Nova Scotia tidal turbine installed

A Canadian tidal power developer has installed a turbine at a test site in the Bay of Fundy. Cape Sharp Tidal's project off Nova Scotia could demonstrate the feasibility of larger-scale marine hydrokinetic power plants connected to the mainland electricity grid.

Cape Sharp Tidal is a joint venture between Canadian utility Emera Inc. and marine turbine manufacturer OpenHydro.  Its project entails a grid-connected 4-megawatt array consisting of two tidal turbines.  The project is located at the Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) site.  Headquartered near Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, FORCE is Canada's leading research center for in-stream tidal energy, with demonstration berths, a grid interconnection capable of accepting tidal power, and environmental monitoring capabilities.

This week Cape Sharp Tidal deployed the project's first turbine-generator, a 2-megawatt OpenHydro unit.  In subsequent work, crews interconnected the turbine cable tail to the FORCE site's main interconnection cable, an existing 16MW subsea export cable connected to an onshore substation.

Previous efforts to develop hydrokinetic tidal energy projects in the Bay of Fundy have met with difficulty.  While the bay offers large and powerful tides, weather and sea conditions can prove challenging, as can obtaining environmental and regulatory approvals.  A test tidal turbine deployed in 2009 was quickly destroyed; the turbine installed this week was originally slated for installation earlier but was delayed due to concerns over impacts to fisheries and the environment.  This week's installation represents a concrete step forward for Canadian tidal power.

Cape Sharp Tidal intends to install and connect a second turbine at the FORCE site in 2017.  According to the developer, its future plans -- subject to regulatory and business approvals -- could include a commercial-scale project of up to 300 megawatts capacity within 15 years.

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.

Edgartown's Muskeget tidal project faces questions

A municipal tidal power project proposed for the Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard faces federal deadlines if its licensing process is to continue.  The Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project, proposed by the Town of Edgartown, is seeking a pilot project license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- but faces questions from Commission staff.

On February 1, 2011, the Town of Edgartown filed, pursuant to the Commission’s pilot licensing procedures, a draft license application for the proposed Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project.  The project would feature an array of 14 marine hydrokinetic tidal turbines, with a commercial generating capacity of 5 megawatts or less.

But that license application remains incomplete.  On April 1, 2011, Commission staff issued a letter requesting that Edgartown provide additional information, including details about the proposed project and multiple plans, drawings, and reports.  Over the ensuing years, Edgartown filed some responsive information, but according to the Commission, Edgartown did not file the remaining information by the deadline or provide a schedule indicating when the information would be filed after the deadline was missed.

Over two years after the deadline, on April 21, 2016, Commission staff issued a letter requiring Edgartown to show cause, within 30 days, why Commission staff should not terminate the prefiling licensing process for the project.  According to the Commission, Edgartown did not respond, but Congressman William Keating asked the Commission to extend the show cause deadline until the Massachusetts Clean Energy Commission decides whether to award the project a grant.

In a June 2 letter, Commission staff directed Edgartown to, within 30 days, provide a schedule specifying when it will file with the Commission each of the outstanding items requested in Commission staff’s April 1, 2011 letter.  The letter says, "Upon receipt of this information, Commission staff will make a determination on how to proceed with the incomplete application for the Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project."  For now, the prelicensing process for the Muskeget tidal project remains pending.

Federal grants support microgrids

The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded over $8 million in funding for 7 microgrid projects.  Will microgrids play an increasing role in the U.S. electricity industry?

Solar photovoltaic panels can serve as distributed generation for microgrids.

Microgrids -- localized grids capable of operating as energy islands using distributed generation, energy storage, and distribution wires, as well as able to connect to the broader utility grid -- can offer participants and society at large significant value.  These benefits can include increased reliability against storm damage and infrastructure damage, reduced emissions of carbon and other pollutants, and reduced costs.

The Energy Department runs a portfolio of microgrid activities ranging from direct research and development to building community support.  Most recently, the Department announced over $8 million in grant funding to support 7 microgrid projects.  The Department selected these projects based on their ability to develop advanced microgrid controllers and system designs for microgrids less than 10 megawatts:

• ALSTOM Grid, Inc.: about $1.2 million to research and design community microgrid systems for the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and the Philadelphia Water Department, using portions of the former Philadelphia Navy Yard. 
• Burr Energy, LLC: about $1.2 million to design and build a resilient microgrid to allow the Olney, Maryland Town Center to operate for weeks in the event of a regional outage, and a second microgrid for multi-use commercial development in Maryland. 
• Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd): about $1.2 million to develop and test a commercial-grade microgrid controller capable of controlling a system of two or more interconnected microgrids, serving civic infrastructure including police and fire department headquarters, transportation and healthcare facilities, and private residences. 
• Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI): about $1.2 million to develop a commercially-viable standardized microgrid controller that can allow a community to provide continuous power for critical loads. 
• General Electric Company (GE): about $1.2 million to develop an enhanced microgrid control system in Potsdam, New York, by adding new capabilities, such as frequency regulation. 
• TDX Power, Inc.: about $1.2 million to engineer, design, simulate, and build a microgrid control system on remote Saint Paul Island, an island located in the Bering Sea off mainland Alaska. 
• The University of California, Irvine (UCI): about $1.2 million for the Advanced Power and Energy Program at UCI to develop and test a generic microgrid controller intended to be readily adapted to manage a range of microgrid systems, and supporting the development of open source industry standards.

Each project also includes an awardee cost share ranging from 20 percent to about 50 percent.  Will the DOE funds lead to better and more widely adopted microgrids?

Maine may streamline tidal power permitting

The Maine legislature is considering a proposal to streamline the permitting process for some tidal energy projects. The bill, "An Act To Streamline the General Permit Process for Tidal Power", would relieve a perceived conflict between state and federal law over the permitting process.

Tidal energy has been harvested along the Maine coast for hundreds of years. While tide mills' heyday predated modern regulation of energy projects and their environmental impacts, anyone developing a modern tidal power project must navigate multiple layers of rules and requirements. The recent resurgence of interest in tidal energy has led to an often overlapping patchwork of regulations.

These rules can be hard to interpret, and occasionally lead to chicken-or-the-egg conundrums. For example, a 2009 Maine law created an expedited general permit process for certain small tidal power projects. Under that process, projects capable of generating up to 5 megawatts of power can qualify for an easier permitting path if their primary purpose is demonstrating or testing tidal technology. (By way of comparison, 5 megawatts is roughly equivalent to 6,705 horsepower - imagine what a tide miller could have done with that!)

Prior to filing a permit application with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection under the 2009 law, an applicant must first obtain a finding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the project will have no significant adverse impact on environmental quality. Unfortunately, before issuing that finding federal regulators want applicants to show that they are already seeking state approval. This regulatory conflict makes it hard for people who want to develop or redevelop a tidal resource to move forward.

To fix this problem, the DEP, Senator Mike Thibodeau of Waldo County, and Representative Joyce Maker of Calais proposed an amendment to Maine law. Their bill, known as LD 437, would enable the DEP to start processing an application without needing to wait for the federal environmental assessment. After a public hearing earlier this month, the legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Environment and Natural Resources voted to recommend that the bill ought to pass as amended.

Next steps for the tidal streamlining bill include consideration by the full Senate and House. Given the committee's vote, the bill seems likely to find further support in the two chambers. While its enactment may not launch a tide of new tidal power developments in Maine, relieving this piece of the regulatory tangle should help people test and demonstrate tidal power technologies old and new.

June 23, 2010 - the history of the Trafton tide mills; Russia-Belarus gas dispute

Monday's paddle brought me through the remains of the Trafton tide mill. What I hadn't realized is that the eastern branch was home to another tide mill owned by the Trafton family.

From the Georgetown Historical Society's A History of Georgetown Island:

The lumber mill on the western branch, which was built by David Oliver and Thomas Trafton, continued to be operated into the first decade of the 20th century, and the mill dam can still be seen. David Oliver, Jr. had a son David of the 3rd generation (grandson of David and Grace). He and his wife, Hannah Stacy, came to Georgetown from Lynn, Massachusetts. He and his father, David Jr., and Thomas Trafton, built their first lumber mill on the eastern branch of the Cove on what is now the Indian Point Road. Later they built a second lumber mill on the west branch of the Cove Thomas Trafton also had a gristmill on the west bank of the western branch, near the former old Post Office at the bottom of the hill in Georgetown Center.

I found an interesting blog, Five Islands Orchard, which provides some more history and information. Apparently the students of the Georgetown elementary school are considering building a demonstration tidal mill at the western Trafton site. Blogger Ben Polito says he did a rough calculation of perhaps 1.4GJ of energy per tide, equivalent to about 390 kWh or 10 gallons of gas. While this might not seem like a lot of energy today -- particularly since harnessing it would likely require a $1 million-plus hydro facility -- the Trafton mill would have provided the energy equivalent of 300 laborers, all for a relatively low cost.

On the international energy news front: the conflict between Russia and Belarus over gas offers a classic example of how energy policy choices interface with national security. Russia's state-owned utility Gazprom first cut off 35% of Belarus's gas supply, then increased the cut to 70% of normal flows, over about $200 million in debt Belarus is said to owe. In response, Belarus has cited $260 million in unpaid tariffs as a reason cut off Russia's access to the international pipeline needed to get Russian gas to Europe. In today's interconnected world, states and nations rely on fuel supply and infrastructure in neighboring jurisdictions. Russia is dependent on Belarus's pipeline to deliver 20% of its total European exports, and Belarus is dependent on Russia for gas to power electric generation, industry, and (in winter) heating. Though this relationship provides each nation with resources it wouldn't otherwise have, friction in the relationship leads to periodic strife such as we see today. Some cite this downside risk as grounds for increased domestic self-reliance and energy security. Indeed, if the situation progresses to where Russia delivers no gas to Belarus, that nation will need to have an alternate fuel source and contingency planning to keep businesses and homes running.

Finally, hay is for horses: a Kennebec River hay farm, during first harvest.

From Energy Policy Update