FERC solicits panel members to resolve hydropower licensing study disputes

U.S. hydropower regulators have asked for volunteers interested in serving as panel members to assist in resolving disputes related to the scope of studies required for hydropower licensing.

Under federal law, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is tasked with processing applications for licenses for most hydropower projects located in the U.S. To process any given application, the Commission typically uses one of three different licensing processes. Since 2005, the Commission's "Integrated Licensing Process" or ILP has been the default choice.

Under the ILP, the applicant seeking a license files a proposed study plan describing the studies it intends to conduct to inform the Commission's review of its application. Studies might cover the project's impact on a variety of types of resources and issues, such as aquatic, terrestrial, cultural, recreational, geological, land management, engineering and socioeconomic topics. After a 90-day period of consultation with stakeholders and Commission staff, the applicant may file a revised study plan for Commission approval. Ultimately, the director of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects will issue a study determination approving the study plan with any modifications based on the record. Whatever studies are required by the Commission-approved study plan must be conducted by the applicant or its consultants.

The nature and extent of the studies required can be controversial. Stakeholders have opportunities to comment on the applicant's original study plan, to participate in consultation, and to comment to the Commission on the revised study plan.

Under the ILP, certain federal or state agencies or tribes also have the ability to request that a study dispute be referred to a dispute resolution panel. The three-member panel would consist of FERC staff, the agency or tribal representative referring the dispute, and an independent third person selected by the other two panelists from a list of subject-matter experts. The panel members make a finding with respect to each disputed study request, on the extent to which each study criteria set forth in the regulations is or is not met, and why. The panel then makes a recommendation to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects based on its findings.

On October 22, 2018, the Commission issued a notice requesting applications from those interested in being listed as potential panel members. The Commission previously compiled lists in 2004, 2010, and 2015. For the latest round, the Commission has requested applications by January 31, 2019.

Whitestone hydrokinetic license surrendered

Despite efforts to offer a streamlined regulatory path for some demonstration hydropower projects, earlier this year the holder of a hydrokinetic pilot project license for a project proposed for the Tanana River in Alaska surrendered its license due to an inability to find financing. The case of the Whitestone Poncelet River-In-Stream-Energy-Conversion (RISEC) Pilot Project No. 13305 illustrates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s hydrokinetic pilot project licensing process, the difficulties of testing and developing new hydropower technologies, and how the Commission handles pilot license surrender.

Whitestone Power and Communications, an assumed name of the Whitestone Community Association, had proposed the project as a 100-kilowatt demonstration of its proprietary hydrokinetic prototype technology. It was to be located on the Tanana River at its confluence with the Delta River, about 90 miles southeast of Fairbanks. A Poncelet undershot waterwheel and generator unit mounted on a floating platform, seasonally installed and moored to a cliff. Power produced would be supplied to the Golden Valley Electric Association grid.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted WPC a five-year pilot project license on October 19, 2012. In processing WPC’s application, the Commission used a hydrokinetic pilot project licensing process derived from from its Integrated Licensing Process. According to the Commission, the hydrokinetic pilot project licensing process was designed “to meet the needs of entities, such as Whitestone, who are interested in testing new hydropower technologies while minimizing the risk of adverse environmental impacts.” The Commission describes the goal of the pilot licensing process as “to allow developers to test new hydrokinetic technologies, to determine appropriate sites for these technologies, and to confirm the technology’s environmental and other effects without compromising the Commission’s oversight of the projects and limiting agency and stakeholder input.”

As outlined in a white paper prepared by Commission staff, a hydrokinetic pilot project should be: (1) small; (2) short term; (3) located in environmentally nonsensitive areas; (4) removable and able to be shut down on short notice; (5) removed, with the site restored, before the end of the license term (unless a new license is granted); and (6) initiated by a draft application in a form sufficient to support environmental analysis. After finding the WPC project met these standards, the Commission issued it a license in 2012. Article 301 of the license required the licensee to commence construction of the project works within two years from license issuance, i.e., by October 19, 2014.

Despite winning a license, the project was never built. In 2014, WPC asked for and received a two-year extension of the start-of-construction deadline, “due to unforeseen setbacks in obtaining the necessary financing to begin construction.” But in that order, the Commission reminded the licensee that, pursuant to section 13 of the Federal Power Act, the deadline for starting construction may only be extended once, for a period not exceeding two additional years. Therefore, the Commission noted its inability to grant any further extensions of time for the commencement of project construction.

But in September 2015 WPC applied to the Commission for surrender of its license. In its surrender application, WPC stated that it was unable to obtain the funding necessary to construct the project and had not constructed any project facilities.

In April 2016, the Commission granted WPC's surrender application without condition, citing the facts that the licensee had not commenced construction and that the project site remained unaltered.

The Whitestone project was among the first to use the Commission’s hydrokinetic pilot project licensing process. But despite receiving expedited regulatory treatment in licensing, financing challenges led the licensee to surrender its license before the project could be constructed. Some other proposed hydrokinetic projects have been canceled or put on hold, following licensure; earlier this year, the Commission accepted license surrender for a Washington tidal power project licensed as a 10-year pilot project, after the public utility district proposing it found it economically infeasible. Another project -- an ocean wave energy farm off the Oregon coast -- surrendered its pilot license
 in 2014.

Hydro relicensing and intervention timing

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues hydropower licenses for terms of up to 50 years.  At least 5 years before license expiration, the licensee is required to notify the Commission and the public whether it intends to apply for a new license for the project, and what licensing process it requests.  Any license application might not come for years after the filing of that notice of intent.  But as a recent Commission order shows, the opportunity for a third party to intervene in the relicensing case is triggered not by the notice of intent, but only after an application for a new license is actually filed and notice is published.

That recent order involved New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG), the licensee for the Upper Mechanicville Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2934.  The Upper Mechanicville project is located on the Hudson River in upstate New York, and has an authorized capacity of 18.5 megawatts.  Its original license, issued in 1981 for a 40-year term, expires on March 31, 2021.

On March 30, 2016, NYSEG filed a Notice of Intent to relicense the project, under the Commission's Integrated Licensing Process or ILP, along with a Pre-Application Document.

On April 13, 2016, the New York State Council of Trout Unlimited filed a motion to intervene in the docket, citing Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.  But on May 24, the Commission issued a notice dismissing that motion.

The notice first points to Rule 214(a)(3) of its procedural order, any person may seek to intervene and become a party in a proceeding by filing a motion to intervene that complies with the content requirements of Rule 214(b).  But the notice states that because NYSEG has not yet filed an application for a new license, there is no proceeding in which to intervene.  It therefore dismissed the motion to intervene as premature.

The notice does offer the Trout Unlimited group two other approaches to involvement.  First, it suggests that interested persons can register and eSubscribe to the docket.  Second, it notes that should NYSEG file an application for a new license for its project, notice of the application will be published, and interested entities "will have an opportunity to intervene and present views concerning the project as proposed in the license application."

Merced River hydro relicensing Environmental Impact Statement released

Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have released a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating proposals to relicense two hydroelectric power projects located on the Merced River in California.

The two projects are Merced Irrigation District’s existing 101.25 megawatt Merced River Project No. 2179-043, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) existing 3.4-MW Merced Falls Project No. 2467-020.  Prepared as part of the relicensing process for those projects, the Merced River EIS contains FERC staff evaluations of the applicants’ proposals and the alternatives for relicensing the Merced River and Merced Falls Hydroelectric Projects.  The staff’s recommendation is to relicense the project as proposed, with certain modifications, and additional measures recommended by the agencies.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is authorized by the Federal Power Act to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of nonfederal hydroelectric development subject to its jurisdiction, on condition:

That the project adopted…shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(e)…

The Commission may also require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the project.  To assist in this evaluation, and as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, FERC staff prepares the EIS.  It is designed to record the view of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicants, and FERC staff.

In the Merced River cases, the licensees used FERC's Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) and filed relicensing applications in February 2012.  FERC elected to process the applications for the two projects together "because they: (1) are located contiguously on the Merced River; (2) the Merced Falls Project’s operation depends entirely on flows released by the upstream Merced River Project; and (3) downstream of the Merced River Project, the environmental effects of both projects are interrelated."

Each applicant proposed some modified environmental measures in its license application, but no new capacity and no new construction at the project.  In the Merced projects' 840-page final EIS, Commission staff noted that the "primary issues associated with relicensing the projects are flow regimes in project-affected reaches for aquatic resources, project effects on physical habitat for aquatic resources, protection of wildlife resources, recreation enhancements, and protection of cultural resources." After consideration, Commission staff recommended the staff alternative, which consists of measures included in Merced ID’s and PG&E’s proposals, as well as some of the mandatory conditions and recommendations made by other state and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations, plus additional measures developed by FERC staff:

We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative because: (1) the projects would provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region; (2) the generation comes from a renewable resource that does not contribute to atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; and (3) the recommended environmental measures proposed by Merced ID and PG&E, as modified by staff, would adequately protect and enhance environmental resources affected by the projects. The overall benefits of the staff alternatives would be worth the cost of the environmental measures.

Ultimately, the Merced River hydropower relicensing project EIS concludes that "issuing new licenses for the Merced River and Merced Falls Projects, with the environmental measures we recommend, would not be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."