FERC workshop on abandoned mine pumped storage

Federal hydropower regulators have scheduled a workshop to explore potential opportunities for development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites, as required by the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018.

Enacted by Congress and signed by President Trump in October 2018, the Act amends several portions of the Federal Power Act which govern how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues preliminary permits, hydropower licenses, and approvals for qualifying conduit hydropower facilities. Among other requirements, the Act directed the Commission to issue a rule establishing an expedited process for issuing and amending licenses for closed-loop pumped storage projects under this section.

The Act also includes provisions designed to facilitate exploration of the use of abandoned mine sites for pumped storage projects. Section 3004 of the Act requires the Commission to hold a workshop within 6 months to explore potential opportunities for development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites, and issue guidance within one year to assist applicants for licenses or preliminary permits for closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites. In November 2018, the Commission docketed its action on Closed-loop Pumped Storage Projects at Abandoned Mines Guidance as Docket No. AD19-8-000 and established a schedule for rulemaking, public comment, and issuance of guidance.

The Commission has now issued a Notice of Workshop in the abandoned mine pumped storage docket, scheduled for April 4, 2019. The notice states that the workshop will involve roundtable discussions by panelists, moderated by Commission staff. The agenda for the workshop includes discussion of how to identify sites for development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mines, as well as the benefits and challenges associated with the use of abandoned mines for pumped storage. The agenda also includes time for soliciting feedback from the workshop panel and other participants on what types of information would be most helpful to include in the guidance mandated by the Act.

FERC Order 841 and electric storage markets

U.S. energy regulators have issued a final rule designed to help electric storage resources participate in the capacity, energy and ancillary services markets operated by regional grid operators. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said its Order No. 841 would remove barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in wholesale markets operated by regional transmission organization and independent system operators.

Electricity storage technologies have been around for some time, and some technologies like pumped hydropower storage have been deployed on a significant scale -- but new electric technologies are developing on top of these traditional technologies. New England's regional grid operator recently cited fast-responding energy storage devices as among the new technologies entering its markets. Many states have recognized the opportunities created by storage, and are enacting incentives to support its development and integration into microgrids. At the same time, regulators are grappling with how to fit energy storage resources into existing markets and incentive programs, like retail net metering.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has considered electric storage for some time, including stakeholder workshops, data requests, and technical conferences. The Commission expressed concerns that barriers to electric storage resources participation in organized wholesale markets could lead to unjust and unreasonable wholesale electricity rates. In November 2016, the Commission proposed a rule to facilitate electric storage resources' participation in organized wholesale markets. In January 2017, the Commission issued a policy statement addressing how electric storage resources may provide services at a mix of cost-based and market-based rates.

In issuing Order No. 841 on February 15, 2018, the Commission adopted a final rule requiring each RTO and ISO to revise its tariff to establish a "participation model" for electric storage resources. As envisioned by the Commission, these participation models will consist of market rules that facilitate electric storage resources' participation in organized wholesale markets, while recognizing storage resources' physical and operational characteristics.

The new rule provides that each RTO and ISO must adopt its own participation model for electric storage resources, within certain guidelines. First, the participation model must ensure that storage resources using it are eligible to provide all capacity, energy, and ancillary services they are technically capable of providing. Second, the participation model must ensure that participating storage resources can be dispatched and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer, consistent with rules that govern the conditions under which a resource can set the wholesale price. Third, the participation model must account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means Fourth, it must a minimum size requirement for participation in the RTO and ISO markets that does not exceed 100 kW.

The rule also requires that the sale of electric energy from the RTO or ISO market to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets must be at the wholesale locational marginal price.

In an accompanying statement, Commissioner LaFleur described electric storage as "like a 'Swiss army knife' that can serve customers in multiple ways," including including providing energy, particularly in conjunction with variable renewable generation (example: Deepwater Wind has proposed offshore wind plus storage in response to the pending Massachusetts offshore wind solicitation) as well as providing frequency regulation and other ancillary services, and helping defer distribution and transmission needs. Commissioner Powelson noted its consistency with the Commission's "longstanding commitment to fostering innovation and competition by reducing and eliminating barriers to entry." Commissioner Glick said Order No. 841 "will facilitate the development of a class of technologies—ranging from batteries to pumped hydro—that has the potential to play a leading role in the transition to the electricity system of the future, but that has heretofore been hindered by market rules that were designed primarily to accommodate more conventional means of electric generation."

Once it takes effect, the final rule gives RTOs and ISOs 270 days to develop and file their proposed rule changes, and a year for their implementation.

Dominion affiliate proposes Tazewell pumped storage project

A Virginia-based utility company has applied to federal regulators for a preliminary permit to study the feasibility of a pumped hydroelectric storage facility in the coalfield region of Southwest Virginia. If built, Dominion Energy Services, Inc.'s Tazewell Hybrid Energy Center Project could use mine water sources for the initial fill and makeup water. 

On September 6, 2017, Dominion Energy Services, Inc. filed an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Tazewell Hybrid Energy Center Project. As described in Dominion’s application, a September 7 press release, and a September 29 notice by the Commission, the Tazewell project would be a pumped hydroelectric storage facility. According to Dominion, the project would “be operated by Dominion Energy Virginia for hydropower generation during peak energy demand periods and pumping during off-peak energy demand periods.” Dominion points to grid benefits from pumped storage including integration of intermittent power generation sources, enhancement of grid stability and supply of other ancillary benefits. The applicant notes that the site “could support multiple configurations, including different-sized pumped-storage facilities,” a flexibility which Dominion said enables it to determine the best environmental, technical and economic solution.

The project would not use any existing dams or hydroelectric facilities, but would involve new dams and other facilities constructed for the proposed project. In its application, Dominion described two alternative configurations — a smaller Alternative 1 and a larger-capacity Alternative 2 – featuring an upper reservoir and a lower reservoir. Under either alternative, Dominion described potential water sources “for the initial fill and makeup water” as

(1) Mine ID P03_903 and (2) Mine ID P03_017. The initial fill water for the Project's reservoirs will be supplied by one or more of these water sources via a proposed pump and water conveyance system… Although the upper reservoir would be located on Oneida Branch and the lower reservoir would be located in West Fork Cove Creek, it is anticipated that the proposed Project will use mine water sources for the initial fill and makeup water.

Dominion says it will evaluate the feasibility of relying on mine water sources under the preliminary permit.

Dominion’s press release mentioned that it is also conducting in-depth studies of another potential site for a pumped hydroelectric storage facility, the former Bullitt Mine near Appalachia, Virginia. That mine has been closed since 1997 and is currently flooded.

In its application, Dominion cited 2017 Virginia legislation that it said “encourages one or more pumped storage stations and includes a requirement that all or a portion of it be powered by renewable energy produced in the coalfield region.”  That legislation amended existing law to allow a utility to petition the State Corporation Commission for approval of a rate adjustment clause to recover from customers the costs of “one or more pumped hydroelectricity generation and storage facilities that utilize on-site or off-site renewable energy resources as all or a portion of their power source and such facilities and associated resources are located in the coalfield region of the Commonwealth ... regardless of whether such facility is located within or without the utility's service territory.” The coalfield region is defined as including seven counties and one city: Lee, Wise, Scott, Buchanan, Russell, Tazewell and Dickenson Counties and the City of Norton.

FERC 2-year licensing pilot workshop

The regulatory process for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing of hydropower projects can take many years and significant expense -- but can it be improved following a two-year pilot process ordered by Congress?  After running a pilot process for one license application, the Commission has scheduled a workshop to discuss lessons learned from its pilot licensing process.

Under the Federal Power Act, the Commission is responsible for licensing most non-federal hydropower development in the U.S.  Concerned over the duration and expense of the regulatory process, Congress enacted the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, section 6 of which directed the Commission to investigate the feasibility of a two-year licensing process, develop criteria for identifying projects that may be appropriate for the process, and develop and implement pilot projects to test the process.

After a January 6, 2014 solicitation for pilot projects, the Commission selected Free Flow Power Project 92, LLC's (FFP) proposed 5-megawatt project at the Kentucky River Authority's existing Lock & Dam No. 11 on the Kentucky River.  The January notice set minimum criteria and a process plan for projects that may be appropriate for licensing within a two-year process, including:

• The project must cause little to no change to existing surface and groundwater flows and uses;
• The project must not adversely affect federally listed threatened and endangered species;
• If the project is proposed to be located at or use a federal dam, the request to use the two-year process must include a letter from the dam owner saying the plan is feasible;
• If the project would use any public park, recreation area, or wildlife refuge, the request to use the two-year process must include a letter from the managing entity giving its approval to use the site; and
• For a closed-loop pumped storage project, the project must not be continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature.

After trying a two-year pilot to abbreviate its hydropower project licensing process, the Commission has scheduled a workshop to discuss the pilot's effectiveness.

Electric storage resources technical conference set

U.S. energy regulators have scheduled a technical conference to discuss electric storage resources and how they could fit into the electric grid -- and how they might be compensated for doing so.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will convene the discussion on November 9, 2016.

An electric storage resource is a facility that can receive electric energy from the grid and store it for later injection of electricity back to the grid.  Different projects might use different storage mediums -- for example, batteries, flywheels, or pumped hydropower.  A storage resource could be as small as a household battery, or as large as gigawatt-scale pumped storage. Projects could be interconnected in various ways -- such as to the transmission system, distribution system, or behind a customer meter -- and could serve different markets, ranging from regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, to transmission or distribution utilities, to customers or end users of electricity.

While each energy storage resource configuration offers its own different advantages and disadvantages from various perspectives, overall the Commission has noted that "storage resources may fit into one or more of the traditional asset functions of generation, transmission, and distribution."  In the Commission's Notice of Technical Conference, it expressed a desire "to explore the circumstances under which it may be appropriate for electric storage resources to provide multiple services, whether the RTO/ISO tariffs need to include provisions to accommodate these business models, and how the Commission may ensure just and reasonable compensation for these resources in the RTO/ISO markets."

The specific subject of the conference described in the Notice is "the utilization of electric storage resources as transmission assets compensated through transmission rates, for grid support services that are compensated in other ways, and for multiple services."  The Notice also sets up discussion of other issues including

(1) potential models for cost recovery for electric storage resources utilized as transmission assets, while also selling energy, capacity or ancillary services at wholesale;

(2) potential models to enable an electric storage resource to provide a compensated grid support service (like a generator providing  ancillary services under a reliability must-run contract) rather than being compensated for providing transmission service; and

(3) practical considerations for electric storage resources providing multiple services at once (i.e., providing both wholesale service(s) and retail and/or end-use service(s)). 

FERC will webcast and transcribe the conference, in addition to allowing in-person attendance.  The Commision directed those wishing to participate to submit a nomination form online by 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2016.

Energy storage is attracting increased interest.  In another open docket, the Commission issued a series of data requests and a request for public comment in an effort to identify barriers to electric storage resources' participation in organized electricity markets in the U.S that could lead to unjust and unreasonable wholesale electricity rates.  In 2009, then-Chairman Wellinghoff testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on the role of grid-scale energy storage as it relates to U.S. energy and climate goals, including its ability to integrate variable resources such as wind and solar into the grid.  Meanwhile, states too are pursuing storage opportunities.  A Massachusetts state energy office has issued a report finding that Massachusetts has the potential to develop for 600 MW of energy storage by 2025, which could lower costs, reduce carbon emissions, and improve grid reliability.

DOE Hydropower Vision report

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has released a report on the future of domestic hydropower.  Its Hydropower Vision finds that U.S. hydropower could grow from 101 gigawatts of capacity in 2015 to nearly 150 gigawatts by 2050.  More than 50% of this growth could be realized by 2030, according to the report.  Much of the new capacity would come from pumped storage, with the remainder coming from upgrades to existing plants, adding power at existing dams and canals, and "limited development of new stream-reaches."

DOE's Wind and Water Power Technologies Office describes its report, Hydropower Vision: A New Chapter for America’s First Renewable Electricity Source, as presenting "a first-of-its-kind comprehen sive analysis to evaluate future pathways for low-carbon, renewable hydropower (hydropower generation and pumped storage) in the United States, focused on continued technical evolution, increased energy market value, and environmental sustainability." While it does not evaluate or recommend new policy actions, the report does analyze the "feasbility and certain benefits and costs of various credible scenarios, all of which could inform policy decisions at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels."

The report's Executive Summary presents an overview of the report, and its three "pillars" or foundational principles developed in collaboration with stakeholders: optimizing the value and power generation contribution of the existing hydropower fleet, exploring the feasibility of "credible long-term deployment scenarios for responsible growth of hydropower capacity and energy production," and sustainability.  Analyzing data and modeled scenarios, the report found that "under a credible modeled scenario in which technology advancement lowers capital and operating costs, innovative market mechanisms increase revenue and lower financing costs, and a combination of environmental considerations are taken into account—U.S. hydropower including PSH could grow from 101 GW of capacity in 2015 to 150 GW by 2050."

Chapter 1 of the Hydropower Vision describes how technical resource assessments and computational models can be used to interpret hydropower's future market potential.  It also evaluates potential innovations or nontraditional approaches to technology and project development that could affect the future development of new hydropower projects.

Chapter 2 of the Hydropower Vision presents a snapshot of the state of the U.S. hydropower industry as of year-end 2015, from the Energy Department's perspective.  It notes that hydropower generation and pumped storage have "provided a stable and consistently low-cost energy source throughout decades of fluctuations and fundamental shifts in the electric sector, supporting development of the U.S. power grid and the nation’s industrial growth in the 20th century and into the 21st century." The report points to 2015 data showing 2,198 active hydropower plants in the U.S. with a total capacity of 79.6 gigawatts, plus 42 pumped storage hydro plants totaling another 21.6 gigawatts.  In 2015, hydropower provided about 6.2% of net U.S. electricity generation, and 48% of all U.S. renewable power.

Chapter 3 of the report explores over 50 possible future scenarios for the hydropower industry, to assess the nation's hydropower potential.  It presents an extensive body of analysis, considering potential contributions over time to the electric sector of both the existing hydropower fleet and new hydropower deployment resulting from: upgrades at existing plants, powering of non-powered dams (NPD), pumped storage hydropower (PSH), and new stream-reach development (NSD).  It found that the greatest influence on potential growth scenarios comes from 3 variables: technological innovation, environmental considerations, and financial improvement.

The report's fourth chapter lays out a roadmap of 64 potential actions for stakeholder consideration, "to optimize hydropower’s continued contribution to a clean, reliable, low-carbon, domestic energy generation portfolio while ensuring that the nation’s natural resources are adequately protected or conserved."  These actions are organized around 5 topical areas: technology advancement, sustainable development and operation, enhanced revenue and market structures, regulatory process optimization, and enhanced collaboration, education, and outreach.

As noted by the Energy Department, while utility-scale battery storage projects are starting to be developed, most U.S. electricity storage capacity takes the form of pumped storage.  Flexible and reliable generating or storage resources can support efforts to integrate increasing amounts of intermittent renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, into the grid.

FERC tests 2-year hydropower licensing process

Licensing some new hydropower projects in the United States -- traditionally a lengthy process -- may soon become easier, as federal regulators have approved an experimental two-year process that may soon be used to license some projects.

Water spills over a small, non-powered dam in Maine.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates most hydropower development in the United States.  Under Part I of the Federal Power Act, the Commission considers applications for hydropower project licenses.  While the traditional licensure process has resulted in the issuance of thousands of licenses, winning a license for a project can take many years -- and some licensure proceedings have stretched toward a decade.

In response to concerns that lengthy licensing procedures stifle hydropower development, last year Congress enacted the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013.  That law directed the Commission to investigate the feasibility of a two-year licensing process for certain projects, develop criteria for identifying projects that may be appropriate for the process, and develop and implement pilot projects to test the process.

In January 2014, the Commission solicited pilot projects to test a two-year process.  Two kinds of projects were eligible: hydropower development at existing non-powered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects.  In the notice soliciting pilot projects, the Commission articulated additional criteria for eligibility including:

• The project must cause little to no change to existing surface and groundwater flows and uses;


• The project must not adversely affect federally listed threatened and endangered species;


• If the project is proposed to be located at or use a federal dam, the request to use the two-year process must include a letter from the dam owner saying the plan is feasible;


• If the project would use any public park, recreation area, or wildlife refuge, the request to use the two-year process must include a letter from the managing entity giving its approval to use the site; and


• For a closed-loop pumped storage project, the project must not be continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature. 

Ultimately, the Commission selected a project proposed by Free Flow Power Project 92, LLC: a 5-megawatt project at the Kentucky River Authority's existing Lock & Dam No. 11 on the Kentucky River in Estill and Madison counties, Kentucky.  Lock and Dam 11 were originally built from 1904-1906 and support a twenty mile long pool of water 201 miles above the mouth of the Ohio River, but have not previously supported a FERC-licensed hydropower project.

The Free Flow Power applicant's request to use the 2-year licensing process was filed on May 5, 2014, so the two years runs through May 5, 2016.  The Commission staff has issued a process plan and schedule with interim milestones through February 2016.  Compared to a traditional licensure process, the proposed schedule is accelerated -- but will this pilot case remain on schedule?  Will the accelerated process satisfy the various stakeholders, including the developer, regulator, neighbors, and public?

Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 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.:

Congress finds that--

(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.

The bill goes on to implement a series of regulatory changes, including:

• 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

H.R. 5892 is now before the Senate for its consideration.

Wyoming-Colorado water pipeline, hydropower

Federal regulators have upheld their rejection of a proposal to pipe water over 500 miles from southwestern Wyoming’s Green River and Flaming Gorge Reservoir to Colorado. The project, known formally as the Regional Watershed Supply Project but more commonly called the Flaming Gorge Pipeline, has been sent back to the drawing board.  The recent permit denial appears to rest largely on the vague and incomplete nature of the application, but it also points to possible gaps in how the federal government regulates water use and hydropower.

Water - a scarce but valuable resource in the American west.

 
The Regional Watershed Supply Project was originally proposed by private developer Million Conservation Resource Group to make new water supply available for use by municipalities, agriculture, and industries in southeastern Wyoming and the Front Range of Colorado. In 2008, the developer applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under its Section 404 authority, the Army Corps regulates activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.

In July 2011, based on the record in the case, the Army Corps withdrew the pipeline application, saying in a public notice that the “primary purpose of the project may now change to electrical power generation”, an activity appropriately under the purview of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Wyco Power and Water Inc., the successor in interest to Million Conservation Resource Group, then applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit for its project. By this time, the project concept included seven hydropower projects along the pipeline, including two pumped storage projects and five turbines within the pipeline. In response to the public notice of the permit application, over 200 comments expressly opposing the proposed project were submitted by the Governor of Wyoming, state agencies, counties, municipalities, water conservation districts, utilities, environmental or resource advocacy groups, and individuals.

In February, FERC dismissed Wyco’s request for a preliminary permit (3-page PDF) as premature, noting that the pipeline did not yet exist, nor did the applicant have authorizations for any specific route, nor had a route been substantially identified. FERC also noted that its only role associated with the proposed water supply pipeline would be to authorize the construction and operation of any proposed hydropower projects along the pipeline, not to authorize the siting of the pipeline itself.

Although Wyco asked FERC for a rehearing of its dismissal, yesterday the Commission upheld its earlier decision. In FERC’s order denying request for rehearing and clarification (9-page PDF), FERC reiterated that while it “regularly licenses discrete hydropower developments within substantial water conveyance systems, it has long been the Commission’s practice not to license the entire water conveyance system itself.”

So where does that leave Wyco? With both the Army Corps and FERC finding that the permits sought are premature, a logical next step would be to pin down a specific route and to seek authorizations from the federal, state, and private landowners whose property would be crossed. The developer has suggested that financing the project will be difficult without first obtaining some governmental approvals, and it may be hard to reach deals with landowners without having sufficient financial commitments. Nevertheless, FERC’s decision instructs Wyco that it may come back with a preliminary permit for the hydropower components of its pipeline project once the pipeline is more well-defined.

Proposed Long Canyon energy project

Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission accepted for filing an application for a preliminary permit for a pumped storage project in the Utah desert.  In January, Utah Independent Power, Inc. filed for a preliminary permit.  The Long Canyon Pumped Storage Project would entail two dams to store water drawn from the Colorado River near Moab, Utah.  (Here's a topographic map of the general location.)

A water pipe buried in the desert soil in Arches National Park, near Moab, Utah.

Pumped storage projects are one way to store energy.  Electricity that is generated can be converted into potential energy stored in water by pumping it uphill.  That energy, or most of it, can be captured and converted back into electricity on command.

Utah Independent Power's application to FERC for a preliminary permit for the Long Canyon Pumped Storage Project (18-page PDF) provides some details on how the project might work.  Initially, water from the river would be pumped into the lower reservoir.  When electricity is abundant and low-priced, the project would consume electricity to pump water from the lower reservoir uphill to the upper reservoir.  When electricity is scarce or commands a high enough price, the project would release water downhill through turbines to produce up to 800 megawatts of hydroelectric energy.  In a typical pumped storage project, the same pumps used to send water uphill can be used as turbines when the water flows back down.  The owned of a pumped storage project seeks to earn profits by taking advantage of the difference between off-peak energy prices and the prices available during peak demand.

Now that the Commission has accepted the application for filing, the application is open for 60 days for public comment or a showing of interest in the site by a competing developer.  After that period, and after a technical and legal review of the application by Commission staff, the Commission may issue a preliminary permit to the applicant.  A preliminary permit does not authorize the permittee to actually construct anything; rather, it confers first priority of application for a license - what the Commission calls "guaranteed first-to-file status" - while the permittee studies the site and prepares to apply for a license, typically for a term of 3 years.

Utah pumped storage project seeks license

Electricity can be tricky to store once it is generated.  Batteries, flywheels, and other energy storage technologies can provide some storage capacity, but pumped storage -- using electricity to pump water uphill during times of low power pricing, and letting it fall back down to generate electricity when needed -- is the most-used bulk electricity storage medium in the US.  As of 2010, the United States was home to 21.5 gigawatts of pumped storage generating capacity.  Pumped storage can be used both to balance supply and demand on the electric grid and to arbitrage fuel and electricity costs. 


While some question whether electricity produced through pumped storage should qualify as renewable energy, pumped storage in the US is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as hydropower.  Most pumped storage projects will ultimately need a FERC license, but obtaining a preliminary permit is a typical first step in the approval process.  A preliminary permit gives a developer the right to investigate the feasibility of a project, typically for a three-year term, and convey exclusive first priority to file for a full license during that window.

This month, a proposed pumped storage in the Utah desert applied for a preliminary permit.  Utah Independent Power, Inc. filed its application to FERC for a preliminary permit for the Long Canyon Pumped Storage Project (18-page PDF).  Utah Independent Power proposes to build two dams to store water drawn from the Colorado River near Moab, Utah.  These dams would create an upper reservoir on the high plateau above Long Canyon and a lower reservoir at the end of Long Canyon.  The developer suggests that the power required for pumping would be supplied to the proposed project through the transmission grid using existing off peak power, while power would be produced by the project during peak periods and sold through the Western Electricity Coordinating Council grid at competitive peak rates.

The principals behind Utah Independent Power are no strangers to investigating pumped storage projects, having been involved in other proposals in the desert Southwest in recent decades.  Indeed, in 2008, Utah Independent Power applied for and obtained a preliminary permit for the Long Canyon Pumped Storage project.  (Here is Utah Independent Power's 2008 application, and the Commission's 2008 order issuing preliminary permit.)  Utah Independent Power surrendered that preliminary permit in 2011, along with another preliminary permit for the nearby Bull Canyon Pumped Storage project.  Its 2012 Long Canyon application bears significant similarities to its earlier proposal, with some differences including a slightly lower upper dam.

Utah Independent Power's proposal is likely to trigger significant interest.  On the one hand, being able to use existing natural resources -- in this case, Colorado River water and canyon topography -- to store electricity may be an attractive proposition.  On the other hand, Colorado River water is already scarce and at the center of water right fights.  Moreover, the Long Canyon project would lie close to scenic and protected lands, such as Dead Horse Point State Park and Canyonlands National Park.  An existing jeep road runs along Long Canyon, and the area receives both motorized and non-motorized recreation.  In 2008, the State of Utah filed comments questioning the applicant's rights to the necessary water and land, as well as the impacts to the viewshed and natural landscape from the dams, transmission lines, and other project facilities.