Hydropower Reform Coalition - National

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.

American Rivers Accepting River Restoration Proposals

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:11:37 -0500

American Rivers recently announced the opening of the American Rivers-NOAA grant for 2009 for river restoration projects. According to American Rivers, since 2001, this partnership has provided technical and financial assistance to community based projects that aim to restore fish species by removal of stream barriers such as dams.

Grant proposals will be accepted for projects in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Northwest and California only.

The deadline for submitting applications is December 3, 2008.

According to American Rivers, during the first seven years of the partnership, the program has provided more than $2 million to support 100 community-driven river restoration projects that have benefited diadromous fish populations and habitats throughout the country.

For more information on the grants and application process, visit American Rivers' NOAA Grants page.

Read more about NOAA's Community-based Restoration Program here.

In-river Hydrokinetics - Frequently Asked Questions

Rupak Thapaliya — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:11:48 -0500

In-River Hydrokinetic Projects

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is in-river hydrokinetic technology?

In-river hydrokinetic electricity is generated by river currents that power turbines that are anchored to a river bottom or attached to existing infrastructure. Although hydrokinetic projects hold out the promise of generating power from moving water without the harmful impacts associated with dams, the technology has yet to be fully proven in a real-world setting. Since there has been little in-water testing, the actual environmental, recreational, and other impacts of hydrokinetic power are not yet well understood.

Where are projects being proposed?

Developers have laid claim to 55 proposed sites on the Mississippi River between St. Louis, MO and New Orleans, LA. There are 22 such sites on the Ohio River, and 27 on the Missouri. Similar projects are also being proposed on rivers in Alaska, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, and New York. Download the file at the bottom of this article for a map of proposed projects, or visit http://ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/indus-act/hydrokinetics.asp for a complete list of projects.

To date, only one developer has filed for a license which would permit them to install a hydrokinetic project in a river. The owners of an existing hydropower project at Lock and Dam No. 2 in Hastings, MN are seeking to add two 35 kW hydrokinetic turbines to their facility by the end of 2008. Other projects are expected to come online in the next few years.

Who is proposing the projects?

Free Flow Power (FFP) Corporation (www.free-flow-power.com) based in Gloucester, Massachusetts is proposing projects on the Mississippi, the Ohio and the Missouri Rivers.
HydroGreen Energy (www.hgenergy.com), a Houston based company, has proposed projects on the Mississippi River in Louisiana and Mississippi, and on the Yukon, Niagara and other rivers in Alaska.
Verdant Power (www.verdantpower.com) has proposed projects on the Niagara River and on the East River in New York.

A handful of other companies and municipalities have also proposed test projects.

What will these projects look like?

We've included a couple of concept drawings below:

Free Flow Power's Generator

Verdant Power's Generator

It is difficult to get a good mental picture of a project's complete footprint from concept drawings. The turbines may or may not be visible from the surface of the river. Each project's footprint will likely depend on the type of turbines and the characteristics of the local river.

According to FFP, their turbines will be deployed in arrays of multiple units spaced at least 50 feet apart. Each project may have up to 5000 turbines occupying several thousand feet of river channel.

How much power will each project generate?

The power-generating capacity of projects depends on the type, number, and capacity of turbines to be used, the velocity of the river, and other factors.

For instance, Free Flow Power expects that each of their turbines will generate an average of 10 kW. A 12 MW project with turbines spaced 50 feet apart would therefore require 1200 turbines in roughly 2 miles of river channel.

Are any projects operational?

To date, no in-river hydrokinetic projects are generating and selling power. Verdant Power has conducted limited testing of its turbines in the East River at its proposed Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE) Project.

Who regulates these projects?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC has the authority to issue licenses for these projects. As part of the licensing process, other state and federal agencies have the authority to recommend - and in some cases, require - conditions to protect fish, wildlife, navigation, recreation, and water quality.

What are the potential impacts on the river?

Until projects are operational, it is difficult to determine actual impacts. However, developers, agencies, environmental and recreation groups, and others are attempting to identify potential impacts. Some developers have started to conduct studies to analyze these impacts. Initial concerns include:

Access restrictions for recreational activities such as fishing and boating.
Potential exclusion zones on rivers.
Disturbances in movement of fish and other aquatic species.
Safety issues to fish and humans (from un-screened turbine operation).
Cumulative effects on rivers already impacted by conventional hydropower dams.

Why should I get involved?

Your involvement can help to ensure that the environmental and social impacts of this new technology are well understood and that appropriate project mitigation is undertaken to protect rivers.

How can I get involved?

Visit our website at www.hydroreform.org for regular updates on projects and policy issues. If you are interested in being involved in a project, email coordinator@hydroreform.org to find out how.

Free Flow Power has contacted us and is seeking stakeholder input from local river groups and watershed organizations regarding their proposed projects. If you are interested in talking with FFP, please contact Ramya Swaminathan at rswaminathan@free-flow-power.com.

You may also want to contact other developers to inquire about their technology and projects.

Attachment	Size
HRC In-river Hydrokinetic Projects FAQs.pdf	578.33 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 improvemens 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.

City of Hamilton to generate electricty at Meldahl Locks and Dam

Rupak Thapaliya — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:12:05 -0500

Project: Meldahl : P-12667

The City of Hamilton, OH has obtained a federal license to operate a 106 MW hydropower facility at the Captain Anthony Meldahl locks and dam near Augusta, Kentucky. According to the license issued yesterday, the project to be located on the existing Army Corps dam on the Ohio River, will occupy about 81 acres of federal lands.

On March 1, 2006 FERC had terminated the license for the same project previously granted to the City of Augusta (P-10395) in 1995. The licensee had failed to start construction of project even after repeated extensions. Under the current 50 year license, the City of Hamilton is required to commence construction of the project works within two years.

House Subcommittee holds hearing on hydropower

Rupak Thapaliya — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:23:59 -0500

On Thursday, June 12, House Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on hydropower's future. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-5th WA), a ranking member in the Subcommittee had requested for the hearing.

Coalition chair American Rivers submitted a written testimony while Richard Roos-Collins of Natural Heritage Institute, also a Coalition member, was a witness at the hearing. A total of 9 witnesses, including the hydropower industry and government testified at the hearing.

Roos-Collins, in his testimony, requested for a comprehensive review of existing federal projects to assess their operation and design. He also stressed on the need to bring together relevant information on hydropower into one place.

The testimonies are available on the Subcommittee website.

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.

HRC comments on MMS' proposed rule

Rupak Thapaliya — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:09:45 -0500

HRC commented on the final Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Mineral Management Service (MMS) regarding establishment of a program for authorizing alternative energy and alternate use (AEAU) activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted authority to MMS through the DOI to regulate energy production activities in the outer continental shelf. Such activities include hydrokinetic projects such as the wave energy, and ocean current energy.

HRC supports MMS’ adoption of the AEAU program, as recommended in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement in November 2007. The hydrokinetic projects in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) should be regulated through generally applicable procedures, standards, and requirements specified by rule, rather than case-by-case. However there are a number of questions that the EIS does not answer. Demanding that the proposed rule describe the procedures, standards, and requirements which MMS will apply for compliance with relevant laws applicable, HRC submitted comments to MMS yesterday. The submitted comment paper is attached below.

Attachment	Size
2008-03-31 MMS comments - HRC.pdf	47.84 KB

Minnesota to buy power from Canada

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:45:02 -0600

Minnesota is set to buy hydropower from Manitoba Power company in Canada, a move that could potentially have big implications on the future of power-deals between the US and Canada. Minnesota Power will purchase any surplus electricity from Manitoba Power, a utility based in Winnipeg, starting this year. Under the deal, the US utility will also buy 250 MW of electricity for 15 years starting from 2020. This would require building of hydroprojects and dams along with trans-boundary transmission lines.

Manitoba Power will have to build new hydroprojects to supply the additional 250 MW in future. The power company has laid eyes on two new hydroprojects- the Keeyask and the Conowapa, costing $3.5 billion $ 5 billion respectively.

In western Canada, the potential power deal between British Columbia and the northwestern US states, has raised concerns for building of new dams and hydroprojects. By the end of 2007, power developers in BC had applied for permits for 450 dams on over 300 rivers and streams.

See how dams affect rivers

Rupak Thapaliya — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:49:10 -0600

An interactive website that explains the effects of dams was made public yesterday by the Hydropower Reform Coalition. www.dameffets.org explains how the surrounding vegetation, fish, recreation areas and river flow can be impacted by dams. Also explained is how hydropower dams can be operated to minimize the impacts and enhance river quality.

HRC releases Science Guide

Rupak Thapaliya — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:33:57 -0600

The Science Guide entitled Scientific Approaches for Evaluating Hydroelectric Project Effects published by HRC is now available online. This guide discusses the range of studies available to evaluate the effects of a typical hydropower project, advising on the advantages and disadvantages of an approach.

In Part I of the guide, a matrix is developed to provide stakeholders involved in the relicensing process with a list of potential effects for consideration during initial evaluation of a project. In Part II Next, scientific approaches for evaluating these effects are described and compared, following the same categorical structure mapped in the matrix. The scientific approaches are organized by resource area, which is consistent with most FERC reporting requirements.

It is hoped that this report will elevate and press forward the state of relicensing science, make it more consistent from project to project, and provide scientific assistance to the HRC consortium of more than 130 conservation and recreation organizations. It is HRC’s intention that all hydropower licensing participants, including activists, state and federal resource agencies, tribes, dam owners, and FERC, will find this guide a valuable resource.

This report represents the collaborative effort of leading scientists in their respective fields, including agency, academic, utility, and private sector professionals. HRC would like to thank everyone who contributed to this guide.

Growth of Hydrokinetic Projects

Rich Bowers — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:00:00 -0600

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.

On August 31st 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 (through 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 requests 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.

First ILP License Issued for Montana's Mystic Lake Project

Rich Bowers — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:29:44 -0600

Integrated Licensing Process (ILP)

On December 17th, FERC issued its first license for a project using the ILP, Mystic Lake on West Rose Bud Creek in Montana. FERC # P-2301. The Developer is PPL Montana, and Mystic Lake is an 11.25 megawatt (MW) project near Fishtail, MT. The license requires the construction of public recreation facilities near the project as well as enhanced flows for whitewater boating. The license also requires the installation of new shutoff and minimum-flow valves to improve minimum flow reliability which would protect fish in the project’s bypassed reach. Other requirements would protect, mitigate and enhance water quality, fisheries, wildlife and cultural resources at the project.

http://www.ferc.gov/news/news-releases/2007/2007-4/12-17-07.asp

Adopted in 2003, The Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) integrates the development of license application and environmental review, and it coordinates FERC and other regulatory agencies that undertake such environmental review. In 2005, the ILP became the default process for relicensing within FERC. The Traditional (TLP) and Alternative Licensing Process (ALP) have tended to suffer from recurring process inefficiencies, including running disputes between FERC and other agencies over the boundaries between their respective jurisdictions. As a result, certain participants, including the HRC and the National Hydropower Association, formed the National Review Group (1998-2002), which developed joint recommendations for administrative reform. Federal agencies formed the Interagency Task Force (1999-2001) for the same purpose. FERC initiated the ILP rulemaking in response to these recommendations.

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

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.

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

FERC issues first hydrokinetic license

Rupak Thapaliya — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:00:00 -0600

The license for Makah Bay project is the first ever issued by FERC for a wave, tidal or current energy project in the United States. The license gives Finavera Renewables, the project licensee, a conditional five-year license for the proposed project.

This license approval follows a controversial FERC policy on hydrokinetics that allows FERC to approve licenses before adequate analysis of environmental effects of hydrokinetic projects. Several state and federal agencies, individuals and organizations including the HRC had filed comments to FERC regarding the process. FERC announced its policy statement on Nov 30, 2007.

The 5-year license will require Finavera to start construction of the project within two years and complete within three years.

FERC continues with inadequate carbon analysis

Rupak Thapaliya — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:00:00 -0600

In a recent Environmental Assessment (EA) of Morgan Falls project, FERC has yet again failed to perform a complete analysis of carbon footprint of the project. The EA states:

If relicensed, the power from the project would continue to be useful in meeting art of the local and regional need for power and continue to displace the operation of fossil-fueled facilities thus avoiding significant fossil-fueled power plant emissions and creating an environmental benefit. If the electric output of the project were replaced with coal-fired generation, greenhouse gas emissions would increase by 15,000 metric tons of carbon annually.

HRC contends that this statement wrongly assumes that -

If the Morgan Falls plant ceased generation, it would be replaced by a fossil-fuel fired facility, more specifically a coal-fired facility.
The electricity now produced could not be replaced by other renewable source of energy such as wind or solar or through efficiency and conservation.
The reservoir associated with the operation of Morgan Falls project is not a significant source of greenhouse gases.

The Commission simply assumes that if the Morgan Falls project were to stop generating, it would be replaced by a coal-burning plant. This analysis does not include or refer to any supporting evidence, and fails to consider other perfectly reasonable options such as solar or wind. Alternatively, its power could be replaced through conservation and/or efficiency measures.

The Commission also ignores the findings of recent researches that indicate that reservoirs can be a significant source of greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Scientists in Canada and Brazil have estimated that reservoirs could contribute to as much as 4% of total CO2 and 10% of total CH4 emissions. Despite these findings, FERC simply assumes that hydro projects, such as Morgan Falls, are carbon free sources of electricity.

HRC filed comment on Dec 10, demanding that FERC's carbon analysis must feature a more realistic consideration of the carbon that might be emitted by various sources of replacement power, as well as a more accurate accounting of a project’s carbon emissions. Such a careful analysis is missing from the EA for the Morgan Falls project. HRC also demanded that in case of absence of such an analysis, FERC should strike the paragraph from the EA altogether.

American Rivers & NOAA now accepting proposals for river restoration grants

John Seebach — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:48:12 -0500

American Rivers seeks proposals for river restoration project grants as part of its partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Community-based Restoration Program. Program funding is provided through NOAA’s Open Rivers Initiative, which seeks to enable environmental and economic renewal in local communities through the removal of stream barriers.

This Partnership funds stream barrier removal projects that help restore riverine ecosystems, enhance public safety and community resilience, and have clear and identifiable benefits to diadromous fish populations. Diadromous fish migrate between freshwater and saltwater during their life cycle. Examples include alewife, American eel, American shad, blueback herring, salmon, steelhead, shortnose sturgeon and striped bass. Projects in the Northeast (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI), Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA, DE, VA, MD, DC), Northwest (WA, OR, ID), and California are eligible to apply. Projects located within the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes Basin are not eligible for funding in the December 2007 grant round.

Eligible applications will be evaluated based upon four priority criteria:

Ecological merits of the project,
Technical feasibility of the project,
Benefits provided to the local community, and
Financial clarity and strength of the application.

Grants are provided for three distinct project phases: Feasibility Analysis, Engineering Design and Construction. Average grants are $25,000 - $50,000. Successful applicants for one project phase will not be eligible to receive additional funding for that same project phase in future grant rounds. See the Funding Guidelines for additional details.

Applications are currently being accepted for the first cycle of fiscal year 2008 with a deadline of December 3, 2007. Applications for projects must be postmarked by the deadline for consideration in this funding cycle. Potential applicants should contact American Rivers to discuss potential projects prior to submitting an application. Applicants can expect notification about funding decisions in early March 2008.

Obtain the Application for Financial Assistance and Funding Guidelines on the American Rivers web site.

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.

Take a class in dam removal!

John Seebach — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:09:59 -0500

The University of Wisconsin, in partnership with Coalition members American Rivers and Trout Unlimited and several other organizations, is home to the nation’s only regular short course on dam removal, entitled "Succeeding with a Dam Removal Project."

The next course will be held in East Lansing, Michigan from November 5-7, 2007. Join the ranks of more than 500 people across the country that have taken the course, and deepened their understanding of how to plan, design and implement successful dam removal and river restoration projects.

Please see the attached brochure for details and registration info.

Attachment	Size
Dam Removal Course Michigan 11-07.pdf	299.63 KB

Taum Sauk, Missouri: Rebuild a failed hydropower reservoir?

Rebecca Sherman — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:39:08 -0500

Project: Taum Sauk : P-2277

July 9th was the deadline to provide comments on FERC's Environmental Assessment for the rebuilding of AmerenUE's Taum Sauk hydropower project, which failed in December 2005.

Citing concerns over whether the project should be built at all, or whether a fair review should be shifted to the relicensing (Taum Sauk's license expires in 2010), several groups protested the conclusions of the draft. Their comments are attached below.

As the Associated Press reported in its July 10th "Groups Criticize Ameren Taum Sauk Plans":

Environmental regulators and activists criticized parts of Ameren Corp.'s plan to rebuild the Taum Sauk reservoir in public comments submitted to federal regulators this week.

The comments were filed Monday and Tuesday with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is deciding whether to let Ameren rebuild the mountaintop reservoir in rural southeast Missouri.

BACKGROUND

Early in the morning on December 14, 2005, the upper reservoir of the Taum Sauk Project failed, blowing out one wall of the earthen berm and flooding Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park with over one billion gallons of water. The catastrophic breach emptied the reservoir in 30 minutes. A park ranger and his family were seriously injured in the flood.

The Taum Sauk project operates as pumped storage. It has two reservoirs - one in the East Fork of the Black Rivers channel, the other carved out of a chopped-off mountain neighboring the river. When peak power is in demand, the top reservoir releases water into the lower reservoir; on off-peak hours, the water is pumped to the top reservoir. Often, pumped storage is a net-loss energy facility, generating power that is financially advantageous and using another source of power (commonly coal power) to return water to the upper reservoir.

In preparation for St. Louis's power needs on the morning of December 14th, project owner Ameren began filling the upper reservoir. However, the upper reservoir was known to have safety issues, and to compound the problem, Ameren overfilled the reservoir. In its weakened state, the reservoir collapsed. A review of the situation by dam safety officials suggests that the reservoir's permitted high-end levels were already too close to the lip of the reservoir; that the safety issues were not dealt with appropriately by regulators; and that the safety review conducted only three months before the collapse may have contained inaccurate data.

FERC conducted a review of the breach and fined the company for its error. The state of Missouri pursues its own claims, including criminal negligence, against the company.

Read FERC's website on Taum Sauk failure.

Read the Missouri DNR's coverage of the disaster, including photos.

Attachment	Size
American Rivers comments on Taum Sauk_July 2007.pdf	87.44 KB
Comments of Ozark Chapter_July 2007.doc	69 KB
Comments of MO Coalition_July 2007.doc	77.5 KB

Coalition seeks National Coordinator

John Seebach — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:03:30 -0500

We're hiring! The Hydropower Reform Coalition is seeking applications for a DC-based National Coordinator. If you are interested in the position, please refer to the attached job announcement. The deadline for applications is August 15, 2007.

As of July 1, 2007, our current National Coordinator, John Seebach, will be moving down the hall (literally) to American Rivers, where he will direct their hydropower reform campaign. He will continue to be an active member of the Coalition, and will work closely with the new Coordinator on hydropower policy issues.

Attachment	Size
HRC National Coordinator.pdf	180.09 KB

Wall Street Journal: Dam the Salmon

Rebecca Sherman — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:38:17 -0500

The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) published an opinion-editorial called "Dam the Salmon" from a Reason.com analyst. The analyst, describing conservationists as "greens," begins:

If their opposition to the Klamath hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest is any indication, the greens, it appears, are just as unwilling to sacrifice their pet causes as a Texas rancher is to sacrifice his pickup truck. If anything, the radicalization of the environmental movement is the bigger obstacle to addressing global warming than the allegedly gluttonous American way of life.

The American way of life is allegedly excessive? Conservation is the problem behind global warming? Fascinating. The reply from American Rivers, available on their blog, and published by the WSJ reads:

Are the readers of the Wall Street Journal supposed to be horrified when an outmoded 100 year-old factory closes its doors? Of course not.

But that’s exactly the sort of irrational economic logic Ms. Dalmia proposes should protect all hydro dams into the infinite future.

Another letter from Friends of the River, also published, says:

[S]he neglects to mention at any point that a staggering 95% of the Klamath's native salmon population has been destroyed. Stepping in to protect the remaining 5% of a critical species is hardly a "radical" environmental position.

[She also] alleges that environmentalists have "rejected all attempts by PacifiCorp... to take mitigation steps... to create a salmon pathway." This is not true. PacifiCorp only considered mitigation because it was required to and its only genuine proposal was to catch migrating salmon, load them into trucks and drive them upstream -- a plan best characterized as absurd.

The WSJ published a third letter to the editor from a California resident, Scott Christensen, who points out that "there is nothing "cheap and renewable" about energy production that results in the destruction of wild salmon and steelhead runs and the jobs that depend on them."

Property Access and Preliminary Permits: Not a Federal Issue

Rebecca Sherman — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:30:53 -0500

When FERC issues a preliminary permit, it specifically acknowledges that the permit "confers no authority on the permittee to undertake construction of the proposed project or any part thereof, or to occupy or use lands or other property of the United States or of any other entity or individual." For more on preliminary permits, please see our Hydro Guide.

For the Metro Project (P-12484) in Ohio, a dispute arose over whether the project proponent should be permitted to conduct studies on county park lands, managed by Summit County's Metro Parks. When Metro Parks refused, the Metro Hydroelectric Company took them to court. The Company argued that the federal permit leads to federal legal jurisdiction.

The federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a FERC preliminary permit does not give the permit holder the right to trespass onto property that it does not own in order to perform feasibility studies. If there's a property right dispute during the study phase of a FERC (original) licensing, the place to hear that dispute is in state court. The mere existence of a FERC proceeding doesn't make the issue ripe for a federal court.

See attached May 25th decision.

Attachment	Size
05-25StayUpheld.pdf	77.53 KB

FERC's final rule amending CEII regulations

John Seebach — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:23:31 -0500

A little more than four years after they were first issued, FERC has amended its CEII regulations. The amended regulations (read FERC's final rule or its order on rehearing) have several significant new features.

Refined Definition of CEII

Observing that "many submitters over utilize [CEII] designation," FERC has restricted its definition of CEII, which is now defined as "specific engineering, vulnerability, or detailed design information about proposed or existing critical infrastructure that:

Relates details about the production, generation, transportation, transmission, or distribution of energy;
Could be useful to a person in planning an attack on critical infrastructure;
Is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (2000); and
Does not simply give the general location of the critical infrastructure."

(Note: Bolded / italicized text indicates where the definition has changed)

FERC goes on to clarify that "narratives such as the descriptions of facilities and processes are generally not CEII unless they describe specific engineering and design details of critical infrastructure."

NDA requirement for CEII requests

Anyone requesting CEII must now submit an executed non-disclosure agreement (NDA) along with their request. Non disclosure forms for the general public (as well as specific forms for the media, federal agencies, state agencies, and consultants) are available along with CEII request forms at FERC's CEII help page.

Increased concern over CEII abuses

The Coalition (and others) have long complained that FERC's CEII designation process encourages abuse by allowing utilities to designate information as CEII without any meaningful review. Some utilities have blatantly abused the system by incorrectly labeling non-critical information as CEII in order to restrict public access. A more common practice is to combine information that should not be restricted with legitimate CEII information in a single submission, thus keeping all of the information hidden from the public.

In its order, FERC reminds utilities that they should segregate CEII and non-CEII information and provide a justification for why information has been designated as CEII. FERC also appears to be putting utilities on notice that blatant abuse will not be tolerated, writing that the Commission "will take action against applicants or parties who knowingly misfile information as CEII, including rejection of an application where information is mislabeled as CEII or where a legal justification is not provided."

Idaho Rivers United seeks proposals for flash website

Rebecca Sherman — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:52:43 -0600

RFP - Flash Website

Organizational Overview

Founded in 1990, Idaho Rivers United has over 3,000 members. Idaho Rivers United's mission is to protect and restore the rivers of Idaho. Our focus is the ecological integrity of our rivers, but the lens we look through is citizen involvement. We involve our volunteers and members in issues such as establishment of instream flows, protection of wild rivers, keeping rivers clean and healthy, defending at-risk populations of fish, and minimizing the impacts of dams on Idaho's rivers.

Project Description

Idaho Rivers United would like to produce a flash-based website to illustrate the impacts of dams on river systems. The website will have its own URL (e.g. www.damsdamagerivers.org) but be closely integrated with the Hydropower Reform Coalition's website (www.hydroreform.org). The website will have a companion brochure, to be produced by a separate vendor.

The website will feature three tabs. One tab will provide a full-screen angled view of a river system. The default position of this tab will be motion, a flowing river. By clicking on up to ten (10) elements on the page, users may view various components of a flowing river. For instance, by clicking on the river itself, the scene will switch to fall, winter, spring, and then back to summer while the river levels bob up and down in order to demonstrate seasonal river variation. After this 3-5 second visual sequence, a pop-up box appears explaining what just occurred.

The other two tabs will be of a poorly-run hydropower dam, and then a well-run hydropower dam. The same ten (10) elements will appear on these tabs, with action then a pop-up box. Using the same example, in a poorly run system, we will have a powerhouse and show the bypassed river reach, and also indicate peaking flows (following electricity load as opposed to run-of-river operations). On a well-run dam, the bypassed river reach would include some flow, and the powerhouse releases will follow more natural flow levels and variation.

We would like to include sound in the site.

Because the project is already well-envisioned, Idaho Rivers United and Coalition staff anticipate working closely with the vendor as the website is developed.

Proposal

Your submission should be no longer than 4 pages and contain the following:
- An itemized price-out
- A timeline for completion of the project, including anticipated feedback loops
- List and brief qualifications of personnel
- Two (2) professional references
- Links to a portfolio of Flash work

Deadline and Format

Please file your proposal with the contact no later than March 9, 2007. Electronic submissions only.

FERC issues preliminary permit for Baintertown project

John Seebach — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:00:00 -0600

FERC issued a preliminary permit for a proposed 325kW project on the Elkhart River in Indiana. From FERC's order (for docket P-12702):

On June 28, 2006, Baintertown Hydroelectric Power LLC (permittee) filed an application for a three-year preliminary permit under Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to study the proposed Baintertown Hydroelectric Project No. 12702. The project would be located on the Elkhart River, in Elkhart County, Indiana.

The proposed project would consist of: (1) the existing 130-foot-wide, 4-foot-high Baintertown Dam owned by the Elkhart County Parks and Recreation, (2) a proposed reconstructed powerhouse containing one proposed generating unit with an installed capacity of 325 kilowatts, (3) an existing 500-foot-long and 50-foot-wide tailrace, (4) a proposed 200-foot-long, 12.5 kilovolt transmission line, and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 870 megawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility.

FERC issues policy statement on hydro licensing settlements

John Seebach — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:00:00 -0500

Two very important things happened at FERC's open commission meeting this week.

First, the Commission welcomed three brand-new commissioners: Philip Moller, Marc Spitzer, and Jon Wellinghoff. This marks the first time that FERC has had its full complement of five Commissioners since the Commission's 1997-2000 term. FERC had been operating with three commissioners after former Chairman Pat Wood resigned at the end of his term in June 2005, and had even briefly dropped to a commission of two after Nora Brownell's departure this summer. We welcome the new commissioners and wish them the best during their tenure.

At the meeting, the Commission also unveiled its new policy statement on hydropower licensing settlements (read FERC's press release). There has been growing concern -- and frustration -- among licensing stakeholders over FERC's treatment of comprehensive settlement agreements. In many cases, FERC has issued licensing orders and environmental impact documents that undermine or flatly contradict settlement terms that took parties years to negotiate. Parties (including the Coalition, which rated a mention in Chairman Kelliher's statement) complained about the resulting confusion and uncertainty, prompting FERC to develop this new guidance.

Thanks in large part to Commissioner Moller and the other new commissioners, FERC has invited the public to submit written comments on this policy. Comments are due on November 11, 2006, and can be filed using FERC's electronic filing system, referencing docket number PL06-5-000. See the text of the policy statement for more details.

The Hydropower Reform Coalition will be submitting detailed comments, and we encourage our members and others with hydro licensing settlement experience to submit comments as well. Alternately, you are welcome to send us your thoughts so that we can incorporate them into our comments.

Energy Policy Act rules go to federal court

Rebecca Sherman — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:08:29 -0500

On August 29, 2006, a federal court heard arguments over whether the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture followed the law when they published the implementing rules for the hydropower provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Plaintiffs American Rivers, America Outdoors, American Whitewater, Idaho Rivers United, Friends of the River (CA), Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (GA), and Trout Unlimited filed a complaint in December 2005 against the Departments. In their complaint, the groups made two claims:

First, the Departments failed to follow the Adminsitrative Procedures Act (APA) when they finalized the rules before issuing notice and soliciting public comments. The "interim final" rules requested comments on major outstanding issues such as burden of proof, but also made the rules effective immediately, leaving significant questions unanswered.

Second, the Departments impermissibly applied the Energy Policy Act retroactively to advanced licensing cases. Laws may not be applied retroactively unless Congress specifically directs, and in this case, Congress was silent and Plaintiffs' legal rights were harmed.

In Court on August 29th, Earthjustice lawyer Jan Hasselman argued that the federal government overreached its legal authority, and as a result, rivers across the country have suffered. The Departments were represented by John Most with the Department of Justice. Most of Judge Marsha Pechman's questions were directed toward the contractual nature of settlements.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Pechman announced that a decision would issue in two weeks time.

Supreme Court Upholds States' Right to Protect Rivers from Hydropower Dams

John Seebach — Mon, 15 May 2006 07:00:00 -0500

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 9-0 opinion in the case of S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, rejecting a South African paper company' s bid to exempt five of its hydroelectric dams in Maine from the Clean Water Act. In doing so, the court upheld states' long-established practice of requiring hydropower dams to comply with state water quality standards, as well as established science demonstrating dams' impact on water quality.

Coalition members American Rivers and Friends of the Presumpscot River (FOPR) were formal intervenors to the case, strongly supporting Maine's right to require dams on its rivers to live up to the state's water quality standards. They were joined by the Bush Administration, a bipartisan group of attorneys general from 35 states and territories, American Indian tribes, angling groups, leading river scientists and engineers, more than four dozen conservation and recreation NGOs, and others that filed "friend of the Court" briefs in support of Maine's position.

While hydropower dams can provide a number of benefits, they do so at considerable cost to rivers. Dams can destroy healthy fisheries, harm river ecosystems, and limit recreational opportunities. Since the 1970s, states have used the Clean Water Act to mitigate many of these harmful impacts.

A win by S.D. Warren could have given the hydropower industry a long-sought-after loophole allowing dam owners to escape state water quality requirements. Instead, the Court recognized that dams can cause severe water quality impacts that are a state's "legitimate legislative business," and calling states' Clean Water Act authority over federally-licensed hydropower dams "a system that respects the States' concerns."

Senate Holds Hearing on EPAct Hydro Provisions

John Seebach — Mon, 08 May 2006 23:00:00 -0500

On Monday, May 8th, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to discuss the hydroelectric provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Andrew Fahlund of American Rivers gave testimony on behalf of the Hydropower Reform Coalition. Representatives from DOI, FERC, and the hydropower industry also testified before the committee. FERC staff also provided Congress with a report on the status of "transitional" projects where the EPAct rules had been applied retroactively.

Reports from the hearing quote Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), chief proponent of the provisions, as saying: "One of the reasons you're before us today talking about the law and how it was implemented is because of the way the old process was handled. Twelve to 13-year processes that cost millions and millions of dollars was what drove this Congress to make changes ... time here has been so badly abused in the past."

A transcript of the hearing (or a transcript of hydropower session only) is available. You can also watch the hearing via an archived webcast, and read a copy of the agencies' responses to questions on the record.

Attachment	Size
Agency responses to questions on EPAct rules 2006-05.pdf	55.95 KB
FERC transitional projects 2006-05.pdf	19.3 KB
Transcript_Senate_ENR_Hydro_Hearing.pdf	151.84 KB