Green Acre Radio: State has first new hydro plant in two decades
At a time when dams are being torn down, a new hydro facility in Snohomish County is designed to provide renewable power and address climate change
Snohomish County PUD
When it comes to dams most news is focused on the ones being torn down. But some say building new hydropower holds promise for the state’s clean energy future. In Snohomish County, a new mini-hydropower plant has just opened at Young’s Creek near Sultan.
Click on the audio player above or here to listen.
A crowd gathers in the powerhouse of the state’s first new hydropower plant in nearly 20 years. It’s time to flip the switch at a plant called Young’s Creek near Sultan. The 7.5 megawatt plant will generate power for some 2,000 homes. Kim Moore with Snohomish Public Utility District points to a valve on a 10- by 5-foot turbine and tells the crowd to prepare for a very loud sound. “It will start turning the shaft so once you hear the water come through you can watch the shaft. The first time it comes through slowly and then faster and faster."
Getting up to speed with renewable resources that leave a small footprint is the endgame here. In addition to hydropower, the Snohomish PUD is focused on conservation and energy efficiency measures like solar panels. They’re exploring tidal power. Dave Aldrich is president of Snohomish PUD’s Board. “We also have some mountains and underneath the mountains there’s a ring of fire so we’re exploring geothermal.” Aldrich says the board believes the science on climate change and recognizes the need to generate power locally. “Much of it is based on economic risk and the uncertainty. So by adopting a green portfolio we will avoid economic risk in the event that taxes are imposed on carbon or there’s a cap and trade."
Sixty-five percent of energy in the state is generated by hydropower, much from dams with a bad rap for their impact on stream flows and fish migration. In the case of the new hydropower plant at Young’s Creek, the utility has the support of state and federal agencies as well as the Tulalip Tribe. Daryl Williams is the tribe’s environmental liason. “This entire project is above the area that salmon migrate through.” The creek holds resident trout but minimum stream flows will be set to maintain those populations. “The project will primarily be operating during the wet season when there’s excess flows that can be used for power that the fish don’t really need.” Energy to operate the tribe’s casino is one Snohomish Public Utility District’s biggest demands. “We consume a lot of power on our reservation. I’d prefer it be this over power generated from fossil fuels.”
After showing off the infrastructure required to run the new plant — a turbine made in England, a shutoff valve in France, pipes from California, and control systems and computers made in nearby Monroe — it’s time to check out the new intake or dam located 900 feet uphill. It’s located above a natural barrier, a waterfall, so as not to impact migrating fish. The utility district’s Kim Moore says three features help protect the environment. One is a sluice gate. “At a period of high flows we will open that and let all the gravel go down, which is a requirement of the regulatory agencies and helps the fisheries. Over here we have a minimum instream flow and that makes sure we pass enough water to protect the resident trout.” The amount of water the plant can use is determined by the Department of Ecology, says Moore, 120 cubic feet per second or CFS. “At times this creek will flow at five and six hundred CFS. So at high times, probably 15 percent or 20 percent of the time, we can’t take all the water.”
But not everyone thinks building a new hydropower plant, no matter how small, is ecologically sound. Darcy Nonemacher is with American Rivers, a non-profit that works to restore salmon runs and keep water healthy. They favor new hydropower only if it means upgrading existing dams. “Any new dam, regardless of size is going to have an impact. The megawatts that you get from hydropower and from new dams in particular is very small and you’re really changing and altering a river system and its function.” Nonemacher points out that the impact of the Elwa dams on fish runs and the environment was far larger than the 19 megawatts produced. Referring to the power the new Young’s Creek dam will generate, “Seven megawatts is a very small amount of energy. I think there’s an important question about whether that energy could have been generated elsewhere.” Initiative 937, passed in 2009, requires public utilities have 3 percent qualifying renewables by 2012 and 15 percent by 2020. A new hydropower plant is considered non-qualifying, while retrofitting an existing one qualifying. Snohomish PUD’s qualifying renewable portfolio includes 8 percent wind and 3 percent biomass. They upgraded an existing dam at Woods Creek north of Monroe but have no other hydro projects currently on the table.
Green Acre Radio is supported by the Human Links Foundation. Engineering by CJ Lazenby. Produced through the Jack Straw Foundation and KBCS.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!











Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Nov 2, 9:46 a.m. Inappropriate
This article could have used more facts and especially context, and less Snohomish PUD press release.
Seven megawatts? Maybe, but for how long? That number is only at peak flow in June, for a week or two. The "power" rating for a dam is meaningless, it is only "energy" that counts (power over time.) On that count, these low power hydro schemes fail miserably. Much of the year they produce little or nothing. Youngs Creek is barely a trickle after the snow in its small watershed melts. Power for 2000 homes? Maybe during those two weeks in June when NW utilities are giving power away, or paying others to take it. Notice they don't say "energy." This project will produce very little energy over the course of the year. But the PUD won't tell you that.
The real threat from these schemes is that they could spread all over the Cascades. Snohomish PUD is already trying to put these things on Calligan and Hancock Creeks in the North Fork Snoqualmie and elsewhere. The article's statement to the contrary is dead wrong. Other developers have their eyes on just about anyplace where water runs downhill. Even if every single one of them were built, it would not equal the energy produced by just one of the big existing dams - not even close. Because of mandated power purchasing, these projects make money for the builders, but quite often end up as a net cost to NW ratepayers in general. BPA is forced to buy their power during brief period they produce it at high runoff, when there is no demand or need for it. Some people might call it a "scam."
If they spread they could turn the Cascades into something more resembling Switzerland. Virtually every stream there has been put into a pipe. The sound of falling water, so omnipresent here as to give the Cascades their very name, is largely absent there, and it's creepy. While our existing protected areas would hopefully keep that from happening to the same extent here, much of the Cascades are still vulnerable.
Don't believe everything you hear from an operation like Snohomish PUD. Widespread ignorance of basic physics allows them to get away with many half truths, or worse. They have the word "public" in their name, but in many cases there is little difference from any other private profit seeker in the way they run themselves.
Water in our Cascades should cascade over rocks, not run through pipes.
Posted Wed, Nov 2, 11:46 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm also interested in this:
We also have some mountains and underneath the mountains there’s a ring of fire so we’re exploring geothermal.
Any details?
Posted Thu, Nov 3, 12:58 p.m. Inappropriate
The problem with geothermal has been that they pump water down into to rocks to warm it, and then back out. If the rocks are actually on a seismic fault line, the extra water tends to lubricate the rocks sufficiently to cause small earthquakes. Whether it's good or bad depends on your view. If you'd rather it not move during your lifetime, it's bad, if you realize that it will move anyway eventually and it might as well be now, it's ok.
But it's not totally without environmental cost. (Where the environment might be your local house or buildings.)
Posted Fri, Nov 4, 1:30 p.m. Inappropriate
There are certainly downsides to small scale hydro, but given the current global energy picture including the downsides of oil it is a realistic option and demonizing the innovators is not the answer. I say that as a long time advocate of free flowing rivers, my profile picture on this site was shot during a solo descent of the Middle Fork of the Salmon in an open canoe for my 40th year on this planet.
Putting every large creek in a pipe is a concern, but the State has strong traditions of both wilderness protection and very well managed multiple use forests and I think we are up to the task, probably better than most others...
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.