Future of Hydropower Must Navigate Crosscurrents of Competing Interests

When engineers for the Tennessee Valley Authority decided to replace the aging flume that carried water to hydroelectric Power House No. 2 on the Ocoee River some years ago, they expected technical challenges.

They didn’t expect someone to kidnap their river.

But that’s essentially what happened. And the TVA’s experience on the Ocoee, which flows through a mountain gorge near Chattanooga, Tenn., is a parable for our times: It illustrates why the nation has an “energy crisis” and why it’s so hard to solve.

For a society that wants to enjoy its environment and use its energy too, a gain in one area often means a loss somewhere else. And there is little agreement about how the conflicts should be resolved.

Learning to Share the Rights to River

On the Ocoee, when the old flume was shut down for reconstruction, the water was dumped back into its old bed. Almost before TVA officials grasped what was happening, hundreds of people in canoes and kayaks began running the newly restored rapids. As work dragged on, whitewater rafting companies sprang up. Local entrepreneurs found other ways to profit as thousands flocked to the new aquatic playground.

Many months later, when the TVA tried to reclaim the river, it was too late. Protests erupted that carried all the way to Washington. Congress ended up decreeing that the TVA must share a river it had long considered its own.

That was more than 20 years ago, but the fight over how much of the Ocoee’s water could be used for power and how much for pleasure continues with unabated ferocity.

The result has been a “greener,” more natural river that gives pleasure and profit to more people. Indeed, the Ocoee was used for whitewater competition during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta.

But there was another result as well: More coal and natural gas was burned to replace the lost hydropower, which translates into dirtier air and greater dependence on more costly fuel.

“It’s a very interesting dilemma because it really points out the realities of modern life. We want our cake and we want to eat it too,” said Linda Ciocci of the National Hydropower Assn., an industry group. “The energy crisis is forcing us to realize the trade-offs involved.”

By almost any measure, hydropower is among the cleanest, most environmentally friendly sources of electricity. Yet even as the United States struggles with tightening energy supplies and rising costs, hydropower’s role is shrinking.

According to the latest available figures, hydro is down to about 8% of total electricity generated in the United States. It was as high as 13% in the 1990s, though some of the decline is attributable to drought in the West, and it constituted a much larger share of total electric power in earlier decades.

And, while some systems can be made more productive at the margins, almost no one foresees construction of major new hydro projects; the headaches are too great.

Given its environmental and other advantages, why is the country not going all-out for hydropower? Because, absent new scientific breakthroughs, hydropower is caught in a Catch-22:

To achieve environmental, recreational, economic and other benefits, hydropower systems are being forced to change in ways that reduce their capability, especially in the response to surges in demand.

The benefits are substantial, and a majority of Americans would probably support them--protecting endangered species, supporting greater recreational and economic opportunities, enforcing the Clean Water Act, even preserving historical sites and Native American lands.

Andrew Fahlund of American Rivers, an environmental and water sports advocacy group, sees the changes as no more than partial compensation for decades of one-sided policy: “I don’t see it as a loss. I see it as a gain for the river.”

But the costs are also real. Every kilowatt-hour of electricity not produced with hydropower must be made up by burning more coal or natural gas--or offset with conservation.

The trend is occurring across the country, from California’s sprawling hydro network and Washington state’s mighty Columbia River system to the Missouri on the Great Plains and more obscure streams in the East.

“As a realistic matter,” said Charles Linderman of the Electric Power Research Institute, an industry group, the challenge is “managing to hold the capacity we have,” not to add more hydropower.

The bulk of the current hydro network was built half a century ago, or more, in an era when leaders spoke proudly of “harnessing nature.” A country scarred by war and hard times wanted growth and prosperity above all.

There was no Clean Water Act. No Endangered Species Act. No federal laws mandating protection of migrant fish. Recreation and tourism were rare treats, not political forces. And hydro systems were designed and operated to maximize generating capability and economic efficiency.

Highs and Lows of a River’s Flow

In modern hydropower systems, water is stored behind a dam, then piped through huge electric turbines with great force.

The water behind a dam is, in effect, a giant battery. It can be turned on or off, used or held back.

Since demand and price for electricity swing sharply during the course of a day, many hydro plants release water and generate power when the demand is greatest and economic rewards highest, then cut back operations at night and during other periods of low demand.

When the water is held back, the streambed below a power dam may be almost dry. When water is released, the flow downstream may swell to a torrent.

Or it may remain a trickle if the water coming out of the turbines is funneled into a huge pipe or flume--as it is on the Ocoee--and then carried to another power plant lower down the mountain for reuse.

Such operations are good in terms of energy production and economics. They may not be so good for the river environment, for fish populations, or for people who want to use the river for recreational or other purposes.

Today, that means continual controversy.

“There are people who want higher lake levels in summer or more free water for whitewater rafting,” said TVA official Gil Francis. “Obviously they are all competing with one another. . . . If we were just going for hydropower generation, we could get more out of it, but we’ve got to balance.”

About half of all hydropower systems operate under licenses granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These are systems owned by private power companies, municipalities and other nonfederal operators. The other half of the hydro system consists of dams and power plants owned by the federal government and quasi-independent institutions such as the TVA.

Federal dams are not subject to licensing by FERC, but they are subject to public opinion. It was political pressure, after all, not the license process, that forced changes on the Ocoee.

Since most dams were built in the early or middle years of the last century, and the original FERC licenses often ran for 40 or 50 years, scores of these licenses are coming up for renewal. And both Congress and the courts have said they must comply with the full panoply of laws passed in recent years to protect water quality, fish, the environment and other interests.

Under the FERC licensing system, the Interior Department and at least four other federal agencies responsible for protecting public lands and enforcing environmental laws can impose mandatory changes on the way a hydropower system operates as a condition of renewing the license.

Also, states can impose water quality conditions. And courts have held that “water quality” extends beyond physical characteristics to include the amount of water released, possible recreational uses and other factors.

Mandatory conditions may include such things as elaborate--and expensive--systems for helping fish get around power dams. “Fishways” for trout are a major issue at higher elevations in the Sierra, where many California hydro projects are located.

With so many issues and so many viewpoints to be considered, the relicensing process is slow and costly--an average of almost four years from start to finish.

Officials in the private hydropower industry argue that the process acts as a drag on greater exploitation of water power. The industry and the Bush administration are lobbying for a more streamlined renewal process, but drastic changes seem unlikely this year.

The House, as part of its omnibus energy bill, has passed a compromise licensing measure that makes only modest changes. The situation in the Senate remains uncertain, but a sea change is not expected there either.