1 / 6

Hydropower on the Upper Mississippi River

Hydropower on the Upper Mississippi River. Development Activities and Agency Coordination Upper Mississippi River Basin Association June 5, 2013. Development Trends & Status. 1980s-1990s: Substantial relicensing and new proposals Many projects in basin were 30-50 years old

marika
Download Presentation

Hydropower on the Upper Mississippi River

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hydropower on the Upper Mississippi River Development Activities and Agency Coordination Upper Mississippi River Basin Association June 5, 2013

  2. Development Trends & Status • 1980s-1990s: Substantial relicensing and new proposals • Many projects in basin were 30-50 years old • Federal incentives and energy cost projections • 2010-2012: Surge in new project proposals • Federal incentives • States’ renewable energy goals and consumer demand • New technologies • 37 projects proposed in 2011 • Late 2012 – Now: Considerable pull-back • Federal incentives removed, natural gas, planning costs • 16 projects currently proposed • 9 existing projects; 1 hydrokinetic

  3. UMRBA Primary Roles • States’ supportive hydropower’s potential as a climate-friendly, domestic energy source that is compatible with other river uses • Facilitating information sharing and collaboration • 1991 report re hydropower activities • Development potential and status within UMR basin • Federal laws and policies, including FERC processes • UMRBA ad hoc group • Created in 2010 • Information sharing, collaboration/coordination • Composition: • State natural resource, water quality, and transportation agencies • USACE, USFWS, USEPA, NPS

  4. Major Questions • FERC process: complex, relatively quick responses • Cumulative impacts to habitat, ecosystem, navigation, water quality • Potential sites in relatively close proximity • How, and to what degree, might resources be impacted • Systemic assessment, multi-project EIS • 401 water quality certifications • Approach given significant unknowns • Possible adaptive management requirement • Common information/study needs • Hydraulics, fish and wildlife, water quality (e.g., sediment resuspension), recreation, commercial navigation, cultural resources, local and regional economies

  5. Future Interest • 2012 DOE report: An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in the U.S. • Ranks UMR 2nd among HUC 2 watersheds for new potential • Melvin Price – 5 out of 100 • L&D 25 – 14 • L&D 24 – 15 • 8 dam sites – 25-38 • Senate 2013 WRDA • Determines non-federal hydropower development a priority, equal to other purposes • Directs USACE to study “promotion,” application status and process, project impacts, payments to federal agencies

  6. Questions?

More Related