Vail Resorts announces sustainability, net zero plan

Vail Resorts, Inc. -- the largest ski and mountain resort operator in the world -- has announced a comprehensive sustainability commitment that calls for "zero net emissions by 2030, zero waste to landfill by 2030 and zero net operating impact to forests and habitat."  According to the company, Vail Resorts' "Epic Promise for a Zero Footprint" will give resort guests and employees "the opportunity to enjoy the natural environment and resources without leaving an impact."
 
Vail Resorts' subsidiaries operate 11 mountain resorts and three urban ski areas, including Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone in Colorado; Park City in Utah; Heavenly, Northstar and Kirkwood in the Lake Tahoe area of California and Nevada; Whistler Blackcomb in British Columbia, Canada; Perisher in Australia; Stowe in Vermont; Wilmot Mountain in Wisconsin; Afton Alps in Minnesota and Mt. Brighton in Michigan. The company also owns and operates hotels as well as a real estate planning and development subsidiary.

In a July 25, 2017, press release, Vail Resorts announced its "Epic Promise for a Zero Footprint" sustainability commitment.  Pointing to Whistler Blackcomb's environmental commitment as inspiration, Vail Resorts announced its intent "to go beyond setting a partial emissions reduction target by executing on a more expansive and ambitious plan."

With respect to net zero emissions from operations by 2030, the Vail Resorts plan calls for continued reduction of the company's electricity and gas use by improving operating practices and investing $25 million in innovative, energy-saving projects, such as low-energy snowmaking equipment, green building design and construction, and more efficient grooming practices and equipment.  Among other measures, it envisions purchasing 100 percent renewable energy equivalent to Vail Resorts' total electrical energy use and working with utilities and local, regional and national governments to bring more renewable energy to the grids where the company operates its resorts. As an interim goal, the plan states the company's intent to achieve a 50 percent reduction in its net emissions by 2025, based on 2016 levels.

Other 2030 goals set in the Vail Resorts plan include "zero waste to landfill" (by diverting 100 percent of the waste from its operations to more sustainable pathways) and "zero net operating impact to forests and habitat" (by measures including mitigation, tree planting and forest restoration, and minimizing or eliminating the impact of any future resort development). 

Adding micro-hydro to licensed hydropower project

What happens when a FERC hydropower licensee applies for a preliminary permit to study the feasibility of developing a micro-hydro project, where the new project will be sited at an existing project's dam?  In a recent case involving the city of Aspen, Colorado, Commission staff dismissed the preliminary permit application, instead suggesting that the licensee apply to amend its existing license to include the proposed new capacity and facilities.  Because many other existing dams may be candidates for the installation of new hydropower facilities, the Aspen Micro Hydro Project case illustrates important dynamics of hydropower licensing under the Federal Power Act.

The case centers on a March 4, 2015 application by the City of Aspen for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, to study the feasibility of developing the Aspen Micro Hydro Project.  Most grid-connected hydropower in the U.S. is regulated under the Federal Power Act, and requires approvals by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  As described in Commission documents, the proposed Aspen project would include an existing concrete diversion dam and intake structure, plus proposed new equipment including a draft tube, 10- to 20-kilowatt turbine-generator unit, and associated facilities interconnected to an existing utility transmission line.  The application describes project values including energy production, protection of the city's water rights, and instream flow protection for environmental benefit.  As noted in the application, "Renewable projects such as the Aspen Micro Hydro Project will permit the City of Aspen to reduce its reliance on coal-fired energy and comports with the City’s goal of reducing its energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. A local facility also will provide tangible evidence to residents and visitors of Aspen’s commitment to renewable energy."

Crucially, as noted by the Commission, the dam proposed for use in the Aspen micro-hydro project is currently licensed as part of another hydropower project: the City of Aspen's Maroon Creek Project.   Commission staff have noted that "for licensed projects, such as the Maroon Creek Project, section 6 of the [Federal Power Act] prohibits the alteration of licensed project works without the mutual consent of the licensee and the Commission."  On April 16, 2015, Commission staff sent the city a letter explaining that because the proposed micro-hydro project would be sited within the existing project boundary of the city’s Maroon Creek Project, any application for a permit or license within the project boundary would be denied.  For this reason, Commission staff concluded that "a preliminary permit for the Aspen Project would serve no purpose."  Instead, Commission staff informed the city "that it could instead file an application to amend its existing license to add the Aspen Project’s proposed capacity and related facilities to the Maroon Creek Project." 

Over a year later, the city filed a status report describing its intention to "enter into a business relationship with T-Lazy Seven Ranch (T-Lazy), a Colorado ranching company, for joint development of the Aspen Project."  The status report describes plans to form a new limited liability company, and ultimately to amend the permit application to replace the city as applicant with the new company.

In a November 15, 2016 Order Dismissing Preliminary Permit Application, Commission staff noted that the purpose of a preliminary permit is "to encourage hydroelectric development by affording its holder priority of application (i.e., guaranteed first-to-file status) with respect to the filing of development applications for the affected site."  The order also notes that the prohibition in section 6 of the Federal Power Act against the alteration of licensed project works without the mutual consent of the licensee and the Commission applies, no matter whether it is the existing licensee or the new entity who seeks to pursue additional development within the project boundary of the Maroon Creek Project.  The Commission's consent to alter licensed project works would presumably come in the form of an order amending the Maroon Creek Project's license -- a consent not formally requested int the Aspen Project's docket.

Continuing to find that a preliminary permit for the Aspen Project would serve no purpose for these reasons, the order dismissed the city's permit application.  The order leaves the door open for the licensee to seek to amend the Maroon Creek Project's license, potentially in concert with an application to transfer the licensee to a new licensee or co-licensee.

Beyond the City of Aspen's interests in hydropower, the case has regulatory implications for other proposals to develop micro-hydro or new generating capacity at dams or other structures already part of FERC-licensed projects.  A Department of Energy report released earlier this year found significant national potential to increase hydropower capacity, including by adding power at existing dams and canals.  Where the existing assets are part of a FERC-licensed project, developers will be wise to be mindful of how the Commission interprets the Federal Power Act.

Colorado conduit hydropower project

A proposed hydroelectric project in Colorado has received a federal determination that it qualifies as a "qualifying conduit hydroelectric facility" and thus is not required to be licensed under Part I of the Federal Power Act.  The Park Farm Hydro Project illustrates the rapid pace with which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can act on conduit hydropower projects under a 2013 amendment to its law.

The Federal Power Act requires most hydropower projects to be licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  But Section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 amended the Federal Power Act to facilitate "conduit hydropower" projects -- those generating electricity using only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit, such as a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption, and is not primarily for the generation of electricity.  Reforms in 2013 exempted qualifying conduit hydropower facilities from needing a license, and established a fast process for to solicit public comment and confirm whether the new exemption applies.  In the ensuing years, a number of projects have qualified for this treatment.

On January 27, 2016, an applicant filed a notice of intent, pursuant to section 30(a) of the Federal Power Act, as amended by Section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, the Park Farm Hydro Project, to be located near the Town of Kersey, in Weld County, Colorado.  The notice described a proposal to add ten 1-kilowatt Crossflow turbines alongside an existing "ditch drop" or conduit in the Lower Latham Ditch.

On February 2, 2016, the Commission issued its notice of preliminary determination that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.  The notice set a 30-day deadline for filing motions to intervene, and a 45-day deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria.  No such comments or motions were received.

On March 22, 2016 -- less than 2 months after the applicant first filed its notice of intent -- the Commission issued a letter constituting its written determination that the Park Farm Hydro Project meets the qualifying criteria under Federal Power Act section 30(a), and is not required to be licensed under Part I of the FPA, although other federal, state, and local laws do apply.

This quick timing on the Park Farm project is consistent with other recent FERC action on proposed conduit hydropower projects.

FERC holds CO microhydro needs license

In an order issued earlier this month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that the developer of a micro-hydropower project proposed in Colorado must obtain a license for the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project's construction, maintenance, and operation.  The order illustrates one challenge facing small, distributed hydroelectric projects in the U.S.: a federal regulatory process that at times can treat microhydro projects much like traditional large dams, despite interest in a streamlined permitting process for small projects.

At issue is Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act.  It provides that any person intending to construct project works on a non-navigable commerce clause water must file a declaration of their intention to do so with the Commission. Section 23(b) further provides that upon the filing of a Declaration of Intent, the Commission will investigate the proposed project, and, if it finds that the “interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected” by the proposed project, then the person intending to construct the project must obtain a Commission license before starting construction.

Under section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 817(1), a non-federal hydroelectric project must be licensed (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal permit) if it:

(a) is located on a navigable water of the United States;
(b) occupies lands or reservations of the United States;
(c) utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or
(d) is located on a stream over which Congress has Commerce clause jurisdiction, is constructed or modified on or after August 26, 1935, and affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce.

On May 11, 2015, as supplemented on November 10, 2015, Steve Patton filed a Declaration of Intention with the Commission concerning the proposed Patton Colorado Hydropower Project.  The project would be located on Colombine Creek, a feeder stream to the South Fork of the Rio Grande, near the town of South Fork, Mineral County, Colorado.  It would consist of an intake and pipes feeding a gravitation water vortex-type generating unit rated between 2 and 10 kilowatts with 2.5 feet of head, transmission line, and appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would be connected to the interstate electric grid.

In the case of the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project, the Commission found that licensure is required under the fourth prong of Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, which itself has three components.

First, the Commission found that the Patton project would be located on a "Commerce Clause stream."  Specifically, the Commission found that Colombine Creek is a headwater or tributary of the South Fork of the Rio Grande, which is a tributary of the Rio Grande River, a navigable water of the United States.  Under a 1965 Supreme Court precedent, for purposes of FPA section 23(b)(1), the headwaters and tributaries of navigable rivers are Commerce Clause streams.

Second, the project would be constructed after August 26, 1935. 

Third, citing a 1992 opinion from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Commission noted, "It is well settled that small hydroelectric projects that are connected to the interstate grid affect interstate commerce by displacing power from the grid, and the cumulative effect of the national class of these small projects is significant for purposes of the FPA section 23(b)(1)."  Thus the Commission concluded that the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project would affect interstate commerce through its connection to the interstate grid.

Based on these conclusions, the Commission found that in accordance with section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, the applicant must obtain a license for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project.  The Commission also ruled that no construction or operation of the project may commence until a license has been obtained.

Notably, the Commission was able to reach this conclusion without making a navigability finding for Colombine Creek itself.  In particular, the order notes "insufficient evidence to determine whether Colombine Creek is navigable." But because the Commission found licensing to be required on other grounds -- grounds derived from the ultimate navigability of a downstream river -- it did not make a navigability finding for the river reach where the project would be located.

The Commission's order did suggest that an easier path may be available for the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project.  In particular, the order notes that the project may be eligible for an exemption from licensing.  It suggests that the applicant consider applying for a small hydroelectric power project exemption of 10 megawatts (MW) or less.  This more limited approval could enable project development and operation through a more streamlined regulatory processes than that required for a full project license.

Incentives and policy support for microhydro projects are growing.  But as the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project case before the FERC illustrates, even small hydropower projects may be subject to federal regulation.  For some projects, an exemption may be available, but others may not be able to be developed without a FERC license.  Even an exemption can take time and expense to secure, and it can be hard to preduct the outcome of an application for an exemption.  How does this dynamic affect the rate of development of U.S. micro-hydropower projects?

Plan for solar on U.S. public lands advances

The U.S. Department of the Interior has finalized its general assessment of the environmental impacts of developing solar electric generation on public lands in six western states.  Last Friday's issuance of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) will expedite the permitting of solar energy projects in designated solar energy zones on federal land.

A view of the back a solar panel on public land in the Utah desert.

Part of the Obama administration's plan to encourage utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands, the finalization of the record of decision for the PEIS established an initial set of 17 Solar Energy Zones (SEZs) in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and  Utah.  (Refer to DOI's map to see the general location of the zones.)

These initial 17 zones cover about 285,000 acres of public lands, and were designated based on factors including environmental suitability and access to transmission lines.  The Interior Department projects that if fully built out, the designated zones could be home to up to 23,700 megawatts of solar energy, an amount sufficient to power about 7 million homes.

The approved solar plan also allows a case-by-case evaluation of solar projects on another 19 million acres in “variance” areas outside the designated zones.  At the same time, the plan excludes almost 79 million acres deemed "inappropriate for solar development based on currently available information."

Notably, the PEIS does not pre-approve any specific plan.  Each project proposed in the designated zones will still require its own environmental review and other permitting.  Nevertheless, the solar plan may facilitate significant development of solar energy projects on public lands in the western United States.

Solar-powered highway in Colorado

Facilities along a 17-mile segment of a Colorado toll highway are now powered by solar-generated electricity.  The project, which involved the construction of 22 solar installation sites along the route, was financed through a long-term power purchase agreement that allows the highway authority to avoid direct exposure to the capital costs of construction.

Solar photovoltaic panels at Goblin Valley State Park, Utah.

Colorado E-470 is a beltway that loops around the east side of the Denver metropolitan area.  The road is administered by the E-470 Public Highway Authority, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado.  Much of the authority's expenses center on road maintenance, but electricity costs are one component of its operational budget.  For example, electricity is used to power streetlights, signs, toll collection equipment, toll plazas, maintenance facilities and the authority's administrative headquarters.

Looking to reduce its operational costs, the highway authority focused on the development of solar photovoltaic facilities.  Rather than developing the project itself, or purchasing a turnkey project, the authority entered into a deal with Adamas Energy Investments to develop the project.  Under that deal, Adamas and solar developer Martifer Solar USA constructed solar PV electric generation facilities along part of E-470 at no direct cost to the authority.  Instead, the authority entered into a 20-year solar power purchase agreement with Adamas to purchase the project's output. 

According to EVStudio, the designer of the piers for the installations, the project is anticipated to produce 975,436 kWh in its first year of operation.  The exact pricing terms of the deal are not readily available to the public, but the authority has stated that it anticipates paying Adamas less per kilowatt-hour than it would to incumbent utility Xcel Energy.  According to the authority, the first six years' pricing is fixed, followed by a fixed annual increase for the 14 remaining years of the PPA.

Wyoming-Colorado water pipeline, hydropower

Federal regulators have upheld their rejection of a proposal to pipe water over 500 miles from southwestern Wyoming’s Green River and Flaming Gorge Reservoir to Colorado. The project, known formally as the Regional Watershed Supply Project but more commonly called the Flaming Gorge Pipeline, has been sent back to the drawing board.  The recent permit denial appears to rest largely on the vague and incomplete nature of the application, but it also points to possible gaps in how the federal government regulates water use and hydropower.

Water - a scarce but valuable resource in the American west.

 
The Regional Watershed Supply Project was originally proposed by private developer Million Conservation Resource Group to make new water supply available for use by municipalities, agriculture, and industries in southeastern Wyoming and the Front Range of Colorado. In 2008, the developer applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under its Section 404 authority, the Army Corps regulates activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.

In July 2011, based on the record in the case, the Army Corps withdrew the pipeline application, saying in a public notice that the “primary purpose of the project may now change to electrical power generation”, an activity appropriately under the purview of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Wyco Power and Water Inc., the successor in interest to Million Conservation Resource Group, then applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit for its project. By this time, the project concept included seven hydropower projects along the pipeline, including two pumped storage projects and five turbines within the pipeline. In response to the public notice of the permit application, over 200 comments expressly opposing the proposed project were submitted by the Governor of Wyoming, state agencies, counties, municipalities, water conservation districts, utilities, environmental or resource advocacy groups, and individuals.

In February, FERC dismissed Wyco’s request for a preliminary permit (3-page PDF) as premature, noting that the pipeline did not yet exist, nor did the applicant have authorizations for any specific route, nor had a route been substantially identified. FERC also noted that its only role associated with the proposed water supply pipeline would be to authorize the construction and operation of any proposed hydropower projects along the pipeline, not to authorize the siting of the pipeline itself.

Although Wyco asked FERC for a rehearing of its dismissal, yesterday the Commission upheld its earlier decision. In FERC’s order denying request for rehearing and clarification (9-page PDF), FERC reiterated that while it “regularly licenses discrete hydropower developments within substantial water conveyance systems, it has long been the Commission’s practice not to license the entire water conveyance system itself.”

So where does that leave Wyco? With both the Army Corps and FERC finding that the permits sought are premature, a logical next step would be to pin down a specific route and to seek authorizations from the federal, state, and private landowners whose property would be crossed. The developer has suggested that financing the project will be difficult without first obtaining some governmental approvals, and it may be hard to reach deals with landowners without having sufficient financial commitments. Nevertheless, FERC’s decision instructs Wyco that it may come back with a preliminary permit for the hydropower components of its pipeline project once the pipeline is more well-defined.

Small hydro approved under fast process

This month, federal energy regulators approved a small hydroelectric project within two months of its formal proposal under an innovative streamlined regulatory path.

Recognizing the potential of small hydro projects, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is interested in simplifying the regulatory process for small projects.  Last year, FERC signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the state of Colorado to streamline the procedures for developing small-scale hydropower projects in that state.  Colorado has identified hundreds of small (5 MW or smaller) or conduit hydropower projects (turbines in water pipes and irrigation canals) whose total capacity could exceed 1,400 MW.  Under the Memorandum of Understanding, Colorado is developing a pilot program to test ways to simplify the processes through which project developers obtain exemptions for small projects.  For example, the application is presented to multiple agencies for simultaneous comment, rather than a prolonged multi-agency back and forth process.

Last week, FERC approved Colorado's first hydroelectric project under the Memorandum of Understanding.  Docketed as Project P-14230, the Meeker Wenschhof hydroelectric project will be developed on an existing ranch irrigation pipeline in northwestern Colorado.  Historically, water flowing through the pipe has been slowed by a valve before being stored in an underground cistern.  As approved by FERC, the rancher will install a 23-kilowatt turbine in place of the valve.  The project is expected to generate 100,000 kilowatt-hours per year on average.

The Meeker Wenschhof project's engineering details are interesting, making innovative and efficient use of the power of flowing water.  Equally interesting is the speed with which the project flew through the regulatory approval process, with the application granted just two months after it was filed with FERC.  Admittedly, this expedited process is currently limited to small hydro and conduit projects.  Nevertheless, the Meeker Wenschhof project's rapid approval illustrates how quickly the regulatory process can be completed if it is designed to accommodate developers' needs.

September 9, 2010 - Lightship Nantucket; FERC signs Colorado MOU on small hydro

The Lightship Nantucket WLV61, in port on Martha's Vineyard in summer 2010.  Until 1983, lightships such as this were used to mark shoals; they have since been functionally replaced (if not aesthetically so) by automated buoys.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is working with states to promote the development (or redevelopment) of small hydropower projects across the country.  FERC has recently signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with four states on the development of hydrokinetic projects: California, Washington, Maine, and Oregon.  Now FERC has signed an MOU with Colorado to streamline the procedures for developing small-scale hydropower projects in Colorado.  According to a recent federal survey, Colorado could be host to several hundred potential small (5 MW or smaller) hydropower projects.  Altogether, these small projects could add up to a combined capacity of more than 1,400 MW.

The MOU focuses on the development by Colorado of a pilot program to test procedural options for simplifying the processes for developers to obtain conduit exemptions and small (5MW or less) project exemptions.

The MOU opens the door for developers of small projects in Colorado to participate in the pilot program.  Colorado and FERC are both expected to take input from project developers about the kind of obstacles they face in permitting and exempting small projects - and about what can be done to help more projects be developed.

As we've seen in Maine, developing or redeveloping small hydro projects can run into siting and permitting challenges at the federal, state, and local levels.  For example, the Scribner's Mill dam reconstruction and repowering project on the Crooked River in Maine faces opposition on water quality, environmental and fisheries concerns.  While an MOU like that between FERC and Colorado might not eliminate these challenges, stakeholders are hopeful that a resolution will be reached that allows environmentally responsible projects to move forward.

August 3, 2010 - Horsetooth Reservoir; Maine wind; firewood

If you're feeling the heat today, perhaps you'll take comfort in this wintry picture from last January.  You're looking west across Horsetooth Reservoir outside Fort Collins, Colorado.  Horsetooth Reservoir is part of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, which includes water diversion from the west slope to feed the more populous Front Range area of Colorado.  Horsetooth Reservoir also provides water storage for hydroelectric generation.

The Maine Forest Service is reminding people that there is a ban on using out-of-state firewood in Maine, due to concerns over invasive species including insects and fungal pathogens.  Firewood is a major source of energy in Maine, but pests like the Asian Longhorned Beetle threaten to severely damage Maine's valuable forests.  The Asian Longhorned Beetle is already present in Massachusetts, but has not officially been documented in Maine. Today brings more coverage of yesterday's nomination of David Littell to fill the vacancy on the Maine Public Utilities Commission. Here's an editorial by Norman Kalloch in the Lewiston Sun Journal criticizing what the author sees as hype over wind energy.  He compares current tropes like "Maine is the Saudi Arabia of wind" to past busts, like nuclear power being perceived as "too cheap to meter.  (This isn't Mr. Kalloch's first such editorial; here's one he wrote this spring.)  Here's the punchline: "In reality, commercial wind power is an unreliable, environmentally degrading, overpriced form of power generation. Nothing short of massive amounts of public money can make those projects happen, because no developer in his right mind would undertake a project without public money." We're in for a blast of solar radiation tonight, as ions thrown off by the Sun during Sunday's coronal mass ejection. How about energy efficient street lighting?  The town of Lexington, Massachusetts, has approved a $930,000 plan to replace existing bulbs with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).  Lexington's 3,400 streetlights have consumed nearly 2 million kilowatt-hours per year; this project will save 1.3 million kWh per year, totalling almost $190,000 annually.  This project is projected to pay for itself within 3.6 years, thanks in part to a $237,724 grant from utility NStar.

4/2/10

Stretching slightly beyond energy policy: the Town of Scarborough has finally acquired the parking lot at Higgins Beach. What do you get when you take the Portland area's most consistent surf beach, then ban on-street parking, then charge two arms and a leg for parking in the one private lot in the village? Angry surfers. Higgins was always my favorite break when we lived in Portland, but the parking scene -- especially in summer -- was always a nightmare. If the dirt parking lot was ever built on, it would have eliminated the one place beachgoers could have parked for miles around. The owner of the 1.5 acre lot, plus a 10 acre (presumably unbuildable) strip near the marsh, wanted nearly $1.5 million. Fortunately, a deal has been cut, using $632,145 from the Land for Maine's Future program, a matching amount from the town's bond and $7,270 from fundraising by The Trust for Public Land and the Surfrider Foundation. Thank you.

The Tesoro oil refinery in Anacortes, Washington suffered an explosion and a fire, killing 4 people and leaving 3 more missing.

More on the landslide in Winslow, Maine after the removal of the Fort Halifax dam: Maine Department of Environmental Protection has ordered (former) dam licensee NextEra to study and report on what went wrong. (A bit of pedigree is useful here, since it can be confusing: NextEra Energy Resources is the entity in question, formerly known as Florida Power & Light Energy, or sometimes known as FPLE Maine Hydro LLC.) The landslide threatens the Fort Hill Cemetery, with graves as old as the mid-1700s.

Rail issues: a Pan Am train derailed in downtown Norridgewock Wednesday.

There's a fair amount of hype going around about the weaknesses of the federal EnergyStar appliance rating program.

In Colorado, dominant utility Xcel Energy is replacing 900 MW of coal plants -- 30% of the entire Colorado coal-fueled generation -- with natural gas plants, all because the legislature enacted the Colorado Clean Air – Clean Jobs Act, which caps emissions at 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. Now it's a race for regulatory approval: by December, utility proposals must be approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, and must be operational by 2017.

Did you know that until this week, there had only been one known tropical cyclone in the South Atlantic Ocean? Now there have been two. Today, the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite, GOES-12 identified Tropical Storm 90Q off the coast of Argentina.

In Los Angeles, a good editorial from the LA Times bashing the Department of Water and Power board for endorsing Mayor Villaraigosa's proposed rate hike to fund electric efficiency -- which as reported yesterday, didn't pass.