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.
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 exemption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exemption. Show all posts
Kauai small conduit hydro exemption terminated
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
U.S. hydropower regulators have terminated an exemption from licensing for a small conduit hydroelectric facility proposed for development in Hawaii.
The case concerns the 5.3-megawatt Puu Lua Hydropower Project No. 14069. Proposed by Konohiki Hydro Power, LLC, the project would have been located on the Kōkeʻe Ditch Irrigation System on state-owned land on the island of Kauai. As authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its 2012 order granting the Puu Lua project an exemption from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act, the project would have included two developments with powerhouses.
In granting the Puu Lua project's exemption, the Commission included provisions allowing it to terminate the exemption if certain conditions are not satisfied. Article 8 of the exemption states the Commission may terminate the exemption if actual construction of any project works has not begun within two years or has not been completed within four years from the issuance date of the exemption. In 2014, the exemptee successfully won a two-year extension to commence project construction, until April 12, 2016. But according to the Commission's August 31, 2016 Order Terminating Exemption (Conduit), the developer failed to commence construction of the Puu Lua Hydropower Project prior to the deadline.
In addition to the construction deadlines, the exemption also included an article providing that the Commission may terminate the exemption "if, at any time, the exemptee does not hold sufficient property rights in the land or project works necessary to develop, maintain, and operate the project." This too proved problematic, as in November 2015 the State of Hawaii notified the Commission that the exemptee’s rights to use the property were cancelled effective January 1, 2015. After the exemptee did not respond to a Commission request for documentation of its rights, Commission staff issued a notice of probable termination of the exemption for failure to commence project construction by the April 12, 2016 deadline, and for failure to possess sufficient property rights.
Ultimately, on August 31, 2016, the Commission issued its order terminating the project's exemption, "for failure to commence construction and maintain sufficient property rights."
The case concerns the 5.3-megawatt Puu Lua Hydropower Project No. 14069. Proposed by Konohiki Hydro Power, LLC, the project would have been located on the Kōkeʻe Ditch Irrigation System on state-owned land on the island of Kauai. As authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its 2012 order granting the Puu Lua project an exemption from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act, the project would have included two developments with powerhouses.
In granting the Puu Lua project's exemption, the Commission included provisions allowing it to terminate the exemption if certain conditions are not satisfied. Article 8 of the exemption states the Commission may terminate the exemption if actual construction of any project works has not begun within two years or has not been completed within four years from the issuance date of the exemption. In 2014, the exemptee successfully won a two-year extension to commence project construction, until April 12, 2016. But according to the Commission's August 31, 2016 Order Terminating Exemption (Conduit), the developer failed to commence construction of the Puu Lua Hydropower Project prior to the deadline.
In addition to the construction deadlines, the exemption also included an article providing that the Commission may terminate the exemption "if, at any time, the exemptee does not hold sufficient property rights in the land or project works necessary to develop, maintain, and operate the project." This too proved problematic, as in November 2015 the State of Hawaii notified the Commission that the exemptee’s rights to use the property were cancelled effective January 1, 2015. After the exemptee did not respond to a Commission request for documentation of its rights, Commission staff issued a notice of probable termination of the exemption for failure to commence project construction by the April 12, 2016 deadline, and for failure to possess sufficient property rights.
Ultimately, on August 31, 2016, the Commission issued its order terminating the project's exemption, "for failure to commence construction and maintain sufficient property rights."
Alta, snowmaking pipes and conduit hydro power
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Federal energy regulators have issued Alta Ski Area a written determination that its proposed micro-hydropower project will not be required to be licensed under the Federal Power Act. If developed, Alta's project would be one of the first to generate electricity from a snowmaking water supply pipeline.
Most grid-connected hydropower projects in the U.S. fall under the Federal Power Act, and generally require a license or exemption from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The process of securing an original license or exemption for a new project can take years and have high costs. But under a 2013 law, some so-called "conduit" hydro projects -- using pipelines and other existing manmade water conveyances -- can be developed and operated without a license or exemption. The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 defined criteria for the Commission to declare a project to be a "qualifying conduit hydropower facility," and provided that such facilities are not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing under the Federal Power Act. Key factors include the use of a non-federally owned, manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity. If the Commission determines that a project qualifies, it can be built and maintained without a FERC license or exemption.
Under the Commission's process for evaluating conduit hydro projects, the developer must file a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility. If the developer's filing demonstrates that the project meets the statutory criteria, the Commission will issue a notice of its preliminary decision that the project qualifies. Following a 45-day period within which others may contest the determination, assuming no adverse facts are uncovered, the Commission issues a letter constituting its written determination that the proposed project meets the qualifying conduit hydropower facility criteria.
Alta's course before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission followed this trail. In May 2016, Alta filed its notice of intent to construct the Alta Micro-Hydro Project. That notice and a supplemental filing described a project to tap the existing underground 6-inch-diameter snowmaking water supply pipeline delivering water from Cecret Lake to the Wildcat Pump House. Parallel to that pipeline, Alta would add a new powerhouse with a 75-kilowatt turbine/generating unit. Later that month, Commission staff issued a public notice that preliminarily determined that the project met the statutory criteria. After the 45-day contest period, during which no interventions or comments were filed, in July the Commission issued Alta a written determination that the Alta Micro-Hydro Project meets the qualifying criteria under section 30(a) of the Federal Power Act, and is not required to be licensed under Part I of that law.
The Commission's letter reminds Alta that qualifying conduit hydropower facilities remain subject to other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. But the ability to develop a conduit hydropower project without requiring a license from the FERC will ease the project's regulatory path. So far, most projects that have qualified for the conduit hydropower program have been proposed by water districts. But as ski areas seek to align their operations with sustainability goals, adding low-impact renewable electricity generation may make sense for some. If Alta's micro-hydro project is successful, other ski areas with existing snowmaking or other water infrastructure over a sufficient vertical drop may follow suit by developing their own conduit hydropower projects.
Most grid-connected hydropower projects in the U.S. fall under the Federal Power Act, and generally require a license or exemption from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The process of securing an original license or exemption for a new project can take years and have high costs. But under a 2013 law, some so-called "conduit" hydro projects -- using pipelines and other existing manmade water conveyances -- can be developed and operated without a license or exemption. The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 defined criteria for the Commission to declare a project to be a "qualifying conduit hydropower facility," and provided that such facilities are not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing under the Federal Power Act. Key factors include the use of a non-federally owned, manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity. If the Commission determines that a project qualifies, it can be built and maintained without a FERC license or exemption.
Under the Commission's process for evaluating conduit hydro projects, the developer must file a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility. If the developer's filing demonstrates that the project meets the statutory criteria, the Commission will issue a notice of its preliminary decision that the project qualifies. Following a 45-day period within which others may contest the determination, assuming no adverse facts are uncovered, the Commission issues a letter constituting its written determination that the proposed project meets the qualifying conduit hydropower facility criteria.
Alta's course before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission followed this trail. In May 2016, Alta filed its notice of intent to construct the Alta Micro-Hydro Project. That notice and a supplemental filing described a project to tap the existing underground 6-inch-diameter snowmaking water supply pipeline delivering water from Cecret Lake to the Wildcat Pump House. Parallel to that pipeline, Alta would add a new powerhouse with a 75-kilowatt turbine/generating unit. Later that month, Commission staff issued a public notice that preliminarily determined that the project met the statutory criteria. After the 45-day contest period, during which no interventions or comments were filed, in July the Commission issued Alta a written determination that the Alta Micro-Hydro Project meets the qualifying criteria under section 30(a) of the Federal Power Act, and is not required to be licensed under Part I of that law.
The Commission's letter reminds Alta that qualifying conduit hydropower facilities remain subject to other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. But the ability to develop a conduit hydropower project without requiring a license from the FERC will ease the project's regulatory path. So far, most projects that have qualified for the conduit hydropower program have been proposed by water districts. But as ski areas seek to align their operations with sustainability goals, adding low-impact renewable electricity generation may make sense for some. If Alta's micro-hydro project is successful, other ski areas with existing snowmaking or other water infrastructure over a sufficient vertical drop may follow suit by developing their own conduit hydropower projects.
Nicatous Lodge proposes off-grid micro-hydro project
Monday, May 30, 2016
A Maine sporting camp has proposed developing an off-grid micro-hydropower project to provide it electricity. Nicatous Lake Lodge and Cabins LLC proposes to develop the micro-hydro project at its remote property near Burlington, Maine. A filing made by the camp earlier this spring has triggered a federal review process to evaluate whether the project will require a license or exemption under the Federal Power Act.
Under federal law, most hydropower projects cannot be constructed, operated, or maintained without licensing under the Federal Power Act. But some projects -- typically off-grid or remote ones -- fall outside the Federal Power Act's jurisdiction. To reduce uncertainty about what regulations might apply, Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act requires an entity proposing a new project to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission either a hydropower license application, or a Declaration of Intention to determine if the proposed project requires a license.
When a developer files a Declaration of Intention with the Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935. Each of these evaluations supports a key jurisdictional finding under the Federal Power Act; collectively, they can determine whether or not licensing is required.
Other recently proposed micro-hydro projects illustrate how the Commission evaluates whether or not a license or exemption will be required. For example, the Commission found that licensing or exemption was required for the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project, which would be grid-tied -- but that no license is required for the Egnaczak Net Zero Hydro Project in Massachusetts, which would have no connection to the interstate electric grid.
This jurisdictional determination is now underway for the Nicatous micro-hydro project. On March 15, 2016, the sporting camp owner submitted a Declaration of Intention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That Declaration of Intent describes the project site as about 15 miles away from the nearest electric utility grid, where Nicatous Stream leaves Nicatous Lake. The project does not rely on a dam, although the remains of a former dam are located nearby. Instead, an intake in the lake would supply water to a low head (60 inches or less) PowerPal micro-hydroelectric generator, rated at 1,000 watts power. Power from the generator would be fed into the lodge's electric system, not which is not connected to any utility grid.
On May 10, 2016, the Commission issued its notice of the filing, setting a 30-day deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene. Commission action on the filing could follow later this year.
Under federal law, most hydropower projects cannot be constructed, operated, or maintained without licensing under the Federal Power Act. But some projects -- typically off-grid or remote ones -- fall outside the Federal Power Act's jurisdiction. To reduce uncertainty about what regulations might apply, Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act requires an entity proposing a new project to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission either a hydropower license application, or a Declaration of Intention to determine if the proposed project requires a license.
When a developer files a Declaration of Intention with the Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935. Each of these evaluations supports a key jurisdictional finding under the Federal Power Act; collectively, they can determine whether or not licensing is required.
Other recently proposed micro-hydro projects illustrate how the Commission evaluates whether or not a license or exemption will be required. For example, the Commission found that licensing or exemption was required for the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project, which would be grid-tied -- but that no license is required for the Egnaczak Net Zero Hydro Project in Massachusetts, which would have no connection to the interstate electric grid.
This jurisdictional determination is now underway for the Nicatous micro-hydro project. On March 15, 2016, the sporting camp owner submitted a Declaration of Intention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That Declaration of Intent describes the project site as about 15 miles away from the nearest electric utility grid, where Nicatous Stream leaves Nicatous Lake. The project does not rely on a dam, although the remains of a former dam are located nearby. Instead, an intake in the lake would supply water to a low head (60 inches or less) PowerPal micro-hydroelectric generator, rated at 1,000 watts power. Power from the generator would be fed into the lodge's electric system, not which is not connected to any utility grid.
On May 10, 2016, the Commission issued its notice of the filing, setting a 30-day deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene. Commission action on the filing could follow later this year.
Alta Ski Area conduit micro-hydro project
Friday, May 27, 2016
Alta Ski Area has proposed developing a micro-hydropower project along an existing pipeline, and hopes to benefit from a streamlined regulatory process. Federal regulators have made a preliminary determination that the proposed Alta Micro-Hydro Project, in Alta, Utah, satisfies the requirements to be treated as a "qualifying conduit hydropower facility," which would not require licensing under the Federal Power Act.
Alta's proposed project would include a new powerhouse to be built along the existing underground 6-inch-diameter snowmaking water supply pipeline delivering water from Cecret Lake to the Wildcat Pump House, a new turbine/generating unit with an installed capacity of 75 kilowatts, intake and discharge pipes, and appurtenant facilities. The unit is estimated to generate between 115 and 225 megawatt-hours annually. There is no dam associated with the project. Alta presented its micro-hydro project as part of a 2012 request to update its master plan, which the U.S. Forest Service accepted.
Ski areas with snowmaking capacity typically have existing pipelines and water infrastructure, coupled with significant vertical relief. This can create opportunities to generate electricity using energy harvested from water flowing downhill through a pipeline, particularly if reducing system pressure (like a pressure relief valve) is otherwise needed.
A 2013 law was designed to help small conduit-based hydropower projects by eliminating their need for a license or exemption from licensing issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 amended Section 30 of the Federal Power Act. Section 30 now provides that a "qualifying conduit hydropower facility" -- one that is determined or deemed to meet defined criteria -- is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing under the Federal Power Act. These criteria include:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission administers this statute. To start the regulatory process, on May 16, 2016, Alta filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility. Alta supplemented its notice on May 20 to clarify that the project "will only operate when there is excess capacity available in the pipeline and when water is hydrologically available", generally after the winter snowmaking season, during spring runoff. Alta also restated that the pipeline's main purpose will continue to be snowmaking.
Yesterday the FERC issued its notice of preliminary determination of a qualifying conduit hydropower facility for Alta's project. That notice examines the project relative to each of the four statutory criteria, and then provides the Commission's preliminary determination:
Other recently proposed conduit hydro projects have been determined to be qualifying conduit hydropower facilities, including a Colorado project using an existing "ditch drop," a Castle Valley, Utah water treatment project, a California wholesale water agency conduit project, and a New Hampshire water works.
Alta's proposed project would include a new powerhouse to be built along the existing underground 6-inch-diameter snowmaking water supply pipeline delivering water from Cecret Lake to the Wildcat Pump House, a new turbine/generating unit with an installed capacity of 75 kilowatts, intake and discharge pipes, and appurtenant facilities. The unit is estimated to generate between 115 and 225 megawatt-hours annually. There is no dam associated with the project. Alta presented its micro-hydro project as part of a 2012 request to update its master plan, which the U.S. Forest Service accepted.
Ski areas with snowmaking capacity typically have existing pipelines and water infrastructure, coupled with significant vertical relief. This can create opportunities to generate electricity using energy harvested from water flowing downhill through a pipeline, particularly if reducing system pressure (like a pressure relief valve) is otherwise needed.
A 2013 law was designed to help small conduit-based hydropower projects by eliminating their need for a license or exemption from licensing issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 amended Section 30 of the Federal Power Act. Section 30 now provides that a "qualifying conduit hydropower facility" -- one that is determined or deemed to meet defined criteria -- is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing under the Federal Power Act. These criteria include:
- The conduit the facility uses 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 not primarily for the generation of electricity.
- The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit.
- The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts.
- On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission administers this statute. To start the regulatory process, on May 16, 2016, Alta filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility. Alta supplemented its notice on May 20 to clarify that the project "will only operate when there is excess capacity available in the pipeline and when water is hydrologically available", generally after the winter snowmaking season, during spring runoff. Alta also restated that the pipeline's main purpose will continue to be snowmaking.
Yesterday the FERC issued its notice of preliminary determination of a qualifying conduit hydropower facility for Alta's project. That notice examines the project relative to each of the four statutory criteria, and then provides the Commission's preliminary determination:
The proposed addition of the hydroelectric project along the existing water supply pipeline will not alter its primary consumptive purpose. Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines 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 also sets 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 and providing an evidentiary basis.
Other recently proposed conduit hydro projects have been determined to be qualifying conduit hydropower facilities, including a Colorado project using an existing "ditch drop," a Castle Valley, Utah water treatment project, a California wholesale water agency conduit project, and a New Hampshire water works.
Utah conduit hydropower project qualifies
Monday, April 4, 2016
Federal energy regulators have issued a letter determining that a proposed Utah hydropower project meets criteria for development without needing a hydropower license. Castle Valley Special Service District's proposed Ferron Water Treatment Plant Project would generate electricity using the pressure of water in an existing conduit entering a drinking water treatment plant. As a result of a determination by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the project can be developed without a FERC hydropower license.
On January 27, 2016, the Castle Valley Special Service District filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of intent to construct a 6-kilowatt in-conduit hydroelectric net metered system. The District is a tax exempt municipal government entity that, among other services, provides drinking water to the residents of Ferron City and Clawson Town.
That notice of intent described plans to harness or recover water pressure lost at the inlet to the District's proposed new Ferron Water Treatment Plant. Water from the Millsite Reservoir would be transmitted to the treatment plant in a conduit owned by Ferron City and the District. Excess pressure in the incoming untreated water would flow through a pressure reducing valve and turbine hydropower generator.
Under section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA), a qualifying conduit hydropower facility -- one that is determined or deemed to meet defined criteria -- is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing under the Federal Power Act. These criteria include:
On February 2, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its notice of a 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."
Following the expiration of comment and intervention deadlines, on March 28 the Commission issued its "written determination that the Ferron Water Treatment Plant Project meets the qualifying criteria under FPA section 30(a), and is not required to be licensed under Part I of the FPA."
As the FERC determination on the Ferron project notes, "Qualifying conduit hydropower facilities remain subject to other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations." But the ability to develop an in-conduit hydropower project without needing a FERC license can give a significant boost to projects with suitable conduit water resources.
On January 27, 2016, the Castle Valley Special Service District filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of intent to construct a 6-kilowatt in-conduit hydroelectric net metered system. The District is a tax exempt municipal government entity that, among other services, provides drinking water to the residents of Ferron City and Clawson Town.
That notice of intent described plans to harness or recover water pressure lost at the inlet to the District's proposed new Ferron Water Treatment Plant. Water from the Millsite Reservoir would be transmitted to the treatment plant in a conduit owned by Ferron City and the District. Excess pressure in the incoming untreated water would flow through a pressure reducing valve and turbine hydropower generator.
Under section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA), a qualifying conduit hydropower facility -- one that is determined or deemed to meet defined criteria -- is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing under the Federal Power Act. These criteria include:
- The conduit the facility uses 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 not primarily for the generation of electricity.
- The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit.
- The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts.
- On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA.
On February 2, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its notice of a 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."
Following the expiration of comment and intervention deadlines, on March 28 the Commission issued its "written determination that the Ferron Water Treatment Plant Project meets the qualifying criteria under FPA section 30(a), and is not required to be licensed under Part I of the FPA."
As the FERC determination on the Ferron project notes, "Qualifying conduit hydropower facilities remain subject to other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations." But the ability to develop an in-conduit hydropower project without needing a FERC license can give a significant boost to projects with suitable conduit water resources.
Texas small hydro project loses exemption
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
What happens to a proposed hydroelectric project takes longer than anticipated to be built, due to difficulties with project financing and severe flooding? As the developer of a proposed project in Texas recently found out, federal regulators can be lenient up to a point -- but under some circumstances the developer can lose its federal authorization to develop and operate the project.
The A.H. Smith Dam on the San Marcos River in Martindale, Texas was originally constructed in about 1894 to provide mechanical power a cotton gin; later, electric generation was installed, but power production ceased in the 1940s when low wholesale energy prices made operation uneconomic. Modern hydropower facilities rated at 150 kilowatts were installed in 1984, but were ultimately abandoned.
In 2005, developer Hydraco Power, Inc. applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an exemption from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act for its proposed A.H. Smith Dam Project. Hydraco's project included refurbishing and restoring the operation of the existing turbine located at the dam's powerhouse, installing a new buried transmission line and a water surface elevation gate in the headpond.
On June 2, 2006, the Commission granted Hydraco an exemption for the project. As a standard condition of exemptions, the Commission retained the right to revoke the exemption if any term or condition was violated. Among the terms was a requirement that Hydraco file within 120 days a
plan and schedule to install the new transmission line and restore the powerhouse, turbine, and trash racks to operating condition, as well as notice that the Commission could terminate the exemption if actual construction of any proposed or required facility had not begun within two years or had not been completed within four years of the date of issuance of the exemption.
Over the next 8 years, Hydraco filed a series of construction plans and schedules, but never completed the project despite obtaining repeated extensions of key deadlines. After multiple prompts by Commission staff to file a revised plan and schedule for restoring project operation or an application to surrender the exemption, the Commission noted that Hydraco either failed to respond or responded by stating that it could not estimate a schedule for restoring project operation because project construction, including major component repairs, was on hold due to lack of funds.
After the Commission issued a public notice in August 2014 stating its intent to terminate the project exemption "due to Hydraco’s longstanding violation of exemption Article 10 and its failure to provide a timeframe for restoring project generation", on November 20, 2014, the Commission issued an Order Terminating Exemption. That order found that "Hydraco has only performed minimal work at the project since obtaining its exemption in 2006 and that it lacks the funding to proceed with the necessary component repairs, including construction of the powerhouse interior and generating unit."
Hydraco filed a request for rehearing of the Order Terminating Exemption. On rehearing, Hydraco asserted that it had reached a financing agreement with a new investor and, consequently, it is ready to perform the work needed to comply with its exemption. Hydraco also objected to the findings that project construction was at a standstill and that Hydraco intended to abandon the project, noting that the Commission should excuse construction delays caused by severe flooding.
Last week, the Commission issued an Order Denying Rehearing in the case. It first noted that Hydraco had not demonstrated that it now has the money needed to bring the project on line. Not only did Hydraco not show evidence of a final financing agreement, but the documents showed a source of only half of the funding needed for project restoration. Second, the Commission noted that Hydraco's recent activities -- regularly inspecting the dam and removing debris from its spillway, trashracks, and grates, securing the site against vandalism and installing lighting, and repairing damage caused by a flood -- are "either maintenance or repair, not project development." Finally, the Commission articulated its "doctrine of implied surrender", which it applies where the entity responsible for the project has, by action or inaction, clearly indicated its intent to abandon the project, but has not filed a surrender application.
With the exemption terminated and Hydraco's request for rehearing denied, the A.H. Smith Dam project faces an uncertain future. On the one hand, the site presumably still offers many of the same values that Hydraco hoped to capture -- use an existing dam, with existing generation facilities, to generate renewable electricity. However, the loss of the FERC exemption means that Hydraco (or any other developer) will have to start the federal hydropower process over if it hopes to redevelop the dam as a hydroelectric generating site.
The case of the A.H. Smith Dam project illustrates a number of themes: interest in restoring existing hydropower infrastructure to generate renewable energy with relatively less environmental impact than newly-built dams, the challenge of securing financing for small hydropower projects -- and perhaps most importantly the value of compliance with FERC hydropower rules.
The A.H. Smith Dam on the San Marcos River in Martindale, Texas was originally constructed in about 1894 to provide mechanical power a cotton gin; later, electric generation was installed, but power production ceased in the 1940s when low wholesale energy prices made operation uneconomic. Modern hydropower facilities rated at 150 kilowatts were installed in 1984, but were ultimately abandoned.
In 2005, developer Hydraco Power, Inc. applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an exemption from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act for its proposed A.H. Smith Dam Project. Hydraco's project included refurbishing and restoring the operation of the existing turbine located at the dam's powerhouse, installing a new buried transmission line and a water surface elevation gate in the headpond.
On June 2, 2006, the Commission granted Hydraco an exemption for the project. As a standard condition of exemptions, the Commission retained the right to revoke the exemption if any term or condition was violated. Among the terms was a requirement that Hydraco file within 120 days a
plan and schedule to install the new transmission line and restore the powerhouse, turbine, and trash racks to operating condition, as well as notice that the Commission could terminate the exemption if actual construction of any proposed or required facility had not begun within two years or had not been completed within four years of the date of issuance of the exemption.
Over the next 8 years, Hydraco filed a series of construction plans and schedules, but never completed the project despite obtaining repeated extensions of key deadlines. After multiple prompts by Commission staff to file a revised plan and schedule for restoring project operation or an application to surrender the exemption, the Commission noted that Hydraco either failed to respond or responded by stating that it could not estimate a schedule for restoring project operation because project construction, including major component repairs, was on hold due to lack of funds.
After the Commission issued a public notice in August 2014 stating its intent to terminate the project exemption "due to Hydraco’s longstanding violation of exemption Article 10 and its failure to provide a timeframe for restoring project generation", on November 20, 2014, the Commission issued an Order Terminating Exemption. That order found that "Hydraco has only performed minimal work at the project since obtaining its exemption in 2006 and that it lacks the funding to proceed with the necessary component repairs, including construction of the powerhouse interior and generating unit."
Hydraco filed a request for rehearing of the Order Terminating Exemption. On rehearing, Hydraco asserted that it had reached a financing agreement with a new investor and, consequently, it is ready to perform the work needed to comply with its exemption. Hydraco also objected to the findings that project construction was at a standstill and that Hydraco intended to abandon the project, noting that the Commission should excuse construction delays caused by severe flooding.
Last week, the Commission issued an Order Denying Rehearing in the case. It first noted that Hydraco had not demonstrated that it now has the money needed to bring the project on line. Not only did Hydraco not show evidence of a final financing agreement, but the documents showed a source of only half of the funding needed for project restoration. Second, the Commission noted that Hydraco's recent activities -- regularly inspecting the dam and removing debris from its spillway, trashracks, and grates, securing the site against vandalism and installing lighting, and repairing damage caused by a flood -- are "either maintenance or repair, not project development." Finally, the Commission articulated its "doctrine of implied surrender", which it applies where the entity responsible for the project has, by action or inaction, clearly indicated its intent to abandon the project, but has not filed a surrender application.
With the exemption terminated and Hydraco's request for rehearing denied, the A.H. Smith Dam project faces an uncertain future. On the one hand, the site presumably still offers many of the same values that Hydraco hoped to capture -- use an existing dam, with existing generation facilities, to generate renewable electricity. However, the loss of the FERC exemption means that Hydraco (or any other developer) will have to start the federal hydropower process over if it hopes to redevelop the dam as a hydroelectric generating site.
The case of the A.H. Smith Dam project illustrates a number of themes: interest in restoring existing hydropower infrastructure to generate renewable energy with relatively less environmental impact than newly-built dams, the challenge of securing financing for small hydropower projects -- and perhaps most importantly the value of compliance with FERC hydropower rules.
NH conduit hydropower project approved
Monday, November 10, 2014
Federal regulators have determined that a proposed hydropower facility at a New Hampshire wastewater treatment plant can be built without a license, under a recently enacted law. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff has found that the Ammonoosuc Water Treatment Plant Hydroelectric Project proposed by the City of Berlin Water Works is a qualifying conduit hydropower facility under federal law. Like other conduit projects, the Ammonoosuc project involves the addition of a turbine into an existing system of pipes and pressure reduction valves, and can create additional renewable energy with few incremental impacts.
Under the Federal Power Act, most hydropower projects in the U.S. require licensure by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But last year, Congress passed the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, easing the regulatory burden on projects. That law exempts certain so-called "conduit" hydropower facilities from the licensing requirements of the Federal Power Act. Conduit facilities generate 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. To qualify, conduit facilities must have an installed generating capacity that does not exceed 10 megawatts (MW), and must not have been licensed or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act on or before August 9, 2013. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission subsequently issued Order No. 800, updating its rules to conform to the newly streamlined process.
While qualifying conduit hydropower facilities are not required to be licensed or exempted by the Commission, developers of qualifying facilities must file a Notice of Intent to Construct a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility with the Commission. On August 28, 2014, the City of Berlin, New Hampshire's Water Works filed such a Notice of Intent. The proposed Ammonoosuc Water Treatment Plant Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of 21 kilowatts (kW) and would be located on the existing 16-inch-diameter raw water transmission main immediately upstream from the pressure-reducing valve for the City of Berlin's water treatment plant. The project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 85 megawatt-hours.
The newly streamlined process can work quickly. On September 10, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff issued a 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 Commission then posted this preliminary determination for public comment for 45 days.
No public comments were received, so on October 31, Commission staff issued its written determination that the Ammonoosuc Water Treatment Plant Hydroelectric Project meets the qualifying criteria under section 30(a) of the Federal Power Act, and is not required to be licensed under Part I of the Federal Power Act.
With this finding in hand just 64 days after filing its application, the city water department can continue securing the remaining approvals necessary to develop the Ammonoosuc Water Treatment Plant Hydroelectric Project. Securing a FERC hydropower license can be a major endeavor, so the streamlined regulatory treatment now available to qualifying conduit hydropower facilities can be a major advantage. How many other water treatment plants and other conduit owners will follow the Berlin Water Works' path and develop their own hydroelectricity assets using this easier regulatory process?
Under the Federal Power Act, most hydropower projects in the U.S. require licensure by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But last year, Congress passed the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, easing the regulatory burden on projects. That law exempts certain so-called "conduit" hydropower facilities from the licensing requirements of the Federal Power Act. Conduit facilities generate 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. To qualify, conduit facilities must have an installed generating capacity that does not exceed 10 megawatts (MW), and must not have been licensed or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act on or before August 9, 2013. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission subsequently issued Order No. 800, updating its rules to conform to the newly streamlined process.
While qualifying conduit hydropower facilities are not required to be licensed or exempted by the Commission, developers of qualifying facilities must file a Notice of Intent to Construct a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility with the Commission. On August 28, 2014, the City of Berlin, New Hampshire's Water Works filed such a Notice of Intent. The proposed Ammonoosuc Water Treatment Plant Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of 21 kilowatts (kW) and would be located on the existing 16-inch-diameter raw water transmission main immediately upstream from the pressure-reducing valve for the City of Berlin's water treatment plant. The project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 85 megawatt-hours.
The newly streamlined process can work quickly. On September 10, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff issued a 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 Commission then posted this preliminary determination for public comment for 45 days.
No public comments were received, so on October 31, Commission staff issued its written determination that the Ammonoosuc Water Treatment Plant Hydroelectric Project meets the qualifying criteria under section 30(a) of the Federal Power Act, and is not required to be licensed under Part I of the Federal Power Act.
With this finding in hand just 64 days after filing its application, the city water department can continue securing the remaining approvals necessary to develop the Ammonoosuc Water Treatment Plant Hydroelectric Project. Securing a FERC hydropower license can be a major endeavor, so the streamlined regulatory treatment now available to qualifying conduit hydropower facilities can be a major advantage. How many other water treatment plants and other conduit owners will follow the Berlin Water Works' path and develop their own hydroelectricity assets using this easier regulatory process?
FERC Order 800 eases hydropower regulations
Friday, September 19, 2014
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued an order streamlining its regulations for some small hydropower projects. FERC Order No. 800 conforms the Commission's regulations to the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013. Between Order 800 and the Hydropower Efficiency Act, regulatory processes for developing some small hydropower projects have recently become easier.
Hydropower is one of the nation's most abundant sources of renewable energy -- and yet about 97 percent of the estimated 80,000 dams in the United States do not generate electricity. While not all are great candidates for hydropower, some non-power dam sites offer significant opportunities to generate renewable electricity with minimal incremental environmental impact.
Congress had these dams in mind when it enacted the Hydropower Efficiency Act on August 9, 2013. To encourage the use of these dams for electric generation, the Act aims to reduce the costs and regulatory burden on project developers during the project study and licensing stages. In particular, the Act amended previous statutory provisions covering both preliminary permits and projects that are exempt from licensing. These statutory changes prompted FERC to update its regulations to conform to the Hydropower Efficiency Act.
Order No. 800 formalizes the Commission's compliance procedures in its revised regulations on preliminary permits, small conduit hydroelectric facilities, and small hydroelectric power projects, and in a new subpart on qualifying conduit hydropower facilities. Key changes include:
Hydropower is one of the nation's most abundant sources of renewable energy -- and yet about 97 percent of the estimated 80,000 dams in the United States do not generate electricity. While not all are great candidates for hydropower, some non-power dam sites offer significant opportunities to generate renewable electricity with minimal incremental environmental impact.
Congress had these dams in mind when it enacted the Hydropower Efficiency Act on August 9, 2013. To encourage the use of these dams for electric generation, the Act aims to reduce the costs and regulatory burden on project developers during the project study and licensing stages. In particular, the Act amended previous statutory provisions covering both preliminary permits and projects that are exempt from licensing. These statutory changes prompted FERC to update its regulations to conform to the Hydropower Efficiency Act.
Order No. 800 formalizes the Commission's compliance procedures in its revised regulations on preliminary permits, small conduit hydroelectric facilities, and small hydroelectric power projects, and in a new subpart on qualifying conduit hydropower facilities. Key changes include:
- New regulations recognize the Commission's new statutory authority to extend a preliminary permit once for not more than two additional years, allowing permittees up to 5 total years to complete their feasibility studies without facing possible competition for the site from others.
- Exempt small conduit hydroelectric facilities may now be located on federal lands, and all exempt small conduit hydroelectric facilities may now have an installed capacity of up to 40 megawatts. Previously, non-municipal small conduit exemptions were limited to 15 megawatts.
- Exempt small hydroelectric power project facilities may now have an installed capacity of up to 10 megawatts.
- Qualifying conduit hydropower facilities, which do not require licensure under the Federal Power Act but do require the filing with FERC of a notice of intent to construct, are now covered under the regulations.
- A small conduit hydroelectric facility, as defined in section 30 of the Federal Power Act, is an existing or proposed hydroelectric facility that utilizes for electric power generation the hydroelectric potential of a conduit, or any 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 not primarily for the generation of electricity.
- A small hydroelectric power project, as defined in the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), is a project that utilizes for electric generation the water potential of either an existing non-federal dam or a natural water feature (e.g., natural lake, water fall, gradient of a stream, etc.) without the need for a dam or man-made impoundment.
- A qualifying conduit hydropower facility, as defined in the Hydropower Efficiency Act, is a facility that meets the following qualifying criteria: (1) the facility would be constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power using only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit, without the need for a dam or impoundment; (2) the facility would have a total installed capacity that does not exceed 5 MW; and (3) the facility is not licensed under, or exempted from, the license requirements in Part I of the FPA on or before the date of enactment of the Hydropower Efficiency Act (i.e., August 9, 2013).
Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Last week the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 5892, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012. The bill, introduced by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, is designed to implement a variety of measures promoting the production of electricity from small and conduit hydropower projects.
The bill opens with a series of Congressional findings regarding hydropower in the U.S.:
The bill opens with a series of Congressional findings regarding hydropower in the U.S.:
Congress finds that--The bill goes on to implement a series of regulatory changes, including:
(1) the hydropower industry currently employs approximately 300,000 workers across the United States;
(2) hydropower is the largest source of clean, renewable electricity in the United States;
(3) as of the date of enactment of this Act, hydropower resources, including pumped storage facilities, provide--
(A) nearly 7 percent of the electricity generated in the United States; and
(B) approximately 100,000 megawatts of electric capacity in the United States;
(4) only 3 percent of the 80,000 dams in the United States generate electricity, so there is substantial potential for adding hydropower generation to nonpowered dams; and
(5) according to one study, by utilizing currently untapped resources, the United States could add approximately 60,000 megawatts of new hydropower capacity by 2025, which could create 700,000 new jobs over the next 13 years.
- Increasing the maximum size of hydro projects eligible for exemption from licensing from 5 MW to 10 MW
- Promoting conduit hydropower – projects involving adding generation to existing pipes and canals
- Allowing FERC to extend a 3-year preliminary permit by up to 2 more years if the permittee worked diligently and in good faith
- Requiring FERC to investigate the development of a 2-year licensure process for developing hydropower at currently-unpowered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects, and if feasible test the shortened process on one or more pilot projects
- Requiring the U.S. Department of Energy to study the potential of pumped storage to back up intermittent renewables and provide reliability, and to produce new hydropower from existing conduits
spring-fed small hydro in Idaho?
Friday, April 27, 2012
Small-scale hydroelectric projects are receiving renewed interest as society looks for cost-effective ways to produce electricity using local, renewable resources. Depending on available sites and on what alterntative resources might be available, microhydro or small-scale hydroelectric projects can fit the bill. Even if you own a first-class site for a microhydro project, before you can build or operate your project, you need to understand what federal and state regulations may apply. Some small hydro projects are treated much like full-scale dam-based hydropower projects, while others (like small projects using existing conduits, pipes or canals) can get an easier regulatory path to approval.
A small hydro project proposed near Grace, Idaho illustrates some of these regulatory considerations, and the importance of understanding how regulators apply the rules. Grace is a town of about 1,000 people located in Idaho's Gem Valley. The Bear River runs through the valley on its course flowing out of Bear Lake, around the Bear River Range by Soda Springs, and then south through Grace into Utah's Cache Valley. In the early twentieth century, recognizing the area's water resources and topographic variation, a series of dams, diversion pipes and powerhouses were built along the Bear River to produce hydroelectricity. One side effect was that a stretch of river known as Black Canyon was largely dewatered, as an aqueduct carried the water around the canyon to a downstream powerhouse. Ultimately, Utah Power and Light (and then PacifiCorp) came to operate these assets, and chose to remove one of the dams, an aqueduct and one powerhouse in 2006 and 2007, and to provide some increased flows through the Black Canyon section.
There may be ways to generate hydroelectricity in Grace without diverting water away from the Bear River. Last month, a local farmer with interests in canals and hydro development proposed a new hydro project near Grace. The Gilbert Hydropower Project proposed to capture the flows of several natural springs and pipe this water about 700 feet to a turbine/generator unit. Currently, the water is partially used for pasture irrigation with the unused portion flowing into the Bear River; the developer proposes to install a 24‐inch diameter above-ground pipeline to send the water to a Pelton turbine attached to a 75 kW generator.
In its application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (docketed by FERC as Project No. 14367-000), the project developer requested an exemption from the licensing requirements of the Federal Power Act under the so-called "5 megawatt exemption" rule. That rule allows the Commission to exempt small hydroelectric projects with an installed capacity of 5 megawatts or less that: (1) are located at the site of any dam in existence on or before July 22, 2005, and that use the water power potential of such dam for the generation of electricity; or (2) use a “natural water feature” to generate electricity, without the need for any dam or impoundment.
FERC dismissed the Gilbert project's request for an exemption, noting, "Because [the] project would utilize the flows of a natural spring that travel through 700 feet of pipe to reach the proposed turbine/generator unit, it would neither be at the site of an existing dam nor use the flows from a natural water feature", and thus was ineligible for an exemption. However, FERC did invite the Gilbert developers to convert their exemption application to a license application, which the developers did earlier this month. The developers now have until June 18, 2012, to submit the additional information needed for a complete license application.
What's in the future for Grace, Idaho? What role could using nontraditional water resources such as springs play there or elsewhere in our energy future?
A small hydro project proposed near Grace, Idaho illustrates some of these regulatory considerations, and the importance of understanding how regulators apply the rules. Grace is a town of about 1,000 people located in Idaho's Gem Valley. The Bear River runs through the valley on its course flowing out of Bear Lake, around the Bear River Range by Soda Springs, and then south through Grace into Utah's Cache Valley. In the early twentieth century, recognizing the area's water resources and topographic variation, a series of dams, diversion pipes and powerhouses were built along the Bear River to produce hydroelectricity. One side effect was that a stretch of river known as Black Canyon was largely dewatered, as an aqueduct carried the water around the canyon to a downstream powerhouse. Ultimately, Utah Power and Light (and then PacifiCorp) came to operate these assets, and chose to remove one of the dams, an aqueduct and one powerhouse in 2006 and 2007, and to provide some increased flows through the Black Canyon section.
There may be ways to generate hydroelectricity in Grace without diverting water away from the Bear River. Last month, a local farmer with interests in canals and hydro development proposed a new hydro project near Grace. The Gilbert Hydropower Project proposed to capture the flows of several natural springs and pipe this water about 700 feet to a turbine/generator unit. Currently, the water is partially used for pasture irrigation with the unused portion flowing into the Bear River; the developer proposes to install a 24‐inch diameter above-ground pipeline to send the water to a Pelton turbine attached to a 75 kW generator.
In its application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (docketed by FERC as Project No. 14367-000), the project developer requested an exemption from the licensing requirements of the Federal Power Act under the so-called "5 megawatt exemption" rule. That rule allows the Commission to exempt small hydroelectric projects with an installed capacity of 5 megawatts or less that: (1) are located at the site of any dam in existence on or before July 22, 2005, and that use the water power potential of such dam for the generation of electricity; or (2) use a “natural water feature” to generate electricity, without the need for any dam or impoundment.
FERC dismissed the Gilbert project's request for an exemption, noting, "Because [the] project would utilize the flows of a natural spring that travel through 700 feet of pipe to reach the proposed turbine/generator unit, it would neither be at the site of an existing dam nor use the flows from a natural water feature", and thus was ineligible for an exemption. However, FERC did invite the Gilbert developers to convert their exemption application to a license application, which the developers did earlier this month. The developers now have until June 18, 2012, to submit the additional information needed for a complete license application.
What's in the future for Grace, Idaho? What role could using nontraditional water resources such as springs play there or elsewhere in our energy future?
Yarmouth, Maine considers dam removal, other options
Monday, October 31, 2011
The town of Yarmouth, Maine is holding a meeting on November 1, 2011 about the future of two town-owned dams on the lower Royal River.
The Royal River flows nearly 40 miles across Maine, from Sabbathday Pond in New Gloucester to meet Casco Bay in the town of Yarmouth. Along this course, the Royal River falls about 300 feet, much of which forms a series of old dams and falls in its lower reaches. The village of Yarmouth formed around several of these dam sites, which provided mechanical power to mills and businesses in the village. Today, dams remain on the Royal River. A non-hydropower dam spans the river near East Elm Street, while the Sparhawk Mill dam hosts hydroelectric generating facilities near Bridge Street.
The Sparhawk Mill dam was originally built to provide mechanical power, but hydroelectric generating facilities were installed in 1984. Now, the Sparhawk project can produce 270 kilowatts of power, and operates under a licensing exemption issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985.
Today the town of Yarmouth owns the dams, and is considering their future. The Sparhawk dam is reportedly not producing much -- if any -- revenue for the town, while both dams may need maintenance and repairs. Some community members suggest dam removal for reasons ranging from municipal fiscal policy to enhancing fish passage along the Royal River. Others point to value of the Royal River's continuing ability to produce renewable hydroelectricity, and urge that the dams be maintained. The East Elm Street dam could even have electric generation facilities installed, either traditional hydroelectric or hydrokinetic devices.
The community forum starts at 7 p.m. on November 1 at Yarmouth Town Hall.
The Royal River flows nearly 40 miles across Maine, from Sabbathday Pond in New Gloucester to meet Casco Bay in the town of Yarmouth. Along this course, the Royal River falls about 300 feet, much of which forms a series of old dams and falls in its lower reaches. The village of Yarmouth formed around several of these dam sites, which provided mechanical power to mills and businesses in the village. Today, dams remain on the Royal River. A non-hydropower dam spans the river near East Elm Street, while the Sparhawk Mill dam hosts hydroelectric generating facilities near Bridge Street.
The Sparhawk Mill dam was originally built to provide mechanical power, but hydroelectric generating facilities were installed in 1984. Now, the Sparhawk project can produce 270 kilowatts of power, and operates under a licensing exemption issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985.
Today the town of Yarmouth owns the dams, and is considering their future. The Sparhawk dam is reportedly not producing much -- if any -- revenue for the town, while both dams may need maintenance and repairs. Some community members suggest dam removal for reasons ranging from municipal fiscal policy to enhancing fish passage along the Royal River. Others point to value of the Royal River's continuing ability to produce renewable hydroelectricity, and urge that the dams be maintained. The East Elm Street dam could even have electric generation facilities installed, either traditional hydroelectric or hydrokinetic devices.
The community forum starts at 7 p.m. on November 1 at Yarmouth Town Hall.
July 14, 2011 - Maine tidal power navigates the regulatory process
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Can tidal power produce electricity for a Maine island?
Developer TideWorks LLC apparently thinks so. In January 2010, Tideworks filed an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a 5 kilowatt project to be sited in the Sasanoa River, off the east side of the island town of Georgetown near Bath. This small project was proposed to provide power to a single-family dwelling on 15-acre Bareneck Island. Tideworks initially applied to FERC for an exemption from licensing. In its application, Tideworks described the project as including a single vertical shaft turbine-style generator housed on a 10' x 20' steel pontoon float held parallel to the east side of Bareneck Island using 40' steel struts. The Bareneck Island house is currently tied to the mainland grid by a 7,200 volt submarine cable, stepped down to 220 volts by a transformer on the island. While Tideworks proposed to keep this underwater cable connection "unless or until the applicant feels the proposed turbine unit will sustain the power needs of the dwelling", its application noted that the power generated by the turbine will be utilized to power the existing residence.
Beyond the technical challenges of building the project, this Maine tidal project must now navigate the regulatory process. Throughout 2010, agencies like NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce filed cautious comments with federal regulator FERC. After requesting more information from the developer, FERC accepted Tideworks' exemption application for processing and solicited comments. By September, FERC deemed the application ready for environmental analysis.
As agencies reviewed the project, the U.S. Department of the Interior and Maine Department of Marine Resources used their authority under Section 30(c) of the Federal Power Act to require Tideworks to screen the turbine to prevent fish from being killed. Specifically, the agencies requested a screen with openings of 1 inch or less, and an approach velocity of two feet per second or less at the screen to allow fish to swim away from the intake. These measures are used to protect fishery resources at conventional riverine hydropower projects, and the agencies urged the use of this standard given the unknown effects of the proposed hydrokinetic turbine unit on fishery resources. However, this slow approach velocity was below the minimum operating velocity of the turbine, significantly challenging the project's design. As Tideworks later described the standoff in a filing to FERC, "the project will not be able to generate/operate as a result of these two agency 30(c) conditions (screening/approach velocity)".
Additionally, the developer was encouraged to choose a different regulatory path. Rather than FERC's traditional licensing process, the project appeared to qualify for a more streamlined licensing process for hydrokinetic pilot projects. By March 2011, Tideworks filed an amendment to its application, dropping the request for an exemption from licensing and instead seeking a hydrokinetic pilot license. FERC noted that the same environmental protections, including the problematic screening, would likely apply to a hydrokinetic pilot license as well, and asked the developer to work with key agencies to identify any other project restrictions.
Last week, FERC again asked the developer for more information. In a letter, FERC reminded Tideworks of the commission's hydrokinetic pilot project licensing procedures, including the need to file specific documents including a draft license application and notice of intent.
The hydrokinetic project licensing process is new enough that it is hard to call any one project "typical", but the Tideworks project on the Sasanoa River in Maine illustrates the process of developing an island tidal power resource.
 |
| Sunset over skiffs tied up at Five Islands in Georgetown, Maine. |
Developer TideWorks LLC apparently thinks so. In January 2010, Tideworks filed an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a 5 kilowatt project to be sited in the Sasanoa River, off the east side of the island town of Georgetown near Bath. This small project was proposed to provide power to a single-family dwelling on 15-acre Bareneck Island. Tideworks initially applied to FERC for an exemption from licensing. In its application, Tideworks described the project as including a single vertical shaft turbine-style generator housed on a 10' x 20' steel pontoon float held parallel to the east side of Bareneck Island using 40' steel struts. The Bareneck Island house is currently tied to the mainland grid by a 7,200 volt submarine cable, stepped down to 220 volts by a transformer on the island. While Tideworks proposed to keep this underwater cable connection "unless or until the applicant feels the proposed turbine unit will sustain the power needs of the dwelling", its application noted that the power generated by the turbine will be utilized to power the existing residence.
Beyond the technical challenges of building the project, this Maine tidal project must now navigate the regulatory process. Throughout 2010, agencies like NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce filed cautious comments with federal regulator FERC. After requesting more information from the developer, FERC accepted Tideworks' exemption application for processing and solicited comments. By September, FERC deemed the application ready for environmental analysis.
As agencies reviewed the project, the U.S. Department of the Interior and Maine Department of Marine Resources used their authority under Section 30(c) of the Federal Power Act to require Tideworks to screen the turbine to prevent fish from being killed. Specifically, the agencies requested a screen with openings of 1 inch or less, and an approach velocity of two feet per second or less at the screen to allow fish to swim away from the intake. These measures are used to protect fishery resources at conventional riverine hydropower projects, and the agencies urged the use of this standard given the unknown effects of the proposed hydrokinetic turbine unit on fishery resources. However, this slow approach velocity was below the minimum operating velocity of the turbine, significantly challenging the project's design. As Tideworks later described the standoff in a filing to FERC, "the project will not be able to generate/operate as a result of these two agency 30(c) conditions (screening/approach velocity)".
Additionally, the developer was encouraged to choose a different regulatory path. Rather than FERC's traditional licensing process, the project appeared to qualify for a more streamlined licensing process for hydrokinetic pilot projects. By March 2011, Tideworks filed an amendment to its application, dropping the request for an exemption from licensing and instead seeking a hydrokinetic pilot license. FERC noted that the same environmental protections, including the problematic screening, would likely apply to a hydrokinetic pilot license as well, and asked the developer to work with key agencies to identify any other project restrictions.
Last week, FERC again asked the developer for more information. In a letter, FERC reminded Tideworks of the commission's hydrokinetic pilot project licensing procedures, including the need to file specific documents including a draft license application and notice of intent.
The hydrokinetic project licensing process is new enough that it is hard to call any one project "typical", but the Tideworks project on the Sasanoa River in Maine illustrates the process of developing an island tidal power resource.
June 28, 2011 - pending applications for hydrokinetic licenses
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
To wrap up our look at how hydrokinetic power projects are licensed, today I'll consider the currently pending applications for hydrokinetic project licenses.
Hydrokinetic power production entails the production of electricity from the energy of moving water: waves, tides, currents, or river flows. Commercial projects, and even experimental pilot projects, generally need licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Because hydrokinetic technologies are relatively new, FERC has issued only two licenses for hydrokinetic projects to date. Two more license applications are pending, split between wave and tidal energy applications.
The pending hydrokinetic license application for wave energy is for the Reedsport OPT Wave Park in Oregon. Developer Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) initially submitted its license application in January 2010. If built, this would be the first commercial wave park on the west coast of the U.S. The proposal is for an array of up to ten buoys, each of which could produce 150 kW.
The other pending hydrokinetic license application involves a tidal project in Maine. Developer TideWorks has proposed a 5 kilowatt project in the Sasanoa River, near Bath. This small project is proposed to provide power to a single-family dwelling on 15-acre Bareneck Island. Because the project is proposed to have less than 5 MW of capacity, it may qualify for an exemption from licensing -- but must apply to FERC to obtain that exemption.
Hydrokinetic power production entails the production of electricity from the energy of moving water: waves, tides, currents, or river flows. Commercial projects, and even experimental pilot projects, generally need licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Because hydrokinetic technologies are relatively new, FERC has issued only two licenses for hydrokinetic projects to date. Two more license applications are pending, split between wave and tidal energy applications.
The pending hydrokinetic license application for wave energy is for the Reedsport OPT Wave Park in Oregon. Developer Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) initially submitted its license application in January 2010. If built, this would be the first commercial wave park on the west coast of the U.S. The proposal is for an array of up to ten buoys, each of which could produce 150 kW.
The other pending hydrokinetic license application involves a tidal project in Maine. Developer TideWorks has proposed a 5 kilowatt project in the Sasanoa River, near Bath. This small project is proposed to provide power to a single-family dwelling on 15-acre Bareneck Island. Because the project is proposed to have less than 5 MW of capacity, it may qualify for an exemption from licensing -- but must apply to FERC to obtain that exemption.
June 20, 2011 - hydrokinetic power
Monday, June 20, 2011
Flowing water contains large amounts of usable energy. Beyond traditional dam-based hydroelectric generation, water’s power can be captured using hydrokinetic technology. A hydrokinetic project generates electricity from moving water: the flow of tides, waves, ocean currents, or unimpounded rivers. Most hydrokinetic projects will need regulatory approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a process that is still evolving but is getting easier over time.
 |
| The Oyster River Dam in Durham, NH. |
Technology continues to evolve rapidly, and each new design has to be tested. Under limited circumstances, developers can test turbines without obtaining a FERC license. In 2005, dealing with Verdant Power’s testing of underwater turbines in the East River in New York City, FERC ruled that a license is not required for a hydrokinetic project if the technology is experimental; the proposed facilities will be used for a short period for studies needed to seek a license; and the power generated from the test project will not be transmitted into, or displace power from, the electric grid.
This opportunity to test turbines without a license is limited. Most hydrokinetic projects will need to get FERC approvals such as a preliminary permit, license, or exemption from licensing. Tomorrow, I'll look at some of those paths toward developing and operating a renewable hydrokinetic energy project.
October 11, 2010 - permitting small and low-impact hydropower projects
Monday, October 11, 2010
As states and the federal government implement policies to promote both renewable power production and greater energy independence, small and low-impact hydropower projects provide a relatively accessible way to participate and benefit from these favorable policies. Today we'll take a walk through three different paths to getting approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a small hydro project.
First, a quick review of FERC's general licensing procedures. FERC has three licensing processes for hydro projects, all with similar names: the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP), the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP), and the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP).
The TLP is the longest-standing process, with origins dating back to 1935 and Part I of the Federal Power Act. In a TLP, the licensee engages in a three-stage pre-filing consultation process. Once a final application is filed, FERC issues public notice of the application, and solicits comments and intervention by other stakeholders. After further process including an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, FERC is ready to issue (or deny) the requested license.
While applicants have traditionally used the TLP (hence its name), effective July 23, 2005, the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is the default process for filing an application for an original, new, or subsequent license. In fact, Commission approval is now needed to use either the Traditional or the Alternative Licensing Process for larger projects.
The ALP allowed for somewhat more flexibility in the process. For example, in an ALP, an applicant can modify the pre-filing consultation process depending on the circumstances. The ALP allows applicants to streamline the pre-filing consultation process and environmental review processes under the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws. This is achieved in part through a collaborative workgroup to study and resolve issues. Finally, the ALP allows the applicant to prepare a preliminary draft environmental assessment, or allows an environmental impact statement to be drafted by a FERC-selected contractor at the applicant's expense. This allows scoping of environmental issues to occur prior to the application being filed with the Commission. However, the ALP has proved cumbersome in some instances, with a lengthy total process time.
The ILP combines some of the features of both the traditional and alternative processes, including a more formal study development process than under the TLP. This five-year process was adopted by FERC in 2003.
So what about small and low-impact hydropower projects? The Traditional Licensing Process is still used to prepare applications for small projects that qualify for either of two exemptions from FERC's licensing provisions under the Federal Power Act: the "conduit" exemption and the 5-MW exemption.
The conduit exemption operates to simplify the process for a hydropower project on an existing conduit (for example an irrigation canal). Conduit exemptions are authorized for generating capacities 15 megawatts or less for non-municipal and 40 megawatts or less for a municipal project. The conduit has to have been constructed primarily for purposes other than power production and be located entirely on non-federal lands.
Another exemption applies to small hydropower projects, which are 5 megawatts or less, that will be built at an existing dam, or projects that utilize a natural water feature for head or an existing project that has a capacity of 5 megawatts or less and proposes to increase capacity.
First, a quick review of FERC's general licensing procedures. FERC has three licensing processes for hydro projects, all with similar names: the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP), the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP), and the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP).
The TLP is the longest-standing process, with origins dating back to 1935 and Part I of the Federal Power Act. In a TLP, the licensee engages in a three-stage pre-filing consultation process. Once a final application is filed, FERC issues public notice of the application, and solicits comments and intervention by other stakeholders. After further process including an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, FERC is ready to issue (or deny) the requested license.
While applicants have traditionally used the TLP (hence its name), effective July 23, 2005, the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is the default process for filing an application for an original, new, or subsequent license. In fact, Commission approval is now needed to use either the Traditional or the Alternative Licensing Process for larger projects.
The ALP allowed for somewhat more flexibility in the process. For example, in an ALP, an applicant can modify the pre-filing consultation process depending on the circumstances. The ALP allows applicants to streamline the pre-filing consultation process and environmental review processes under the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws. This is achieved in part through a collaborative workgroup to study and resolve issues. Finally, the ALP allows the applicant to prepare a preliminary draft environmental assessment, or allows an environmental impact statement to be drafted by a FERC-selected contractor at the applicant's expense. This allows scoping of environmental issues to occur prior to the application being filed with the Commission. However, the ALP has proved cumbersome in some instances, with a lengthy total process time.
The ILP combines some of the features of both the traditional and alternative processes, including a more formal study development process than under the TLP. This five-year process was adopted by FERC in 2003.
So what about small and low-impact hydropower projects? The Traditional Licensing Process is still used to prepare applications for small projects that qualify for either of two exemptions from FERC's licensing provisions under the Federal Power Act: the "conduit" exemption and the 5-MW exemption.
The conduit exemption operates to simplify the process for a hydropower project on an existing conduit (for example an irrigation canal). Conduit exemptions are authorized for generating capacities 15 megawatts or less for non-municipal and 40 megawatts or less for a municipal project. The conduit has to have been constructed primarily for purposes other than power production and be located entirely on non-federal lands.
Another exemption applies to small hydropower projects, which are 5 megawatts or less, that will be built at an existing dam, or projects that utilize a natural water feature for head or an existing project that has a capacity of 5 megawatts or less and proposes to increase capacity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
