The U.S. Department of the Interior has proposed leasing federal ocean space offshore North Carolina for commercial offshore wind development. On August 12, 2016, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced a proposed lease sale for the 122,405-acre Kitty Hawk Wind Energy Area. The proposal could lead to leasing of sites offshore North Carolina for one or more marine renewable energy projects.
The path to federal leasing of commercial wind development sites offshore North Carolina began in 2012, when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management published a Call for Information and Nominations (or “Call”) in the Federal
Register, to evaluate industry interest in commercial wind leases in three areas offshore North Carolina and to
request comments regarding site conditions, resources and other uses
within the Call areas.
In 2014, BOEM announced its identification of three Wind Energy Areas offshore North Carolina, including the Kitty Hawk, Wilmington West, and Wilmington East Wind Energy Areas.
In 2015, BOEM published an Environmental Assessment of potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with
issuing commercial wind leases and approving site assessment activities
on the lease areas, followed by a revised Environmental Assessment and a "Finding of No Significant Impact." This so-called FONSI concluded that
reasonably foreseeable environmental effects associated with the
commercial wind lease issuance and related activities would not
significantly impact the environment.
Most recently, BOEM published a Proposed Sale Notice (PSN) and Request for Interest (RFI) for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina in the Federal Register on August 16, 2016. The notice applies to the Kitty Hawk Wind Energy Area. BOEM has rolled the Wilmington East and Wilmington West areas into its planning and leasing process for Call Areas offshore South Carolina, given their proximity and shared attributes.
If a developer is interested in bidding on the Kitty Hawk site lease rights, it must first submit a qualification package to BOEM. If BOEM finds the developer to be legally, technically and financially qualified by the time the Final Sale Notice is published, the developer is eligible to participate in the lease sale. Eligible bidders must notify BOEM within the 60-day comment period established by the notice.
Energy powers society; society's choices shape energy policy. A blog about our energy resources and the choices they present for society.
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Santee Cooper sets solar standby charge
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
The board of South Carolina's state-owned electric utility has approved a plan to increase retail rates and -- controversially -- add new charges for customers who install solar panels. Santee Cooper is South Carolina's largest power producer, providing electricity for about 2
million people. Its interim rider for distributed generation includes a "standby fee" charged to customers with rooftop solar projects and other customer-sited generation. It also declined to adopt a net metering structure similar to those used by South Carolina's investor owned utilities.
Notably, Santee Cooper says it "supports development of solar power resources". Its Distributed Generation Approach notes that Santee Cooper has generated solar energy for its customers since 2006, including demonstration projects across South Carolina. Santee Cooper buys solar power from sources including the 3-megawatt Colleton Solar Farm. The Colleton project, owned and operated by TIG Sun Energy, is South Carolina's largest solar installation. Santee Cooper also offers its customers blocks of Green Power.
But residential solar projects aren't typically owned by or developed for utilities. From the utility perspective, this means that the costs associated with serving customers with solar generation need to be recovered from ratepayers. But the allocation of those costs among ratepayers is an issue. Should they fall on all consumers equally? Or should a rider or specific charge be added to recover these costs from the consumers who install distributed solar generation?
In Santee Cooper's case, the board approved a new charge, called a “standby fee,’’ on residential customers of $4.40 per month per kilowatt of installed solar capacity. It also elected to use rebates and credits to reward customers for solar generation, instead of a net metering rate. At the same time, the board set the rates for crediting generation at less than its retail rate.
From the utility perspective, it needed to adjust its rates to account for growth in rooftop solar and other distributed generation resources, and to protect customers who don't develop solar projects from unfairly bearing costs imposed by those who do. Cost-shifting is a typical utility concern; the issue is to make sure that the allocation of consumer costs is fairly related to how the costs were incurred.
But from the perspective of advocates for rooftop solar and other distributed generation resources, a "solar fee" would deter people from developing alternative energy projects. Under this view, these fees and rate structure are unnecessary and "penalize customers for exercising their right to use this clean, renewable resource."
Santee Cooper is not alone in considering how to adjust utility rates to handle more rooftop solar projects. But its approach differs from that of South Carolina's largest investor owned utilities, Duke Energy Carolinas and South Carolina Electric and Gas, which have agreed to net energy metering and solar development targets.
How should utility rate design allocate the costs and benefits of connecting distributed solar projects to the grid? How can essential fairness in ratemaking be balanced against policy values like customer choice and renewable energy?
Notably, Santee Cooper says it "supports development of solar power resources". Its Distributed Generation Approach notes that Santee Cooper has generated solar energy for its customers since 2006, including demonstration projects across South Carolina. Santee Cooper buys solar power from sources including the 3-megawatt Colleton Solar Farm. The Colleton project, owned and operated by TIG Sun Energy, is South Carolina's largest solar installation. Santee Cooper also offers its customers blocks of Green Power.
But residential solar projects aren't typically owned by or developed for utilities. From the utility perspective, this means that the costs associated with serving customers with solar generation need to be recovered from ratepayers. But the allocation of those costs among ratepayers is an issue. Should they fall on all consumers equally? Or should a rider or specific charge be added to recover these costs from the consumers who install distributed solar generation?
In Santee Cooper's case, the board approved a new charge, called a “standby fee,’’ on residential customers of $4.40 per month per kilowatt of installed solar capacity. It also elected to use rebates and credits to reward customers for solar generation, instead of a net metering rate. At the same time, the board set the rates for crediting generation at less than its retail rate.
From the utility perspective, it needed to adjust its rates to account for growth in rooftop solar and other distributed generation resources, and to protect customers who don't develop solar projects from unfairly bearing costs imposed by those who do. Cost-shifting is a typical utility concern; the issue is to make sure that the allocation of consumer costs is fairly related to how the costs were incurred.
But from the perspective of advocates for rooftop solar and other distributed generation resources, a "solar fee" would deter people from developing alternative energy projects. Under this view, these fees and rate structure are unnecessary and "penalize customers for exercising their right to use this clean, renewable resource."
Santee Cooper is not alone in considering how to adjust utility rates to handle more rooftop solar projects. But its approach differs from that of South Carolina's largest investor owned utilities, Duke Energy Carolinas and South Carolina Electric and Gas, which have agreed to net energy metering and solar development targets.
How should utility rate design allocate the costs and benefits of connecting distributed solar projects to the grid? How can essential fairness in ratemaking be balanced against policy values like customer choice and renewable energy?
Utility coal plants closing, natural gas to replace
Monday, September 17, 2012
A North Carolina utility closed one of its coal-fired power plants this past weekend, to be replaced with a natural gas-fueled combined cycle combustion turbine facility. Duke Energy subsidiary Carolina Power & Light, which does business as Progress Energy Carolinas, announced on Friday that it would close its coal-fired H.F. Lee facility on September 15. The Lee Plant closure is part of a broader shift away from utility and non-utility "merchant" use of coal to generate electricity, in favor of natural gas and other fuels.
Progress Energy Carolinas provides electricity to about 1.5 million customers in both North Carolina and South Carolina. The utility owns more than 12,200 megawatts in generation capacity, and serves a 34,000 square mile territory, including the cities of Raleigh, Wilmington and Asheville in North Carolina and Florence and Sumter in South Carolina.
The Lee Plant's story resembles that of a number of other coal plants across the country. Built in 1951 on the Neuse River near the town of Goldsboro, the plant was gradually expanded over time. By the 1960s, the Lee Plant hosted three coal-fired units with a total generating capacity of 382 megawatts. Four oil-fueled combustion turbine units were also added to the plant, adding another 75 MW of generating capacity, will be retired Oct. 1, 2012.
U.S. energy markets and environmental regulations continued to develop over the ensuing decades. Most recently, tighter federal air emissions regulations and an abundant supply of low-cost natural gas have made older and smaller coal-fueled power plants uneconomic to operate. As a result, owners are retiring these plants, and converting others to alternative fuels. For example, last week utility Dominion Virginia Power announced plans to convert its Bremo Power Station in Virginia from coal to natural gas.
Progress Energy Carolinas is following this trend. The utility closed its coal-fired W.H. Weatherspoon power plant near Lumberton, N.C. last year. It also plans to retire the remainder of its coal-fired plants without advanced environmental controls by the end of 2013: the Cape Fear Plant near Moncure, N.C., the Robinson coal-fired unit near Hartsville, S.C., and the L.V. Sutton Plant near Wilmington, N.C. These coal-fired unit retirements will represent about a third of the utility's coal-powered fleet, or about 1,600 MW of generating capacity.
To replace the power produced from these closing plants, Progress Energy Carolinas is building new natural gas-fueled combined-cycle units. Adjacent to the Lee Plant site, the utility is extending an existing natural gas pipeline and building a new, 920-MW natural gas-fueled combined-cycle facility. This plant, along with the five dual-fueled combustion turbines at the existing Wayne County Energy Complex, will be called the H.F. Lee Energy Complex when complete.
Projections suggest that natural gas will remain available at a relatively low cost for the next twenty years. At the same time, environmental regulations tend to grow tighter over time. These two factors suggest that the current trend of utilities switching from coal to natural gas to fuel electric generation may continue for the foreseeable future.
Progress Energy Carolinas provides electricity to about 1.5 million customers in both North Carolina and South Carolina. The utility owns more than 12,200 megawatts in generation capacity, and serves a 34,000 square mile territory, including the cities of Raleigh, Wilmington and Asheville in North Carolina and Florence and Sumter in South Carolina.
The Lee Plant's story resembles that of a number of other coal plants across the country. Built in 1951 on the Neuse River near the town of Goldsboro, the plant was gradually expanded over time. By the 1960s, the Lee Plant hosted three coal-fired units with a total generating capacity of 382 megawatts. Four oil-fueled combustion turbine units were also added to the plant, adding another 75 MW of generating capacity, will be retired Oct. 1, 2012.
U.S. energy markets and environmental regulations continued to develop over the ensuing decades. Most recently, tighter federal air emissions regulations and an abundant supply of low-cost natural gas have made older and smaller coal-fueled power plants uneconomic to operate. As a result, owners are retiring these plants, and converting others to alternative fuels. For example, last week utility Dominion Virginia Power announced plans to convert its Bremo Power Station in Virginia from coal to natural gas.
Progress Energy Carolinas is following this trend. The utility closed its coal-fired W.H. Weatherspoon power plant near Lumberton, N.C. last year. It also plans to retire the remainder of its coal-fired plants without advanced environmental controls by the end of 2013: the Cape Fear Plant near Moncure, N.C., the Robinson coal-fired unit near Hartsville, S.C., and the L.V. Sutton Plant near Wilmington, N.C. These coal-fired unit retirements will represent about a third of the utility's coal-powered fleet, or about 1,600 MW of generating capacity.
To replace the power produced from these closing plants, Progress Energy Carolinas is building new natural gas-fueled combined-cycle units. Adjacent to the Lee Plant site, the utility is extending an existing natural gas pipeline and building a new, 920-MW natural gas-fueled combined-cycle facility. This plant, along with the five dual-fueled combustion turbines at the existing Wayne County Energy Complex, will be called the H.F. Lee Energy Complex when complete.
Projections suggest that natural gas will remain available at a relatively low cost for the next twenty years. At the same time, environmental regulations tend to grow tighter over time. These two factors suggest that the current trend of utilities switching from coal to natural gas to fuel electric generation may continue for the foreseeable future.
February 15, 2011 - small non-hydro dam removal
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
From the dam removal department:
Picture a small dam stretching about 50 feet across a stream. The Gravesleigh Dam on Sackett Brook in Pittsfield, Massachusetts was built in the 1930s by Merle Dixon Graves, a native of Bowdoinham, Maine who served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1921-1924 and who owned Gravesleigh, an estate surrounding the brook just above its confluence with the Housatonic River. Merle Graves had the dam built to create a small pond for his estate. Over the years, the pond filled with silt, and much of the Gravesleigh estate became Massachusetts Audubon Society's Canoe Meadows Wildlife Sanctuary.
Now, Massachusetts Audubon is interested in removing the dam for reasons including improving water quality, restoring riparian wildlife habitat, and creating educational opportunities to learn about watershed health and science. Moreover, as part of a deal to allow the Pittsfield Municipal Airport to expand, the dam site has been identified as able to offset some of the habitat lost at the airport as a condition for state water quality certification. With the impoundment silted in, and no renewable power production at the site, these benefits may make the Gravesleigh Dam seem like a good candidate for dam removal.
The Housatonic Valley has a long history of industrial manufacturing, some of which resulted in PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) contamination of the valley's soils and water. According to EPA, "PCBs are probable human carcinogens and can also cause non-cancer health effects, such as reduced ability to fight infections, low birth weights, and learning problems." If these chemical contaminants are trapped in the sediment impounded by the Gravesleigh Dam, the dam's removal could send the PCBs downriver into the Housatonic. This is the same problem as found on Twelve Mile Creek in Clemson, South Carolina, where dam removal initiatives must be weighed against the risk of disturbing PCB-laden sediments. In Pittsfield, dam removal could be paired with sediment remediation, but that would significantly add to the project's cost - already predicted to be $303,000 without sediment remediation. This points to the importance of understanding what's trapped behind the dam.
Sampling of impounded sediments was undertaken last summer. While most samples came back negative for PCB, one of the sediment samples did show PCB contamination. This triggered another round of sediment testing last month. The results of that testing have just come in, and suggest that sediment remediation will not be required for dam removal.
The Gravesleigh Dam's saga may soon be over. In this case, chemical contaminants trapped behind the dam may not prove sufficient to prevent the dam's removal. Each dam has its own story, and may have its own baggage that must be addressed if the dam is to be removed. I'll keep you posted on the Sackett Brook story as it continues to flow.
Picture a small dam stretching about 50 feet across a stream. The Gravesleigh Dam on Sackett Brook in Pittsfield, Massachusetts was built in the 1930s by Merle Dixon Graves, a native of Bowdoinham, Maine who served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1921-1924 and who owned Gravesleigh, an estate surrounding the brook just above its confluence with the Housatonic River. Merle Graves had the dam built to create a small pond for his estate. Over the years, the pond filled with silt, and much of the Gravesleigh estate became Massachusetts Audubon Society's Canoe Meadows Wildlife Sanctuary.
Now, Massachusetts Audubon is interested in removing the dam for reasons including improving water quality, restoring riparian wildlife habitat, and creating educational opportunities to learn about watershed health and science. Moreover, as part of a deal to allow the Pittsfield Municipal Airport to expand, the dam site has been identified as able to offset some of the habitat lost at the airport as a condition for state water quality certification. With the impoundment silted in, and no renewable power production at the site, these benefits may make the Gravesleigh Dam seem like a good candidate for dam removal.
The Housatonic Valley has a long history of industrial manufacturing, some of which resulted in PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) contamination of the valley's soils and water. According to EPA, "PCBs are probable human carcinogens and can also cause non-cancer health effects, such as reduced ability to fight infections, low birth weights, and learning problems." If these chemical contaminants are trapped in the sediment impounded by the Gravesleigh Dam, the dam's removal could send the PCBs downriver into the Housatonic. This is the same problem as found on Twelve Mile Creek in Clemson, South Carolina, where dam removal initiatives must be weighed against the risk of disturbing PCB-laden sediments. In Pittsfield, dam removal could be paired with sediment remediation, but that would significantly add to the project's cost - already predicted to be $303,000 without sediment remediation. This points to the importance of understanding what's trapped behind the dam.
Sampling of impounded sediments was undertaken last summer. While most samples came back negative for PCB, one of the sediment samples did show PCB contamination. This triggered another round of sediment testing last month. The results of that testing have just come in, and suggest that sediment remediation will not be required for dam removal.
The Gravesleigh Dam's saga may soon be over. In this case, chemical contaminants trapped behind the dam may not prove sufficient to prevent the dam's removal. Each dam has its own story, and may have its own baggage that must be addressed if the dam is to be removed. I'll keep you posted on the Sackett Brook story as it continues to flow.
December 16, 2010 - a tale of two solar projects
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Let's celebrate a milestone: I've now been blogging here for over a year.
 |
| Florida solar? Setting sun over the Everglades. |
First, South Carolina utility Santee Cooper is building that state's largest solar array. Santee Cooper's $1.3 million Grand Strand Solar Station project is under development in Myrtle Beach. The utility is installing 1,300 solar photovoltaic panels on the roof and surrounding grounds of a warehouse it owns there. In total, the project is expected to produce a peak of 311 kW under optimal conditions. Adding this 311 kW will increase South Carolina's solar PV power production by 50%.
November 23, 2010 - Twelve Mile Creek dam removal?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Whether a dam will be removed can depend on what's trapped behind it. Dams can trap a lot of sediment behind them, as solids carried downstream in a flowing river fall out into dams' impoundments as the flow backs up behind the dam. These sediments can add up to a huge volume of material. For example, on the Elwha River in Washington's Olympic Peninsula, where the Glines Canyon and Elwha dams are being removed, nearly 18 million cubic yards of sediment were trapped above the dams. That's a whole lot of sediment. (Picture a large gravel trailer passing you on the highway. Even if the truck can haul the weight, it's likely carrying less than 100 cubic yards, meaning it would take more than 180,000 truck trips to haul the sediment away.)
Sometimes the sediment trapped behind dams comes with an even heavier burden: toxic contaminants washed downriver from upstream sources. South Carolina's Twelve Mile Creek provides a vivid example of this hazard. From from 1955 to 1987, Sangamo Weston, Inc. owned and operated a capacitor manufacturing plant in Pickens, South Carolina. Waste and effluent including 400,000 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) made its way (in part through direct discharges) to Town Creek and Twelve Mile Creek, a major tributary of the 56,000 acre Lake Hartwell (where Clemson, South Carolina is located). Sangamo Weston ultimately merged with Schlumberger. The area is now a Superfund site.
In 2006, a court ordered Schlumberger to take a variety of remedial actions, including paying $9 million in damages and removing two lower dams -- and possibly a third upstream dam owned by the Easley-Central Water District. It is this dam behind which some of PCB-laden sediments are now trapped. The question is not as much whether, but rather how much. Other sediments have made their way down into Lake Hartley; removal of the three dams is expected to allow cleaner sediments to flow down into Lake Hartwell where they are hoped to be able to cap the PCB-contaminated lake bottom. A study of this dam removal was approved earlier this year, but has yet to commence due to lack of funding.
If and when the dams in question are removed, what will happen to the sediment? Will it have downstream effects? PCB contamination can be serious, as seen in the Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line's route jog to avoid PCB-contaminated sediments in the Hudson River. Recall that this PCB problem may have been exacerbated by dam removal: the 1970 removal of the Fort Edwards Dam on the Hudson River downstream of PCB-releasing General Electric factories allowed PCB-laden sediment to flow farther and more quickly downstream, resulting in one of the country's largest Superfund sites. By contrast, in Danville, Virginia, where the Brantley Dam is now targeted for removal, studies suggest a small enough volume of sediments (and a low enough toxics load) that dam removal may be feasible without requiring the kind of extensive sediment recovery that may be needed on Twelve Mile Creek.
Sometimes the sediment trapped behind dams comes with an even heavier burden: toxic contaminants washed downriver from upstream sources. South Carolina's Twelve Mile Creek provides a vivid example of this hazard. From from 1955 to 1987, Sangamo Weston, Inc. owned and operated a capacitor manufacturing plant in Pickens, South Carolina. Waste and effluent including 400,000 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) made its way (in part through direct discharges) to Town Creek and Twelve Mile Creek, a major tributary of the 56,000 acre Lake Hartwell (where Clemson, South Carolina is located). Sangamo Weston ultimately merged with Schlumberger. The area is now a Superfund site.
In 2006, a court ordered Schlumberger to take a variety of remedial actions, including paying $9 million in damages and removing two lower dams -- and possibly a third upstream dam owned by the Easley-Central Water District. It is this dam behind which some of PCB-laden sediments are now trapped. The question is not as much whether, but rather how much. Other sediments have made their way down into Lake Hartley; removal of the three dams is expected to allow cleaner sediments to flow down into Lake Hartwell where they are hoped to be able to cap the PCB-contaminated lake bottom. A study of this dam removal was approved earlier this year, but has yet to commence due to lack of funding.
If and when the dams in question are removed, what will happen to the sediment? Will it have downstream effects? PCB contamination can be serious, as seen in the Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line's route jog to avoid PCB-contaminated sediments in the Hudson River. Recall that this PCB problem may have been exacerbated by dam removal: the 1970 removal of the Fort Edwards Dam on the Hudson River downstream of PCB-releasing General Electric factories allowed PCB-laden sediment to flow farther and more quickly downstream, resulting in one of the country's largest Superfund sites. By contrast, in Danville, Virginia, where the Brantley Dam is now targeted for removal, studies suggest a small enough volume of sediments (and a low enough toxics load) that dam removal may be feasible without requiring the kind of extensive sediment recovery that may be needed on Twelve Mile Creek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
