history of hydroelectric development on the … · landry and cruikshank 1996:18-23; marcus and...

HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENTON THE

CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS

HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENTON THE

CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS

INTRODUCTION

In 1903, Malcolm Greene Chace (1875-1955) andHenry Ingraham Harriman (1872-1950) establishedChace & Harriman, a company that, in its manyincarnations over the course of the followingdecades, grew into one of the largest electric utilitycompanies in New England. The company built aseries of hydroelectric facilities on the Connecticutand Deerfield rivers in Vermont, New Hampshireand western Massachusetts, which were intendedto provide a reliable and less expensive alternativeto coal-produced steam power. Designed primarilyto serve industrial centers in Massachusetts andRhode Island, the facilities also provided power toresidential customers and municipalities in NewEngland. Chace & Harriman eventually evolvedinto the New England Power Association (NEPA)in 1926, which became the New England ElectricSystem (NEES) in 1947. In the late 1990s NEESwas purchased by the U.S. Generating Companyand the hydroelectric developments were placed ina division of the company called USGen NewEngland, Inc (USGenNE). (Landry and Cruikshank1996:2-5, 29, 39, 67, 141; Cook 1991:13).

The history of electrical power generation in theUnited States is characterized by several stages ofdevelopment. From about 1880 to 1895, directcurrent was produced by steam and/or hydroelectricstations and transmitted over small geographicareas, providing power to arc and incandescentlights. Improvements in the 1890s initiated a secondphase of development, which focused on thepotential of hydroelectric power for thetransmission of alternating current over longdistances. In the 1920s, the industry matured,equipment and designs became more standardized,and the structure of management companies became

increasingly complex. While the Depression limitedfurther growth of the industry, a new era emergedafter World War II, with streamlined managementstructures and increased regulations andgovernment involvement (Cook 1991:4; Landry andCruikshank 1996:2-5). The first of the 14hydroelectric facilities built on the Connecticut andDeerfield rivers by Chace & Harriman and itssuccessors were developed in the early 1900s,shortly after the potential of hydroelectric powerwas realized on a large scale. Subsequent facilitieswere constructed during the maturation of theindustry in the 1920s, and two of the stations werecompleted in the post-World War II era. The historyof the companies that built these stations isintrinsically linked with broader trends in the historyof electricity, hydropower technology, and industrialarchitecture in America. As such, the facilitiestogether tell the story of hydroelectric power fromits late- nineteenth-century origins to the presentday.

EARLY AMERICAN ELECTRICAL HISTORY

Electricity first gained popularity in America in the1870s with the introduction of the arc lamp byinventor Charles Brush of Cleveland. With theirbright light and short life span, arc lampspredominated in commercial applications and publicstreet lighting. Initially these lamps were run onindividual generators, called dynamos. As theirnumbers increased, businesses began to support theconstruction of urban generating stations that couldrun up to a maximum of 60 lamps connected inseries. These early stations used coal to drive asteam engine, which then turned a generator toproduce electricity. The complex technologyinvolved and the small size of the stations keptprices high and demand limited, posing little

1

HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRICT DEVELOPMENT

ON THE DEERFIELD AND CONNECTICUT RIVERS

competition to the established gas-lightingcompanies. Despite these disadvantages, by 1880Brush had installed central electric stations in majorAmerican cities like San Francisco, New York,Philadelphia, and Boston, and had over 5,000 arclights in operation (Glover and Cornell 1951:671;Landry and Cruikshank 1996:11-14; Marcus andSegal 1989:143-5).

About the same time, Thomas Alva Edison's EdisonElectric Company developed and introduced theenclosed incandescent light. In contrast to arclamps, a large number of incandescent lights couldbe wired in parallel with low voltage direct current(DC), lowering the cost of illumination. Theenclosed nature of the light, which was composedof a filament within a vacuum tube, also made itsuitable for indoor use. While arc lights remainedstandard for public and commercial exterior use,these two factors immediately increased the demandfor electric lights among residential consumers,creating a fierce rivalry with the existing gascompanies. When Edison opened his first centralgenerating station in New York City in 1882, theelectrical power was initially distributed for free,enticing many converts (Landry and Cruikshank1996:14-15; Marcus and Segal 1989:145-148).

Although Edison Electric had few rivals in thedistribution and production of DC incandescentlighting, the technology had limited application untilthe development of alternating current (AC). Thedissipation of DC electricity over distance causedmost stations to be located in downtown areas,neglecting the demand for electricity in rural areasand preventing the exploitation of most potentialwater-power sites. DC also required a continualexpansion in the number of powerhouses, as eachquickly reached its maximum capacity.

The introduction of AC electricity by GeorgeWestinghouse made electrical power more practicalfor both household and industrial use, allowingvariations in voltage as well as decreased energyloss during transmission. At the 1893 World's Fair,Westinghouse won a contest that allowed him tobuild a generating station at Niagara Falls. His

station was a brilliant success, transmitting powerover a distance of 26 miles to Buffalo, New Yorkwith high profits, thereby triggering a “hydromania”for powerhouse construction and long-distancetransmission. AC electricity was quickly embracedby those in thinly-populated areas who had notreceived DC power because of its prohibitively highcost. With its greater flexibility, lower cost, andunrestricted capacity, AC power began to challengeDC in the cities, encouraging the creation of largercentral stations that could spread power throughoutthe outlying areas (Glover and Cornell 1951:674;Landry and Cruikshank 1996:18-23; Marcus andSegal 1989:149-150).

By the turn of the century, 18 utilities inMassachusetts generated hydroelectric power,although in most cases it was a supplement to, orback-up for, coal-produced steam power. The costof transporting great amounts of coal to NewEngland was high, however, and as hydroelectrictechnology improved, it became an obviousalternative. Unfortunately, most rivers were locatedin northern New England, far from the industrialcenters that demanded the power source. Manyalso lacked the reservoirs needed to ensure a steadyflow of water. Within three years demand had grownsuch that the Massachusetts legislature passed alaw allowing special permits for new utilitycompanies. Thus began the odyssey of MalcolmGreene Chace and Henry Ingraham Harriman, whobuilt a series of remote hydroelectric power plantsalong the Connecticut and Deerfield Rivers,successfully transmitting the new power to themanufacturing centers of the region.

NEP HYDROELECTRIC POWERDEVELOPMENT ON THE CONNECTICUT ANDDEERFIELD RIVERS

In 1903 Chace, the son of a textile worker, andHarriman, whose father was a judge and textilemachinery inventor, formed Chace & Harriman withthe intent of exploiting hydroelectric power inMaine. In 1907 a potential site was identified, notin Maine, but rather at Vernon, Vermont, on the

2



Connecticut River. This river, whichflows approximately 400 miles fromThird Lake in northern New Hampshireto Long Island Sound, drops 2,000 feetover the course of its journey. With itsmany falls, the river had attracted millssince colonial times. Local investorsalready had plans for its developmentas a hydroelectric power source by thetime Chace & Harriman took over theproject in 1907. The design of theVernon Development was largely thework of the mechanical engineeringfirm of Charles T. Main, Inc., of Boston.An 1876 graduate of the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Main was anauthority on water and steam powerand his firm, established in 1907, hadbeen involved in the design of over 80hydroelectric facilities by the time of his death in1943. The construction of the Vernon station wascompleted by J. G. White & Company of New York,with 450 workers assigned to the project (Landryand Cruikshank 1996:26-35; Cook 1991:18-19).

Vernon was an ambitious facility that requiredraising the river 30 feet, flooding all or parts of 150farms. Construction was finished within two years,however, and Chace & Harriman attempted tosecure rights-of-way for transmission into north-central Massachusetts. After many complicatedfinancial arrangements, including the creation of aholding company and a subsidiary company(Connecticut River Power Company of Maine andConnecticut River Transmission Company ofMassachusetts, respectively), they received specialpermission to enter Massachusetts markets,provided sales were restricted to bulk customers.The first generator at the Vernon station went online on July 27, 1909, supplying 60-cycle AC powerat 19 kilovolts to the Estey Organ Works inBrattleboro, Vermont. By 1910 eight generatingunits produced a total of 20 megawatts, sent at 66kilovolts a distance of over 60 miles, dwarfing theoutput of all other stations in the east. Theunprecedented voltage and distance of transmission,as well as the construction of a line into Worcester,Massachusetts, quickly secured large customers

such as the American Steel and Wire Company andWorcester Electric Light Company (Landry andCruikshank 1996:26-35).

As demand grew and Vernon became unable toprovide enough power during the dry season, Chace& Harriman focused their attention on the DeerfieldRiver, which runs through southern Vermont andwestern Massachusetts before joining theConnecticut River below Turners Falls. Twentymiles southwest of Vernon, in Shelburne Falls,Massachusetts, the river drops 300 feet, creatingan ideal location for a series of generating stations,provided a large reservoir could be built to regulatethe flow and prevent flooding. Chace & Harrimancreated a Massachusetts-based company, NewEngland Power, to oversee the construction of theDeerfield facilities, with financial backing from NewEngland Power of Maine. The Power ConstructionCompany, a subsidiary created by New EnglandPower and headed by George Bunnell, managedthe construction of the facilities. J. G. White &Company and Charles T. Main, Inc., both of whomhad worked on the Vernon station, were employedas design consultants on the Deerfield River projects(Landry and Cruikshank 1996:38-40; Cook1991:18-19; Cavanaugh et. al. 1993a; Cavanaughet. al. 1993b).

Vernon Development, Hinsdale, NH/Vernon, VT, built 1907–1909,1920. View looking northeast from the Vermont side of theConnecticut River, showing from left to right, the switchyard,powerhouse, and dam (undated photo). When completed, Vernonwas the largest hydroelectric plant east of Niagara Falls, and wasthe first northeastern U.S. hydroelectric plant to deliver load vialong-distance transmission lines.

3



By 1911, a three-mile-square (2.5 billion cubic foot)reservoir with a 456-foot long earthen dam hadbeen built in Somerset, Vermont, north of ShelburneFalls. At the same time three standardized stations(Deerfield No. 2, Deerfield No. 3, andDeerfield No. 4) were built, each withits own concrete dam. These stationscame online in 1912 and 1913, providinga total capacity of 18 megawatts. Afourth station, Deerfield No. 5, was builtslightly upstream to provide power to theHoosac Tunnel, a 4.75-mile-long railroadtunnel in the Berkshire Mountains thatconnected Boston with the Hudson RiverValley. This station had a larger capacityof 15 megawatts, allowing it toaccommodate the demand for suddenlarge bursts of wattage. Thus with thecreation of the Deerfield transmission lineand the addition of a full switching stationat Millbury, Massachusetts, thetransmission network was able to operateas a Vernon-Worcester-Millbury-Shelburne Falls-Vernon loop, allowing abroad customer base (Landry andCruikshank 1996:38-40).

In 1914, Chace & Harriman's variouscompanies were consolidated into theNew England Company, aMassachusetts voluntary trust. At thistime the company was the largest powerprovider in Massachusetts, providingmore than all other companies in thestate combined, Boston Edison aside.Rather than providing competition tosteam power stations, however, thehydroelectric generating stationsprovided a convenient counterbalanceto their output. In the winter, whenmore power was needed because ofshorter daylight hours, water was moreplentiful, while in the summer, whendemand decreased, so did the flow ofwater. Advances in electric motordevelopment also increased daytimeindustrial usage, expanding overall

demand and distributing consumption more evenlyover a 24-hour period. As the New EnglandCompany became more dominant in its position anddemand continued to grow, it became evident that

Somerset Development, Somerset, VT, built 1911–1913. View of2,100-ft-long, 110-ft-high modified hydraulic earth fill dam lookingsouth with spillway in foreground. Construction railway track andsteam locomotive pulling dump cars are visible on dam crest (ca.1913).

Deerfield No. 3 Development, Buckland/Shelburne, MA, built1912 et seq. View of powerhouse looking south across DeerfieldRiver from Shelburne Falls to Buckland (November 25,1941photo). View shows turbine outfall arches belowpowerhouse. Deerfield No. 3 was the administrative andmaintenance center for the Lower Deerfield developments, andseveral of the workshops and storage buildings are visiblebehind the powerhouse to the left.

4



the company needed to find its ownseasonal steam-power backup, as wellas build more stations. Satisfyingthese needs would require contractswith steam power producers, largeinvestments in land, and costlyreservoir construction (Landry andCruikshank 1996:42-43).

World War I caused severe shortagesand a drastic increase in the cost ofpower. The price of coal doubled andthe workforce was severely reduced,inspiring a push towards conservationand the adoption of daylight savingstime. New construction was limitedto connections to areas of strategicmilitary importance, forcing smallutilities to buy power from largerutilities, which were better able tobalance power distribution to accommodate shiftingneeds. Despite rate increases caused by wartimeshortages, annual kilowatt sales between 1916 and1920 grew from 246 million to 431 million. Thewar also fostered an interconnection of transmissionlines among utilities, and by 1920 the New EnglandCompany controlled 300 miles of line, a fivefoldincrease from a decade earlier, creating a networkthat stretched from Lake Erie to the Atlantic Ocean(Landry and Cruikshank 1996:52-53).

To ease the wartime power shortage, the U.S.Department of the Interior agreed to work withthe company to pay for the Davis BridgeDevelopment (later named Harriman) inWhitingham, Vermont. Called the “White CoalProject,” this endeavor included an expandedpowerhouse and two 4.2 megawatt generators atVernon, nearly doubling its peak-hour capacity, aswell as a 5-megawatt station and dam at Searsburg,Vermont. Despite Vernon's increased capacity, itwas soon to be dwarfed by the Harriman station.Approximately 1,200 people worked on the $10million project, which included the construction ofa large powerhouse, a concrete spillway, and a2,200-acre reservoir, creating the largest man-madelake in Vermont, with double the storage capacity

of the Somerset reservoir. At 1,300 ft long and215 ft high, the dam was the highest earthen dambuilt at the time of its construction. PreviousDeerfield River projects regulated the westernbranch of the river; with the addition of theHarriman station, the eastern branch was broughtunder control as well. Together with the Somersetdam, the Harriman dam was one of the earlieststructures outside of the Panama Canal to employthe hydraulic fill method of construction, whichinvolved dumping material into two dikes, and thenwashing the dikes with water to filter the fines intothe ditch between them. This procedure produceda dam with an impervious core. When it opened in1924, the Harriman Development, named in honorof its founder, was the largest hydroelectric facilityeast of Niagara Falls and supplied 40,000 kW,almost doubling the total output of the DeerfieldRiver. Its large size necessitated the constructionin 1927 of a smaller hydroelectric stationdownstream at Sherman to even out any suddendischarges. After the construction of both stationswas complete, power was transmitted fromHarriman to Millbury, Massachusetts, on a 110kilovolt line, the first to exceed the 66-kilovoltstandard (Landry and Cruikshank 1996:38-40, 54-59; Cavanaugh et. al. 1993b).

Harriman Development, Whitingham/Readsboro, VT, built 1924 etseq. View of Readsboro facility looking east across Deerfield River,showing from left to right, switchyard, surge tank, powerhouse, andfootbridge (November 26, 1924 photo). The Harriman Developmentincorporated several major works of engineering and was theshowpiece of the Deerfield River developments.

5



Despite the large scale of Harriman, demand forelectricity continued to increase beyond theavailable supply. Much of this demand came fromresidential customers who were beginning to useelectric appliances as well as electric lights. In 1918,less than one-third of American homes were wiredfor electricity. By 1929, however, the number hadgrown to over two thirds. Therefore, as soon asHarriman was finished, the company broke groundat a site 30 miles north of Vernon at Bellows Falls,the downtown location of a small subsidiary knownas the Bellows Falls Power Company. Thiscompany had been created by Chace & Harrimanin 1912 through the purchase and reorganizationof a canal company and two small hydroelectriccompanies. In 1918 they decided to rebuild thecanal and build a new power station, guaranteeingthe Fall Mountain Paper Company (partial ownersof the water rights) a supply of electricity. Withineight years the paper company shut down and soldtheir water rights to Bellows Falls Power. Theconstruction of a new hydroelectric station beganimmediately, despite delays caused by the flood of1927. While the old canal provided one milliongallons per minute and produced 10,000horsepower, the new canal was able to send 4.2million gallons per minute to the turbines providing60,000 hp to produce 49,000 kW. This dramatic

increase in water capacity was achievedthrough the construction of a new dam,which was slightly higher than itspredecessor. Although the head wasonly 60 feet, the power capacity of theBellows Falls station matched that ofHarriman (Landry and Cruikshank1996:59-62, 72).

After World War I, the New EnglandCompany was desperately in need offinancial backing and feared the loss oftheir customer base to the larger holdingcompanies that had emerged in theprosperous years after the war. Toassuage these worries, Chace &Harriman decided in 1926 to sell mostof their company to the InternationalPaper Company. While the International

Paper mills were no longer economical paperproducers, they were still capable of creatinghydroelectric power. Archibald Graustein,President of International Paper, was open toreplacing his failing paper empire with a powerempire. At the same time, Chace & Harriman wereanxious to get an infusion of equity capital fromInternational Paper, thereby allowing the companyto launch a counterattack against bigger companiesand establish a larger customer base. Therefore,Graustein, Chace & Harriman developed the NewEngland Power Association (NEPA), which wasessentially a compilation of its old holdingcompanies and all of its subsidiaries. InternationalPaper, Northeastern Power, and Stone & Websterwere ceded a majority position in the enterprise inexchange for $20 million, and Chace & Harrimanretired to the board. This reorganization wasfollowed by a wave of acquisitions handled by thenewly-hired President, Frank Comerford. Evenwith the increased efficiency and capacity of theexisting hydroelectric stations, the most efficientpower sources continued to combine steam andwater power, leading Comerford to purchase a gascompany, multiple retail units, and more steamplants before the onset of the Depression (Landryand Cruikshank 1996:65-84).

Bellows Falls Development, North Walpole, NH/Rockingham, VT,built 1925–1928. View of powerhouse looking north withtransformers at right (November 3, 1941 photo).

6



Harriman had purchased the rights toan area known as Fifteen Mile Fallson the Connecticut River in 1910. Atthe time, the Falls' low volume madedevelopment impractical, andHarriman soon sold his rights.Immediately after the company'sreorganization in 1926, however,NEPA was more confident and re-purchased the site. Its power potentialwas high, allowing for two largereservoirs of an extremely highvolume. Unfortunately, NEPA'scustomer base was not large enoughto justify building at such a large, yetcost-efficient size. To solve thisproblem, Comerford arranged a dealwith Boston Edison in which theywould buy one-third of the station'soutput (150 million kilowatts) at $2million per year for 20 years. Thus began one ofNEPA's greatest engineering feats. To divert theriver, reshape the old river bed, and build the dam,the company excavated more than 1 million cubicyards of rock, mixed and poured 300,000 cubicyards of concrete, and consumed 5,000 tons ofstructural steel. A small town of workmen emergedon a hillside in Barnet Township, Vermont, toconstruct the complex, which doubled NEPA's peakcapacity for hydroelectricity by adding 160megawatts and saving the 200,000 tons of coal thatwould have been needed for steam power. Waterfirst spun the turbines in September, 1930, after amonth of accumulating in the reservoir behind thedam. Aptly named “Comerford,” the stationtransmitted power to a switching station inTewksbury, MA, traveling a distance of 126 miles,through 2,000 steel towers, and over 800 miles ofaluminum cable (Landry and Cruikshank 1996:87,90-91).

NEPA had planned three developments at FifteenMile Falls. The second project was located sevenmiles downstream from Comerford. A smallauxiliary plant, the new facility was designed to evenout any sudden discharges of water. This plant,called McIndoes Falls, came on line in 1931, one

year after Comerford, bringing the Fifteen Mile Fallscapacity to a total of 175,300 kW. The stations atComerford and McIndoes Falls were both designedby Charles T. Main. The development of the thirdsite at Fifteen Mile Falls was postponed until afurther increase in demand warranted the investment(Landry and Cruikshank 1996:90-91, Cook1991:18-19).

NEPA's period of expansion in the early 1930s cameto a halt with the Depression, as the companystruggled to pay for McIndoes Falls. Investors werescared off, emergency taxation was introduced, andNEPA was plagued with cumbersome finances, anoverly complicated organization, overcapitalizedholdings, as well as several new businesses. A seriesof natural disasters also plagued the company duringthe 1930s, including the great flood of 1936 andthe Hurricane of 1938, both of which causeddamage to several of NEPA's facilities. In 1932the company's retail sales, which had always risen,declined for the first time and employment levelsfell. When enraged investors forced the governmentto investigate utilities after the market crash,NEPA's convoluted financial organization wasdisclosed and the company was forced to implementan immediate simplification of the corporate

McIndoes Falls Development, Monroe, NH/Barnet, VT, built 1931.View looking northwest from the New Hampshire side of theConnecticut River, showing, from left to right, the powerhouse anddam (April 13, 1931 photo). McIndoes Falls, one of three facilities inthe Fifteen Mile Falls Development, was built as a run-of-riverfacility to even out discharge flows from the larger ComerfordDevelopment upstream.

7



structure. The Federal Trade Commission thenpassed the “Public Utilities Holding Company Act,”which prohibited holding companies thatunnecessarily complicate corporate structure andgave the Federal Power Commission the power toregulate interstate utilities. After working carefullytogether with the government on this issue,Harriman resigned, Comerford became presidentof Boston Edison, and International Paper and manyof its subsidiaries were liquidated.

The Depression also spurred several positivechanges, allowing NEPA to emerge as a strongercompany when the economy finally bounced back.Government intervention made NEPA once againindependent by 1947 and created a simplerorganizational structure. The lower demand forceda decrease in rates, as well as an intensification of“load-building” programsCaggressive marketingand merchandising programs designed to increaseresidential demand. NEPA sold appliances toincrease household electrical use and pushed forrural electrification by encouraging the agriculturaluse of utilities. By 1940 demand was again risingand employment was up, allowing NEPA toincorporate line extensions and upgrades (Landryand Cruikshank 1996:93-119).

With the onset of World War II, NEPA beganstrengthening those operations that had slackenedduring the preceding decade. Many employeeswere sent off to war, and those that remained wereunder pressure to meet the heavy demands of themany military and war-related factories despitesevere shortages of labor and materials. Many ofNEPA's employees also worked with thegovernment to speed the transition of new weaponsfrom experimental to operational. This advancedtechnical involvement gave NEPA the experiencethat would later give it a prominent role in post-war energy planning. As the economy began anupswing, civilian energy use remained limited andmany furnaces were converted from oil (the newerfuel source) back to coal. During this time NEPAalso saw an influx of new executives, includingPresident Irwin Moore and Vice-President WilliamWebster (Landry and Cruikshank 1996:121-135).

On June 3, 1947, NEPA was renamed New EnglandElectric System (NEES), creating a new holdingcompany and refinancing all other assets, includingthree wholesale companies, 36 retail companies,one service company, a street railway, and fourmiscellaneous companies. At the same time, anumber of large shoe and textile manufacturersbegan to close, bringing unemployment to NewEngland and threatening load growth. As increasingnumbers of businesses were forced to close, thepublic began to blame utilities, which wereconsistently more expensive in New England thanelsewhere in the country. Contrary to popular belief,utilities were expensive because of the higher costsof transporting fossil fuels over a large distance andthe need for materials to withstand harsh weather.In addition, the failure of businesses was due lessto high utility bills, and more to increases inunionization, wages, and taxation. The public alsofailed to acknowledge its increasing use ofelectricity, noting only the rising total cost.Regardless of the facts, dissatisfaction quickly ledto the demand for public utilities. As the economybecame more diversified, however, new jobs wereoffered at higher wages, increasing load andeventually silencing the public utility scare (Landryand Cruikshank 1996:137-149).

Despite the fact that hydroelectric power remainedeconomical, post-war development included onlytwo new hydroelectric plants, both on theConnecticut River. These complexes were the lastconventional hydroelectric stations brought into theNEES system. In 1950, a $16 million, 33-megawattplant went on-line in Wilder, Vermont, 40 milesnorth of Bellows Falls. This plant replaced an earlierfacility called Olcott Falls, and drew substantial localopposition. The new 2,000-foot-wide dam raisedthe water level 15 feet, extending the existing pond27 miles upstream toward the McIndoes station.Steep banks kept flooding to a minimum, affectingonly 1,200 acres of land and submerging 335 acresof farmland. To ease tensions NEES agreed to payfor the flooded land and to move any utilities, suchas railroads or roads, that were affected (Landryand Cruikshank 1996:149-151).

8



The new Wilder complex covered some of theincreasing peak demand, but in 1952 a dark forecastwas issued by a group of utility executives knownas the Electric Coordinating Council of NewEngland. They predicted that peak loadrequirements would more than double over the next20 years, from 3,800 megawatts to 8,000megawatts. The generous reserve margins of thedepression era had dropped to 16 percent, meaningthat even more peak-load power would be needed.Bob Brandt, the head of power planning in the1950s, worked with the Federal Power Commissionand neighboring utilities to ensure that the NewEngland region would remain covered. Only onepotential site remained undeveloped: the propertyat the upper part of the Fifteen Mile Falls area,originally purchased in the 1920s. Whereas the site'sdevelopment would have been excessive andimpractical several decades ago, NEES was nowcriticized for taking so long to build an additionalstation. The new Samuel C. Moore station (namedafter President Irwin Moore's father and thecompany's longtime general manager) resembledComerford in size and construction, with a massiveconcrete and earth core dam that created a reservoircovering 3,500 acres. The powerhouse, with four

identical turbines producing 190megawatts at full capacity, was locatedbelow the dam. The $41 millionproject took three years to complete,and employed 500 people. It was $9million below budget and beganproducing electricity in 1957. Thislarge conventional hydroelectricdevelopment allowed the ConnecticutRiver to operate as a hydropowerdelivery system, combining multiplereservoirs and powerhouses. As theriver wound from Moore to Vernon,each cubic foot of water produced 37kilowatt-hours for the system.Downstream stations added anadditional 530 megawatts and theDeerfield tributary another 110. Noother river of comparable length in thecountry could equal the Connecticut

for hydropower development (Landry andCruikshank 1996:149-150).

In 1954, President Eisenhower signed Senator JohnPastore's bill allowing the private development ofnuclear power. NEES' Vice President, WilliamWebster, who had returned from consulting on thewartime Atomic Energy Commission in 1951, wasconvinced that nuclear power was the energy ofthe future. He arranged a consortium of ninenortheastern and midwestern companies to studythe commercial applications of nuclear fission. Withpreliminary research behind him, he announced theformation of the Yankee Atomic Electric Companyas soon as the bill was passed. His desire was forall of the regional utilities to share in the benefits,as well as the risks, inherent in the development ofthe new technology. Nine other utilities, as well askey government officials, businesses, and the press,decided to back the project. In 1957, after thecompletion of a smaller experimental facility byWestinghouse and Stone & Webster atShippingport, Pennsylvania, construction began onthe first full-scale demonstration plant, situated inRowe, Massachusetts in the Deerfield River Valley.The plant went online in 1960 at a cost of $39

Wilder Development, Lebanon, NH/Hartford, VT, built 1950. Viewlooking northwest from the New Hampshire side of the ConnecticutRiver, showing from left to right, the visitors’ center, dam, andpowerhouse (July 17, 1952 photo). This development was the firstbuilt on the Connecticut River after World War II. It replaced apreexisting plant and was constructed to meet increasing peakperiod electricity demands.

9



million, well below the $57 million estimate. It wasthe second commercial atomic plant in the country,setting many of the standards for subsequentreactors (Landry and Cruikshank 1996:162-167).

In the following decade, regional prosperity andlower-cost power combined to put NEES in astronger operating position than in previousdecades. Substantial savings from continualconsolidation and the growing use of computerssimultaneously allowed for wage increases and adecrease in rates. These two factors combined withtax cuts to allow New England to reach the nationalaverage in economic and load growth despite itslow population increase. By 1962, NEES' electricproperties had been consolidated along functionallines into one retail company, a single powerwholesaler, and a service company in each state.Webster, president of the company since 1959, sawthree possibilities for increased prosperity: lowercosts through newer plants, economies of scalethrough higher loads, and lower fuel costs.Therefore, he began to try to license increasingnumbers of nuclear plants, whose capacity dwarfedthat of hydroelectric plants. In response to theblackout of 1965, Webster also participated in thephilosophy of power pooling with other regionalutilities, sharing resources in times of naturaldisaster. Consequently, the New England PowerExchange (NEPEX) was organized in 1967, linkingall utilities to prevent shortages or blackouts.Shortly thereafter the New England Power Pool(NEPOOL) was formed to develop region-widepower dispatching (Landry and Cruikshank1996:170-195).

The beginning of the fuel crisis was marked by asharp increase in the price of imported oil in 1973.Escalating inflation exacerbated the crisis, causingmany power companies to return to burning coaldespite an increased sensitivity to pollution. Inresponse to these problems, NEES began a large-scale initiative to cut back costs, improve finances,and develop a new customer relations strategy.Nuclear plants, which had been the hope of thefuture, were no longer tenable because of highinterest rates, skeptical investors, and grass-roots

environmental opposition. Thus NEES began a newstrategy based on conservation and domestic fossilfuels, concentrating on domestic oil exploration.A large Research and Development department wascreated to explore alternate fuel sources and waysto reduce pollution. Other changes included theestablishment of conservation and loadmanagement to minimize capacity requirements, thediversification of energy sources, and the decisionto purchase power from plants that ran off ofrenewable energy sources such as trash, solar, andwind. Together, these changes reduced dependenceon imported oil, allowing the country and thecompany to weather the crisis (Landry andCruikshank 1996:199-229).

When prosperity returned in the 1980s, the focuson cost-consciousness and conservation remained.Most of the steam-generating units had beenconverted to coal and fuel prices fell dramatically.NEES emerged from the 1980s poised to face anyfuture restructuring with stronger finances, animproved generating position, and slow loadgrowth. The ever increasing environmentalawareness, however, caused a number of small, yetsignificant changes. While hydroelectric plants areon balance non-polluting, they can prevent fish frommigrating upstream to spawn. In the early 1980s,state wildlife officials required NEES to constructfish ladders, which channel fish around dams andturbines. These bypass mechanisms, built at a costof $10 million each, were installed at Vernon in1981, and later at Bellows Falls and Wilder, allowinganadromous fish such as Atlantic Salmon and shadto reproduce. By the 1990s the fish population inthe Connecticut River had again reached healthylevels (Landry and Cruikshank 1996:231-242). Fishladders are currently being installed at the Deerfieldcomplexes.

In the 1990s deregulation became a dominant themein the restructuring of the power generationindustry. It created a more competitive power-generating market that allows private powerproducers to utilize extant transmission anddistribution systems, thereby providing consumerswith a wider choice of producers. This development

10



caused a number of large utilities, including NEES,to agree to separate power generation fromtransmission and distribution, recreating Chace &Harriman’s initial arrangement. In 1998, USGenNEacquired the hydroelectric generating facilities onthe Deerfield and Connecticut rivers. As part of theagreement NEES retained control of thetransmission facilities. USGenNE was subsequentlyacquired by the PG&E Corporation and becamepart of the company’s PG&E National EnergyGroup (PG&E NEG). In 2003, PG&E NEG andits subsidiaries, including USGenNE, declaredbankruptcy. As part of the companies restructuringeffort, PG&E NEG was separated from the parentcompany and changed its name to the NationalEnergy and Gas Transmission, Inc. (NEGT).USGenNE continues to operate the hydroelectricdevelopments on the Deerfield and Connecticutrivers as a subsidiary of NEGT.

HYDROPOWER TECHNOLOGY ON THECONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS

At the end of the nineteenth century, hydroelectricgenerating technology was in its infancy, and utilizedequipment configurations adapted from textile millpractice and other water-poweredindustrial applications. During the firstquarter of the twentieth century,hydroelectric engineers developed avariety of water delivery systems, andstandardized mechanical and electricalequipment that allowed generatingcapacity to meet growing demand.USGenNE’s Connecticut and Deerfieldriver developments incorporate a range ofwater delivery infrastructure andgenerating equipment reflecting the historyof hydropower technology from its earliestforms to mature industry standards.

The Vernon Development (1909), Chace& Harriman’s first hydroelectric station,was conceived as a single project. Vernonwas important technologically as the firstnortheastern U.S. hydroelectric plant built

remote from a load center and to deliver its loadvia long-distance transmission lines. Transformersat Vernon raised the electricity to 66 kV, enablingit to be transmitted over 60 miles to Gardner andFitchburg, Massachusetts, a voltage and distancethat were unprecedented in the northeast. WhenChace & Harriman turned their attention to theDeerfield River (1911-1927), they envisioneddeveloping the whole river drainage as anintegrated, multi-station system, much like the BigCreek and other hydroelectric systems beingdeveloped in California at that time. Upstreamreservoirs at Somerset (1911) and Harriman (1924)insured a reliable, regulated flow of water, and run-of-river facilities like Sherman (1927) evened outsudden discharges from larger powerhouses. Thisintegrated, river-as-system approach was also takenby the New England Power Association and NewEngland Electric System with their developmentof the three Connecticut River developments atFifteen Mile Falls, Comerford (1930), McIndoesFalls (1931), and Moore (1957), where McIndoesabsorbed surges of water from Comerford.

Hydroelectric facilities incorporate two types ofwater delivery systems, concentrated-fall, anddivided-fall. In a concentrated-fall system the dam

Deerfield No. 2 Development, Conway/Shelburne, MA, built1912–1913. View of powerhouse and dam looking north fromConway side of the Deerfield River (ca. 1913 photo).Deerfield No. 2 is a concentrated fall facility, where the damand powerhouse are integral.

11



and powerhouse are integral or closely spaced, andthe impoundment behind the dam acts as a forebay,providing water directly to the powerhouse. In adivided-fall system, the dam and impoundment arelocated at some distance from the powerhouse.Divided-fall systems are usually found in morerugged terrain, such as in the Deerfield River Valley,and concentrated-fall systems are more typical offlatter areas, such as the Connecticut River Valley.On the Deerfield River, the large Somerset andHarriman storage reservoirs were built to providea constant, regulated flow of water to a series ofmostly divided-fall generating stations downstream,some of which received their water through avariety of delivery systems. On the widerConnecticut River, which has a greater, moreregular flow, most of USGenNE's hydroelectricdevelopments are of the concentrated-fall type.

At some of the Deerfield River developments, thewater delivery systems involved considerable featsof engineering. On the Deerfield River, large damswere built at Somerset, Searsburg (1922), Hariman,and Sherman. These dams were constructed inwhole or in part using variations on the hydraulic-fill method, where a series of parallel dikes of rockand earth were built up with dump cars or railroad

cars, and water was sluiced over thedikes to wash the loose material into thespace between them to form a core thatwas impervious to water (Hay 1991:53).The Harriman dam was the largest semi-hydraulic earth-fill dam built to datewhen it was completed, and created thelargest man-made body of water inVermont (New England PowerCompany 1992: AHarrimanDevelopment). Most of the dams at theUSGenNE developments incorporateogee-profile, gravity-type spillwaysections. Gravity dams rely on theirown weight on their bedrock foundationto hold back the water behind them. Thefirst concrete gravity dam was built inSan Mateo, California in 1887 (Hay1991:xix). This type of dam was adeparture from the rock-filled wooden

crib dams that were typical in New England at thetime, and came into standard use in the regionduring the first quarter of the twentieth century(Cook 1991:18-19). USGenNE's gravity dams aretypical in their linear form and ogee profile. Thesedams incorporate a variety of types of height-regulating equipment including flashboards andsluice gates. Most of the larger dams use tainter-type gates, however, the Bellows Falls dam (1928)is unique on USGenNE's Deerfield and Connecticutrivers for its use of roller-type gates.

Some of the water delivery systems werecomparable to those employed in hydroelectricdevelopments in California and the ruggedAmerican west (Hay 1991:44, 53-58). AtSearsburg, water was conveyed from the dam tothe powerhouse via a sinuous, 18,412 ft long, 8 ftdiameter, wood-stave conduit that provided 230 ftof head. The utilization of this type of water conduitwas made possible by the invention of the surgetank, a type of large standpipe that equalizedpressure differences within a pipeline that couldpotentially damage the system when turbine gateswere closed rapidly (Hay 1991:58-59). AtSearsburg, the New England Power Companyincorporated a Johnson differential surge tank in

Searsburg Development, Searsburg, VT, built 1922. View lookingsouth across Deerfield River showing surge tank (above) andpowerhouse (below) (June 29, 1923 photo). Searsburg is adivided-fall facility, where the dam and powerhouse are separate.Water from the Searsburg dam is directed to the powerhousethrough a 3.5-mile-long, banded wood stave penstock.

12



the conduit system to regulate system pressure. TheDeerfield No. 4 Development (1912) included a1,514 ft long tunnel blasted out of bedrock toconnect the dam to the forebay above thepowerhouse. The Harriman Developmentincorporated two additional engineering feats. A12,812 ft long, 14 ft diameter bedrock tunnel wasbuilt to connect the dam and powerhouse, providing390 ft of head. The 180 ft deep vertical shaftspillway was the deepest such structure built up tothat time. The Harriman water delivery system alsoincorporated a 184 ft high surge tank. Rock tunnelswere also part of the Deerfield No. 3 and No. 5developments, with the latter also incorporating a2.8 mile long canal/conduit/tunnel water deliverysystem.

In addition to constructing new water deliveryinfrastructure, preexisting industrial waterpowerinfrastructure was adapted and modified forsubsequent hydroelectric development. This wasnot an unusual practice in New England, wheremany major waterpower privileges had beendeveloped for industry (Hay 1991:44). Examplesinclude the use of the International PaperCompany's mill rights and power canal at theBellows Falls Development, the development of the

Lamson & Goodnow Manufacturing Company'sdam site at the Deerfield No. 3 Development (1912)and the use of the former James Ramage PaperCompany's dam at the Deerfield No. 5 Development(1913).

One of the most important improvements inhydroelectric technology was the development ofthe modern vertical-shaft turbine-generator unit,which dictated the configuration of powerhouseinfrastructure including the penstocks, generatorroom, and foundation substructure. Around 1900,most turbines were set vertically, which was a moreefficient orientation hydrologically, however, thethrust bearing technology required to practicallylink vertical turbines and generators had not yetbeen developed, and most electrical generators weredesigned for horizontal shaft operation. Earlyvertical-shaft hydroelectric turbine-generatorconfigurations consisted of single- or multiple-runner Francis-type fixed-blade turbines set intoopen flumes, where the weight of the water in theopen flume pressing against the turbine blades spunthem by force of gravity. Horizontal Francisturbine-generator settings placed the turbine in acylindrical steel case that was prone to efficiency-robbing turbulence and made maintenance of

submerged bearings problematic. Thesewere the limitations of the two basicturbine-generator configurations at thetime that Chace & Harriman began toplan their hydroelectric developments.

The first practical direct-connectedvertical turbine-generator units weredeveloped in 1905 by Gardner S.Williams and placed into service in ahydroelectric plant at Sault Ste. Marie,Michigan. This new technology mayhave influenced the choice for verticalunits at Chace & Harriman's 1909Vernon powerhouse, whichincorporated vertical turbine settingswith triple Francis runners in openflumes for the first eight units installed.These generating units were a hybrid ofnew and old technology. They

Deerfield No. 3 Dam, Buckland/Shelburne, MA, built 1912, Thedam was constructed on an existing water priviledge initiallydeveloped in the nineteenth century by the Lamson & GoodnowManufacturing Co. (undated photo).

13



incorporated new vertical bearing technology withopen flumes and stock pattern turbines, which weretypical of lower-efficiency, late- nineteenth-centurymill waterpower technology (Hay 1991:65-67).

Early vertical thrust bearings were, however,maintenance-prone as they employed mechanicalball, cone, or roller bearings, which wore outrapidly. This may have prompted Chace &Harriman to choose horizontal shaft settings forDeerfield 2, 3, and 4 developments, built between1911 and 1913. The turbines at these developmentswere set in cylindrical, riveted sheet steel“boilerplate” cases, with the shaft passing througha stuffing box into the powerhouse where thegenerators are located.

Subsequent improvements in vertical thrust bearingsincorporated pressurized oil films, although thesesystems required pumps and extensive piping. In1898 Albert Kingsbury developed the pressure-wedge thrust bearing, which did not require pumpedoil. This bearing saw its first application in 1912 atthe McCalls Ferry hydroelectric station on theSusquehanna River in Pennsylvania. Theintroduction of pressurized oil-film and Kingsburypressure wedge-type bearings resulted in a dramaticchange in hydroelectric plant design, as it madepossible vertical-shaft turbine and generator settingsof much greater size. The vertical setting swepthydroelectric plant design, and by 1915 many plantswere being built with vertical settings (Hay1991:71-75). The Deerfield No. 2, 3, and 4developments are USGenNE's only horizontal-shaftunits. The remainder of the Deerfield River and allthe Connecticut River developments incorporatevertical shaft turbine settings using variations onoil-film bearings.

The development of successful vertical-shaft turbinesettings led to advances in turbine efficiency. Newpowerhouse substructures began to be built withspecially designed scroll cases surrounding theturbines. These spiral-shaped cast concrete or metalchannels directed water into the turbine blades in aspiral motion, increasing the efficiency of theturbines. Improved elbow-shaped draft tubes were

also developed to improve the efficiency of tailracesthat carried water way from the turbines (Hay1991:80-85).

In 1920 the New England Company added two newgenerating units to the Vernon powerhouse,consisting of two vertical-shaft, Francis-type, singlefixed-runner turbines set into concrete substructureswith scroll cases and draft tubes. The improvedefficiency of this new technology prompted the NewEngland Company to reequip units 5-8 withimproved wheel cases and runners to improveefficiency in 1921-1922. Between 1923 and 1925,units 1-4 were radically redesigned, their triple-runner turbines replaced with single-runner unitsand updated substructures. All units weresubsequently outfitted with improved, Gibbs-typevertical thrust bearings. The variety of turbines andsubstructures installed at Vernon is evidence ofefforts to keep its equipment in line with industryadvances over time (New England Power Company1992: “Vernon Development,” New England Powern.d.: Vernon Station).

During this time, increasingly large and powerfulvertical shaft turbine-generator units with improvedthrust bearings and scroll case/draft tubesubstructures were employed on the Deerfield Riverat Searsburg, Harriman, and Sherman. At the timeof its completion, the Harriman Development wasthe largest hydroelectric power development eastof Niagara Falls, supplying power on a 110-kV lineto Millbury, Massachusetts. This line was the firstto exceed the 66-kV standard. In total Harrimanproduced 140 million kV annually, almost doublingthe previous output of the Deerfield River (NewEngland Power Company 1992: “HarrimanDevelopment,” New England Power n.d.: DavisBridge Development). The HarrimanDevelopment, notable for its major engineeringfeats in its water delivery system, was also importantfor its powerhouse design, which represented theculmination of progress in hydroelectric generatingmade during the first quarter of the twentiethcentury. Its multiple-unit, vertical-shaft, large-diameter, single-runner, Francis-type turbinearrangement, combined with oil-pressure bearings

14



and special scroll cases and draft tubes, were amature expression of hydropower technology andinfrastructure, and was the mode adopted for theNew England Power Association's expandingdevelopment of the Connecticut River starting withthe Bellows Falls Development in 1928, whichincorporated the same technology and types ofequipment.

After Bellows Falls was completed, the ConnecticutRiver developments increased dramatically inphysical size and generating capacity. Thesedevelopments include Comerford, McIndoes Falls,Wilder (1950), and Moore. The increase ingenerating capacity was due to ever-increasingpower of head, turbine runner diameter, andgenerator size. Technologically, these ConnecticutRiver developments are typical of hydroelectricgenerating facilities of the mid- twentieth centurythat incorporated standardized equipmentconfigurations that were interconnected to provideelectricity to larger areas (Cook 1991:4, Hay1991:xi-xii). The powerhouses incorporate themajor elements that characterize large-scalehydroelectric generating technology during thisperiod, including multiple, vertical-shaft, single-runner, large-diameter, high-horsepower, low-rpmturbines with scroll cases cast into their foundations,vertical thrust bearings, and improved tailrace draftarrangements. The technological advancesincorporated in the Connecticut Riverdevelopments mainly consisted of changes in turbineblade design and speed control governors.

The Comerford Development was a massiveundertaking and the largest hydroelectricdevelopment in New England when completed. Thepowerhouse generated 162,300 kW, twice thecombined capacity of the three previous NewEngland Power Association Connecticut Riverhydroelectric developments. The high generatingcapacity of these large units is evidence of the abilityof technological advances to meet increasedelectrical demand. The Comerford turbine-generator units incorporate fixed-blade, Francis-type turbines. Although this type of turbine has itsorigins in nineteenth-century technology, the

runners at these later powerhouses are of moderndesign incorporating highly-efficient vane contours,and are appropriate for their high-head watersources, which provide flows of little variation (Hay1991:78-80).

In 1931 the McIndoes Development was builtdownstream from Comerford as a run-of-riverstation to even out any large releases of water fromComerford. It is not a high-capacity station. Themost significant technological feature of theMcIndoes Falls Facility was its use of variable-pitch,Kaplan propeller-blade turbines, a first for NewEngland (Cook 1991:26). The first Kaplan-typepropeller runner in the U.S. was installed at theLake Walk powerhouse in Del Rio, Texas, in 1929(Hay 1991:xix). Kaplan-type turbines were smaller,lighter, less prone to debris damage, operated athigher speeds, and were more economical for low-head applications like McIndoes, where the volumeof water was more variable (Hay 1991:79). Thelow-head Wilder Development also incorporatedKaplan-type, variable-pitch propeller turbines.

During the mid-1930s a significant change tookplace in the technology of governor mechanismsthat controlled turbine runner speed. Turbinegovernors utilized a feedback-loop system with aspeed sensor attached to the generator shaft thatactuated a hydraulic arm that controlled the wicketgate openings on the turbine, thus regulating itsspeed. All USGenNE Connecticut River andDeerfield River powerhouses up to and includingthe McIndoes powerhouse incorporated hydraulicsystems with traditional flyball-type

mechanical governors. By the 1920s the WoodwardCompany of Rockford, Illinois, had come todominate the market for this type of equipment.During the mid-1930s, Woodward introducedgovernors with electromagnetic speed sensorsattached to generator shafts. This no longerrequired that governors be located close to turbines,and “cabinet” type governor stands could be placedalmost anywhere near the unit (Hay 1991:88-89).The original hydraulic, flyball governor units are inplace and in varying states of modification at

15



McIndoes Falls and all other earlier powerhouses.The first-generation cabinet governor control unitsare still in place at Wilder and Moore, although theyhave been superceded by more modern equipment.Comerford's early governor cabinets have beenremoved and are stored at the Moore powerhouse(Cultural Resource Consulting Group 1997:15).

The Moore Development, completed in 1957, hasa generating capacity of 191,300 kW, and remainsthe largest single development of a natural resourcefor power production in New England. LikeComerford, it utilizes conventional, although large,Francis-type, fixed-blade turbines appropriate forits high-head setting (New England Power 1992:“Moore Development”).

Automation and remote control are also part of thehydropower technology on USGenNE'sConnecticut and Deerfield hydroelectric systems.When completed in 1922, the Searsburghydroelectric power facility was said to be thelargest fully automated plant in the United States,producing 25 million kilowatt-hours per year. Itwas designed for non-attendant automatic operationrun off a time clock that allowed the turbine to beopened at a certain time and carry a predeterminedload, and shut itself down. It was also designed tocarry load based on pool height behind theSearsburg Reservoir by means of an electric floatswitch (Cavanaugh et al.1993). Most otherdevelopments on USGenNE’s Deerfield River andConnecticut River systems were designed for full-time manned control, and have been automated overtime. All Deerfield River developments are nowcontrolled from the Harriman powerhouse. On theConnecticut River, the Moore and McIndoesdevelopments are controlled from Comerford, andVernon, Bellows Falls, and Wilder remain mannedfacilities.

USGenNE’s Connecticut River and Deerfield Riverhydroelectric developments encompass the fullrange of hydroelectric generating technologydeveloped and utilized from the late-nineteenth tomid- twentieth centuries. Turbine settings rangefrom the triple-runner, vertical-shaft, open-flume

configuration still in use in several units at Vernon;through horizontal-shaft, double-runner,“boilerplate”-case units at Deerfield Nos. 2, 3, and4; to modern vertical-shaft settings with specially-designed scroll cases and draft tubes at theremaining developments. Conventional, fixed-bladeFrancis-type turbines predominate. However,Kaplan-type fixed and variable-pitch propeller typeturbines are in use on the Connecticut River at theMcIndoes Falls and Wilder powerhouses. Thedevelopments include a range of types of dams,spillways, gate mechanisms, water delivery systems,governors, and other mechanical and electricalequipment. The Deerfield River systemincorporates particularly dramatic engineeringsolutions, and a landmark early automatedpowerhouse at Searsburg. The showpieceHarriman Development, which culminated thedevelopment of the Deerfield River, includedengineering superlatives including its earth-fill semi-hydraulic dam, vertical shaft spillway, undergroundtunnel, and powerhouse with its mature expressionof hydroelectric generating technology.

HYDROPOWER ARCHITECTURE ON THECONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS

Architecturally, American powerhouses representa synthesis of constant, highly specific functionaland structural requirements, and changing popularcorporate architectural styles. Powerhouses are aspecialized derivative of the “erecting shop,” a typeof industrial building designed to house moveablecranes for building large, heavy machines. Thesebuildings required wide, open interior spacesunobstructed by interior support columns, andincorporated steel-framed outer walls and trussedroofs, often enclosed in a masonry skin. Thedimensions of powerhouses are primarily dictatedby the size and number of generating units required,and the volume of the interior open space requiredfor the structurally-integral traveling crane that isused to install and maintain the interior equipment.

As most early twentieth-century heavymanufacturing buildings were privately-owned, out

16



of the public eye, and designed to be purelyfunctional, they exhibited little, if any,significant decorative elements. Earlypowerhouses, however, were often morevisible, provided a public service, and wereconstructed by concerns eager to promote animage of strength and reliability. Examples ofearly twentieth-century precedents forelaborate clear-span-interior structuresintended to convey a positive public imageincluded buildings such as banks and largeurban railroad terminals, which were oftenmodeled after historical building types rangingfrom medieval fortresses to Roman baths.

Throughout the history of powerhouseconstruction, the regular spacing of widestructural bays and the need for large quantitiesof natural interior light have inspired a variety ofstylistic architectural surface treatments. Earlytwentieth-century powerhouse architecture wasclearly influenced by a lingering Victorianhistoricism. Most of the architectural schemes forthese powerhouses were spare and Classically-derived. Examples of this phase of powerhousearchitecture include the Deerfield No. 2, 3, and 4(1912-1913), and Searsburg (1922) powerhouses.These powerhouses were designed in a restrainedRenaissance Revival-style scheme most evident inthe large, repeated arched windows and decorativebrickwork.

Some early twentieth-century powerhouses weremore decorative, and incorporated elements ofother architectural styles including the Romanesque,seen at Vernon (1909) and Gothic, at Harriman(1924) and Bellows Falls (1928). The VernonPowerhouse was designed in a restrainedRenaissance Revival-style scheme, and itsdecoration includes elements of the Romanesque,notably the triple machicolations repeated in thecornice in the west and south elevations. TheHarriman and Bellows Falls powerhousesincorporated a variety of mostly Classical details,but also included skewed Gothic buttresses withcast stone trim at the corners.

By the late 1920s, this “Powerhouse Renaissance”style was slowly abandoned in favor of a “StrippedClassicism” that incorporated rectangular windowsrather than the previously ubiquitous arched ones,and retained a more limited selection of masonryembellishments, such as Sherman (1927) andMcIndoes Falls (1931). The Sherman Powerhousewas designed in a transitional style that combinesthe restrained Renaissance Revival style popular inearlier powerhouses with the emerging strippedClassical Revival-style scheme that was becomingmore common for large utility and industrialbuildings of its period. The building doesincorporate a Spanish terra cotta tile roof, a typicalRenaissance Revival style roof cladding material,but lacks the hallmark arched windows that arecharacteristic of true Renaissance Revivalpowerhouse. The McIndoes Falls Powerhouseincorporates rectangular windows instead of archedwindows, and decoration limited to a thincontinuous string course below the roofline.

During the 1930s, the influence of the Art Modernestyle incorporated in new skyscrapers andinstitutional buildings led to the adoption of hybridstyles for industrial buildings that emphasizedverticality, such as the Collegiate Gothic stylechosen for the Comerford Powerhouse (1930). Itwas designed in a Streamlined Moderne version of

Deerfield No. 4 Powerhouse, built 1912. The powerhouse isan example of the Classically inspired architecture used inthe designs of the early twentieth century hydroelectricfacilities on the Deerfield and Connecticut rivers(November 15, 1927 photo).

17



the Collegiate Gothic style, the most distinctiveelements of which are the flat, pointed Gothic archesin the windows, which are repeated in thedownstream face of the Dam, and the generalemphasis on verticality. The widespread popularityof the Colonial Revival style also manifested itselfin powerhouse architecture, as seen at Wilder(1950), which includes Colonial Revival featuresincluding elliptical arches, prominent gable roofreturns, mock end chimneys, and ocular gable

pediment windows. Ultimately, the functionaltenets of Modernism resulted in the abandonmentof historical references and decorative elements inpowerhouse architecture in favor of buildingsincorporating pure geometry and simple materials,such as the Moore Powerhouse (1957), whichexhibits bold, sharp, rectangular form; lack ofornamentation; and functional use of metal sash andcopings, and glass block windows.

SOURCES

Cavanaugh, M., A. McFeeters, and V. H. Adams1993a Massachusetts Building Inventory Forms

prepared for the Massachusetts HistoricalCommission.

________.1993b Vermont Building Inventory Forms prepared

for the Vermont Division for HistoricPreservation.

Cook, Lauren J.1991 A Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey in

Association with the Relicensing of EightHydroelectric Developments Along theDeerfield River Valley in Vermont andMassachusetts, FERC L.P. No. 2323. JohnMilner Associates, Inc. Submitted to NewEngland Power Company, Westborough, MA.

Cultural Resource Group and Louis Berger &Associates, Inc.1997 National Register Evaluation of Project

Facilities: Fifteen Mile Falls HydroelectricProject. Prepared for New England PowerCompany, Lebanon, NH.

Glover, John George and William Bouck Cornell1951 The Development of American Industries:

Their Economic Significance. Prentice Hall,New York.

Hay, Duncan1991 Hydroelectric Development in the United

States, 1880B1940. Edison Electric Institute,Washington, D.C.

Landry, John T. and Jeffrey L. Cruikshank1996 From the Rivers: The Origins and Growth

of the New England Electric System. NewEngland Electric System.

Marcus, Alan I. and Howard P. Segal1989 Technology in America: A Brief History.

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.

New England Power1992 Hydro Reference Manual. Lebanon, NH.

New England Power Systemn.d. Description of Generating Stations,

Substations, and Important TransmissionLines with Photographs of InterestingFeatures. New England Power Company,Worcester, MA.

18

history of hydroelectric development on the … · landry and cruikshank 1996:18-23; marcus and...

Documents