Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1562972
label
Energy - Federal Energy Administration: Hydropower Workshop
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1562972
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Energy - Federal Energy Administration: Hydropower Workshop
citationUrl
collections
John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)
John Marsh's General Subject Files
subjects
Electric power
Water projects
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1562972
coverageEndDate
day
4
logicalDate
1976-11-04
month
11
year
1976
coverageStartDate
day
4
logicalDate
1976-11-04
month
11
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
248ced6af0da992b
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 14, folder "Energy - Federal Energy
Administration: Hydropower Workshop" of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford
Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 14 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
SUMMARY REPORT
of
HYDROPOWER WORKSHOP
November 4, 1976
1. On Thursday, November 4, 1976, a Federal interagency
workshop on hydroelectric nower development was sponsored
by the Federal Energy Administration's Assistant Administrator
for Energy Resource Development. It was attended by represen-
tatives of the eight Federal agencies with direct interests
in hydroelectric power, namely the Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Energy Research and
Development Administration (ERDA), the Federal Energy Admin-
istration (FEA), the Federal Power Commission (FPC), the
Rural Electrification Administration (REA), the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA), and Water Resources Council (WRC).
The agenda and attendance list for the workshop are provided
at TAB A and TAB B respectively. Summaries of the presentation
and panels are listed below in chronological order.
2. Introductory Remarks
a. Mr. William Rosenberg expressed his appreciation for
the interest shown by the various agencies in the workshop and
welcomed their participation. He pointed out that hydropower
is often overlooked or underemphasized in today's endeavor to
find energy alternatives to imported oil and gas; nuclear, coal
and the advanced technologies receive more publicity. He stressed
that the Federal Energy Administration is prepared to cooperate
with all the agencies to insure that hydropower receives proper
consideration.
b. Mr. Robert Hanfling stated that FEA's funding and
resource commitment to hydropower has been limited. Reliance
has been in the Federal agencies with hydropower operational
responsibilities to insure hydropower development is properly
considered. He recognized that this approach can result in
piecemeal planning and development. He mentioned the New England
Federal Regional Council's report entitled New England Hydroelectric
Development Potential as a positive effort to determine what
potential exists for this energy alternative. In outlining
the agenda of the workshop, he encouraged maximum participation
by all attendees.
2
3. National Energy Outlook
To provide an overall framework for the workshop, Mr. David
Nissen gave a brief description of how the National Energy Outlook
is prepared; the contents, milestones, and the parties responsible
for the various sections; and some of the preliminary results of
the 1977 modeling efforts. The preliminary NEO/77 outline is
provided at TAB C. Highlights of his presentation were:
- Project Independence Evaluation System (PIES)
modeling was shaped by the 1973 oil embargo. There
was the need to assess the impacts of oil imports
and alternatives. Also there was a need to assess
the demand response to various market forces.
- The National Energy Outlook has been evolutionary.
In 1974 the primary focus was on oil imports and the
possibilities of import substitution on the domestic
supply and demand sides. In 1975, the demand side
was completely re-specified. This led to a major
re-evaluation of electric utilities policy.
- A brief description of the PIES modeling segments
including electricity generation and capacity
formation was given.
- The 1977 outlook for natural gas and oil is gloomier
because of delays associated with routing Alaska
gas to the lower 48 and delays in outer continental
shelf development.
- In the electrical sector, the advantage of nuclear
power over coal-fired generation is being re-examined.
- Hydropower can be expected to contribute a lesser
segment of electric power (percentagewise) with
passage of time.
4. FPC Hydropower Activities
a. Mr. Ronald Corso pointed out that FPC has statutory jurisdiction
over all non-federal hydroelectric development projects. However, the
courts have increasingly extended their jurisdiction in hydro projects via
their decisions on litigation. He stated that there was intense interest
by the utilities in pumped storage projects during the 1960-1970 time
frame, but the environmental opposition to these projects with the
associated delays/defeats has dampened their interests. Examples given
were the Blue Ridge Project and the Middle Snake River decision. He
distributed a copy of a recent presentation on Private Sector Hydroelectric
Development in the United States. (TAB D). Today the trend appears to
be toward smaller conventional hydroelectric installations. When
3
considering hydroelectric development, one must recognize that the
economics used have placed hydro in an unfair position. He encouraged
discussion of this subject as well as the overlapping jurisdictions
of Federal agencies (veto power) which adversely affect hydropower
development.
b. Mr. Neal Jennings outlined FPC's efforts in providing data on
developed and undeveloped hydro potential. He distributed a preliminary
inventory of facilities (TAB E). He indicated that the FPC report
covering hydroelectric power resources over 5 MW will be published
sometime after beginning of 1977. Present figures are 57,000 MW developed
and 114,000 MW undeveloped potential for conventional hydroelectric power.
5. Corps of Engineers Hydropower Activities (COE)
Mr. Gene Lawhun outlined the present and future COE activities in
hydropower. He stated that COE had been directed by the Congressional
Appropriations Committees to prepare a report identifying additional
hydropower generating potential at all Corps projects (existing, under
construction, and planned). COE has completed the report which is
undergoing Administration review. He provided statistics on COE hydro
capacity and construction as follows:
- COE operates and maintains 65 hydro projects consisting of
295 generating units with aggregate name-plate capacity of almost
16,000 MW.
- In 1975, COE facilities generated over 85 million megawatt-
hours of net energy (equivalent of roughly 145 million barrels of oil).
- In 1975, five new plants consisting of 16 units added 1,228 MW
of capacity.
- Under construction are:
- Six multipurpose projects which contain 17 units totalling
927 MW to be completed by 1982.
- At eight existing plants, 33 units are being added to
increase capacity by 3,294 MW.
- Under study or. having been studied are 35 new plants which could
add an estimated 21,706 MW, if built.
He also pointed out that COE has moved into the slant-axis technology.
First unit was installed at Ozark Lock and Dam on the Arkansas River in
November 1972 followed by an additional 4 units completed in 1975. The
project provides 100 MW (20 MW each) of capacity. Similarly 3 slant-axis
units (20 MW each) were completed at Webbers Falls Lock and Dam in 1973.
A six-unit plant being installed at the Harry S. Truman Dam in Missouri
4
will add 160 MW in 1979. These six units are reversible blade
units which provide 27 MW each as generators and 36,000 HP as
motors.
Mr. Lawhun then passed out a summary developed from a list
of 424 potential sites where new or additional hydropower could
be installed (TAB F). This list was prepared at congressional
request. He briefly explained the various categories of the
projects. Some 250,760 MW of capacity with an estimated average
annual production capability of 297,814,958 megawatt-hours were
identified.
He then outlined COE's study activities as follows:
- Institute of Water Resources' 1975 study entitled
Hydroelectrical Power Potential at Corps of Engineer Projects.
It provided a broad framework for considering hydroelectric develop-
ment. It identified a range of analytical and policy problems
to be addressed and presented recommendations. He elaborated on
key ones, such as (1) need for screening criteria and procedures
to identify potential sites for more detailed examination; (2)
changing economic value of hydropower; and (3) constraints, e.g.,
environmental.
- Feasibility studies of 24 sites possessing 20,000 MW of
potential hydropower is in progress. This capacity includes a
rather optimistic assessment of pumped storage potential.
- Phase I AE&D studies of 10 sites totalling 6,525 MW are in
progress. Six of these are expansions of existing facilities.
- Studies show several existing and authorized projects
in Southwestern Power Adminstration's marketing area could be
expanded for additional peaking capacity, but marketing arrange-
ments would have to be changed to make the addition attractive.
- The pumped-storage potential in Columbia and Snake River
basins is underway. Insufficient information is available to
provide estimates at this time.
- The recently enacted Water Resources Development Act
of 1976 (P.L. 94-587) authorizes COE to undertake a comprehensive
study of hydropower resources to include pumped storage potential,
low head potential, efficient utilization of output, and additional
installations at existing COE projects. The Act also authorizes
$5 million per year in 1978 and 1979 for feasibility studies of
promising installations.
He indicated that the most promising area for developing
additional hydroelectric capacity by COE will be add-ons.
5
6. Department of Interior Hydropower Activities
Mr. William Wilson distributed a handout (TAB G) and
elaborated on the following points.
- DOI is the largest electricity marketing agency in
the U.S.
- DOI markets the power generated from Corps of Engineers
facilities.
- Marketing is governed by statutory language. Pointed
out preference customers given priority but that surplus
power is sold to the private utilities as well.
- Achievement of power resource goals constantly sought.
- Bureau of Reclamation is both a marketing and a
construction agency for hydropower.
7. Tennessee Valley Authority Hydropower Activities
Mr. Jim Cross stated that TVA began with one hydroelectric plant
and one steam turbine plant. Since 1950 the demand for electric power
has increased to the point where hydropower could not support the need
for power. Therefore fossil-fuel plants were constructed. Then
in 1966, TVA filed an application to construct its first nuclear plant.
Now TVA has commitments to develop 17 nuclear units. He stressed that
he did not want to belittle hydropower because it provides by far the
cheapest and most flexible power. Presently hydropower represents 17%
of TVA's capacity, and cost to produce one kilowatt hour of power for
TVA last year from the various sources was .6 mills for hydro, 10
mills for steam, 16 mills for purchased power, and 31 mills for gas
turbine power. Besides cost advantages, he pointed out the advantage
of the load following response characteristics of hydropower. He
indicated that TVA planned to construct its first pumped storage project
(Raccoon Mountain project) but is encountering considerable environmental
opposition. He then stressed the following on-going activities in TVA:
- Looking at possible additions to existing projects
to better utilize the hydropower potential. State-of-the-art
permits this increase of capacity at about $250/KW.
- Rewinding of generators has added 129 MW of capacity
at the low cost of $10/KW.
- Opposition from land owners in our investigations for a
second pumped storage project.
- Possibility of plant up-rating and modification of existing
hydroelectric units.
6
-
Cost picture constantly changing but it appears
that main hydro potential in TVA area has been
developed.
- Hydro has been good to TVA. Investment made
at $175/KW.
8. ERDA Hydropower Activities
Mr. Phil McGee presented the current ERDA hydroelectric
power program. He noted that the Agency's authority and
responsibilities are for research, development and demonstra-
tion relative to the commercial feasibility and practical
applications for the use of energy.
ERDA's hydroelectric energy program is divided into three
basic parts--tidal energy, underground pumped storage, and the
more conventional hydroelectric technology.
The work in tidal energy consists of a study contract with
the firm of Stone and Webster of Boston, Massachusetts. The
contract runs from April 1976 through January 1977 and costs
$169,000. The purpose of the work is to provide an analysis--
on a worldwide basis--of the present and long range outlook
as to the cost of electrical energy generated from tidal power.
The objectives of the report are: to report on the status of
the technology as it exists today; to render expert judgment as
to its potential use; determine the opportunities that exist
within the United States for its use; determine whether or not
research and development opportunities exist; and determine what
the environmental, societal and legal consequences from a tidal
project would be in today's environment.
The Agency's program in underground pump storage is as follows:
- ERDA is sponsoring a study being done by Argonne
National Laboratory entitled "Selecting and Evaluating
Pumped Hydro Storage Projects." The schedule for
the study is from December 1975 through December
1976 and the contract cost is $210,000.
- In addition, ERDA has a contract with Charles T.
Main of Boston, Massachusetts for "Assessment of
Technical and Economic Feasibility of Underground
Pumped Hydroelectric Storage" on a national basis.
The contract period is from August 1976 through May
1977 and the cost is $165,000 and is shared by ERDA
and the Bureau of Reclamation.
7
- Currently ERDA has a request for proposals (RFP) on
the street for a preliminary engineering design and
site exploration effort entitled "Compressed Air
Energy Storage/Underground Pumped Hydro. This is a
joint effort by ERDA and the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI). Plans are to make a contract
award in February 1977.
- The Agency is currently in the process of formulating
a program in conventional hydroelectric technology
and has in hand several unsolicited proposals. The
proposals request to do work in the following areas
of technology: study of hydroelectric potential through
development of small hydroelectric sites; feasibility
study using flowing streams and rivers to generate
hydroelectric power; the potential of retrofitting
unused low head dams; research to improve the efficiency
of the impulse reaction turbine; and the study of the
feasibility of preserving hydro storage head by evaporation
reduction.
9. Panel Discussion - Marketing of Federal Hydroelectric Power
a. Mr. William Clagett provided a brief synoposis of Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) marketing. Highlights were:
- BPA provided last year some 82 billion kilowatt hours of
electricity to 115 preference, 23 industrial, and 6 private
utility customers. It markets the power from some 24,000
megawatts of federal generating capacity. Because of the
historic cheapness of hydroelectric power, 50% of the total
energy in the area is provided by BPA. However, BPA is now
experiencing the transition that TVA has already made, namely
development of generation alternatives to hydro because
of constraints on hydro development in specific areas or
because the potential is fully developed.
- One federal facility (Libby Dam re-regulation) is
being added.
- There is the possibility of adding units on existing
sites.
- Sometime in the future, pumped storage may be further
exploited. There are some 9,000 MW of potential
at existing sites. Also the Corps of Engineers has
identified some 530 projects having pumped storage
potential.
8
BPA is planning to provide only 200 MW of additional firm
power. All other will be for peak loads. Thermal generation
will become the baseload in the future.
- Some of the constraints of BPA hydroelectric power
generation are:
-- Realization factors (Discount 5-13% to account
for river flow fluctuation).
-- Tourist accommodation (approximately 18,000,000
kilowatt-hours per year sacrificed).
-- Geese nesting (pool level controlled to insure
nests not destroyed).
-- Fish spill for salmon survival (approximately
4-5 billion kilowatt-hours per year are
sacrificed which is the equivalent of the
output of a typical nuclear plant).
-- Intertie with Southwestern Power Administration
investigated but realization factors limit
practicality.
b. Mr. Emerson Harper briefly outlined the marketing of the Alaska Power,
Southeastern Power, and Southwestern Power Administrations. Highlights were:
(1) Alaska Power Administration:
- Has 77 megawatts of existing capacity.
- Has greatest potential for hydro development.
- Alaska's electrical demand seen as 15 billion kilowatt-
hours minimum.
- Corps of Engineer's Upper Susitna project would add 1,500
megawatts capacity. Phase I design authorized on October
22, 1976. DOI will begin marketing studies for transmission,
etc. Project would serve Anchorage and Fairbanks.
FORD
LIBRARY
9
-
Hydropower development in Alaska is constrained
by the environmental acts such as Native Claims.
(2) Southeastern Power Administration:
-
Provides 3 % of the regional needs.
-
Owns no transmission lines.
-
Cited projects under construction such as Carter,
Laurel, and Russell.
-
Studying six pumped storage projects.
(3) Southwestern Power Administration:
-
Markets power generated from 1917 MW of capacity.
-
Has 218 MW under construction.
-
Studying the feasibility of added units using
planning figure of 2,600 hours/KW-year as
opposed to 1,700 hours/KW-year.
-
May have about 4,000 MW of justifiable potential
for pumped storage.
c. Mr. Raymond Harman outlined the marketing activities of the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Highlights were:
- BOR is primarily a water resource development agency
for DOI. Power marketing is somewhat a sideline.
-
Has 10,000 megawatts of capacity which serves some
450 customers.
-
BOR has been in the power marketing business
since 1906 (commercially since 1909).
-
Owns 16,000 miles of transmission line. Inter-
connects with every major system in the western
U.S.
-
Actively participates in reliability councils,
engages in planning with various power groups, makes
load estimates for region.
FOND
-
Currently sells firm power at about $15/kilowatt-year
for peak demand plus 3 to 4 mills/kwh. Have tried to
LIBRARY
maximize firm power to its wholesale customers.
10
Added capacity will probably be marketed as "peaking
without energy" meaning the customer returns energy
at off peak time.
-
BOR has experienced problems marketing power under
this arrangement.
-
Developing some 200 MW of pumped storage.
-
Marketing in Colorado at $25-30/kilowatt-year.
Applications doubled the deliverable capacity.
-
Explained that statutes governing BOR's marketing
were designed to assist rural America and to provide
power for irrigation and municipalities. The law says
preference customers (public entities served first)
are sold power at cost to the government and not what
power is worth in today's changing energy picture.
-
In response to questions, indicated that sale
to highest bidder has been considered but would
require changes in present laws.
d. Mr. William Telaar explained that Department of Agriculture
(REA) is a lending authority. As of June 30, REA had some 8,000 MW
of capacity with only about 60 MW being hydroelectric. The picture
could change with more involvement in Alaska, e.g. Kodiak. REA is
finding that purchasing power is not easy. He differentiated between
power and energy. Power must be firm. He indicated that there is
increased interest in small hydro units.
e. Discussion from the floor led to the following:
- In cost/benefit analysis, DOI is prohibited from
considering cost escalation; FPC is not nor is
ERDA.
- Long-term firm power contracts in the Southwestern
Power Administration have restrained hydropower
development. There is considerable thought of
integrating high cost capacity with low cost
capacity. It was reiterated that each Administration
is governed by different laws. It was also pointed
out that capacity could be added at sites such as
Norfolk but the added capacity would not increase
firm energy.
FORD
LIBRARY
11
In response to the question "Should federal
power be sold at cost or at a profit depending
on market conditions?", there was general
recognition that it is a political issue.
Tieing preference customers closer to the private
power rates would generate considerable
regional opposition. There was doubt expressed
that uniform procedures could be established
even if judged desirable.
- Opinion was expressed that load forecasts often
are financial estimates especially in private
sector. Net result is that regions such as
Northwest may face a power shortage.
- Consensus was that a more balanced consideration
of power costs with other costs on multipurpose
hydro projects is needed. Value of power is low
when compared with cost of private power.
10. Panel Discussion - Planning/Licensing/Regulatory Aspects of
Hydroelectric Power.
a. Mr. Frank Davenport outlined the role of the Water Resources
Council in coordinating water resources planning to include states as
well as federal agencies. He stressed the need for comprehensive
planning for land and water resources to obtain proper balance.
b. In response to the question "Is there a proper balance
between energy and environmental considerations?", the following
points were made:
- Substantial losses in time and money are incurred
in the prolonged hearings on energy facilities. No
real cost comparison is made of impacts of actions
under Endangered Species, Wilderness areas, and Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act. Examples given were loss of
1800 MW of potential at Blue Ridge Project and 3,500
MW between Glen Canyon and Hoover Dam. Wild and
Scenic area considerations have constrained the
Western Energy Expansion study, e.g. Benton site
reduced to 1/5 the capacity of previous plans.
Also, DOI has told FPC not to license projects on
potential Wild and Scenic Rivers. No time frame is
stated for length of time needed to study these
potential WS&R's.
LIBSARY
12
-
Principles and Standards provisions of
the Water Resources Planning Act (PL 89-80)
offer a vehicle to achieve a proper balance
between energy and environmental considerations.
- Attitudes of local population impact
heavily on development. Coordination at
state and local level at early stages is
essential.
- Socio-economic considerations of a project
are highly important. Must be clearly
highlighted.
- Influence of groups, such as Geothermal
Institutional Panel, should be recognized. No
such group exists for hydroelectric power.
C. In response to questions on planning aspects of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976, it was pointed out that it pertains
only to Corps of Engineer projects and that the Hydroelectric Power
Development Fund.
d. Some comments were made on Sen. Doc. 97. Opinion was expressed
that portions of the restraints were self-inflicted. Point was made
that cost-benefit analysis still does not include cost escalation of
fuel.
e. In response to question "Who should take the lead on public
education on value of pumped storage?", no agency volunteered nor
did any consensus emerge as to who should. However, the value of pumped
storage was recognized.
f. In response to the question "Is anything being done to to reduce
the licensing/regulatory lag times associated with hydroelectric projects?",
the following points were made:
- FPC is presently reviewing its regulations
on applications for projects. Process is
about 50% completed.
- Recognition is given to small projects versus
major projects. 1,500 KW is the dividing line
now. New legislation will propose 15,000 KW
as the dividing line between major and
minor projects. Also a dam height and storage
FORD
capacity criteria will be included.
- Applications are being made for as low as
LIBRARY
2 KW. This illustrated the need for a short
form application.
13
- New regulations will include provisions for a discharge
permit. The Corps of Engineers and FPC are closely
coordinating. EIS requirements will be, discussed in
the regulations.
- When draft regulation are circulated, agencies are
encouraged to coordinate promptly and efficiently.
11. Panel Discussion - R & D/Studies/Advanced Technology Requirements
a. Research and Development efforts in progress were enumerated.
- REA has no real R & D but its cooperatives are
receptive to any energy exchange. Definite interest
has been expressed in small units (100-200 KW in size).
- BPA's research is predominately in transmission. Gave
description of the 1100 KV line soon to be energized.
BPA is examining physical problems associated with
high voltage transmission. Has an 800 KV DC test
system and a 500 KV underground test system.
- Corps of Engineers has no real R & D in the hydro-
electric area. Its efforts have been primarily in
identifying the study areas. There is a need to
scrutinize more closely the institutional constraints.
What is the value of stored water for alternative uses?
Hydropower should be analyzed from a system approach
rather than as single unit. A methodology study which
would assure uniformity in national planning would be of
value.
- DOI outlined its efforts in weather modification
and the Western Energy Expansion Study.
- FPC pointed out the difficulties in determining
dependable capacity. Also value of government projects
are maintained at the same value over entire life span
of project. Some study of this procedure is needed.
FPC's early efforts in wind systems were outlined.
FORD
LIBRARY
14
- Funds available for Hydropower research were given as:
-- BPA - approximately $300,000
-- FPC - approximately $100,000
-- COE - approximately $150,000
-- ERDA - approximately $554,000 (does not include cost
of RFP currently out which will increase this
dollar amount somewhere between $750,000 and $1,000,000).
-- REA - none
-- FEA - none
12. In summary it was agreed that Federal interagency work groups should
be formed to examine the following areas in more detail:
a. Institutional (federal and non-federal) constraints
on hydroelectric development (consider small dam
rehabilitation).
b. Economic evaluation to include cost benefit formula using
"life cycle" method of evaluation.
C. Hydropower within the total water use planning and management.
d. System interconnection (large-small).
e. Inventory of small hydroelectric generation units.
f. Optimum plant factor over time (years)
g. System to establish economic benefits versus environmental
cost criteria (NEPA, W & SR, Wilderness areas, siting
constraints).
h. System mix for maximum operational efficiency.
i. Legislative needs for meaningful national hydro development
program.
j. Coordinated list of hydro potential sites throughout
Federal agencies.
k. Feasibility of large scale integration of solar (including wind)
generated electricity into the Federal hydroelectric power
systems.
FORD
1. Determination of needed research and development.
LIBRARY
*
Note: FEA, in conjunction with other agencies, is examining the
feasibility of the development of a large early market for
solar (particularly wind) powered generation equipment to aid in the
accelerated commercialization and increased use of these
non-depletable energy resources.
15
FEA will contact the agencies to determine who should be the
point of contact for these problem areas.
VORD
LIBRARY
THEYORD / a
AGENDA
HYDROPOWER WORKSHOP
NOVEMBER 4, 1976
FEA (12th and Pennsylvania), Room 7132
TIME
SUBJECT
PRESENTOR- AGENCY
9:00 - 9:15 Introductory Remarks
W. Rosenberg
FEA
R. Hanfling
FEA
9:15
-
9:20 Administrative Announcements
C. Jones
FEA
9:20
-
9:40
National Energy Outlook
D. Nissen
FEA
9:40
-
9:55
Federal Power Commission (FPC)
R. Corso
FPC
Hydropower Activities Report
N. Jennings
FPC
9:55 - 10:10
Corps of Engineers (COE)
E. Lawhun
COE
Hydropower Activities Report
10:10 - 10:25
Department of Interior (DOI)
W. Wilson
DOI
Hydropower Activities Report
10:25 - 10:40
Coffee Break
10:40 - 10:50
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
J. Cross
TVA
Hydropower Activities Report
10:50 - 11:00
Energy Research and Development
P. McGee
ERDA
Administration (ERDA) Hydropower
Activities Report
11:00 - 12:00
Panel Discussion - Marketing
W. Claggett
DOI
of Federal Hydroelectric Power
E. Harper
DOI
R. Harman
DOI
W. Telaar
REA
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch
1:00
-
2:30
Panel Discussion - Planning/
C. Olentine, FEA Moderator
Licensing/Regulatory Aspects
G. Fauss
DOI
of Hydroelectric Power
S. Zanganeh
COE
R. Corso
FPC
J. Cross
TVA
F. Davenport
WRC
FORD
LIBRARY
HYDROPOWER WORKSHOP AGENDA (Continued)
2:30 - 2:45 Coffee Break
2:45 - 4:15 Panel Discussion - R&D/
P. McGee, ERDA Moderator
Studies/New Initiatives/
J. Frederick
COE
Advanced Technology Requirements
W. Clagett
DOI
N. Jennings
FPC
4:15 - 4:30 Summary
C. Jones
FEA
LIBRARY
i
FORD
/ LIBRARY BRARY
LIST OF ATTENDEES
HYDROPOWER WORKSHOP
NOVEMBER 4, 1976
FEA (12th and Pennsylvania), Room 7132
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Frank Britnell
-
Construction Operations, Directorate of
Civil Works
Jay Frederick
-
Technical Director of Institute of
Water Resources
Robert Kinsel
-
Engineering Division, Directorate of Civil
Works
William Knight
-
Planning Division, Directorate of
Civil Works
Eugene Lawhun
-
Office of Policy, Directorate of Civil
Works
Helen Ramatowski
-
Office of Policy, Directorate of Civil
Works
Shapur Zanganeh
-
Engineering Division, Directorate of
Civil Works
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
William Clagett
-
Assistant Administrator, Bonneville Power
Administration
Gerald Fauss
-
Planning Division, Bureau of Reclamation
Raymond Harman
-
Chief, Division of Power, Bureau of
Reclamation
J. Emerson Harper
-
Power Engineering Advisor to the Assistant
Secretary - Energy and Minerals
Dick Porter
-
Bureau of Reclamation
William Wilson
-
Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary -
Land and Water Resources
FORD
LIBRARY
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Barbara Allen
Office of Assistant Administrator
for International Affairs
George Chang
-
Division of Energy Storage Systems,
Assistant Administrator. for-
Conservation
Jay Holmes
-
Office of the Assistant Administrator for
Solar, Geothermal and Advanced Energy
Systems
David Israel
-
Director, Office of Program Integration
Phil McGee
-
Division of Physical Research, Assistant
Administrator for Solar, Geothermal and
Advanced Energy Systems
FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION
Robert Borlick
-
Office of Coal, Nuclear and Electric Power
Analysis
Elena Dougherty
-
Office of Utility Project Operations
George Grimes
-
Office of Utility Project Operations
Robert Hanfling
-
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Utility
Projects
Curtis Jones
-
Director, Office of Utility Project
Operations
David Nissen
-
Director, Energy Systems Modeling and
Forecasting
Charles Olentine
-
Office of Utility Project Operations
William Rosenberg
-
Assistant Administrator, Energy Resource
Development
Mike Rosenzweig
-
Office of Coal, Nuclear and Electric Power
Analysis
Elaine Smith
-
Power Plant Acceleration Task Force
Samuel Taylor
-
Office of Energy Conversion
LIBRARY
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Ronald Corso
-
Division of Licensed Projects,
Bureau of Power
Neal Jennings
-
Division of River Basins, Bureau of
Power
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION
Guan Hsiung
-
Power Plant Branch, Power Supply and
Engineering Standards Division
Ben Jankowski
-
Chief, Power Plant Branch, Power Supply
and Engineering Standards Division.
William Telaar
-
Power Supply and Engineering Standards
Division.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
J.L. Cross
-
Acting Chief, Power Supply Planning
Branch
Jan Jansen
-
Power Supply Planning Branch
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
Frank Davenport
Project Leader, Water Resources Council,
Water for Energy Program
LIBRARY
C
NEO/77 OUTLINE
Chapters
Lead
0. Executive Summary
Christie
I. Highlights of the Past Year
Christie
A. Historical Trends
B. Highlights of Last Year
II. The New Forecast
Christie
A. Introduction
B. The Forecasting Model
4
C. The Reference Forecast
D. Scenario Discussion
III. World Energy Markets
Borre'
A. Evolution Since the Embargo, Changing
Kraft
Economic Patterns
B. U.S. and World Energy Trade Outlook
Pearson
C. Sensitivity Analysis
Treat
IV. Energy Demand, Conservation and Economic
MacRae
Growth
A. Energy Demand
MacRae
B. Effect of Conservation Programs
Hemphill
C. Effect of Energy Policy on the Economy
Kraft
FORD is LIBRARY
2
V. Fossil Fuel Supply and Distribution
Freeman
A. West Coast Oil Disposition
Adger
B. OCS Development of Oil and Gas
Mayfield
C. Natural Gas Supply and Distribution
Rodgers
D. Coal Development and Distribution
Pendley
VI. Electricity Demand and Supply
Eysymontt
A. Electricity Demand (Update of NEO 76)
Lady
B. Comparative Economics of Electricity
Lady
Supply
C. Institutional Considerations in Electricity Hanfling
Supply
D. Financial Considerations in Electricity
Feldman
Supply
VII. Energy Development 1985-2000
Lady
A. Interface with ERDA Plans and Analytical
Lady
Activities
B. Impact of Reserve Depletion
Rodgers
C. Contribution of Emerging Technologies
Kuhn
D. Energy Impacts on Economic Growth
Kraft
FORD
LIBRARY
3
Appendices
Lead
A. Overview of the Analysis Process
Greenberg
B. Demand
MacRae
C. Oil and Gas Supply
Rodgers
D. Refineries
Pearson
E. Coal Supply
Pendley
F. Electric Utilities
Borlick
G. Nuclear Power
Walton
H. Emerging Technologies
Lady
I. Conservation
Hemphill
J. International Analysis
Pearson
K. Economy/Energy Considerations
Kraft
L. Capital Requirements
Santogrossi
M. Scenario Description
Dearborn
N. Output Report and Summary Tables
Greenberg
0. Statistical Appendix
Curtis
D
A
76 603-1
Private Sector Hydroelectric Development
in the United States
Ronald A. Corso
Federal Power Commission, Washington, D. C.
Mr. Chairman, fellow panelists, and
available energy source as an alternative
guests of the Joint Power Generation
to power that uses valuable non-renewable
Conference, I am pleased to have this
fuel resources. We hear a great clamor
opportunity to present to you some views
to develop new energy sources, such as
on the potential for hydroelectric power
solar power, wind power, and nuclear
development by the non-Federal or pri-
fusion, to name a few. These power
vate sector of the electric power indus-
sources may offer an answer to our energy
try. I should mention at the outset
needs in the future. Hydroelectric
that in using the term private develop-
power presents an immediate solution,
ment, I am speaking of all private and
because it is a proven technology and the
non-Federal public entities engaged in
most efficient and reliable energy source
the development of hydroelectric projects.
available at this time.
Congress has authorized the Federal
Public utilities, consulting firms,
Power Commission to license all private
Federal and other public agencies, and
hydroelectric developments which utilize
the Congress are acutely aware of this.
navigable waters, occupy United States
For instance, many public utilities are
lands, use water or water power from a
studying possible developments and
government dam, or affect the interests of
reassessing the potential for redevelop-
interstate commerce. By this definition
ment of existing hydroelectric facilities.
and the interpretation of the Commission's
A number of consulting firms are studying
authority by the Courts, this essentially
the hydroelectric potential in many areas
means that virtually all privately devel-
of the nation, particularly where fuel
oped hydroelectric projects are subject
costs are excessive. The Federal Energy
to the Commission's jurisdiction. This
Administration, the Energy Research and
puts the Commission in the unique position
Development Administration and the
of being apprised of the "state of the
Federal Power Commission are actively
art" for private hydroelectric develop-
encouraging the development of our hydro-
ment. Information on private hydroelec-
electric power resources. Chairman
ric development is made available to
Dunham of the Commission, in his speech
he Commission in several ways, i.e.
this past April before the Southeastern
through applications for license and
Electric Exchange, indicated that the
preliminary permits or through inquiries
Commission will devote more of its
by potential applicants. I should at
energies to the electric utility industry,
this point note, that, in addition to
giving special attention to the potential
licenses, the Commission also issues
of hydroelectric development. State
preliminary permits. Such permits do
agencies are encouraging hydroelectric
not authorize construction, but they do
development, particularly in Alaska where
offer the advantage of maintaining
the State legislature approved a bill to
priority for filing an application for
assist the financing of hydroelectric
license while a Permittee studies the
projects through the use of oil revenues.
feasibility of a proposed project. Under
In addition, Congress has a number of bills
the Federal Power Act, a preliminary
before it to encourage hydroelectric
permit may be issued for up to 3 years.
development. As with other power devel-
However, a permit is not a necessary pre-
opments, hydroelectric power faces cer-
requisite to an application for license.
tain obstacles, particularly in the
environmental area. However, with the
Based on available information, we
combined efforts of all concerned and a
believe there is reason to be optomistic
commitment to seek solutions to environ-
about the future of hydroelectric devel-
mental and other problems, a significant
opment. As we all know, renewed interest
portion of the nation's hydroelectric
in hydroelectric power has been generated
potential can be realized.
by the present energy shortage. Hydro-
electric power offers the most readily
I would now like to turn to a brief
statistical summary of the hydroelectric
Price: Members $1.50
All Rights
potential. Recent statistics compiled
Nonmembers $2.00
Reserved
by the Commission's Staff indicate that
At Meeting: $1.00
by TEFF
there is a potential for the development
of 113,000 MW of capacity capable of
producing 407 billion kWH annually. The
A 76 603-1.
A paper recommended and approved bv the
existing installed hydroelectric capacity
TEEE Power Generation Committee of the IEFE Power
is about 66,000 MW. This represents over
"ngineering Society for presentation at the IEEE/
13 percent of the nation's total installed
SUI/ASCE Joint Power Ceneration Conference, Buffalo,
generating capacity and produces 15
,Y., September 19-23, 1976. Manuscript submitted
percent of the total generation. Approxi-
May 13, 1976; made available for printing July 7, 1976.
mately 35,000 MW of hydroelectric capacity
has been licensed by FPC for private
Table 2 lists outstanding preliminary
development. Licensed projects now under
permits where feasibility studies are
construction total about 3,000 MW. It is
underway for proposed projects having the
estimated that projects now under license
potential to develop 5382.5 MW of capacity
have a potential ultimate capacity of an
Table 2 reflects the trend noted in Table 1,
additional 14,000 MW. The Commission
i.e. most of the projects would be pumped-
also has before it in pending applications
storage facilities. We expect that most
for license and preliminary permits, and
of these projects will be before the
under outstanding preliminary permits
Commission under applications for license
proposed projects totalling approximately
after feasibility studies are completed.
21,000 MW.
Table 1 lists applications for
Table 2
license pending before the Commission as
of January 1976. You will note that of
Outstanding Preliminary Permits
January 1976
the total 10,286 MW of proposed capacity,
there are over 9,000 MW of pumped-storage
FPC
projects. This is a continuation of the
Proj
Project
Capacity
No.
Name
Permittee
Type
(MW)
trend which began in the last decade, and
is a result of the economic benefits that
2718
Antilon Lake
PUD No. 1 of Chelan County,
PS
1000
Washington
a pumped-storage project offers in large
electric systems, particularly when
2723
Brown's Canyon
PUD No. 1 of Douglas County,
PS
1000
Washington
operated in conjunction with nuclear plants.
2728
Carlyle
Citics of Breese and
c
8
Carlyle, Illinois
2733
Village Bend-
Brazos Electric Power
C,PS
730
DeCordova
Coop., Inc., Texas
2734
Madison County
Carolina Power & Light Co.
PS
1000
2739
Meldahl
City of Vanceburg, Ky.
C
70
2741
Kings River
Kings River Irrigation
C
394.5
District, Calif.
Table 1
2746
Boyd County
Nebr. Public Power Dist.
PS
1000
Applications for License or Amendment of License
Pending January 1976
2751
Gallipolis
Ohio Power Co.
c
40
FPC
2752
Kootenai River
Northern Lights, Inc.,
C
140
Proj.
Project
Capacity
Montana
No.
Name
Applicant
Type
(M)
Subtotal Conventional
712.5
120
Big Creek No. 3
Southern Calif. Edison Co.
C
35
Subtotal - Pumped-Storage
4670.0
Total
5382.5
201
Blind Slough
City of Petersburg, Alaska
c
2.6
349
Martin
Alabama Power Co.
c
60
Table 3 lists applications for pre-
485
Bartlett's Ferry
Georgia Power Co.
c
100
liminary permit pending before the Com-
1971
Hells Canyon
Idaho Power Co.
c
225
mission as of January 1976. This Table
lists proposed projects having a total
2016
Cowlitz River
City of Tacoma, Wash.
c
40.5
installed capacity of 5464.5 MW. While
2245
Cannelton
City of Vanceburg, Ky.
c
70
the greater portion of the capacity listed
2409
North Fork
c
320
in Table 3 would be developed by pumped-
Calaveras Co. Water
Stanislaus R.
District, Calif.
storage projects, you will note that there
are a greater number of conventional
2426
Castaic &
Dept. of Water Resources, Calif.
C,PS
1509.1
Calif. Aqueduct
and City of Los Angeles
projects. This reflects the recent trend
toward the development of projects which
2511
Redcliff
Colorado Water Conservation
c
11.25
District
were either marginal or uneconomical, and
reflects the impact created by high cost
2614
Greenup
City of Vanceburg, Ky.
c
70
fossil fuels. Information from the
2709
Davis
Monongahela Power Co.
PS
1000
electric utilities indicates that we can
Potomac Edison Co. &
expect an increased interest in conven-
West Penn Power Co.
tional developments. Information furnished
2716
Bath County
Virginia Electric and
PS
2100
by the industry also indicates that we
Power Co.
can expect applications for license or
2725
Rocky Mt.
Georgia Power Co.
PS
675
preliminary permits for as much as 5,000 MW
2729
Breaksbeen
Power Authority of the
PS
1000
in the forseeable future.
State of New York
To some, the prospect of additional
2735
Helms
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
PS
1050
developments beyond those now announced
2740
Bad Creek
Duke Power Co.
PS
1000
is not probable. They point to the long
2742
Solomon Gulch
Copper Valley Electric
C
18
licensing process, economic constraints,
Assoc., Inc., Alaska
and environmental opposition. This
2753
Mt. Hope
Jersey Central Power &
PS
1000
presents a substantial challenge. The
Light Co.
Federal Power Commission has committed it-
Subtotal - Conventional
1261.45
self to decreasing the licensing process.
Subtotal - Pumped-Storage
9025.0
We must also commit ourselves to seeking
Total
10,286.45
solutions to the economic and environ-
C - Conventional Development
mental problems that have stymied many
PS - Pumped-Storage Development
hydroelectric developments.
2
Snake' River Project had an ultimate
Table 3
potential of about 3.5 million kW and
Applications for Preliminary Permit
7 billion kWH. We must all agree that
Pending January 1976
environmental considerations may dictate
FPC
that certain projects should not be
Proj
Project
Capacity
No.
constructed. On the other hand, this is
Name
Applicant
Type
(MW)
not an insurmountable obstacle for every
2730
Black Star
Southern Calif. Edison Co.
PS
1235
project. We should look to those projects
2743
Terror Lake
Kodiak Electric Assoc
C
30
where environmental problems are at a
Inc., Alaska
minimum or can be mitigated in'some way.
2749
Randolph
Southside Electric Coop.,
PS
3575
Matters that deserve considerable attention
Virginia
are the development of the hydroelectric
2750
Black River
Town of Springfield, Vt.
c
22.5
potential at existing dams and reservoirs
and improved technology.
2754
Ashuelot River
City of Keene, N.H.
c
18
2755
Thomas Bay
Thomas Bay Power Co.,
C
38
The Commission recently issued two
Alaska
licenses for the installation of power
2756/
Chace Mill
Green Mt. Power Corp.
c
6
facilities at government dams on. the
2764
City of Burlington, Vt.
Ohio River. The minimal environmental
2757
Juniper-Cross
Colorado Water Conservation
c
78
consequences are evident and the potential
Mt.
District
is significant. These two projects, when
2759
operational, will save the equivalent of
Missiquoi
Swanton Village, Vt.
C,PS*
80
1,000,000 barrels of oil per year.
2760
Power Creek
City of Cordova, Alaska
c
10
2761
South Fork
E1 Dorado County Water
c
300
There are three developments listed
American River
Agency, Celif.
in Tables 1 and 2 which deserve special
2762
East Georgia
Central Vermont Public
c
10
attention because they offer the prospect
Service Corp.
of overcoming some of the environmental
2763
-
Sheephorn
City of Golden & Vidler
c
62
problems we are encountering today. In
Tunnel Co., Colorado
its application for license for the 1000 MW
Subtotal - Conventional
654.5
Mt. Hope Pumped-Storage Project, Jersey
Subtotal - Pumped-Storage
4810.0
Central Power & Light Co. proposes a high
Total
5464.5
head facility with an underground reser-
* Not included in Subtotal-Amped-Storage
voir. The proposed project would develop
a gross head of 2400 feet using single-
stage reversible units. This represents a
Present economic theory dictates that
significant step forward inasmuch as
the lowest cost generating facility will
present installations develop up to about
be constructed next. This places marginal
1600 feet of gross head. If the equipment
hydroelectric projects in a disadvantageous
manufacturers can meet this challenge and
economic position, with the prospect that
deliver reliable equipment to operate under
they may never be constructed. One is led
these conditions, many environmental prob-
to question this approach when you con-
lems will be solved. A 50 percent increase
sider that the lower cost generating
in operating head will result in a corres-
facility is usually using a non-renewable
ponding decrease in reservoir size. With
resource, such as coal or oil. Perhaps
less inundated land, there should be less
our economic theories should be evaluated
environmental opposition. With equipment
with a view toward giving credit to
capable of operating under these conditions,
hydroelectric developments for preserving
many more potential sites are available
non-renewable natural resources. We
from which to choose projects which are
should also consider re-defining our
acceptable from both an engineering and
economic comparisons to consider more
environmental view point. Further, the
realistically the useful life of a hydro-
prospect of developing pumped-storage
electric facility versus that of an
projects with one or both reservoirs under-
alternative thermal plant. Experience
ground offers the potential of eliminating
indicates that we can expect a hydroelec-
most environmental problems.
tric facility to last as much as 100
years with proper maintenance, whereas
Table 2 lists the proposed 1000 MW
the life expectancy of a thermal plant is
Brown's Canyon Project located or Columbia
about 25 years. Proper consideration of
River, Washington, now under study by
this aspect would place a hydroelectric
Douglas County Public Utility District
project in a more favorable economic posi-
No. 1. This proposed project would also
tion, and I believe, an appropriate
have an operating head of about 2400 feet
position.
and, therefore, offers some of the same
advantages as the Mt. Hope Project. The
Environmental considerations have
Brown's Canyon Project would not be an
delayed or prevented the development of a
underground facility. However, it would
number of hydroelectric projects. For
use as its lower reservoir the existing
example, after almost 20 years of considera-
Lake Entiat, the reservoir of the FPC
tion before the Commission, possible devel-
licensed Rocky Reach Project No. 2145.
opment of the Middle Snake River was ter-
Table 1 also lists Pacific Gas & Electric
minated by conservation oriented legislation
Company's 1050 MW Helms Pumped-Storage
passed by Congress and signed by the
Project which will utilize two existing
President this past December. The Middle
reservoirs for its upper and lower pools.
3
Underground reservoirs, use of existing
hydroelectric development without its
reservoirs, and greater operating heads
problems. However, it is a viable, tangible
are important areas where we can minimize
energy resource which should be developed
environmental problems and delays in get-
to its fullest practicable limit. To put
ng plants in service.
the matter into perspective, the develop-
ment of one-half of the nation's hydro-
I suggest to you that with an increased
electric potential would save the equivalent
effort and some innovative thinking, the
of almost one million barrels of oil per
hydroelectric potential of the nation can
day, the President's announced goal for
be realized at an ever faster pace.
energy independence. Therefore, while
hydroelectric power will not become the
The statistics I have presented
major source of energy, it can make a
indicate that the future of hydroelectric
very significant contribution to meeting
development is indeed encouraging. I hope
the nation's energy needs.
that my brief remarks have stimulated you
to also be encouraged. Obviously, hydro-
I would like to thank you for the
electric power development is not a
opportunity to speak before this con-
panacea to the energy shortage, nor is
ference on the nation's hydroelectric
power potential.
4
E
DATA ON HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES
IN THE UNITED STATES
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED
AS OF JANUARY 1, 1976
From Federal Power Commission
Inventory of Hydroelectric Power Resources
by
Neal C. Jennings
Interagency Hydropower Workshop
Federal Energy Administration
Washington, D.C.
November 4, 1976
FORD LIBRARY
Note: The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and
not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Power
Commission or any of its members.
DATA ON HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES IN THE UNITED STATES --
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED AS OF JANUARY 1, 1976
In connection with river basin investigations made either in
cooperation with various Federal agencies including the Corps of Engineers
and the Bureau of Reclamation, or in the course of its licensing activities,
the Federal Power Commission maintains up-to-date records on the Nation's
hydroelectric power potential. The potential is based on a site-by-site
inventory of all the river basins in the conterminous United States as
well as in Alaska and Hawaii. Data on nearly 2,800 sites, both developed
and undeveloped, are published every four years. The latest report,
entitled "Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States, Developed
and Undeveloped," was published in 1972. A 1976 edition is nearing
completion.
The possibility of developing any of the conventional undeveloped
sites depends upon engineering, economic, environmental, and other
considerations which may vary over time. Most sites have shown indications
of engineering feasibility -- some have evidenced economic feasibility as
well. Some sites are now receiving more favorable consideration due to
recent fuel shortages and the increased costs of power from alternative
sources. Many sites have not been analyzed sufficiently to evaluate
their economic or environmental costs and benefits. The totals, however,
do give an indication of the upper limit of the conventional water power
potential of the country.
As of January 1, 1976, the total conventional hydroelectric power
capacity in the United States, developed and available for development,
was about 170.7 million kilowatts. Of that total about 57.0 million
kilowatts was developed, including 26.5 million kilowatts in plants
licensed by the FPC and 27.1 million kilowatts in Federal plants.
Additionally, about 9.7 million kilowatts of reversible capacity were
installed at pumped storage projects, including 8.5 million kilowatts
under license and 0.6 million kilowatts in Federal plants.
Figures 1 and 2 show the distribution of the developed and undeveloped
conventional hydro potential among major drainages and geographic
divisions.
The following Summary Table shows the status of development and
planning of conventional and pumped storage hydroelectric developments as
of the beginning of 1976. Capacity equivalent to that planned or projected
could possibly be added within the next two decades. This would bring
the total installations to about 79.3 million kilowatts in conventional
capacity and 37.3 million kilowatts in pumped storage capacity.
Tables I and II list the individual projects and sites included
in the categories of Under Construction, Planned, and Other Projected
in the Summary Table.
Attention is called to the fact that the data presented herein
are provisional, subject to possible revision.
Summary Table
Provisional
HYDROELECTRIC CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES
BY STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
(As of January 1, 1976)
Installed Capacity
Millions of Kilowatts
Pumped
Conventional
Storage
Total
I.
DEVELOPED
57.0
9.7
66.7
II. UNDEVELOPED!/
Under Construction
8.2
4.3
12.5
Planned
2.0
6.4
8.4
Other Projected
12.1
16.9
29.0
Subtotal
22.3
27.6
49.9
Remaining Undeveloped
91.4
-
-
III. TOTAL POTENTIAL
170.7
-
-
1/ Includes 33.3 million kilowatts in Alaska and Hawaii and
11.2 million kilowatts designated for study and under
moratorium for hydroelectric development under the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act; excludes 9.2 million kilowatts
removed from FPC inventory as a result of the Wild and
Scenic River Act and other special acts.
2/ Included in reports to FPC from the Regional Electric
Reliability Councils, estimated to be installed by 1985.
3/ Undeveloped capacity not under construction or in reports
of the Regional Electric Reliability Councils, but which
have FPC license or permit status, are Federally authorized
or recommended, or have structural provisions for plant
additions.
Provisional
CONVENTIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED - JANUARY 1,1976
BY MAJOR DRAINAGES
70
Note The potential of Hawaii, amounting to 53.000 kW
of which 18,000 are developed, is net shown
ALASKA
60
NORTH
HUDSON
PACIFIC
BAY
GREAT LAKES
MISSOURI
RIVER
ST LAARENCE
UPPER
RIVER
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH
50
RIVER
ATLANTIC
GREAT
SOUTH
BASIN
PACIFIC
MILLIONS OF KILOWATTS
0410
UNDEVELOPED
COLORADO
RIVER
40
RIVER
LOWER
SOUTH
MISSISSIPPI
ATLANTIC
RIVER
EASTERN
GULF
WESTERN
30
GULF
20
10
THE
O
Figure 1
BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS
70
Note The potential of Hawaii, amounting to 53.000 kW
ALASKA
of which 18,000 are developed, is not snown
60
NEW
ENGLAND
PACIFIC
WEST
NORTH CENTRAL
MIDDLE
ATLANTIC
50
EAST
NORTH CENTRAL
UNDEVELOPED
MOUNTAIN
40
MILLIONS OF KILOWATTS
EAST
SOUTH
SOUTH
ATLANTIC
WEST
CENTRAL
SOUTH CENTRAL
30
20
NHO
10
LIBRA
O
Figure 2
Provisional
TABLE I CONVENTIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS OR ADDITIONS
UNDER CONSTRUCTION, PLANNED, OR PROJECTED JANUARY 1, 1976
FPC
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
PLANNED
3/1
OTHER PROJECTED 4/
STATUS
PROJECT
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
PLANT
OWNER
RIVER
STATE
INSTALLED
AVERAGE
INSTALLED
INSTALLED
2/
NO
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
GENERATION
GENERATION
CAPACITY
GENERATION
KW
KW
1,000 KWH
1,000 KWH
KW
1,000 KWH
CORNELL
NORTHERN STATES PWN
CHIPPEWA
WIS
to
2639
28,600
120,000
CLARENCE F CANNON
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SALT
MO
FA
27,000
42,100
FONTANA
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH
LITTLE TENN
NC
FA
13,500G
0
WALLACE DAM
GEORGIA POWER CO
OCCNEE
GA
LO
2413
108,000
128,000
LAUREL
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LAUREL
KY
FA
61,000
67,000
CHICKAMAUGA
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH
TENNESSEE
TENN
FA
3,000G
0
3,0000
0
DOUCLAS
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH
FRENCH BROAD
TENN
FA
2,8000
0
CHEROKEE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH
MOLSTON
TENN
FA
4,650G
0
RL HARRIS
ALABAMA POWER CO
TALLAPOOSA
ALA
LO
2628
135,000
169,000
NOXON RAPIDS
WASHINGTON WTR PWR CO
CLARK FK
MONT
LO
2075
114,000A
107,000
LIBBY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
KOOTENAI
MONT
FA
210,000A
428,000
420,000A
859,000
CRYSTAL
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
GUNNISON
COLO
FA
28,000
120,000
DAVIS(LAKE MOHAVE)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
COLORADO
ARIZ
FA
3,000G
0
3,000c
0
BONNEVILLE 2ND PH
CORPS CF ENGINEERS
COLUMBIA
WASH
FA
540,800A
1,160,000
ICE HARBOR
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SNAKE
WASH
FA
111 000A
174,000
LOWER MONUMENTAL
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SNAKE
WASH
FA
405,000A
517,000
LITTLE GOOSE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SNAKE
WASH
FA
405,000A
288,000
LOWER GRANITE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SNAKE
WASH
FA
405,000A
1,424,000
ROCK ISLAND
CHELAN CITY PUD NO 1
COLUMBIA
WASH
LO
943
410,400A
1,296,000
CHIEF JOSEPH
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COLUMBIA
WASH
FA
1,045,000A
1,761,000
GRAND COULEE
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
COLUMBIA
WASH
FA
3,300,000A
6,025,000
17,0000
110,000
#
LOST CREEK
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ROGUE
ORE
FA
49,000
303,000
AUBURN
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
N FK AMERICAN
CALIF
FA
300,000
360,000
NEW MELONES
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
STANISLAUS
CALIF
FA
300,000
385,000
PYRAMID
CALIF DEPT WTR RES
W BR AQUEDUCT
CALIF
LA
2426
157,000
852,000
COTTONWOOD
CALIF DEPT WTR RES
E BR AQUEDUCT
CALIF
LA
2426
14,100
114,000
DEVIL CANYON
CALIF DEPT WTR RES
E BR AQUEDUCT
CALIF
LA
2426
59,800A
390,000
SILVIS LAKE
KETCHIKAN CITY OF
SILVIS LAKE
ALASKA
LO
1922
2,100
6,300
BRUNSWICK-TOPSHAM
CENTRAL MAINE PWR & LT
ANDROSCOGGIN
ME
LO
2284
9,700A
69,700
RACINE
OHIO POWER CO
OHIO
OHIO
LO
2570
40,000
220,000
RICHARD B RUSSELL
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SAVANNAH
GA
FA
300,000
467,000
GOAT ROCK
GEORGIA POWER CO
CHATTAHOOCHEE
GA
SP
2177
67,000A
25,000
BARTLETTS FERRY
GEORGIA POWER CO
CHATTAHOOCHEE
CA
LA
485
50,000A
35,000
50,000
30,000
MARTIN DAM
ALABAMA POWER CO
TALLAPOOSA
ALA
LA
349
60.000A
42,000
MITCHELL
ALABAMA POWER CO
COOSA
ALA
LO
82
80,100A
119,000
AMISTAD
IBWC/SO TEX & MEDINA
RIO GRANDE
TEX
FA
32,000
66,000
48,000A
90,000
LIBBY REREGULATOR
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
KOOTENAI
MONT
FR
50,400
180,000
BROWNLEE
IDAHO POWER CO
SNAKE
IDAHO
LA
1971
225,000A
123,000
AMERICAN FALLS
IDAHO POWER CO
SNAKE
IDAHO
LO
2736
92,400
400,000
SEMINOE
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
NORTH PLATTE
WYO
FA
12,600A
3,300
MORROW POINT
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
GUNNISON
COLO
FA
9,0000
0
DYNE
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
DIAMOND FK PIPE
UTAH
FA
33,000
132,400
SIXTH WATER
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
SIXTH WATER CR
UTAH
FA
90,000
134,000
SYAR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
STRAWBERRY OFF
UTAH
FA
10,500
53,100
ROSS
SEATTLE DEPT LT
SKAGIT
WASH
LO
553
300,000A
368,000
MAYFIELD
CITY OF TAKOMA
COWLITZ
WASH
SP
2016
40,500A
96,000
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIF DEPT WTR RES
COASTAL AQUEDUCT
CALIF
LA
2426
5,900
42,000
KERCKHOFF
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC
SAN COAQUIN
CALIF
LO
96
100,000A
600,000
BIG CREEK NO 3
so CALIF EDISON
REDINGER LAKE
CALIF
LA
120
35,000A
0
DICKEY-LINCOLN SCH
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ST JOHNS
MAINE
FA
830,000
1,154,000
TOCKS ISLAND
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DELAWARE
NJ
FA
70,000
281,000
ST PETERSBURG
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CLARION
PA
FR
120,000
244,000
MELDAHL
VANCEBURG CITY OF
CHIO
OHIO
PO
2739
70,000
350,000
GREENUP
VANCEBURG CITY OF
OHIO
OHIO
LA
2614
70,560
300,000
GALLIPOLIS L & D
OHIO POWER CO
OHIO
OHIO
PO
2751
40,000
120,000
GARRISON
CORPS CF ENGINEERS
MISSOURI
N DAK
SP
212,000A
0
FORT RANDALL
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MISSOURI
S DAK
SP
176,000A
0
BIG BEND
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MISSCURI
S DAK
SP
330,000A
0
OAHE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MISSOURI
S DAK
SP
144,000A
0
GAVINS POINT
CCRPS OF ENGINEERS
MISSOURI
NEBR
SP
33,300A
0
SALEM CHURCH
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
RAPPAHANNOC
VA
FA
89,000
161,000
GATHRIGHT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JACKSON
VA
FA
49,000
54,700
LOWER BLUE RIDGE
APPALACHIAN POWER
NEW
VA
to
2317
200,000
0
BLUESTONE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NEW
W VA
FA
180,000
447,000
ST STEPHEN
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SANTEE & COOPER
SC
FA
84.000
418.000
HARTWELL
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SAVANNAH
GA
FA
66,000A
100,000
WEST POINT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CHATTAHOOCHEE
GA
FA
35,000A
68,000
LOWER VADA
CORPS OF ENCINEERS
FLINT
GA
FR
28,000
167,000
LOWER AUCHUMPKEE
CORPS CF ENGINEERS
FLINT
GA
FA
77,000
122,000
LAZER CREEK
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FLINT
CA
FA
83,000
121,000
SPEWRELL BLUFF
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FLINT
GA
FA
100,000
160,000
ALLATOONA
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ETOWAR
CA
FA
36,000A
26,000
CELINA
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CUMBERLAND
KY
FA
108,000
280,000
CANNELTON
VANCEBURG CITY OF
CHIO
KY
LA
2245
70,560
340,000
DEGRAY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CADDO
ARK
FA
40,000A
86,600
SEE FOOTNOTES AT END OF TABLE
Provisional
TABLE I (Contd.) CONVENTIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS OR ADDITIONS
UNDER CONSTRUCTION, PLANNED. OR PROJECTED JANUARY 1, 1976
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
PLANNED
Y
OTHER PROJECTED 4/
FPC
PLANT
OWNER
RIVER
STATE
STATUS
PROJECT
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
INSTALLED
INSTALLED
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
2/
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
NO
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
GENERATION
GENERATION
CAPACITY
GENERATION
KW
KW
1.000KWH
KW
1,000 KWN
1.000 KWH
NORFORK
CCRPS OF ENGINEERS
N FORK
ARK
FA
85,000X
22,000
KAW
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ARKANSAS
OKLA
FR
25,000
99,000
DE CORDOVA BEND 3
BRAZOS ELEC PWR CO
BRAZOS
TEX
PO
2733
60,000
42,000
DENISON
CORPS OF ENCINEERS
RED
TEX
FA
105,000A
70,000
ALLENSPUR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
YELLOWSTONE
MONT
FR
250,000
679,000
FORT PECK
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MISSOURI
MONT
SP
185,000A
0
KOOTENAI
NORTHERN LIGHTS
KOOTENAI
MONT
PO
2752
140,000
500,000
DWORSHAK
CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
N FK CLEARW
IDAHO
FA
660,000A
20,000
GUFFEY
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
SNAKE
IDAHO
FR
85,000
525,600
BLISS
IDAHO POWER
SNAKE
IDAHO
SP
1971
25,000A
7,000
LYNN CRANDALL
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
SNAKE
IDAHO
FR
240,000
821,000
PALISADES
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
SNAKE
IDAHO
SP
135,000
267,000
SHERIDAN
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
TONGUE
WYO
FR
25,000
92,000
THIEF CREEK
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
CLARK FX
WYO
FR
125,200
510,000
JUNIPER
COLO R WTR CONS DIS
YAMPA
COLO
PA
2757
45,000
150,000
CROSS MOUNTAIN
COLO R WTR CONS DIS
YAMPA
COLO
PA
2757
33,000
100,000
MCCOY
CITY OF GOLDEN
COLORADO
COLO
PA
2763
50,000
250,000
MIDDLE SULTAN
SNOROMISH COUNTY PUD
SULTAN
WASH
LO
2157
32.000
129,000
UPPER SULTAN
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD
SULTAN
WASH
LO
2157
84,000
122,000
NINE FOOT CREEK
KLICKITAT COUNTY PUD
WHITE SALMON
WASH
LA
2241
40,000
87,000
MOSSYROCK
CITY OF TACOMA
COWLITZ
WASH
SP
2016
150.000A
300,000
MERWIN
PACIFIC PWR & LT
LEWIS
WASH
SP
935
60,000A
60,500
YALE
PACIFIC PWR & LT
LEWIS
WASH
SP
2071
108,000A
200,000
JOHN DAY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COLUMBIA
WASH
FA
540,000
1,970,000
PRIEST RAPIDS
GRANT COUNTY FUD 1
COLUMBIA
WASH
SP
2114
473,100A
730,000
WANAPUM
GRANT COUNTY PUD 1
COLUMBIA
WASH
SP
2114
498,750A
1,540,000
BOUNDARY
SEATTLE DEPT OF LT
PEND CREILL
WASH
SP
2144
275,500A
425.000
MCNARY ZND PH
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COLUMBIA
OREG
FR
1,050,000A
300,000
HELLS CANYON
IDAHO POWER
SNAKE
OREG
SP
1971
130,500A
40,000
OXBOW
IDAHO POWER
SNAKE
OREG
SP
1971
47,500A
47,500
KENO
PACIFIC PWR & LT
KLAMATH
OREG
LO
2082
100.000
225,000
PINE FLAT
KINGS R CONSV DIST
KINGS
CALIF
PO
2741
165,000
300,000
SALMON FALLS
EL DORADO COUNTY
S FX AMERICAN
CALIF
PA
2761
95,000
190,000
COLOMA DAM
EL DORADO COUNTY
$ FK AMERICAN
CALIF
PA
2761
45,000
130,000
ROGERS CROSSING
KINGS R CONSV DIST
KINGS
CALIF
PO
2741
100,500
180,000
EL DORADO
EL DORADO COUNTY
$ FK AMERICAN
CALIF
PA
2761
80,000
328,000
PLUM CREEK
EL DORADO COUNTY
$ FK AMERICAN
CALIF
PA
2761
80,000
240.000
MARYSVILLE
CORPS OF ENCINEERS
YUBA
CALIF
FA
50,000
250,000
TABLE MOUNTAIN
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SACRAMENTO
CALIF
FA
54,000
287,000
COLLIERVILLE PK
CALAVERAS COUNTY WTR
STANISLAUS
CALIF
LA
2409
75,000
253,000
BCARDS PH
CALAVERAS COUNTY WTR
N FK STANISLAUS
CALIF
LA
2409
97,500
487,000
GANNS PH
CALAVERAS COUNTY WTR
N FK STANISLAUS
CALIF
LA
2409
50,000
205,000
JUNCTION
KINGS R CONVS DIST
DINKEY CREEK
CALIF
PO
2741
39,000
238,000
PEART
KINGS R CONVS DIST
DINKEY CREEK
CALIF
PO
2741
50,000
241,000
TERROR LAKE
KODIAK ELEC ASSN INC
CANYON
ALASKA
PA
2743
30,000
184,000
DEVIL CANYON
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SUSITNA
ALASKA
FR
738,000
4,190.000
WATANA
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SUSITNA
ALASKA
FR
478,000
2,720,000
BRADLEY LAKE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
BRADLEY CREEK
ALASKA
FA
63,900
335.600
SNETTISHAM
ALASKA POWER ADM
SPEEL
ALASKA
FA
27,000A
105,000
THOMAS BAY
THOMAS BAY PWR COMM
THOMAS BAY
ALASKA
PA
2755
30,000
130,000
38 SITES SMALLER THAN 25,000 KW
385,135
1,245,000
TOTALS
8,242,750
16,736,400
2,013,400
4,119,500
12,108,005
27,714,500
1/ CAPACITY AND GENERATION AT UNDEVELOPED SITES. EXCEPT "A" DENOTES ADDITION TO EXISTING PLANT AND "&"
DENOTES ADDITION TO A PLANT FOR WHICH THE INITIAL INSTALLATION IS PRESENTLY UNDER WAY. "G" DENOTES REWIND ADDITION.
2/ LO-FPC LICENSE OUTSTANDING
FA-FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED
LA-FPC LICENSE OR AMENDMENT APPLIED FOR
FR-FEDERALLY RECOMMENDED
PO-FPC PRELIMINARY PERMIT OUTSTANDING
SP-STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS INCLUDED AT EXISTING PLANT
PA-FPC PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLIED FOR
BUT LICENSE AMENDMENT OR FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION
3/ DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDED IN REPORTS OF APRIL 1. 1976. TO THE FPC BY THE REGIONAL ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCILS
FOR COMPLETION BY 1985; PLANT DATA FROM FPC INVENTORY.
41 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 25 MW OR CREATER NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR INCLUDED IN REPORTS OF THE REGIONAL ELECTRIC
RELIABILITY COUNCILS BUT WHICH HAVE FPC LICENSE OR PERMIT STATUS, ARE AUTHORIZED OR RECOMMENDED FOR FEDERAL
CONSTRUCTION, OR HAVE STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS FOR PLANT ADDITIONS.
5/ POSSIBLE ATLERNATIVE TO SWAN FALL REDEVELOPMENT. (NOT LISTED IN TABLES 2 & 4)
Provisional
TABLE II PUMPED STORAGE HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS OR ADDITIONS DEVELOPED.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION. OR PROJECTED - JANUARY 1. 1976
REVERSIBLE CAPACITY KW
TOTAL
FPC
STATUS
POTENTIAL
PLANT
OWNER
RIVER
STATE
PROJECT
OTHER
CONVENTIONAL
!!
NO
DEVELOPED
UNDER
PLANNED
2/
PROJECTED
TOTAL
CAPACITY
CONSTRUCTION
3/
KW
BEAR SWAMP
NEW ENGLAND POWER CO
DEFRFIELD
MASS
LO
2669
600,000
600,000
NORTHFIELD MT
CONN LIGHT & PWR CO
CONNECTICUT
MASS
LO
2485
1,000,000
1,000,000
ROCKY RIVER
CONN LIGHT 5 PWR CO
ROCKY
CONN
LA
2632
7,000
7,000
24,000
BLENHEIM-GILSOA
POWER AUTH STATE OF NY
SCHOHARIE CR
NY
LO
2685
1,000,000
1,000,000
LEWISTCN-NIAGARA
POWER AUTH STATE OF NY
NIAGARA
NY
LO
2216
240,000
240,000
1,953,900
YARDS CREEK
JERSEY CNTL PWR & LT
DELAWARE
NJ
LO
2309
388,961
388,961
MUDDY RUN
PHILA ELEC PWR ET AL
SUSQUEHANNA
PENN
LO
2355
800,000
800,000
KINZUA
PENN ELEC & CLEV ELEC
ALLEGHENY
PENN
LO
2280
396,000
396,000
26,100
LUDINGTON
CONSUMERS POWER CO
LAKE MICH
MICH
LO
2680
1,978,800
1,978,800
TAUM SAUK
UNION ELECTRIC CO
E FK BLACK
MO
LO
2277
408,000
408,000
UPPER SMITH MT
APPALACHIAN POWER CO
ROANOKE
VA
LO
2210
132,050
104,000
236,050
300,200
HIWASSEE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH
HIWASSEE
NC
FA
59,500
59,500
57,600
JOCASSEE
DUKE POWER CO
KEOWEE
SC
LO
2503
612,000
612,000
4/
DECRAY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CADDO
ARK
FA
28,000
28,000
80,000
SALINA
GRAND RIVER DAM AUTH
GRAND
OKLA
LO
2524
260,000
260,000
520,000
BUCHANAN
LOWER CO RIV AUTH
COLORADO
TEXAS
11,250
11,250
22,500
FLAT IRON 3
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
CO BIG THOM DIV
COLO
FA
8,500
8,500
O'NEILL
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
DELTA MENDOTA
COLO
FA
25,200
25,200
CABIN CREEK
PUBLIC SERVICE CO
so CLEAR CR
COLO
LO
2351
300,000
300,000
MORMOM FLAT
SALT R PROJ PWR DIST
SALT
ARIZ
-
48,645
48,645
9,200
HORSE MESA
SALT R PROJ PWR DIST
SALT-GILA
ARIZ
99,878
99,878
34,155
GRAND COULEE
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
COLUMBIA
WASH
FA
100,000
200,000
300,000
THERMALITO
CALIF DEPT OF WTR RES
FEATHER DIV
CALIF
LO
2100
82,500
32,500
65,200
EDWARD C HYATT
CALIF DEPT OF WTR RES
FEATHER DIV
CALIF
LO
2100
293,250
293,250
702,000
CASTAIC
LA CITY & ST OF CALIF
CASTAIC CR
CALIF
LA
2126
425,000
850,000
1,275,000
56,000
SAN LUIS
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
SAN LUIS CR
CALIF
FA
424,000
424,000
SENATOR WASH
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
SENATOR WASH
CALIF
FA
7,200
7,200
HARRY $ TRUMAN
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CSAGE
MO
FA
160,000
160,000
4/
CLARENCE CANNON
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SALT
MO
FA
-
31,000
31,000
27,000
FAIRFIELD
so CAROLINA ELEC & GAS
FREES CR BD
SC
LO
1894
518,400
518,400
WALLACE DAM
GEORGIA POWER CO
OCONEE
GA
LO
2413
216,000
216,000
108,000
CARTERS
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COOSAWATTEE
GA
FA
250,000
250,000
250,000
RACCOON MT
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH
TENNESSEE
TENN
FA
1,530,000
1,530,000
MT ELBERT
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
ARX CANAL
COLO
FA
100,000
100,000
200,000
MONTEZUMA
ARIZONA POWER AUTH
GILA OFFSTRM
ARIZ
LO
2573
505,400
505,400
BREAKABEEN
POWER AUTH STATE OF NY
SCHOHARIE CR
NY
LA
2729
1,000,000
1,000,000
BOYD COUNTY
NEBRASKA PUBLIC PWR
MISSOURI
NEBR
PO
2746
1,000,000
1,000,000
BATH COUNTY
VIRGINIA ELEC & PWR
BACK CREEK
VA
LA
2716
2,100,000
2,100,000
DAVIS
MONONGAHELA PWR CO
BLACKWATER
W VA
LA
2709
1,000,000
1,000,000
BAD CREEK
DUKE POWER CO
5AD CREEK
SC
LA
2740
1,000,000
1,000,000
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
GEORGIA POWER CO
HEATH CREEK
GA
LA
2725
675,000
675,000
HELMS
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC
KINGS
CALIF
LA
2735
1,050,000
1,050,000
MISSISQUOI
SWANTON VILLAGE OF
MISSISQUOI
VT
PA
2759
80,000
80,000
CORNWALL
CONSOLIDATED EDISON
HUDSON RIVER
NY
LO
2338
2,000,000
2,000,000
MOUNT HOPE
JERSEY CNTL PWR & LI
WHITE MEADOW
NJ
LA
2753
1,000,000
1,000,000
ST PETERSBURG
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CLARION
PENN
FR
300,000
300,000
120,000
PRAIRIE CREEK
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
PLATTE OFFSTRM
NEBR
FA
16,800
16,800
TURNIP-FALLING
SOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP
TURNIP CR
VA
PA
2749
830,000
830,000
RANDOLPH-HUNTING
SOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP
ROANOKE
VA
PA
2749
1,260,000
1,260,000
ROANOKE-WALLACE
SOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP
ROANOKE
VA
PA
2749
780,000
780,000
CUB CREEK
SOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP
CUB CREEK
VA
PA
2749
800,000
800,000
MOLLTS-SENECA CR
SOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP
SENECA CREEK
VA
PA
2749
420,000
420,000
UPPER BLUE RIDGE
APPALACHIAN POWER CO
NEW RIVER
VA
LO
2317
1,600,000
1,600,000
41
ROWLESBURG
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CHEAT
W VA
FA
350,000
350,000
41
GREEN RIVER PROJ
EPIC INC
GREEN
NC
PA
2700
500,000
500,000
MADISON COUNTY
CAROLINA PWR & LT
SUGARCAMP BR
NC
PO
2734
2,000,000
2,000,000
SPEWRELL BLUFF
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FLINT
CA
FA
50,000
50,000
100,000
VILLAGE BEND
BRAZOS ELEC PWR COOP
BRAZOS
TEXAS
PO
2733
730,000
730,000
BROWNS CANYON
PUD NO 1 DOUGLAS CO
COLUMBIA
WASH
LA
2753
1,000,000
1,000,000
BLACK STAR
so CALIF EDISON
SANTIAGO CR
CALIF
PA
2730
1,235,000
1,235,000
TOTALS
9,735,734
4,264,800
6,450,000
16,886,800
37,337,334
1/ LO-FPC LICENSE OUTSTANDING
PA-FPC PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLIED FOR
LA-FPC LICENSE OR AMENDMENT APPLIED FOR
FA-FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED
PO-FPC PRELIMINARY PERMIT OUTSTANDING
FR-FEDERALLY RECOMMENDED
2/ DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDED IN REPORTS OF APRIL 1. 1976, TO THE FPC BY REGIONAL ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCILS; PLANT
DATA FROM FPC INVENTORY.
3/ POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR INCLUDED IN REPORTS OF THE REGIONAL ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCILS
BUT WHICH HAVE FPC LICENSE OR PERMIT STATUS, OR ARE AUTHORIZED OR RECOMMENDED FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION.
61 REVERSIBLE CAPACITY SHOWN COULD BE USED FOR CONVENTIONAL GENERATION.
F
POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
TABLE I
Potential Hydropower Development Categories
*
Capacity
Average Annual
Category
(MW)
Energy (MWh)
A
Operational project
2,036
597,074
with authorized
hydropower additions
B
Projects under con-
74
141,000
struction with
authorized hydro-
power additions
C
Projects under con-
8,841
12,692,770
struction or
operational which
require hydropower
authorization
D
Projects authorized
2,997
5,249,800
with power but not
yet under construction
or operational
E
Projects requiring
546
795,000
reauthorization
because of a change
in capacity
F
Potential projects not
106,021
266,632,992
yet authorized but
having hydropower
capability
G
Detached pumped-
130,245
11,706,392
storage projects
TOTALS
250,760
297,814,958
*
Total energy potential understated.
Energy data not available for all projects.
September 1976
-
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Raymond Peck - Deputy Assistant Secretary - Energy and Minerals
William R. Wilson - Office of the Secretary - Land and Water Resources
Emerson Harper - Office of the Secretary - Energy and Minerals
William Clagett - Bonneville Power Administration
Gerald Faust - Bureau of Reclamation
Raymond Harman - Bureau of Reclamation
Interior Power Marketing Agencies
Bonneville Power Administration
Bureau of Reclamation
Southwestern Power Administration
Southeastern Power Administration
Alaska Power Administration
LIBRARY
MARKETING
CIES
AREAS OF O. ATIONS
BASHINGTON
maime
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
IDADO
MINNESOTA
=
a
NV
+
NEW YORK
SOUTH BAKOTA
WISCONSIN
THE
WYOMING
MICNIGAN
comm.
CALIFORNIA
821.
WEVADA
IOWA
PENNSYLVANIA
M.J.
wian
NEBRASKA
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
OHIO
MD
COLORADO
W.
VA
DEL.
VIRGINIA
BANSAS
2
KENTUCKY
MORIN CAPOLINA
ARIZONA
NEW MEXICO
DEWMESSER
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
ARKANSAS
alabima
6102614
MISSISSIPPI
COUISIANA
FLORIDA
GERALD
HAWAII
LIBRARY
GENERAL POWER RESOURCE GOALS
Generate and market power at Federal
multipurpose projects to assist in
recovering Federal investment and to
optimize resource use.
Stimulate planning, construction and
operation of electric power facilities
to provide an adequate and reliable
supply of electric energy.
Coordinate integration of Federal
with non-Federal projects.
3
INTERIOR'S POWER CUSTOMERS
(approximately)
Preference (public power)
756
Utilities (private)
56
Federal Facilities
48
Industries served
23
4
INTERIOR'S ELECTRIC POWER PROGRAMS
SUPPORT POWER FACILITIES WHEN ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE
IN MULTIPURPOSE HYDRO PROJECTS
MARKET ELECTRIC POWER GENERATED AT CORPS OF
ENGINEERS AND BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DAMS
ENCOURAGE NECESSARY RESEARCH - EHV TRANSMISSION (1,100 KV) &
EFFICIENCY AND RELIABILITY STUDIES
CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES NECESSARY
TO MARKET POWER
COORDINATION OF POWER PLANNING, DESIGN AND POOLING
5
POWER MARKETING OPERATIONS
FY 1976
Marketed
Miles
Energy
Percent of
Gross
capacity
trans.
Marketed
generation
Agency
revenues
(MW)
lines
(Billions of KW-HRS)
in the area
(in millions)
(in thousands)
Southeastern
$ 48
2,401
8.1
3
Alaska
2.1
77
.09
.2
10 & 50
Southwestern
51
1,917
2
3.9
5
Reclamation
270/1
7,709/2
16
38.0
3-35
(in 5 areas)
6
Bonneville
302
13,618
13
83.6
50
Total
$ 673.1
25,722
31
133.8
/1 Excludes sales to BPA of $8.4 million
12 Reclamation generation capacity of 9,659 MW less marketed to BPA of 4,030 MW plus Corps of Engineers
generation of 2,048 MW and IBWC of 31.5 MW. Includes Navajo generation.