Case Ext.

NEW HYDROPOWER FUNDING IS KEY TO SUCCESS

Bruce Howard, Director, Environmental Affairs Avista Corporation., “EXPLORING

HYDROPOWER’S ROLE AS A CONTINUED SOURCE OF CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY
FOR THE FUTURE”, June 12, 2008. Transcript of Hearing at the House of Reps,
Accessed: June 24, 2008, http://nwriverpartners.org/documents/testimony_howard-
Avista-6-12-08.pdf

Federal support for hydropower research and development (R&D) has been
minimal to non-existent for many years. This needs to change if we are to tap
the full potential for the use of new technology at conventional hydropower
facilities, as well as the many benefits that can be obtained from the new
hydrokinetic technologies. New R&D investments in hydropower are
essential. Congress took an important first step in support of hydropower R&D by
appropriating $10 million in FY 2008. Avista strongly supports NHA’s efforts to
expand this funding to $54 million in FY 2009. Hydropower needs a vigorous and
well-funded federal energy R&D program in order to achieve its full potential.
ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR HYDROPOWER IS CUT.

Mark Clayton, Staff writer.“US to cut funds for two renewable energy sources”.
Christian Science Monitor, September 15, 2006. Lexis

But renewable energy advocates may have to kiss goodbye those and other
research projects. The US Department of Energy (DOE) is quitting the
hydropower and geothermal power research business - if Congress will let it.

Declaring them "mature technologies" that need no further funding, the Bush
administration in its FY 2007 budget request eliminates hydropower and
geothermal research, venerable programs with roots in the energy crises of the
1970s.

"What we do well is research and funding of new, novel technologies," says Craig
Stevens, chief spokesman for the DOE. "From a policy perspective, geothermal and
hydro are mature technologies. We believe the market can take the lead on this at
this point."

Still, "zeroing out" such research could end up being a penny-wise, pound-foolish
move, some energy advocates say. Any savings from the cuts would be nil since all
of the nearly $24 million ($1 million from hydropower and $23 million from
geothermal) research funding would go to other programs such as biofuels.

"I'm just astonished the department would zero out these very small existing
budgets for geothermal and hydro - it makes no sense at all," says V. John
White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Technologies, an environmental group based in Sacramento, Calif. "These are very
important resources for our energy future that could replace the need for a lot of
coal-fired power plants."
HYDROPOWER IS EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE IN SOLVING
EMISSIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, AND BENEFIT ALL
PEOPLES.

Ian C. Porte, the World Bank Country Director for Lao PDR and Thailand. The Nation Thailand.
“Sustainable hydropower benefits all”. September 7, 2007. Lexis

Hydropower, for example, can be one of the most efficient and cost-effective
ways to generate renewable energy; it does not produce the same harmful
emissions as fossil fuels, such as natural gas, oil or coal. It can also reduce the
impacts of catastrophic events such as floods and drought. In this way, hydro
shows it can be globally beneficial.If soundly implemented, hydropower projects
can also improve environmental management while mitigating impacts, and
can help improve the living standards of the local people. Hydro can thus
benefit local communities. Moreover, sustainable hydropower can provide
enduring economic benefits through sustained revenue flows that can allow
countries like the Lao PDR to reduce poverty and ensure benefits to all its
citizens. Hydro can have countrywide benefits.

HYDROELECTRICITY IS THE OVERALL BEST OPTION WHEN IT COMES

TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Peter Bowyer, Professor of Physics at Cambridge University, “Weighing up the

benefits against the environmental disadvantages, is it feasible or desirable for
hydroelectric power to be developed on a muchlarger scale in the future?”
http://peter.mapledesign.co.uk/writings/physics/2005_Hydroelectric_Power_Feasible_
or_Desirable.pdf

The energy of flowing water is the most readily available, renewable, and clean
domestic source of electricity that we have right now. It is available in most parts of
the country that have high rainfall and mountainous areas. In terms of total
production, hydropower is America's leading renewable energy resource; it is
more reliable and efficient and less expensive than geothermal, biomass,
wind, and solar energy. Perhaps most important, it is a clean source of power--
it produces no carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, or any other air
emissions. In addition, it produces no solid or liquid wastes. Hydropower is also
one of the least expensive sources of electricity in the United States. For
every kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced by a hydropower plant, only
0.6 cents is needed to finance its operation and maintenance. By
comparison, these costs at nuclear and coal plants are 2.2 cents/kWh and
2.1 cents/kWh, respectively. Our own region, the Tennessee Valley, has the
benefit of low electrical rates primarily because a high percentage of its electricity
comes from hydropower.

CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS SOLVE THE IMPACTS OF FLOODS.

Duane Castaldi et al. Center for Advanced Undergraduate Studies and Experience at
the University of Pennsylvania State. “A Study of Hydroelectric Power:: From a
Global Perspective to a Local Application”, 2003
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~elsworth/courses/cause2003/finalprojects/vikingpaper.pdf

The human-environment is also positively impacted by such large-scale

projects with flood control. A significant reason why the Three Gorges Dam
was not stopped despite the environmental hazards was the benefits to
those living downstream. The Chinese government claimed that over 15 million
lives would be saved downstream with flood control measures being put in
place (China Online, 2000). Some proponents of hydroelectricity have pushed the
issue of increased recreation as a benefit to society. It is true that by turning a river
into a lake a park can be built around the dam for campers, boaters and whoever
else wants to use the lake. However, this may not be as beneficial as it seems in the
United States. The United States already has a plentiful supply of lakes to use for
recreational purposes but has few remaining rivers free of obstruction and still able
to flow freely (Thorndike, 1976). Therefore, the recreational argument in favor of
hydroelectric power is not very useful as many nearby residents will not want to see
a free flowing river stopped in favor of a large reservoir.