||| FROM LIN LAUGHY via HEATHER NICHOLSON |||
According to the Inslee-Murray Lower Snake River Dams (LSRDs) Benefit Replacement Report, power generated by the LSRDs must be replaced before these four dams can be breached.
In its 2021 Power Plan (2021-2026) the Northwest Power and Conservation Council reported that between 2018 and 2028, coal-fired power generation capacity serving the Pacific Northwest would decline from 7,000 average Megawatts (aMW) to 2,400 aMW. Four coal-fired plants were shuttered in 2020 alone. The Council’s projected loss of 4,600 aMW represents the equivalent capacity of 6 LSR dams.
No governor or U.S. senator claimed this disappearing power must be replaced before the coal plants could be closed.
When energy suppliers identify a future need for additional power, they often post a “request for proposals” (RFP). In 2020, for example, PacificCorp requested bids for 4,300 aMW of renewable energy resources available by 2024. Bidders responded with proposed projects totaling 36,000 aMW—eight times the requested supply!
Bonneville Power Administration markets the power generated by the LSRDs. If Bonneville posted an RFP for renewable energy equivalent to LSRDs’ power production, that power would soon be replaced. The cost to taxpayers and electricity ratepayers would be well below the cost of keeping the LSRDs and paying for BPA’s Fish and Wildlife program. The LSRDs could then be breached, and wild Snake River salmon and steelhead could begin a path to recovery.
I’d be very interested in the numbers and realistic timing supporting the statement: “If Bonneville posted an RFP for renewable energy equivalent to LSRDs’ power production, that power would soon be replaced. The cost to taxpayers and electricity ratepayers would be well below the cost of keeping the LSRDs and paying for BPA’s Fish and Wildlife program. ”
This is the kind of thing many more could support if this statement could be supported by reasonably solid numbers.
The BPA 2022 Integrated Program Review outlays the economics on LSRD well enough to get a sense of their cost and liability. And the power council (NWPCC) has a lot of accessible recent presentation material on cost of renewables and market updates, as well as some of the dynamics behind having too much hydro. Also BPA is holding workshops for independent generating entities regarding their transmission interconnection process, ie getting on the grid. One comment to BPA from Seattle City Light you can find at the link below is, “City Light understands the monumental task for BPA staff to address the LARGE NUMBER of generator interconnection requests.” (Emphasis added). Another from the Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition requests BPA for transparency, and for accuracy of interconnection costs so their planning and arrangements with their own customers isn’t held up.
https://www.bpa.gov/energy-and-services/rate-and-tariff-proceedings/tc-25-tariff-proceeding
Thanks, Heather. Interesting point. But the BPA is a government agency- a division of Dept of Energy. State and federal (and even our SJ county council) legislators very broadly consider hydro to be clean, green, sustainable. Also (a technicality if another adequate and renewable source was decided upon?) congressional approval is required before the removal of a federal dam. A lack of bipartisan support in congress was the reason Sen. Murray gave for her decision last year not to breach and presumably support would be even less with this new congress. Decades of court-ordered environmental impact studies and now the Murray-Inslee report have shown the four LSRDs aren’t efficient from a cost-benefit standpoint, have violated terms of our Tribal treaty obligations and are not by a long-shot meaningfully passable for our native fish. Coal-derived power in WA State is on a legally mandated (“CETA”) path to sunset by 2025. What could be the legal mechanism to lead to a BPA request for LSRDs dams’ power replacement proposal?
There are numerous laws that lead to retirement of LSRD. Including but not limited to ESA and the NW Power Act “equitable treatment” for the affected species that is flouted. In terms of power replacement, the part that hasn’t been done is analysis of if and how much would need replacing, vetted transparent analysis. Replacement studies use assumptions it does. If you think you know of any, please share along. I’m wondering also if you can point to materials showing the basis for congressional authorization being a must. I hear it but haven’t seen what’s behind it and it would be helpful to look at what protocol is informing it.
The economics of the LSRDs are less important that two other factors:
1. How soon can renewable replacement power be on the grid, and
2. If the dams are removed now, what is the impact during the gap period waiting for Item 1, on available power in this region?
This is a lot like trying to get out of one airborne aircraft into a much better aircraft that hasn’t been designed yet, while in the air. It really is a long way down.
The urgency is real, but the solution is not easy and will not be quick. Replacement power is unlikely to be sourced at the dams where grid connections already exist. There is bidding for a Montana coal plant (one or more of four at that site) not to operate the coal plant, but to get access on the grid for a wind project. This issue alone has killed many wind and solar projects incurring substantial losses.
Our federal delegation to Congress is well aware of these and other issues. I expect that here is a considerable amount of communication going on among our delegation and NW power companies.
Bill, could you point to analysis with the scope to show the power would need replacing and/or how much? Excluding analysis that solely explores what resources could be swapped with LSRD nameplate and power services.
Once, the concern was just the Northwest with assured sales to California. Things have changed. The expectation is that the Northwest will be (excess solar, I hope) power from California in our increasingly hot dry summers (adding the load of air conditioning to an area famous for its lack). It is no longer a Northwest issue; it involves a steadily expanding national region as coal plants shut down. And considering California, note that the Diablo nuclear plant has been authorized to continue operating without license renewal.
As a result, yes, there are usually resources available … somewhere, and even then, not always, with consequences. Getting them to where they are needed depends upon our antiquated and increasingly burdened grid, including that part serving our county last December. In addition, going out for bids for power when needed (now an hour ahead instead of day ahead exercise) puts one at the mercy of a rapidly fluctuating market, where grid capacity limits available power, and deliverable power goes to the the highest bidder. Power marketing has not been in a relatively steady state since 24/7 operation of coal plants has become the exception rather than the rule. Simply calculating that a new renewable facility can generate power at a given cost is the beginning; far from the end of the story.
Here is the situation on our relatively local playing field and some of the players:
Resource Adequacy Assessments
1️⃣ WECC (Western Electricity Coordinating Council) – 44 pages
“Western Assessment of Resource Adequacy 2022”
2️⃣ BPA (BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION) – 119 pages
“2022 Pacific Northwest Loads and Resources Study”
July 2022
3️⃣ PNUCC (Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee) – 51 pages
“Northwest Regional Forecast of Power Loads and Resources
2022 through 2032”
April 2022
4️⃣ WPP (Western Power Pool) – 124 pages
“Exploring a Resource Adequacy Program for the Pacific Northwest
An Energy System in Transition”
October 2019
5️⃣ WA State Dept of Commerce – 84 pages
“Washington State Electric Utility Resource Planning
2020 Report Pursuant to RCW 19.280.060
December 2020”
6️⃣ Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs)
Each UTC-regulated utility’s most recently completed Integrated Resource Plan:
Avista’s Integrated Resource Plans
Northwest Natural’s Integrated Resource Plan
Pacific Power’s Integrated Resource Plan
Puget Sound Energy’s Integrated Resource Plan
Cascade Natural Gas’ Integrated Resource Plan
7️⃣ Clean Energy Implementation Plans (CEIPs)
-Avista
https://www.myavista.com/-/media/myavista/content-documents/about-us/ceip/clean-energy-implementation-plan.pdf
-PSE
https://irp.cdn-website.com/dc0dca78/files/uploaded/2022_0201_PSE%202021%20Corrected%20Clean%20Energy%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf
-PacifiCorp
https://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pcorp/documents/en/pacificorp/energy/ceip/PAC-CEIP-12-30-21_with_Appx.pdf
8️⃣ WA State Dept of Commerce
2021 Adopted CEIP’s
https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/o94co7f5uq7qyjqu26rlx5u0q45mugu4/folder/150684180138?page=1
9️⃣ WA State Dept of Commerce
“Washington 2021 State Energy Strategy
Transitioning to an Equitable Clean Energy Future”
WECC
Balancing Authorities 38 (The Western Interconnection encompasses the area from the Rockies west and consists of 38 balancing authorities: 35 in the United States, 2 in Canada, and 1 in Mexico.
Pacific Northwest
Planning Area
The Northwest Regional Planning Area is the area defined by the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. It includes: the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho; Montana west of the Continental Divide; portions of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming that lie within the Columbia River drainage basin; and any rural electric cooperative customer not in the geographic area described above but served by BPA on the effective date of the Act.
DFF24266-C0B2-437D-B631-33BB8A375592.png
What a Senator does say
1) Sen Murray & Gov Inslee
Lower Snake River Dams:
Benefit Replacement Draft Report
DRAFT: JUNE 9, 2022
https://www.murray.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/LSRD-Benefit-Replacement-Draft-Report_20220609.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
“Replacing the services provided by the dams could range in cost from $10.3 billion to $27.2 billion (see Table 1), and anticipated costs are still not available for several necessary actions.” (Page 2)
“Replacing the energy production of the LSRD would take time, funding, planning and collaboration across all stakeholders to ensure that the region’s future clean energy goals are met, the region maintains a reliable system, and customers, especially the most vulnerable, are not overly burdened by increased electricity rates. The replacement portfolio must be in place and demonstrating that it is producing energy and providing services to the grid before breaching of the dams to avoid significant impacts to the regional energy system and the communities it serves.”
(Page 5)
2) Issued by The White House
BPA Lower Snake River Dams Power Replacement Study , July 2022
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/E3-BPA-LSR-Dams-Report.pdf
“E3 was contracted by the Bonneville Power Administration to conduct an independent study of the value of the lower Snake River dams (“LSR dams”) to the Northwest power system. (Page 1)
Replacing the four lower Snake River dams while meeting clean energy goals and system reliability is possible but comes at a substantial cost, even assuming emerging technologies are available: (Page 4)
-Requires 2,300 – 2,700 MW of replacement resources
-An annual cost of $415 million – $860 million by 2045 Total net present value cost of
$10.7-19.0 billion based on 3% discounting over a 50-year time horizon following the
date of breaching
-Increase in costs for public power customers of $100 – 230 per household per year
(an 8 – 18% increase) by 2045
-The biggest cost drivers for replacement resources are the need to replace the lost
firm capacity for regional resource adequacy and the need to replace the lost
zero-carbon energy
-Replacement becomes more costly over time due to increasingly stringent clean energy
standards and electrification-driven load growth
Bill, well said. You are right on target. There is much more to the story than replacing LSRD’s with renewable MW’s.
Nice of you to round all this up Bill, but those are all various docs that offer some information about how the NW power sector is planning and transitioning (with or without LSRD). You’ve quoted statements made by Murray/Inslee and E3 (contracted by BPA), however none of the docs nor their statements are supported by actual modeling to first demonstrate how much, or if any LSRD power would need replacing.
There’s an assumption of 1:1 replacement (and in some cases higher) but it’s not reference-able or verified. Even power council staff couldn’t say what confidence they do or don’t have in E3’s assumptions because their source inputs were not known. And replacement needs modeling is not within the scope of the study. So I’m just checking if you think you saw some actual analysis someplace that includes reference to accessible data and inputs on the assumption. Otherwise conclusions surrounding this argument are not evidence based.
Much more indeed. Including this quote from the Inslee-Murray report:
“The science is clear that – specific to the Lower Snake River – breach of the dams would provide the greatest benefit to the salmon. Salmon runs in the Lower Snake River are uniquely impacted by the dam structures relative other watersheds, and the waters of the lower Snake River have unique potential for robust aquatic ecosystem and species recovery.”
Reading further in this report and others, you can’t escape the conclusion that LSRD breach doesn’t just provide the “greatest benefit”, but the only chance for survival of the major Columbia basin runs, already down to around 2% of their pre-European size, in any identifiable form. Combine with the excellent overview of the power picture provided by Bill Appel and brutally suppress all of the caveats and uncertainties: the region faces two choices.
One choice is for the average household to pay somewhere between $0 and $20/month more for power in 2045.
The other choice is no Columbia Basin salmon.
The real question is whether dithering will win, and make the choice moot.
I’m belatedly gathering that on the basis of the study you first relied on, which is not new, we can do without the LSRDs. As I understand it, there was a representation made at a meeting at Clallam County PUD in February that the LSRDs’ capacity could be easily replaced with renewables. Perhaps those positions can be made to fit. But here is an example of how easy it is to do that (the weighting of equity depends on who’s talking at the moment). The rest of my comment is a quote:
Ice age fossils slow massive power line for renewable energy [Headline]
The 470-mile-long Greenlink West transmission line could cut across a Nevada national monument that preserves the fossils of long-extinct species like the Columbian mammoth. That’s slowed down a project many consider key for expansion of solar projects on public lands.
By: Scott Streater
| 03/02/2023 01:22 PM EST
GREENWIRE | The federal review of a key transmission line to connect commercial-scale solar projects in Nevada to millions of households has been delayed by months over concerns about a likely route across a national monument designed to protect thousands of ice age fossils.
The 470-mile-long Greenlink West transmission line would stretch along Nevada’s western boundary, from Las Vegas north to Reno, carrying as much as 4,000 megawatts of mostly renewable electricity from dozens of proposed solar projects in the state.
The Bureau of Land Management last spring began an environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzing the proposal by NV Energy that has already sparked a flurry of solar project applications along its presumed path. The Greenlink West project is a priority for the Biden administration as it works to expand the power grid to support green energy projects often located in remote areas.
But the draft environmental review originally set to be released for public comment in January has been delayed, likely until May, due to NV Energy’s proposal to place the line across 1.5 miles of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, according to a senior Interior Department official with knowledge of the situation who was granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly.
BLM is leaning toward making the proposed route across the monument its “preferred alternative” in the draft EIS, advancing plans to place as many as 12 power-line poles within the monument managed by the National Park Service, the official said. The line would run 5 feet inside the monument near the road that splits the north and south units of the 22,650-acre monument, which was established by Congress in 2014 to protect the fossils of long-extinct species like the Columbian mammoth and the sabertooth cat.
Conservation groups are already raising alarms about the possibility of the power line disturbing fossils, saying the federal government should prioritize preservation along with energy transmission. Proponents counter moving on the transmission projects needed to connect renewable energy to the grid should be BLM’s priority. The complications surrounding the line — which several experts said is an important link in establishing renewable energy in remote areas of the West — underscore the challenges for the Biden administration in quickly approving renewable energy projects on public lands.
“In 2023, most transmission lines are at capacity,” said Scott Sklar, director of George Washington University’s Solar Institute. “If we want to transform the U.S. grid to carbon neutrality, the federal government and states must accelerate transmission lines to reach the concentration of renewable energy, just like our old grid at first went to hydropower sites and coal mines.”
The region is filled with federally protected lands. BLM, in addition to considering the Tule Springs Fossil Beds site, has had to place the power line around Nellis Air Force Base, the Desert National Wildlife Refuge and various Native American tribal sites, among others.
If the Biden administration decides to move forward with the line cutting through the monument, BLM, NPS and NV Energy have developed a detailed mitigation plan that will involve excavating fossils before any holes for the power-line poles are dug, the Interior official said.
NPS knows there are likely numerous fossils buried in and around the proposed route because NV Energy, at the Park Service’s request, funded a study last fall that used “ground penetrating radar” to uncover evidence of numerous fossils beds in the area.
The results of the studyconducted in September by a third-party contractor — in collaboration with NPS senior paleontologist Vincent Santucci, two U.S. Geological Survey geologists and the monument’s former acting superintendent — found “deposits deemed to have a high likelihood of vertebrate fossil presence.”
Among the discoveries highlighted in the report — obtained through a public records request by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility — were “two proboscidean tusks” that could have belonged to a woolly mammoth. The tusks are buried less than 5 feet underground.
Radar images at another site appeared to detect dozens of fossils scattered across a 100-foot-wide area, most buried less than 30 feet, according to the report.
“Barring alternative explanations for these anomalies, the most reasonable explanation is that they are likely caused by the presence of fossils,” it concluded.
After the BLM acknowledged in public scoping hearings last year that crossing the Tule Springs Fossil Beds monument was a possibility for the project, conservation groups like the Nature Conservancy began to urge the bureau to find another way.
Jeff Ruch, an attorney and the director of PEER’s Pacific regional office, said that after the radar study, BLM cannot allow the power line to cross the national monument without knowingly violating federal laws that forbid harming park resources and the destruction of fossils on public lands.
“These legal barriers cannot be finessed,” Ruch said. “If BLM and NV Energy persist with their current corridor route, the project will be tied up in litigation for years to come.”
But the Greenlink West line is “very, very important” to the success of ongoing federal efforts to expand the nation’s power grid to accommodate renewables, Sklar said.
“My view is that … we need these new-era transmission lines ASAP — period,” he added.
Another expert familiar with the location said he believes the line can be run across the monument without damaging priceless fossils — although they would likely need to be removed.
Eric Scott, a California-based vertebrate paleontologist and member of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument advisory council that advises the Interior secretary and NPS on monument-related issues, said he worked with BLM during construction of a different transmission line near Las Vegas that went online in 2020.
Along the route for the Harry Allen to El Dorado 500-kilovolt transmission line, he said, they unearthed “thousands of fossils” that were removed and carefully cataloged so that the correct sediment formation and depth were recorded for each one, allowing for accurate dating.
“It has been done,” he said, emphasizing that he was speaking as a paleontologist and not for the other members of the advisory panel.
The key is for BLM and NPS to develop a comprehensive mitigation plan that outlines the roles of the paleontologists on-site, as well as the construction crews. That plan must be clear that when fossils are found, the work must stop until they are removed and categorized properly, he said.
Scott said he didn’t need to see the results of the ground penetrating radar study to know there are many fossils in the area, noting the Las Vegas Formation is a treasure trove for fossils dating back, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of years.
“If you are working the Las Vegas Formation, there’s a good chance you’re going to encounter ice age fossils,” he said.
Are there alternatives?
BLM has evaluated several alternative routes for the Greenlink West project, which will consist of lines on high towers, some as high as 180 feet.
One option is to place the line several miles south of the monument, along Clark County Route 215, before connecting with U.S. Highway 95 and north toward Reno. But doing so would add miles to the route, and thus millions of dollars in additional project costs. It also has the potential to affect private property near North Las Vegas.
Another possibility is burying the 1.5-mile section of line across the Tule Springs Fossil Beds monument.
BLM declined to comment on the ground penetrating radar study, and how the fossils might affect the Greenlink West project. It also did not answer questions from E&E News concerning potential safeguards under consideration to protect fossils if the line crosses the monument.
Instead, the bureau said in a brief emailed statement that it will continue working to complete the environmental review, which it said will “analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, including the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts,” as well as “potential mitigation measures.”
BLM also declined to give an updated timeline for the draft EIS, saying only that it would be released for public comment sometime this year.
NV Energy, the Las Vegas-based utility, proposed an aggressive goal to have a record of decision approving the project by December so that it can begin the three-year construction period and bring the project into service by the end of 2026, Greg Helseth, branch chief of BLM Nevada’s renewable energy division, said during public scoping hearings last May.
The company has said the line will enhance reliability of the regional power grid, as well as help meet state renewable energy portfolio and greenhouse gas emissions standards over the coming decade.
BLM remains on track to issue a record of decision by the end of the year despite the recent delay, the Interior official said.
An NPS spokesperson did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Derek Carter, superintendent of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds monument, said in an email that the Park Service’s “technical contributions” to the EIS process will “focus on the importance of this site in the preservation, education, and study of Ice Age fossils, consistent with the purpose of the park and the mission of the NPS.”
But NPS has expressed concerns to BLM about routing the Greenlink West line across the national monument.
In written comments sent to BLM last summer, the Park Service said crossing the monument has “the potential to impact paleontological resources, including an undetermined number of fossil remains and unrecorded fossil sites.”
NV Energy said in an emailed statement that it’s working closely with BLM to properly site the power line.
The utility added that BLM “is conducting archaeological and paleontological surveys to determine if impacts may occur” as a result of the project.
“Should sensitive resources be encountered, NV Energy will adhere to the BLM’s mitigation requirements,” the statement said.
Strong opposition
Routing the Greenlink West line through the monument will almost certainly face stiff resistance.
Kevin Emmerich, the founder of Nevada-based Basin and Range Watch, said the group is staunchly opposed to the transmission line crossing the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, saying there’s great risk of “damaging fossils” at the site.
That view is echoed by Jill DeStefano, who like Scott is a member of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument advisory council.
“With the ground-penetrating radar that’s been done in the area, they know they will be disturbing fossil sites, and this monument was created to protect the fossil sites,” said DeStefano, past president of Protectors of Tule Springs, a community group that organized grassroots efforts convincing Congress to designate the monument in 2014.
If BLM decides to route the line across the Tule Springs Fossil Beds monument, it likely would use wooden Delta monopoles, about 120 feet tall, that could drape the power lines on one side to make them less visible. NV Energy could do so across the 1.5-mile section of the monument using as few as eight poles, according to BLM documents.
Another option is to use lattice “Guyed-V” towers that stand about 180 feet tall, but are stronger than the monopoles, requiring only six to be erected across the monument site, the documents say.
The need for transmission
Few question the Greenlink West project would help the Biden administration meet the dual goals of promoting commercial-scale renewable energy production and expanding the nation’s power grid.
As the Biden administration pushes for a carbon-free energy sector by 2035, it’s on pace to exceed an Energy Act of 2020 goal to permit 25,000 MW of onshore renewable energy by 2025, the Interior Department has reported to Congress (Greenwire, April 20, 2022).
In that report, Interior estimated it would permit 48 solar, wind and geothermal energy projects with the capacity to produce an estimated 31,827 MW of electricity by the end of 2025. The vast majority of that energy — 29,595 MW — will be produced by solar projects, according to the report.
In Nevada alone, BLM is currently evaluating 36 renewable energy projects, mostly solar. If all were built, they would have the capacity to produce more than 13,000 MW of electricity – enough to power roughly 4 million homes, an Interior spokesperson recently told E&E News.
But experts say transmission capacity is lagging.
David Spence, an expert on the law and politics of energy development at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, said the nation is “desperately in need of additional transmission investment.”
That’s supported by a recent analysis led by Princeton University’s Zero-carbon Energy Systems Research and Optimization Laboratory that concluded “the pace of transmission expansion must more than double the rate over the last decade” in order to “interconnect new renewable resources at sufficient pace and meet growing demand from electric vehicles, heat pumps, and other electrification.”
It added, “Constraining transmission growth severely limits the expansion of wind and solar power.”
Yet, Spence said, “We built less than 1,000 miles of new [high-voltage] transmission last year, and we need something like 200,000 miles in the next 10 years.”
Already numerous solar and wind projects in various stages of regulatory review are being “held up, in part, by lack of transmission” capacity, he said.
“The grid is old and wearing out, and we need to make it bigger in any case to take advantage of this newly cheap clean power,” he said. “Inevitably, some of those lines are going to go through places where people don’t want them to go.”
But the legitimate need to expand transmission capacity to carry renewable energy to market doesn’t justify “ruining our public lands,” said DeStefano, the advisory council member.
“Almost every environmental group on Earth is pro-green energy, yet organization after organization after organization are against” the Greenlink West transmission line crossing the monument, she said. “Why is that?”
Not seeing any takers come forth with analysis addressing need of power replacement. Readers be advised, studies to date use presumptions of both of what the LSRD can do and of their requirement for adequacy and use those assumed values to build in replacement scenarios. The salmon and the orcas deserve that we don’t skip over reviewing this simple but crucial part of the logic. I was also interested in seeing if folks have material they think supports the argument that congress must authorize breaching but am not seeing any. I can offer this paper, detailing the terms under which the Corps and President have the authority. Published by the Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, in Volume 14 not yet posted on their site but available at the link.
THE US PRESIDENT AND ARMY CORPS’ DISCRETION AND AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO EXECUTIVE ACTION IN FURTHERANCE OF BREACHING THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B5grTE_uxW_E28YTQkjbNqSwyIOF3bRD/view?usp=sharing
Just a note, sorry Bill, I posted my last comment prior to yours but we experienced a delay. To your 9:34pm thought, no. My focus in this thread has been that LSRD power replacement study conclusions have not included as part of their scope, analyses with accessible, transparent and vetted frameworks to demonstrate the value they purport needs to be replaced. Value expressed in amounts of power services. Re the Clallam presentation, if there was a slide about replacing with renewables, it was likely to show the onset of renewables is capable of replacing the purported value of the dams, not that it must.
Quotes: “The LSRDs could then be breached, and wild Snake River salmon and steelhead could begin a path to recovery.”
“The other choice is no Columbia Basin salmon.”
The four Snake River dams were constructed between 1957 and 1975.
Since all mature salmon pass through Bonneville, the fish counts:
Annual average five year prior to dam construction start: Chinook 347K Steelhead: 134K
Annual average five years post dam construction completion: Chinook 357K Steelhead: 132K
Annual average latest five years: Chinook 348K Steelhead: 134K
Annual runs vary significantly depending on a myriad of environmental factors. Latest wild steelhead counts are virtually the same as the were pre-dams construction at about 36K a year.
So the issue of salmon and steelhead being on a path to extinct in the Columbia River is not substantiated.
One factor that is being ignored in the LSRD discussion, even by NOAA scientists, is water temperatures. The Snake River summer environment has temperatures often exceeding 100F. Most desirable salmon temperature is about 54F, and above 65F can be lethal. A valid scientific projection of river temperatures if the dams were breached/remove and the possible effects on wild fish survival needs to be completed.
Hatcheries can be temperature controlled.
OK … now back to transmission lines and the never ending lawsuits facing virtually every project deemed necessary to get off fossil fuels.
Bonneville is only the first dam returning adults encounter. We’re talking Snake only. I don’t know what your source is but numbers like yours would include all adult returns to the entire Columbia Basin and could be both hatchery and wild (or “naturals”). You have to check returns at Lower Granite to see who of them made it past the infrastructure. And get numbers for hatchery vs wild.
The issue of extinction is quite certain. Particularly evident in the runs that have already gone extinct from our blockage. That’s a pretty good qualifier of substantiation. Wild habitat with good quality water and temperature conditions cannot be swapped for hatchery fish. Hatchery fish are less resilient and fit, cause numerous problems with release timing, reduce genetic fitness, require wild broodstock. They’re also expensive. The wisest use of hatcheries is when designed for the purpose of rebuilding wild runs when absolutely necessary. Put it this way, hatchery fish can’t survive without wild fish, but they’re a contributing cause of wild fish extinction.
For Bill Appel looking for supporting numbers, I am providing the following graphic (http://bluefish.org/FCRPS_TotalCost_v_PowerOutput.jpg) and also point to the final table of the CRSO EIS Chapter 3 (http://bluefish.org/MO3_Wins_Economics.jpg) showing Rate Pressure goes down 5.1% immediately and then 15.1% once LSR Compensation Plan Hatcheries are shuttered, which would follow Snake River Salmon recovery.
As for the timing of salmon recovery, the graphic that I provided the Orcas Task Force (Recovery_Chinook_SAR_Ocean.jpg), based upon Fish Passage Center estimates, has great numbers returning to Idaho in two generations if average or good ocean conditions persist. Importantly, unabated Poor Ocean Conditions ruins any hope of salmon recovery.
For Susan Bauer asking to learn about a legal mechanism that leads 1) to LSR breaching and 2) LSR Power Replacement I have the following:
1) the year-old Stay of Litigation is the strongest legal mechanism that would lead to LSR breaching (aka. Remove Snake River Embankments, CRSO EIS terminology). A settlement in which the Biden Administration agrees that LSR breaching is to follow would be all that is required. Settlements are not subject to appeal. Only concern is the timeline for that breaching, which needs to happen NOW for a variety of reasons (e.g., SE Alaska Trollers losing their only source of family income, carbon sequestration to build in Idaho’s forests, methane release from LSR reservoirs to end ASAP, etc.)
2) BPA has proposed an idea better than anything like an IRP. They call it “augmentation” in their proposal for their sales contracts beginning in 2028, but it is much the same as they have been doing for a long time: buying power from the market place. The Augmentation program has been estimated as an economic solution (actually much cheaper than retaining the relatively high-cost LSR dams, see http://bluefish.org/FCRPS_TotalCost_v_PowerOutput.jpg).
Point here in this last bullet is that the LSR dams are unnecessary for maintaining reliability of the electric grid, Northwest or West-wide. The growth of solar generation in Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and California is in great abundance and the federal government’s Grand Coulee Dam is one of the top five storage projects on the planet. Daytime abundance of electricity solves the problem completely, which emphasizes again that the time has come for Remove Snake River Embankments to begin NOW.
For Bill Appel looking for supporting numbers, I am providing the following graphic (http://bluefish.org/FCRPS_TotalCost_v_PowerOutput.jpg) and also point to the final table of the CRSO EIS Chapter 3 (http://bluefish.org/MO3_Wins_Economics.jpg) showing Rate Pressure goes down 5.1% immediately and then 15.1% once LSR Compensation Plan Hatcheries are shuttered, which would follow Snake River Salmon recovery.
As for the timing of salmon recovery, the graphic that I provided the Orcas Task Force, based upon Fish Passage Center estimates, has great numbers returning to Idaho in two generations if average or good ocean conditions persist. Poor ocean conditions will require four or more generations for large numbers to result.
For Heather Nicholson: Suggest you make your case with statistical data versus making generalities. All four LSRDs have fish counts. I have the latest 10 year average data for Lower Granite, and I just don’t see fish counts that lead to a conclusion that extinction is inevitable this century. And as the dams age and renewable power projects meet electrical demands, the dams likely will be removed.
Also provide the list of Snake River fish that have gone extinct? That would be informative to to those who are not aware of that list (includes me).
As for hatchery fish being expensive, the fish themselves are valuable when they mature.
And multi-billions of dollars to remove the four dams is not exactly spare change. And then there are the 24 other dams on the upper Snake …
Responding to Scott,
Nothing is more valuable to the grid that availability of baseload power. Equating intermittent renewable power with continuous baseload power other than hydropower is illusory. Power utilities don’t just sell power, they also sell reliability. This requires adequate capacity, which is not the aggregate of generator nameplate ratings, but what can be relied upon to perform the obligation of full-time reliability to power customers.
This inequality between baseload (fossil and hydropower) generation and renewables is very substantial. It takes between 2 and around over 4 watts of renewable capacity to equal one watt of fossil or hydropower capacity. The multiple varying depends on the particular renewable power source:
California has a huge solar capacity, but because of the “duck curve” showing the misfit between solar generation with load throughout the day, the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility period of operation is being extended.
And are dams expensive? Yes. Are large scale renewables expensive? Yes, particularly considering the multiple discussed above. And over time, because of increased knowledge resulting in increased regulations along with NIMBY-style delays and rerouting (explained earlier above), the numbers are rapidly going up for all large scale power sources.
There is a serious effort to avoid the cost of the multiplier described by tying the national grid tighter, starting with regions. Over long distances, the NIMBY factor multiplies. It can take 7 to 10 years to get a grid segment installed, and that’s when things work smoothly. But the hope is that renewable power can be shared inter-regionally to harmonize generation with load without having to rely on fossil fuels. Considering costs, a certain wariness that exists between competing regulators (state and federal) and of course politics, this is going to take a lot of time and money.
Robert, you wrote: “So the issue of salmon and steelhead being on a path to extinct in the Columbia River is not substantiated.” Key words “Columbia River”, not Snake River. However, NOAA has published that: “Sixteen stocks historically spawned above Bonneville Dam. Of those, four are now extinct, and seven are listed under the federal ESA—including one reliant on a captive breeding program. Of the remaining five, only one approaches its historical numbers.” (see link at bottom)
In responding to the numbers you offered which were returns to Bonneville dam, I wasn’t attempting to make any case other than returns to that dam do not inform how many adults actually make it through the LSRDs.
You conclude: “I just don’t see fish counts that lead to a conclusion that extinction is inevitable this century.”
In 2021, the Nez Perce reported that 44% of Snake River Spring Summer Chinook runs were at or below Quasi Extinction Threshold and expected to increase to 77% by 2025. QET means less than 50 adults.
NOAA also wrote, “most urgent” is “an EXPEDITED PATHWAY to mainstem lower Snake River restoration” which “requires dam breaching” that “specifically refers to removing the earthen portion of each dam”. (Emphasis added)
More on QET from the NOAA report:
“For example, in the near-term, progress away from a quantifiably large risk of extinction for these stocks is paramount. Quasi-Extinction Thresholds (QETs) are a standard, commonly applied metric for evaluating population viability and the risk of extinction. QETs represent tipping points for population collapse, where the actual extinction potential may not be predictable or, in some cases, avoidable. Populations that fall below their QETs face higher genetic, demographic, and environmental risks, reducing their resilience and increasing their risk of extinction. The result can be an extinction vortex and a greatly reduced likelihood of recovery (Gilpin and Soulé 1986, Simberloff 1988, Fagan and Holmes 2006). Stock status assessments indicate numerous populations within the Columbia River basin are already at or below QET, with more likely to hit this threshold in the next five years (Storch et al. 2022).”
Rebuilding Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead. NOAA, September 30, 2022
https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-09/rebuilding-interior-columbia-basin-salmon-steelhead.pdf
Bill, I enjoyed looking through the documents that you referenced, thanks for sharing as I was familiar with most, but not all of therm.
To take a line from the “Exploring a Resource Adequacy Program for the Pacific Northwest”, the LSR are NOT ” firm generation that can be turned on at will” but are run-of-river projects that have many operational constraints due to ESA-listed fish concerns. Moreover, they rely on snowmelt run off from the mountains of Idaho, and that occurs when the entire West is awash in hydropower. These dams were put in place to provide for slackwater navigation on the Lower Snake (see Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945) and hydropower was secondary. Impounding 140 miles of river to obtain a mere 400 feet of elevation head is non-sensical, and was never found to be cost-effective from a USACE cost benefit analysis. They just aren’t worth the damn that Save Our Dam advocates hope we would all believe. I’m not buying their baloney.
These four hydropower projects are nowhere near as flexible as a natural gas plant, or a Tesla Megabuck utility-scale battery, either which would be excellent replacement products, IF only a replacement for their power production or storage capacity was actually needed. And that is a very big ‘IF’.
The DOE commissioned report from E3 that you referenced has an interesting result, (buried though it is on page 41). Throughout that report, we learn that a future with variable renewable energy will need battery storage to hold the overabundant daytime resource and disperse it during sunset and early evenings. This is already occurring with the federal government’s large storage dams (primarily Grand Coulee and nearby Chief Joseph dams) acting as a very large battery.
Then on E3’s page 41, we learn that it would take less renewable resources to be build, IF the LSR dams were not in place. You see, these four dams are lousy for the grid. Lousy, and unnecessary, completely.
As we can all see, there is a lot involved and many points of view about each aspect of what is involved.
As citizens we have every right to criticize those responsible for our health and safety, but it is those who have the responsibility for our short and long term health and safety who have to make the call.
Rather than add more (and there is a lot more out there), I think there is enough on the table for people in this forum to decide for themselves. So I’m signing out.
CORRECTION needed. Less Battery and Less Wind energy needed when LSR dams are off the grid.
Bill,
After taking time to peruse the many documents that you recommended to Heather Nicholson, only a couple mention anything about the Lower Snake River hydropower projects. The most substantial on the topic “BPA Lower Snake River Power Replacement Study” is very recent, and commissioned by the US Department of Energy to study the very issue to which we speak.
Under a “Deep Decarbonization” scenario “all greenhouse gas emissions are eliminated from the regional power system by 2045, and it is also assumed that electrification results in much higher electric loads, particularly in wintertime due to electrification of natural gas space heating in buildings.”
On page 41 the E3 report considers — under the Deep Decarbonization scenario — the replacement of the 3.0 GW capacity LSR dams with 100 MW of dual fuel natural gas/hydrogen combustion turbines and…
300 MW less wind and 300MW less Li-ion batteries would be needed.
“When the LSR dams are assumed to be breached, the difference in replacement resources are relatively small (2% lower).” This is what I mean when you hear me saying the LSR dams are superfluous: They are easily replaced AND money is saved.
(Having been directly addressed, I am responding)
“They are easily replaced and money is saved.”
Generation all by itself can be created, but the cost of storage (batteries, etc. are another world) and getting that cheap almost free (“2% lower”) power to users from its point of generation is both expensive and takes years because of oncoming inadequacy of transmission facilities. Anything can look cheap if you leave out expensive, technically uncertain and long construction time components.
The problems we face are complex, and will not respond well to simplistic answers. We can neither invent nor ignore facts to simplify a problem so that we can understand it and make it look easily solvable. We are at the beginning of a long and painful road.