last Monday. “Down the road it could be feasible but we’ll have to see.”



Both Baldhill Dam and the Old Mill Dam are lower than those normally used for hydroelectric power. Lake Ashtabula’s deepest point is only 44 feet, said Baldhill Dam Resource Director Rich Shueneman. But using hydroelectric power at the dams is possible. The Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, a 28-member board of directors, had asked the city to pay for 20 percent of the study. The district’s board will look at funding the entire study at its July 8 meeting but may again ask the city for funding help. Currently, the city gets 65 percent of its electric power from city-owned Valley City Public Works, which has power supplied by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Western Area Power Administration. The other 35 percent of the city’s electric power comes from a coal-fired plant in Wyoming owned by Missouri River Energy Services, according to City Commissioner Ken Evenson. If the city developed new energy sources, current power contracts may have to be renegotiated. “To do it, we’d have to work together with them,” Evenson said. The city’s coal-fired, steam-generating power plant on Main Street closed in 1975. A renewed source of renewable energy By Greg Kocher – Lexington Herald-Leader, Jun. 28, 2009 PLEASANT HILL — The soggy June morning is gray and heavy, with the potential for more rain in Mercer County. But David Brown Kinloch grins as a few scattered drops pelt his noggin. "They're like pennies dropping from heaven for us," he says. "During the summer I'll take every drop I can." Rain is a precious commodity to Kinloch and his business partners, Bob Fairchild and David Coyte. They co-own and operate a small hydroelectric plant on Lock and Dam No. 7 near High Bridge on the Kentucky River. The plant generates enough power for nearly 2,000 homes. Water pouring over the dam is important to the trio because that's what turns the turbines that generate electricity. But it's also important to consumers and to anyone else interested in non-polluting, renewable energy. "Every year we do this, we're saving about 9 million pounds of coal from being burned and 18 million pounds of carbon dioxide from going up in the air," Kinloch said. "That seems worthwhile to me. Plus, the whole country, the whole world is going to have to move to renewable resources, and somebody has to start the way." The plant was built in 1928. It's remarkable that it produces electricity at all because the structure's three generators had not produced anything for six years when Kentucky Utilities sold it in late 2005 to Lock 7 Hydro Partners LLC. Hydro Partners is a partnership between Shaker Landing Hydro Associates Inc. — the company owned by Kinloch and Coyte, both of Louisville, and Fairchild, of Berea — and Salt River Electric, a cooperative based in Bardstown. The plant is named the Mother Ann Lee Hydroelectric Station, after the founder of the Shakers, the religious sect known for its ingenuity in the 1800s. The station is connected to the Kentucky Utilities grid near Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill. The electricity generated by Mother Ann Lee is sold to Salt River Electric. Although the plant generates perhaps only about half of 1 percent of the electricity that the cooperative provides, Salt River Electric chief executive and president Larry Hicks said the project is worthwhile. "We're always interested in getting environmentally friendly power, and also, it's economical," Hicks said. "So it's a no-brainer." Although the amount produced is small, Hicks said, "I find ... that most of our sustainable improvements come in very small steps." The Mother Ann Lee plant also makes money through the sale of renewable-energy credits. For every megawatt hour of electricity it generates, it can sell one renewable-energy credit. Each credit has a value — between $5 and $10 per megawatt hour — and is sold to E.On U.S., the parent company of KU and LG&E. Customers who voluntarily participate in KU or LG&E's "Green Energy" program help to expand the growth of renewable energy serving Kentucky. Because renewable energy is more expensive to generate than burning coal, customers can voluntarily help supplement the cost difference by paying a little more on their bills. KU residential and small-business customers can participate in increments of $5 and $13 a month for "blocks" of green energy. A portion of that goes to the Mother Ann Lee station to help it remain competitive. It's also a way for customers to shrink the amount of greenhouse gases produced in their day-to-day lives through the burning of coal for electricity. At the end of May, KU had 530 participants and LG&E had 867, said Cliff Feltham, a KU spokesman. Companies are signing up for such programs, too. In May, Timberland Co., the New Hampshire-based outdoor-apparel firm, which has a Danville distribution center, became an official "KU Green Business" by offsetting 100 percent of the carbon emissions produced by the electricity used by the distribution center. And last fall, Centre College's Board of Trustees in Danville unanimously accepted a student-initiated proposal for the Danville College to buy renewable-energy credits from the Mother Ann Lee station.

http://npdp.stanford.edu/mailto:[email protected]


EEEnnnvvviiirrrooonnnmmmeeennnttt Fish system upgrade the project at Cougar Dam aims to help wild salmon runs By Susan Palmer, The Register-Guard, Jun 26, 2009 BLUE RIVER — The irony that it takes a lot of man-made material to restore a wild population of salmon isn’t lost on fish biologist Greg Taylor. Working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Taylor knows better than most how the 13 dams on the Willamette River have blocked salmon from their historic habitat. “It’s a very human-altered environment,” he said. A little more human alteration is in the works at the base of Cougar Dam, where construction crews are busy building a sophisticated trap and haul facility that will allow the corps to truck salmon to the upper reaches of the South Fork of the McKenzie River. The $10 million project began in April and probably will be completed by late May or early June 2010. With all the concrete being poured, it’s hard to picture the goal: completing the life cycle for a fish that once had the run of the rivers on its way to the ocean and back again. It’s been a long time coming, but not for lack of good intentions. The Army Corps of Engineers dammed the South Fork in 1963 and included a trap-and-haul structure at the base of the dam back then. The pre-dam McKenzie River was salmon heaven, producing about 40 percent of the entire spring chinook run above the Willamette Falls. The 25 miles of the South Fork were some of its most productive. But after the 456-foot-tall dam went up, an odd thing happened. Migrating salmon refused to even enter the mouth of the South Fork, 4½ miles downstream from the dam. They came nowhere near the haul-out structure. It took years to discover that the dam was spilling the coldest water from the deepest part of the reservoir into the river — so cold it functioned as a thermal block for the fish, Taylor said. That wasn’t the only problem. Juvenile fish were getting killed in the piping meant to move them around the turbines. The dam had essentially blocked upstream and downstream passage. So state and federal agencies opted for Plan B: the hatchery to replace the wild runs of spring chinook. But the hatchery failed to keep the spring chinook off the Endangered Species List and for several years, the corps has been working on Plan C. In 2005, the agency completed a $55 million control tower that selects water of varying temperatures from different depths in the reservoir to spill down to the river, Raising the temperature from 50 degrees to 53 degrees makes the South Fork much more attractive to fish, Taylor said. Recent research continues to confirm that wild salmon are hardier than their hatchery-bred cousins. The new fish collection system brings fish up a lengthy fish ladder to a spot where an observer can sort them either for trucking to the upper river or return back below the dam. While the federal agency controls the dams, it’s the state Department of Fish & Wildlife that makes the fish management decisions, Taylor said. “The ultimate goal is to have only wild spring chinook going upstream from Cougar Dam,” said Jeff Ziller, a state fisheries biologist. Currently hatchery fish are released above the dam to spawn, with a high percentage of juveniles successfully moving downstream through the power turbines, he said. But a specific recovery plan for the fish is being written by several federal and state agencies, and that goal could change, he said. The work at the dam won’t change much for visitors and residents. Reservoir levels will remain the same, and a temporary dam at the construction site will keep the project from having any impact downstream, corps officials said. State Orders S.D. Warren to Install Fish Passage on Controversial Dam 6/29/09, Maine Public Broadcasting Network Maine's Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has ordered S.D. Warren to provide for fish passage at the Cumberland Mills Dam on the Presumpscot River in Westbrook. Environmentalist say it's the first such decision in more than a century involving a Maine statute requiring dam owners to provide for fish passage. The ruling comes in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision which required S.D. Warren to provide for fish passage at its other Presumpscot dams further upriver. The Cumberland Mills Dam, the first along the river, was not covered by the decision because it no longer produces power. After a deal to remove the dam fell through, Maine

http://npdp.stanford.edu/mailto:[email protected]


Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Ronald "Danny" Martin held a two-day hearing last December to determine the next step. Conservationists are hailing Martin's decision released today. "This is another step in the progression of restoring Maine's rivers," says Sean Mahoney of the Conservation Law Foundation. "I think it will be great for the fish, it'll be great for the communities along the river and it'll be great for the state of Maine." Still to be determined, Mahoney says, is what that fish passage will look like, including the number and location of fishways. He says IF & W will hold hearings to work out those details. Commissioner Martin was unavailable today for comment. 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 to those who have an interest in receiving this information for non-profit and educational purposes only.


1

Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu

i 7/10/2009

“Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: Gallo Family Vineyards Sonoma Reserve Pinot Gris 2007 “No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.” - - Thomas Jefferson OOOttthhheeerrr SSStttuuuffffff::: (Who’s right? We’ll only know someday in the future. If the high side is right, we won’t be able to turn back time. If the low side is right (we hope so), then we’ll all benefit.) Climate and the $3,100 Lie Detector by Tony Kreindler, Environmental Defense Fund, June 26, 2009 How can you tell when a politician in Washington isn't telling the truth? When they claim that the cost of capping carbon emissions and reducing foreign oil dependence will cost American families "$3,100". It’s become Talking Point Number One for opponents of action on climate change. Problem is, it’s entirely made up — so don't get fooled. Ask where that number comes from. The claim that The American Clean Energy and Security Act, with its cap on carbon pollution, will cost families "$3,100" was first made in a March press release from the National Republican Congressional Committee. The NRCC said its number was based on an MIT analysis of cap and trade legislation. Here's what John Reilly, the author of the MIT study told Politifact about the NRCC's claim: "It's just wrong. It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin." In two recent letters to House Republican Leader John Boehner, MIT’s Reilly asked that the NRCC stop using the “misleading” figure, noting that MIT's estimates are less than one thirtieth of what the NRCC is claiming. “A correct estimate of that cost … for the average household just in 2015 is about $80 per family, or $65 if more appropriately stated in present value terms discounted at an annual 4% rate,” he said. Reilly also pointed out that the MIT study is an "old analysis that is not well calibrated to either current legislative proposals or U.S. economic conditions." That's important because the legislation now under debate in the House is expected to take further steps to ease cost impacts on consumers. So why do opponents of cap and trade keep saying it will cost thousands? Either they are ignoring every credible analysis, or they’re very bad at math. If they cite a study claiming astronomical costs, be sure to ask three key questions:

1. Does the author of the study agree with the claims about their analysis? 2. Does the analysis actually look at the current legislation under debate? 3. What do the most recent, credible, and unbiased analyses say?

According to an EPA analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, an ambitious cap on carbon pollution can be met for as little as $88-$140 per household per year over the life of the program – or about

SSoommee DDaamm –– HHyyddrroo NNeewwss aanndd OOtthheerr SSttuuffff

Quote of Note: “An economist is a man who states the obvious in terms of the incomprehensible.” - - Alfred A. Knopf

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/22250.htmlhttp://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Thomas_Jefferson/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/30/house-republicans/GOP-full-of-hot-air-about-Obamas-light-switch-tax/http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1232.htmlhttp://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1232.htmlhttp://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Alfred_A._Knopf/

2


a dime a day per person. The Congressional Budget Office just finished a separate analysis and got similar results. Both studies show we could get all the benefits of a carbon cap for less than the cost of a postage stamp per day per family. EPA’s analysis sets the gold standard by using two of the most credible, transparent, and peer-reviewed economic models available. It’s not a crystal ball, but it shows clearly that household costs will be modest under a well-designed carbon cap. Global Cooling? From the National Weather Service: http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&product=PNS&issuedby=OKX (Now, here’s a good one. Use cheap hydropower to build solar panels. I guess that’s the only way solar can be even remotely competitive since it’s so inefficient and costly. Most states offer tax breaks to attract business. New York offers cheap Niagara hydropower.) Solar panel maker gets low-cost electricity Sunworks pledges to create 175 jobs By James Heaney, The Buffalo Business News, 07/01/09 The state Power Authority has awarded a large block of low-cost hydropower to a fledgling California company that plans to build a plant in Western New York to manufacture solar panels. Sunworks Solar plans to spend $200 million to build a plant that would employ 175. The New York Power Authority on Tuesday agreed to allocate five megawatts of hydropower, which it will sell to the San Francisco-based company for about one-quarter the market rate. The plant would build large solar panels for utilities. Pay would range from $40,000 to over $100,000 a year, depending on the position. Company officials said they have not yet selected a site, but that it would be in Western New York. A construction timetable is also up in the air. Work could start as soon as next spring. The company was founded last year and does not operate a plant, but is in negotiations to build several in differing locales. Sunworks Solar would be one of the larger buyers of low-cost hydropower from the authority. The five megawatt allocation is the fifth-largest made by the authority since 2006 and is eight-times larger than the typical allocation made by the authority during that period. The deal would save the company an estimated $1.6 million a year, or $9,352 per job. By contract, the average deal made by the authority since 2006 provides annual savings of $11,833 per job. The deal also compares favorably in terms of the amount of private investment the power leverages. On average, deals done by NYPA since 2006 produce $11,451 of investment for each kilowatt allocated. The Sunworks deal would generate nearly four times more investment, or $40,000. The allocation marks the continuation of a trend by the authority to earmark large blocks of power to green manufacturing concerns. In recent years, the authority has committed 40 megawatts to Globe Metals, which is refurbishing a plant in Niagara Falls to produce metallurgical-grade silicon for use in the manufacture of solar panels, and five megawatts each to ethanol plants proposed for Buffalo and Niagara Falls. None of those facilities are operating yet, however. Globe is still overhauling its plant and the ethanol plants are still on the drawing board. In the meantime, the authority is selling the allocated, but unused power at market rates and keeping the proceeds. U. S. Rep. Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, is pressing the authority to keep those proceeds in Western New York. (Excerpts – full article at: http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=263 The message should be – don’t follow CA, they’re bankrupt!) The “California Effect” on Canadian Energy and Climate Policies George Hoberg and Gordon McCollough, greenpolicyprof.org, 7/6/09 ---------------------------------. Renewable Portfolio Standard: Creating Market Opportunities for Canada? A third avenue of California influence on Canadian energy and climate policy might be market opportunities for lower carbon electricity. With abundant hydroelectric resources, Canadian provinces like British Columbia might be able to increase power exports. In 2008, California issued an Executive Order requiring its utilities to obtain 33% of their electricity supply from renewable sources by the year 2020. Senate Bill 14 (S-14-08) is the proposed legislation that outlines the steps required to meet the standard, as well as what qualifies as a renewable source of energy. The proposed legislation defines an eligible hydroelectric generation facility as “an existing small hydroelectric generation facility of 30 megawatts or less.” New hydroelectric facilities

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&product=PNS&issuedby=OKXhttp://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=263http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/11072/http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_14_bill_20090623_amended_asm_v94.html

3


would not be eligible renewable energy resource if they “will cause an adverse impact on instream beneficial uses or cause a change in the volume or timing of streamflow.” A report (pg.7) by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) found that as of 2008, BC run-of-river hydro facilities “would not be qualified as RPS eligible resources.” With a $4-billion British Columbia/California transmission system upgrade being implemented to export energy to the state by 2016, PG&E lobbied for a change to the Senate’s exemption of certain hydroelectric projects. The amendments were rejected on the grounds that British Columbia hydroelectric projects were too large and had too many adverse effects to be considered renewable. The BC Minister of Environment criticized the hydro prohibition, arguing that BC small hydro operations undergo strict and rigorous environmental assessments and that power from BC could meet California’s needs. 31 states have some version of renewable portfolio standards. While we were unable to find an analysis of their treatment of hydroelectric power, if they are similar to California’s, Canada’s ability to become a significant “clean energy” exporter will be constrained. The climate bill going through the US Congress, the Waxman-Markey Bill, contains its own renewable portfolio standard (called a Renewable Electricity Standard) of 25% by 2025. Its current definitions of renewable would exclude any significant hydropower. The initiatives by California and other states to reduce greenhouse gases by requiring electricity producers to rely increasingly on renewable energy sources would seem to be a golden opportunity for Canadian provinces with surplus hydropower. But the current definition of renewable in California and elsewhere are ruling out virtually all Canadian hydropower. Even if renewable portfolio standards don’t create new opportunities for Canadian power exports, California’s size and policy innovativeness ensure developments there will have profound effects well beyond the state’s borders. Canadians on the lookout for emerging environmental policy trends should keep their eye on the Golden State.

DDDaaammmsss (Winnicut River Dam is concrete. Its height is 14 feet with a length of 150 feet. Maximum discharge is 1914 cubic feet per second. Its capacity is 132.5 acre feet. Normal storage is 72.5 acre feet. It drains an area of 13.25 square miles. This has to be the umpteenth article like this! I thought stimulus money was supposed to be used to create more permanent jobs. Using the money for a dam removal doesn’t do much in that regard. A few jobs happen while the dam is being removed and then what?) Winnicut Dam removal gets stimulus funds July 02, 2009, seacoastonline.com

GREENLAND, NH — The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced the N.H. Coastal Program at the N.H. Department of Environmental Services will receive $500,000 in stimulus funding for the Winnicut River Dam removal project. The project was one of 50 proposals selected from of a national pool of 814 to receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funds. NOAA was provided $167 million for marine and coastal habitat restoration under the ARRA. The N.H. Coastal Program project will remove the dam and install a fish passage structure under an upstream bridge, reopening passage to more than 39 miles of habitat. In addition to restoring river ecology, the project creates jobs for

construction workers as well as engineering and scientific consultants. For information and an interactive map of the project, visit www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/arra.html. (Now, you don’t have fun like this when you own a wind mill – do you?) Things that go bump into dams are myriad BY JESSICA GRAY • Great Falls Tribune, MT • JULY 3, 2009

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/PGE%20BC%20Energy%20Study%206%2008.pdfhttp://www.pge.com/http://www.vancouversun.com/Technology/California+rejects+green+power+claims/1455036/story.htmlhttp://www.gov.bc.ca/env/minister.htmlhttp://www.sqwalk.com/bc2009/BarryPenner-CaliforniaSenate_20090324.pdfhttp://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/rps.cfmhttp://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/arra.html

4


Wallets and purses, picnic tables, even television cameras. These are just a few of the items that have turned up at Great Falls-area dams through the years. "We get things that people lose when they are on the riverbank," said Chris Helgesen, an operator at Black Eagle Dam. "We get mostly balls and toys, and lots of lawn chairs. We find fishing gear and lures. Once we had a whole tackle box full of fishing gear show up on the intake screens." "If something is in good condition and has a name or a phone number on it, we always try to return it to the owner." As the mighty Missouri River winds it way through the Great Falls area it passes through five hydroelectric dams owned by PPL Montana. The first of them is Black Eagle Dam, where it's the job of the operator and maintenance personnel to make sure trash and debris are removed from the river before it passes through the turbines. What isn't removed gets sent to Rainbow Dam and from there down to Cochrane, Ryan and Morony. If it isn't washed over the top or sucked through the spill gates, debris is removed by machines called screen rakes. This process is where most of the treasures turn up. Rodney Caldwell is a longtime dam employee. The strangest thing he ever saw come across Morony Dam was a set of television cameras. There had been a robbery at the local television station, he said, and the thieves tossed the cameras into the Missouri. "I found a purse with credit cards and drivers license in it," he said. "An older lady had it stolen at Giant Springs Park. The thieves took the cash and threw the rest in the river. I cleaned it all up and took it back to her. She was very thankful to have it returned, even if all her cash was gone." "Two years ago I found a money bag from a church," Caldwell continued. "Someone had broken into their safe and took the offering. The thief took all the cash and threw the bag full of checks into the river. I called the church and returned the checks to them." Dana Woodward has been working at the dam for 37 years. He's found many things including tires, gas cans, propane tanks, boat docks and even an occasional bowling ball. "In 1985, we had a flood and a lot of water. I saw a redwood picnic table making its way toward Black Eagle Dam. It was in perfect condition, floating upside down. I ran as fast as I could to catch it, but it made about three circles, and then went through one of the waste gates. It came out on the other side in pieces." Woodward said. The majority of what ends up at the dam is natural runoff such as trees and stumps. However, the employees of the dams say they're surprised at how much trash ends up in the river. They encourage citizens to keep the riverbanks clean and don't use the Missouri as a personal garbage dump. Frequently taken off the intake screens are large dead animals. During the winter, deer walk on to the ice, fall through and drown. This is also true for cows. "My dad worked here before I did," Woodward said. "In 1965, he said if he had all the dead cattle that came down the Missouri River, he could have started a pretty respectable herd." Unfortunately, dogs and cats fall through the ice as well. If the operators find a pet with a collar and identification, they'll call the owners to let them know. "We found a dog and called the owners to let them know the dog had drowned and ended up at the dam," Helgeson said. "They told us how they looked for their dog, and called for it every day, hoping it would come home. Their dog had disappeared in January from the Fox Farm area. We found it in April at Black Eagle. They assume it fell through the ice. The owners were sad, but happy to have some closure." (There’s always one thing missing from these articles – telling both sides of a story. There is nothing about how many dams were built in the last 10 years. From the National Inventory of Dams (NID) web site and the 2007 NID data, there were 4,308 dams built between 1990 and 1999 and 1,708 dams built since 2000. So, the real story is much different than American Rivers tries to portray. It’s called cooking the data!) EDITORIAL

10 Years, 430 Dams July 3, 2009, NY Times

Ten years have gone by since a modest but important moment in American environmental history: the dismantling of the 917-foot-wide Edwards Dam on Maine’s Kennebec River. The Edwards Dam was the first privately owned hydroelectric dam torn down for environmental reasons (and against the owner’s wishes) by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Bruce Babbitt, the interior secretary at the time, showed up at the demolition ceremony to promote what had become a personal crusade against obsolete dams. The publicity generated a national discussion about dams and the potential environmental benefits — to water quality and fish species — of removing them. It certainly helped the Kennebec and its fish, and dams have been falling ever since. According to American Rivers, an advocacy group and a major player in the Edwards Dam campaign, about 430 outdated dams (some of them small hydropower dams like Edwards) have been removed with both public and private funding. In one case, the removal of a small, 50-foot dam on Oregon’s Sandy River was paid for entirely by the electric utility that owned it in order to improve salmon runs. More lies ahead. Three dams that have severely damaged salmon runs in Washington State are


5


scheduled to come down in 2011. A tentative agreement has been reached among farmers, native tribes and a power company to remove dams on California’s Klamath River, the site of a huge fish kill several years ago attributed mainly to low water flows caused by dams. Maine, where this all began, will be the site of a spectacular restoration project. Under an agreement involving the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a coalition called the Penobscot River Restoration Trust and PPL, a power company, two dams will be removed and a fish ladder built at a third to open up 1,000 miles of the Penobscot River and its tributaries so that fish can return to their traditional spawning grounds. A half-dozen species should benefit, including endangered Atlantic salmon. The federal government has now imposed “critical habitat” protections in nine Maine rivers where the salmon return to spawn. NOAA’s heightened interest in Atlantic salmon has raised hopes that it may now take aggressive — if politically risky — steps to protect salmon on the West Coast by ordering the removal of four big dams on the Lower Snake River. This page has recommended such a move, which two previous administrations have ducked. It seems now within the realm of possibility.

Town mulls removing not 1, but 2 dams Feds, selectmen discuss razing McLane, Goldman facilities Nashua Telegraph, July 6, 2009 By KATHY CLEVELAND Staff Writer MILFORD, NH – Removing the McLane Dam could bring big benefits to the town and to the environment, four state and federal officials told town officials, but it would be a long, complicated process. "I would never wish a dam-removal project on a town that will only do it once," said Eric Hutchins, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, referring to the possibility that Milford could also decide to remove the Goldman Dam, a few hundred yards upstream. Hutchins and representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services gave a slide-show presentation during a selectmen's work session on June 29 and explained what's involved in restoring a river to its natural form after the removal of a dam. The McLane Dam, which Milford owns, became an issue this year after an Amherst resident applied to the federal government for a permit to install a hydroelectric facility there. The dam was upgraded to be suitable for hydropower in the late 1980s, but no turbines were ever installed. A hydropower consultant is scheduled to talk to selectmen at 5:30 p.m. today.

From an environmental point of view, the value of removing the McLane Dam went up greatly this winter following the removal of the Merrimack Village Dam at the mouth of the Souhegan River. McLane is now the first dam encountered by fish moving upstream from the Merrimack River. It took about seven years and roughly $500,000 to remove the Merrimack Village Dam. "McLane would probably be the same or less," said Hutchins. "It's a smaller site and there's not a lot of sediment, and the Merrimack Village Dam had a lot." Removing old dams to improve river health has gained impetus in recent years, partly because of the success seen in Maine's Kennebunk

River, where some species of fish have returned for the first time in over a century following the removal of a dam three years ago. In fact, the most recent package in federal stimulus finding included $500,000 for New Hampshire to help remove the Winnicut River dam in Greenland, on the state Seacoast. If Milford decides to remove the McLane dam, state and federal agencies would provide funding and technical assistance, but the town would have to oversee the work.

Dismantling the Goldman Dam, near the Stone Bridge, was also mentioned. Town Administrator Guy Scaife said that if the town considers dismantling McLane, it would consider taking down Goldman, as well. Officials said the Souhegan River is rich in natural resources, and an important part of the Merrimack River restoration program for salmon and other anadromous fish, which spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean. The state inspected McLane in April and found it to be a "low hazard dam" that needs some work. The Goldman Dam, which is privately owned, is in worse shape, Hutchins said. Also of concern is a Superfund site located just upstream at the former Fletcher Paint site. Pollutants

McLane Dam

Goldman Dam


6


from that site might have built up in the sediment that has been caught behind the two dams. Hutchins said his agency is hoping to get funds, above and beyond Superfund money, that will help them determine the impact of the Fletcher Paint site cleanup on the river and its sediment. Funding for dam removal projects comes from many sources and typically requires a one-to-one match of federal and local funds, said Deborah Loiselle, river restoration coordinator with the DES, and "we will help you figure it out." Loiselle said that if the town wants to move forward with the projects, her agency "would put together a core project team" that would include the town, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, New Hampshire Fish and Game, the nonprofit American Rivers, and the state DES. Selectmen wanted to know if there have been any dam removal horror stories, and Loiselle said sometimes erosion of the embankment creates aesthetic problems. She said that McLane holds back very little water so "it won't look all that different," if the dam is taken. "I've been involved in three removals and all the owners are very happy," he said. George May, president of the Souhegan Watershed Association, said his group completely supports the removal of the McLane and Goldman dams, which would allow fish to move up and down the Souhegan from the Merrimack River to the Pine Valley dam on the Wilton-Milford line. "You'd be improving the health of the river and the fish," he said. Diane Fitzpatrick, Milford Conservation Commission chairwoman, said the town should give serious consideration to the project if it can reduce the probability of flooding upstream. A flood in the spring of 2007 caused serious damage to downtown properties, including the Boys & Girls Club building.

HHHyyydddrrrooo (This is a program available to many, but the question is how many will take advantage) Hydropower Expansion Funding Offered: Will Virginia Apply for Help? By Linda Goin on June 30th, 2009, appomattoxnews.com U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced up to $32 million in Recovery Act funding to modernize the existing hydropower infrastructure in the U.S., increase efficiency, and reduce environmental impact. Today’s announcement is designed to support the deployment of turbines and control technologies to increase power generation and environmental stewardship at existing non-federal hydroelectric facilities. “There’s no one solution to the energy crisis, but hydropower is clearly part of the solution and represents a major opportunity to create more clean energy jobs,” said Secretary Chu. “Investing in our existing hydropower infrastructure will strengthen our economy, reduce pollution and help us toward energy independence.” Secretary Chu also noted another key benefit of hydropower: potential hydro energy can be stored behind dams and released when it is most needed. Therefore, improving our hydro infrastructure can help to increase the utilization and economic viability of intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Secretary Chu is committed to further developing pumped storage technology to harness these advantages. Today’s funding opportunity announcement under the Recovery Act will be competitively awarded to a variety of non-federal hydropower projects that can be developed without significant modifications to dams and with a minimum of regulatory delay. Projects will be selected in two areas:

• Deployment of Hydropower Upgrades at Projects >50 MW: These include projects at large, non-federal facilities (greater than 50 MW capacity) with existing or advanced technologies that will enable improved environmental performance and significant new generation.

• Deployment of Hydropower Upgrades at Projects < 50 MW: These include projects at small-scale non-federal facilities (less than 50 MWs) with existing or advanced technologies that will enable improved environmental performance and significant new generation.

Today, there are more than 1,300 state-regulated dams in Virginia, but most of these dams are small and located on private property. This number does not include larger federal dams such as the TVA projects or the John H. Kerr and Philpott dams, both administered by the Southeastern Power Administration. The John H. Kerr Dam is located on the Roanoke River about eighteen miles upstream from the Virginia-North Carolina State line in Mecklenburg County and was built in the early 1950s. The Philpott Dam was finalized in 1952, and is located on the Smith River about seven miles upstream from Bassett, Virginia. The Philpott Lake covers area in Henry, Patrick and Franklin counties. Both use turbines to transform their impounded water into electrical power. According to Virginia’s Dams: A Status Report [PDF], issued by the Department

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/hydropower-expansion-funding-offered-will-virginia-apply-for-help.htmlhttp://www.appomattoxnews.com/author/admin/http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/jhkerr/index.htmhttp://www.saw.usace.army.mil/jhkerr/index.htmhttp://www.saw.usace.army.mil/philpott/index.htmhttp://www.dcr.virginia.gov/documents/dsvadams.pdf

7


of Conservation and Recreation in 2006, dams typically are designed for fifty (fifty) years of useful life. This statement creates an issue for both the John H. Kerr Dam and the Philpott Dam, as both constructions were created over fifty years ago. Virginia’s regulated dams fall into four categories based upon their threat to surrounding communities should they fail:

• Class I: Probable loss of life and excessive economic loss downstream; • Class II: Possible loss of life and appreciable economic loss; • Class III: No loss of life expected and minimal economic loss; • Class IV, No economic loss to others and no loss of life expected.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, a division of the U.S. Government, issued a report [PDF] in 1999 that called for approximately $10 million for dam rehabilitation in Virginia. In 2002, U.S. Water News Online reported that about “40 of the 500 state-regulated dams in Virginia need repairs, which could total $20 to $40 million.” The Department of Conservation and Recreation report noted above stated that about 80 percent of Virginia’s dams had non-working valves. While many of these issues have been addressed with interim legislation, the message continues that dams over age fifty require more maintenance and oversight to correct age-related problems. This opportunity offers the money to create a safer hydro-power environment for Virginia’s citizens, especially those who live within a Class I or Class II danger environment. For information about dam locations throughout Virginia, visit Lat-Long.com. For information about floodplain management, visit the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Letters of intent for monies to repair dams are due July 22, 2009, and completed applications are due August 20, 2009. The complete Funding Opportunity Announcement, number DE-FOA-0000120, can be viewed on the Grants.gov Web site. Projects are expected to begin in fiscal year 2010. (The problem with this article is that it only talks about one type of hydro. The Congress isn’t short-sighted when it comes to hydro – it’s blind. It’s blind because they have been high jacked by an environmental movement that cares little about energy.) Short-sighted Cuts to US Ocean Energy Budgets by Peter Asmus, Author, June 29, 2009, renewableenergyworld.com The earth is the water planet, so it should come as no great surprise that waterpower, aka hydropower, has been one of the world's most popular "renewable" energy sources. Yet the largest hydropower source of all -- the ocean that covers three-quarters of earth –- has yet to be tapped in any major way for power generation. There are three primary reasons for this:

• The first is the nature of the ocean itself; it is a powerful resource that cannot be privately owned in the way that land can be owned. Land ownership typically serves as the foundation for site control for terrestrial power plants of all kinds.

• The second is funding. Hydropower was heavily subsidized during the Great Depression, but little public investment has since been steered toward marine renewables with the exception of ocean thermal technologies, which were perceived to be a failure.

• The third reason why the ocean has not yet been used for energy production is that the technologies, materials and construction techniques necessary to harness this renewable energy resource in any meaningful and cost-effective way, did not exist until now.

While the total installed capacity of these hydrokinetic resources — a category that includes wave, tidal stream, ocean current, and ocean thermal — was less than 10 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2008, these technologies are on the cusp of commercialization. A recent surge in interest in these new renewable options has generated a buzz, particularly in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, Portugal, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. With the best ocean current resource in the world in the Gulf Stream off the coast of Florida, excellent tidal sites in Maine, Washington and Alaska and prime wave resources off the coasts of California and Oregon, the U.S. is well positioned to be a global leader. It is expected that within the next five to eight years, these emerging technologies will become commercialized to the point that they can begin competing for a share of the burgeoning market for carbon-free and non-polluting renewable resources. By 2015, almost 3,000 MW could be online around the world. That figure could jump to 200,000 MW by 2025. So far, President Obama wins high marks for shifting priorities on energy policy in the U.S. But his recent proposal to trim R&D funding for the emerging sector of “marine renewables” — also often referred to as ocean power or hydrokinetic technologies — is extremely shortsighted and misses the boat. Trimming the $40 million proposed for marine renewables in 2009 by 25 percent will likely allow the U.K. and Europe to

http://npdp.stanford.edu/http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wsrehab/dams_in_danger/20_DAMS/Virginia.pdfhttp://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcpolicy/2virdam1.htmlhttp://www.lat-long.com/ListLocations-1-Virginia-Dam.htmlhttp://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dam_safety_and_floodplains/http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do;jsessionid=DV8YKKxXs3hj68cBKzptZsNprxKPyWM7TZBC11JCNmLQc3m5S9pG!1277565875?oppId=48221&mode=VIEW

8


take a commanding lead in the development of a potential “game changing” clean power that is much more powerful and predictable than either solar or wind, both big winners in Obama’s proposed R&D budgets for the DOE. Consider these simple facts: waves, tides and ocean currents are 800 times more powerful than the thin air that is wind, the world’s current top renewable technology of choice. Tides can be predicted decades in advance, while the wind resource shifts so suddenly, forecasts are good for only a few hours at a time. Europe, particularly the U.K., Ireland and Portugal, are currently the best places to develop wave and tidal projects. Subsidy schemes there, as well as government funded test facilities, and streamlined permitting processes, will likely allow Europe to be the focal point of commercialization efforts in the near-term. The U.S. has taken some promising steps recently resolving permitting issues for marine renewable technologies. But without more R&D, entrepreneurs already hit by the global economic meltdown may flounder and seek to do business on friendlier shores in Europe. While wave and tidal developers are offered lavish subsidies amounting to about US $0.30 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in Europe, the U.S. currently offers a measly $0.01 / kWh, half of the subsidy currently being offered to wind power projects, a fully commercialized technology. The ocean is a huge global resource that will ultimately have to be tapped to meet the energy needs of the world’s growing populations — without contributing to global climate change. If the U.S. wants to be part of the solution, and help economic development in regions decimated by the collapse of native fishing stocks, then strategic investments need to be made today. We need wind, we need solar, but we should also be smart enough to tap the immense power of our oceans. Five Maine hydro plants sold By MAINEBIZ News, July 1, 2009 A subsidiary of PPL Corp., an Allentown, Pa.-based power company, is selling the bulk of its hydroelectric generating business in Maine to Black Bear Hydro Partners LLC, for $95 million. The sale affects hydroelectric plants in Ellsworth, Medway, Milford, Orono and Stillwater that produce a total of 23 megawatts of electricity, according to a release from PR Newswire. Black Bear Hydro is an affiliate of ArcLight Capital Partners LLC, a $6.8 billion energy investment firm based in Boston. The sale does not affect a June 2008 agreement between PPL and the Penobscot River Restoration Trust to sell PPL dams in Veazie, Great Works and Howland to the trust, according to a release from its executive director, Laura Rose Day. The trust plans to remove the Veazie and Great Works dams and bypass the Howland dam to open nearly 1,000 miles of the Penobscot and tributaries to sea-run fish migration. It recently received a $6.1 million federal grant for removal of the Great Works dam, according to the release. A PPL executive said the Maine assets have been good for the company, but are not core to its generation plans for the Northwest, according to the news service. The sale must get federal and state regulatory approvals. PPL Corp. controls or owns more than 12,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the United States, sells energy in U.S. markets and delivers electricity to about 4 million customers in Pennsylvania and the United Kingdom.

(A very long-winded story!!!!) HydroElectric plant still needs operating license By Jo Ann Hustis – Morris Daily Herald, July 3, 2009 MARSEILLES - Finance Commissioner Bob Davis is urging residents to a letter or e-mail campaign aimed at licensing and restarting the Marseilles HydroElectric generating plant. "Asking the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission to grant the operating license to North American Hydro," Davis said Wednesday during the bi-monthly meeting of the Marseilles City Council. The deadline for the communications is Saturday, Aug. 15. The campaign is in response to the city's having applied to FERC for the license the first day of filing on May 20, but hearing nothing in return. The historic plant has not operated since 1988. With the plant back in operation, the city stands to gain an estimated $35,000 annually in royalties under partnership with NAH, of Neosha, Wis. During the meeting, Davis made available to the public copies he created from a posting on the Internet by Marseilles Land & Water Power Company, one-time owner of the vintage generating station. Davis told the council the information in the posting was "an insult to the intelligence of Marseilles residents." "Read this and get some idea of why we don't want them here," he said of the posting. Marseilles Land & Water Company was founded in 1867 and purchased in 1903 by Boy Scouts of America founder W. D. Boyce of Ottawa and Marseilles. The ML&WC posting indicates North American Hydro created the "Marseilles myth" about a 200-foot section of concrete retaining wall which weakened and collapsed into one of two raceways, or canals, on April 20, 2000. The raceways channel water from the Illinois River to the plant to turn the generators and produce electricity. "NAH's owners and agents have successfully demonstrated the axiom that 'the bigger the lie and the more often it is repeated, the more likely it is to be


9


believed and confused with the truth,'" the posting reads. "For its own self-serving business purposes, NAH has asserted, and curiously, individuals who have absolutely no factual knowledge of the business records of the Marseilles Land & Water Company, have blindly embraced and parroted the following NAH distortions of truth and history." The posting lists what it alleges to be four NAH distortions, including that ML&WC was "obligated to make repairs to certain civil structures that it owned and had refused to spend the money to make repairs to its own property." Also, that ML&WC owned "certain civil structures that eventually collapsed," but "undertook no actions to repair certain civil structures after they collapsed in April 2000." Additionally, that ML&WC was "responsible for preventing NAH from pursuing its business opportunities because ML&WC initiated protracted litigation that thwarted NAH from conducting its business for several years." The posting adds that the "following narrative is presented to educate those individuals who are interested in the real story and want to separate fact from fiction." "It is a recita

Some Dam – Hydro Newsnpdp.stanford.edu/.../other_materials/july_2009_some_dam_hydro_ne… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Some Dam – Hydro Newsnpdp.stanford.edu/.../other_materials/july_2009_some_dam_hydro_ne… ·...