Vail Resorts, Inc. -- the largest ski and mountain resort operator in the world -- has announced a comprehensive sustainability commitment that calls for "zero net emissions by 2030, zero waste to landfill by 2030 and zero net operating impact to forests and habitat." According to the company, Vail Resorts' "Epic Promise for a Zero Footprint" will give resort guests and employees "the opportunity to enjoy the natural environment and resources without leaving an impact."
Vail Resorts' subsidiaries operate 11 mountain resorts and three urban ski areas, including Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone in Colorado; Park City in Utah; Heavenly, Northstar and Kirkwood in the Lake Tahoe area of California and Nevada; Whistler Blackcomb in British Columbia, Canada; Perisher in Australia; Stowe in Vermont; Wilmot Mountain in Wisconsin; Afton Alps in
Minnesota and Mt. Brighton in Michigan. The company also owns and operates hotels as well as a real estate planning and development subsidiary.
In a July 25, 2017, press release, Vail Resorts announced its "Epic Promise for a Zero Footprint" sustainability commitment. Pointing to Whistler Blackcomb's environmental commitment as inspiration, Vail Resorts announced its intent "to go beyond setting a partial emissions reduction target by executing on a more expansive and ambitious plan."
With respect to net zero emissions from operations by 2030, the Vail Resorts plan calls for continued reduction of the company's electricity and gas use by improving operating practices and investing $25 million
in innovative, energy-saving projects, such as low-energy snowmaking
equipment, green building design and construction, and more efficient
grooming practices and equipment. Among other measures, it envisions purchasing 100 percent renewable energy equivalent to Vail Resorts'
total electrical energy use and working with utilities and local,
regional and national governments to bring more renewable energy to the
grids where the company operates its resorts. As an interim goal, the plan states the company's intent to achieve a 50 percent reduction in its net emissions by 2025, based on 2016 levels.
Other 2030 goals set in the Vail Resorts plan include "zero waste to landfill" (by diverting
100 percent of the waste from its operations to more sustainable
pathways) and "zero net operating impact to forests and habitat" (by measures including mitigation, tree planting and forest restoration, and minimizing or eliminating the impact of any future resort development).
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 development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Northern Pass files with NH SEC
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
The developer of the Northern Pass Transmission Project, a proposed high-voltage transmission line from Canada into New Hampshire, filed a formal application to New Hampshire regulators this week.
First proposed in 2009, the Northern Pass project would include about 190 miles of new direct current transmission lines and an AC-DC converter station. Collectively, the project would be capable of importing over 1,000 megawatts of power from Canada into the New England electric grid. Its formal sponsors are two companies affiliated under the Eversource family: Northern Pass Transmission LLC and Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy.
Early versions of proposal drew criticism and controversy over issues including siting, visual impacts, the potential use of eminent domain, and impacts to domestic renewable energy production. After a series of public information meetings and other dialogue, Eversource released a revised route and plan in August 2015.
On October 19, Eversource announced that it had filed a formal application to the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee. The Northern Pass Transmission application to the SEC is available on the project's website. It describes a project cost estimate of $1.6 billion, and a capacity of 1,090 megawatts.
The SEC was established by the state legislature for the review, approval, monitoring and enforcement of compliance in the planning, siting, construction and operation of energy facilities. It includes members from the Public Utilities Commission, cabinet level commissioners, and two members of the public. The SEC has jurisdiction to review applications for siting and construction of large-scale energy facilities and to issue a Certificate of Site and Facility enabling a project's development. The process before the SEC is likely to play out through 2016.
First proposed in 2009, the Northern Pass project would include about 190 miles of new direct current transmission lines and an AC-DC converter station. Collectively, the project would be capable of importing over 1,000 megawatts of power from Canada into the New England electric grid. Its formal sponsors are two companies affiliated under the Eversource family: Northern Pass Transmission LLC and Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy.
Early versions of proposal drew criticism and controversy over issues including siting, visual impacts, the potential use of eminent domain, and impacts to domestic renewable energy production. After a series of public information meetings and other dialogue, Eversource released a revised route and plan in August 2015.
On October 19, Eversource announced that it had filed a formal application to the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee. The Northern Pass Transmission application to the SEC is available on the project's website. It describes a project cost estimate of $1.6 billion, and a capacity of 1,090 megawatts.
The SEC was established by the state legislature for the review, approval, monitoring and enforcement of compliance in the planning, siting, construction and operation of energy facilities. It includes members from the Public Utilities Commission, cabinet level commissioners, and two members of the public. The SEC has jurisdiction to review applications for siting and construction of large-scale energy facilities and to issue a Certificate of Site and Facility enabling a project's development. The process before the SEC is likely to play out through 2016.
Salem power plant wins market deferral
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Federal regulators have granted a request by the developer of a power plant in Salem, Massachusetts, to defer its commitment to provide power to the New England market. The process reflects challenges inherent to developing power plants in the Boston area, as well as methods to mitigate the impacts of those challenges.
Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP is in the process of redeveloping the site of a defunct coal-powered generation plant. The former Salem Harbor Power Station could produce up to 745 megawatts of power, fueled by coal and oil. In 2010, Footprint identified the site as a potential facility for redevelopment and, on August 3, 2012, it acquired the plant from Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC. Footprint now plans to build what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has described as two state-of-the art, efficient, low-emission, quick-start natural gas turbine generators; two steam-turbine generators; and two heat-recovery steam generators, including pollution control equipment, with aggregate generating capacity of 674 megawatts.
The New England electricity market compensates generators and other resources for two main products: energy and capacity. Energy represents the volume of power sold by a market participant (measured in megawatt-hours), while capacity represents the intended full-load sustained output of a facility (measured in megawatts). Regional grid operator ISO New England, Inc. operates a forward capacity market, under which generators can lock in the payments for capacity several years in advance of actually operating. This structure is designed to ensure that the region has sufficient generating capacity to meet future needs, as well as to help new generation projects secure financing and be built despite long permitting and construction lead times.
Footprint bid its proposed natural gas power plant into New England's seventh Forward Capacity Auction, also known as FCA7. That auction was held in February 2013, and gave Footprint a future capacity market revenue stream in exchange for the obligation to provide capacity over a one-year capacity commitment period starting on June 1, 2016. According to Footprint, it then had 39 months to obtain all necessary permits, secure financing arrangements and complete construction of the plant, a process that had never been tested for a new plant not subsidized or sponsored by a state.
While Footprint secured many of the necessary permits promptly, one permit in particular -- a federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit under the Clean Air Act -- took longer than expected. Obtaining a PSD permit from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, acting under federally delegated authority, involves a five-phase process: (1) pre-application; (2) application; (3) draft permit preparation; (4) public participation; and (5) final decision to issue or deny a PSD permit. While Footprint finally obtained its PSD permit -- and survived a last-minute appeal of that permit's issuance -- Footprint says the delay and revenue uncertainty the resulting uncertainty of revenues impaired its ability to finance the project. While Footprint had exercised an option to lock in its capacity rates for five years, without the deferral one full year of stable revenue would be lost, making potential lenders and equity providers unwilling to provide financing.
Under ISO-NE's tariff, a market participant may seek a deferral of its capacity supply obligation if three criteria are met. First, the resource must first request and receive from ISO-NE a written reliability determination indicating that the absence of the resource's capacity would result in a transmission system reliability issue in both the associated Capacity Commitment Period and the next Capacity Commitment Period. If ISO-NE makes such a determination, then the resource may file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a one-year deferral of its Capacity Supply Obligation. The resource must include in its filing to the Commission (1) the reliability determination from ISO-NE; (2) a demonstration that the project's development delay is due to factors beyond the control of the resource; and (3) a demonstration that the deferral is critical to the resource's ability to achieve commercial operation.
Footprint applied to the Commission for such a deferral on October 7, 2014. On December 5, the Commission granted Footprint's request. The Commission noted that ISO-NE had issued a reliability determination finding that the Footprint facility is needed for reliability in the 2016-2017 Capacity Commitment Period and the subsequent 2017-2018 period, that Footprint had demonstrated that it has failed to achieve commercial operation on time due to factors beyond its control, and that Footprint has demonstrated that the deferral is critical to the Facility’s ability to achieve commercial operation.
Footprint's experience highlights several key dynamics affecting New England power plant development. The story is framed by the retirement of an aging coal plant and its replacement with natural gas-fired generation, a trend occurring across the U.S. It features the challenges of securing necessary environmental permits and surviving appeals by project opponents. Footprint's experience also highlights the features of the New England forward capacity market, and how it affects developers of new power plants.
 |
| Stacks of the former Salem Harbor Power Station, before its decommissioning. |
Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP is in the process of redeveloping the site of a defunct coal-powered generation plant. The former Salem Harbor Power Station could produce up to 745 megawatts of power, fueled by coal and oil. In 2010, Footprint identified the site as a potential facility for redevelopment and, on August 3, 2012, it acquired the plant from Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC. Footprint now plans to build what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has described as two state-of-the art, efficient, low-emission, quick-start natural gas turbine generators; two steam-turbine generators; and two heat-recovery steam generators, including pollution control equipment, with aggregate generating capacity of 674 megawatts.
The New England electricity market compensates generators and other resources for two main products: energy and capacity. Energy represents the volume of power sold by a market participant (measured in megawatt-hours), while capacity represents the intended full-load sustained output of a facility (measured in megawatts). Regional grid operator ISO New England, Inc. operates a forward capacity market, under which generators can lock in the payments for capacity several years in advance of actually operating. This structure is designed to ensure that the region has sufficient generating capacity to meet future needs, as well as to help new generation projects secure financing and be built despite long permitting and construction lead times.
Footprint bid its proposed natural gas power plant into New England's seventh Forward Capacity Auction, also known as FCA7. That auction was held in February 2013, and gave Footprint a future capacity market revenue stream in exchange for the obligation to provide capacity over a one-year capacity commitment period starting on June 1, 2016. According to Footprint, it then had 39 months to obtain all necessary permits, secure financing arrangements and complete construction of the plant, a process that had never been tested for a new plant not subsidized or sponsored by a state.
While Footprint secured many of the necessary permits promptly, one permit in particular -- a federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit under the Clean Air Act -- took longer than expected. Obtaining a PSD permit from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, acting under federally delegated authority, involves a five-phase process: (1) pre-application; (2) application; (3) draft permit preparation; (4) public participation; and (5) final decision to issue or deny a PSD permit. While Footprint finally obtained its PSD permit -- and survived a last-minute appeal of that permit's issuance -- Footprint says the delay and revenue uncertainty the resulting uncertainty of revenues impaired its ability to finance the project. While Footprint had exercised an option to lock in its capacity rates for five years, without the deferral one full year of stable revenue would be lost, making potential lenders and equity providers unwilling to provide financing.
Under ISO-NE's tariff, a market participant may seek a deferral of its capacity supply obligation if three criteria are met. First, the resource must first request and receive from ISO-NE a written reliability determination indicating that the absence of the resource's capacity would result in a transmission system reliability issue in both the associated Capacity Commitment Period and the next Capacity Commitment Period. If ISO-NE makes such a determination, then the resource may file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a one-year deferral of its Capacity Supply Obligation. The resource must include in its filing to the Commission (1) the reliability determination from ISO-NE; (2) a demonstration that the project's development delay is due to factors beyond the control of the resource; and (3) a demonstration that the deferral is critical to the resource's ability to achieve commercial operation.
Footprint applied to the Commission for such a deferral on October 7, 2014. On December 5, the Commission granted Footprint's request. The Commission noted that ISO-NE had issued a reliability determination finding that the Footprint facility is needed for reliability in the 2016-2017 Capacity Commitment Period and the subsequent 2017-2018 period, that Footprint had demonstrated that it has failed to achieve commercial operation on time due to factors beyond its control, and that Footprint has demonstrated that the deferral is critical to the Facility’s ability to achieve commercial operation.
Footprint's experience highlights several key dynamics affecting New England power plant development. The story is framed by the retirement of an aging coal plant and its replacement with natural gas-fired generation, a trend occurring across the U.S. It features the challenges of securing necessary environmental permits and surviving appeals by project opponents. Footprint's experience also highlights the features of the New England forward capacity market, and how it affects developers of new power plants.
Feds to auction Maryland offshore wind sites
Monday, August 11, 2014
On August 19, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will auction off rights to lease sites off the Maryland coast for offshore wind. Through the auction, which will represent the third auction for offshore wind sites in federal waters since July 2013, the Bureau hopes it will award leases to two areas covering approximately 80,000 acres about
10 nautical miles east of the Ocean City coastline.
Last year, the Department of the Interior held its first offshore wind site auction for sites off Massachusetts and Rhode Island; Deepwater Wind won that auction with a bid of $3.8 million. The second auction, held for Virginia on September 4, covered approximately 112,799 acres about 23.5 nautical miles from the Virginia Beach coastline; Dominion Virginia Power won that auction with a bid of $1.6 million.
The Maryland auction later this month will follow procedures similar to those used in the previous two auctions. Based on previous expressions of interest and qualifications, BOEM has determined that sixteen companies are eligible to bid on the Maryland sites:
Offshore wind project developers must coordinate regulatory, financial, and engineering efforts. Securing a site for a project is a major step forward, but is only one of many important steps necessary to build an operating offshore wind project -- something the U.S. still lacks. How much interest will the Maryland auction draw? Who will win the right to lease the two parcels in the Maryland wind energy area, and how much will they pay? Will the auction winners actually build offshore wind projects? Some of these questions will be answered when the auction closes on August 19.
Last year, the Department of the Interior held its first offshore wind site auction for sites off Massachusetts and Rhode Island; Deepwater Wind won that auction with a bid of $3.8 million. The second auction, held for Virginia on September 4, covered approximately 112,799 acres about 23.5 nautical miles from the Virginia Beach coastline; Dominion Virginia Power won that auction with a bid of $1.6 million.
The Maryland auction later this month will follow procedures similar to those used in the previous two auctions. Based on previous expressions of interest and qualifications, BOEM has determined that sixteen companies are eligible to bid on the Maryland sites:
- Apex Offshore Maryland, LLC
- Bluewater Wind Maryland LLC
- Convalt Energy LLC
- Dominion Wind Development, LLC
- EDF Renewable Development, Inc.
- Energy Management, Inc.
- Fishermen’s Energy, LLC
- Green Sail Energy LLC
- IBERDROLA RENEWABLES, Inc.
- Maryland Offshore Wind LLC
- Orisol Energy US, Inc.
- RES America Developments Inc.
- SCS Maryland Energy LLC
- Sea Breeze Energy LLC
- Seawind Renewable Energy Corporation LLC
- US Wind Inc.
Offshore wind project developers must coordinate regulatory, financial, and engineering efforts. Securing a site for a project is a major step forward, but is only one of many important steps necessary to build an operating offshore wind project -- something the U.S. still lacks. How much interest will the Maryland auction draw? Who will win the right to lease the two parcels in the Maryland wind energy area, and how much will they pay? Will the auction winners actually build offshore wind projects? Some of these questions will be answered when the auction closes on August 19.
NJ-PA transmission line challenged
Friday, May 4, 2012
A New Jersey court is considering a challenge by environmental activists to a proposed high-voltage transmission line connecting Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Proposed by PPL Electric Utilities and Public Service Electric and Gas Co., the Susquehanna-Roseland line would run 145 miles from PPL's Susquehanna substation near Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey. The route, which is nearly finalized, would cross three units of land managed by the National Park Service: the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River and National Recreation Water Trail, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
The Susquehanna-Roseland project has received the approval of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, as well as federal support in the form of an expedited permitting process. Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection, LLC has also said that the line is essential to improving reliability and reducing transmission line congestion in the region.
At the same time, the line has drawn opposition from environmental groups and others. The Sierra Club and other organizations have challenged the line as continuing a "reliance on toxic fossil fuels by shipping coal-fired power into New Jersey." Instead, the Sierra Club calls for increased use of demand response, energy efficiency and renewable energy to meet peak energy demands. Other have challenged the project's proposed route through National Park Service lands, including widening some existing transmission corridors and associated road-building activity.
This past Wednesday, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey heard oral argument over whether the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities' approval of the project was valid. Among the challenges raised was whether the BPU fully considered non-transmission alternatives to the line, such as demand response and energy efficiency.
While the court process concludes, the utility proponents believe that construction should not be affected by the lawsuits. The line is expected to be placed in service by summer 2015.
Proposed by PPL Electric Utilities and Public Service Electric and Gas Co., the Susquehanna-Roseland line would run 145 miles from PPL's Susquehanna substation near Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey. The route, which is nearly finalized, would cross three units of land managed by the National Park Service: the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River and National Recreation Water Trail, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
The Susquehanna-Roseland project has received the approval of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, as well as federal support in the form of an expedited permitting process. Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection, LLC has also said that the line is essential to improving reliability and reducing transmission line congestion in the region.
At the same time, the line has drawn opposition from environmental groups and others. The Sierra Club and other organizations have challenged the line as continuing a "reliance on toxic fossil fuels by shipping coal-fired power into New Jersey." Instead, the Sierra Club calls for increased use of demand response, energy efficiency and renewable energy to meet peak energy demands. Other have challenged the project's proposed route through National Park Service lands, including widening some existing transmission corridors and associated road-building activity.
This past Wednesday, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey heard oral argument over whether the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities' approval of the project was valid. Among the challenges raised was whether the BPU fully considered non-transmission alternatives to the line, such as demand response and energy efficiency.
While the court process concludes, the utility proponents believe that construction should not be affected by the lawsuits. The line is expected to be placed in service by summer 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
