Federal energy regulators have denied a complaint by a Newport, Rhode Island city councilor against state regulators' approval of a power purchase agreement for an offshore wind project off Block Island.
At issue is Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC's small-scale 30-megawatt offshore wind project located near Rhode Island's Block Island. The project sells its output to utility Narragansett Electric Company, Inc. d/b/a National Grid (National Grid), pursuant to a power purchase agreement approved by the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission on August 16, 2010.
On June 7, 2018, Ms. Kathryn E. Leonard filed a complaint to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, alleging that the implementation of the power purchase agreement violated various federal laws, including the Federal Power Act, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), and the Supremacy and Interstate Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
On April 24, 2019, the Commission issued its order denying Ms. Leonard's complaint. In the seventeen-page order, the Commission noted that the complainant provided no evidence in support of her assertion that the power purchase agreement was entered into pursuant to Rhode Island's implementation of PURPA. Instead, the Commission found that the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission's approval of the contract was pursuant to state law, not pursuant to its PURPA regulations -- but that even if it were pursuant to PURPA, federal regulations governing sales by qualifying facilities to electric utilities explicitly permit negotiated rates.
The Commission similarly found that the complainant failed to show that the contract or its pricing was unjust and unreasonable under the Federal Power Act, and to provide sufficient support for its constitutional claims. The Commission also distinguished the Block Island PPA from contracts it previously invalidated in another case, Hughes v. Talen, which involved contracts for differences and an explicit requirement of participation in the capacity market. For these reasons, the Commission denied the complaint.
The Block Island project is the first commercially-operating offshore wind project in the United States. A number of other projects are currently under development, and several states in the Northeast have enacted laws requiring utility procurement of offshore wind energy. According to a 2016 analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. offshore wind has a technical resource potential of more than 2,000
gigawatts of capacity, or 7,200 terawatt-hours of generation per year -- nearly twice the nation’s current electricity use.
Energy powers society; society's choices shape energy policy. A blog about our energy resources and the choices they present for society.
Showing posts with label complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complaint. Show all posts
Complaint over FERC hydro project property transfers
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
What happens when the holder of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license for a hydropower project buys, sells, or transfers real estate that is part of the project? A complaint recently filed with the Commission raises this question in relation to a hydropower project located in Montana.
At issue in the complaint is the North Willow Creek project, licensed by the FERC in 1985 as Project No. P-7804. According to the complaint filed on February 16, 2016, by Pony Ranch, LLC, the run-of-the-river hydroelectric project is located mostly on private lands near the Tobacco Root Mountains in Madison County, Montana. The complaint describes the project as consisting of a steel intake structure located on North Willow Creek, an 8,180-foot steel penstock, and a powerhouse containing a 400-kW generating unit, and a tailrace discharging project flows back into North Willow Creek.
According to the complainant, Pony Ranch owns much of the land where the project is sited, including the land where the intake structure and upper 2,800 feet of the penstock are located. But the complaint alleges that the project licensee has "for more than two decades regularly bought and sold real property underlying the Project and within Project boundaries without either informing the Commission or seeking Commission permission for those transactions requiring FERC approval."
The complaint alleges at least six transactions or transfers of the parcel of real estate on which the project powerhouse and tailrace are located. The complaint alleges that even the licensee's transfer of the Pony Ranch lands to its present owners -- who appear to be substantially the same people as the complainants -- was a license violation because no FERC approval was obtained nor notice given.
According to the complaint, these transfers violate several articles of the project's license which relate to project land rights. These include Standard Article 5, which provides that "none of such properties shall be voluntarily sold, leased, transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of without the prior written approval of the Commission."
The Commission has required reporting and authorization for outright sales of project lands, but also for divorce-related transfers of joint interests in a project license, other transfers of joint interests in FERC licenses, actions limiting access across property owned by nonlicensees where access is needed to assure access to project works, transfers that occur under the will of a deceased licensee, and involuntary transfers where project property or equipment is foreclosed to satisfy tax or mortgage debt.
The complaint asks the Commission to find that the licensee has abandoned the project and should surrender the license under the doctrine of implied surrender. Under that doctrine, the Commission can infer a licensee's intent to abandon a project from its action or inaction..
On March 7, 2016, the Commission's Office of Energy Projects sent the licensee a letter describing the complaint as a "non-compliance allegation" and requesting a response. That letter notes that consistent with Commission practice with respect to allegations of non-compliance by hydropower licensees, the Pony Ranch complaint has been referred to the Commission’s Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance. That division is charged with ensuring compliance. The letter requests a response from the licensee within 30 days.
At issue in the complaint is the North Willow Creek project, licensed by the FERC in 1985 as Project No. P-7804. According to the complaint filed on February 16, 2016, by Pony Ranch, LLC, the run-of-the-river hydroelectric project is located mostly on private lands near the Tobacco Root Mountains in Madison County, Montana. The complaint describes the project as consisting of a steel intake structure located on North Willow Creek, an 8,180-foot steel penstock, and a powerhouse containing a 400-kW generating unit, and a tailrace discharging project flows back into North Willow Creek.
According to the complainant, Pony Ranch owns much of the land where the project is sited, including the land where the intake structure and upper 2,800 feet of the penstock are located. But the complaint alleges that the project licensee has "for more than two decades regularly bought and sold real property underlying the Project and within Project boundaries without either informing the Commission or seeking Commission permission for those transactions requiring FERC approval."
The complaint alleges at least six transactions or transfers of the parcel of real estate on which the project powerhouse and tailrace are located. The complaint alleges that even the licensee's transfer of the Pony Ranch lands to its present owners -- who appear to be substantially the same people as the complainants -- was a license violation because no FERC approval was obtained nor notice given.
According to the complaint, these transfers violate several articles of the project's license which relate to project land rights. These include Standard Article 5, which provides that "none of such properties shall be voluntarily sold, leased, transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of without the prior written approval of the Commission."
The Commission has required reporting and authorization for outright sales of project lands, but also for divorce-related transfers of joint interests in a project license, other transfers of joint interests in FERC licenses, actions limiting access across property owned by nonlicensees where access is needed to assure access to project works, transfers that occur under the will of a deceased licensee, and involuntary transfers where project property or equipment is foreclosed to satisfy tax or mortgage debt.
The complaint asks the Commission to find that the licensee has abandoned the project and should surrender the license under the doctrine of implied surrender. Under that doctrine, the Commission can infer a licensee's intent to abandon a project from its action or inaction..
On March 7, 2016, the Commission's Office of Energy Projects sent the licensee a letter describing the complaint as a "non-compliance allegation" and requesting a response. That letter notes that consistent with Commission practice with respect to allegations of non-compliance by hydropower licensees, the Pony Ranch complaint has been referred to the Commission’s Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance. That division is charged with ensuring compliance. The letter requests a response from the licensee within 30 days.
Maine court sustains challenge to smart meter project, partially
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has issued an opinion that calls into question the Maine Public Utilities Commission's dismissal of a complaint against a utility regarding its use of smart-meter technology. With over 600,000 smart meters already installed, what the court ruling means is unclear.
In 2010, the Commission approved a proposal by Central Maine Power Company (CMP) to install smart meters on its customers' sites. The project, which CMP called Advanced Metering Infrastructure, entailed replacing existing customer meters with "smart meters" capable of transmitting customer usage data back to the utility using radio frequency signals.
The project triggered a series of customer complaints raising concerns about the health and safety of smart-meter technology associated with the AMI project, focusing on the health effects of RF radiation emitted by the wireless smart meters and the technology’s potential to violate individuals’ privacy. Customers also complained about the lack of an opt-out provision allowing customers to choose to retain their existing meters.
In 2011, the Commission ordered CMP to provide two alternatives for customers who choose not to have the standard wireless smart meter installed on their premises: either a standard meter, or a smart meter set to receive-only mode. Under the Commission's order, customers opting out would pay an extra fee.
In response, nineteen CMP customers filed a complaint against both CMP and the Commission, challenging the opt-out fee. The Commission dismissed that complaint, finding that it had considered and resolved the issues raised in the complaint by ordering CMP to allow customers to opt out. This dismissal triggered an appeal by the customers to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
In the court's opinion issued last week, Friedman v. Public Utilities Commission, the court agreed with the customer complainants that the Commission should not have dismissed the portion of the complaint against CMP addressing health and safety issues.
In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that one of the Commission’s core regulatory responsibilities is to ensure that public utilities provide “safe, reasonable and adequate service” to customers. The court found that the Commission had explicitly declined to decide "that smart meter technology is not a credible threat to the health and safety of CMP’s customers". On that sole ground, the court vacated the portion of the Commission’s dismissal of the customer complaint that was directed at CMP and addressed health and safety concerns.
So what does the court's ruling mean in practical terms? CMP has already installed about 600,000 smart meters across its service territory, and has only about 2,000 smart meters left to install. The Commission is undoubtedly reviewing the court's order and has scheduled a deliberative session for next Tuesday, July 24, at 10:00 a.m.
In 2010, the Commission approved a proposal by Central Maine Power Company (CMP) to install smart meters on its customers' sites. The project, which CMP called Advanced Metering Infrastructure, entailed replacing existing customer meters with "smart meters" capable of transmitting customer usage data back to the utility using radio frequency signals.
The project triggered a series of customer complaints raising concerns about the health and safety of smart-meter technology associated with the AMI project, focusing on the health effects of RF radiation emitted by the wireless smart meters and the technology’s potential to violate individuals’ privacy. Customers also complained about the lack of an opt-out provision allowing customers to choose to retain their existing meters.
In 2011, the Commission ordered CMP to provide two alternatives for customers who choose not to have the standard wireless smart meter installed on their premises: either a standard meter, or a smart meter set to receive-only mode. Under the Commission's order, customers opting out would pay an extra fee.
In response, nineteen CMP customers filed a complaint against both CMP and the Commission, challenging the opt-out fee. The Commission dismissed that complaint, finding that it had considered and resolved the issues raised in the complaint by ordering CMP to allow customers to opt out. This dismissal triggered an appeal by the customers to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
In the court's opinion issued last week, Friedman v. Public Utilities Commission, the court agreed with the customer complainants that the Commission should not have dismissed the portion of the complaint against CMP addressing health and safety issues.
In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that one of the Commission’s core regulatory responsibilities is to ensure that public utilities provide “safe, reasonable and adequate service” to customers. The court found that the Commission had explicitly declined to decide "that smart meter technology is not a credible threat to the health and safety of CMP’s customers". On that sole ground, the court vacated the portion of the Commission’s dismissal of the customer complaint that was directed at CMP and addressed health and safety concerns.
So what does the court's ruling mean in practical terms? CMP has already installed about 600,000 smart meters across its service territory, and has only about 2,000 smart meters left to install. The Commission is undoubtedly reviewing the court's order and has scheduled a deliberative session for next Tuesday, July 24, at 10:00 a.m.
February 1, 2011 - smart meters questioned by some
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Smart meters are being rolled out by utilities across the country. Regulators including FERC and state PUCs have approved their installation based on perceived benefits such as improved customer service, enhanced storm restoration efforts, and reduced costs for both ratepayers and utilities. Yet a number of challenges have been lodged against smart meter programs. For example, after ratepayer complaints and requests for investigation, the Maine PUC has opened an investigation into one utility's implementation of smart metering. Concerns include privacy, alleged harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation, and the loss of meter-reading jobs.
The New York Times recently ran an interesting look at some of the opposition in California and Maine, noting that some Tea Party activists are joining the fray, as well as others concerned about health effects despite several studies concluding that smart meters pose no threat to human health.
What will end up happening with smart meter programs? Will proponents' arguments outweigh the opposition's concerns?
The New York Times recently ran an interesting look at some of the opposition in California and Maine, noting that some Tea Party activists are joining the fray, as well as others concerned about health effects despite several studies concluding that smart meters pose no threat to human health.
What will end up happening with smart meter programs? Will proponents' arguments outweigh the opposition's concerns?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
