Museado / NARA Collection grf-0067 — Collection grf-0067
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro) हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

Energy - Federal Energy Administration: Hydropower Workshop

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

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 Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
248ced6af0da992b
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
1562972
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "1562972",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1562972",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Energy - Federal Energy Administration: Hydropower Workshop",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1562972",
    "collections": [
        "John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)",
        "John Marsh's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Electric power",
        "Water projects"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/72/5629/1562972/content/library/document/0067/1562972.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/72/5629/1562972/content/library/document/0067/1562972.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/72/5629/1562972/content/library/document/0067/1562972.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "1562972",
    "label": "Energy - Federal Energy Administration: Hydropower Workshop",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1562972"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "1562972",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1562972",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Energy - Federal Energy Administration: Hydropower Workshop",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1562972",
    "collections": [
        "John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)",
        "John Marsh's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Electric power",
        "Water projects"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/72/5629/1562972/content/library/document/0067/1562972.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/72/5629/1562972/content/library/document/0067/1562972.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/72/5629/1562972/content/library/document/0067/1562972.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1562972",
    "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"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/72/5629/1562972/content/library/document/0067/1562972.pdf",
    "mediaId": "248ced6af0da992b",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 14, folder \"Energy - Federal Energy\nAdministration: Hydropower Workshop\" of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford\nPresidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 14 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nSUMMARY REPORT\nof\nHYDROPOWER WORKSHOP\nNovember 4, 1976\n1. On Thursday, November 4, 1976, a Federal interagency\nworkshop on hydroelectric nower development was sponsored\nby the Federal Energy Administration's Assistant Administrator\nfor Energy Resource Development. It was attended by represen-\ntatives of the eight Federal agencies with direct interests\nin hydroelectric power, namely the Corps of Engineers (COE),\nthe Department of the Interior (DOI), the Energy Research and\nDevelopment Administration (ERDA), the Federal Energy Admin-\nistration (FEA), the Federal Power Commission (FPC), the\nRural Electrification Administration (REA), the Tennessee\nValley Authority (TVA), and Water Resources Council (WRC).\nThe agenda and attendance list for the workshop are provided\nat TAB A and TAB B respectively. Summaries of the presentation\nand panels are listed below in chronological order.\n2. Introductory Remarks\na. Mr. William Rosenberg expressed his appreciation for\nthe interest shown by the various agencies in the workshop and\nwelcomed their participation. He pointed out that hydropower\nis often overlooked or underemphasized in today's endeavor to\nfind energy alternatives to imported oil and gas; nuclear, coal\nand the advanced technologies receive more publicity. He stressed\nthat the Federal Energy Administration is prepared to cooperate\nwith all the agencies to insure that hydropower receives proper\nconsideration.\nb. Mr. Robert Hanfling stated that FEA's funding and\nresource commitment to hydropower has been limited. Reliance\nhas been in the Federal agencies with hydropower operational\nresponsibilities to insure hydropower development is properly\nconsidered. He recognized that this approach can result in\npiecemeal planning and development. He mentioned the New England\nFederal Regional Council's report entitled New England Hydroelectric\nDevelopment Potential as a positive effort to determine what\npotential exists for this energy alternative. In outlining\nthe agenda of the workshop, he encouraged maximum participation\nby all attendees.\n2\n3. National Energy Outlook\nTo provide an overall framework for the workshop, Mr. David\nNissen gave a brief description of how the National Energy Outlook\nis prepared; the contents, milestones, and the parties responsible\nfor the various sections; and some of the preliminary results of\nthe 1977 modeling efforts. The preliminary NEO/77 outline is\nprovided at TAB C. Highlights of his presentation were:\n- Project Independence Evaluation System (PIES)\nmodeling was shaped by the 1973 oil embargo. There\nwas the need to assess the impacts of oil imports\nand alternatives. Also there was a need to assess\nthe demand response to various market forces.\n- The National Energy Outlook has been evolutionary.\nIn 1974 the primary focus was on oil imports and the\npossibilities of import substitution on the domestic\nsupply and demand sides. In 1975, the demand side\nwas completely re-specified. This led to a major\nre-evaluation of electric utilities policy.\n- A brief description of the PIES modeling segments\nincluding electricity generation and capacity\nformation was given.\n- The 1977 outlook for natural gas and oil is gloomier\nbecause of delays associated with routing Alaska\ngas to the lower 48 and delays in outer continental\nshelf development.\n- In the electrical sector, the advantage of nuclear\npower over coal-fired generation is being re-examined.\n- Hydropower can be expected to contribute a lesser\nsegment of electric power (percentagewise) with\npassage of time.\n4. FPC Hydropower Activities\na. Mr. Ronald Corso pointed out that FPC has statutory jurisdiction\nover all non-federal hydroelectric development projects. However, the\ncourts have increasingly extended their jurisdiction in hydro projects via\ntheir decisions on litigation. He stated that there was intense interest\nby the utilities in pumped storage projects during the 1960-1970 time\nframe, but the environmental opposition to these projects with the\nassociated delays/defeats has dampened their interests. Examples given\nwere the Blue Ridge Project and the Middle Snake River decision. He\ndistributed a copy of a recent presentation on Private Sector Hydroelectric\nDevelopment in the United States. (TAB D). Today the trend appears to\nbe toward smaller conventional hydroelectric installations. When\n3\nconsidering hydroelectric development, one must recognize that the\neconomics used have placed hydro in an unfair position. He encouraged\ndiscussion of this subject as well as the overlapping jurisdictions\nof Federal agencies (veto power) which adversely affect hydropower\ndevelopment.\nb. Mr. Neal Jennings outlined FPC's efforts in providing data on\ndeveloped and undeveloped hydro potential. He distributed a preliminary\ninventory of facilities (TAB E). He indicated that the FPC report\ncovering hydroelectric power resources over 5 MW will be published\nsometime after beginning of 1977. Present figures are 57,000 MW developed\nand 114,000 MW undeveloped potential for conventional hydroelectric power.\n5. Corps of Engineers Hydropower Activities (COE)\nMr. Gene Lawhun outlined the present and future COE activities in\nhydropower. He stated that COE had been directed by the Congressional\nAppropriations Committees to prepare a report identifying additional\nhydropower generating potential at all Corps projects (existing, under\nconstruction, and planned). COE has completed the report which is\nundergoing Administration review. He provided statistics on COE hydro\ncapacity and construction as follows:\n- COE operates and maintains 65 hydro projects consisting of\n295 generating units with aggregate name-plate capacity of almost\n16,000 MW.\n- In 1975, COE facilities generated over 85 million megawatt-\nhours of net energy (equivalent of roughly 145 million barrels of oil).\n- In 1975, five new plants consisting of 16 units added 1,228 MW\nof capacity.\n- Under construction are:\n- Six multipurpose projects which contain 17 units totalling\n927 MW to be completed by 1982.\n- At eight existing plants, 33 units are being added to\nincrease capacity by 3,294 MW.\n- Under study or. having been studied are 35 new plants which could\nadd an estimated 21,706 MW, if built.\nHe also pointed out that COE has moved into the slant-axis technology.\nFirst unit was installed at Ozark Lock and Dam on the Arkansas River in\nNovember 1972 followed by an additional 4 units completed in 1975. The\nproject provides 100 MW (20 MW each) of capacity. Similarly 3 slant-axis\nunits (20 MW each) were completed at Webbers Falls Lock and Dam in 1973.\nA six-unit plant being installed at the Harry S. Truman Dam in Missouri\n4\nwill add 160 MW in 1979. These six units are reversible blade\nunits which provide 27 MW each as generators and 36,000 HP as\nmotors.\nMr. Lawhun then passed out a summary developed from a list\nof 424 potential sites where new or additional hydropower could\nbe installed (TAB F). This list was prepared at congressional\nrequest. He briefly explained the various categories of the\nprojects. Some 250,760 MW of capacity with an estimated average\nannual production capability of 297,814,958 megawatt-hours were\nidentified.\nHe then outlined COE's study activities as follows:\n- Institute of Water Resources' 1975 study entitled\nHydroelectrical Power Potential at Corps of Engineer Projects.\nIt provided a broad framework for considering hydroelectric develop-\nment. It identified a range of analytical and policy problems\nto be addressed and presented recommendations. He elaborated on\nkey ones, such as (1) need for screening criteria and procedures\nto identify potential sites for more detailed examination; (2)\nchanging economic value of hydropower; and (3) constraints, e.g.,\nenvironmental.\n- Feasibility studies of 24 sites possessing 20,000 MW of\npotential hydropower is in progress. This capacity includes a\nrather optimistic assessment of pumped storage potential.\n- Phase I AE&D studies of 10 sites totalling 6,525 MW are in\nprogress. Six of these are expansions of existing facilities.\n- Studies show several existing and authorized projects\nin Southwestern Power Adminstration's marketing area could be\nexpanded for additional peaking capacity, but marketing arrange-\nments would have to be changed to make the addition attractive.\n- The pumped-storage potential in Columbia and Snake River\nbasins is underway. Insufficient information is available to\nprovide estimates at this time.\n- The recently enacted Water Resources Development Act\nof 1976 (P.L. 94-587) authorizes COE to undertake a comprehensive\nstudy of hydropower resources to include pumped storage potential,\nlow head potential, efficient utilization of output, and additional\ninstallations at existing COE projects. The Act also authorizes\n$5 million per year in 1978 and 1979 for feasibility studies of\npromising installations.\nHe indicated that the most promising area for developing\nadditional hydroelectric capacity by COE will be add-ons.\n5\n6. Department of Interior Hydropower Activities\nMr. William Wilson distributed a handout (TAB G) and\nelaborated on the following points.\n- DOI is the largest electricity marketing agency in\nthe U.S.\n- DOI markets the power generated from Corps of Engineers\nfacilities.\n- Marketing is governed by statutory language. Pointed\nout preference customers given priority but that surplus\npower is sold to the private utilities as well.\n- Achievement of power resource goals constantly sought.\n- Bureau of Reclamation is both a marketing and a\nconstruction agency for hydropower.\n7. Tennessee Valley Authority Hydropower Activities\nMr. Jim Cross stated that TVA began with one hydroelectric plant\nand one steam turbine plant. Since 1950 the demand for electric power\nhas increased to the point where hydropower could not support the need\nfor power. Therefore fossil-fuel plants were constructed. Then\nin 1966, TVA filed an application to construct its first nuclear plant.\nNow TVA has commitments to develop 17 nuclear units. He stressed that\nhe did not want to belittle hydropower because it provides by far the\ncheapest and most flexible power. Presently hydropower represents 17%\nof TVA's capacity, and cost to produce one kilowatt hour of power for\nTVA last year from the various sources was .6 mills for hydro, 10\nmills for steam, 16 mills for purchased power, and 31 mills for gas\nturbine power. Besides cost advantages, he pointed out the advantage\nof the load following response characteristics of hydropower. He\nindicated that TVA planned to construct its first pumped storage project\n(Raccoon Mountain project) but is encountering considerable environmental\nopposition. He then stressed the following on-going activities in TVA:\n- Looking at possible additions to existing projects\nto better utilize the hydropower potential. State-of-the-art\npermits this increase of capacity at about $250/KW.\n- Rewinding of generators has added 129 MW of capacity\nat the low cost of $10/KW.\n- Opposition from land owners in our investigations for a\nsecond pumped storage project.\n- Possibility of plant up-rating and modification of existing\nhydroelectric units.\n6\n-\nCost picture constantly changing but it appears\nthat main hydro potential in TVA area has been\ndeveloped.\n- Hydro has been good to TVA. Investment made\nat $175/KW.\n8. ERDA Hydropower Activities\nMr. Phil McGee presented the current ERDA hydroelectric\npower program. He noted that the Agency's authority and\nresponsibilities are for research, development and demonstra-\ntion relative to the commercial feasibility and practical\napplications for the use of energy.\nERDA's hydroelectric energy program is divided into three\nbasic parts--tidal energy, underground pumped storage, and the\nmore conventional hydroelectric technology.\nThe work in tidal energy consists of a study contract with\nthe firm of Stone and Webster of Boston, Massachusetts. The\ncontract runs from April 1976 through January 1977 and costs\n$169,000. The purpose of the work is to provide an analysis--\non a worldwide basis--of the present and long range outlook\nas to the cost of electrical energy generated from tidal power.\nThe objectives of the report are: to report on the status of\nthe technology as it exists today; to render expert judgment as\nto its potential use; determine the opportunities that exist\nwithin the United States for its use; determine whether or not\nresearch and development opportunities exist; and determine what\nthe environmental, societal and legal consequences from a tidal\nproject would be in today's environment.\nThe Agency's program in underground pump storage is as follows:\n- ERDA is sponsoring a study being done by Argonne\nNational Laboratory entitled \"Selecting and Evaluating\nPumped Hydro Storage Projects.\" The schedule for\nthe study is from December 1975 through December\n1976 and the contract cost is $210,000.\n- In addition, ERDA has a contract with Charles T.\nMain of Boston, Massachusetts for \"Assessment of\nTechnical and Economic Feasibility of Underground\nPumped Hydroelectric Storage\" on a national basis.\nThe contract period is from August 1976 through May\n1977 and the cost is $165,000 and is shared by ERDA\nand the Bureau of Reclamation.\n7\n- Currently ERDA has a request for proposals (RFP) on\nthe street for a preliminary engineering design and\nsite exploration effort entitled \"Compressed Air\nEnergy Storage/Underground Pumped Hydro. This is a\njoint effort by ERDA and the Electric Power Research\nInstitute (EPRI). Plans are to make a contract\naward in February 1977.\n- The Agency is currently in the process of formulating\na program in conventional hydroelectric technology\nand has in hand several unsolicited proposals. The\nproposals request to do work in the following areas\nof technology: study of hydroelectric potential through\ndevelopment of small hydroelectric sites; feasibility\nstudy using flowing streams and rivers to generate\nhydroelectric power; the potential of retrofitting\nunused low head dams; research to improve the efficiency\nof the impulse reaction turbine; and the study of the\nfeasibility of preserving hydro storage head by evaporation\nreduction.\n9. Panel Discussion - Marketing of Federal Hydroelectric Power\na. Mr. William Clagett provided a brief synoposis of Bonneville\nPower Administration (BPA) marketing. Highlights were:\n- BPA provided last year some 82 billion kilowatt hours of\nelectricity to 115 preference, 23 industrial, and 6 private\nutility customers. It markets the power from some 24,000\nmegawatts of federal generating capacity. Because of the\nhistoric cheapness of hydroelectric power, 50% of the total\nenergy in the area is provided by BPA. However, BPA is now\nexperiencing the transition that TVA has already made, namely\ndevelopment of generation alternatives to hydro because\nof constraints on hydro development in specific areas or\nbecause the potential is fully developed.\n- One federal facility (Libby Dam re-regulation) is\nbeing added.\n- There is the possibility of adding units on existing\nsites.\n- Sometime in the future, pumped storage may be further\nexploited. There are some 9,000 MW of potential\nat existing sites. Also the Corps of Engineers has\nidentified some 530 projects having pumped storage\npotential.\n8\nBPA is planning to provide only 200 MW of additional firm\npower. All other will be for peak loads. Thermal generation\nwill become the baseload in the future.\n- Some of the constraints of BPA hydroelectric power\ngeneration are:\n-- Realization factors (Discount 5-13% to account\nfor river flow fluctuation).\n-- Tourist accommodation (approximately 18,000,000\nkilowatt-hours per year sacrificed).\n-- Geese nesting (pool level controlled to insure\nnests not destroyed).\n-- Fish spill for salmon survival (approximately\n4-5 billion kilowatt-hours per year are\nsacrificed which is the equivalent of the\noutput of a typical nuclear plant).\n-- Intertie with Southwestern Power Administration\ninvestigated but realization factors limit\npracticality.\nb. Mr. Emerson Harper briefly outlined the marketing of the Alaska Power,\nSoutheastern Power, and Southwestern Power Administrations. Highlights were:\n(1) Alaska Power Administration:\n- Has 77 megawatts of existing capacity.\n- Has greatest potential for hydro development.\n- Alaska's electrical demand seen as 15 billion kilowatt-\nhours minimum.\n- Corps of Engineer's Upper Susitna project would add 1,500\nmegawatts capacity. Phase I design authorized on October\n22, 1976. DOI will begin marketing studies for transmission,\netc. Project would serve Anchorage and Fairbanks.\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n9\n-\nHydropower development in Alaska is constrained\nby the environmental acts such as Native Claims.\n(2) Southeastern Power Administration:\n-\nProvides 3 % of the regional needs.\n-\nOwns no transmission lines.\n-\nCited projects under construction such as Carter,\nLaurel, and Russell.\n-\nStudying six pumped storage projects.\n(3) Southwestern Power Administration:\n-\nMarkets power generated from 1917 MW of capacity.\n-\nHas 218 MW under construction.\n-\nStudying the feasibility of added units using\nplanning figure of 2,600 hours/KW-year as\nopposed to 1,700 hours/KW-year.\n-\nMay have about 4,000 MW of justifiable potential\nfor pumped storage.\nc. Mr. Raymond Harman outlined the marketing activities of the\nBureau of Reclamation (BOR). Highlights were:\n- BOR is primarily a water resource development agency\nfor DOI. Power marketing is somewhat a sideline.\n-\nHas 10,000 megawatts of capacity which serves some\n450 customers.\n-\nBOR has been in the power marketing business\nsince 1906 (commercially since 1909).\n-\nOwns 16,000 miles of transmission line. Inter-\nconnects with every major system in the western\nU.S.\n-\nActively participates in reliability councils,\nengages in planning with various power groups, makes\nload estimates for region.\nFOND\n-\nCurrently sells firm power at about $15/kilowatt-year\nfor peak demand plus 3 to 4 mills/kwh. Have tried to\nLIBRARY\nmaximize firm power to its wholesale customers.\n10\nAdded capacity will probably be marketed as \"peaking\nwithout energy\" meaning the customer returns energy\nat off peak time.\n-\nBOR has experienced problems marketing power under\nthis arrangement.\n-\nDeveloping some 200 MW of pumped storage.\n-\nMarketing in Colorado at $25-30/kilowatt-year.\nApplications doubled the deliverable capacity.\n-\nExplained that statutes governing BOR's marketing\nwere designed to assist rural America and to provide\npower for irrigation and municipalities. The law says\npreference customers (public entities served first)\nare sold power at cost to the government and not what\npower is worth in today's changing energy picture.\n-\nIn response to questions, indicated that sale\nto highest bidder has been considered but would\nrequire changes in present laws.\nd. Mr. William Telaar explained that Department of Agriculture\n(REA) is a lending authority. As of June 30, REA had some 8,000 MW\nof capacity with only about 60 MW being hydroelectric. The picture\ncould change with more involvement in Alaska, e.g. Kodiak. REA is\nfinding that purchasing power is not easy. He differentiated between\npower and energy. Power must be firm. He indicated that there is\nincreased interest in small hydro units.\ne. Discussion from the floor led to the following:\n- In cost/benefit analysis, DOI is prohibited from\nconsidering cost escalation; FPC is not nor is\nERDA.\n- Long-term firm power contracts in the Southwestern\nPower Administration have restrained hydropower\ndevelopment. There is considerable thought of\nintegrating high cost capacity with low cost\ncapacity. It was reiterated that each Administration\nis governed by different laws. It was also pointed\nout that capacity could be added at sites such as\nNorfolk but the added capacity would not increase\nfirm energy.\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n11\nIn response to the question \"Should federal\npower be sold at cost or at a profit depending\non market conditions?\", there was general\nrecognition that it is a political issue.\nTieing preference customers closer to the private\npower rates would generate considerable\nregional opposition. There was doubt expressed\nthat uniform procedures could be established\neven if judged desirable.\n- Opinion was expressed that load forecasts often\nare financial estimates especially in private\nsector. Net result is that regions such as\nNorthwest may face a power shortage.\n- Consensus was that a more balanced consideration\nof power costs with other costs on multipurpose\nhydro projects is needed. Value of power is low\nwhen compared with cost of private power.\n10. Panel Discussion - Planning/Licensing/Regulatory Aspects of\nHydroelectric Power.\na. Mr. Frank Davenport outlined the role of the Water Resources\nCouncil in coordinating water resources planning to include states as\nwell as federal agencies. He stressed the need for comprehensive\nplanning for land and water resources to obtain proper balance.\nb. In response to the question \"Is there a proper balance\nbetween energy and environmental considerations?\", the following\npoints were made:\n- Substantial losses in time and money are incurred\nin the prolonged hearings on energy facilities. No\nreal cost comparison is made of impacts of actions\nunder Endangered Species, Wilderness areas, and Wild\nand Scenic Rivers Act. Examples given were loss of\n1800 MW of potential at Blue Ridge Project and 3,500\nMW between Glen Canyon and Hoover Dam. Wild and\nScenic area considerations have constrained the\nWestern Energy Expansion study, e.g. Benton site\nreduced to 1/5 the capacity of previous plans.\nAlso, DOI has told FPC not to license projects on\npotential Wild and Scenic Rivers. No time frame is\nstated for length of time needed to study these\npotential WS&R's.\nLIBSARY\n12\n-\nPrinciples and Standards provisions of\nthe Water Resources Planning Act (PL 89-80)\noffer a vehicle to achieve a proper balance\nbetween energy and environmental considerations.\n- Attitudes of local population impact\nheavily on development. Coordination at\nstate and local level at early stages is\nessential.\n- Socio-economic considerations of a project\nare highly important. Must be clearly\nhighlighted.\n- Influence of groups, such as Geothermal\nInstitutional Panel, should be recognized. No\nsuch group exists for hydroelectric power.\nC. In response to questions on planning aspects of the Water\nResources Development Act of 1976, it was pointed out that it pertains\nonly to Corps of Engineer projects and that the Hydroelectric Power\nDevelopment Fund.\nd. Some comments were made on Sen. Doc. 97. Opinion was expressed\nthat portions of the restraints were self-inflicted. Point was made\nthat cost-benefit analysis still does not include cost escalation of\nfuel.\ne. In response to question \"Who should take the lead on public\neducation on value of pumped storage?\", no agency volunteered nor\ndid any consensus emerge as to who should. However, the value of pumped\nstorage was recognized.\nf. In response to the question \"Is anything being done to to reduce\nthe licensing/regulatory lag times associated with hydroelectric projects?\",\nthe following points were made:\n- FPC is presently reviewing its regulations\non applications for projects. Process is\nabout 50% completed.\n- Recognition is given to small projects versus\nmajor projects. 1,500 KW is the dividing line\nnow. New legislation will propose 15,000 KW\nas the dividing line between major and\nminor projects. Also a dam height and storage\nFORD\ncapacity criteria will be included.\n- Applications are being made for as low as\nLIBRARY\n2 KW. This illustrated the need for a short\nform application.\n13\n- New regulations will include provisions for a discharge\npermit. The Corps of Engineers and FPC are closely\ncoordinating. EIS requirements will be, discussed in\nthe regulations.\n- When draft regulation are circulated, agencies are\nencouraged to coordinate promptly and efficiently.\n11. Panel Discussion - R & D/Studies/Advanced Technology Requirements\na. Research and Development efforts in progress were enumerated.\n- REA has no real R & D but its cooperatives are\nreceptive to any energy exchange. Definite interest\nhas been expressed in small units (100-200 KW in size).\n- BPA's research is predominately in transmission. Gave\ndescription of the 1100 KV line soon to be energized.\nBPA is examining physical problems associated with\nhigh voltage transmission. Has an 800 KV DC test\nsystem and a 500 KV underground test system.\n- Corps of Engineers has no real R & D in the hydro-\nelectric area. Its efforts have been primarily in\nidentifying the study areas. There is a need to\nscrutinize more closely the institutional constraints.\nWhat is the value of stored water for alternative uses?\nHydropower should be analyzed from a system approach\nrather than as single unit. A methodology study which\nwould assure uniformity in national planning would be of\nvalue.\n- DOI outlined its efforts in weather modification\nand the Western Energy Expansion Study.\n- FPC pointed out the difficulties in determining\ndependable capacity. Also value of government projects\nare maintained at the same value over entire life span\nof project. Some study of this procedure is needed.\nFPC's early efforts in wind systems were outlined.\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n14\n- Funds available for Hydropower research were given as:\n-- BPA - approximately $300,000\n-- FPC - approximately $100,000\n-- COE - approximately $150,000\n-- ERDA - approximately $554,000 (does not include cost\nof RFP currently out which will increase this\ndollar amount somewhere between $750,000 and $1,000,000).\n-- REA - none\n-- FEA - none\n12. In summary it was agreed that Federal interagency work groups should\nbe formed to examine the following areas in more detail:\na. Institutional (federal and non-federal) constraints\non hydroelectric development (consider small dam\nrehabilitation).\nb. Economic evaluation to include cost benefit formula using\n\"life cycle\" method of evaluation.\nC. Hydropower within the total water use planning and management.\nd. System interconnection (large-small).\ne. Inventory of small hydroelectric generation units.\nf. Optimum plant factor over time (years)\ng. System to establish economic benefits versus environmental\ncost criteria (NEPA, W & SR, Wilderness areas, siting\nconstraints).\nh. System mix for maximum operational efficiency.\ni. Legislative needs for meaningful national hydro development\nprogram.\nj. Coordinated list of hydro potential sites throughout\nFederal agencies.\nk. Feasibility of large scale integration of solar (including wind)\ngenerated electricity into the Federal hydroelectric power\nsystems.\nFORD\n1. Determination of needed research and development.\nLIBRARY\n*\nNote: FEA, in conjunction with other agencies, is examining the\nfeasibility of the development of a large early market for\nsolar (particularly wind) powered generation equipment to aid in the\naccelerated commercialization and increased use of these\nnon-depletable energy resources.\n15\nFEA will contact the agencies to determine who should be the\npoint of contact for these problem areas.\nVORD\nLIBRARY\nTHEYORD / a\nAGENDA\nHYDROPOWER WORKSHOP\nNOVEMBER 4, 1976\nFEA (12th and Pennsylvania), Room 7132\nTIME\nSUBJECT\nPRESENTOR- AGENCY\n9:00 - 9:15 Introductory Remarks\nW. Rosenberg\nFEA\nR. Hanfling\nFEA\n9:15\n-\n9:20 Administrative Announcements\nC. Jones\nFEA\n9:20\n-\n9:40\nNational Energy Outlook\nD. Nissen\nFEA\n9:40\n-\n9:55\nFederal Power Commission (FPC)\nR. Corso\nFPC\nHydropower Activities Report\nN. Jennings\nFPC\n9:55 - 10:10\nCorps of Engineers (COE)\nE. Lawhun\nCOE\nHydropower Activities Report\n10:10 - 10:25\nDepartment of Interior (DOI)\nW. Wilson\nDOI\nHydropower Activities Report\n10:25 - 10:40\nCoffee Break\n10:40 - 10:50\nTennessee Valley Authority (TVA)\nJ. Cross\nTVA\nHydropower Activities Report\n10:50 - 11:00\nEnergy Research and Development\nP. McGee\nERDA\nAdministration (ERDA) Hydropower\nActivities Report\n11:00 - 12:00\nPanel Discussion - Marketing\nW. Claggett\nDOI\nof Federal Hydroelectric Power\nE. Harper\nDOI\nR. Harman\nDOI\nW. Telaar\nREA\n12:00 - 1:00 Lunch\n1:00\n-\n2:30\nPanel Discussion - Planning/\nC. Olentine, FEA Moderator\nLicensing/Regulatory Aspects\nG. Fauss\nDOI\nof Hydroelectric Power\nS. Zanganeh\nCOE\nR. Corso\nFPC\nJ. Cross\nTVA\nF. Davenport\nWRC\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nHYDROPOWER WORKSHOP AGENDA (Continued)\n2:30 - 2:45 Coffee Break\n2:45 - 4:15 Panel Discussion - R&D/\nP. McGee, ERDA Moderator\nStudies/New Initiatives/\nJ. Frederick\nCOE\nAdvanced Technology Requirements\nW. Clagett\nDOI\nN. Jennings\nFPC\n4:15 - 4:30 Summary\nC. Jones\nFEA\nLIBRARY\ni\nFORD\n/ LIBRARY BRARY\nLIST OF ATTENDEES\nHYDROPOWER WORKSHOP\nNOVEMBER 4, 1976\nFEA (12th and Pennsylvania), Room 7132\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nFrank Britnell\n-\nConstruction Operations, Directorate of\nCivil Works\nJay Frederick\n-\nTechnical Director of Institute of\nWater Resources\nRobert Kinsel\n-\nEngineering Division, Directorate of Civil\nWorks\nWilliam Knight\n-\nPlanning Division, Directorate of\nCivil Works\nEugene Lawhun\n-\nOffice of Policy, Directorate of Civil\nWorks\nHelen Ramatowski\n-\nOffice of Policy, Directorate of Civil\nWorks\nShapur Zanganeh\n-\nEngineering Division, Directorate of\nCivil Works\nDEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR\nWilliam Clagett\n-\nAssistant Administrator, Bonneville Power\nAdministration\nGerald Fauss\n-\nPlanning Division, Bureau of Reclamation\nRaymond Harman\n-\nChief, Division of Power, Bureau of\nReclamation\nJ. Emerson Harper\n-\nPower Engineering Advisor to the Assistant\nSecretary - Energy and Minerals\nDick Porter\n-\nBureau of Reclamation\nWilliam Wilson\n-\nStaff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary -\nLand and Water Resources\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION\nBarbara Allen\nOffice of Assistant Administrator\nfor International Affairs\nGeorge Chang\n-\nDivision of Energy Storage Systems,\nAssistant Administrator. for-\nConservation\nJay Holmes\n-\nOffice of the Assistant Administrator for\nSolar, Geothermal and Advanced Energy\nSystems\nDavid Israel\n-\nDirector, Office of Program Integration\nPhil McGee\n-\nDivision of Physical Research, Assistant\nAdministrator for Solar, Geothermal and\nAdvanced Energy Systems\nFEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION\nRobert Borlick\n-\nOffice of Coal, Nuclear and Electric Power\nAnalysis\nElena Dougherty\n-\nOffice of Utility Project Operations\nGeorge Grimes\n-\nOffice of Utility Project Operations\nRobert Hanfling\n-\nDeputy Assistant Administrator, Utility\nProjects\nCurtis Jones\n-\nDirector, Office of Utility Project\nOperations\nDavid Nissen\n-\nDirector, Energy Systems Modeling and\nForecasting\nCharles Olentine\n-\nOffice of Utility Project Operations\nWilliam Rosenberg\n-\nAssistant Administrator, Energy Resource\nDevelopment\nMike Rosenzweig\n-\nOffice of Coal, Nuclear and Electric Power\nAnalysis\nElaine Smith\n-\nPower Plant Acceleration Task Force\nSamuel Taylor\n-\nOffice of Energy Conversion\nLIBRARY\nFEDERAL POWER COMMISSION\nRonald Corso\n-\nDivision of Licensed Projects,\nBureau of Power\nNeal Jennings\n-\nDivision of River Basins, Bureau of\nPower\nRURAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION\nGuan Hsiung\n-\nPower Plant Branch, Power Supply and\nEngineering Standards Division\nBen Jankowski\n-\nChief, Power Plant Branch, Power Supply\nand Engineering Standards Division.\nWilliam Telaar\n-\nPower Supply and Engineering Standards\nDivision.\nTENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY\nJ.L. Cross\n-\nActing Chief, Power Supply Planning\nBranch\nJan Jansen\n-\nPower Supply Planning Branch\nWATER RESOURCES COUNCIL\nFrank Davenport\nProject Leader, Water Resources Council,\nWater for Energy Program\nLIBRARY\nC\nNEO/77 OUTLINE\nChapters\nLead\n0. Executive Summary\nChristie\nI. Highlights of the Past Year\nChristie\nA. Historical Trends\nB. Highlights of Last Year\nII. The New Forecast\nChristie\nA. Introduction\nB. The Forecasting Model\n4\nC. The Reference Forecast\nD. Scenario Discussion\nIII. World Energy Markets\nBorre'\nA. Evolution Since the Embargo, Changing\nKraft\nEconomic Patterns\nB. U.S. and World Energy Trade Outlook\nPearson\nC. Sensitivity Analysis\nTreat\nIV. Energy Demand, Conservation and Economic\nMacRae\nGrowth\nA. Energy Demand\nMacRae\nB. Effect of Conservation Programs\nHemphill\nC. Effect of Energy Policy on the Economy\nKraft\nFORD is LIBRARY\n2\nV. Fossil Fuel Supply and Distribution\nFreeman\nA. West Coast Oil Disposition\nAdger\nB. OCS Development of Oil and Gas\nMayfield\nC. Natural Gas Supply and Distribution\nRodgers\nD. Coal Development and Distribution\nPendley\nVI. Electricity Demand and Supply\nEysymontt\nA. Electricity Demand (Update of NEO 76)\nLady\nB. Comparative Economics of Electricity\nLady\nSupply\nC. Institutional Considerations in Electricity Hanfling\nSupply\nD. Financial Considerations in Electricity\nFeldman\nSupply\nVII. Energy Development 1985-2000\nLady\nA. Interface with ERDA Plans and Analytical\nLady\nActivities\nB. Impact of Reserve Depletion\nRodgers\nC. Contribution of Emerging Technologies\nKuhn\nD. Energy Impacts on Economic Growth\nKraft\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n3\nAppendices\nLead\nA. Overview of the Analysis Process\nGreenberg\nB. Demand\nMacRae\nC. Oil and Gas Supply\nRodgers\nD. Refineries\nPearson\nE. Coal Supply\nPendley\nF. Electric Utilities\nBorlick\nG. Nuclear Power\nWalton\nH. Emerging Technologies\nLady\nI. Conservation\nHemphill\nJ. International Analysis\nPearson\nK. Economy/Energy Considerations\nKraft\nL. Capital Requirements\nSantogrossi\nM. Scenario Description\nDearborn\nN. Output Report and Summary Tables\nGreenberg\n0. Statistical Appendix\nCurtis\nD\nA\n76 603-1\nPrivate Sector Hydroelectric Development\nin the United States\nRonald A. Corso\nFederal Power Commission, Washington, D. C.\nMr. Chairman, fellow panelists, and\navailable energy source as an alternative\nguests of the Joint Power Generation\nto power that uses valuable non-renewable\nConference, I am pleased to have this\nfuel resources. We hear a great clamor\nopportunity to present to you some views\nto develop new energy sources, such as\non the potential for hydroelectric power\nsolar power, wind power, and nuclear\ndevelopment by the non-Federal or pri-\nfusion, to name a few. These power\nvate sector of the electric power indus-\nsources may offer an answer to our energy\ntry. I should mention at the outset\nneeds in the future. Hydroelectric\nthat in using the term private develop-\npower presents an immediate solution,\nment, I am speaking of all private and\nbecause it is a proven technology and the\nnon-Federal public entities engaged in\nmost efficient and reliable energy source\nthe development of hydroelectric projects.\navailable at this time.\nCongress has authorized the Federal\nPublic utilities, consulting firms,\nPower Commission to license all private\nFederal and other public agencies, and\nhydroelectric developments which utilize\nthe Congress are acutely aware of this.\nnavigable waters, occupy United States\nFor instance, many public utilities are\nlands, use water or water power from a\nstudying possible developments and\ngovernment dam, or affect the interests of\nreassessing the potential for redevelop-\ninterstate commerce. By this definition\nment of existing hydroelectric facilities.\nand the interpretation of the Commission's\nA number of consulting firms are studying\nauthority by the Courts, this essentially\nthe hydroelectric potential in many areas\nmeans that virtually all privately devel-\nof the nation, particularly where fuel\noped hydroelectric projects are subject\ncosts are excessive. The Federal Energy\nto the Commission's jurisdiction. This\nAdministration, the Energy Research and\nputs the Commission in the unique position\nDevelopment Administration and the\nof being apprised of the \"state of the\nFederal Power Commission are actively\nart\" for private hydroelectric develop-\nencouraging the development of our hydro-\nment. Information on private hydroelec-\nelectric power resources. Chairman\nric development is made available to\nDunham of the Commission, in his speech\nhe Commission in several ways, i.e.\nthis past April before the Southeastern\nthrough applications for license and\nElectric Exchange, indicated that the\npreliminary permits or through inquiries\nCommission will devote more of its\nby potential applicants. I should at\nenergies to the electric utility industry,\nthis point note, that, in addition to\ngiving special attention to the potential\nlicenses, the Commission also issues\nof hydroelectric development. State\npreliminary permits. Such permits do\nagencies are encouraging hydroelectric\nnot authorize construction, but they do\ndevelopment, particularly in Alaska where\noffer the advantage of maintaining\nthe State legislature approved a bill to\npriority for filing an application for\nassist the financing of hydroelectric\nlicense while a Permittee studies the\nprojects through the use of oil revenues.\nfeasibility of a proposed project. Under\nIn addition, Congress has a number of bills\nthe Federal Power Act, a preliminary\nbefore it to encourage hydroelectric\npermit may be issued for up to 3 years.\ndevelopment. As with other power devel-\nHowever, a permit is not a necessary pre-\nopments, hydroelectric power faces cer-\nrequisite to an application for license.\ntain obstacles, particularly in the\nenvironmental area. However, with the\nBased on available information, we\ncombined efforts of all concerned and a\nbelieve there is reason to be optomistic\ncommitment to seek solutions to environ-\nabout the future of hydroelectric devel-\nmental and other problems, a significant\nopment. As we all know, renewed interest\nportion of the nation's hydroelectric\nin hydroelectric power has been generated\npotential can be realized.\nby the present energy shortage. Hydro-\nelectric power offers the most readily\nI would now like to turn to a brief\nstatistical summary of the hydroelectric\nPrice: Members $1.50\nAll Rights\npotential. Recent statistics compiled\nNonmembers $2.00\nReserved\nby the Commission's Staff indicate that\nAt Meeting: $1.00\nby TEFF\nthere is a potential for the development\nof 113,000 MW of capacity capable of\nproducing 407 billion kWH annually. The\nA 76 603-1.\nA paper recommended and approved bv the\nexisting installed hydroelectric capacity\nTEEE Power Generation Committee of the IEFE Power\nis about 66,000 MW. This represents over\n\"ngineering Society for presentation at the IEEE/\n13 percent of the nation's total installed\nSUI/ASCE Joint Power Ceneration Conference, Buffalo,\ngenerating capacity and produces 15\n,Y., September 19-23, 1976. Manuscript submitted\npercent of the total generation. Approxi-\nMay 13, 1976; made available for printing July 7, 1976.\nmately 35,000 MW of hydroelectric capacity\nhas been licensed by FPC for private\nTable 2 lists outstanding preliminary\ndevelopment. Licensed projects now under\npermits where feasibility studies are\nconstruction total about 3,000 MW. It is\nunderway for proposed projects having the\nestimated that projects now under license\npotential to develop 5382.5 MW of capacity\nhave a potential ultimate capacity of an\nTable 2 reflects the trend noted in Table 1,\nadditional 14,000 MW. The Commission\ni.e. most of the projects would be pumped-\nalso has before it in pending applications\nstorage facilities. We expect that most\nfor license and preliminary permits, and\nof these projects will be before the\nunder outstanding preliminary permits\nCommission under applications for license\nproposed projects totalling approximately\nafter feasibility studies are completed.\n21,000 MW.\nTable 1 lists applications for\nTable 2\nlicense pending before the Commission as\nof January 1976. You will note that of\nOutstanding Preliminary Permits\nJanuary 1976\nthe total 10,286 MW of proposed capacity,\nthere are over 9,000 MW of pumped-storage\nFPC\nprojects. This is a continuation of the\nProj\nProject\nCapacity\nNo.\nName\nPermittee\nType\n(MW)\ntrend which began in the last decade, and\nis a result of the economic benefits that\n2718\nAntilon Lake\nPUD No. 1 of Chelan County,\nPS\n1000\nWashington\na pumped-storage project offers in large\nelectric systems, particularly when\n2723\nBrown's Canyon\nPUD No. 1 of Douglas County,\nPS\n1000\nWashington\noperated in conjunction with nuclear plants.\n2728\nCarlyle\nCitics of Breese and\nc\n8\nCarlyle, Illinois\n2733\nVillage Bend-\nBrazos Electric Power\nC,PS\n730\nDeCordova\nCoop., Inc., Texas\n2734\nMadison County\nCarolina Power & Light Co.\nPS\n1000\n2739\nMeldahl\nCity of Vanceburg, Ky.\nC\n70\n2741\nKings River\nKings River Irrigation\nC\n394.5\nDistrict, Calif.\nTable 1\n2746\nBoyd County\nNebr. Public Power Dist.\nPS\n1000\nApplications for License or Amendment of License\nPending January 1976\n2751\nGallipolis\nOhio Power Co.\nc\n40\nFPC\n2752\nKootenai River\nNorthern Lights, Inc.,\nC\n140\nProj.\nProject\nCapacity\nMontana\nNo.\nName\nApplicant\nType\n(M)\nSubtotal Conventional\n712.5\n120\nBig Creek No. 3\nSouthern Calif. Edison Co.\nC\n35\nSubtotal - Pumped-Storage\n4670.0\nTotal\n5382.5\n201\nBlind Slough\nCity of Petersburg, Alaska\nc\n2.6\n349\nMartin\nAlabama Power Co.\nc\n60\nTable 3 lists applications for pre-\n485\nBartlett's Ferry\nGeorgia Power Co.\nc\n100\nliminary permit pending before the Com-\n1971\nHells Canyon\nIdaho Power Co.\nc\n225\nmission as of January 1976. This Table\nlists proposed projects having a total\n2016\nCowlitz River\nCity of Tacoma, Wash.\nc\n40.5\ninstalled capacity of 5464.5 MW. While\n2245\nCannelton\nCity of Vanceburg, Ky.\nc\n70\nthe greater portion of the capacity listed\n2409\nNorth Fork\nc\n320\nin Table 3 would be developed by pumped-\nCalaveras Co. Water\nStanislaus R.\nDistrict, Calif.\nstorage projects, you will note that there\nare a greater number of conventional\n2426\nCastaic &\nDept. of Water Resources, Calif.\nC,PS\n1509.1\nCalif. Aqueduct\nand City of Los Angeles\nprojects. This reflects the recent trend\ntoward the development of projects which\n2511\nRedcliff\nColorado Water Conservation\nc\n11.25\nDistrict\nwere either marginal or uneconomical, and\nreflects the impact created by high cost\n2614\nGreenup\nCity of Vanceburg, Ky.\nc\n70\nfossil fuels. Information from the\n2709\nDavis\nMonongahela Power Co.\nPS\n1000\nelectric utilities indicates that we can\nPotomac Edison Co. &\nexpect an increased interest in conven-\nWest Penn Power Co.\ntional developments. Information furnished\n2716\nBath County\nVirginia Electric and\nPS\n2100\nby the industry also indicates that we\nPower Co.\ncan expect applications for license or\n2725\nRocky Mt.\nGeorgia Power Co.\nPS\n675\npreliminary permits for as much as 5,000 MW\n2729\nBreaksbeen\nPower Authority of the\nPS\n1000\nin the forseeable future.\nState of New York\nTo some, the prospect of additional\n2735\nHelms\nPacific Gas & Electric Co.\nPS\n1050\ndevelopments beyond those now announced\n2740\nBad Creek\nDuke Power Co.\nPS\n1000\nis not probable. They point to the long\n2742\nSolomon Gulch\nCopper Valley Electric\nC\n18\nlicensing process, economic constraints,\nAssoc., Inc., Alaska\nand environmental opposition. This\n2753\nMt. Hope\nJersey Central Power &\nPS\n1000\npresents a substantial challenge. The\nLight Co.\nFederal Power Commission has committed it-\nSubtotal - Conventional\n1261.45\nself to decreasing the licensing process.\nSubtotal - Pumped-Storage\n9025.0\nWe must also commit ourselves to seeking\nTotal\n10,286.45\nsolutions to the economic and environ-\nC - Conventional Development\nmental problems that have stymied many\nPS - Pumped-Storage Development\nhydroelectric developments.\n2\nSnake' River Project had an ultimate\nTable 3\npotential of about 3.5 million kW and\nApplications for Preliminary Permit\n7 billion kWH. We must all agree that\nPending January 1976\nenvironmental considerations may dictate\nFPC\nthat certain projects should not be\nProj\nProject\nCapacity\nNo.\nconstructed. On the other hand, this is\nName\nApplicant\nType\n(MW)\nnot an insurmountable obstacle for every\n2730\nBlack Star\nSouthern Calif. Edison Co.\nPS\n1235\nproject. We should look to those projects\n2743\nTerror Lake\nKodiak Electric Assoc\nC\n30\nwhere environmental problems are at a\nInc., Alaska\nminimum or can be mitigated in'some way.\n2749\nRandolph\nSouthside Electric Coop.,\nPS\n3575\nMatters that deserve considerable attention\nVirginia\nare the development of the hydroelectric\n2750\nBlack River\nTown of Springfield, Vt.\nc\n22.5\npotential at existing dams and reservoirs\nand improved technology.\n2754\nAshuelot River\nCity of Keene, N.H.\nc\n18\n2755\nThomas Bay\nThomas Bay Power Co.,\nC\n38\nThe Commission recently issued two\nAlaska\nlicenses for the installation of power\n2756/\nChace Mill\nGreen Mt. Power Corp.\nc\n6\nfacilities at government dams on. the\n2764\nCity of Burlington, Vt.\nOhio River. The minimal environmental\n2757\nJuniper-Cross\nColorado Water Conservation\nc\n78\nconsequences are evident and the potential\nMt.\nDistrict\nis significant. These two projects, when\n2759\noperational, will save the equivalent of\nMissiquoi\nSwanton Village, Vt.\nC,PS*\n80\n1,000,000 barrels of oil per year.\n2760\nPower Creek\nCity of Cordova, Alaska\nc\n10\n2761\nSouth Fork\nE1 Dorado County Water\nc\n300\nThere are three developments listed\nAmerican River\nAgency, Celif.\nin Tables 1 and 2 which deserve special\n2762\nEast Georgia\nCentral Vermont Public\nc\n10\nattention because they offer the prospect\nService Corp.\nof overcoming some of the environmental\n2763\n-\nSheephorn\nCity of Golden & Vidler\nc\n62\nproblems we are encountering today. In\nTunnel Co., Colorado\nits application for license for the 1000 MW\nSubtotal - Conventional\n654.5\nMt. Hope Pumped-Storage Project, Jersey\nSubtotal - Pumped-Storage\n4810.0\nCentral Power & Light Co. proposes a high\nTotal\n5464.5\nhead facility with an underground reser-\n* Not included in Subtotal-Amped-Storage\nvoir. The proposed project would develop\na gross head of 2400 feet using single-\nstage reversible units. This represents a\nPresent economic theory dictates that\nsignificant step forward inasmuch as\nthe lowest cost generating facility will\npresent installations develop up to about\nbe constructed next. This places marginal\n1600 feet of gross head. If the equipment\nhydroelectric projects in a disadvantageous\nmanufacturers can meet this challenge and\neconomic position, with the prospect that\ndeliver reliable equipment to operate under\nthey may never be constructed. One is led\nthese conditions, many environmental prob-\nto question this approach when you con-\nlems will be solved. A 50 percent increase\nsider that the lower cost generating\nin operating head will result in a corres-\nfacility is usually using a non-renewable\nponding decrease in reservoir size. With\nresource, such as coal or oil. Perhaps\nless inundated land, there should be less\nour economic theories should be evaluated\nenvironmental opposition. With equipment\nwith a view toward giving credit to\ncapable of operating under these conditions,\nhydroelectric developments for preserving\nmany more potential sites are available\nnon-renewable natural resources. We\nfrom which to choose projects which are\nshould also consider re-defining our\nacceptable from both an engineering and\neconomic comparisons to consider more\nenvironmental view point. Further, the\nrealistically the useful life of a hydro-\nprospect of developing pumped-storage\nelectric facility versus that of an\nprojects with one or both reservoirs under-\nalternative thermal plant. Experience\nground offers the potential of eliminating\nindicates that we can expect a hydroelec-\nmost environmental problems.\ntric facility to last as much as 100\nyears with proper maintenance, whereas\nTable 2 lists the proposed 1000 MW\nthe life expectancy of a thermal plant is\nBrown's Canyon Project located or Columbia\nabout 25 years. Proper consideration of\nRiver, Washington, now under study by\nthis aspect would place a hydroelectric\nDouglas County Public Utility District\nproject in a more favorable economic posi-\nNo. 1. This proposed project would also\ntion, and I believe, an appropriate\nhave an operating head of about 2400 feet\nposition.\nand, therefore, offers some of the same\nadvantages as the Mt. Hope Project. The\nEnvironmental considerations have\nBrown's Canyon Project would not be an\ndelayed or prevented the development of a\nunderground facility. However, it would\nnumber of hydroelectric projects. For\nuse as its lower reservoir the existing\nexample, after almost 20 years of considera-\nLake Entiat, the reservoir of the FPC\ntion before the Commission, possible devel-\nlicensed Rocky Reach Project No. 2145.\nopment of the Middle Snake River was ter-\nTable 1 also lists Pacific Gas & Electric\nminated by conservation oriented legislation\nCompany's 1050 MW Helms Pumped-Storage\npassed by Congress and signed by the\nProject which will utilize two existing\nPresident this past December. The Middle\nreservoirs for its upper and lower pools.\n3\nUnderground reservoirs, use of existing\nhydroelectric development without its\nreservoirs, and greater operating heads\nproblems. However, it is a viable, tangible\nare important areas where we can minimize\nenergy resource which should be developed\nenvironmental problems and delays in get-\nto its fullest practicable limit. To put\nng plants in service.\nthe matter into perspective, the develop-\nment of one-half of the nation's hydro-\nI suggest to you that with an increased\nelectric potential would save the equivalent\neffort and some innovative thinking, the\nof almost one million barrels of oil per\nhydroelectric potential of the nation can\nday, the President's announced goal for\nbe realized at an ever faster pace.\nenergy independence. Therefore, while\nhydroelectric power will not become the\nThe statistics I have presented\nmajor source of energy, it can make a\nindicate that the future of hydroelectric\nvery significant contribution to meeting\ndevelopment is indeed encouraging. I hope\nthe nation's energy needs.\nthat my brief remarks have stimulated you\nto also be encouraged. Obviously, hydro-\nI would like to thank you for the\nelectric power development is not a\nopportunity to speak before this con-\npanacea to the energy shortage, nor is\nference on the nation's hydroelectric\npower potential.\n4\nE\nDATA ON HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES\nIN THE UNITED STATES\nDEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED\nAS OF JANUARY 1, 1976\nFrom Federal Power Commission\nInventory of Hydroelectric Power Resources\nby\nNeal C. Jennings\nInteragency Hydropower Workshop\nFederal Energy Administration\nWashington, D.C.\nNovember 4, 1976\nFORD LIBRARY\nNote: The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and\nnot necessarily represent the views of the Federal Power\nCommission or any of its members.\nDATA ON HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES IN THE UNITED STATES --\nDEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED AS OF JANUARY 1, 1976\nIn connection with river basin investigations made either in\ncooperation with various Federal agencies including the Corps of Engineers\nand the Bureau of Reclamation, or in the course of its licensing activities,\nthe Federal Power Commission maintains up-to-date records on the Nation's\nhydroelectric power potential. The potential is based on a site-by-site\ninventory of all the river basins in the conterminous United States as\nwell as in Alaska and Hawaii. Data on nearly 2,800 sites, both developed\nand undeveloped, are published every four years. The latest report,\nentitled \"Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States, Developed\nand Undeveloped,\" was published in 1972. A 1976 edition is nearing\ncompletion.\nThe possibility of developing any of the conventional undeveloped\nsites depends upon engineering, economic, environmental, and other\nconsiderations which may vary over time. Most sites have shown indications\nof engineering feasibility -- some have evidenced economic feasibility as\nwell. Some sites are now receiving more favorable consideration due to\nrecent fuel shortages and the increased costs of power from alternative\nsources. Many sites have not been analyzed sufficiently to evaluate\ntheir economic or environmental costs and benefits. The totals, however,\ndo give an indication of the upper limit of the conventional water power\npotential of the country.\nAs of January 1, 1976, the total conventional hydroelectric power\ncapacity in the United States, developed and available for development,\nwas about 170.7 million kilowatts. Of that total about 57.0 million\nkilowatts was developed, including 26.5 million kilowatts in plants\nlicensed by the FPC and 27.1 million kilowatts in Federal plants.\nAdditionally, about 9.7 million kilowatts of reversible capacity were\ninstalled at pumped storage projects, including 8.5 million kilowatts\nunder license and 0.6 million kilowatts in Federal plants.\nFigures 1 and 2 show the distribution of the developed and undeveloped\nconventional hydro potential among major drainages and geographic\ndivisions.\nThe following Summary Table shows the status of development and\nplanning of conventional and pumped storage hydroelectric developments as\nof the beginning of 1976. Capacity equivalent to that planned or projected\ncould possibly be added within the next two decades. This would bring\nthe total installations to about 79.3 million kilowatts in conventional\ncapacity and 37.3 million kilowatts in pumped storage capacity.\nTables I and II list the individual projects and sites included\nin the categories of Under Construction, Planned, and Other Projected\nin the Summary Table.\nAttention is called to the fact that the data presented herein\nare provisional, subject to possible revision.\nSummary Table\nProvisional\nHYDROELECTRIC CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES\nBY STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING\n(As of January 1, 1976)\nInstalled Capacity\nMillions of Kilowatts\nPumped\nConventional\nStorage\nTotal\nI.\nDEVELOPED\n57.0\n9.7\n66.7\nII. UNDEVELOPED!/\nUnder Construction\n8.2\n4.3\n12.5\nPlanned\n2.0\n6.4\n8.4\nOther Projected\n12.1\n16.9\n29.0\nSubtotal\n22.3\n27.6\n49.9\nRemaining Undeveloped\n91.4\n-\n-\nIII. TOTAL POTENTIAL\n170.7\n-\n-\n1/ Includes 33.3 million kilowatts in Alaska and Hawaii and\n11.2 million kilowatts designated for study and under\nmoratorium for hydroelectric development under the Wild\nand Scenic Rivers Act; excludes 9.2 million kilowatts\nremoved from FPC inventory as a result of the Wild and\nScenic River Act and other special acts.\n2/ Included in reports to FPC from the Regional Electric\nReliability Councils, estimated to be installed by 1985.\n3/ Undeveloped capacity not under construction or in reports\nof the Regional Electric Reliability Councils, but which\nhave FPC license or permit status, are Federally authorized\nor recommended, or have structural provisions for plant\nadditions.\nProvisional\nCONVENTIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER\nDEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED - JANUARY 1,1976\nBY MAJOR DRAINAGES\n70\nNote The potential of Hawaii, amounting to 53.000 kW\nof which 18,000 are developed, is net shown\nALASKA\n60\nNORTH\nHUDSON\nPACIFIC\nBAY\nGREAT LAKES\nMISSOURI\nRIVER\nST LAARENCE\nUPPER\nRIVER\nMISSISSIPPI\nNORTH\n50\nRIVER\nATLANTIC\nGREAT\nSOUTH\nBASIN\nPACIFIC\nMILLIONS OF KILOWATTS\n0410\nUNDEVELOPED\nCOLORADO\nRIVER\n40\nRIVER\nLOWER\nSOUTH\nMISSISSIPPI\nATLANTIC\nRIVER\nEASTERN\nGULF\nWESTERN\n30\nGULF\n20\n10\nTHE\nO\nFigure 1\nBY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS\n70\nNote The potential of Hawaii, amounting to 53.000 kW\nALASKA\nof which 18,000 are developed, is not snown\n60\nNEW\nENGLAND\nPACIFIC\nWEST\nNORTH CENTRAL\nMIDDLE\nATLANTIC\n50\nEAST\nNORTH CENTRAL\nUNDEVELOPED\nMOUNTAIN\n40\nMILLIONS OF KILOWATTS\nEAST\nSOUTH\nSOUTH\nATLANTIC\nWEST\nCENTRAL\nSOUTH CENTRAL\n30\n20\nNHO\n10\nLIBRA\nO\nFigure 2\nProvisional\nTABLE I CONVENTIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS OR ADDITIONS\nUNDER CONSTRUCTION, PLANNED, OR PROJECTED JANUARY 1, 1976\nFPC\nUNDER CONSTRUCTION\nPLANNED\n3/1\nOTHER PROJECTED 4/\nSTATUS\nPROJECT\nAVERAGE\nAVERAGE\nPLANT\nOWNER\nRIVER\nSTATE\nINSTALLED\nAVERAGE\nINSTALLED\nINSTALLED\n2/\nNO\nANNUAL\nANNUAL\nANNUAL\nCAPACITY\nCAPACITY\nGENERATION\nGENERATION\nCAPACITY\nGENERATION\nKW\nKW\n1,000 KWH\n1,000 KWH\nKW\n1,000 KWH\nCORNELL\nNORTHERN STATES PWN\nCHIPPEWA\nWIS\nto\n2639\n28,600\n120,000\nCLARENCE F CANNON\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSALT\nMO\nFA\n27,000\n42,100\nFONTANA\nTENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH\nLITTLE TENN\nNC\nFA\n13,500G\n0\nWALLACE DAM\nGEORGIA POWER CO\nOCCNEE\nGA\nLO\n2413\n108,000\n128,000\nLAUREL\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nLAUREL\nKY\nFA\n61,000\n67,000\nCHICKAMAUGA\nTENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH\nTENNESSEE\nTENN\nFA\n3,000G\n0\n3,0000\n0\nDOUCLAS\nTENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH\nFRENCH BROAD\nTENN\nFA\n2,8000\n0\nCHEROKEE\nTENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH\nMOLSTON\nTENN\nFA\n4,650G\n0\nRL HARRIS\nALABAMA POWER CO\nTALLAPOOSA\nALA\nLO\n2628\n135,000\n169,000\nNOXON RAPIDS\nWASHINGTON WTR PWR CO\nCLARK FK\nMONT\nLO\n2075\n114,000A\n107,000\nLIBBY\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nKOOTENAI\nMONT\nFA\n210,000A\n428,000\n420,000A\n859,000\nCRYSTAL\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nGUNNISON\nCOLO\nFA\n28,000\n120,000\nDAVIS(LAKE MOHAVE)\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nCOLORADO\nARIZ\nFA\n3,000G\n0\n3,000c\n0\nBONNEVILLE 2ND PH\nCORPS CF ENGINEERS\nCOLUMBIA\nWASH\nFA\n540,800A\n1,160,000\nICE HARBOR\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSNAKE\nWASH\nFA\n111 000A\n174,000\nLOWER MONUMENTAL\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSNAKE\nWASH\nFA\n405,000A\n517,000\nLITTLE GOOSE\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSNAKE\nWASH\nFA\n405,000A\n288,000\nLOWER GRANITE\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSNAKE\nWASH\nFA\n405,000A\n1,424,000\nROCK ISLAND\nCHELAN CITY PUD NO 1\nCOLUMBIA\nWASH\nLO\n943\n410,400A\n1,296,000\nCHIEF JOSEPH\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCOLUMBIA\nWASH\nFA\n1,045,000A\n1,761,000\nGRAND COULEE\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nCOLUMBIA\nWASH\nFA\n3,300,000A\n6,025,000\n17,0000\n110,000\n#\nLOST CREEK\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nROGUE\nORE\nFA\n49,000\n303,000\nAUBURN\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nN FK AMERICAN\nCALIF\nFA\n300,000\n360,000\nNEW MELONES\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSTANISLAUS\nCALIF\nFA\n300,000\n385,000\nPYRAMID\nCALIF DEPT WTR RES\nW BR AQUEDUCT\nCALIF\nLA\n2426\n157,000\n852,000\nCOTTONWOOD\nCALIF DEPT WTR RES\nE BR AQUEDUCT\nCALIF\nLA\n2426\n14,100\n114,000\nDEVIL CANYON\nCALIF DEPT WTR RES\nE BR AQUEDUCT\nCALIF\nLA\n2426\n59,800A\n390,000\nSILVIS LAKE\nKETCHIKAN CITY OF\nSILVIS LAKE\nALASKA\nLO\n1922\n2,100\n6,300\nBRUNSWICK-TOPSHAM\nCENTRAL MAINE PWR & LT\nANDROSCOGGIN\nME\nLO\n2284\n9,700A\n69,700\nRACINE\nOHIO POWER CO\nOHIO\nOHIO\nLO\n2570\n40,000\n220,000\nRICHARD B RUSSELL\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSAVANNAH\nGA\nFA\n300,000\n467,000\nGOAT ROCK\nGEORGIA POWER CO\nCHATTAHOOCHEE\nGA\nSP\n2177\n67,000A\n25,000\nBARTLETTS FERRY\nGEORGIA POWER CO\nCHATTAHOOCHEE\nCA\nLA\n485\n50,000A\n35,000\n50,000\n30,000\nMARTIN DAM\nALABAMA POWER CO\nTALLAPOOSA\nALA\nLA\n349\n60.000A\n42,000\nMITCHELL\nALABAMA POWER CO\nCOOSA\nALA\nLO\n82\n80,100A\n119,000\nAMISTAD\nIBWC/SO TEX & MEDINA\nRIO GRANDE\nTEX\nFA\n32,000\n66,000\n48,000A\n90,000\nLIBBY REREGULATOR\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nKOOTENAI\nMONT\nFR\n50,400\n180,000\nBROWNLEE\nIDAHO POWER CO\nSNAKE\nIDAHO\nLA\n1971\n225,000A\n123,000\nAMERICAN FALLS\nIDAHO POWER CO\nSNAKE\nIDAHO\nLO\n2736\n92,400\n400,000\nSEMINOE\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nNORTH PLATTE\nWYO\nFA\n12,600A\n3,300\nMORROW POINT\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nGUNNISON\nCOLO\nFA\n9,0000\n0\nDYNE\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nDIAMOND FK PIPE\nUTAH\nFA\n33,000\n132,400\nSIXTH WATER\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nSIXTH WATER CR\nUTAH\nFA\n90,000\n134,000\nSYAR\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nSTRAWBERRY OFF\nUTAH\nFA\n10,500\n53,100\nROSS\nSEATTLE DEPT LT\nSKAGIT\nWASH\nLO\n553\n300,000A\n368,000\nMAYFIELD\nCITY OF TAKOMA\nCOWLITZ\nWASH\nSP\n2016\n40,500A\n96,000\nSAN LUIS OBISPO\nCALIF DEPT WTR RES\nCOASTAL AQUEDUCT\nCALIF\nLA\n2426\n5,900\n42,000\nKERCKHOFF\nPACIFIC GAS & ELEC\nSAN COAQUIN\nCALIF\nLO\n96\n100,000A\n600,000\nBIG CREEK NO 3\nso CALIF EDISON\nREDINGER LAKE\nCALIF\nLA\n120\n35,000A\n0\nDICKEY-LINCOLN SCH\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nST JOHNS\nMAINE\nFA\n830,000\n1,154,000\nTOCKS ISLAND\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nDELAWARE\nNJ\nFA\n70,000\n281,000\nST PETERSBURG\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCLARION\nPA\nFR\n120,000\n244,000\nMELDAHL\nVANCEBURG CITY OF\nCHIO\nOHIO\nPO\n2739\n70,000\n350,000\nGREENUP\nVANCEBURG CITY OF\nOHIO\nOHIO\nLA\n2614\n70,560\n300,000\nGALLIPOLIS L & D\nOHIO POWER CO\nOHIO\nOHIO\nPO\n2751\n40,000\n120,000\nGARRISON\nCORPS CF ENGINEERS\nMISSOURI\nN DAK\nSP\n212,000A\n0\nFORT RANDALL\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nMISSOURI\nS DAK\nSP\n176,000A\n0\nBIG BEND\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nMISSCURI\nS DAK\nSP\n330,000A\n0\nOAHE\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nMISSOURI\nS DAK\nSP\n144,000A\n0\nGAVINS POINT\nCCRPS OF ENGINEERS\nMISSOURI\nNEBR\nSP\n33,300A\n0\nSALEM CHURCH\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nRAPPAHANNOC\nVA\nFA\n89,000\n161,000\nGATHRIGHT\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nJACKSON\nVA\nFA\n49,000\n54,700\nLOWER BLUE RIDGE\nAPPALACHIAN POWER\nNEW\nVA\nto\n2317\n200,000\n0\nBLUESTONE\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nNEW\nW VA\nFA\n180,000\n447,000\nST STEPHEN\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSANTEE & COOPER\nSC\nFA\n84.000\n418.000\nHARTWELL\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSAVANNAH\nGA\nFA\n66,000A\n100,000\nWEST POINT\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCHATTAHOOCHEE\nGA\nFA\n35,000A\n68,000\nLOWER VADA\nCORPS OF ENCINEERS\nFLINT\nGA\nFR\n28,000\n167,000\nLOWER AUCHUMPKEE\nCORPS CF ENGINEERS\nFLINT\nGA\nFA\n77,000\n122,000\nLAZER CREEK\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nFLINT\nCA\nFA\n83,000\n121,000\nSPEWRELL BLUFF\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nFLINT\nGA\nFA\n100,000\n160,000\nALLATOONA\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nETOWAR\nCA\nFA\n36,000A\n26,000\nCELINA\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCUMBERLAND\nKY\nFA\n108,000\n280,000\nCANNELTON\nVANCEBURG CITY OF\nCHIO\nKY\nLA\n2245\n70,560\n340,000\nDEGRAY\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCADDO\nARK\nFA\n40,000A\n86,600\nSEE FOOTNOTES AT END OF TABLE\nProvisional\nTABLE I (Contd.) CONVENTIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS OR ADDITIONS\nUNDER CONSTRUCTION, PLANNED. OR PROJECTED JANUARY 1, 1976\nUNDER CONSTRUCTION\nPLANNED\nY\nOTHER PROJECTED 4/\nFPC\nPLANT\nOWNER\nRIVER\nSTATE\nSTATUS\nPROJECT\nAVERAGE\nAVERAGE\nAVERAGE\nINSTALLED\nINSTALLED\nANNUAL\nINSTALLED\n2/\nANNUAL\nANNUAL\nNO\nCAPACITY\nCAPACITY\nGENERATION\nGENERATION\nCAPACITY\nGENERATION\nKW\nKW\n1.000KWH\nKW\n1,000 KWN\n1.000 KWH\nNORFORK\nCCRPS OF ENGINEERS\nN FORK\nARK\nFA\n85,000X\n22,000\nKAW\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nARKANSAS\nOKLA\nFR\n25,000\n99,000\nDE CORDOVA BEND 3\nBRAZOS ELEC PWR CO\nBRAZOS\nTEX\nPO\n2733\n60,000\n42,000\nDENISON\nCORPS OF ENCINEERS\nRED\nTEX\nFA\n105,000A\n70,000\nALLENSPUR\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nYELLOWSTONE\nMONT\nFR\n250,000\n679,000\nFORT PECK\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nMISSOURI\nMONT\nSP\n185,000A\n0\nKOOTENAI\nNORTHERN LIGHTS\nKOOTENAI\nMONT\nPO\n2752\n140,000\n500,000\nDWORSHAK\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS.\nN FK CLEARW\nIDAHO\nFA\n660,000A\n20,000\nGUFFEY\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nSNAKE\nIDAHO\nFR\n85,000\n525,600\nBLISS\nIDAHO POWER\nSNAKE\nIDAHO\nSP\n1971\n25,000A\n7,000\nLYNN CRANDALL\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nSNAKE\nIDAHO\nFR\n240,000\n821,000\nPALISADES\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nSNAKE\nIDAHO\nSP\n135,000\n267,000\nSHERIDAN\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nTONGUE\nWYO\nFR\n25,000\n92,000\nTHIEF CREEK\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nCLARK FX\nWYO\nFR\n125,200\n510,000\nJUNIPER\nCOLO R WTR CONS DIS\nYAMPA\nCOLO\nPA\n2757\n45,000\n150,000\nCROSS MOUNTAIN\nCOLO R WTR CONS DIS\nYAMPA\nCOLO\nPA\n2757\n33,000\n100,000\nMCCOY\nCITY OF GOLDEN\nCOLORADO\nCOLO\nPA\n2763\n50,000\n250,000\nMIDDLE SULTAN\nSNOROMISH COUNTY PUD\nSULTAN\nWASH\nLO\n2157\n32.000\n129,000\nUPPER SULTAN\nSNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD\nSULTAN\nWASH\nLO\n2157\n84,000\n122,000\nNINE FOOT CREEK\nKLICKITAT COUNTY PUD\nWHITE SALMON\nWASH\nLA\n2241\n40,000\n87,000\nMOSSYROCK\nCITY OF TACOMA\nCOWLITZ\nWASH\nSP\n2016\n150.000A\n300,000\nMERWIN\nPACIFIC PWR & LT\nLEWIS\nWASH\nSP\n935\n60,000A\n60,500\nYALE\nPACIFIC PWR & LT\nLEWIS\nWASH\nSP\n2071\n108,000A\n200,000\nJOHN DAY\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCOLUMBIA\nWASH\nFA\n540,000\n1,970,000\nPRIEST RAPIDS\nGRANT COUNTY FUD 1\nCOLUMBIA\nWASH\nSP\n2114\n473,100A\n730,000\nWANAPUM\nGRANT COUNTY PUD 1\nCOLUMBIA\nWASH\nSP\n2114\n498,750A\n1,540,000\nBOUNDARY\nSEATTLE DEPT OF LT\nPEND CREILL\nWASH\nSP\n2144\n275,500A\n425.000\nMCNARY ZND PH\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCOLUMBIA\nOREG\nFR\n1,050,000A\n300,000\nHELLS CANYON\nIDAHO POWER\nSNAKE\nOREG\nSP\n1971\n130,500A\n40,000\nOXBOW\nIDAHO POWER\nSNAKE\nOREG\nSP\n1971\n47,500A\n47,500\nKENO\nPACIFIC PWR & LT\nKLAMATH\nOREG\nLO\n2082\n100.000\n225,000\nPINE FLAT\nKINGS R CONSV DIST\nKINGS\nCALIF\nPO\n2741\n165,000\n300,000\nSALMON FALLS\nEL DORADO COUNTY\nS FX AMERICAN\nCALIF\nPA\n2761\n95,000\n190,000\nCOLOMA DAM\nEL DORADO COUNTY\n$ FK AMERICAN\nCALIF\nPA\n2761\n45,000\n130,000\nROGERS CROSSING\nKINGS R CONSV DIST\nKINGS\nCALIF\nPO\n2741\n100,500\n180,000\nEL DORADO\nEL DORADO COUNTY\n$ FK AMERICAN\nCALIF\nPA\n2761\n80,000\n328,000\nPLUM CREEK\nEL DORADO COUNTY\n$ FK AMERICAN\nCALIF\nPA\n2761\n80,000\n240.000\nMARYSVILLE\nCORPS OF ENCINEERS\nYUBA\nCALIF\nFA\n50,000\n250,000\nTABLE MOUNTAIN\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSACRAMENTO\nCALIF\nFA\n54,000\n287,000\nCOLLIERVILLE PK\nCALAVERAS COUNTY WTR\nSTANISLAUS\nCALIF\nLA\n2409\n75,000\n253,000\nBCARDS PH\nCALAVERAS COUNTY WTR\nN FK STANISLAUS\nCALIF\nLA\n2409\n97,500\n487,000\nGANNS PH\nCALAVERAS COUNTY WTR\nN FK STANISLAUS\nCALIF\nLA\n2409\n50,000\n205,000\nJUNCTION\nKINGS R CONVS DIST\nDINKEY CREEK\nCALIF\nPO\n2741\n39,000\n238,000\nPEART\nKINGS R CONVS DIST\nDINKEY CREEK\nCALIF\nPO\n2741\n50,000\n241,000\nTERROR LAKE\nKODIAK ELEC ASSN INC\nCANYON\nALASKA\nPA\n2743\n30,000\n184,000\nDEVIL CANYON\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSUSITNA\nALASKA\nFR\n738,000\n4,190.000\nWATANA\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSUSITNA\nALASKA\nFR\n478,000\n2,720,000\nBRADLEY LAKE\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nBRADLEY CREEK\nALASKA\nFA\n63,900\n335.600\nSNETTISHAM\nALASKA POWER ADM\nSPEEL\nALASKA\nFA\n27,000A\n105,000\nTHOMAS BAY\nTHOMAS BAY PWR COMM\nTHOMAS BAY\nALASKA\nPA\n2755\n30,000\n130,000\n38 SITES SMALLER THAN 25,000 KW\n385,135\n1,245,000\nTOTALS\n8,242,750\n16,736,400\n2,013,400\n4,119,500\n12,108,005\n27,714,500\n1/ CAPACITY AND GENERATION AT UNDEVELOPED SITES. EXCEPT \"A\" DENOTES ADDITION TO EXISTING PLANT AND \"&\"\nDENOTES ADDITION TO A PLANT FOR WHICH THE INITIAL INSTALLATION IS PRESENTLY UNDER WAY. \"G\" DENOTES REWIND ADDITION.\n2/ LO-FPC LICENSE OUTSTANDING\nFA-FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED\nLA-FPC LICENSE OR AMENDMENT APPLIED FOR\nFR-FEDERALLY RECOMMENDED\nPO-FPC PRELIMINARY PERMIT OUTSTANDING\nSP-STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS INCLUDED AT EXISTING PLANT\nPA-FPC PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLIED FOR\nBUT LICENSE AMENDMENT OR FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO\nINSTALLATION\n3/ DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDED IN REPORTS OF APRIL 1. 1976. TO THE FPC BY THE REGIONAL ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCILS\nFOR COMPLETION BY 1985; PLANT DATA FROM FPC INVENTORY.\n41 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 25 MW OR CREATER NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR INCLUDED IN REPORTS OF THE REGIONAL ELECTRIC\nRELIABILITY COUNCILS BUT WHICH HAVE FPC LICENSE OR PERMIT STATUS, ARE AUTHORIZED OR RECOMMENDED FOR FEDERAL\nCONSTRUCTION, OR HAVE STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS FOR PLANT ADDITIONS.\n5/ POSSIBLE ATLERNATIVE TO SWAN FALL REDEVELOPMENT. (NOT LISTED IN TABLES 2 & 4)\nProvisional\nTABLE II PUMPED STORAGE HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS OR ADDITIONS DEVELOPED.\nUNDER CONSTRUCTION. OR PROJECTED - JANUARY 1. 1976\nREVERSIBLE CAPACITY KW\nTOTAL\nFPC\nSTATUS\nPOTENTIAL\nPLANT\nOWNER\nRIVER\nSTATE\nPROJECT\nOTHER\nCONVENTIONAL\n!!\nNO\nDEVELOPED\nUNDER\nPLANNED\n2/\nPROJECTED\nTOTAL\nCAPACITY\nCONSTRUCTION\n3/\nKW\nBEAR SWAMP\nNEW ENGLAND POWER CO\nDEFRFIELD\nMASS\nLO\n2669\n600,000\n600,000\nNORTHFIELD MT\nCONN LIGHT & PWR CO\nCONNECTICUT\nMASS\nLO\n2485\n1,000,000\n1,000,000\nROCKY RIVER\nCONN LIGHT 5 PWR CO\nROCKY\nCONN\nLA\n2632\n7,000\n7,000\n24,000\nBLENHEIM-GILSOA\nPOWER AUTH STATE OF NY\nSCHOHARIE CR\nNY\nLO\n2685\n1,000,000\n1,000,000\nLEWISTCN-NIAGARA\nPOWER AUTH STATE OF NY\nNIAGARA\nNY\nLO\n2216\n240,000\n240,000\n1,953,900\nYARDS CREEK\nJERSEY CNTL PWR & LT\nDELAWARE\nNJ\nLO\n2309\n388,961\n388,961\nMUDDY RUN\nPHILA ELEC PWR ET AL\nSUSQUEHANNA\nPENN\nLO\n2355\n800,000\n800,000\nKINZUA\nPENN ELEC & CLEV ELEC\nALLEGHENY\nPENN\nLO\n2280\n396,000\n396,000\n26,100\nLUDINGTON\nCONSUMERS POWER CO\nLAKE MICH\nMICH\nLO\n2680\n1,978,800\n1,978,800\nTAUM SAUK\nUNION ELECTRIC CO\nE FK BLACK\nMO\nLO\n2277\n408,000\n408,000\nUPPER SMITH MT\nAPPALACHIAN POWER CO\nROANOKE\nVA\nLO\n2210\n132,050\n104,000\n236,050\n300,200\nHIWASSEE\nTENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH\nHIWASSEE\nNC\nFA\n59,500\n59,500\n57,600\nJOCASSEE\nDUKE POWER CO\nKEOWEE\nSC\nLO\n2503\n612,000\n612,000\n4/\nDECRAY\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCADDO\nARK\nFA\n28,000\n28,000\n80,000\nSALINA\nGRAND RIVER DAM AUTH\nGRAND\nOKLA\nLO\n2524\n260,000\n260,000\n520,000\nBUCHANAN\nLOWER CO RIV AUTH\nCOLORADO\nTEXAS\n11,250\n11,250\n22,500\nFLAT IRON 3\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nCO BIG THOM DIV\nCOLO\nFA\n8,500\n8,500\nO'NEILL\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nDELTA MENDOTA\nCOLO\nFA\n25,200\n25,200\nCABIN CREEK\nPUBLIC SERVICE CO\nso CLEAR CR\nCOLO\nLO\n2351\n300,000\n300,000\nMORMOM FLAT\nSALT R PROJ PWR DIST\nSALT\nARIZ\n-\n48,645\n48,645\n9,200\nHORSE MESA\nSALT R PROJ PWR DIST\nSALT-GILA\nARIZ\n99,878\n99,878\n34,155\nGRAND COULEE\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nCOLUMBIA\nWASH\nFA\n100,000\n200,000\n300,000\nTHERMALITO\nCALIF DEPT OF WTR RES\nFEATHER DIV\nCALIF\nLO\n2100\n82,500\n32,500\n65,200\nEDWARD C HYATT\nCALIF DEPT OF WTR RES\nFEATHER DIV\nCALIF\nLO\n2100\n293,250\n293,250\n702,000\nCASTAIC\nLA CITY & ST OF CALIF\nCASTAIC CR\nCALIF\nLA\n2126\n425,000\n850,000\n1,275,000\n56,000\nSAN LUIS\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nSAN LUIS CR\nCALIF\nFA\n424,000\n424,000\nSENATOR WASH\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nSENATOR WASH\nCALIF\nFA\n7,200\n7,200\nHARRY $ TRUMAN\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCSAGE\nMO\nFA\n160,000\n160,000\n4/\nCLARENCE CANNON\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nSALT\nMO\nFA\n-\n31,000\n31,000\n27,000\nFAIRFIELD\nso CAROLINA ELEC & GAS\nFREES CR BD\nSC\nLO\n1894\n518,400\n518,400\nWALLACE DAM\nGEORGIA POWER CO\nOCONEE\nGA\nLO\n2413\n216,000\n216,000\n108,000\nCARTERS\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCOOSAWATTEE\nGA\nFA\n250,000\n250,000\n250,000\nRACCOON MT\nTENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH\nTENNESSEE\nTENN\nFA\n1,530,000\n1,530,000\nMT ELBERT\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nARX CANAL\nCOLO\nFA\n100,000\n100,000\n200,000\nMONTEZUMA\nARIZONA POWER AUTH\nGILA OFFSTRM\nARIZ\nLO\n2573\n505,400\n505,400\nBREAKABEEN\nPOWER AUTH STATE OF NY\nSCHOHARIE CR\nNY\nLA\n2729\n1,000,000\n1,000,000\nBOYD COUNTY\nNEBRASKA PUBLIC PWR\nMISSOURI\nNEBR\nPO\n2746\n1,000,000\n1,000,000\nBATH COUNTY\nVIRGINIA ELEC & PWR\nBACK CREEK\nVA\nLA\n2716\n2,100,000\n2,100,000\nDAVIS\nMONONGAHELA PWR CO\nBLACKWATER\nW VA\nLA\n2709\n1,000,000\n1,000,000\nBAD CREEK\nDUKE POWER CO\n5AD CREEK\nSC\nLA\n2740\n1,000,000\n1,000,000\nROCKY MOUNTAIN\nGEORGIA POWER CO\nHEATH CREEK\nGA\nLA\n2725\n675,000\n675,000\nHELMS\nPACIFIC GAS & ELEC\nKINGS\nCALIF\nLA\n2735\n1,050,000\n1,050,000\nMISSISQUOI\nSWANTON VILLAGE OF\nMISSISQUOI\nVT\nPA\n2759\n80,000\n80,000\nCORNWALL\nCONSOLIDATED EDISON\nHUDSON RIVER\nNY\nLO\n2338\n2,000,000\n2,000,000\nMOUNT HOPE\nJERSEY CNTL PWR & LI\nWHITE MEADOW\nNJ\nLA\n2753\n1,000,000\n1,000,000\nST PETERSBURG\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCLARION\nPENN\nFR\n300,000\n300,000\n120,000\nPRAIRIE CREEK\nBUREAU OF RECLAMATION\nPLATTE OFFSTRM\nNEBR\nFA\n16,800\n16,800\nTURNIP-FALLING\nSOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP\nTURNIP CR\nVA\nPA\n2749\n830,000\n830,000\nRANDOLPH-HUNTING\nSOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP\nROANOKE\nVA\nPA\n2749\n1,260,000\n1,260,000\nROANOKE-WALLACE\nSOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP\nROANOKE\nVA\nPA\n2749\n780,000\n780,000\nCUB CREEK\nSOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP\nCUB CREEK\nVA\nPA\n2749\n800,000\n800,000\nMOLLTS-SENECA CR\nSOUTHSIDE ELEC COOP\nSENECA CREEK\nVA\nPA\n2749\n420,000\n420,000\nUPPER BLUE RIDGE\nAPPALACHIAN POWER CO\nNEW RIVER\nVA\nLO\n2317\n1,600,000\n1,600,000\n41\nROWLESBURG\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nCHEAT\nW VA\nFA\n350,000\n350,000\n41\nGREEN RIVER PROJ\nEPIC INC\nGREEN\nNC\nPA\n2700\n500,000\n500,000\nMADISON COUNTY\nCAROLINA PWR & LT\nSUGARCAMP BR\nNC\nPO\n2734\n2,000,000\n2,000,000\nSPEWRELL BLUFF\nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\nFLINT\nCA\nFA\n50,000\n50,000\n100,000\nVILLAGE BEND\nBRAZOS ELEC PWR COOP\nBRAZOS\nTEXAS\nPO\n2733\n730,000\n730,000\nBROWNS CANYON\nPUD NO 1 DOUGLAS CO\nCOLUMBIA\nWASH\nLA\n2753\n1,000,000\n1,000,000\nBLACK STAR\nso CALIF EDISON\nSANTIAGO CR\nCALIF\nPA\n2730\n1,235,000\n1,235,000\nTOTALS\n9,735,734\n4,264,800\n6,450,000\n16,886,800\n37,337,334\n1/ LO-FPC LICENSE OUTSTANDING\nPA-FPC PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLIED FOR\nLA-FPC LICENSE OR AMENDMENT APPLIED FOR\nFA-FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED\nPO-FPC PRELIMINARY PERMIT OUTSTANDING\nFR-FEDERALLY RECOMMENDED\n2/ DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDED IN REPORTS OF APRIL 1. 1976, TO THE FPC BY REGIONAL ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCILS; PLANT\nDATA FROM FPC INVENTORY.\n3/ POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR INCLUDED IN REPORTS OF THE REGIONAL ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCILS\nBUT WHICH HAVE FPC LICENSE OR PERMIT STATUS, OR ARE AUTHORIZED OR RECOMMENDED FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION.\n61 REVERSIBLE CAPACITY SHOWN COULD BE USED FOR CONVENTIONAL GENERATION.\nF\nPOTENTIAL HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT\nTABLE I\nPotential Hydropower Development Categories\n*\nCapacity\nAverage Annual\nCategory\n(MW)\nEnergy (MWh)\nA\nOperational project\n2,036\n597,074\nwith authorized\nhydropower additions\nB\nProjects under con-\n74\n141,000\nstruction with\nauthorized hydro-\npower additions\nC\nProjects under con-\n8,841\n12,692,770\nstruction or\noperational which\nrequire hydropower\nauthorization\nD\nProjects authorized\n2,997\n5,249,800\nwith power but not\nyet under construction\nor operational\nE\nProjects requiring\n546\n795,000\nreauthorization\nbecause of a change\nin capacity\nF\nPotential projects not\n106,021\n266,632,992\nyet authorized but\nhaving hydropower\ncapability\nG\nDetached pumped-\n130,245\n11,706,392\nstorage projects\nTOTALS\n250,760\n297,814,958\n*\nTotal energy potential understated.\nEnergy data not available for all projects.\nSeptember 1976\n-\nDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR\nRaymond Peck - Deputy Assistant Secretary - Energy and Minerals\nWilliam R. Wilson - Office of the Secretary - Land and Water Resources\nEmerson Harper - Office of the Secretary - Energy and Minerals\nWilliam Clagett - Bonneville Power Administration\nGerald Faust - Bureau of Reclamation\nRaymond Harman - Bureau of Reclamation\nInterior Power Marketing Agencies\nBonneville Power Administration\nBureau of Reclamation\nSouthwestern Power Administration\nSoutheastern Power Administration\nAlaska Power Administration\nLIBRARY\nMARKETING\nCIES\nAREAS OF O. ATIONS\nBASHINGTON\nmaime\nMONTANA\nNORTH DAKOTA\nIDADO\nMINNESOTA\n=\na\nNV\n+\nNEW YORK\nSOUTH BAKOTA\nWISCONSIN\nTHE\nWYOMING\nMICNIGAN\ncomm.\nCALIFORNIA\n821.\nWEVADA\nIOWA\nPENNSYLVANIA\nM.J.\nwian\nNEBRASKA\nILLINOIS\nINDIANA\nOHIO\nMD\nCOLORADO\nW.\nVA\nDEL.\nVIRGINIA\nBANSAS\n2\nKENTUCKY\nMORIN CAPOLINA\nARIZONA\nNEW MEXICO\nDEWMESSER\nOKLAHOMA\nTEXAS\nARKANSAS\nalabima\n6102614\nMISSISSIPPI\nCOUISIANA\nFLORIDA\nGERALD\nHAWAII\nLIBRARY\nGENERAL POWER RESOURCE GOALS\nGenerate and market power at Federal\nmultipurpose projects to assist in\nrecovering Federal investment and to\noptimize resource use.\nStimulate planning, construction and\noperation of electric power facilities\nto provide an adequate and reliable\nsupply of electric energy.\nCoordinate integration of Federal\nwith non-Federal projects.\n3\nINTERIOR'S POWER CUSTOMERS\n(approximately)\nPreference (public power)\n756\nUtilities (private)\n56\nFederal Facilities\n48\nIndustries served\n23\n4\nINTERIOR'S ELECTRIC POWER PROGRAMS\nSUPPORT POWER FACILITIES WHEN ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE\nIN MULTIPURPOSE HYDRO PROJECTS\nMARKET ELECTRIC POWER GENERATED AT CORPS OF\nENGINEERS AND BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DAMS\nENCOURAGE NECESSARY RESEARCH - EHV TRANSMISSION (1,100 KV) &\nEFFICIENCY AND RELIABILITY STUDIES\nCONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES NECESSARY\nTO MARKET POWER\nCOORDINATION OF POWER PLANNING, DESIGN AND POOLING\n5\nPOWER MARKETING OPERATIONS\nFY 1976\nMarketed\nMiles\nEnergy\nPercent of\nGross\ncapacity\ntrans.\nMarketed\ngeneration\nAgency\nrevenues\n(MW)\nlines\n(Billions of KW-HRS)\nin the area\n(in millions)\n(in thousands)\nSoutheastern\n$ 48\n2,401\n8.1\n3\nAlaska\n2.1\n77\n.09\n.2\n10 & 50\nSouthwestern\n51\n1,917\n2\n3.9\n5\nReclamation\n270/1\n7,709/2\n16\n38.0\n3-35\n(in 5 areas)\n6\nBonneville\n302\n13,618\n13\n83.6\n50\nTotal\n$ 673.1\n25,722\n31\n133.8\n/1 Excludes sales to BPA of $8.4 million\n12 Reclamation generation capacity of 9,659 MW less marketed to BPA of 4,030 MW plus Corps of Engineers\ngeneration of 2,048 MW and IBWC of 31.5 MW. Includes Navajo generation."
}