State Planning OFFICE 'hides' ? Reports documenting the potential of HYDROPOWER to deliver power for UNDERONE cent/KwH.

I spent yesterday afternoon in the State House researching out hydropower. With the help of a legislative reference librarian I got 18 pp. of energy related bills and two critical documents inventorying small hydropower sites in Maine.

In 1982, the State planning office prepared the MAINE COMPREHENSIVE HYDRO PLAN; it was updated in 1992; but 'apparently' not in 2002.  The report identified a total of 700.734 MW of capacity---unlike wind, almost always entirely realized 24/7; four generating facilities on the Androscoggin accounted for 85.59 MW!

. “There are many operational advantages of hydropower. The average useful life of a hydropower facility is well over 50 years. Indeed, Maine is home to several large hydro facilities which will exceed this average (and the term of their licenses) in providing reliable electricity. The non-existent fuel cost and the low operating and maintenancecosts of Hydropower usually offset the high initial capital costs.

THE AMORTIZED HYDRO FACILITIES THAT OPERATE IN MAINE ARE AS CLOSE AS WE COME TO PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES!”  

**Gov. Le Page needs to make this into a sign!

It was full of other astounding quotes:

                                                               i.     Pg. 6 identified 38.0 MW at “new dams currently in the Licensing and Permitting Process”; 158.48 MW “Potential at Undeveloped Sites  (notspecifically protected under Maine law); 57.60 MW “Incremental Capacity atExisting Generating Dams in process of relicensing; and 43.27  “potentialat existing dams not currently in Licensing..”

                                                            ii.     “The future for hydro development is still promising in thecontext of its value as a least cost energy option. FOR MOST UTILITIES WHICH OPERATE HYDRO PROJECTS, EXISTING HYDRO IS STILL THE LEAST COST ENERGY OPTION ATLESS THAN ONE CENT PER KILOWATT HOUR.” Pg. 6.

                                                           iii.     “The proposed purchase of up to 900 Megawatts of power from HydroQuebec over the period 1992-2020 …..would have provided Maine with a fairlyreliable energy  supply at a predictable price for nearly 30 years. In theend the PUC rejected the Hydro-quebec proposal based on the rationale that itwas not the least cost alternative. The environmental impacts of the proposed power line---see SYSCO rationale above, and doubts over the local need for thepower, by those who would be adversely affected by the power-line, were alsofactors…” p. 11

                                                          iv.     “In the foreseeable future, self-generation is a potential medium by which hydro development could increase in Maine. REAL DEMAND FOR NEW   HYDRO SUPPLY IN MAINE MAY BE GENERATED BY BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY WHICH REQUIRESON-SITE ENERGY….HYDRO CAN, AS IT ALWAYS HAS, PROVIDE AN INFLATION FREE SOURCEOF POWER IN SITUATIONS WHICH REQUIRE A SOURCE OF INEXPENSIVE ENERGY……MAINE’SHYDRO ENERGY RESOURCES ARE A DISTINGUISHING FEATURE AND COULD SERVE TO ATTRACTBUSINESS AND INDUSTRY WITH A PENCHANT FOR SELF-GENERATION.” P. 11

                                                            v.     “The total hydro potential for Maine (at sites not protected by the 1983 Rivers Act) is approximately 367 MW of capacity” p. 9

                                                          vi.     “New hydropower development, which can directly displacefossil-fuel generated electricity, could contribute in small degree to thesolution of the global warming problem… DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROPOWER SHOULDCONTINUE TO BE ENCOURAGED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE MAINE RIVERS ACT AND WHICH REQUIRES A BALANCE BETWEEN FISHERIES, RECREATIONAL AND HYDROPOWER ISSUES IN THE PERMITTING OF THE REMAINING SITES.” P. 9.

This report was preceded by a 1989 M.S.Planning Office report done by Jim Sysco on the FEASIBILITY OF MAINE'S SMALL HYDRO POTENTIAL.

What makes this report so significant is that Sysco introduced a rating scheme that included a co-efficient rating the degree of environmental impact each hydro site presented. BUT HE ONLY FACTORED IN NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND  NOT POSITIVE ONES!

To make this grievous omission even worse was his explanation that since most of Maine has a negative view of hydro power he took a 'conservative' tact and left out the many positive aspects, i.e. recreation, fishery, tax revenue from shoreline properties, flood control, water supply, water quality improvement, etc.....ALL WERE LEFT OUT; so every site had a negative impact consistent with environmental advocates pushing wind and solar options.

  I read the copies in the legislative library, made copies of the pp. in the 1992 report and run into a xerox machine problem so stopped; figuring I'll just go over to the new location of the State Planning office on Union(?) street and get my own copies......Got blank stares from several people who 'helped' me.  Finally, spoke with someone who had a corner office and worked for Silkman...he drew a blank as well, but promised to look into the situation. The Two critical reports documenting Maine's hydro potential are missing and even worse forgotten; NO WONDER ALL WE HEAR ABOUT IS WIND!  No-one has even read the analysis of our major energy resource; let alone the PUC decision on turning down a 30 year agreement with Quebec---was Kurt Adams involved in this too?

ACTION: Contact Rep. Stacy Fitts who chairs the Energy Committee and his co-chair, Sen. Thibodeau and DEMAND that the plan be UPDATED; sites data based, and Sysco's rational revised so it is balanced and fair! 

If you need a read out of the 'energy' bills you can contact the new staffer for the Committee, Kristen Gottlieb at 7-4143, room 211 CB or use the legislative library's computer system to run a 'bill tracking and text search'....beware I got 18 pp. of titles....you have to read them to see how many deal with promoting wind to the exclusion of other modalities.