||| FROM SHARON GRACE |||
The waters around the San Juan Islands are a summer home of the critically endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. OPALCO, the islands’ utility co-op, is owned by islanders. Islanders overwhelmingly support recovering the endangered orcas. Recovering the orcas hinges on recovering chinook salmon populations. The Snake River historically supplied abundant salmon for the whales, as the salmon migrated south along both sides of Vancouver Island on their return trip to the Snake River.
Based on its historical production, the largest potential for increased chinook abundance in the Southern Residents’ range is the Snake-Columbia River Basin. The federally funded Fish Passage Center predicts up to a four-fold increase in spring/summer chinook salmon abundance, if the lower Snake River dams are breached.
Decades of studies show that the four lower Snake River dams are driving extinction of the lower Snake River chinook salmon, which in turn is driving the Southern Resident orca population down. As NOAA itself stated in its 2008 Southern Resident Killer Whale Recovery Plan “[p]erhaps the single greatest change in food availability for resident killer whales since the late 1800s has been the decline of salmon in the Columbia River basin.” The Snake is the Columbia’s largest tributary and once produced about half of the entire basin’s Chinook.
OPALCO attempts to give us the impression that it is neutral on lower Snake River dam breaching. What OPALCO doesn’t tell us is that it uses our money to pay dues to PNGC and WRECA, influential trade groups that lobby to keep the dams in place.
OPALCO members—if we want to have wild salmon and Southern Resident orcas for future generations, it’s time to get active and change OPALCO. Take action now and tell OPALCO we want the four lower Snake River dams to be breached ASAP, we want OPALCO to support dam breaching, and we don’t want our money to be used to pay dues to organizations that lobby to retain the dams.
OPALCO contact info: phone 360-376-3500, email communications@opalco.com, facebook.com/orcaspower, Twitter @OrcasPower, Instagram @orcaspower. For OPALCO’s position, CLICK TO READ HERE.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Thank you for pointing this out. Pay attention OPALCO! We don’t want our money to be used to pay dues to organizations that lobby to retain the dams!
Who do we elect to the Board of Opalco who will favor our wild dreams?
Thank-you, Sharon! OPALCO calls the energy from these Lower Snake River dams “green”. New research shows that these dams produce significant methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere 88 times more per molecule than does carbon dioxide. Because these dams were built in places to facilitate barge transport, the water volume trapped behind the dams is smaller and therefore heats up faster than the water behind the dams on the mainstem Columbia River. This warm water not only threatens the survival of salmon, but increases the methane production in the water behind the Lower Snake River Dams.
Calculating methane’s warming potential is complicated: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/how-potent-is-methane/
YES!
OPALCO is following the issues closely and cares deeply about the health of our Salish Sea, the salmon and whales. While the Co-op has little influence on regional power issues, it is focusing its attention on what it can do: efficiency, conservation and local resiliency measures that will help its members to reduce their carbon consumption and improve clean air and clean water for the benefit of all species.
OPALCO supports the science-based approach taken by Governor Inslee and Senator Murray in their initiative Solutions for salmon recovery in the Columbia River Basin https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-and-murray-statement-establishing-solutions-salmon-recovery-columbia-river-basin
In their announcement, Governor Inslee and Senator Murray said “We approach this question with open minds and without a predetermined decision. Both of us believe that, for the region to move forward, the time has come to identify specific details for how the impacts of breach can, or cannot, be mitigated.”
OPALCO’s mission is to provide reliable power to its membership. As soon as the region develops a reliable replacement plan for the power produced by the LSRD and full funding for the solution, OPALCO will be in a responsible position to carefully consider the situation and take a position on dam removal.
Read more: https://www.opalco.com/newsroom/quick-facts/.
Krista – your response skirts the issue. We are a MEMBER OWNED cooperative and if the members are saying that we don’t want OUR organization supporting groups that are lobbying to retain those dams, then you need to listen. Those dams were pork barrel projects nominally for the support of agriculture and the amount of electricity that we actually get from them is negligible. Or don’t you think the wealthiest county in Washington can afford to do the right thing in regard to restoring salmon habitat?
Personally, I feel like we are in a circular firing squad, while the climate deniers just laugh at all of us. I think we can all work together to protect the planet. We are just doing it differently, based on our focus and analysis.
I think OPALCO sees climate change as the greatest killer of species, including salmon, whales, and a million other ocean and land dwelling creatures. They take this very seriously and endeavor to help co-op members fight climate change by burning less fossil fuels. I believe that is the key to saving the planet. About 45% of all WA greenhouse gas emissions come just from transportation. Heating is the next biggest segment. OPALCO is laser focused on helping members cut those emissions.
There are no easy answers. Lots of interdependent moving parts. I hope we can find common ground and work together. At the very least, every time someone mentions reducing hydro, I hope they will also mention reducing fossil fuel consumption.
Remember, WA energy strategy is to double electric load to radically reduce fossil fuels. To replace fossil fuels, we need all clean energy on deck in the coming decade until new resources can be developed. The lower snake river dams supply about 8.5% of the regions power, especially important during winter cold snaps, like December 27th, when the entire hydro system was at limit.
Regarding methane emissions, I have reached out to Janet to understand what source she is referring to. The National Renewable Energy Labs estimates hydro emits just 21 grams of CO2e per kWh, based on their analysis: Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation (see Source 1). This is half the rate of solar’s 43 grams, and much less than natural gas’s 486 grams, and coal’s 1,001 grams per kWh.
By the way, DamSense calculates that the LSRD emit even less CO2. Their estimate is 11 grams per kWh – one-fourth of solar.
This is confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers. “For the relatively clean reservoirs of the Federal Columbia River Power System, which include the lower Snake River dams, conditions for low dissolved oxygen concentrations are not prevalent, thus methane gas is generally not an issue.” (Source 2)
The Northwest Power and Conservation Council looked at the methane issue too, saying “For the relatively clean reservoirs of the Federal Columbia River Power System, which include the lower Snake River dams, conditions for low dissolved oxygen concentrations are not prevalent, thus methane gas is generally not an issue.” (Source 3)
Source Notes:
Source 1: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html
Source 2: http://www.snakeriverdams.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/FS-Methane.pdf
Source 3: https://www.nwcouncil.org/news/columbia-and-snake-river-reservoirs-not-associated-high-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
OPALCO’s greatest opportunity for influence in the region is through WRECA and PNGC. As a small utility, we have very few staff resources to lobby for issues in the region – or at the federal level. San Juan County is one of the most progressive rural utility territories in the region (maybe even the nation), and if we aren’t at the table, there will be no opportunity for divirgent discourse. Once a plan and funding are in place for the LSRD, we want to be at the table to advocate for our very sensitive environs right smack in the middle of the Salish Sea. The two industry organizations are also key in helping us get ahold of grant funding to pay for our energy resilience projects and build a bit of local energy independence.
And, please do your own research on resource adequacy. Here’s ours: https://www.opalco.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Hydro-and-Wind-Analysis.pdf
WRECA is the Washington chapter of NRECA, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) which in 2016 petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to halt implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan.
Here are some of the EPA rules on which NRECA has commented between 2007 and 2016 (there are many more!):
2007: NRECA opposed Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore Facilities
2008: NRECA opposed Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act
2009: NRECA opposed Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
2010: NRECA opposed Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Reassignment of Use Authorizations
2010: NRECA opposed Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone
2011: NRECA opposed EPA and Army Corps pf Engineers Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act
2012: NRECA opposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities
2014: NRECA supported Designation of Coal Ash as Non-Hazardous Waste
2014: NRECA opposed Redefinition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act
2014: NRECA opposed New Carbon Dioxide Limits on Power Plants
2014: NRECA opposed Guidelines for Wastewater Discharges from Coal Generation
2015: NRECA opposed Additional Ozone Standards
2016: NRECA opposed Clean Energy Incentive Program
This is not the kind of influence I support or consent to. Does OPALCO really believe that “being at the table” of this lobbying agenda will make the kind of impact we need to make in order to protect and advocate for the endangered Salish Sea?
A cutting edge methane-sensing satellite will soon be launched by the EDF (Environmental Defense Fund). Its data will be free to all. In the meantime, the recognition that hydropower dams are a significant source of methane has been growing:
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/conservation-groups-ask-epa-to-require-greenhouse-gas-reporting-for-hydropower-69478502
Conservation groups ask EPA to require greenhouse gas reporting for hydropower March 22, 2022
A broad coalition of organizations filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on March 21 seeking a rulemaking requiring hydropower facilities and reservoirs to report their greenhouse gas emissions.
“Regulators and policymakers often incorrectly assume and state that hydropower is a clean energy resource that emits zero carbon, when in fact some hydropower facilities emit massive amounts of [greenhouse gases],” the petition said.
Established in 2009, the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program covers 41 source categories of planet-warming emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane. Although the reporting program was intended to expand over time, the EPA has not added any new source categories since 2010, the petition noted.
Meanwhile, the groups said a growing body of scientific research, including studies produced by EPA scientists, shows that hydroelectric dams and reservoirs are significant contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. …
The Whitney Dam and Lake Whitney in Texas collectively emit about six times more CO2 than a coal-fired power plant producing the same amount of electricity, according to data from the same study.
Data for methane emissions for the Lower Snake River Dams is here:
https://damsense.org/snake-river-methane-emissions/
One Washington State’s greatest non-factual mindset is the four lower Snake River Dams are reducing the number of chinook salmon in the Columbia River and that in turn is affecting the welfare of the SRKWs. That is simply not true.
The Columbia River has intense fish species monitoring and has had scientific fish monitoring since before the Bonneville Dam was constructed in 1938. The Snake River supplies a portion of the total Columbia river fish stock, but when the major dams were put in place, the fish mitigation was to build fish hatcheries to add to the fish population that go through the locks but are lost in spillway kill. From the latest NOAA fish stock report: “Overall returns of Chinook salmon to the Columbia River were on average higher during the years of our study (2004-2017) than other years before the construction of Bonneville Dam in 1938, although abundance of many Chinook populations in the Columbia declined well before 1938.
The four lower Snake River Dams (there are 28 in total in the Snake River watershed) were constructed between 1957 and 1975. Large hatcheries were constructed. These hatcheries have more than made up in actual survival numbers than the loss of wild fish because of the dams. Hatchery fish have a much higher survival rate … they don’t have stream scouring during spring floods, and they aren’t being consumed by predators. So the bottom line is there is no reduction of Columbia River Chinook because of the for lower Snake River Dams. In fact, just the opposite is true.
As for the SRKWs, there have been 22 species of fish identified that they consume, including halibut, chum, coho, steelhead, rockfish, etc. 80% to 90% of their Chinook diet (which they prefer) are from the Frazer River Thompson Rivers. I’ll repeat that NOAA statement: 80% to 90% of SRKWs Chinook diet is from the Frazer and Thompson Rivers. Those are both Canadian river systems for those who don’t know Salish Sea rivers. They do eat some Columbia River Chinook salmon from the Columbia River Basin when they are in the open ocean, but the majority of time SRKWs spend in inland waters.
Cost to remove the four lower Snake River Dams and mitigate the economic has been calculated at about $33.5 BILLION dollars. This is before recent inflation, so it’s now probably in the range of $38 billion.
OPALCO management should NOT support any effort to remove the lower four Snake River Dams since they provide about 8% of green power for BPA, there is a known future shortage of required electricity, and the Snake River Chinook salmon population and SRKWs hunger/endangerment factor is complete false flag.
Jay, no worries, no firing squad, just friendly and important discussion. It’s good exercise.
On that cold Dec 27, LSRD produced 4% of BPA’s total generation. It’s impossible for that to translate to “8.5% of the region’s power”. BPA is only a fraction of the region’s generation. Their load obligation is 37% per my understanding. No matter where their surplus goes, 4 percent of a smaller pie isn’t 8.5 percent of a bigger pie. Looking at Dec 24 thru 30 (sample from Vince), LSRD also did not increase generation to follow the rising arc of load, and BPA’s suite of generation was consistently producing an hourly average of 4,975 MW over and above BPA load obligation. (I re-checked my calc numerous times, but please re-check!).
Per your Dec 27, BPA only (not the larger region) and using their data, MWh made during this 24 hour timespan of ultra chilly temps:
Hydro 271,867
Wind 8,268
Thermals 22,622
Nuclear 27,828
Total 330,585 MWh
That’s an average of 13,774 MW being made per hour.
The LSRD averaged making 552 MW per hour. (13,238 MWh total over the 24 hours per Corps data)
BPA data says load was 218,043 MWh total over the 24 hours.
BPA data says excess of load was 112,688 MWh total over the 24 hours. (Interchange aka surplus)
If we’re serious about reducing emissions, we absolutely have to consider Lower Snake reservoirs methane. The question isn’t: does “all hydro” emit or not. Some are worse, and it’s fully scientifically recognized to happen in all geographic zones, not just closer to the equator or only new reservoirs. Such that the EPA has now been petitioned to require hydropower facilities and reservoirs to report their greenhouse gas emissions.
“Regulators and policymakers often incorrectly assume and state that hydropower is a clean energy resource that emits zero carbon”
“Established in 2009, the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program covers 41 source categories of planet-warming emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane. Although the reporting program was intended to expand over time, the EPA has not added any new source categories since 2010, the petition noted.”
(excerpts from EPA story at link below)
Based on three science papers, DamSense calculates that LSRD emissions are “80,000 metric tons, roughly equivalent to a natural gas power plant generating 165 MWs. These emissions are not trivial and certainly not “0” as many entities would like the public to believe.”
The Army Corps page doesn’t cite any science and says “measurable amounts of methane gas is not released by the decay process in the lower Snake River reservoirs.” But PNNL has measured methane there.
The Power Council (NPCC) does acknowledge methane in the basin’s reservoirs, they say it needs to be better quantified in order to include in analysis (so let’s get it done pronto). May 4, 2021 they presented that NW manmade reservoirs are estimated at about 6.5 MMTCO2E/YR (slide 22 at link below). Their statement in the link you shared and their presentation at that time didn’t consider any PNNL measurements and was made a few months prior to PNNL publishing its newer findings in 2017.
The trade group issue is real, as Norris shows. And Ken’s point, it’s the owner-members of the co-op who decide.
(Btw, tell Vince thanks and I will catch up with him on the data soon!) -Best
Methane petition to EPA: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/conservation-groups-ask-epa-to-require-greenhouse-gas-reporting-for-hydropower-69478502
DamSense methane update after PNNL 2017 new findings: https://damsense.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-Methane-Paper.pdf
DamSense on methane 2016: https://damsense.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Methane-Paper-2016-.pdf
Power Council, slide 22: https://www.nwcouncil.org/sites/default/files/2021_05_p6.pdf
Clarification. I said “Interchange aka surplus”. BPA refuses to share surplus data. Apparently BPA and the Cheshire Cat are very close. Some “interchange” power goes to some load that’s not BPA “load”. Apparently true surplus might land at a possible low end 20% to perhaps 28%, 2021. Regardless, we’re awash. Tier 1 is flush. LSRD weren’t even paying attention to the last cold snap.
And there’s a seasonal load mis-match. There’s routine surplus but it can apparently hit 50% during spring flood. The system is out of sync with demand and overbuilt for worst case. Aside from the question of LSRD being completely redundant, the system would benefit from retiring its high cost hydro in favor of low cost solar that’s more likely to produce power when needed and is becoming very abundant.