Floating questions about Sunset Falls hydroelectric plans

After more than four years of study and $6.5 million spent so far, the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) Board of Commissioners indicated last week it may be time for a deeper discussion on the financial viability of the Sunset Falls Fish Passage and Energy Project.

The Sunset Falls Fish Passage and Energy Project is a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project proposed for the south fork of the Skykomish River near Index. Meant to help the PUD address its future power needs, the project would reroute water from the Skykomish River through a series of subterranean tunnels blasted out of bedrock using controlled dynamite charges. The rerouted water would divert to a powerhouse at the base of Sunset Falls, creating a 1.1-mile bypass reach between the intake site and the base of the falls.  

The PUD filed its Draft License Application (DLA) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in January. Data presented last week shows that the PUD estimates another $3.1 million will be needed to take the project all the way through the licensing and permitting process, with final design and construction estimated at $149 million.

Power generation estimates range from 1.1 to 24.1 megawatts per month, depending on the time of year.

Discussion about the project took place during the commission meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 23, on the heels of a presentation on the district’s future power needs as identified during the utility’s 2015 Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process. Commissioner Toni Olson asked Commissioners David Aldrich and Kathy Vaughn if it wasn’t time for a deeper discussion on the project’s financial feasibility.

Numerous project opponents were in the audience, several giving public comment. Uniquely, the meeting included much interaction between the commissioners and constituents, with additional input provided by PUD general manager Craig Collar.

Lynne Kelly has lived in a cabin a quarter-mile from Sunset Falls for around 30 years. A longtime opponent, she reminded commissioners that the river is currently protected from future hydroelectric development by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. She added the only the way the council will grant an exception is if the project clearly demonstrates a benefit to fish and wildlife.

“I think it’s very clear that it isn’t,” Kelly said. “The Snoqualmie and Tulalip tribes have asked FERC to deny the license based on these adverse effects, and I would like to know when you're going to bring the Northwest Power and Conservation Council into the equation.”

Kelly’s statement is confirmed in the council’s April comment on the DLA. The south fork is designated as a protected area because of its anadromous fish values, and an exception would not be granted by the council unless the petitioner (PUD) could demonstrate the project would provide exceptional benefits for fish and wildlife.

Her testimony is further confirmed in the Snoqualmie Tribe’s April 27 comment on the DLA, which states, “The Tribe finds the proposed project unacceptable due to its impacts to irreplaceable natural and cultural resources and urges the FERC to deny the application.”

Comments by the Tulalip Tribes echoed the sentiment.

“The Tribes have raised concerns that the proposal will adversely affect their treaty reserved rights,” wrote Environmental Liaison Daryl Williams. “Additionally, the District’s proposal will result in the illegal take of Chinook and bull trout species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Tulalip Tribes respectfully requests that you deny this application.”

PUD engineering manager Brad Spangler said the agency hasn’t applied for the exception yet because it’s premature. He further explained that the FERC is not bound by the council’s designation, but it has indicated it will take the council’s input into consideration. 

Aldrich was frustrated with the uncertainly about the council’s exception process, and asked if there was any way to obtain a preliminary evaluation to determine if the project would even qualify for an exception. He questioned whether the project satisfies the council’s criteria.

“In a nutshell, yes,” Spangler said. “I believe the project does satisfy the criteria for exceptional benefit.”

The assertion drew audible disagreement.

Collar said the petition for an exception by the council would culminate during the Final Licensing Application (FLA) process, tentatively slated for later this year. They will engage with stakeholders to determine appropriate mitigation, he said.

“If we’re not successful at doing that, the application will be a failure and the project will not get licensed,” Collar said. “That's the process.”

Comments by Williams indicated that the tribes are having a difficult time seeing the exceptional benefit. He talked more about the council, which was formed in conjunction with the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, passed by Congress in 1980. The act, which established a network of streams to be protected from hydroelectric development, was meant to mitigate the impacts of hydropower on fish and wildlife while ensuring a reliable, affordable energy supply.

“The FERC doesn't necessarily fall under the requirements of the Northwest Power Act but they do listen to what the council has to say,” Williams said. “To date, I don’t think they've overridden a decision by the council.”

Williams said while the project offers improvements at the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Trap and Haul facility next to Sunset Falls, those enhancements don’t change the fact that they have deep concerns about the survival rate of adult steelhead and juvenile salmon as they migrate back down the falls after spawning. It’s a big question mark, he said, which is offsetting the benefit of the upgraded trap and haul facility.   

“The tribes are still at the table with PUD trying to figure out how the project could work, but we’re really not seeing a way to get there at this point,” Williams said.

Dr. Pete Rainey faulted the PUD for what he considers a failure to adequately consider the implications of climate change, and for basing its power generation figures in the DLA on an assumed flow of 250 cubic feet per second (CFS).

“This is a violation of Washington state law,” Rainey said.

State law mandates minimum instream flows, which are established by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Instream flows have long been a sticking point with opponents, who have repeatedly noted that in its DLA, the PUD proposed flows in the bypass reach that are lower than those established in the code. In an April 1 letter dated, Ecology stated that any deviation from the mandates would require a formal rule change, and it had no plans to amend the code.

Minimum instream flows for the south fork vary from 450 to 1,250 CFS, depending on the time of year. In its April 27 comments on the DLA, Ecology stated, “The proposed project must stay in compliance with state water quality standards during construction as well as during project operation.”

Longtime opponent Rebecca Wolfe brought up recent efforts to add small hydro to the list of renewable resources stipulated in Initiative 937, a clean energy initiative passed by voters in 2006 that requires large utility companies to obtain a certain percentage of their power from renewable resources. Meant to be incremental, the measure ensures that 15 percent of a major utility’s power load will be obtained through renewable resources by 2020.

Wind, tidal and solar are considered renewable resources. Hydro was excluded from the law.

Wolfe said she is aware that the PUD has been working behind the scenes to change the law, so small hydro would be considered a renewable energy resource.

“We oppose that and we are going to continue to oppose that,” Wolfe said. “Conservationists do not want endangered streams with endangered fish to become eligible for renewable energy credits.”

The Skykomish River has numerous protections over it and is protected for a reason, Wolfe said.

“It’s not just that we’re passionate,” she said. “We really care about our natural resources, as much as people, because if we don’t have our natural resources, our people are going to suffer eventually.”

As the morning session came to a close, Olson said she looked forward to continuing similar dialogue as they move forward with Integrated Resource Planning this fall. At some point, she said, she might ask her fellow commissioners to entertain a request to hire an outside entity to examine the Sunset Falls project and analyze the work done to date.

It may be something they need to consider at a later time, she said.

“There are a lot of uncertainties around the economics of the project, and that’s why I’ve been raising this issue,” Olson said. “I’m uncertain about the need for the power or if there aren’t other alternatives, better alternatives, that weren’t known 10 years ago and that may be more viable today.”

For more information about the Sunset Falls Fish Passage and Energy Project, visit www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hydro.ashx.