It's a story you've read before. The places and names here may be different, but you know the basic plot line.
In the early part of the twentieth century, industrial production was booming. New technologies enabled revolutionary advances in manufacturing. Because these mills needed power -- even more power than the mechanical hydropower their ancestors once consumed -- utilities turned to hydroelectricity to provide a steady stream of affordable power.
Energy powers society; society's choices shape energy policy. A blog about our energy resources and the choices they present for society.
December 17, 2010 - $184 million in grants for vehicle efficiency R&D
Friday, December 17, 2010
Improving vehicle energy efficiency is a key component of our federal energy strategy. Of particular interest to businesses developing transportation efficiency technology, yesterday Secretary Chu announced a new funding opportunity. DOE is putting up $184 million in grant funding for R&D into a variety of vehicle energy efficiency topics.
The Funding Opportunity Announcement provides fairly standard federal contracting procedures, such as the use of the existing FedConnect and grants.gov infrastructure for tracking and applying. Letters of intent are due by January 18, 2011, with applications due by February 28, 2011.
 |
| This vehicle powered by BioDiesel. |
December 16, 2010 - a tale of two solar projects
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Let's celebrate a milestone: I've now been blogging here for over a year.
 |
| Florida solar? Setting sun over the Everglades. |
First, South Carolina utility Santee Cooper is building that state's largest solar array. Santee Cooper's $1.3 million Grand Strand Solar Station project is under development in Myrtle Beach. The utility is installing 1,300 solar photovoltaic panels on the roof and surrounding grounds of a warehouse it owns there. In total, the project is expected to produce a peak of 311 kW under optimal conditions. Adding this 311 kW will increase South Carolina's solar PV power production by 50%.
December 14, 2010 - rain and flooding
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
It's wet in Maine! Much of the state was soaked by rain in the last two days, with up to 4 inches falling in some areas. In many places, this warm water fell on snowpack. Melting added even more surface water, causing streams and rivers to rise. Flooding has been reported throughout Maine, covering everything from the walking path along the Androscoggin River below NextEra's hydroelectric dam in Brunswick, to the overtopping of a dam on the Piscataquis Rive, road washouts and power outages. The Bangor Daily News reports that flood water flowed into the boiler room at the True Textiles-Interface Fabrics Guilford of Maine manufacturing facility in Guilford. On the Kennebec River, Gardiner anticipated flooding of parking lots and streets as well.
Maine is no stranger to rain and flooding, and for the most part can weather the storms. Yet when it rains like this, it does make life more interesting for hydroelectric operators in the region.
Maine is no stranger to rain and flooding, and for the most part can weather the storms. Yet when it rains like this, it does make life more interesting for hydroelectric operators in the region.
December 8, 2010 - Deepwater Wind proposes expansion of Rhode Island Sound project
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Renewable developer Deepwater Wind has announced today its plans to double the size of its proposed Rhode Island Sound offshore wind project. Under the current proposal, Deepwater's second-generation development will now consist of 200 turbines to be installed in federal waters off Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Deepwater hopes to commence construction of the project in 2014, bringing the first turbines into operation in 2015.
What price will Deepwater get for its power? Looking at other offshore wind projects is illustrative of the kinds of pricing we might expect. For example, Deepwater Wind is also developing a smaller 8-turbine demonstration project in Rhode Island state waters, the Block Island Wind Farm. The developer has already secured one major state approval to construct the project, although this approval is currently being challenged in state Supreme Court. The Rhode Island PUC has approved a contract with utility National Grid establishing a maximum starting price of 24.4 cents per kWh, with 3.5 percent increases over the the 20-year life of the deal.
 |
| A recent sunset over Maine's Merrymeeting Bay. |
December 2, 2010 - a deeper look at the Cape Wind PPA complaint
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Yesterday, the news broke that a group called "Californians for Renewable Energy" (CARE) filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) challenging Cape Wind's power purchase agreement with National Grid. In its complaint, CARE asks FERC to set aside the November 2010 order of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) approving Cape Wind's power purchase agreement with National Grid. CARE also points serious allegations against a variety of parties including National Grid, Cape Wind, and the DPU itself. These allegations range from technical legal points (e.g. that FERC alone has "exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the rates, terms and conditions of sales for resale of electric energy in interstate commerce by public utilities") to rather disjointed but sensational accusations of connections between wind developers and Italian organized crime.
I've read the Complaint, and this morning, I had a pleasant discussion with Mark Rodgers, Cape Wind's Director of Communications. Mark described CARE's complaint as "baseless", and characterized CARE's allegations of an Italian mafia connection as "false, malicious, and defamatory".
Looking at the Complaint itself, I would personally characterize it as a mix of legal argument and wild conspiracy-theory accusations. On the legal argument side, the Complaint appears to allege that the Massachusetts DPU exceeded its jurisdictional authority in approving the PPA. This argument is based on the recent precedent in which FERC told the California Public Utilities Commission that its feed-in tariff program was invalid because it purported to set wholesale rates for power at the state level. Reasoning by analogy, CARE appears to argue that the DPU improperly set a wholesale rate for power in excess of the utility's avoided cost.
Other legal arguments asserted by CARE strike me as more tenuous. For example, CARE asserts that renewable energy credits (RECs) are "greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets", as well as "a type of energy ancillary service that Mass DPU maintains authority over in regard to the price that is paid wholesale Sellers [sic]". CARE goes on to say, "The REC’s purpose therefore is to offset greenhouse gas emissions by avoidance." This is a troubled argument at best. In general, RECs are distinct from GHG offsets; RECs represent the attributes associated with the generation of energy from state-qualified renewable resources, not the specific amount of GHG emission reductions associated with that generation. RECs exist in compliance markets because state legislatures establish renewable portfolio standards requiring specified amounts of energy to be sourced from renewable resources, and do not generally have an explicit GHG tie-in. Further, REC pricing is generally established through bilateral contracts between parties. While a state utility commission like the DPU does retain authority over utilities in its jurisdiction, state commissions do not necessarily specify the price of RECs.
The second half of the Complaint gets even farther out. In a rambling set of long sentences and quotes from emails sent by CARE and its co-complainant Barbara Durkin, CARE alleges that National Grid and the DPU aided and abetted "fraudulent actions and claims to defraud taxpayers of ARRA stimulus funds". This section, which appears largely to be a rehash of the complainants' earlier position before the DPU, includes a request for FERC to "investigate Cape Wind, National Grid, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and Mass DPU for actions they have taken to aid and abet (act as an accessory to) Cape Wind’s fraudulent actions and claims whose purpose is to defraud taxpayers and ratepayers alike of ARRA stimulus funds". CARE goes so far as to assert that when a National Grid representative said “We have every reason to believe that [the production and investment tax credits] are going to be extended and supported by Congress,” this somehow constituted an admission of a violation of the prohibition on energy market manipulation. (This claim is a real head-scratcher.)
Then, if possible, things get even stranger. CARE devotes 24 pages (nearly the remainder of the complaint) to a series of purported quotes from news media stories and other documents about various wind developers (puzzlingly, including developers other than Cape Wind Associates) and connections to Italian organized crime. I won't bother to recite those allegations further here. Suffice to say that this section of CARE's complaint is wild, disorganized, and fails to effectively illustrate any concrete misdeeds by any of the parties against whom CARE complains.
Clearly, this complaint is sensational. Even trying to read between the lines, it is hard to make sense of many of CARE's claims. While the legal issues regarding whether a state has the authority to approve such a PPA are indeed interesting, particularly in the wake of FERC's restrictions on the California feed-in tariff program, the conspiracy claims tend to detract from CARE's credibility. It will be interesting to see how FERC's review of this complaint proceeds.
I've read the Complaint, and this morning, I had a pleasant discussion with Mark Rodgers, Cape Wind's Director of Communications. Mark described CARE's complaint as "baseless", and characterized CARE's allegations of an Italian mafia connection as "false, malicious, and defamatory".
Looking at the Complaint itself, I would personally characterize it as a mix of legal argument and wild conspiracy-theory accusations. On the legal argument side, the Complaint appears to allege that the Massachusetts DPU exceeded its jurisdictional authority in approving the PPA. This argument is based on the recent precedent in which FERC told the California Public Utilities Commission that its feed-in tariff program was invalid because it purported to set wholesale rates for power at the state level. Reasoning by analogy, CARE appears to argue that the DPU improperly set a wholesale rate for power in excess of the utility's avoided cost.
Other legal arguments asserted by CARE strike me as more tenuous. For example, CARE asserts that renewable energy credits (RECs) are "greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets", as well as "a type of energy ancillary service that Mass DPU maintains authority over in regard to the price that is paid wholesale Sellers [sic]". CARE goes on to say, "The REC’s purpose therefore is to offset greenhouse gas emissions by avoidance." This is a troubled argument at best. In general, RECs are distinct from GHG offsets; RECs represent the attributes associated with the generation of energy from state-qualified renewable resources, not the specific amount of GHG emission reductions associated with that generation. RECs exist in compliance markets because state legislatures establish renewable portfolio standards requiring specified amounts of energy to be sourced from renewable resources, and do not generally have an explicit GHG tie-in. Further, REC pricing is generally established through bilateral contracts between parties. While a state utility commission like the DPU does retain authority over utilities in its jurisdiction, state commissions do not necessarily specify the price of RECs.
The second half of the Complaint gets even farther out. In a rambling set of long sentences and quotes from emails sent by CARE and its co-complainant Barbara Durkin, CARE alleges that National Grid and the DPU aided and abetted "fraudulent actions and claims to defraud taxpayers of ARRA stimulus funds". This section, which appears largely to be a rehash of the complainants' earlier position before the DPU, includes a request for FERC to "investigate Cape Wind, National Grid, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and Mass DPU for actions they have taken to aid and abet (act as an accessory to) Cape Wind’s fraudulent actions and claims whose purpose is to defraud taxpayers and ratepayers alike of ARRA stimulus funds". CARE goes so far as to assert that when a National Grid representative said “We have every reason to believe that [the production and investment tax credits] are going to be extended and supported by Congress,” this somehow constituted an admission of a violation of the prohibition on energy market manipulation. (This claim is a real head-scratcher.)
Then, if possible, things get even stranger. CARE devotes 24 pages (nearly the remainder of the complaint) to a series of purported quotes from news media stories and other documents about various wind developers (puzzlingly, including developers other than Cape Wind Associates) and connections to Italian organized crime. I won't bother to recite those allegations further here. Suffice to say that this section of CARE's complaint is wild, disorganized, and fails to effectively illustrate any concrete misdeeds by any of the parties against whom CARE complains.
Clearly, this complaint is sensational. Even trying to read between the lines, it is hard to make sense of many of CARE's claims. While the legal issues regarding whether a state has the authority to approve such a PPA are indeed interesting, particularly in the wake of FERC's restrictions on the California feed-in tariff program, the conspiracy claims tend to detract from CARE's credibility. It will be interesting to see how FERC's review of this complaint proceeds.
December 1, 2010 - Cape Wind contract challenged?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Breaking news: today, a group including an organization called "Californians for Renewable Energy" (CARE) filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against National Grid, Cape Wind and the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities for approval of Cape Wind's power purchase agreement with National Grid. FERC has docketed this as docket no. EL11-9-000.
As you may know, the Massachusetts DPU issued an order approving the PPA between Cape Wind and National Grid. Under the deal, National Grid will buy half of Cape Wind’s output for 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, with a 3.5% annual escalator in each of the 15 contract years.
The incendiary Complaint opens with the following summary alleging "ongoing conspiracy" to violate the FPA as well as fraud:
So who is CARE? CARE describes itself in the Complaint as "a nonprofit corporation that works to educate and encourage the use of alternative forms of renewable energy to avoid dependence on declining supplies of fossil fuels, and the harmful air emissions their use entails. All of CARE’s members are residential or small business customers."
What is CARE's interest in this? CARE claims that the alleged actions "harm the interests of CARE’s members by allowing Cape Wind Associates a competitive advantage over land-based wind farm developers who must meet stricter requirements for environmental mitigation and monitoring, including preconstruction monitoring for species protected by the ESA".
Other highlights worth further probing include extensive paragraphs devoted to an attempt to link the Cape Wind project to Italian organized crime. (See page 26 for some of the most lurid of that text.)
At 51 pages, it is a broad-ranging complaint. Here is a link to the FERC docket sheet if you are interested. I will be watching this docket with great interest to see how the Cape Wind PPA weathers this challenge.
[Update 12/2/2010: see my next blog post for a deeper look at the Complaint.]
As you may know, the Massachusetts DPU issued an order approving the PPA between Cape Wind and National Grid. Under the deal, National Grid will buy half of Cape Wind’s output for 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, with a 3.5% annual escalator in each of the 15 contract years.
The incendiary Complaint opens with the following summary alleging "ongoing conspiracy" to violate the FPA as well as fraud:
Pursuant to the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824e, 825e, and 825h, (2008) and Rule 206, 16 C.F.R. 385.206 (2008) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (“CARE”) and Barbara Durkin hereby files this Complaint against the National Grid, Cape Wind, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (“DPU” or “Mass DPU”), for their ongoing conspiracy to violate the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) by approving contracts for capacity and energy that exceeds the utilities’ avoided cost cap and which also usurps FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction to determine the wholesale rates for electricity under its jurisdiction within those territories that it exercises regulatory authority and further for National Grid and DPU and aiding and abetting Cape Wind’s fraudulent actions and claims to defraud taxpayers of ARRA stimulus funds it is seeking for the project in violation of 18 C.F.R. § 1c.These are serious and bold allegations indeed.
So who is CARE? CARE describes itself in the Complaint as "a nonprofit corporation that works to educate and encourage the use of alternative forms of renewable energy to avoid dependence on declining supplies of fossil fuels, and the harmful air emissions their use entails. All of CARE’s members are residential or small business customers."
What is CARE's interest in this? CARE claims that the alleged actions "harm the interests of CARE’s members by allowing Cape Wind Associates a competitive advantage over land-based wind farm developers who must meet stricter requirements for environmental mitigation and monitoring, including preconstruction monitoring for species protected by the ESA".
Other highlights worth further probing include extensive paragraphs devoted to an attempt to link the Cape Wind project to Italian organized crime. (See page 26 for some of the most lurid of that text.)
At 51 pages, it is a broad-ranging complaint. Here is a link to the FERC docket sheet if you are interested. I will be watching this docket with great interest to see how the Cape Wind PPA weathers this challenge.
[Update 12/2/2010: see my next blog post for a deeper look at the Complaint.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
