California considers transportation electrification

California utility regulators are considering proposals by electric utilities to electrify the transportation sector.  If the three largest electrical corporations' proposals are approved by the California Public Utilities Commission, it could represent an investment of about $1 billion in transportation electrification in California over about 5 years.

The transportation sector is a major consumer of energy and emitter of carbon dioxide.  In California, the transportation sector accounts for 37 percent of statewide greenhouse gas emissions.  Electrifying transportation -- converting vehicles and trips from direct consumption of fossil fuels to EVs or electric vehicles -- can reduce emissions, particularly where the electricity supply is sourced from renewable or low-carbon resources.

To address energy and climate matters, in 2015 the California legislature enacted Senate Bill 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act.  SB 350 codified Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.'s clean energy and climate change goals, establishing a statewide 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 level.  SB 350 calls for pursuing those goals through a variety of measures, including the promotion of "widespread transportation electrification," defined as "the use of electricity from external sources of electrical power, including the electrical grid, for all or part of vehicles, vessels, trains, boats, or other equipment that are mobile sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases and the related programs and charging and propulsion infrastructure investments to enable and encourage this use of electricity." 

The legislation requires the California Public Utilities Commission to direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification.  That process is now underway.  On September 14, 2016, the Commission issued an order directing the state's three major investor-owned utilities to prepare and file applications describing their proposed transportation electrification projects and programs.

On January 20, 2017, the three utilities -- Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), SouthernCalifornia Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) -- filed their applications.  As summarized by the Commission, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E submitted proposals to invest $1 billion in transportation electrification over an approximate five year period.  Onroad medium and heavy-duty charging infrastructure proposed by SCE accounts for roughly half of this total; residential charging infrastructure proposed by SDG&E and "FleetReady Make Ready Infrastructure" proposed by PG&E round out the largest-ticket items.  Other projects include electrification of cranes and forklifts at ports, terminal yards, and airports.

The cases remain pending before the Commission, with evidentiary hearings held earlier this month.  Other cases before the Commission address proposals by three smaller utilities.

FERC issues license for Monongahela Locks and Dam 4 project

U.S. hydropower regulators have issued an original license for a proposed 12-megawatt hydropower project, to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Monongahela Locks and Dam 4 facility on the Monongahela River, in Pennsylvania.

On February 27, 2014, FFP New Hydro, LLC subsidiary Solia 4 Hydroelectric, LLC filed, pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act, an application for a license to construct, operate, and maintain the Monongahela Locks and Dam 4 Hydroelectric Project No. 13767.  The company is affiliated with US Renewables Group.

The project would be located at one of the nine existing lock and dam sites on the Monongahela River, which the Army Corps operates for commercial and recreational navigation.  If developed, new facilities for the project would include an intake channel, spill gates, a powerhouse housing two equally sized Kaplan turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 12 MW, a tailrace channel, a substation, a transmission line, and an access road.  The project will operate in a run-of-release mode, using flows made available by the Corps that would normally be released through the Corps’ spillway gates

Under the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is charged with regulating and reviewing applications for most non-federal hydropower projects.  Because the project uses the water power or surplus water of a government dam, occupies federal land, and is located on the Monongahela River, which is a navigable waterway of the United States, the Commission concluded that the project is required to be licensed pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act.

On July 21, 2017, the Commission issued its Order Issuing Original License for the Monongahela Locks and Dam 4 project.  The license authorizes the installation of 12 MW of new, renewable energy capacity, while requiring a number of measures to protect water quality, fish, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources at the project.  It bears a 50-year term, the maximum allowable for an original license under Section 6 of the Federal Power Act.

According to the order, as licensed with mandatory conditions and staff-recommended measures, the levelized annual cost of constructing and operating the project will be about $3,563,340, or $72.88/MWh.  Its expected average annual generation will be 48,894 MW. 

The Commission noted that the project as licensed is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the Monongahela River, "because: (1) issuance of an original license will serve to provide a beneficial and dependable source of electric energy; (2) the required environmental measures will protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources, water quality, recreation resources, and historic properties; and (3) the 12 MW of electric capacity will come from a renewable resource that does not contribute to atmospheric pollution."

Maine tidal project preliminary permit issued

A tidal energy developer has been granted a preliminary permit to study a proposed project in Western Passage, near the city of Eastport, Maine.

Under the Federal Power Act, most grid-connected tidal power projects require licensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act authorizes the Commission  to issue preliminary permits to allow prospective applicants for a hydropower license time to secure the data and perform the acts required to prepare a license application.  A preliminary permit preserves the holder's right to have first priority in applying for a license for the project being studied.

On December 4, 2015, ORPC Maine, LLC applied for a preliminary permit to study the feasibility of the proposed Western Passage Tidal Energy Project No. 14743.  As described in that application, the project would include fifteen of ORPC's proprietary 500-kilowatt hydrokinetic marine turbine-generator units for a combined capacity of 7.5 megawatts, along with anchoring and mooring systems, and transmission lines running ashore to an existing distribution line.  The materials describe an estimated average annual generation of 2.6 to 3.53 gigawatt-hours.

The Commission granted that preliminary permit by an order dated July 13, 2016.  In that order, the Commission addressed comments filed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and an individual.

In its comments, the tribe raised concerns over what the Commission calls "site banking".  As described by the Commission, the essence of its policy against site banking is that "an entity that is unwilling or unable to develop a site should not be permitted to maintain the exclusive right to develop it."  In some cases, the Commission invokes its policy against site banking to deny applications for successive preliminary permits.

The tribe questioned whether ORPC Maine should be granted a new preliminary permit when it has held two prior preliminary permits for the site of the proposed Western Passage Project -- the first issued in 2007, and a successive permit in 2011 -- without ever filing a development application. 

But in ORPC's case, the Commission noted that the project site has been unencumbered by a permit since ORPC's most recent permit expired in 2013, and that no other entity has filed a preliminary permit or development application for the site.  The Commission concluded that "a sufficient amount of time has passed for any other entity interested in developing the Western Passage Project site to have filed a preliminary permit or development application for the site and none has done so. Consequently, issuing a permit at this time to ORPC Maine for this site would not contribute to site banking."

FERC relicensing and annual licenses

What happens when the holder of a hydropower license applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a new license, but the original license expires before the relicensing case is resolved?  Depending on which federal laws and regulations apply, possible outcomes can include the Commission issuing an annual license, or continued operation under the license terms, until a new license is issued or other disposition is ordered.

A recent FERC case illustrates this dynamic, involving the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2299, located on the Tuolumne River in California.  Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District are the licensees for Project No. 2299, under a license issued for a period ending April 30, 2016.

Just over 2 years before the Don Pedro project's license expired, on April 28, 2014 the licensees filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder.  That relicensing application remains pending.

Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA.  But some projects operate pursuant to licenses which include waivers of the applicability of Section 15 of the FPA.

In the Don Pedro project's case, on May 5, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation, including language covering both the scenario under which Section 15 applies, as well as the scenario under which the prior license waived Section 15's applicability.

If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, the Commission gave notice that an annual license for Project No. 2299 is issued to the licensee for a period effective May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.  If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) has not occurred by April 30, 2017, the Commission gave notice that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.

If Section 15 does not apply, the Commission gave notice that based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.

The irrigation districts' relicensing case remains pending.

Federal dams and preliminary permits

U.S. federal entities own dams with untapped hydropower potential that could be developed by private parties -- but a recent regulatory decision highlights the difficulty of winning key approvals when the federal dam owner opposes the project.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's April 5, 2016 denial of an application for a preliminary permit for the McNary Lock and Dam Project illustrates this dynamic.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owns and operates a 980-megawatt hydroelectric project at the McNary Lock and Dam on the Columbia River in Oregon and Washington. The project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1945, and all its power units have been in operation since 1957.

But perhaps there may be untapped hydropower potential at the site that could be developed.  In 2015, a company called Advanced Hydropower, Inc. applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, to study the feasibility of the proposed McNary Dam Advanced Hydropower Project No. 14697.  That project would utilize the existing McNary Dam, plus new facilities including a 34-megawatt turbine.

But by an order dated April 5, 2016, the Commission denied Advanced Hydropower's application.  In doing so, the Commission cited judicial precedent that it "is not required to grant a preliminary permit application, so long as it articulates a rational basis for not doing so."  It then cited recent Commission decision denying preliminary permits for projects at federal facilities after receiving comments from the relevant federal entities indicating that no purpose would be served in issuing a permit because the federal entity would not approve modifications to its federal facilities.

Notably, in the McNary Lock and Dam case, the Corps filed timely motions to intervene and comments opposing the project.  In its order denying Advanced Hydropower's application, the Commission noted:

Here, because the Corps, which owns the McNary Lock and Dam facility and whose permission would be needed for the development of any project at that facility, has stated that it opposes the project, we find there is no purpose in issuing a preliminary permit here.

Based on the Corps' opposition to the project, the Commission thus denied Advanced Hydropower's application for a preliminary permit for the McNary Lock and Dam project.

West Branch storage project relicensed

Earlier this month U.S. hydropower regulators issued a new license for the West Branch Project, which includes water storage facilities on the West Branch of the St. Croix River in Maine.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission first issued an original license for the West Branch Project on September 4, 1980.  The project includes two developments, Sysladobsis and West Grand, that operate as water storage facilities to provide flood storage and flow releases for downstream hydroelectric generation.  The Sysladobsis Development uses Sysladobsis Lake as its impoundment.  The license describes the West Grand Development as composed of several natural lakes including Scraggly Lake, Keg Lake, Bottle Lake, Junior Lake, Junior Bay, Norway Lake, Pug Lake, Pocumcus Lake, Horseshoe Lake, and West Grand Lake. 

Dikes and dams are used to control and release water, first from Sysladobsis Lake into the downstream West Grand impoundment, then into either Grand Lake Stream or Grand Lake Brook.  Many of the dams and dikes at these sites are old -- the Sysladobsis dam, West Grand dam, and Farm Cove dike were constructed in 1861, 1836, and 1879, respectively, although all three have since been rebuilt.

Each of these developments operates in a seasonal store-and-release mode whereby water is stored to reduce downstream flooding during periods of high flow and released during periods of low flow to augment generation at the downstream hydroelectric projects.

The West Branch Project also operates as part of the larger St. Croix River headwater storage system.  This network of dams includes Woodland Pulp LLC’s Forest City Project No. 2660 and the recently relicensed Vanceboro Project No. 2492. Generation associated with these projects occurs at the Grand Falls and Woodland hydroelectric projects downstream on the St. Croix River.

The West Branch Project's original 1980 license was amended in 1987 to include the existing Farm Cove dike, but the original license expired on September 30, 2000.  Since then, the licensee has operated the project under an annual license pending the disposition of a new license application.

On March 19, 2009, the licensee filed, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), an application for a new license to continue operating and maintaining the West Branch Project. The licensee proposed to continue store-and-release operation with some changes, continue operating fishways and take other measures to promote fish populations, enhance a land use plan, and develop a historic properties management plan.

Fishery issues have been contentious in the St. Croix River system.  After opportunity for public comment, agency consultation, and preparation of an Environmental Assessment, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife asked the Commission to delay its licensing decision until fishery management talks concluded.  After being notified by the Department that those talks had concluded, on March 15, 2016 the Commission issued Woodland Pulp a new license to continue operating and maintaining the West Branch Project. 

The new license requires a number of measures to protect and enhance water quality, aquatic habitat, fisheries resources, terrestrial resources, and recreation opportunities at the project. These include a requirement to operate the developments in store-and-release mode between defined pond elevations, to provide certain minimum flows of water, to develop an Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan, and to provide and enhance fish passage.

A list maintained by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shows over 1,000 active hydropower licenses.  Many of these licenses will expire in the near future, so relicensing activity for FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects is expected to increase. 

Washington tidal power license surrendered

U.S. hydropower regulators have accepted a Washington public utility district's application to surrender its license for an unconstructed tidal power project.

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington was the licensee for the Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project No. 12690.  The hydrokinetic energy project was to be located on the east side of Admiralty Inlet in Puget Sound, about 0.6 mile west of Whidbey Island. Project works were to consist of two 300-kilowatt OpenHydro tidal turbines, each mounted on a triangular subsea base, adaptable monitoring devices, trunk cables extending from each turbine to an onshore cable termination vault, and transformers and other facilities connecting to Puget Sound Energy’s electrical distribution system.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a minor, pilot project license for the Admiralty Island project on March 20, 2014, enabling construction, operation, and maintenance of the project for a period of ten years.

But in September 2014, the licensee was notified that it would not receive additional funding to proceed with the development of the project. Unable to locate alternative funding sources, the licensee determined that the project was no longer financially feasible. The licensee therefore requested to surrender its license.

On December 4, 2015, the licensee filed an application to surrender its license. Two entities filed motions to intervene in support of the license surrender.

On March 21, 2016, the Commission issued its order accepting the Admiralty Inlet tidal project's license surrender. In that order, the Commission noted that no construction or ground-disturbing activity has occurred, that the project site remains unaltered, and that surrendering the license would not affect any environmental resources.  The Commission therefore approved the licensee’s application to surrender its license without condition.

As a result of the order, the license for the proposed Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project No. 12690 is surrendered, effective at the close of business on March 21, 2016.  The site could still be developed as a tidal power resource, if a future application for development is granted.

Section 242 hydroelectric incentive program funding

For the first time, the U.S. Department of Energy has funding for its Section 242 hydroelectric incentive program.  The program, arising from Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,  provides incentive payments for adding new turbines or other hydroelectric generating devices to existing sites. The Department is accepting applications for the incentive payments through February 1, 2016.

In 2005, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress created the Section 242 hydroelectric incentive program to support the expansion of hydropower energy development at existing dams and impoundments.  Section 242 establishes an incentive for qualified hydroelectric facilities, defined as "a turbine or other generating device owned or solely operated by a non-Federal entity which generates hydroelectric energy for sale and which is added to an existing dam or conduit."  The incentive is set at up to 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour of net electric energy generated and sold by a qualified hydroelectric facility, indexed for inflation (about 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour today) up to a maximum of $750,000 per year, for a specified 10-year period.

To get this money, an owner or operator must apply for the incentive payments.  An application for an incentive payment for electric energy generated and sold in a calendar year must be filed during the applications period defined by the Department of Energy in the Federal Register.  But according to the Energy Department's final guidance for the Section 242 program, "DOE will accept applications and make payments to qualified hydroelectric facilities in years when appropriations are available for this purpose."  Until recently, no such appropriations were available.

In Congressional appropriations for Federal fiscal year 2015, the Department of Energy received funds to support this hydroelectric incentive program for the first time. As shown in the conference report to the law that made appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015, Congress appropriated $3,960,000 for conventional hydropower under section 242 of EPAct 2005.

With funding now available, the Energy Department is only accepting applications from owners and authorized operators of qualified hydroelectric facilities for hydroelectricity generated and sold in calendar year 2014. Applications for this round of Section 242 funding are due by February 1, 2016.

FERC hydro dam relicensing, timing and options

Under U.S. law, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over most hydropower dams and projects.  The Federal Power Act directs the Commission to issue licenses for hydropower projects for a defined term of years, and provides the basis for the FERC hydro relicensing process.  The relicensing process can take years, and often must be started before a licensee has made final long-term plans for the project's fate.  For example, what if a FERC licensee is considering surrendering the license and removing the dam, at the same time that its existing license approaches expiration and a relicensing application is due?

A recent order by FERC staff under its delegated authority in City of River Falls, Wisconsin, P-10489-014, illustrates this dynamic.  The City of River Falls, Wisconsin, holds the license for the River Falls Project on the Kinnickinnic River, in Pierce County, Wisconsin.  When the license for the River Falls Project was issued, the Commission determined that a 30-year term was appropriate and in the public interest.  That current license expires on August 31, 2018.

Because the FERC hydropower relicensing process can take years -- or longer -- licensees who wish to retain licensure are required to start the planning, stakeholder, and application filing processes early.  In the River Falls case, a relicense application will be due by August 31, 2016.  To get the ball rolling, in 2013 the City filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to relicense the project and Pre-Application Document (PAD) and elected the Commission’s Traditional Licensing Process (TLP).

Meanwhile, the City of River Falls is trying to evaluate the project's future.  The City is considering surrendering the license instead of continuing with relicensing, and to draft and adopt a Kinnickinnic River Corridor Planning Strategy to "reflect a single community vision for the river, with or without the hydroelectric project."

But the studies and deliberation required to evaluate dam relicensing, surrender, or alternatives take time.  Meanwhile, the clock ticks toward license expiration.  The City tried to buy 5 more years, by asking FERC to extend the termination date of its existing license, so that it expires on August 31, 2023.  As described by FERC:

The City states the additional time is needed so that it does not spend time and money relicensing the project only to determine through its Corridor Plan that the license should be surrendered and the project decommissioned. The City believes that a lengthy and expensive licensing process is the wrong process for making such a determination. The City explains that a decision about the future of the project would be made by the fall of 2017, and a notice of intent to relicense the project or a surrender application would be filed no later than August 31, 2018.

The City's request was supported by public commenters, mostly on the theory that an extension would allow time to explore license surrender and dam removal.

But as expressed in the order, the Commission saw "no reason why the City cannot evaluate both license surrender and relicensing in the remaining time it has to file a relicense application (due August 31, 2016). In fact, analysis of studies and feedback from agencies would help inform its decision of whether or not to continue to pursue the project."  In particular, the Commission did not view the simultaneous City's Corridor Plan process as "unique circumstances or circumstances beyond the City’s control that prevent it from making a determination by August 31, 2016... as to whether to relicense or to surrender the project."

The Commission also distinguished the River Falls case from precedent where it has extended other license terms, either to enable a licensee to amortize the cost of substantial improvements to project facilities or substantial new environmental measures, or to coordinate the license expiration date with the expiration dates of other licenses in the same river basin.

Ultimately, the Commission denied the City of River Falls, Wisconsin’s application to extend the license term for the River Falls Project from August 31, 2018, to August 31, 2023.  As noted in the Commission's order, the "City remains able to work on both a relicensing option and a surrender option while it develops its Corridor Plan should the City wish to do so."

The City has filed its Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document, and has received Commission approval to use the Traditional Licensing Process.  Any relicense application will be due 2 years before the current license expires, or on August 31, 2016.  In the meantime, the City will presumably continue to explore its options, including license surrender and dam removal, or relicensing the project.