Hands off the McKenzie

The Register Guard editorial board says the McKenzie should be kept free from further development.

It’s mildly reassuring that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has rejected a California company’s preliminary application to build nine small hydropower plants along a 34-stretch mile of the McKenzie River from just above Paradise Campground downstream to Vida.

But there’s no guarantee that Principle Power Hydro won’t soon return with an amended application that addresses the gaping deficiencies that prompted FERC to dismiss the original.

Nor is there any guarantee that other opportunistic “clean-tech” companies seeking to capitalize on Oregon’s new renewable energy portfolio standard and ratcheting pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions won’t soon besiege federal regulators with similar applications for so-called low-impact hydro projects on the McKenzie and other rivers throughout this state.

If that happens, state lawmakers should amend the renewable energy law to disqualify power from any new hydro projects other than upgrades of existing dams and other hydro facilities. Approved by the 2007 Legislature, the law requires that major utilities obtain 25 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025.

San Francisco-based Principle Power proposes a string of new hydro projects costing $6.3 million that would generate a total of 83 megawatts of power that it hopes to sell to the Eugene Water & Electric Board or other utilities.

The company, which describes itself as a “global independent power producer committed to delivering green sustainable energy products,” says it intends to minimize impacts to the McKenzie. Instead of dams and reservoirs, it proposes lower-impact “weirs and headponds” and “run of the river” projects in which that natural flow and elevation drop of the river, rather than impoundments of water, are used to generate electricity.

Sounds intriguing. And green. But these are still major hydro projects that would require diversion weirs, penstocks or canals, powerhouses and turbines, transmission lines and access roads. Principle Power provided no specifics on design or the locations of individual hydro projects — a key reason the preliminary application was rejected — but it’s clear that the impacts on the river and its users would be significant if the plants were to produce the targeted 83 megawatts of power.

By contrast, EWEB’s Carmen-Smith hydro plant on the McKenzie produces 108 megawatts, and the Leaburg and Walterville projects, both technically “run-of-the-river” projects, produce 13.5 megawatts and 9 megawatts, respectively.

Principle Power CEO Alla Weinstein says her company’s goal is “a win-win solution involving the users of the river and the need for the inhabitants of the planet to generate as much renewable energy as possible.” But her company’s proposal would have an imposing and unacceptable impact on an iconic river that already has been stressed to the limit by development and hydropower projects.

Even if FERC were to approve an amended application, it’s doubtful that Principle Power could clear the remaining regulatory hurdles, including the requisite water quality permit from the state. It’s also unlikely that the McKenzie’s many and ardent advocates — from fishermen and hikers to river guides and whitewater enthusiasts — would allow any further hydropower development without a legal brawl.

Oregon is no foe of hydropower; nearly two-thirds of the power generated in the Northwest comes from dams, including those on the McKenzie. But most of the prime spots for hydropower were long ago developed, and the few that are left should remain that way to protect fish habitat, migration routes, water quality and recreation.

Some prime opportunities remain for retrofitting existing dams for power production — a local example is the Fall Creek Dam, which was built for flood control in the 1960s and is being considered for conversion to power production. But proposals for entirely new hydro projects, even those eco-marketed as “low-impact,” should receive the strictest scrutiny and, more often than not, a thumbs down by government regulators.