October 28, 2010 - Maine dam removal?

Fiery fall foliage in Phippsburg, Maine.

Yesterday, I mentioned a list of recently-removed Maine dams.  That list describes 20 dams as having been removed as of January 1, 2010, with another ten dams described as "currently proposed or under study for removal":

*	Boston Felt Dam	Lebanon, ME & Rochester, NH	Salmon Falls River
*	Coopers Mills Dam	Whitefield	Sheepscot River
*	Gardiner Paperboard Dam	Gardiner	Cobbosseecontee Stream
*	Great Works Dam	Old Town & Bradley	Penobscot River
*	Montsweag Dam	Wiscasset & Woolwich	Montsweag Brook
*	Veazie Dam	Veazie & Eddington	Penobscot River
*	West Winterport Dam	Winterport & Frankfort	Marsh Stream
*	Juliet Mill Dam	Lisbon	Sabattus River
*	Farwell Mill Dam	Lisbon	Sabattus River
*	Martin Brook Upper Dam	Madawaska	Martin Brook

Of these, several more have been removed.  For example, the Montsweag dam is gone.  The West Winterport dam is also gone.

Let's take a deeper look at one of the dams on this list.  The Boston Felt dam (Project No. 4542–013), which formerly produced 150 kW, was granted an exemption from licensing on August 29, 1983 (24 FERC ¶ 62,240). The project stopped operations in May 2006, due to a breach of the project dam by high river flows.  Project owner Bacon Felt Company, Inc., stated that a 20-foot long, 6-foot wide section of the wooden frame dam was carried away by the flooding.

After the water level dropped, the Federal Energy Regulator Commission ordered the owner to repair the dam.  US Fish and Wildlife Service also gave a directive regarding the installation of fish passage.  The owner allegedly explained why the project was inoperable (damage to the dam) and told FERC that resumption of generation at the project may be beyond its available resources, and said it would file a compliance plan and progress reports.  By September 2009, FERC issued a notice of revocation of exemption by surrender, based on allegations that exemptee had not taken responsive action.

In an October 2009 response, Bacon Felt filed a protest, stating that it had in fact replied to the Commission's information request and had requested a 120-day review period.  By February 2010, the project owner filed a formal motion requesting withdrawal of the notice of revocation of its exemption to maintain the project.  Bacon pointed to a host of changes, including a change in ownership of the company, changes to their manufacturing strategy, and an overall increase in the price of purchased power.  Bacon then argued that it had not surrendered its exemption, nor had it abandoned the project triggering an implied surrender.  Bacon pointed to examples of what implied surrender usually looks like, including:

• James Lichoulas Jr., 124 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,255, P 23 (implied surrender found where “the building over the substructure generating facilities [had] been demolished, the generating equipment [was] covered with collapsed building materials, and the wicket gate operators of the turbines appear[ed] to be inoperable.”), on reh’g, 125 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,195 (2008)
• New England Fish Co., 38 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,106, at 61,285 (1987) (finding surrender where the licensee “abandoned good-faith operation of the project in 1964” and “never filed an application for new license when the term of the original license expired in 1977.”)
• Pinedale Power & Light Co., 38 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,036 (1987) (finding surrender where the licensee abandoned the project 15 years prior to the surrender decision and sold the property 12 years prior to it).

Bacon then argued that current energy policy still favors the development of suitable waterways, and that it could continue (or resume) producing low-cost renewable power from the project.

The case remains pending before the Commission.

September 9, 2010 - Lightship Nantucket; FERC signs Colorado MOU on small hydro

The Lightship Nantucket WLV61, in port on Martha's Vineyard in summer 2010.  Until 1983, lightships such as this were used to mark shoals; they have since been functionally replaced (if not aesthetically so) by automated buoys.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is working with states to promote the development (or redevelopment) of small hydropower projects across the country.  FERC has recently signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with four states on the development of hydrokinetic projects: California, Washington, Maine, and Oregon.  Now FERC has signed an MOU with Colorado to streamline the procedures for developing small-scale hydropower projects in Colorado.  According to a recent federal survey, Colorado could be host to several hundred potential small (5 MW or smaller) hydropower projects.  Altogether, these small projects could add up to a combined capacity of more than 1,400 MW.

The MOU focuses on the development by Colorado of a pilot program to test procedural options for simplifying the processes for developers to obtain conduit exemptions and small (5MW or less) project exemptions.

The MOU opens the door for developers of small projects in Colorado to participate in the pilot program.  Colorado and FERC are both expected to take input from project developers about the kind of obstacles they face in permitting and exempting small projects - and about what can be done to help more projects be developed.

As we've seen in Maine, developing or redeveloping small hydro projects can run into siting and permitting challenges at the federal, state, and local levels.  For example, the Scribner's Mill dam reconstruction and repowering project on the Crooked River in Maine faces opposition on water quality, environmental and fisheries concerns.  While an MOU like that between FERC and Colorado might not eliminate these challenges, stakeholders are hopeful that a resolution will be reached that allows environmentally responsible projects to move forward.