Yes: Summer Spill Costly, Ineffectiveby Don Brunell and Shane Scott
Seattle Times - April 15, 2004
A step in the right direction. That's how we'd characterize a federal proposal to suspend the August portion of "summer spill" on four dams on the Snake and lower Columbia rivers.
Currently, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) spends $77 million on summer spill during July and August to save 24 threatened fall chinook. That's more than $3 million per fish. Now, federal agencies want to suspend spill during the month of August over the next three years and implement alternatives to protect migrating salmon.
Even under the current proposal, we're still going to spend roughly $40 million a year to save 12 of these fish — that's not a balanced approach. Nonetheless, the federal compromise deserves our support because it's moving in the right direction. It implements alternatives that will produce more fish and allow more electricity to be produced, which benefits everyone through lower energy prices.
However, we can — and should — do more. According to recent scientific studies, eliminating summer spill entirely in favor of proven alternatives could save $75 million a year and put an additional 50,000 adult salmon in the rivers each year.
Everyone agrees we should save Northwest salmon runs. In fact, BPA's ratepayers have spent more than $6 billion over the years on fish programs. But summer spill is the most expensive and least effective fish-passage method in use.
Spill was started in the 1990s to get fish past dams without going through the turbines. Spill does not change the amount of water in the river, it just sends the water through a different part of the dam.
While the name "summer spill" sounds benign, the experience is not. Operators open an underwater "gate" in the dam, pulling fish 30 to 50 feet deeper in the water, then propelling them through the gate into the turbulent water on the other side of the dam. Some of them die, and many end up injured and disoriented, making them vulnerable to predators.
In fact, the survival rate for "spilled" salmon is only slightly better than for the fish that go through the turbines. But because spill diverts water that could otherwise be used to generate electricity, it is the most expensive method of fish passage.
Recent federal studies confirm that "summer spill," implemented during July and August, saves only about 24 adult, Endangered Species Act-threatened fish a year, because by late summer, 90 percent of the fall chinook salmon the spill is supposed to help are already past the dams and far downstream.
There is a better way. Two alternatives to summer spill identified by federal experts could increase adult salmon populations by more than 50,000 fish a year for less than $2 million:
By eliminating summer spill and implementing proven alternatives, we can increase salmon populations and reduce the cost of electricity in the Pacific Northwest. Why are lower electric rates important? Simply put, high-priced electricity kills jobs, a connection made painfully clear during the 2001 energy crisis.
(BPA estimates that reduced spill could provide a 2% decrease in electricity rates.)
The current federal proposal is a good first step, and we're confident the results will support further spill reductions in the future. Eliminating summer spill entirely is the answer. It's better for the salmon and for us.
bluefish does the math for your convenience: BPA estimates that eliminating summer spill would provide 1.15 - 1.49 million Megawatt*hours (MWh) of "surplus" electricity to sell (typically to California) at an estimated average price of $32/MWh (yielding $37 - $46 million). Prices of course will vary with time of day and electricity market conditions. BPA estimates that elimination of summer spill could potentially provide a 2% electricity rate reduction.
BPA Deal Meets Goal at Big Cost by Jeff Manning, The Oregonian, 4/11/4
learn more on topics covered in the film
see the video
read the script
learn the songs