There’s no rule that wind must be used. And hydro/tidal, done right, has some major advantages.

But we should be careful to determine if there really is hydro that can be used without environmental damage and watch to make sure that fossil fuel interests and anti-wind groups aren’t just using the idea of hydro as a way to postpone the move away from coal for electricity.

Don’t forget, throwing down a bright, shiny object to distract is a favorite right wing tactic….

Maine’w once thriving economy was once built around hydropower. It first powered industry mechanically; and later electrically. Central Maine Power company was created in the 30’s and 40’s as an aggregate of the many local power generators to export electrical energy to Boston.

Not only does Maine have approximately 2,000 water mill sites, many of which are powered by both flowing and tidal water; but a power grid which is localized and flows outward from generating points. No new R.O.W. corridors needed.

The first restoration of a tidal mill is now underway in Kennebunkport and it is a consensus of the TIDE MILL INSTITUTE that as long as there is a moon and an ocean we will have tidal energy as a source of power…..NOW THAT’s A RENEWABLE!

1) Doug Nass is the General Manager of the Clallam Public Utility District (not just “The Public Utility District,” as there are many PUDs in Washington. The article might have also mentioned for the benefit of people who don’t live in WA that PUDs are in fact electric utilities. So the PUD here is giving its “blessing” to a regulatory change that will save it money. That’s not particularly surprising.

2) According to the EIA, Hydropower already accounts for about 70% of Washington’s total electric generation (it fluctuates annually since it depends on water; over the last 20 years, it’s provided between 79% and 87% of generation; last year for which data is available was 69% in 2009). So including hydropower in the RPS as written would make its 20% target essentially meaningless

3) Washington’s RPS already does include some hydropower: utilities can get credit for efficiency upgrades at existing facilities. Efficiency upgrades are *new* power from the same water.

The problem Mr. Nass identifies is real, and Washington is going to need to crack the nut of how hydropower fits into its RPS. But it needs to be really careful in how it goes about it. If the goal of the WA RPS is to wean the state off of fossil fuels, then allowing existing hydropower to count would totally undermine that goal unless the target was set sufficiently high (i.e. greater than 80%). Otherwise it’s just an exercise in semantics. If the goal is to diversify the state’s energy mix and make new energy technologies more affordable, then allowing ANY existing energy source (hydro or not) to count would be a problem.