Dr. Tremblay –

We certainly agree that “[t]he major environmental challenge facing North America is to replace coal to generate power and oil used in transportation.” In this regard, it is unacceptable (and baffling) that the Northern Pass project, as proposed, would result in very little or no replacement of coal-fired power, including the power plants that the principal American developer itself controls.

With respect to Northern Pass, CLF’s fundamental goal is to air a complete account of the energy and environmental implications of the project, including the GHG emissions of the power source. The American developers of Northern Pass have claimed, on numerous occasions, that generation in Canada is effectively “zero-carbon,” and HQ’s own studies contradict that claim. Moreover, a key issue is whether Northern Pass and other export efforts are driving project development, along with the elevated emissions that follow impoundment. If so (as HQ’s strategic plan states and NU’s CFO recently stated under oath), it is certainly not the complete picture to cite system GHG emissions as the relevant metric for understanding Northern Pass’s climate impacts. (It is also important to understand the basis for system emissions figures, and whether they reflect the outdated assumption that emissions from reservoirs begin low and then stabilize at zero or they account for the latest research that predicts higher emissions that are relatively low when compared with most fossil sources.)

Synapse’s report summarizes the best and most recent published research, and all assumptions are documented and explained in the report and the cited references. In particular, we appreciate and acknowledge the significance of the Eastmain studies, as they reflect a serious and sophisticated effort to measure net carbon emissions from reservoirs taking into consideration pre-impoundment vegetation and other conditions, something that standard measurements of emissions from HQ’s many other reservoirs cannot incorporate. The early spike in emissions is significant and well-documented in the data, which also predicts important long-term emissions as well. We find it significant that, as the Synapse report documents, newly developed hydropower has as much as 2/3 and certainly a substantial percentage of natural gas’s GHG emissions even over a 100 year timeframe (far exceeding the useful life of new natural gas plants).

We would also suggest there is considerable uncertainty about the role of Eastmain-1-A, the water for which is carried into the Eastmain-1 reservoir by the Rupert River project. As the cited research reflects, the reduction in emissions that you cite does not consider the carbon emissions associated with new Rupert-related impoundments, so the predicted reduction per unit of energy generated deserves additional scrutiny and explanation.

We would welcome additional references on the net avoided emissions from HQ exports today, and would be interested to learn how they account for Quebec’s off-hour imports of power from fossil-dominated neighboring systems, including ISO-NE. Any references you can provide supporting your comparison of hydropower to other renewable technologies would also be welcome.

Thanks for your post here, and we hope to have a real dialogue in future posts and other venues.

Christophe Courchesne
Staff Attorney
CLF New Hampshire

Will Flagg

A study prepared for the Conservation Law Foundation by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., a private consulting firm, confirms that large-scale hydropower emits far less greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, however, by claiming that reservoir hydro emission ranges are likely higher than those for at least some other renewable options, Synapse’s analysis contains a basic flaw by attempting to cherry-pick data from a recent study on emissions from the Eastmain 1 reservoir in Québec.

Synapse incorrectly assumes that emissions from the Eastmain 1 reservoir would average 158,000 tons of CO2e per year on a long-term basis over a period of 100 years. This figure is in fact the amount of emissions per TWh generated, but only referring to energy generated by the Eastmain-1 generating station.

For 93 of the 100 years in question, beginning in 2012, water from the Eastmain 1 reservoir will also run turbines at the Eastmain-1-A generating station, bringing total annual energy output up to 6.7 TWh. The corresponding GHG emissions would thus be approximately 54 tons CO2 equivalent per GWh.

Moreover, GHG emissions vary among generating station depending, among other factors, on the size of the reservoir and the energy generated. It is therefore inaccurate to extrapolate the findings related to a single generating station and apply these values to an entire hydropower production fleet. The GHG emissions from the energy generated by Hydro-Québec’s entire production fleet, composed of 60 generating stations of which more than two-thirds are run-of-the-river installations, average 10-20 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per GWh.

The facts on hydropower emissions, using a life-cycle analysis approach over a period of 100 years, are actually quite simple. Québec hydropower emissions are:

• similar to those from wind power
• only a quarter of those from photovoltaic solar facilities
• 40 times less than those from a gas-fired power plant
• about 100 times less than those from a coal-fired plant.

In addition to improving air quality – hydropower generation produces none of the pollutants responsible for acid rain and smog – exporting this clean, reliable source of electricity avoided the emission of 41 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in North America between 2008 and 2010. That’s roughly equal to the annual emissions from about 10 million vehicles.

The major environmental challenge facing North America is to replace coal to generate power and oil used in transportation. By supplying neighboring markets, notably in New England, with renewable, competitively priced and reliable energy, Hydro-Québec contributes to the fight against climate change and air pollution.

Alain Tremblay, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Environment Advisor
Hydro-Québec Production

Northern Pass goal is to make as much profit as possible. The business does not care about what is best for the environment. They care about what is best for their stockholders.

Franklin – We hope you will read the report, which summarizes the most recent research and confirms that inundated vegetation is a significant source of greenhouse gases and that reservoirs are net carbon emitters, with emissions in the early years following construction exceeding natural gas-fired generation. Moreover, the message here is that large-scale hydropower is not a panacea and has often-overlooked environmental trade-offs. You do raise important questions regarding line loss and alternatives. We certainly do agree that the alternatives you mention deserve full consideration, and that’s why we’re pushing so hard for the permitting agencies to analyze all reasonable alternatives to the current proposal. Thanks for your comments.

Working to reduce state and regional carbon emissions

“…The Task Force recommends that New Hampshire strive to
achieve a long-term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050…”
New Hampshire Climate Action Plan, 2009

Is it any wonder that the New Hampshire Climate Change Policy Task Force recommended 67 separate actions as a means toward achieving its aggressive goal to significantly reduce emissions of carbon? The fact is that there is no one single solution to the challenge.
The Plan’s recommendations run the gamut – from honing energy efficiency programs, to promoting stricter fuel economy standards.
One action of the 67 is particularly relevant to The Northern Pass project:

Enable Importation of Canadian Hydro and Wind Generation
“…To the extent that it reduces or does not raise electricity
rates to the consumer, high voltage transmission lines should
be built to import clean power generated from Canadian hydro
and wind sources as a complementary policy to developing
non-CO2-emitting generation in New Hampshire. Canada is
developing vast new hydro and wind generation resources,
which are greater than their local needs. This creates an opportunity for New Hampshire and the entire Northeast to
obtain clean power…”
(EGU Action 2.6)

The fact is, there is little debate in New Hampshire or elsewhere on whether or not hydropower from Canada will result in reduced carbon emissions. It will. The challenge is over how to import such energy; how to transmit that low carbon energy in a manner that makes sense from both an economic and engineering perspective – and, that also is respectful of New Hampshire’s environment and natural landscape.

That is why we found it surprising that the Conservation Law Foundation would expend resources to purchase a study challenging the total carbon reduction that may be achieved when The Northern Pass is complete.

It is ironic, too, in that the developers of the CLF study, Synapse Energy, is the same firm that touted a similar hydropower project as a replacement for the energy produced by a nuclear power plant – which emits zero carbon:

“…(T)he Champlain Hudson Power Express … would connect Quebec to New York City. It will bring a significant amount of renewable generation directly to New York City…”
Indian Point Energy Center Nuclear Plant Retirement Analysis
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc, Oct. 2011

We want to assure the CLF that we share its interest and commitment to protecting and improving New England’s environment. In keeping with the NH Climate Action Plan, we believe that The Northern Pass can be an effective part of a comprehensive overall strategy to reduce emissions of carbon.