Hydropower Reform Coalition - renewable energy

Washington State Proposes Increasing Current RPS Goals

Rich Bowers — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:24:19 -0600

Washington State proposes to increase its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals to now require large utilities to obtain 25% of their electricity from new renewable resources by 2025.

In 2007, Citizens of Washington State passed initiative I-937, the Energy Independence Act, which established a goal of producing 20% of electricity from renewable resources by 2020. As a Citizen's Initiative, I-937 required two years before it could be changed legislatively. The two-year deadline passed in November of this year.

Rep. John McCoy, Chair of the House Energy committee, has initiated a stakeholder process to prepare a bill amending I-937. The first meeting of this group was early November and the second meeting is scheduled for December 4th in Olympia. A copy of the Hydropower Reform Coalition comments on this proposed change is attached. This current language presents similar goals to the recently announced Obama-Biden Energy Plan, and follows on the November 17 Executive Order (S-14-08)by Governor Schwarzenegger to increase California's RPS to 33% by 2020.

The Coalition supports increasing the State's dependence on renewable energy, but we have two concerns as this increase moves forward:

1) Under current language, hydropower generation can only be considered as renewable if it comes from efficiency upgrades at existing dams, from adding hydro generation at non-hydro dams (flood control, navigation, etc), and from new hydrokinetic technologies. While this language has not changed, there is increasing pressure to include new conventional hydropower (dams on rivers). The Coalition opposes adding incentives for dams due to their well-documented negative impacts on rivers and ecosystems, and because this would reduce available incentives for other renewable energy technologies that offer new innovation, investment, and jobs.

2) The new language also extends the geographic scope of renewable energy for Washington. By 2016 this would include power produced in British Columbia and Alberta and imported into Washington. While the coalition supports increased renewable energy, we want to be sure that electricity produced elsewhere meets the "eligible criteria" set here in Washington. For instance, energy requirements for British Columbia are far less stringent than in the US. Hydroelectic generation here, unlike British Columbia, is required to include a public process, balance power and non-power values of the resource, and conform to a plan for the watershed. Right now, there are over 400 proposed and under construction hydroelectic dams in British Columbia, we want to assure that importing this energy into Washington State does not result in environmental and river damage north of our border.

Attachment	Size
RPS Summary.pdf	17.27 KB
Schwarzenegger 11 17 08 Executive Order.htm_.txt	24.18 KB
HRC Final comments 11-16-07.doc	116.5 KB
I-937 Draft for Stakeholder Meeting Nov 5, 2008.pdf	128.48 KB
Final 11 08 HRC House TEC Comments2.pdf	85.04 KB

Hudson River project gets tax credits for additional generation

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:49:45 -0500

Project: Hudson River : P-2482

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has certified additional electricity generation at the Hudson River hydroelectric project as being renewable energy eligible to receive tax credits.

Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP, the licensee for the project, stated in its application filed on September 29 that replacement and installation of new turbine generators would increase electricity generation by 10.94%.

The increase in generation comes from upgrades at the Sherman Land development which will increase its capacity from 28.8 to 37.2 MW boosting the total capacity for the project from 73.2 to 81.6 MW. The project consists of one other development- the Spier Falls development which generates 44.4 MW.

Under the Energy Policy Act 2005, additional electricity generated from an existing hydropower project is eligible to receive renewable energy tax credits, also known as production tax credits (PTC), if such addition is achieved by improving efficiency or by adding capacity. However, such increment has to be first approved by FERC.

Tax extensions approved for renewable energy

Rupak Thapaliya — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:49:01 -0500

President Bush signed a bill today that extends tax credit for renewable energy sources, including qualifying hydropower, by two more years.

Under the bill, conventional hydropower also qualifies as being eligible for tax credits, as long as electricity is generated by adding hydroelectric turbines at existing non-hydro dams.

Additionally, the bill also provides tax credits for electricity generated from hydrokinetic technology, for which there has been increasing interest around the country.

The renewable energy provisions were inserted in the bill entitled "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," (H.R. 1424) which is primarily aimed to address the nation's current economic crisis.

PG&E Study Looks at British Columbia Run-of-River Projects as Potential Green Energy for California

Rich Bowers — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:16:51 -0500

PG&E Study Looks at British Columbia Run-of-River Projects as Potential Green Energy for California

On June 20, 2008 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) produced the attached BC Renewable Study Phase I report. In 2007, the California Public Utilities Commission approved D.07-03-013, which grants PG&E the authority to recover up to $14 million for external consultants to study the feasibility of obtaining renewable power from various regions in British Columbia (BC) and the potential to transmit this power to PG&E’s service area.

As reported earlier, independent power producers (IPP’s) have applied for permits for more than 500 dams on more than 300 rivers and streams in BC. Unlike the United States, Canada’s regulatory structure for hydropower dams does not allow meaningful public participation, and river activists and outdoor recreationists are just getting organized to fight these new dams, some of which are already under construction.

The PG&E report changes the equation regarding Canadian hydroelectric power being sold to US markets, as IPP’s have long argued that the power produced from local resources would remain in BC. It also affects US Consumers in two ways: 1. in our need to be involved and educated about BC river issues, and 2. Potential future changes to California’s existing Renewable Portfolio Standard, and to new National Portfolio Standards which may be established after the upcoming election.

For BC river interests, the study provides good educational ammunition against many of the claims by the IPP’s. The report demonstrates that:

BC has an existing surplus of energy
Run-of-river projects are not the green source IPP’s have claimed (and would not meet California’s definition of clean, green and renewable*).
Hydroelectric power produced by BC rivers will not be used exclusively in BC.
Dealing with IPP’s vs. a centralized BC Hydro is not a benefit for outside purchasers like PG&E.

* “Based upon PG&E’s initial research, BC Run-Of-River hydro facilities would not be qualified as RPS eligible resources.” Under California legislation, hydro generation facilities are RPS-eligible if they meet all of the following criteria:

Do not cause a change in volume or timing of stream flow;
Are less than or equal to 30 MW; and
Do not cause an adverse impact on instream beneficial uses.

The study also changes the equation for US river advocates and consumers as well. What is our responsibility to protect river resources beyond our borders, especially if our need for energy results in resource impacts elsewhere? And perhaps a moral obligation, not to get involved with BC regulations, but to take the lessons learned through our work on US rivers and uses these lessons to protect rivers regardless of location? More specifically, the report provides an alert for potential future changes in:

California’s definition of renewable hydropower

Modifications to existing RPS rules (CA and elsewhere) that would make importing energy from other areas more viable.

Legislative changes regarding new small hydro generation.

Attachment	Size
PGE BC Energy Study 6 08.pdf	51.22 KB

Tax credit certification for hydroproject in Maine

Rupak Thapaliya — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:09:33 -0500

Project: Rumford Falls : P-2333

FERC has certified the Rumford Falls project on the Androscoggin River in Maine for renewable energy production tax credit. According to the licensee, a subsidiary of Brookfield Power, upgrading of runners at the lower station is underway and scheduled to be completed by the end of June. The upgrades will result in efficiency improvements by 3.2% and an additional generation of 8569 MWh.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows efficiency improvements in hydropower facilities to be eligible for tax credits. Since enactment of the Act, FERC has certified tax credits for 24 projects combining for an additional 276,871 MWh of electricity generation.

After all hydro may not be green

Rupak Thapaliya — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:43:05 -0500

After all, hydro may not be emissions free! Surprised? Some scientists are suggesting that hydropower reservoirs may in fact be producing greenhouse gases.

Scientists are suggesting that reservoirs around the world could be emitting as much as 70 millions tons of methane and 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually- equivalent to carbon dioxide generated by more than 12 typical coal fired plants operating 24 hours a day for 365 days. This discovery was made long ago by a scientist at University of Alberta and published in a peer reviewed article in 2000. According to the article,

...hydropower can actually emit more greenhouse gases per kilowatt-hour than fossil fuels, including dirty coal...

The article is available to view here.

Another scientist in Brazil has also warned about the greenhouse gas contribution of hydro reservoirs in Brazil. According to him, for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced from hydro reservoirs in Brazil, 2154 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent is emitted. On the contrary, for a typical modern coal plant, that figure stands between 790 and 1200.

This San Francisco Chronicle op-ed that appeared in November 2006 warns that one Brazilian hydro reservoir alone emits the greenhouse gases equivalent of 54 natural gas plants, for the same amount of power.

As explained by scientists, decaying of organic matter in the reservoir is the primary culprit for production of greenhouse gases. The reservoirs created by hydro dams flood a large area thus submerging large amounts of carbon-rich vegetation and soil. Over time the organic matter decays producing carbon dioxide and potentially methane in some cases, which has much more potential than carbon dioxide to cause global warming. Although such emission is higher during the first few years (up to a decade in some cases) the reservoir will continue to emit green house gases as long as the river feeding the reservoir continues to carry along plants and other organic matter which act as fuel for such emissions. At the same time, it has also been found that when methane-rich water bursts out of turbines and spillways, it releases most of the methane- just like when you open a bottle of soda.

Here is another article by Forbes that cautions about the greenhouse gas contribution of hydropower generation. The article states:

The biggest kicker of all is this: Big hydro may not be so green after all. Philip Fearnside, an ecology professor at Brazil's National Institute for Research in the Amazon, has published groundbreaking studies indicating that large dam reservoirs in tropical climates can produce significant amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide. (Decomposing vegetation produces methane, which is released slowly by bubbling up in the reservoir, or quickly when water is run through the turbines and released downstream.

In the United States, there has been limited research to estimate greenhouse gas contribution of reservoirs. So far only five lakes in Wisconsin and one in Colorado have been studied for emissions. The average annual emission of carbon dioxide and methane from the five lakes in Wisconsin was calculated to be 242 and 12 grams per square meter respectively. On the contrary, an average tropical forest absorbs 260 grams of carbon dioxide and 0.07 grams of methane per square meter annually. These figures suggest that lakes in Wisconsin, on an average produce more greenhouse gases than tropical forests, traditionally known to be carbon sinks, absorb. Similarly, Dillon Lake in Colorado emits between 5 and 622 grams of methane per square meter.

What is clear from the science available so far is that contrary to the popular belief, hydropower reservoirs cannot be assumed to be emissions free. The amount of emissions varies depending on a number of factors- nature of the reservoir (size and depth), climate type, organic content and other hydrological conditions. More research on this topic is needed to better understand the impacts of reservoir emissions and hydropower on global warming.

Hydro project in California to get production tax credits

Rupak Thapaliya — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:35:00 -0500

Project: Pit 3, 4, & 5 : P-233

FERC has certified the Pit 3, 4 & 5 hydroelectric projects on the Pit River in California to be eligible for production tax credits (PTC) under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

In July 2007, PG&E had completed a turbine upgrade by installing a new runner, new wicket gates, and upgrading other electrical and mechanical components. This, according to PG&E, improved the generation efficiency by 0.31%.

The EPAct 2005 allows for hydropower facilities to receive tax credits if there is efficiency improvement or capacity addition.

Hydropower as a clean, renewable source of energy. PowerPoint

Rich Bowers — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:32:21 -0600

The attached PowerPoint was given during a lunch presentation at the University of Oregon's School of Law. Topic of discussion: Hydropower as a clean, renewable energy source.

Attachment	Size
Western Caucus PowerPoint2.ppt	1006 KB

Wave, Tidal and In-Channel Hydrokinetic Projects

Rich Bowers — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:20:31 -0600

Growth of Hydrokinetic (current, wave and tidal) Projects

By Rich Bowers, Pacific Northwest Coordinator

Rich@hydroreform.org

The goal of developing new, clean and renewable energy from the power of the ocean and river currents has been a long–sought goal for both energy developers and environmental groups. This new technology has been getting a lot of scrutiny over the past twelve months, but the issue has skyrocketed as we close in on the end of 2007.

Currently, there are some 88 pending and issued hydrokinetic permits before FERC, and an equal number of pending permits for in-river projects. A good number of these permits were applied for just after the FERC hosted October 2nd Hydrokinetic Technical Conference held in Portland, OR, and most of the early in-channel projects were proposed to be located in the Mississippi River Delta, although there are pending permits on the Housatonic (CT), St. Croix and Penobscot (ME) and the Columbia (OR).

The Hydropower Reform Coalition is especially interested with the development of in-channel hydrokinetic projects, although we are also willing to share our FERC and coalition building expertise with ocean and tidal organizations, agencies and other stakeholders.

On December 14th FERC sent notice of their acceptance of application (and call for intervention) for a number of hydrokinetic projects on rivers in Alaska, including the Yukon, Kobuk, Tanana, and Kuskok Rivers (FERC Project Nos. 12870, 12871, 12872, 12877, 12878, 12881). All of these are in-stream, non-dam, non-impoundment projects situated in northern Alaska (SE Fairbanks to the Yukon). Each project ranges from a proposed 50 to 100 turbines, and all are in the 5MW range. All permits are from Hydro Green Energy, which also has submitted preliminary permits on the Mississippi.

In October 2007, and just preceding the Portland Technical Conference, FERC issued a whitepaper on hydrokinetic energy. Many organizations and agencies, including the HRC, supplied comments on this whitepaper. On November 30th FERC issued its Policy Statement on Conditioned Licenses for Hydrokinetic Projects (Docket No. PL08-1-000) which made no changes to the whitepaper and recognized none of the concerns and comments supplied by a wide range of interested parties.

While there is great interest in developing this emerging technology, there is also a shared concern by all parties (including developers) over the potential impacts that any new technology will have on natural resources. The one lesson learned (though wind, solar and other) is that all power generation has some impact on the environment!

Unfortunately, FERC seems so focused on developing this technology that they have ignored both potential impacts and the request by many stakeholders to address these potential concerns in advance. In a statement released on December 20th, FERC said that “The Commission’s review of those potential impacts has been thorough, none have been neglected, and we have not permitted the benefits of the project to obscure the need for the utmost regard for a unique ecosystem.” However, the Policy Statement does not define such basic issues such as what constitutes a “sensitive area” or what impacts would lead to shut down or removal of a project.

On December 20th, FERC issued its first license for a hydrokinetic project to Finavera Renewables for the Makah Bay Wave Energy pilot project located off the coast of Washington (P-12751-000). You can read more on this license through the FERC news release or Commissioner Kelly’s comments. On December 18th, Pacific Gas & Electric announced the first ever commercial agreement to purchase power generated from Ocean-Wave energy through a contract with Finavera for a 2 megawatt project just off the coast of Eureka, CA.

Attachment	Size
HRC_Hydrokinetic_Comments FiNAL.pdf	219.82 KB
FERC whitepaper on hydrokinetic.pdf	170.67 KB

Renewable Portfolio Standards for Washington State

Rich Bowers — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:10:19 -0500

The public deadline to submit comments on Washington State's rulemaking on Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) was November 16, 2007. The purpose of the rulemaking is to implement Chapter 19.285 RCW of the Energy Independance Act. This act codifies the November 2006 passage of voter initiative 937 (I-937). I-937 requires large utilities to obtain 15% of their electricity from new renewable resources such as solar and wind (and Tidal, Ocean and Wave energy) by 2020, and to undertake cost-effective energy conservation. For additional information go to the Washington State. Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. Two public meetings were held on this issue: November 9th at the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development in Olympia, and November 14th at the Spokane International Airport.

The Hydropower Reform Coalition has been following this issue and supported the original initiative that says that any hydropower included as part of a renewable portfolio standard should drive improved performance at existing dams -- either by rewarding low-impact hydropower or by rewarding increased power generation with no additional impacts. As currently written, Washington State's RPS is one of the strongest in the nation. The draft rules identify eligible renewable resources as "electricity from a generation facility powered by a renewable resource other than fresh water that commences after March 31, 1999." Hydropower can only be included as renewable energy if the electricity produced is a result of efficiency improvements, and where the additional electricity generated is not a result of new water diversions or impoundments. This includes irrigation pipes and canals and refers only to existing dams. It would not include new dams.

The Hydropower Reform Coalition provided comments from our members. Please check below to read Coalition comments.

Attachment	Size
CR 102 Draft Rules WAC 194-37.pdf	167.37 KB
Letter CR 102 10-07-1.pdf	160.17 KB
HRC Comments_CTED EIA rulemaking_Mar 21 2007.pdf	123.75 KB
CR-102 CRO.pdf	108.96 KB
CR 102 Draft Rules WAC 194-37.pdf	167.37 KB

Hydropower: most damaging power source per square meter?

Rebecca Sherman — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:01:45 -0500

In his new article, "Renewable and nuclear heresies," Professor Jesse Ausubel compared renewable and nuclear power production. His comparison used the metric of watts per square meter: the average amount of power production per square meter necessary to utilize to produce that power.

His point was more likely that nuclear power compares favorably with other renewable sources when viewed on this scale. But an interesting fact emerged: hydropower is by far the most damaging of the power sources investigated.

Hydropower produces only 0.1 watts per square meter, while wind produces 2 watts per square meter - or 20 times the reduced geographic footprint for the same power. For a report meant to debunk the promise of wind, the touted green promise of hydropower looks indefensibly diminished.

The Ausubel study is available through the publishing journal >>

The London Guardian's July 25th article reports >>

The analysis showed that damming rivers to make use of hydroelectric power was among the most harmful to the landscape, producing around 0.1 watts of power per square metre. The world's largest dam, the Three Gorges power station on the Yangtze in China, stores nearly 40bn cubic metres of water, submerging land that was previously home to more than 1 million people.

Oregon Renewable Energy Standards: Failed Opportunity on Hydropower

Rebecca Sherman — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:00:00 -0600

The Oregon Renewable Energy Standard (RES) requires utilities to supply 25% of their load with renewable power by 2025, and new dams can qualify toward that goal.

The bill, S 838, passed the Senate for the second time on May 25, 2007, and will be signed by Governor Kulongoski on June 6th.

- The hydropower provision as of April 11, 2007(not materially changed)

- Our proposed amendment and talking points

Relevant maps:

- Map of Oregon streams not listed under the NWPCC's "Protected Areas"

- NW Power and Conservation Council's regional map of Protected Areas

- Map of Potential Hydropower Development in Oregon

Attachment	Size
4_18_07 WaterWatch RES testimony Tues 6 pm.doc	31.5 KB
House_Testimony_S838_April 18 2007.doc	80.5 KB
Oregon_unprotected_rivers.pdf	1.83 MB
Amendment Factsheet_0407.doc	99.5 KB
INEL Hydropower Prospector Oregon.pdf	1.74 MB
State Protected Areas.JPG	114.77 KB
07REStestimonyfinal.doc	32.5 KB
Hydro Provision_Sen Committee.pdf	225.73 KB
SB 838-16.pdf	1.9 MB