Licensee seeks West Branch and Sysladobsis Dam amendment

A Maine dam owner has applied to federal regulators seeking to exclude from its hydropower license one of two dam-based developments which comprise the project.

At issue is the January 31, 2017 application of Woodland Pulp LLC to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an amendment to the license for the West Branch Storage Dam Project.  The West Branch project was first licensed in 1980, and currently operates under a license issued by the Commission in 2016.  It includes two developments -- Sysladobsis and West Grand -- each of which operates as a water storage facility to provide flood storage and flow releases for downstream hydroelectric generation. 

As described in the license amendment application, the Sysladobsis development includes Sysladobsis Dam.  This dam is about 250 feet long and 9 feet high, consisting of three earth embankment sections, a small timber gate structure, and a fish passage facility.  The dam impounds the 5,400-acre Sysladobsis Lake; water released from the dam flows Sysladobsis Lake into the downstream West Grand impoundment, then into either Grand Lake Stream or Grand Lake Brook.  The project does not include any electricity generating facilities, but rather operates as part of a 112-year-old system of headwater storage dams in the St. Croix River watershed including Woodland Pulp LLC’s Forest City Project No. 2660 which the licensee has applied and the recently relicensed Vanceboro Project No. 2492. Generation associated with these projects occurs at the Grand Falls and Woodland hydroelectric projects downstream on the St. Croix River.

The licensee has requested FERC approval to remove the Sysladobsis development from the West Branch Project as a legal matter, and proposes "to remove the two wooden gates at the Sysladobsis Dam," but says it "does not propose to remove the Sysladobsis Dam as part of the amendment, and such removal is not necessary or appropriate."  Rather, the applicant asserts, "There will be no structural alteration of the dam, and there will be no discharge into the water. Once the gates are removed, the dam will no longer act as a water control structure for Sysladobsis Lake. Instead, impoundment levels and outflow will be determined by the natural precipitation cycle."

According to the licensee's application, "This change is necessary since operation of the Project as-is will no longer be economic under the new license issued March 15, 2016."  The licensee cited license terms and conditions including specific water level requirements and operating plans, reporting, and consultation requirements, "some with unreasonable time constraints."  The application notes, "As such Woodland cannot continue to fund and support the Sysladobsis development and incur increased losses on non-economically viable facility components."

In a separate docket, the Commission is considering an application by the same licensee to surrender its Forest City project license.

EPA FAQ on dam removal projects

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released a document answering "Frequently Asked Questions" about the removal of obsolete dams. 

As noted by EPA, dams "provide important societal functions for drinking water supply, flood control, hydropower generation, and recreation."  EPA estimates that the U.S. is home to between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000 dams -- but that between 75% and 90% of these dams "no longer serve a functional purpose."  Given the expense of maintaining dams and their safety, and some negative social and environmental impacts of dams, there is some pressure to remove obsolete dams.  According to EPA, over 1,300 dams have been removed in the U.S. since the early 1900s, with over 60 removals in 2015 alone.

EPA framed its dam removal FAQ in this context, noting that its answers to these questions would support dam removal efforts.  The FAQ addresses 20 distinct topics, ranging from dams' impacts on water quality, permitting issues related to dam removal, and EPA-related funding that could be used to support dam removal.

For example, the FAQ discusses permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including the use of individual permits or general permits, including Nationwide Permits.  The FAQ encourages project proponents to work closely with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding Section 404 permitting.  It describes how EPA would evaluate specific requirements for monitoring or testing, such as in the case of contaminated sediments behind the dam.  The FAQ also discusses other permitting requirements, such as state-issued water quality certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and evaluations of consistency with coastal zone management plans under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The FAQ also notes that various grants may be available for dam removal projects.  For example, grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act can be issued to states, territories, and tribes for dam removals.  EPA's Five Star Wetland and Urban Water Restoration Grant Program could also provide funding for river, wetlands, riparian, forest and coastal restoration, and wildlife conservation.  Other funding, such as under the Wetland Program Development Grant program, is available to build technical and programmatic capacity of state and tribal water agencies.  Finally, the FAQ notes that dam removals could be part of a Supplemental Environmental Project proposed in settlement of an environmental enforcement action.

As noted by EPA, the FAQs released in December 2016 do not impose legally binding requirements on anyone, and EPA retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in these FAQs where appropriate.  Nevertheless the document provides dam owners, regulators, and communities guidance on how EPA views dam removal proposals.

New Jersey FERC license surrender and dam removal

U.S. energy regulators have accepted an application to surrender the licensee for a New Jersey hydropower project.  Earlier this month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission accepted Great Bear Hydropower Inc.'s application to surrender its license for the Columbia Dam Project, located on the Paulins Kill.  While the Commission decision to accept license surrender does not necessarily mean the dam will be removed, it represents a significant step toward letting the dam owner pursue dam removal if it wishes.  The case also illustrates tensions between hydropower development and dam removal, which remain active in U.S. policy discussions, and the consequences of state jurisdiction following FERC license surrender.

On January 15, 1986, the Commission issued a 40-year license for the construction, operation, and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities at the existing Columbia Dam.  The project includes a 20-foot-high, 330-foot-long concrete dam, originally built by a utility in 1909.  The site was sold to the state in 1955, after which the original electric generation was discontinued.  Following the project's 1986 licensing by FERC, the licensee added a powerhouse containing two generating units with a total installed generating capacity of 530 kilowatts.

The dam remains owned by the state of New Jersey as part of the Columbia Wildlife Management Area, and the licensee has been operating the project under a long-term lease with the state. But significant efforts are under way to improve water quality in the Delaware River basin.  The Nature Conservancy has described a strategy for watershed restoration that features the Columbia Dam's removal as a key component.  After the state and The Nature Conservancy entered into an agreement to remove the dam, the licensee ultimately agreed to surrender its license and remove only its hydroelectric facilities originally added to the dam, leaving the state to perform any future dam removal.

Because the Columbia Dam Project is subject to Part 1 of the Federal Power Act, its license could not be surrendered without approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  The licensee applied for surrender in October 2015.  The Commission granted that approval on August 10, 2016.

The FERC license surrender does not necessarily mean that the dam itself will be removed, although it does provide for decommissioning of the hydropower equipment.  The Commission accepted the licensee's proposal to remove the generating equipment, transformers from the powerhouse, and disconnect the electric connection to the local utility.  The license surrender will not be effective until the Commission agrees that the project’s facilities have been decommissioned in accordance with this surrender order.

As for the dam, the Commission noted, "It will be up to the state of New Jersey, the dam owner, to decide whether to remove the Columbia Dam, once the hydroelectric facilities have been decommissioned.  Dam removal would have some ecological, social, and economic benefits for the Paulins Kill watershed."  Following the effectiveness of license surrender, safety matters would primarily be state jurisdictional, and any dam removal would proceed primarily under state law.

While hydropower continues to play a significant role in the overall U.S. energy mix, with new and ongoing federal initiatives to increase hydropower generation, in some cases economics and environmental considerations may lead to the surrender of some project licenses.  This may be particularly true for some relatively small dams with fish passage issues facing relicensing in coming years.

Wisconsin municipal hydro project license extended

Federal energy regulators have granted a Wisconsin city's request to extend its hydropower project license for five years to allow time for comprehensive river corridor planning.  The March 17 order was the result of a rehearing following a denial by agency staff.  It relies on a finding of "relatively unique facts," which include a stakeholder process that will inform the licensee's upcoming decision whether to continue an effort to seek a new license for the project, or to surrender the license.

At issue is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by the City of River Falls, Wisconsin, for the 375-kilowatt River Falls Project on the Kinnickinnic River.  The municipal hydro project's current 30-year license expires on August 31, 2018, and a relicensing process is already underway -- but the city is also considering alternatives including surrendering the license.  As a result, last year the City filed a request to extend the expiration date of its license by five years, until August 31, 2023.  The City asked for more time to work with stakeholders and the community to complete a comprehensive river corridor plan, and determine whether to relicense the project or surrender the license.

But on December 9, 2015, Commission staff issued an order denying the City’s request. The order noted that the Commission has granted extensions of license terms only in a few specific instances and under limited circumstances.  For example, the Commission has extended license terms to amortize the cost of substantial new improvements or substantial new environmental measures, to coordinate the expiration dates of licenses in the same river basin, or because of unique circumstances or circumstances beyond a licensee’s control -- factors it did not originally find applicable to this proceeding. 

The City filed a timely request for rehearing of this denial, which the Commission recently granted.  In its March 17, 2016 order extending the license term five years, the Commission noted that it "generally does not favor actions that delay the completion of licensing proceedings," and historically "has extended license terms only in very narrow circumstances."  But "given the relatively unique facts of this case", the Commission found that an extension of the license term was in the public interest.

The Commission cited a list of specific factors making this proceeding unique:

We find that the unique circumstances of this proceeding – the combination of unanimous stakeholder support for the extension, the tying of the extension to the development of a comprehensive river plan, and the fact that the licensee is a small municipality – demonstrate that a five year extension of the project license is in the public interest. All resource agencies and stakeholders support the City’s proposal to extend the license term in order to complete the corridor plan and decide whether to seek a subsequent license or surrender the project. This strong support and lack of any adverse comments demonstrates that the City is not requesting an extension of the license term merely to delay the preparation of a relicense application and to continue generating under more favorable terms.

It also noted an efficiency benefit from extending the license term, given the pending question: whether to relicense the project, or surrender the license:

Last, allowing the City time to determine if it should relicense or surrender prior to having to file a relicensing application is the most efficient use of resources. As a small municipality, the City may incur significant costs in preparing and processing a relicensing application despite the fact that it may later surrender its license.

The Commission's order extended the license term for the River Falls Hydroelectric Project to August 31, 2023.  Meanwhile, the comprehensive Kinnickinnic River corridor planning process will continue.  That process may inform the City's decision whether to relicense the River Falls project, surrender its license, or pursue some other alternative.

Penobscot River dam removal starts

Demolition of the Great Works dam on Maine's Penobscot River began this morning.  The dam removal marks the first major physical change to the Penobscot riverscape following the 2004 Lower Penobscot Basin Comprehensive Settlement Accord.  This landmark agreement led the Penobscot River Restoration Trust to acquire two dams on the river for $24 million - the Great Works and Veazie dams - and ultimately to the dams' removal.

The Great Works dam was originally built in the late 1800s to provide water and waterpower to a series of lumber and paper mills.  Over time, hydroelectric facilities were added to the dam.  By its end, the facility included a powerhouse containing 11 turbine-generator units totaling about 8 MW of installed capacity.

Although the dam included several fish passage facilities, environmentalists and fishery agencies considered the river's overall fish passage structures and accessible habitat inadequate.  After years of advocacy and negotiations, in 2004 seven conservation groups, the Penobscot Indian Nation, state and federal agencies and then-dam owner PPL agreed to a comprehensive settlement that would remove the Great Works and Veazie dams but allow six other dams that will remain on the Penobscot and its tributaries to produce more electricity.

After the Great Works dam removal is complete, the Veazie dam 7 miles downstream will be next to be removed, the Howland Dam on the upstream tributary Piscataquis River will be decommissioned and bypassed, and a fish lift will be installed at the Milford Dam.  Overall, the project is estimated to cost $62 million.

Sunken history behind Penobscot dams

As two dams come out of Maine's Penobscot River, the conservation organization leading the dam removal effort has discovered what historians might view as sunken treasure: submerged mill dam structures from centuries past.  At the same time, these sunken dam remnants may continue to impede fish passage once the modern dams are removed, potentially frustrating the dam owner's intent in removing them.

The Penobscot River Restoration Trust is undertaking the removal of the Veazie and Great Works Dams on the Penobscot River.  Following a 2004 settlement agreement among previous dam owners, environmental and conservation groups, and governmental agencies, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved their removal, along with the installation of fish passage equipment at the upstream Howland dam on the Piscataquis River.

Dam removal is expected to help fish and other aquatic wildlife, but FERC required the Trust to develop a plan to mitigate any adverse impacts of dam removal on infrastructure and archaeologic resources.  For example, the Trust knew that the historic remnants of previous dams and lumber mills lay submerged in the impoundment behind the Veazie Dam.  The remnants are associated with a series of lumber mills successively known as the Penobscot Mill Dam Company Mills, the City Mills, the Corporation Mills, and the Veazie Lumber Company Mill, which consisted of two sets of saw mills connected along water-control structures that ran parallel to the Penobscot River, and which were constructed in the mid-nineteenth century. Moreover, the site was purchased in 1889 for use as one of Maine’s first
hydroelectric facilities.

The Trust, along with the state historical preservation office, entered into a memorandum of agreement requiring the Trust to document the Veazie remnant structures after the modern dam is removed.  Because the historic mill dam is expected to impair natural river flow after the modern dam is gone, the Trust also plans to remove the historic structure after it is documented.

As it turns out, the historic Veazie dam is not the only historic or archaeological resource submerged beneath the Penobscot River's waters. While finalizing plans for removal of the Great Works dam, the Trust discovered that a similar, inundated, remnant structures exist in the Great Works impoundment.  The structural remains within the impoundment of the Great Works Dam were constructed as two structures in the early 19th century to provide water for two early sawmill complexes on the Penobscot River at Great Works: for the mills of Rufus Dwinel on the west bank, and for the mills of the Great Works Milling and Manufacturing Company on the east bank. These original dams, on each side of the river, were built as wing dams that extended upriver and out from the river bank, and likely were built independently of each other. The two dams were then consolidated under a single ownership in the early 1880s by the Penobscot Chemical Fibre Company, who built an early mill for producing wood pulp for paper on the Penobscot River.

Both of these sites may be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places as historic archaeological sites.

As a result of the re-discovery of these additional historic remnants, the Trust sought and obtained FERC's approval to document and remove part of the historic Great Works structures.  The Trust anticipates removing the modern Great Works dam as early as this summer.

Removing WA's Condit dam, recap

A major dam removal project is underway on the White Salmon River in the state of Washington.  Video footage of its breach (made available by National Geographic) shows something few living humans have seen but which is already recur in the near future: the removal of a major dam and associated dewatering of its impoundment.

In 1913, the Northwestern Electric Company built the Condit Hydroelectric Project to provide electricity to a nearby paper company and even to feed Portland, Oregon.  The dam was rated at 14.7 MW of nameplate capacity - a far cry from the Hoover Dam (2080 MW) or Grand Coulee Dam (6809 MW), but nevertheless a major dam in terms of its power production and significance.

In 1996, increasing pressure on dam owner PacifiCorp to install fish ladders and perform modifications for environmental compliance led PacifiCorp to seek the dam's decommissioning and removal.  In 2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the removal of the Condit Dam.  In late 2011, contractors breached the dam, draining the upstream impoundment.

If you haven't seen a dam breach before, or if you are simply impressed by the immense power of moving water, you may appreciate the National Geographic video footage of the Condit Dam's breach and the resulting rush of water and sediment.

Now that the Condit Dam has been removed, remediation and restoration efforts are under way.  You can track those efforts on the Washington State Department of Ecology's website, as well as on PacifiCorp's website.

Decision on Klamath dam removal delayed

A contentious decision on whether four dams should be removed from the Klamath River Basin in California and Oregon may be delayed indefinitely pending Congressional guidance on how to balance the nation's policies governing hydroelectricity, fisheries, and dam removals.

Utility PacifiCorp owns four dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries whose license expired in 2006 and which are now targeted for removal.  After a lengthy and still-incomplete relicensing process and challenges by environmentalists, in 2010 PacifiCorp agreed to settle the dispute by seeking to remove the dams.  This settlement was documented in two key contracts, the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

These documents set March 31, 2012 as the deadline by which the Secretary of Interior must issue a so-called "Secretarial Determination" as to whether to go ahead with dam removal.  Unless the Secretarial Determination calls for the removal of the dams, it would be expected to require PacifiCorp to continue its application for a new hydropower license for the dams.

However, in the Klamath Basin case, the Secretary cannot issue a Secretarial Determination calling for dam removal unless Congress first passes legislation authorizing the determination.  Congress does not appear likely to take action on the issue in the near term, prompting Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to issue a press release last month announcing his decision to defer issuance of a secretarial determination.  In that release, Secretary Salazar stated, "Because Congress has not enacted legislation necessary to authorize a Secretarial Determination under the terms of the KHSA, there will not be a decision by March 31, 2012 on potential removal of the dams."

Now that a Secretarial Determination is no longer expected by March 31, stakeholders expect the final studies and environmental analysis will be released this spring.  Will Congress ultimately act on the Klamath River dam removal proposals?

Royal River dam history

The town of Yarmouth, Maine is considering what to do with two dams on the Royal River.  The town owns the dams near Bridge Street and East Elm Street; these dams, or their predecessors, were built as early as the mid-1700s to provide mechanical hydropower to the industrial mills that played a large part in the local and regional economy.  Since 1674, settlers used the Royal River's waters to power mills; as early as 1759, a dam at East Elm Street was used to impound water to power an iron mill.  The debate over whether to repair or remove the dams is grounded in the history of human use of the Royal River's hydropower resources.

One of the best historical texts on Maine's hydropower potential and resources is The Water-Power of Maine, a compilation of reports by the commissioners of the Hydrographic Survey of 1867 and its secretary, Walter Wells.  The report broadly identifies 1,955 "water-powers" based on a survey asking municipalities about the resources within their boundaries.

For Yarmouth, the report provides the following description along with a note that the information was "digested from Selectment's Returns":

SIX POWERS.

They are called, - one, "Gooch's"; four, "Baker's"; one, the "Factory Fall".  All are situated on Royal's River; combined height, sixty-six feet in one mile.

Power estimated sufficient to grind seventy-five bushels of grain per hour each. Power is not all improved; mills work all the year; machinery not the best.

Stream connected with three small ponds. Range from lowest to highest water, eight feet. Effect of the improvement of the power upon the wealth of the town, excellent.

This snapshot gives us a good look at the water-power of Yarmouth in 1867. (Compare the elegant sign prepared by the Yarmouth Village Improvement Society in 2011, showing a map and images from industrial activities at four of the natural water-power sites in Yarmouth.) A twenty-first century visitor to Yarmouth might be surprised at the industrial history of the waterway, including a large pulp mill owned by the Forest Paper Company, textile mills, and other manufacturing concerns that employed the people of Yarmouth over the years.

140 years later, the Royal River's waters do not grind much grain, but at least two of the dams remain in the river. In 1984, the Sparhawk Mill near to the Bridge Street dam installed hydroelectric generation, although it is reportedly worse for the wear and produces little to no useful power. (Perhaps "machinery not the best" could have been said about the present-day site as well as it was in 1867.)

Dam removal advocates have labeled the dams "relics of an industrial age". Environmental advocates suggest that Yarmouth remove the dams, given the cost of maintaining them, their impacts to fish in the river, and the fact that they are not fully being used to produce renewable power.  Yet Yarmouth has a strong culture of interest in both sustainable energy (e.g. Yarmouth Energy Savers Committee) and historical preservation (e.g. Yarmouth Historical Society); the town's consultants found that the dams could generate some renewable electricity, and could be eligible for inclusion in national historic preservation districts.  Given the history and present risks and opportunities, will the people of Yarmouth choose to remove the Royal River dams?

Klamath basin dam removal

The US Department of the Interior recently released a draft report analyzing the economic and environmental impacts of removing four dams in the Klamath River Basin.  The report frames a public debate over water rights, natural resource management, and dam removal.

Long home to prodigious salmon runs and a vibrant ecosystem, several of the rivers in the Klamath system were dammed in the 1900s.  Today, four of these dams - J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate - are owned by utility PacifiCorp. Over time, fish numbers in the Klamath River declined precipitously; according to the report, numbers of many species like salmon are reduced over 90% from historical levels.  In 2006, after a 50-year term, the FERC license for the four dams expired.

Activism by environmental groups and others frustrated PacifiCorp's plans to relicense the dams, and ultimately led stakeholders to sign two key agreements governing the basin: the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement in 2010.  Under the terms of those agreements, the four named dams would be removed.

The Draft Klamath Dam Removal Overview Report for the Secretary of the Interior (333 page PDF) bills itself as an assessment of scientific and technical information about the proposal.   The report found that dam removal would cost between $238 million and $493 million, with $292 million as the most likely cost.  Notably, these estimates are well below the amount previously projected for dam removal.  Dam removal would release sediment that could kill salmon in the short term, but the agency found that dam removal would create more habitat and could increase adult chinook salmon production by about 83 percent.

If the dams are to be removed, Congress will have to authorize their removal.  Together, the dams can produce up to 163 megawatts of power, and produce about 716,800 megawatt-hours per year.  While this is relatively small compared to national demand for electricity, existing hydroelectric generation is relatively low-cost compared to alternative sources of power.  Existing hydro also is generally viewed as emissions-free and relatively benign from an environmental perspective, especially compared to fossil fuel resources like coal and oil.  Nevertheless, the draft report suggests that the benefits of removal will exceed retaining the dams in place by a factor of between 9 and 48.

Will this be enough to justify their removal?

Will Yarmouth remove dams?

The town of Yarmouth, Maine holds a public hearing tonight on whether to remove two town-owned dams in the Royal River. The dams near Bridge Street and East Elm Street were built long ago to impound water and provide power to mills along the river's course to Casco Bay.  As early as 1759, an iron mill used hydropower produced by the East Elm Street dam's predecessor.  Over time, the dams were updated; in 1984, hydroelectric generation was installed at the Sparhawk Mill adjacent to the Bridge Street dam.

Last fall, dam removal advocates and the town held several meetings to discuss their removal.  Although the dams are equipped with fishways operated by the Maine Department of Marine Resources, environmental and fisheries advocacy groups consider them nonfunctional.

At a December 2011 workshop, all five of Yarmouth's town councilors who were present agreed that the dams should be moved.  To move forward with dam removal, the town will need both financing and regulatory approvals.

Tonight, the dam removal proposal faces a public hearing.

Could net metering save municipal hydro?

Two dams on the Royal River in Yarmouth, Maine are one step closer to removal, as a majority of the town council agreed earlier this month that the dams should be removed.  The town owns two dams near Bridge Street and East Elm Street, which provided mechanical power to mills as early as 1816.  The Sparhawk Mill site near Bridge Street was upgraded to produce hydroelectricity in 1984, and operates as a privately-owned hydroelectric project exempt from most Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulation.  Yarmouth has considered dam removal for several years, with concerns over fish habitat restoration as the driving factor.

The push to remove the dams comes despite the value of the sites' ability to generate renewable electricity.  A consultant hired by the town in 2010 estimated that the Bridge Street site could theoretically produce over $150,000 in annual hydropower revenues (7 page PDF), with $55,000 being a more realistic estimate of practical production from the existing facilities if they could be repaired and maintained.  In reaching this figure, the report assumed the then-current energy price of 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh).  The report also assumed that the project could qualify for net metering, which the report defined as "unused power is purchased by the utility".

Maine's style of net metering at present is slightly different from that suggested in the report.  Under what Maine calls net energy billing, the owner of eligible renewable or micro combined heat and power (CHP) equipment can use the generation facility to offset its consumption of electricity from the grid, effectively running its electric meter backwards.  If a customer generates more electricity than it uses in any given month, the utility banks the excess amount as credits to be used within the next year.

One advantage gained by a net metering customer is that when generation offsets consumption, the customer saves on more than just the energy component of its electric bill.  In Maine's electricity market, customers pay for both the energy they use and what it costs to deliver that energy over transmission and distribution wires.  Today, the standard offer energy price for residential and small commercial customers in Central Maine Power's territory (including Yarmouth) is 7.4 cents per kWh.  The Maine Public Utilities Commission reports that delivery fees add another 6.47 cents per kWh for residential customers, or 6.3 cents for small commercial customers.  Thus the total cost to these customers of buying electricity and having it delivered is closer to 13.7 cents per kWh - nearly double that assumed in the town's report.  This higher figure may more accurately reflect what the town could save by net metering the Sparhawk Mill project's output against its consumption.

Maine also allows more than one customer to cooperate in net metering.  One eligible generation project can be used to offset consumption on up to 10 customer accounts, provided the participating customers establish partial ownership or an entitlement to the part of the project's output.  This shared ownership net metering lets eligible projects reach their full potential, even when they can produce more electricity than the primary owner needs in a year.

If the town can take the full value of net metering into account and find a way to benefit from the existing renewable generation at the Sparhawk site, the economics would tip towards keeping the Sparhawk project running.  There are other ways that project revenues could be boosted by smart participation in other energy programs, such as selling capacity or renewable energy certificates (RECs) if the project can be certified as renewable.

Would reevaluating the Royal River dam's hydropower potential lead the town to a different conclusion on whether the dam should be removed?  The Yarmouth town council is holding a workshop session on January 5 and a public hearing on January 19 to discuss next steps.

Alaska's Susitna hydro project revived

A large hydroelectric project proposed by Alaska's public power authority is moving closer to reality.  With over 600 megawatts of electric generating capacity, the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project would be the largest dam built in the U.S. since 1966, when the Glen Canyon Dam was built on the Colorado River in Arizona.  If built, the Susitna project would represent a return to both mega-scale hydro and state-backed hydroelectric development in the United States.

The Susitna River project has been under consideration for nearly 50 years, although environmental concerns and the relatively low cost of oil dampened interest in the project for much of that time.  Increasing fossil fuel costs, renewable energy targets, and interest in exploiting the state's sovereign resources have now led to a revival of the project.  In 2011, Alaska state legislators unanimously approved funding for the Alaska Energy Authority to pursue the project.

The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) was created by the Alaska Legislature as a public corporation of the state, albeit with a separate and independent legal existence.  AEA's missions include reducing the cost of electricity in Alaska, and constructing, acquiring, financing, and operating projects that utilize Alaska's natural resources to produce electricity and heat.

Renewed interest in the Susitna project comes partly in response to Alaska's renewable portfolio standard law.  In 2010, the Alaska Legislature enacted House Bill 306, creating a goal that the state receive 50% of its electric generation from renewable and alternative energy sources by 2025.  The project could also produce low-cost electricity, with generation costs projected to be lower than natural gas over the life of the project, possibly significantly lower once the project's financing is paid off.


AEA now plans to follow the traditional process for licensing hydroelectric projects through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  AEA is expected to file its pre-application document with FERC on December 29, 2011, with the license review process expected to take up to six years.


If the Susitna project is built, it will be a departure from the recent trend of dam removal.  Some observers have argued that the era of building large-scale hydroelectric facilities in the United States ended decades ago, but the Susitna project could reverse that trend.  Moreover, the Susitna project would be built by a sovereign state government, echoing historic federal efforts like the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Authority.

Maryland dam faces sedimentation threat

In September 2011, Tropical Storm Lee caused flooding in the mid-Atlantic region.  The Susquehanna River rose far above its banks, causing disruptive floods in Pennsylvania and Maryland.  Near the river’s mouth into Chesapeake Bay, massive flooding threatened to breach the 572-megawatt Conowingo Dam.

With its flood gates wide open, the dam survived the flooding.  At peak flows, about 7 million gallons flowed through the dam every minute.  That water transported millions of tons of sediment from the Susquehanna watershed out into the bay, along with large amounts of trash and debris.

The impacts of the flood are still being assessed.  Under typical operations, the dam builds up about 2 million tons of sediment every year, or about two-thirds of the Susquehanna River's total sediment burden.  (Compare the dams currently being removed from the Elwha River in Washington, which had trapped an estimated 24 million cubic yards of sediment.)  Overall, four dams on the Susquehanna might hold up to 280 million tons of sediment.

While Lee removed several years' worth of sediment from the Conowingo Dam, more sediment builds up every year.  The Army Corps is concerned that the Susquehanna River dams have nearly reached their full capacity to hold sediment, and is launching a project to study what could be done, such as sediment dredging or remediation.

Yarmouth, Maine considers dam removal, other options

The town of Yarmouth, Maine is holding a meeting on November 1, 2011 about the future of two town-owned dams on the lower Royal River.

The Royal River flows nearly 40 miles across Maine, from Sabbathday Pond in New Gloucester to meet Casco Bay in the town of Yarmouth.  Along this course, the Royal River falls about 300 feet, much of which forms a series of old dams and falls in its lower reaches.  The village of Yarmouth formed around several of these dam sites, which provided mechanical power to mills and businesses in the village.  Today, dams remain on the Royal River.  A non-hydropower dam spans the river near East Elm Street, while the Sparhawk Mill dam hosts hydroelectric generating facilities near Bridge Street.

The Sparhawk Mill dam was originally built to provide mechanical power, but hydroelectric generating facilities were installed in 1984.  Now, the Sparhawk project can produce 270 kilowatts of power, and operates under a licensing exemption issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985.

Today the town of Yarmouth owns the dams, and is considering their future.  The Sparhawk dam is reportedly not producing much -- if any -- revenue for the town, while both dams may need maintenance and repairs.  Some community members suggest dam removal for reasons ranging from municipal fiscal policy to enhancing fish passage along the Royal River.  Others point to value of the Royal River's continuing ability to produce renewable hydroelectricity, and urge that the dams be maintained.  The East Elm Street dam could even have electric generation facilities installed, either traditional hydroelectric or hydrokinetic devices.

The community forum starts at 7 p.m. on November 1 at Yarmouth Town Hall.

June 7, 2011 - Washington dam removal in process

While state and federal governments pursue policies supporting the development of new renewable energy resources, existing hydroelectric dams are being removed.  Last year, I noted the plan to remove the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams on the Elwha River on Washington's Olympic Peninsula.  That plan is moving forward; last week, after 99 years of producing renewable power, the dams' electricity-generating turbines have now been turned off.

The Elwha River restoration project will be the largest dam removal in U.S. history.  All told, the dam removal project is projected to cost $324.7 million.

The Elwha project is made more interesting by its factual context, including land conservation, fish impacts, and sedimentation.  Much of the river's 45-mile course runs through Olympic National Park, making power generation a use some feel is incongruous with the watershed's protected status.

The Elwha River was formerly home to impressive runs of anadromous fish, including salmon, which have been an important part of local native Americans' culture.  In 1910, the river produced approximately 390,000 wild salmon and sea-run trout, but that number dropped more than 99% to only about 3,000 wild native salmonids in 2005.  The dams are believed to have played a part in this decimation of that fish stock.

Thanks to the glacier-fed nature of the watershed, massive amounts of sediment have built up behind the dams -- perhaps as much as 24 million cubic yards, or enough sediment to cover almost 15,000 acres one foot deep.

Dam demolition and removal itself is scheduled to begin September 17, 2011. 

February 28, 2011 - dam removal costs and values

Dam removal can bring environmental benefits, but comes with costs.  These costs can include not only the expense of physically breaching the dam and removing its remains, but also costs associated with sampling and remediating contaminated sediments trapped behind the dam.  Here's a quick look at two case studies, providing updates on stories I've noted before.

Last November, I looked at what's trapped behind dams on South Carolina's Twelve Mile Creek near Clemson.  Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other chemical contaminants from electronics manufacturing operations have become trapped in sediments behind several dams slated for removal.  Removal of the dams is expected to allow cleaner sediments to flow down into Lake Hartwell where they are hoped to be able to cap the PCB-contaminated lake bottom.  Work on a sediment storage area is now ongoing along Twelve Mile Creek, funded through the $9 million settlement in the enforcement lawsuit against the manufacturer.

Just over a year ago, I noted that a settlement agreement would lead to the removal of four hydro-electric dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon.  There, utility PacifiCorp has agreed to undertake the dam removal, which is projected to commence in 2020.  Overall, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement contemplate a dam removal cost of $450 million, with another $1 billion in environmental restoration activities.  How will dam removal be paid for?  At least part of the funds (albeit a relatively small share) will likely come from PacifiCorp's ratepayers.  A California administrative law judge has recommended that the California Public Utilities Commission approve a nine-year 2 percent rate increase to raise $13.8 million for dam removal.   Where the rest of the money will come from, as well as whether U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar decides to support dam removal, remains to be seen.

February 15, 2011 - small non-hydro dam removal

From the dam removal department:

Picture a small dam stretching about 50 feet across a stream.  The Gravesleigh Dam on Sackett Brook in Pittsfield, Massachusetts was built in the 1930s by Merle Dixon Graves, a native of Bowdoinham, Maine who served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1921-1924 and who owned Gravesleigh, an estate surrounding the brook just above its confluence with the Housatonic River.  Merle Graves had the dam built to create a small pond for his estate.  Over the years, the pond filled with silt, and much of the Gravesleigh estate became Massachusetts Audubon Society's Canoe Meadows Wildlife Sanctuary.

Now, Massachusetts Audubon is interested in removing the dam for reasons including improving water quality, restoring riparian wildlife habitat, and creating educational opportunities to learn about watershed health and science.  Moreover, as part of a deal to allow the Pittsfield Municipal Airport to expand, the dam site has been identified as able to offset some of the habitat lost at the airport as a condition for state water quality certification.  With the impoundment silted in, and no renewable power production at the site, these benefits may make the Gravesleigh Dam seem like a good candidate for dam removal.

The Housatonic Valley has a long history of industrial manufacturing, some of which resulted in PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) contamination of the valley's soils and water.  According to EPA, "PCBs are probable human carcinogens and can also cause non-cancer health effects, such as reduced ability to fight infections, low birth weights, and learning problems."  If these chemical contaminants are trapped in the sediment impounded by the Gravesleigh Dam, the dam's removal could send the PCBs downriver into the Housatonic.  This is the same problem as found on Twelve Mile Creek in Clemson, South Carolina, where dam removal initiatives must be weighed against the risk of disturbing PCB-laden sediments.  In Pittsfield, dam removal could be paired with sediment remediation, but that would significantly add to the project's cost - already predicted to be $303,000 without sediment remediation.  This points to the importance of understanding what's trapped behind the dam.

Sampling of impounded sediments was undertaken last summer.  While most samples came back negative for PCB, one of the sediment samples did show PCB contamination.  This triggered another round of sediment testing last month.  The results of that testing have just come in, and suggest that sediment remediation will not be required for dam removal.

The Gravesleigh Dam's saga may soon be over.  In this case, chemical contaminants trapped behind the dam may not prove sufficient to prevent the dam's removal.   Each dam has its own story, and may have its own baggage that must be addressed if the dam is to be removed.  I'll keep you posted on the Sackett Brook story as it continues to flow.

January 10, 2011 - Ballville Dam removal; Lake Erie wind

As many dams in America are approaching their centenary years, dam owners face pressures to maintain or upgrade their infrastructure to comply with safety or environmental regulations - or else face dam removal.  Located outside Fremont, Ohio, the Ballville Dam now faces this choice.

Constructed in 1911, the Ballville Dam was built on the Sandusky River about a dozen miles upstream from Lake Erie to impound and direct water into a downstream hydroelectric station.  The dam is 34.4 feet high and over 300 feet long.  In 1946, the downstream hydroelectric facility ceased generation.  In 1959, the city of Fremont bought the Ballville dam for water supply.  In the ensuing 50 years, issues including upkeep and maintenance costs for the dam led the city to create an alternative reservoir to replace the dam.  The dam has been implicated in fish passage problems, and its removal is anticipated to open up over 22 miles of habitat to gamefish like walleye.  The dam has also been implicated in problems with ice jams above Fremont.  All this, without a revenue stream from the dam, has led Fremont to work towards dam removal.  Fremont has since won approximately $6 million dollars in grant funding to support dam removal, which is slated for summer 2011.


If the dam is removed, large amounts of backed up sediment - including a contaminant burden of heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons - will either come with it or be swept downstream into Lake Erie.  A report suggests 350,000 cubic meters of sediment may need to be removed to establish the channel of the Sandusky River through the impoundment.  However, the report suggests that the sediment pollutant concentrations are less than or equal to those in existing Lake Erie sediment, and thus that mixing with the lake would dilute any effects.

Interestingly, the Ballville Dam has faced trouble before.  Two years after its construction, the dam failed due to poor anchoring into the sediment, causing serious flooding in Fremont.  Today's dam was rebuilt using a stronger foundation. In 1913, the dam served a useful purpose: supporting the nearby hydroelectric station.  In 2011, without that support for hydroelectric generation, will the Ballville Dam be removed?

Meanwhile, on Lake Erie, the Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation continues to make progress toward the nation's first inland offshore wind development: five wind turbines in state waters about 7 miles off Cleveland.  Great Lakes wind offers many of the advantages of both terrestrial and oceanic wind, while posing other challenges.  Will the Lake Erie project be the first to reach success?

December 21, 2010 - Penobscot River dam removal one step closer

The plan to remove several hydroelectric dams on the Penobscot River reached a milestone yesterday: transfer of ownership of three dams from PPL to the Penobscot River Restoration Trust.  The Trust plans to remove the Veazie and Great Works dams, while building fish passage at the Howland dam.  By removing the two dams and generation assets, about 16 MW of renewable capacity will be removed from the grid, although permitted increases in power production upstream are expected to recover this capacity.

The lower Penobscot River seen from Fort Knox in
Prospect, about 25 miles downstream from the
dams to be removed.

The sweeping Penobscot River dam removal project arose from a 2004 settlement agreement called the Lower Penobscot Basin Comprehensive Settlement Accord.  In that settlement, seven conservation groups, hydroelectric company PPL Corp., the Penobscot Indian Nation and state and federal agencies, agreed to the removal of both the two dams as well as the removal of flashboards and the installation of a fish bypass at the Howland Dam.