US conditionally approves Arctic offshore oil exploration

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has conditionally approved an oil and gas company's plan to drill four exploration wells into the federal submerged lands of the Beaufort Sea in the U.S. Arctic.

On July 12, 2017, BOEM announced that it had conditionally approved a Beaufort Sea exploration plan (EP) it received from Eni US Operating Co. Inc.  The company is a subsidiary of Italian multinational oil and gas company Eni S.p.A.

Under federal law, BOEM regulates exploration and production activities on the Outer Continental Shelf.  It requires a developer to file and receive approval of an Exploration Plan or EP before most activities can begin.  An EP describes all exploration activities planned by the operator for a specific lease or leases, including the timing of these activities, information concerning drilling processes, the surface location of each planned well, and actions to be taken to meet important safety and environmental standards and to protect access to subsistence resources, but it does not allow actual production of oil -- for that, an operator is required to obtain BOEM approval of a Development and Production Plan (DPP).

Eni US had applied to BOEM for approval of a plan to drill four exploration wells from its existing Spy Island Drillsite, located in Alaska state waters.  The Nikaitchuq North Project's wells would run down from Spy Island, then extend below the ocean floor to federal leases on the Outer Continental Shelf.  Eni proposed exploratory drilling activities commencing in December 2017, and continuing into 2019.

BOEM deemed Eni US's exploration plan application to be submitted in June 2017, triggering a 30-day review period including a site-specific Environmental Assessment of the proposed exploration activities pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.  That NEPA process concluded with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and on July 12 BOEM issued its conditional approval of the Exploration Plan.  Conditions include a requirement that Eni procure all other appropriate permits from state and federal agencies, as well as certain mitigation measures.

In a statement announcing the conditional approval, BOEM's acting director, Walter Cruickshank, described Eni's exploration plan as "a solid, well-considered plan,” and noted the existence of "vast oil and gas resources under the Beaufort Sea.”

Trump executive order on domestic energy policy

U.S. President Donald Trump has signed an executive order affecting domestic energy policy.  His March 28, 2017 Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth includes a variety of directives, generally aimed at reducing federal regulations affecting domestic energy production.  Here's a look at his Executive Order targeting Obama-administration climate regulations and other agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.

The Executive Order includes 8 operative sections.  One provides policy statements; six call for regulatory reviews that could lead to rule changes or revocations, or directly revoke and rescind Obama-era actions.  The final section includes general provisions.

Section 1 includes five policy statements, such as that "is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation."  It also sets a federal policy "that executive departments and agencies (agencies) immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law."

Section 2 calls for an immediate review of all agency actions that potentially burden the safe, efficient development of domestic energy resources, "with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources."  It directs agency heads to submit a memorandum to the Office of Management and Budget detailing such potentially burdensome actions, and including "specific recommendations that, to the extent permitted by law, could alleviate or eliminate aspects of agency actions that burden domestic energy production."  With respect to actions targeted with specific recommendations in a final report, agency heads are directed to "as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding, those actions, as appropriate and consistent with law."

Section 3 rescinds or revokes a variety of Presidential actions and reports, including several of President Obama's executive orders regarding climate change, the President's 2013 Climate Action Plan, and the Council on Environmental Quality's 2016 final guidance for federal agencies on consideration of greenhouse gas and climate issues in performing reviews of agency actions under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Section 4 calls for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to "immediately take all steps necessary to review" the Clean Power Plan governing electricity-sector emissions and related rules "for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules."

Section 5 disbands a working group on the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions, and restricts the ways agencies may account for the monetary value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations.

Section 6 calls for the Secretary of Interior to lift moratoria on federal land coal leasing activities imposed under a 2015 order, and to commence federal coal leasing activities.

Section 7 calls for review of federal regulations affecting emissions from the oil and gas sector, including 2016 emissions standards for new, reconstructed and modified sources, and a 2015 rule governing hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands, among others.

Section 8 includes general provisions, generally similar to those found in other executive orders.

NEPA guidance on greenhouse gas emissions

Federal agencies have new guidance on how to address the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change as those agencies satisfy their duties under the National Environmental Policy Act.  This month the White House Council on Environmental Quality or CEQ issued its Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews.  The document is designed to improve clarity and consistency in how federal agencies address climate change in the environmental impact assessment process under NEPA.

Enacted in 1970, NEPA generally requires agencies to consider the environmental effects of proposed agency actions, and to provide the public and decision makers with useful information regarding reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures.  To coordinate federal environmental efforts, NEPA also established CEQ within the Executive Office of the President.  CEQ is now charged with issuing mandatory regulations for NEPA implementation, as well as guidance documents such as the recent greenhouse gas guidance.

In its final greenhouse gas guidance, CEQ described climate change as "a fundamental environmental issue" whose effects fall squarely within NEPA's purview.  In CEQ's words, "Analyzing a proposed action’s GHG emissions and the effects of climate change relevant to a proposed action — particularly how climate change may change an action’s environmental effects — can provide useful information to decision makers and the public." CEQ views focused and effective consideration of climate change in NEPA reviews as enabling higher quality agency decisions.

To this end, CEQ offered guidance that:

when addressing climate change agencies should consider: (1) The potential effects of a proposed action on climate change as indicated by assessing GHG emissions (e.g., to include, where applicable, carbon sequestration); and, (2) The effects of climate change on a proposed action and its environmental impacts.

The guidance presents further information and interpretation on each of these points. For example, it recommends that agencies quantify the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emission resulting from a proposed agency action, as well as both short- and long-term adverse and beneficial effects.  The guidance also stated that "a NEPA review should consider an action in the context of the future state of the environment." 

In one sense, the final guidance is just guidance.  As CEQ noted, agencies have discretion in how they tailor their individual NEPA reviews to accommodate the guidance. CEQ directed that agencies should apply this guidance to all new proposed agency actions as of the initiation of NEPA review.  It suggested that agencies "should exercise judgment" when considering the application of the guidance to an on-going NEPA process, but that CEQ does not expect agencies to apply the guidance to concluded NEPA reviews, nor to any actions for which a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) has been issued.

CEQ recommended that agencies review their NEPA procedures and propose any updates they deem necessary or appropriate to facilitate their consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.  Agency procedures to implement NEPA may be in the form of regulations, although they are not required to take that form.  CEQ's final guidance on greenhouse gas emissions may lead other federal agencies to revise regulations, policies, or implementing procedures to ensure full compliance with NEPA.

NY offshore wind leasing advances

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is moving closer to leasing ocean sites offshore New York for commercial offshore wind development.

On June 2, 2016, the Department of the Interior and BOEM announced the proposed lease sale for 81,130 acres offshore New York for commercial wind energy leasing.  The area available for leasing includes a Wind Energy Area designated by BOEM earlier this year.  Roughly triangular, the WEA starts about 11 nautical miles offshore Long Beach, and runs about 26 nautical miles southeast.

Under BOEM's leasing procedures, the agency published a “Proposed Sale Notice (PSN) for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New York” in the Federal Register on June 6, 2016.  The PSN includes a 60-day public comment period ending on August 5, 2016.

Any companies wishing to participate in the lease sale must also submit a qualification package by that date, demonstrating legal, technical, and financial qualification to participate.  To date, seven companies have qualified to participate in a future auction for the New York Wind Energy Area.

As required by federal environmental law, BOEM also published an Environmental Assessment (EA) considering potential impacts associated with issuing a lease, associated surveys, and approving the installation of resource assessment facilities in the area.  The EA is available for public comment for 30 days.

BOEM has scheduled a public seminar Wednesday, June 29, 2016 in New York City to describe the auction format, explain the auction rules, and demonstrate the auction process through meaningful examples.  Other public meetings will focus on the agency's planning and leasing efforts regarding New York offshore wind energy activities, as well as the EA.

So far, BOEM has awarded 11 commercial offshore wind leases, generating approximately $16 million in winning bids for over 1,000,000 acres in federal waters.  Previous competitive lease sales have resulted in 9 leases: two offshore New Jersey, two in an area offshore Rhode Island-Massachusetts, another two offshore Massachusetts, two offshore Maryland and one offshore Virginia.

FERC staff recommends against Bear River dam

Staff of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have recommended against licensing a dam, reservoir, and hydropower project proposed for the Bear River near Preston, Idaho.

The case involves a 2013 application by Twin Lakes Canal Company to the FERC for a license to construct, operate, and maintain the Bear River Narrows Project.  The project would be located on the main stem of the Bear River in Franklin County, Idaho, about 9 miles northeast of the city of Preston. It would feature a 109-foot-high dam impounding a 362-acre reservoir, and a powerhouse with an installed capacity of 10 megawatts and estimated average annual generation of of 48,531 megawatt-hours of electricity.  The reservoir would also be used to provide up to 5,000 acre-feet of water to Twin Lakes’ irrigation system during dry years.

Under the Federal Power Act, the FERC is charged with processing licenses for most hydropower projects in the U.S.  Federal law guides the FERC in this duty.  Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of that act require the Commission to give equal consideration to the power development purposes and to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.  The Commission can only issue licenses that in its judgment are best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses.  Additionally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires the agency to analyze and document the environmental effects of proposed federal actions such as granting Twin Lakes' application.

Commission staff released its final environmental impact statement on Twin Lakes' license application on April 27, 2016.  That document, called an EIS, analyzes the effects of proposed project construction and operation, and recommends conditions for any license that may be issued for the project.

In the Bear River Narrows Project EIS, FERC staff considered Twin Lakes’ proposal for licensing, as well as three alternatives: (1) no-action (i.e. not licensing the project, so it can't be constructed); (2) the applicant’s proposal with staff modifications (staff licensing alternative); and (3) the staff licensing alternative with an additional condition requested by the Bureau of Land Management.

The EIS notes the existence of four Commission-licensed hydroelectric facilities located on the Bear River in Idaho with a combined installed capacity of more than 78 MW, including the Oneida development directly upstream.  It also notes uses of the "Oneida Narrows" section of the Bear River that would be flooded by the Bear River Narrows Project impoundment, including a recreational trout fishery and boating opportunities, and habitat for sensitive wildlife species.

Based on a review of the anticipated environmental and economic effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, as well as the agency and public comments filed on this project, staff recommends no action (license denial) as the preferred alternative.  In staff's words, "The overall, unavoidable adverse environmental effects of both action alternatives would outweigh the power and water storage benefits of the project."

For these reasons, FERC staff concluded that "any license issued for the proposed project could not be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the Bear River for all of its beneficial public uses, especially its substantial public recreation use at the proposed project site. We, therefore, recommend license denial."

Twin Lakes Canal Company's application to the Commission for a license to construct the project remains pending.

Merced River hydro relicensing Environmental Impact Statement released

Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have released a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating proposals to relicense two hydroelectric power projects located on the Merced River in California.

The two projects are Merced Irrigation District’s existing 101.25 megawatt Merced River Project No. 2179-043, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) existing 3.4-MW Merced Falls Project No. 2467-020.  Prepared as part of the relicensing process for those projects, the Merced River EIS contains FERC staff evaluations of the applicants’ proposals and the alternatives for relicensing the Merced River and Merced Falls Hydroelectric Projects.  The staff’s recommendation is to relicense the project as proposed, with certain modifications, and additional measures recommended by the agencies.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is authorized by the Federal Power Act to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of nonfederal hydroelectric development subject to its jurisdiction, on condition:

That the project adopted…shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(e)…

The Commission may also require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the project.  To assist in this evaluation, and as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, FERC staff prepares the EIS.  It is designed to record the view of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicants, and FERC staff.

In the Merced River cases, the licensees used FERC's Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) and filed relicensing applications in February 2012.  FERC elected to process the applications for the two projects together "because they: (1) are located contiguously on the Merced River; (2) the Merced Falls Project’s operation depends entirely on flows released by the upstream Merced River Project; and (3) downstream of the Merced River Project, the environmental effects of both projects are interrelated."

Each applicant proposed some modified environmental measures in its license application, but no new capacity and no new construction at the project.  In the Merced projects' 840-page final EIS, Commission staff noted that the "primary issues associated with relicensing the projects are flow regimes in project-affected reaches for aquatic resources, project effects on physical habitat for aquatic resources, protection of wildlife resources, recreation enhancements, and protection of cultural resources." After consideration, Commission staff recommended the staff alternative, which consists of measures included in Merced ID’s and PG&E’s proposals, as well as some of the mandatory conditions and recommendations made by other state and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations, plus additional measures developed by FERC staff:

We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative because: (1) the projects would provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region; (2) the generation comes from a renewable resource that does not contribute to atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; and (3) the recommended environmental measures proposed by Merced ID and PG&E, as modified by staff, would adequately protect and enhance environmental resources affected by the projects. The overall benefits of the staff alternatives would be worth the cost of the environmental measures.

Ultimately, the Merced River hydropower relicensing project EIS concludes that "issuing new licenses for the Merced River and Merced Falls Projects, with the environmental measures we recommend, would not be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."

North Carolina offshore wind advances

Federal efforts to lease ocean sites off the North Carolina coast for offshore wind development advanced last week, when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a report finding that there would be no significant environmental or socioeconomic impacts from issuing wind energy leases in three specific areas.  The determination brings BOEM one step closer to auctioning off leasing rights off North Carolina for offshore wind development.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.  BOEM performs key duties under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, including resource evaluation, planning, and site leasing.  In furtherance of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, BOEM has auctioned off the rights to lease sites in federal waters for offshore wind development off states including Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, and Rhode Island.  Altogether, BOEM has awarded nine commercial wind leases.  Seven of these were awarded through its competitive lease sale process, generating over $14.5 million in high bids for over 700,000 acres in federal waters. 

Federal law prescribes the process BOEM must undertake to lease sites for offshore wind development.  Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), BOEM must evaluate the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of proposed actions.

For the proposed leasing off North Carolina, in January 2015 BOEM published its Environmental Assessment (EA) of the impacts of granting commercial wind leases and allowing of site characterization and assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.  On September 17, BOEM issued a revised Environmental Assessment.  That EA found there would be no significant environmental or socioeconomic impacts from issuing wind energy leases and allowing site characterization activities.  This "Finding of No Significant Impact", or FONSI, enables BOEM to proceed to the next step in the leasing process.

That next step will occur in October, when BOEM will convene a public meeting of the North Carolina Renewable Energy Task Force.  After considering the input from the Task Force, BOEM will publish a “Proposed Sale Notice” in the Federal Register, which will include a 60-day public comment period. That notice would be followed by a lease auction, likely similar to those held for sites off other states.

In addition to its proposed North Carolina activity, BOEM expects to hold a competitive lease sale for sites offshore New Jersey later this year.

North Carolina offshore wind environmental assessment

The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has released an environmental assessment of the impacts of leasing sites off the North Carolina coast for offshore wind projects.  This milestone supports the Obama administration's plan to offer site leases on the outer continental shelf for renewable energy projects.

Since 2012, BOEM has solicited public comment on the prospect of leasing about 307,590 acres off North Carolina for potential offshore wind development.  BOEM has identified three Wind Energy Areas offshore North Carolina:

• the Kitty Hawk Wind Energy Area (about 122,405 acres), beginning about 24 nautical miles (nm) from shore and extends approximately 25.7 nm in a general southeast direction;
• the Wilmington West Wind Energy Area (about 51,595 acres), beginning about 10 nm from shore and extends approximately 12.3 nm in an east-west direction at its widest point; and
• the Wilmington East Wind Energy Area (about 133,590 acres), beginning about 15 nm from Bald Head Island at its closest point and extends approximately 18 nm in the southeast direction at its widest point.

BOEM's map of North Carolina Wind Energy Areas.

On January 22, 2015, BOEM announced the availability of an environmental assessment for public review and comment.  Under the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA, an environmental assessment or EA considers the potential impacts of proposed federal action and analyzes reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.  In this case, the action proposed is BOEM's issuance of commercial wind leases and allowing of site characterization and assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf offshore North Carolina.

BOEM's environmental assessment for North Carolina offshore wind leasing provides the framework for potential federal lease auctions for North Carolina offshore wind sites.  The environmental assessment is available for public comment through February 23, 2015. 

FERC issues EIS for Algonquin Incremental Market gas project

Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have issued a final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed natural gas transmission project connecting New York and New England.  In that report, Commission staff found that Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC's Algonquin Incremental Market Project would result in some adverse environmental impacts, but that most of these impacts could be mitigated and reduced to less-than-significant levels.

A marker for the Williams Northwest Pipeline in Arches National Park, Utah.

 Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC -- a subsidiary of Spectra Energy Partners, LP -- already owns a natural gas pipeline and transmission network running from the Texas Eastern Transmission system in New Jersey to the Maritimes & Northeast system near Boston.

In 2014, Algonquin proposed the Algonquin Incremental Market project.  The AIM project's would provide firm transportation service of 342,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to local distribution companies and municipal utilities in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.  Algonquin’s stated objectives for the Project are:

• to provide the pipeline capacity necessary to transport additional natural gas supplies to meet the immediate and future load growth demands of local gas utilities in southern New England;
• eliminate capacity constraints on existing pipeline systems in New York State and southern New England;
• provide access to growing natural gas supply areas in the Northeast region to increase competition and reduce volatility in natural gas pricing in southern New England;
• improve existing compressor station emissions through the replacement of existing compressor units with new, efficient units; and
• provide the additional service by November 2016.

As envisioned by Algonquin, the project will include the construction and operation of about 37.4 miles of natural gas pipeline in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.  The project entails replacing some segments of existing pipeline, extending an existing loop pipeline to increase the system's capacity to ship gas, and installing some new pipeline.  It also includes modifications to six existing compressor stations, modifying existing meter and regulating stations, and the construction of 3 new meter and regulation stations.

Under federal law, Algonquin needs authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to construct and operate the AIM project.  Algonquin filed its application to the FERC on February 28, 2014.  As part of the FERC's review process, the National Environmental Policy Act requires the agency to analyze and document the environmental effects of proposed federal actions such as granting Algonquin's application.

In Algonquin's case, that documentation took the form of a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued by the FERC staff today. In the final EIS, FERC's environmental analysts conclude that construction and operation of the AIM project would result in some adverse environmental impacts. However, FERC staff found that most of these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures and plans proposed by Algonquin, along with additional measures recommended by the FERC staff.  Staff pointed to factors including the degree to which proposed AIM project pipeline facilities would be within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way, the planned use of the horizontal directional drill method to cross the Hudson and Still Rivers, which would avoid any direct impacts on these resources, as well as plans to minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources during construction and operation of the Project.

With the final Environmental Impact Statement issued, the FERC Commissioners will consider its staff's recommendations in making a final a decision on the AIM project.  Multiple studies have highlighted the need for up to 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of new pipeline capacity into New England and neighboring markets to improve reliability and reduce the cost to consumers of electricity and natural gas.  At a planned size of 342,000 dekatherms (or 0.342 Bcf) per day, the AIM project is relatively small in capacity compared to other proposed projects such as Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.P.'s proposed Northeast Energy Direct Project, which is designed to be scalable up to 1.2 to 2.2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas capacity.  Which pipelines end up being approved and built will shape the New England energy landscape in the coming years.

Rhode Island offshore transmission line

Federal regulators have granted a right-of-way in federal waters for an electric transmission line connecting to the proposed Block Island offshore wind farm off Rhode Island.  The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management describes the grant as the first right-of-way grant offered in federal waters for renewable energy transmission.

Proposed by Deepwater Wind, the Block Island Wind Farm is a 30-megawatt offshore wind farm to be located approximately three miles southeast of Block Island.  Located entirely in Rhode Island state waters, the 5-turbine project is expected to generate over 125,000 megawatt hours annually.  The project received its final required permit in September 2014, and in 2010 secured a 20-year power purchase agreement with Narragansett Electric Co.

Block Island is about 13 miles off the mainland coast, and is not connected to the mainland by a power cable or road.  While the island's population does consume some electricity, most of the wind farm's power will be exported to the mainland electric grid via a newly built 21-mile submarine cable.  Because the proposed Block Island Transmission System is bi-directional, it would also transmit power from the existing onshore transmission grid on the mainland to Block Island, stabilizing supplies of electricity available to islanders.

The Block Island Transmission System is proposed to make landfall in Narragansett, Rhode Island.  Rhode Island's territorial waters extend 3 miles seaward from shore.  To reach the mainland, the submerged transmission line must cross about 8 nautical miles of federal waters.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management regulates the use of federally controlled Outer Continental Shelf sites for energy production.  In 2012, Deepwater Wind applied to the BOEM for a right-of-way about eight nautical miles long and 200 feet wide.  Before reviewing this application, BOEM was required to determine whether there are other developers interested in constructing transmission facilities in the same area.  Therefore, BOEM published a Commercial Renewable Energy Transmission on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore Rhode Island, Notice of Proposed Grant Area and Request for Competitive Interest (RFCI) in the Area of the Deepwater Wind Block Island Transmission System Proposal in the Federal Register on May 23, 2012 under Docket ID BOEM-2012-0009.  BOEM also solicited public comment on site conditions and multiple uses within the right-of-way grant area. 

Following the public comment period, BOEM determined there was no overlapping competitive interest in the proposed right-of-way grant area off Rhode Island and published a "Notice of Determination of No Competitive Interest" in the Federal Register on August 7, 2012 under Docket ID: BOEM-2012-0068.

Because most of the activities and permanent structures related to the entire wind farm project will be sited in state waters and on state lands, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead federal agency for analyzing the potential environmental effects of the project under the National Environmental Policy Act.   In September 2014, the Corps completed its Environmental Assessment (EA) for the wind farm and transmission system, and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).   BOEM subsequently adopted the Corps EA after conducting an independent review that found no reasonably foreseeable significant impacts are expected to occur as the result of the preferred alternative, or any of the alternatives contemplated by the EA.  On October 27, 2014, BOEM issued a FONSI for the issuance of a ROW grant, and approval of the General Activities Plan (GAP), with modifications.

On November 17, 2014, BOEM announced the agency offered the ROW grant to Deepwater Wind for the Block Island Transmission System.

Sea level rise and coastal LNG terminals

Should federal agencies consider climate change and sea-level rise as they review the environmental impacts of liquefied natural gas terminals?

Yes, according to letters recently filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.  Last week the Columbia Law School center submitted comments on two cases involving applications to develop liquefied natural gas export facilities in Maine and Louisiana.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, in approving an activity, the Commission must consider reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of that activity.  Each case targeted by the Sabin Center involves a proposal to develop facilities for the liquefaction and export of natural gas from coastal or riverine sites: 

• Downeast Liquefaction, LLC has proposed the Downeast LNG Import-Export Project, to be located in Robbinston, Maine.  The bi-directional terminal on the banks of the Passamaquoddy Bay would be capable of processing an average of approximately 300 MMcf per day of pipeline-quality natural gas (including fuel and inerts) in the liquefaction mode and 100 MMcf per day in the vaporization mode.

• Louisiana LNG Energy, LLC has proposed the Mississippi River LNG Project, to be located in Plaquemines Parish south of the Port of New Orleans.  The project would have an initial capacity of 2 million metric tonnes per annum (MTPA), with a targeted start-up in late 2017.

Procedurally, each of these cases is at the stage where the Commission solicits comment on the scope of issues it should include in its environmental review.  In similar letters filed in each docket (Downeast and Louisiana), the Sabin Center took no position on the export of liquefied natural gas or on whether the project should be approved. Instead, the center noticed that while the Commission's Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement included many important issues to consider, the notice did not identify the potential impact of climate change on the LNG project.

Specifically, the Sabin Center's letters note that sea level rise, and an associated increase in flooding and storm surges, may pose a significant risk due to the project sites' coastal location.  The letters argue that NEPA requires the Commission to assess the projected range of sea level rise and storm surge throughout the life of the projects and identify ways to prepare for climate change-related risks.  They also called for requiring the projects' design to incorporate an additional margin of safety, known as “freeboard,” to account for unanticipated risk factors that can contribute to flood heights, such as waves and the effect of development on ground water absorption.

Whether the Commission will agree with the Sabin Center remains to be seen.  As federal agencies issue permits for energy projects, they face increasing pressure from the public -- and presumably from the administration -- to consider the projects' broader implications for and from climate change.

Constitution Pipeline environmental impact statement

A 124-mile natural gas transmission pipeline proposed from Pennsylvania to New York has received its final environmental impact statement from federal regulators, finding that while the project would cause some adverse environmental impacts but that mitigation would reduce them to less-than-significant levels.

The proposed Constitution Pipeline is designed connect natural gas supplies in northern Pennsylvania with major northeastern markets.  Proposed by Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC, a group whose investors include Williams, Cabot Oil & Gas, Piedmont Natural Gas, and WGL Holdings, the 30-inch underground pipeline would have a design capacity of 650,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day.  Constitution has pitched the project as a response to natural gas market demands in the New York and the New England areas, and interest from natural gas shippers that require transportation capacity from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to the existing Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company LLC (TGP) and Iroquois systems in Schoharie County, New York.

Developing an interstate natural gas pipeline requires a series of federal, state, and local approvals.  Under the federal Natural Gas Act, interstate pipelines must obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission prior to construction.  Constitution started the pre-filing process in April 2012, and filed its certificate application under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act with the FERC on June 13, 2013.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies must analyze and document the environmental effects of proposed federal actions such as issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity for an interstate pipeline.  For the Constitution Pipeline and its associated Wright Interconnect compressor transfer station, FERC staff evaluated the projects' impacts on natural resources including geology, soils, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, special status species, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air quality, noise, and safety.  Staff considered the projects' cumulative impacts along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the projects’ area.  Staff also evaluated over 400 alternatives to the projects, including the "no-action" alternative, system alternatives, major and minor route alternatives, and minor route variations.  In a collaborative effort, FERC staff also collected input from cooperating agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. 

FERC staff issued their Final Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, for the Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect projects on October 24, 2014.  In that document, staff concluded that construction and operation of the Constitution Pipeline and the associated Wright Interconnect would result in some adverse environmental impacts, but these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures proposed by the company and additional measures proposed by FERC.  These mitigation measures include implementing plans for upland erosion control, revegetation, and maintenance plan, protecting wetlands and waterbodies, spill plans for oil and hazardous materials, an organic farm protection plan, and a karst mitigation plan. FERC staff also proposed an environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring program to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of the FERC authorizations and other approvals.

For the Constitution Pipeline project, the EIS represents a relatively favorable recommendation by FERC staff to the Commissioners.  The ultimate decision whether FERC will issue the project a certificate rests solely with the Commissioners themselves, but regulators typically rely heavily on their technical staff's evaluation of environmental impacts.  Likewise, while FERC's final EIS is not necessarily binding on cooperating agencies, they may adopt it if it satisfies their own statutory mandates for environmental reviews.

While the applicants had initially proposed to start construction in 2014, FERC staff acknowledged that "the proposed dates for the start of construction are no longer feasible."  Constitution now proposes to start construction in February of 2015 and continue through the end of 2015, pending receipt of all applicable federal authorizations.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may rule on the projects' certificate applications as early as late November this year.

Yellowstone park proposes utility upgrades

The U.S. National Park Service manages over 84 million acres of land for both conservation and visitor use.  For wilderness parks, these joint objectives lead to the challenge of providing park facilities with electricity despite their remote location.  The Park Service has launched energy efficiency and sustainability programs, but many visitor and administrative facilities still need electricity for safety and comfort.  How should the Park Service balance conservation and development?

Old Faithful geyser erupts in Yellowstone National Park.

Yellowstone National Park, the nation's first park, highlights the difficulty.  Most facilities in the park receive electricity from transmission and distribution lines owned by utility NorthWestern Energy, but the park's rugged environment, challenging climate, and relatively old electrical infrastrucutre lead to frequent power outages - over 250 in 2012.  Unlike much of the electric grid outside the park, facilities in Yellowstone lack modern communication infrastructure - a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition or SCADA system - that would let the utility diagnose and correct the cause of power outages from the utility's central offices in Montana.

As a result, Yellowstone and NorthWestern Energy have proposed to update the park's electrical distribution system.  Proposed upgrades include an automated, remote monitoring and control system, the installation of equipment buildings, back-up power generators and propane fuel tanks.  The proposed communication system would require the construction of seven towers for radio equipment within the park, generally located at existing electrical substation sites.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Park Service cannot approve the plan without conducting an environmental assessment of the impacts of the proposed development.  The Park Service has released its Environmental Assessment (10.5 megabyte PDF), which is open for public comment until December 6.

The use of national park lands for energy infrastructure can be controversial due to differing philosophies on the level of development desirable in parks.  At the same time, the Park Service notes that the Yellowstone outages have had negative effects on park operations and visitor experience, creating health and safety concerns and lost revenue for concessioners.  How will this balance play out in Yellowstone?

"Small hydro" bill before Congress

Today the full U.S. House of Representatives considers a bill to create jobs and expand production of clean and renewable energy by eliminating red tape on hydropower projects in some small canals and pipelines.  Sponsored by Rep. Scott Tipton of Colorado, H.R. 2842 is better known as the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is a federal water management agency within the Department of the Interior.  The Bureau has built over 600 dams and reservoirs in 17 Western states, and is the largest wholesaler of water in the country as well as the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the western United States. The Bureau's 58 powerplants produce over 40 billion kilowatt hours annually, generating nearly a billion dollars in revenue for the federal government.

Beyond these traditional hydroelectric plants, the Bureau of Reclamation's infrastructure systems include canals and pipes holding water capable of producing hydroelectricity but which are not currently doing so.  H.R. 2842 would streamline the regulatory process and reduce administrative costs for small hydropower development at existing Bureau of Reclamation canals and pipes.  It would allow the Bureau to contract with water utilities or other small hydro developers to install up to 1.5 MW of electric generation equipment into an existing canal or conduit without triggering environmental review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  It would also direct the Bureau to offer preference to water user organizations for the development of such projects under a federal lease of power privilege.

Some environmentalists have criticized the bill for relaxing environmental protections, although the House Natural Resources Committee found that the environmental impact of adding hydropower to these assets would be minimal to none because they existing man-made facilities  on disturbed ground.  If the bill passes, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it could generate $5 million in additional federal revenues through increased hydropower production over the next decade.

Additionally, the bill could be seen as empowering small hydro projects, although its current scope is limited to projects using existing Bureau of Reclamation canals and conduits.  Nevertheless, if the bill is enacted following today's House action, it could represent a tip toward renewed small hydro development in the U.S.

Feds ok enviro impacts of offshore wind site leasing

Offshore wind development off the mid-Atlantic coast took a step forward today with the release of a federal assessment of the environmental impacts of leasing ocean sites for wind projects.  US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley held a press conference in Baltimore this morning at which the document was unveiled.  The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's final environmental assessment for mid-Atlantic site leasing (366 page PDF) will allow it to move forward with granting commercial wind leases and allowing site characterization activities on the mid-Atlantic outer continental shelf.  Notably, the document found that leasing sites and allowing developers to study them would not have a significant impact on the human environment. 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies must analyze and document the environmental effects of proposed federal actions such as issuing leases for offshore wind sites.  A final environmental assessment was needed before BOEM could issue more leases, whether for offshore wind generation sites or for offshore transmission facilities.

At the same time, Governor O'Malley is intent on passing legislation that he believes will make Maryland the hub of the mid-Atlantic offshore wind industry.  From the Atlantic Wind Connection offshore transmission network to generation projects in federal waters off Maryland (and Maryland state waters), any offshore wind development will need site leases, and issuing an environmental assessment is needed before issuing site leases. Thus for Governor O'Malley's plan to come to fruition, he needs to show that he (and developers) will have the cooperation of the federal BOEM.  Today's event may have been designed to demonstrate that federal regulators will be cooperative with mid-Atlantic offshore wind projects. This would help the industry by reducing regulatory uncertainty, and would also help Governor O'Malley promote his offshore wind program.

The draft environmental assessment released last summer was generally favorable, if not groundbreaking.  Notably, it did not explicitly make a finding of no significant impact from leasing. Comments on the draft environmental assessment were due in August 2011; these public comments are available through a federal document website.  Today's final environmental assessment was developed partly in response to these public comments.

A final environmental assessment is a key step in developing the offshore wind resource, but it's still one of many steps needed. The environmental assessment in question does not cover any specific projects, nor would it permit the actual construction or operation of any projects. Rather it serves as a blanket assessment to document BOEM's review of the impacts of issuing site leases generally, and of allowing developers to study sites.

Today's finding of no significant impact, or FONSI, allows BOEM to move forward with leasing without preparing a more intensive (and time-consuming) environmental impact statement.  This leasing program is part of BOEM's Smart from the Start initiative. The final assessment will now allow BOEM to award of a non-competitive lease for the wind energy area off Delaware, as well as a competitive process to select developers for sites off Maryland.

Cobscook tidal project environmental review

A tidal energy project proposed in Maine has passed an initial federal environmental review.  Federal regulators have released an environmental assessment of the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project (182-page PDF), finding generally that licensing the hydrokinetic project with appropriate environmental protective measures would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

The Cobscook Bay project is proposed by Ocean Renewable Power Company Maine, LLC.  ORPC proposes to develop a 300 kilowatt hydrokinetic project in Cobscook Bay near the city of Eastport and the town of Lubec, Maine.  The project entails five cross-flow hydrokinetic turbine generator units, each with a rated capacity of 60 kW.  According to FERC, the project's construction will cost an estimated $11.5 million, with operation and maintenance adding $146,000 per year.  Staff's analysis suggests that during its first year of operation, the project would produce power at a cost that is $1.3 million more than the cost of alternative power (or about 1 cent per kWh above alternative power).

ORPC Maine has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an 8-year pilot license for the Cobscook project.  Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies must evaluate the environmental impacts of agency actions such as issuing licenses for energy projects.  Performing an environmental assessment is one step in the NEPA process.  If the agency concludes that issuing the license would have relatively minor environmental impacts, as the FERC did for the Cobscook project, it can avoid the more stringent review process of preparing an environmental impact statement.

In the Cobscook project's environmental assessment, FERC staff recommended licensing the project with several additional modifications.  FERC invites public comment for 30 days following publication of notice of the environmental assessment.

February 4, 2011 - Hawaii's Big Wind project

Islands hold a special place in our hearts.  The same facts of geography that lead to islands' charm can also play a role in making island energy a challenging issue.  Islands around the world face similar challenges; whether it's Martha's Vineyard energy strategy or offshore wind near the Maine islands of Damariscove or Monhegan, islanders face questions of how to power society and whether or how to interconnect with the mainland.

Due to its geographic isolation, the Hawaiian islands' energy strategy is especially interesting.  This week, hearings are being held in Hawaii on a major wind energy project and its associated undersea transmission development.  Hawaii's renewable portfolio standard requires utilities selling power to source an increasing amount of energy from renewable resources.  The renewable mandate starts from 10% of net electricity sales effective December 31, 2010, and increases to 40% by December 31, 2030.

One option under consideration involves 400 megawatts of wind energy to be sited in Maui County, particularly on or near the islands of Lana`i and Moloka`i.  Connecting that generation to the consumers on Oahu, Hawaii's most populous island, will require underwater transmission cables.  Currently, the state of Hawaii and federal agencies are collaborating on a programmatic environmental impact statement (or EIS).  Under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), before the government can undertake or approve actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment", involved agencies must draft an assessment of the positive and negative environmental effects of the proposed action.  This information is then used for multiple purposes, including helping the agency evaluate specific proposed projects, as well as helping project developers understand the impacts of their project and what they can do to address any negative impacts.

Hawaii is home to some other renewable generation, including an innovative ocean thermal energy conversion facility.  OTEC has great potential, but the cost of producing power on a commercial scale is not yet cost-competitive with other resources - not even with oil, the fuel behind about 90% of Hawaii's energy needs.  Hawaiian energy thus has been relatively expensive.  Wind has the potential to be more cost-effective, but due to visual and other impacts is facing some opposition in the islands.  Will the Hawaiian wind effort take off?