MITCHELL DAM
OperatingHydro power plant
- Capacity
- 170 MW
- Primary fuel
- Hydro
- County
- Coosa County
- Operator
- ALABAMA POWER CO
- Status
- Operating
- Commissioned
- 1949
- EIA plant ID
- 17
- Generators
- 4
- Technology
- Conventional Hydroelectric
- Net generation (2024)
- 356 GWh
- Capacity factor (2024, EIA nameplate)
- 24%
- Data vintage
- EIA-860 2024 final; EIA-923 2022-2024 final
- Coordinates
- 32.8049, -86.4461
MITCHELL DAM, a 170 MW Hydro power plant in Coosa County, Alabama. Operated by ALABAMA POWER CO, commissioned 1949.
How MITCHELL DAM compares
With 170 MW of capacity, MITCHELL DAM ranks 27th among the 64 operating power plants Bywatts maps in Alabama and 7th of the 23 operating Hydro plants in the state. It accounts for about 5.2% of Alabama's operating Hydro capacity and 0.5% of all operating capacity in the state. Nationally it is the 107th-largest of the 1,243 operating Hydro plants in the database. Commissioned in 1949, it is older than 81% of the 64 operating Alabama plants with a recorded commissioning year. Its operator, ALABAMA POWER CO, runs 22 operating plants in Alabama totaling 12,989 MW.
EIA-860 lists 4 generators at the site with 170 MW of nameplate capacity, all conventional hydroelectric technology. Net generation was 356 GWh in 2024 (a 24% capacity factor), down 35% from 2022. Its generators came online between 1949 and 1985.
Grid neighborhood
The closest transmission line found within 10 miles is a 115 kV line owned by ALABAMA POWER CO, under 0.1 miles away. Another 5 operating power plants totaling 2,369 MW sit within 25 miles; the largest is TENASKA LINDSAY HILL GENERATING STATION (939 MW, Natural Gas).
Computed by Bywatts from HIFLD power plant and transmission line records and EIA-860/923 survey data; distances are straight-line. Sources and methodology
Weather peril exposure
MITCHELL DAM is a 170 MW hydro power plant in Coosa County, AL, operated by ALABAMA POWER CO, commissioned in 1949. Coosa County carries moderate modeled catastrophe exposure in the FEMA National Risk Index, scoring 2.0 of 5 at the 26th national percentile. Riverine flooding is the leading peril, rated Very Low by FEMA at the 91st percentile.
The Bywatts loss layer is calibrated to solar PV hardware, so it is not applied to a hydro plant. The ratings below are the FEMA National Risk Index county hazard ratings for this location.
Coosa County hazard ratings
| Peril | FEMA rating | National percentile | Peril score | Events per year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riverine flooding | Very Low | 91st | 4.6 of 5 | 0.14 |
| Wildfire | Relatively Low | 78th | 4.1 of 5 | <0.01 |
| Tornado | Relatively Low | 71st | 3.8 of 5 | 0.61 |
| Hurricane | Very Low | 67th | 3.7 of 5 | 0.06 |
| Earthquake | Very Low | 60th | 3.4 of 5 | <0.01 |
| Lightning | Very Low | 53rd | 3.1 of 5 | 68.2 |
| Strong wind | Relatively Low | 36th | 2.5 of 5 | 1.4 |
| Heat wave | Relatively Low | 36th | 2.4 of 5 | 6.9 |
| Hail | Very Low | 29th | 2.2 of 5 | 3.4 |
| Ice storm | Very Low | 23rd | 1.9 of 5 | 0.37 |
| Winter weather | Very Low | 10th | 1.4 of 5 | 1.7 |
Perils not assessed in Coosa County
These perils carry no usable National Risk Index figure for this county, so they are excluded from the scoring rather than scored zero. A zero would claim the peril was assessed and found benign.
| Peril | Why it is not scored |
|---|---|
| Coastal flooding | FEMA rating is "Not Applicable" for this county |
Model hail, wind and flood exposure for Coosa County in the weather risk calculator
Ratings are the FEMA National Risk Index county hazard ratings; the peril score is a Bywatts transform of the FEMA national percentile. Full data sources and the solar vulnerability methodology are in the weather risk calculator.
Modeled estimate for screening and negotiation. Built from FEMA National Risk Index county hazard data and a solar vulnerability layer documented above. Not a quote, a binder, or actuarial advice, and not a substitute for a carrier's own model. Hazard data: FEMA National Risk Index December 2025, synced 2026-07-24. Resolution is county level, not site level.