Boom in FERC hydro relicensing

U.S. federal hydropower regulatory staff currently has a full workload processing original license, relicense, and exemption applications, as well as its compliance and dam safety work, according to testimony presented to the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy -- and this workload is expected to increase as many hydro projects face relicensing proceedings.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates over 1,600 non-federal hydropower projects located at over 2,500 dams, under Part I of the Federal Power Act.  These projects collectively represent about 56 gigawatts of hydropower capacity, over half of the nation's total hydropower capacity.

The Federal Power Act generally requires non-federal hydropower projects to be licensed by the Commission if they: (1) are located on a navigable waterway; (2) occupy federal land; (3) use surplus water from a federal dam; or (4) are located on non-navigable waters over which Congress has jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, involve post-1935 construction, and affect interstate or foreign commerce.  Licenses are generally issued for terms of between 30 and 50 years, and are renewable.

According to testimony presented to the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy on May 3, 2017, the Commission's relicensing workload "has started to increase and will continue to remain high well into the 2030s."  Between fiscal years 2017 and 2030, the Commission projects that about 480 older projects will begin the pre-filing consultation stages of the relicensing process.  These projects facing relicensing represent about 45 percent of Commission-licensed projects, and one-third of jurisdictional licensed hydropower capacity.

The testimony also notes that some of these projects may face different standards in a relicensing context than were considered when their current or original licenses were issued.  Many projects now entering relicensing were first licensed in the early to mid-1980s, following the enactment of PURPA but prior to enactment of modern environmental standards.

For example, the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986 directed the Commission, when issuing licenses, to give equal consideration to power and development, energy conservation, fish and wildlife, recreational opportunities, and other aspects of environmental quality.  This mandate may not have applied to a 40-year license issued in 1982, but would come into play during a relicensing case initiated in 2017.

The House Subcommittee on Energy is considering discussion drafts and several pieces of legislation affecting hydropower, including the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017; the Promoting Hydropower Development at Existing Non-Powered Dams Act; the Promoting Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower Act; the Promoting Small Conduit Hydropower Facilities Act of 2017; and the Supporting Home Owner Rights Enforcement Act.

Massachusetts net metering expansion bills

As Massachusetts solar energy legislation seems stalled over debate on the value of solar renewable energy credits, 100 state legislators have written to the Massachusetts House of Representatives leadership calling for "a bill to raise net metering caps as expeditiously as possible."  Governor Baker, the state House and Senate have each agreed to expand net metering programs, but legislation has yet to be fully enacted due to a lack of agreement over the separate SREC issue.

Solar panels on a rooftop in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts solar energy policy is at an inflection point, as the state's two most significant solar photovoltaic offerings -- net metering and the Department of Energy Resources SREC II program -- reach prescribed limits.

Current law caps public sector net metering at 5% of a distribution company's historical peak load, and private sector net metering at 4%.  Last year, Governor Charlie Baker and legislators agreed to increase each of these caps by another 2% of load. The Baker administration described An Act relative to a long-term, sustainable solar industry as maintaining:

strong support for solar generation in the Commonwealth by raising the private and public net metering caps two percent each, to six and seven percent, respectively. The enhancement of cap space represents a 50% increase for public entities, and a 40% increase for private entities, in the allowable amount of solar energy available for net metering credits. This increase will provide immediate support for projects being developed in service territories where the caps have already been reached, and provides the Department of Public Utilities with the authority to raise the caps further, as needed in the future.

In the last legislative session, the Massachusetts House and Senate each passed a similar bill expanding net metering.  But because these bills differed on the reimbursement rate for solar renewable energy credits (SRECs), a conference committee must now try to find agreement between the versions if the concept is to advance. 

In an apparent attempt to prompt action from the conference committee, 100 state legislators signed a March 14, 2016, letter calling for a floor vote on a bill at the earliest opportunity.  The legislators described net metering credits as "compensation for the value provided by solar generation exported to the grid."  They articulated a pro-consumer net metering policy:

In our view, a strong net metering policy, at a minimum, calls for maintaining retail net metering credit value for preferred classes of projects, such as (1) community shared solar, (2) projects that serve low income housing and low-income ratepayers and (3) municipalities until an official, publicly scrutinized analysis of costs and benefits has been completed. In addition, we ask the Conference Committee to ensure grandfathering of existing systems. We also are in favor of the inclusion of new or expanded programs to achieve solar equity for low-income residents.

The legislators noted increased urgency given the filling up of the SREC II program.

The bills -- H.3854 and S.2058 -- are now before the Conference Committee.

House subcommittee holds hearing on FERC oversight

Members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission testify today before the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, as that committee considers its oversight of the FERC.

The FERC is an independent administrative agency within the Department of Energy.  Its mandate includes regulating the transmission, reliability, and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce pursuant to the Federal Power Act; the transmission and sale of natural gas for resale in interstate commerce pursuant to the Natural Gas Act; the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act; and evaluating proposals to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and interstate natural gas pipelines, as well as the licensing of non - federal hydropower projects.

As described in a committee background memorandum for today's hearing, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power is exploring whether FERC’s statutory authorities require modernization to reflect current energy realities.  Chief among those statutory authorities are the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act.  The committee memorandum also notes an interest in evaluating "whether FERC is overstepping its existing statutory boundaries to pursue policy goals not intended by Congress."

Specific issues expected to be examined at the hearing include:

• Potential impacts of the U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan rule on electricity markets, fuel diversity, and electric reliability;
• Commission oversight of organized wholesale electricity markets and their operation
• Risks to the security of the electric grid, including physical and cyber security, geomagnetic disturbances, electromagnetic pulse, and severe weather;
• How to integrate renewable, intermittent resources and distributed generation;
• The role of demand response and other demand-side management technologies in wholesale markets, at issue in the EPSA v. FERC case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court; 
• Electric transmission operations and planning, including implementation of Order No. 1000;
• Natural gas pipeline permitting, LNG siting, and hydropower licensing;
• FERC market manipulation authorities and enforcement practices; and
• FERC’s implementation of the mandatory purchase obligation from qualifying facilities (QFs) under section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.

Based on prefiled documents, today's hearing features:

• testimony by FERC Chairman Norman Bay
• testimony by Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur
• testimony by Commissioner Tony Clark
• testimony by Commissioner Colette Honorable

More information about today's hearing can be found on the committee's webpage.

U.S. renewable energy share highest since 1930s

In 2014, about 9.8% of the total energy consumed in the U.S. came from renewable energy sources, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  This represents the highest share of total domestic energy supply coming from renewable resources since the 1930s.

Prior to the growth of production and distribution networks for petroleum and other fossil fuels in the early 20th century, many homes used wood for heating as did industry.  This reliance on renewable biomass historically satisfied a significant portion of the total domestic energy demand.  But technological advances and the birth of the electric power industry led to greater use of other fuels.  As a result, the EIA reports that renewable resources' share of total domestic energy supply peaked in the 1930s, then declined.

But recent growth in U.S. renewable energy use has brought the country's energy mix back to nearly 10% renewable.  Indeed, from 2001 to 2014, renewable energy use grew an average of 5% per year, largely through increased use of wind, solar, and biofuels:

• Wind energy grew from 70 trillion Btu in 2001 to more than 1,700 trillion Btu in 2014.
• Solar energy (solar thermal and photovoltaic) grew from 64 trillion Btu to 427 trillion Btu.
• The use of biomass for the production of biofuels grew from 253 trillion Btu to 2,068 trillion Btu.

According to EIA, inn 2014, slightly more than half of all renewable energy was used to generate electricity.  Renewable energy accounted for 13% of energy consumed within the electric power sector, the highest renewable use attributable to any sector.

Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass a bill to expedite federal review of some spects of proposed natural gas pipelines.  Known as H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act is officially summarized as providing for the "timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and approvals required under Federal law with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline projects."  If enacted into law, what would H.R. 161 do?

Congress debates proposed reforms to the natural gas pipeline permitting process.

Relatively brief for federal legislation, the printed draft of H.R. 161 comes in at just 3 pages.  Overall, it defines and accelerates the timelines for federal approvals of some proposed natural gas pipelines.  If enacted, the bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission one year to decide whether or not to issue a pipeline permit, following which other federal agencies would have 90 days to issue any ancillary permits.

The pipelines that would benefit from this bill are those that have applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and have used the Commission's "prefiling" process.

First, H.R. 161 amends Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve or deny an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a prefiled project not later than 12 months after receiving a complete application that is ready to be processed.

Second, H.R. 161 requires any agency responsible for issuing any license, permit, or approval required under Federal law in connection with a prefiled project for which a certificate of public convenience and necessity is sought under the Natural Gas Act to approve or deny the issuance of the license, permit, or approval not later than 90 days after the Commission issues its final environmental document relating to the project.  Generally speaking, if such as agency cannot complete its review process within this timeline, it is compelled to deny the license, permit, or approval, but H.R. 161 would allow the Commission to extend the 90 day deadline by an additional 30 days.  H.R. 161 also changes federal law to provide that in the case of agency inaction within the 90 day time period or extra 30 day period, the requested license, permit, or approval shall take effect upon the expiration of 30 days after the end of such period.

On January 22, the House voted 253-169 in favor of the bill.  It now goes before the Senate.  But on January 20, the Executive Office of the President issued a statement of administrative policy stating, "If the President were presented with H.R. 161, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."  In that administrative policy statement, the administration acknowledged the need for additional energy infrastructure and supports the timely consideration of project applications, but notes risks from that H.R. 161.  These risks include effective limits on public participation in pipeline review processes, and that agencies may be forced to make decisions based on incomplete information or information that may not be available.  The executive branch's statement also cites a FERC report that since Fiscal Year 2009, FERC has completed action on 91 percent (512 out of 563) of all pipeline applications that it has received within one year of receipt, with the remaining decisions involving complex proposals that merit additional review and consideration.

Will the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act be enacted into law?  How will its enactment -- or non-enactment -- affect proposed new natural gas pipelines, and the customers they would serve?

How Election 2012 affects energy policy

Today voters across the United States cast ballots in the 2012 general election. At stake are a broad range of political offices, ranging from the presidency to local municipal roles. How will the election's outcomes affect energy policy, energy-related businesses, and consumers?

The presidential contest has drawn the greatest attention over the past year. Whether President Obama will retain his office or Governor Romney will take the White House is the largest question. Based on the candidates' past actions and current campaign platforms, voters have some sense of how each would exercise his presidential powers. On energy issues, both candidates appear to favor increased domestic production of natural gas and oil. The candidates differ in their philosophies on the role of governmental incentives and subsidies -- whether for fossil fuel production or for renewable electricity generation -- and on emissions regulations for coal-fired and other power plants. The candidates also disagree on specific energy projects and programs ranging from the Keystone XL pipeline to the Navy's Great Green Fleet biofuels initiative.

Beyond the presidency, federal elections will determine the composition of Congress. While energy policy is more sensitive to presidential changes than to individual congressional elections, the makeup of Congress drives federal energy policy in the aggregate. All seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs, as are a third of Senate seats. Of the 33 Senate seats, Democrats need to win 21 seats to retain their majority while Republicans need to win 14 seats to take control. The senators elected in 2012 will participate in setting any national energy policy.

State elections will also shape energy policy for the coming years. Voters will select governors in 11 states, and state legislative offices are widely contested. While federal energy policy draws the most attention, the U.S. federalist system leaves significant authority to individual states to set their own policies on energy issues. For example, states may establish electric renewable portfolio standards or otherwise regulate the resource mix used to produce usable energy. The outcomes of state elections will also affect policies on energy efficiency, smart meters and smart grid infrastructure.

Voters in some states will also cast ballots on measures directly affecting energy policy, such as the Michigan citizens' initiative seeking to increase utilities' use of electricity produced by renewable resources.

It may be some time until all the ballots are finally counted, but by tomorrow night we will have a better understanding of the results for most of the races and ballot questions. Those who can translate the election results into an understanding of future policies - and business opportunities - will have a leg up on the competition.

August 4, 2010 - House CLEAR Act; Monhegan energy

One of the dominant forms of energy on Monhegan Island, Maine: propane tanks.  About 10 miles offshore, Monhegan does not have any electric cables to the mainland, relying instead on a 300-kilowatt diesel generator. For home heating, cooking, lighting and even refrigeration, many island residents still use propane.  Monhegan is also considering wind resources.

On July 30, 2010, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act by a vote of 209 to 193.  Much of CLEAR came from the previous Blowout Prevention Act of 2010 (H.R. 5626) (things like requiring blowout preventers, CEO accountability, etc.)

CLEAR also does the following:

• Shifts around Dept of Interior agencies (abolishes the Minerals Management Service)
• Reforms Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program to protect environment and safety, and to repeal certain royalty relief and royalty-in-kind provisions
• Reforms oil and gas royalties.
• Full funding for the Land and Water Conservation and Historic Preservation Funds.
• Alternative energy development, specifically leasing federal land for commercial wind and solar leasing program.  The Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service can lease land for commercial wind and solar projects.  It has a transmission savings provision ("Nothing in this title shall affect the authority of a Federal agency to issue right-of-way grants for electric transmission facilities.")
• Coordination and planning.  Better interagency coordination on the use of Federal energy resources.
• Geothemal production expansion.
• Conservation fee on all oil and gas leases on Federal onshore and offshore lands.  $2 per barrel of oil, 20 cents per million Btu of gas, sunsetting in 2021.