Why is there opposition to it?
Many reasons. First, it will turn Bear Lake brown. For projects like this to be economically feasible, the scale has to be very, very big. They are talking about pumping so much water out of the lake every day, the lake level will drop and rise 2 to 3 inches! Every day!

Isn’t Bear Lake already a water storage for hydroelectric power?
Yes, but that’s an inflow of water essentially once a year – during spring run-off. This project would run massive amounts of water in and out of the lake every day – 5 billion – FIVE BILLION gallons. That’s a million gallons, five thousand times! To get this much water in and out of the lake every DAY would stir up the silt and water enormously and make the lake murky. And nobody knows what else – disrupting fish population, disturbing the chemical balance of the lake, who knows? This isn’t just an environmentalist argument. It’s an economic one. Destroying the beauty of the lake for a massive power project will have a major negative economic impact on the whole valley indefinitely. There is no way this will be offset by a short term economic boost from the construction jobs.

But our power needs are increasing. Isn’t this a good clean way to generate more power?
NO – This project is NOT renewable energy. It will use more power than it generates. It will be a net loss to the power grid. It will consume 4,057 GWh of electricity to generate 3,245 GWh annually. The only reason it is economically feasible is that they pump water up at night when demand for electricity is low, and then let it run down to generate electricity during the day when demand is higher. This is power arbitrage, not power generation. Since coal burns just as well at night, the power company can generate electricity day or night at the same cost. But they can’t sell the power at night because you only have your refrigerator and alarm clock running. During the day, when you’re cooking, you’ve got your air conditioner on, blow drying your hair, they can sell the power for peak prices. But a coal fired power plant is enormous, and can’t just start up and shut down to meet this fluctuating power demand. Pumped power projects are a way of storing the energy that can be generated at night for use during peak day hours. They should not be confused with true renewable energy sources like hydroelectric, wind and solar power.

But if this allows the power company to meet higher peak demands without building more coal fired power plants, isn’t this a good thing?
Only if the structure of power production and consumption remains the same for the next several decades – and there are good reasons why it will not. First, electric and hydrogen based cars are coming. The California Air Resources Board is requiring it, and ten other states are following their lead. The major car companies have all announced hydrogen and electric car programs (some kicking and screaming). Tesla Motors, an all electric car company backed by Google investors, has their first model available this year. Both these kinds of vehicles will get their electricity at night. Electrics will charge their batteries, and hydrogen cars will use electricity to create hydrogen from water. This means the power companies will see an increased demand for electricity at night. This in turn will make pump storage projects like Hook Canyon economically dead, since they consume more power than they generate and are only viable when there is a fluctuation in demand.
Another technology coming soon is improved solar cells. There are start-up companies that have demonstrated solar power cells that are 100 times cheaper than anything we’ve had before. When the cost of solar power generation drops 100 times, you’ll be able to buy solar panels at Home Depot that will power your air conditioner and more, with a moderate up front cost and zero operating cost. This will reduce the demand on the power grid at peak times, further reducing the fluctuations in electricity demand that pump storage projects depend on to make sense.
Many pump storage plants have been built and most are operating. The initial cost is very high, so the useful life must be long for it to be worth it. But if demand for electricity at night increases, and solar power production increases production during the day, pump storage plants make no sense. Particularly where they destroy a natural wonder like Bear Lake.

If this is such a bad idea, why is it going forward?
The proponents of this project are looking at power needs from a 20th century perspective, not a forward looking perspective. Also, like anything involving large scale power generation, the dollars are very large and the forces very strong. There are individuals who stand to become quite rich. If they can push their short sighted view of power needs through public officials’ scrutiny, it will happen. What can I do? Write a letter! Make a donation!

RICH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGAINST HOOK CANYON PROJECT
Anita Weston/Rich County Times

At the Rich County Commissioners Meeting held April 2, 2008, the Commissioners determined that a resolution should be written and sent to the State of Utah indicating that they were not in favor of any action taken that would be detrimental to the tourist and recreation industry, would harm water quality, and damage the fishing industry. This decision was reached after some discussion with Dave and Claudia Cottle, the leaders of Bear Lake Watch. The Cottles indicated that with the amount of water that is planned to be moved daily and the flow rates required by the proposed Hook Canyon Project, there couldn't help but be a negative impact on the lake and the eco system.
The decision to write the resolution came after the Commissioners learned that FERK federal procedures are being followed which does not require that the County be informed or contacted by the Symbiotics, LLC, the company proposing the Hook Canyon Hydroelectric Plant. The FERK process is very formalized and follows a set procedure. The only time this process allows for public input is rapidly approaching. There is a meeting to be held on the 9th of April which will allow for verbal input. The next 30-day window will provide an opportunity for government bodies and individuals to voice their opinions for or against this project.
These time limits need to be strictly observed. The Federal Government as well as various agencies and two state governments involved will take the information gained in this process to begin to make their decision. If nothing is heard from counties, cities, and individuals before this time period elapses, it is understood that everything is favorable for the project. The County Commissioners had assumed that since this plant was being planned to be built within the County, that Symbiotics, LLC, would be required to present their plans before the County Planning and Zoning Committee as well as before the County Commissioners in order to obtain permission to build on County lands. This is the process that all businesses and individuals must go through in order to conduct business, build homes, and so forth within the County. The Federal FERK process, however, does not have to follow these steps.
The Commissioners were informed that Mike Styler, the Director of Natural Resources, had indicated that he hadn't heard anything from this part of the State in opposition to the project and was assuming that everyone in this area was okay with the project. The Cottles urged the Commissioners to represent this area and preserve the lake which is such a valuable resource in this area.

EDITORIAL
Amber McKee/Editor

Personally, I am EXTREMELY opposed to the Hook Canyon Project that is being touted by a company called Symbiotics, LLC. I have not yet been to a public meeting on this project but have read items written from reporters for both this paper and for the Herald Journal that have reported on meetings held and I have also read information posted on both Symbiotics website and also the Bear Lake Watch website. First off, I am very offended that a company would use the term “green” as a “selling point” and as a word to describe their efforts as being “environmentally sound” instead of using it as a term to describe the bottom line which is another term of “green”----------MONEY!! That is what this project, in my opinion, is all about—nothing more and nothing less. I am not an engineer, nor an environmentalist, nor a lake biologist or anyone else that might have some education in an area of expertise concerning this project. However, that doesn’t make me stupid! This project should NEVER have even been considered for a lake that is known for its pristine, beautiful blue color and is the main economical source for so many people. If there is an “energy crisis” in our Utah bubble as has been proposed, there are other ways to handle that and selfish as it may sound, I do not believe it is OK to sacrifice all of us who are dependant on this lake, whether it be financially or otherwise, so that someone on the Wasatch Front can run their computers. There are other lakes and other means to solve this “problem” without doing it this way. It makes a person wonder why this lake was chosen. Who owns the property where the proposed holding reservoir would be? Why not do it on Utah Lake—it is already brown and closer to the Wasatch Front. This company has nothing to lose by proposing this project but has much to gain—financially that is. As far as I can tell, they claim that there will be little or no effect to the lake. How in the world could it NOT affect the lake? Of course it will! You don’t pump and release the amount of water they are proposing without having consequences. Symbiotics should be ashamed of themselves for even considering this as a viable place to do a project of this nature. There are still several questions I have about this proposal that I would like answered. However, nothing this company does or says is going to change the fact that this project WILL have a profound affect on this lake and all those that live and recreate here. Given the fact that there is no way they can prove beyond a doubt that what they are proposing will have ZERO affect on the lake and the economy attached to the lake I have three words for them-------GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!