How The Northwest
Hydroelectric System Works

By focusing on some major characteristics of hydroelectric projects, attributes that both bind and distinguish projects can be further defined. For more information about how the river system supports flood control, irrigation, navigation and recreation, visit the section "What Makes The Columbia River Basin Unique and How We Benefit." A link to this section is provided at the end of this narrative piece.

Types of Hydroelectric Projects

Within the Northwest, hydroelectric projects can generally be placed in two major categories: storage and run-of-river projects. At a storage project, there is a reservoir (which is sometimes called a lake). For instance Lake Roosevelt is the reservoir that stores water behind the Grand Coulee Dam.

The key to a storage project is the ability to adjust the river's natural flow patterns to more closely mirror when electricity is in greatest demand. For example, more water is released to generate electricity in the morning hours when lights are turned on and hot showers are taken.

Storage projects also help adjust flow patterns because water does not flow through the river system at the same rate twelve months a year. In fact, in the Northwest 60% of runoff occurs from May through July. By storing water in reservoirs, water can be released when supply is less plentiful during the late summer, fall and winter months. Storing water is also helpful in meeting irrigation and flood control needs.

Run-of-river projects, on the other hand, allow water to pass through a facility at about the same rate the river is flowing. Generally, such projects are relatively small in size, generating 30 MW or less of electricity. For larger run-of-river projects, water that can back-up behind them is called pondage and can vary river elevation three to five feet during normal operation. With these more mild changes in river elevation, some run-of-river projects are also able to support barge navigation over rapids and other obstacles.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and Bonneville Power Administration. The Columbia River System: The Inside Story, Portland OR, 1991, p.9

As the graphic of Storage and Run-of River Projects shows, storage projects offer greater flexibility in meeting the multiple needs of flood control, power generation, irrigation and navigation. As discussed in the environmental section, however, some of the most contentious environmental issues are associated with storage projects.

Although not common in the Northwest, pumped storage is another type of hydroelectric project. Here, some water that passes through a project is recaptured and pumped back up to a storage reservoir so it can be reused at another time.

Other distinguishing characteristics between projects are their generating capacity, location and structure. For instance, there are many more small projects (those that generate from 5 to 100 megawatts of electricity annually) than large projects (those that generate over 600 megawatts annually). Why projects differ so much in size and generating capacity largely depends on the flow rate of a river or tributary, whether a reservoir is used, the amount of elevation (head) that water is falling in order to spin a turbine, and environmental factors, such as fish passage, that affect daily operations.

In terms of a project's physical structure, a link at the end of this section takes you to the hydro tours area of the home page. There, you can see both the major parts of a project and the specific parts that allow a turbine to spin and a generator to produce electricity. The turbine seen in the tour is a Kaplan design. Other designs, like the Francis turbine, which looks like a sideways paddle wheel, can be different. The specific type of turbine used at a project depends on the particular characteristics of that river.

Likewise, the number of turbines and generators used at a project relates to the size of a river or tributary and its potential to generate electricity. And finally, the environmental section reviews and provides graphics for how different projects incorporate different types of bypass facilities into their structures to assist upstream and downstream fish migration.

Because there is tremendous diversity between projects, people interested in learning more about a particular project or projects should contact the owner. At both federal and non-federal projects, tours, videos and print materials are often available.

Owners and Operators of Hydroelectric Projects

A number of public and private entities own and operate hydroelectric projects in the Northwest. Indeed, who owns and operates which projects is a rich history by itself. Issues such as how to best protect and maximize the public interest, assure the multi-use nature of a river or tributary, finance the development of a project, determine appropriate use of public waterways, and work with tribal sovereignty are all part of the story. As the system matured over the past hundred years, owners and operators came to include the federal government, public utilities and private utilities.

The Federal Government: Beginning with construction of the Bonneville Dam in the 1930s, the Army Corps of Engineers began development of multiple-use water projects in the Northwest. Many of these are very large projects whose benefits often included navigation, flood control, irrigation and power generation. Currently, there are 22 such projects operated by the Corps.

The Bureau of Reclamation is another Federal agency. The Bureau developed nine projects, including the Grand Coulee Dam. These projects are also multi-use systems which, in contrast to Corps projects, came about because of the opportunity to irrigate thousands of acres of land.

Together, there are 31 federal projects that represent over 50% of the generating capacity in the Northwest.

Publicly Owned Utilities: These are utilities that are owned by the public and belong to the people they serve. Such utilities largely fall into two broad categories: municipally owned utilities and utility districts. Municipally owned utilities, like those in Seattle and Tacoma, are "arms" of city government. Policy decisions are made by the city's elected governing body or a utility board formed by the city. Projects are owned and operated with the best interest of the city in mind.

Public (called People's in Oregon) Utility Districts are referred to as PUDs. These districts are governmental corporations and formed and operated by a vote of the people. Compared to municipal utilities, the main difference is that they are not part of a larger governmental body. There are 28 hydroelectric projects that are owned and operated by PUDs. Collectively, they have a generating capacity of 5,706 megawatts of electricity.

Privately Owned Utilities: These utilities also fall into two broad catagories. The first is privately owned utilities which are shareholder-owned corporations. Shareholders bear the risk of bonds needed to build facilities and on-going operational costs. Whether shareholders live in the area being served or not, they also receive the benefit of profits that are made by a project's efficient operation. In the Northwest, investor owned utilities operate over 50 projects that generate 10 or more megawatts of electricity annually. They have a generating capacity of 4,145 megawatts of electricity.

The second category is independent power producers, which are privately owned companies established for the purpose of generating power. A federal law passed in 1978 assisted these producers by requiring utilities to purchase power from them if the price reflected what would have been paid if the utilitiy had to develop additional generating capacity on its own. This law was specifically designed to encourage development of small-scale cogeneration and renewable resource projects like hydropower.

Ownership of hydroelectric projects also includes irrigation districts and cooperatives. These projects are not large and account for only a small amount of the hydropower that is generated in the Northwest.

Depending on whether projects are federally, publicly or privately owned, their mission, interaction with the public they serve, and the effect of various regulations can vary dramatically. Examples include options for how the public can influence a project's operation, what agency authorizes and regulates a project's operation, and how power is brought from a generation facility to homes and businesses. In short, ownership and operation is quite diverse and makes issues related to coordination and cooperation more complex.

How Hydroelectric Projects Are Regulated

Over the last hundred years, a set of complex laws, treaties and agreements were enacted to guide the operations of hydroelectric projects. And those responsible for carrying out these laws, treaties and agreements include not only the owners of hydroelectric projects, but federal, state, local and tribal agencies. In addition, there are a host of non-government organizations that utilize the river in one way or another. These organizations actively work to influence how projects operate and how laws, treaties and agreements are carried out.

To understand the regulatory structure, it is helpful to follow two tracks of activity. One track is concerned with development and regulation of public and private utilities. What is now referred to as the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC) started with the Federal Power Act of 1930. By establishing a commission that could choose to issue or not issue a license for building and operating a project, the federal government began to regulate how hydropower could best be integrated into comprehensive development of public waterways.

Licenses, which are granted for up to 50 years, seek to protect the public's interest by assuring a balance between a facility's operation, the multi-use nature of a river and environmental concerns. The commission's regulatory authority also grew over time because of a series of laws concerning the environment and how hydroelectric projects can generate and transmit electricity.

Some of these laws are briefly described in the glossary section. Over the past 60 years, some of the most important federal laws include the Flood Control Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Water Resources Planning Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Electric Consumers Protection Act, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), the Public Utility Company Holding Act (PUCHA), the Energy Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. A number of state and local laws also began to affect hydropower operations.

As many of these laws took effect, the relationship between those who owned and operated projects and FERC was considered relatively calm until the late 1960s. Since then, more stringent environmental laws began being enacted, the production and distribution of electricity became increasingly deregulated, and the process for "relicensing" projects began as the original licenses started to expire. For instance, during the 1990's 34 licenses were scheduled to expire in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. Still more are scheduled to expire during the next 10 years.

In concert with enacting environmental laws has also come increased regulation from state and local water, fish and wildlife agencies. For instance, in 1994 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states have the authority under the Clean Water Act to establish minimum streamflows at hydro projects. Such authority can significantly affect how a project operates and the amount of electricity it can generate. In addition to the state and local regulatory agencies being mentioned, a listing of federal and state agencies that may become involved includes the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.

On a second track is development of the federally owned and operated systems. Rather than receiving licenses, these systems receive authorizing legislation from the United States Congress to develop and operate projects. Because such authorization generally does not provide specific guidelines, the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation rely on their agency charters, interaction with the public and applicable federal laws and treaties to guide their operation.

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) also plays a critical role in federal operation of projects. Created in 1937, BPA markets and distributes power generated at federal dams in the region. BPA also builds and operates transmission lines that bring this power to market. These transmission lines extend over 15,012 circuit miles, accounting for three-fourths of the region's transmission capacity, and can be used (for a fee) by all generators of hydropower.

Like public and private utilities, how federal projects are now operated and regulated is being dramatically impacted by new legislation and environmental laws. In the case of BPA, its charter was expanded in 1980 to finance conservation programs and improve fish and wildlife resources affected by power projects. Since that time, BPA has spent over a billion dollars on conservation, fish and wildlife programs. These expenditures include funding the cost of the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation to modify their facilities to assist fish and wildlife. Funding for these programs has been absorbed by BPA's annual budget, which is funded through its sale of power.

BPA's funding of fish and wildlife activities is also guided by the Northwest Power Planning Council. The Council was formed as part of The Northwest Power Act of 1980. Two of the Council's most important functions are to 1) forecast how much energy the region will need over a 20-year period and develop a power plan to meet those needs, and 2) develop plans to protect, mitigate and enhance the region's fish and wildlife species.

Within this context, the Council develops, updates and monitors a fish and wildlife program. But because the Council is a planning, policy-making and reviewing body, it does not directly fund or implement projects. Rather, the Council relies on BPA, the Corps, the Bureau of Reclamation, FERC and public and private utilities to carry out the program.

This complex mix of regulatory authorities has become even more complex as the effect of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is felt in the Columbia River basin. Specifically, in the early 1990s the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) acted on its authority to place salmon species on the endangered species list. Under actions required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS was then required to prepare a "biological opinion" on any proposed federal action that may adversely affect a threatened or endangered species and/or its habitat. Further, the ESA requires the development of recovery plans for threatened and endangered species. Federal agencies that operate hydroelectric projects must then consult with NMFS each year to ensure that their actions will not further the decline of species that have been listed as endangered.

By carrying out the requirements of the ESA, the 1995 Biological Opinions released by NMFS and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service became the driving force for the System Operation Review (SOR) that was released by the Corps, the Bureau of Reclamation and BPA. The SOR is a critical piece of developing system-wide plans for federally owned projects, establishing guidelines for these projects to continue coordinated activities with non-federal projects, and for allowing public input into system planning.

Finally, Indian tribes play a crucial role in the regulatory process because of their sovereignty and treaties that provide them with water rights, including access to and the taking of fish from the river. As a result, the tribes are an essential piece of both appropriate planning for multiple use of the river, operation of hydroelectric projects, and development of associated fish and wildlife programs. Examples of tribal agencies and coalitions involved are the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the Upper Columbia United Tribes.

And for every agency involved in regulating the system, it is important to remember there are many more non-government authorities trying to influence this process. Groups and organizations range from industry and tribal associations, to environmental advocates, to commercial fisheries, to service organizations representing various recreational interests, e.g.-- fishing and boating.

As complex as all these interactions are, for the Columbia to be used effectively as a multiple purpose system, coordination must and does occur throughout the Basin.

Treaties and Agreements: Pulling The Pieces Together

Although diversity is a hallmark of how hydroelectric projects operate, they must work together to maximize efficiency. One way to think about this is to imagine that all projects in the system had a single owner. That owner would synchronize operations to maximize power production while meeting flood control, navigation, irrigation, recreation, and environmental needs. Coordinated operations also provide benefits such as supplying surplus power to a utility experiencing an emergency because of transmission lines or turbines that are shut down.

Beyond thinking and acting as one, the operational key to achieving maximum efficiency and flexibility is storage. In the Columbia River system, there are 55 million acre-feet of storage. Of this, 42 million acre-feet are available for coordinated purposes. That's enough to cover the Northwest four inches deep in water. With this storage comes the ability to hold and release water in a way that meets multiple needs while extending the time frame for when power can be generated.

Two agreements, the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement (PNCA) and the Columbia River Treaty, underpin how the system functions in a coordinated fashion. The Treaty was signed in 1961 and PNCA took effect in 1964. Both are still in place, although PNCA will end in 2003 if an extension is not negotiated.

The Columbia River Treaty brings Canada into the process as a partner. Canada is where the Columbia begins its journey and where 30 percent of its streamflow originates. With the treaty, there are two important outcomes: the ability to store more water and annual planning for river projects.

In the case of storage, three large storage projects were built in Canada and one was built in the United States. These dams more than doubled the storage capacity of the hydro system and thus introduced much greater operational flexibility. Second, the treaty requires joint annual planning for river operations. Specifically, representatives from the Corps, BPA and B.C. Hydro create one plan that takes a six-year view of storage operations and another that takes a twelve-month view.

The second agreement is the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement (PNCA), which was inspired by the Columbia River Treaty. This agreement is signed by the Bureau of Reclamation, BPA, the Corps, and 15 public and private generating utilities. With PNCA comes the ability to coordinate operations among federal, public and private owners.

At the heart of PNCA is a set of operating rules. These rules are then used to create a set of "rule curves" that govern the amount of firm energy that each project can produce during particular months. These parameters form the basis for operating like a single system.

How rule curves are set and the amount of coordination that must occur is, of course, fairly complex. The actual work is carried out by representatives from each participating utility. These representative work together as part of the Northwest Power Pool, which also helps coordinate operation and transmission concerns.

Within the context of these agreements, a host of smaller agreements among utilities then take place. The result is cooperation when desirable and competition when appropriate.

Conclusion

The Columbia River system is uniquely suited to generate an immense amount of power. This section focused on establishing some parameters to help understand how the hydroelectric system works, who is responsible for these projects, and laws and agreements that help guide operation.

As was shown, hydropower production is not uniform. Differences in ownership, structure, location and size are just a few of the distinguishing characteristics.

Added to this mix is a fairly complicated regulatory process. Regulations and the agencies that carry them out mirror the fact that the river is a multi-use system. This system responds to diverse demands and thus requires a diverse set of laws to protect the rights of those who wish to use it. And as a democratic society, there are many individuals and groups who try to influence both the creation and implementation of policies that guide how projects operate.

While such diversity exists, it is equally remarkable that system-wide coordination can and does happen. Because of such coordination, the Columbia and those who interact with it benefit greatly.

Other links in this home page that further explain the river system and how hydropower works include: What Makes The Columbia River Basin Unique and How We Benefit and Hydro Tours.

Sources used in this section include:

Echeverria, John D., Barrow, Pope, and Roos-Collins, Richard. Rivers At Risk, American Rivers, Washington D.C., 1989.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Hydroelectric Power Resources of The United States, Washington, D.C., 1992.

Foundation for Water and Energy Education. Database of federal, public and private hydroelectric projects in the Northwest. Spokane, WA, 1995.

Northwest Power Planning Council. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Portland, OR, 1994.

Public Power Council. Public Power Fundamentals: A Guide to Public Power in an Era of Competition and Environmental Awareness, Portland, OR, 1991.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bonneville Power Administration. The Columbia River System: The Inside Story, Portland, OR, 1991

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bonneville Power Administration. "Columbia River System Operation Review: A River At Work," Portland, OR, 1991.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bonneville Power Administration. "Columbia River System Operation Review: Final Environmental Impact Statement," Portland, OR, 1995.