The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released a document answering "Frequently Asked Questions" about the removal of obsolete dams.
As noted by EPA, dams "provide important
societal
functions for drinking water
supply, flood control, hydropower
generation,
and recreation." EPA estimates that the U.S. is home to between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000 dams -- but that between 75% and 90% of these dams "no longer serve a functional purpose." Given the expense of maintaining dams and their safety, and some negative social and environmental impacts of dams, there is some pressure to remove obsolete dams. According to EPA, over 1,300 dams have been removed in the U.S. since the early 1900s, with over 60 removals in 2015 alone.
EPA framed its dam removal FAQ in this context, noting that its answers to these questions would support dam removal efforts. The FAQ addresses 20 distinct topics, ranging from dams' impacts on water quality, permitting issues related to dam removal, and EPA-related funding that could be used to support dam removal.
For example, the FAQ discusses permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including the use of individual permits or general permits, including Nationwide Permits. The FAQ encourages project proponents to work closely with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding Section 404 permitting. It describes how EPA would evaluate specific requirements for monitoring or testing, such as in the case of contaminated sediments behind the dam. The FAQ also discusses other permitting requirements, such as state-issued water quality certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and evaluations of consistency with coastal zone management plans under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
The FAQ also notes that various grants may be available for dam removal projects. For example, grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act can be issued to states, territories, and tribes for dam removals. EPA's Five Star Wetland and Urban Water Restoration Grant Program could also provide funding for river, wetlands, riparian, forest and coastal restoration, and wildlife conservation. Other funding, such as under the Wetland Program Development Grant program, is available to build technical and programmatic capacity of state and tribal water agencies. Finally, the FAQ notes that dam removals could be part of a Supplemental Environmental Project proposed in settlement of an environmental enforcement action.
As noted by EPA, the FAQs released in December 2016 do not impose legally binding requirements on anyone, and EPA retains the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in these FAQs where appropriate. Nevertheless the document provides dam owners, regulators, and communities guidance on how EPA views dam removal proposals.
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 funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Alaska tidal permit surrendered
Monday, March 28, 2016
Five years after applying for and receiving a preliminary permit to study a proposed Alaska tidal energy project, the project developer has surrendered that permit.
At issue is ORPC Alaska 2, LLC's proposed East Foreland Tidal Energy Project. The developer first applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit under Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act on August 2, 2010.
That application described a project site in middle Cook Inlet, a marine waterway of the northern Pacific Ocean. The proposed hydrokinetic project would lie offshore of the East Foreland, near the west coast of the Kenai Peninsula by Nikiski, Alaska. The application described the site in middle Cook Inlet as offering a maximum tidal range of up to 9.20 meters, with geomorphology favorable to strong currents. The application described the developer's intent to install a pilot or commercial project in a phased approach.
The FERC issued a first preliminary permit for the East Foreland project by order dated March 11, 2011. As permitted, the East Foreland project would include a series of 150-kilowatt TideGen and/or 150-kW OCGen turbine-generator modules developed by ORPC, with a combined capacity between 5 megawatts (MW) and 100 MW, with an average annual generation between 13 and 340 gigawatt-hours.
Over the ensuing years, the permittee studied the site and the project and filed periodic reports to the Commission. The preliminary permit required the permittee to file a notice of intent and draft pilot license application within two years of the permit date, but ORPC requested and received a six-month extension.
On March 3, 2013, the permittee filed a request for a successive preliminary permit for the East Foreland Tidal Energy Project. The Commission granted a successive preliminary permit on June 16, 2014, describing a project with a combined capacity of no more than 5 megawatts. Study and reporting activities continued.
But on December 11, 2015, the permittee filed a request for acceptance of its surrender of the East Foreland Tidal Energy Project's preliminary permit. In that request, the permittee described its "significant progress in evaluating the feasibility of a tidal energy project at East Foreland, Alaska, over the past several years."
Yet the surrender request also described the headwinds that stalled the project:
At issue is ORPC Alaska 2, LLC's proposed East Foreland Tidal Energy Project. The developer first applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit under Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act on August 2, 2010.
That application described a project site in middle Cook Inlet, a marine waterway of the northern Pacific Ocean. The proposed hydrokinetic project would lie offshore of the East Foreland, near the west coast of the Kenai Peninsula by Nikiski, Alaska. The application described the site in middle Cook Inlet as offering a maximum tidal range of up to 9.20 meters, with geomorphology favorable to strong currents. The application described the developer's intent to install a pilot or commercial project in a phased approach.
The FERC issued a first preliminary permit for the East Foreland project by order dated March 11, 2011. As permitted, the East Foreland project would include a series of 150-kilowatt TideGen and/or 150-kW OCGen turbine-generator modules developed by ORPC, with a combined capacity between 5 megawatts (MW) and 100 MW, with an average annual generation between 13 and 340 gigawatt-hours.
Over the ensuing years, the permittee studied the site and the project and filed periodic reports to the Commission. The preliminary permit required the permittee to file a notice of intent and draft pilot license application within two years of the permit date, but ORPC requested and received a six-month extension.
On March 3, 2013, the permittee filed a request for a successive preliminary permit for the East Foreland Tidal Energy Project. The Commission granted a successive preliminary permit on June 16, 2014, describing a project with a combined capacity of no more than 5 megawatts. Study and reporting activities continued.
But on December 11, 2015, the permittee filed a request for acceptance of its surrender of the East Foreland Tidal Energy Project's preliminary permit. In that request, the permittee described its "significant progress in evaluating the feasibility of a tidal energy project at East Foreland, Alaska, over the past several years."
Yet the surrender request also described the headwinds that stalled the project:
Nonetheless, the strength of the conventional energy market in Alaska precludes timely integration of new technology, like tidal energy systems, and advancement of the Project at the pace established by the original Schedule of Activities. As a result, public and private funding sources have sought nearer-term market impact from their investments. This in turn has negatively affected ORPC’s ability to expeditiously gather site data during Alaska’s limited field season window and maintain pace with FERC milestones.As a result, the request describes the permittee's decision to surrender the East Foreland tidal project's preliminary permit and "to continue our focus and dedication of resources towards technology optimization and development of near term market opportunities that are available to ORPC and its power system technology."
Section 242 hydroelectric incentive program funding
Friday, December 18, 2015
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.
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.
Texas small hydro project loses exemption
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
What happens to a proposed hydroelectric project takes longer than anticipated to be built, due to difficulties with project financing and severe flooding? As the developer of a proposed project in Texas recently found out, federal regulators can be lenient up to a point -- but under some circumstances the developer can lose its federal authorization to develop and operate the project.
The A.H. Smith Dam on the San Marcos River in Martindale, Texas was originally constructed in about 1894 to provide mechanical power a cotton gin; later, electric generation was installed, but power production ceased in the 1940s when low wholesale energy prices made operation uneconomic. Modern hydropower facilities rated at 150 kilowatts were installed in 1984, but were ultimately abandoned.
In 2005, developer Hydraco Power, Inc. applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an exemption from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act for its proposed A.H. Smith Dam Project. Hydraco's project included refurbishing and restoring the operation of the existing turbine located at the dam's powerhouse, installing a new buried transmission line and a water surface elevation gate in the headpond.
On June 2, 2006, the Commission granted Hydraco an exemption for the project. As a standard condition of exemptions, the Commission retained the right to revoke the exemption if any term or condition was violated. Among the terms was a requirement that Hydraco file within 120 days a
plan and schedule to install the new transmission line and restore the powerhouse, turbine, and trash racks to operating condition, as well as notice that the Commission could terminate the exemption if actual construction of any proposed or required facility had not begun within two years or had not been completed within four years of the date of issuance of the exemption.
Over the next 8 years, Hydraco filed a series of construction plans and schedules, but never completed the project despite obtaining repeated extensions of key deadlines. After multiple prompts by Commission staff to file a revised plan and schedule for restoring project operation or an application to surrender the exemption, the Commission noted that Hydraco either failed to respond or responded by stating that it could not estimate a schedule for restoring project operation because project construction, including major component repairs, was on hold due to lack of funds.
After the Commission issued a public notice in August 2014 stating its intent to terminate the project exemption "due to Hydraco’s longstanding violation of exemption Article 10 and its failure to provide a timeframe for restoring project generation", on November 20, 2014, the Commission issued an Order Terminating Exemption. That order found that "Hydraco has only performed minimal work at the project since obtaining its exemption in 2006 and that it lacks the funding to proceed with the necessary component repairs, including construction of the powerhouse interior and generating unit."
Hydraco filed a request for rehearing of the Order Terminating Exemption. On rehearing, Hydraco asserted that it had reached a financing agreement with a new investor and, consequently, it is ready to perform the work needed to comply with its exemption. Hydraco also objected to the findings that project construction was at a standstill and that Hydraco intended to abandon the project, noting that the Commission should excuse construction delays caused by severe flooding.
Last week, the Commission issued an Order Denying Rehearing in the case. It first noted that Hydraco had not demonstrated that it now has the money needed to bring the project on line. Not only did Hydraco not show evidence of a final financing agreement, but the documents showed a source of only half of the funding needed for project restoration. Second, the Commission noted that Hydraco's recent activities -- regularly inspecting the dam and removing debris from its spillway, trashracks, and grates, securing the site against vandalism and installing lighting, and repairing damage caused by a flood -- are "either maintenance or repair, not project development." Finally, the Commission articulated its "doctrine of implied surrender", which it applies where the entity responsible for the project has, by action or inaction, clearly indicated its intent to abandon the project, but has not filed a surrender application.
With the exemption terminated and Hydraco's request for rehearing denied, the A.H. Smith Dam project faces an uncertain future. On the one hand, the site presumably still offers many of the same values that Hydraco hoped to capture -- use an existing dam, with existing generation facilities, to generate renewable electricity. However, the loss of the FERC exemption means that Hydraco (or any other developer) will have to start the federal hydropower process over if it hopes to redevelop the dam as a hydroelectric generating site.
The case of the A.H. Smith Dam project illustrates a number of themes: interest in restoring existing hydropower infrastructure to generate renewable energy with relatively less environmental impact than newly-built dams, the challenge of securing financing for small hydropower projects -- and perhaps most importantly the value of compliance with FERC hydropower rules.
The A.H. Smith Dam on the San Marcos River in Martindale, Texas was originally constructed in about 1894 to provide mechanical power a cotton gin; later, electric generation was installed, but power production ceased in the 1940s when low wholesale energy prices made operation uneconomic. Modern hydropower facilities rated at 150 kilowatts were installed in 1984, but were ultimately abandoned.
In 2005, developer Hydraco Power, Inc. applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an exemption from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act for its proposed A.H. Smith Dam Project. Hydraco's project included refurbishing and restoring the operation of the existing turbine located at the dam's powerhouse, installing a new buried transmission line and a water surface elevation gate in the headpond.
On June 2, 2006, the Commission granted Hydraco an exemption for the project. As a standard condition of exemptions, the Commission retained the right to revoke the exemption if any term or condition was violated. Among the terms was a requirement that Hydraco file within 120 days a
plan and schedule to install the new transmission line and restore the powerhouse, turbine, and trash racks to operating condition, as well as notice that the Commission could terminate the exemption if actual construction of any proposed or required facility had not begun within two years or had not been completed within four years of the date of issuance of the exemption.
Over the next 8 years, Hydraco filed a series of construction plans and schedules, but never completed the project despite obtaining repeated extensions of key deadlines. After multiple prompts by Commission staff to file a revised plan and schedule for restoring project operation or an application to surrender the exemption, the Commission noted that Hydraco either failed to respond or responded by stating that it could not estimate a schedule for restoring project operation because project construction, including major component repairs, was on hold due to lack of funds.
After the Commission issued a public notice in August 2014 stating its intent to terminate the project exemption "due to Hydraco’s longstanding violation of exemption Article 10 and its failure to provide a timeframe for restoring project generation", on November 20, 2014, the Commission issued an Order Terminating Exemption. That order found that "Hydraco has only performed minimal work at the project since obtaining its exemption in 2006 and that it lacks the funding to proceed with the necessary component repairs, including construction of the powerhouse interior and generating unit."
Hydraco filed a request for rehearing of the Order Terminating Exemption. On rehearing, Hydraco asserted that it had reached a financing agreement with a new investor and, consequently, it is ready to perform the work needed to comply with its exemption. Hydraco also objected to the findings that project construction was at a standstill and that Hydraco intended to abandon the project, noting that the Commission should excuse construction delays caused by severe flooding.
Last week, the Commission issued an Order Denying Rehearing in the case. It first noted that Hydraco had not demonstrated that it now has the money needed to bring the project on line. Not only did Hydraco not show evidence of a final financing agreement, but the documents showed a source of only half of the funding needed for project restoration. Second, the Commission noted that Hydraco's recent activities -- regularly inspecting the dam and removing debris from its spillway, trashracks, and grates, securing the site against vandalism and installing lighting, and repairing damage caused by a flood -- are "either maintenance or repair, not project development." Finally, the Commission articulated its "doctrine of implied surrender", which it applies where the entity responsible for the project has, by action or inaction, clearly indicated its intent to abandon the project, but has not filed a surrender application.
With the exemption terminated and Hydraco's request for rehearing denied, the A.H. Smith Dam project faces an uncertain future. On the one hand, the site presumably still offers many of the same values that Hydraco hoped to capture -- use an existing dam, with existing generation facilities, to generate renewable electricity. However, the loss of the FERC exemption means that Hydraco (or any other developer) will have to start the federal hydropower process over if it hopes to redevelop the dam as a hydroelectric generating site.
The case of the A.H. Smith Dam project illustrates a number of themes: interest in restoring existing hydropower infrastructure to generate renewable energy with relatively less environmental impact than newly-built dams, the challenge of securing financing for small hydropower projects -- and perhaps most importantly the value of compliance with FERC hydropower rules.
Funding to reduce barriers to marine, hydrokinetic energy
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
The U.S. Department of Energy has announced a competitive funding opportunity designed to support the growing marine hydrokinetic energy industry. $1.9 million is available for projects that will improve the collection and analysis of environmental monitoring and experimental data from marine hydrokinetic devices.
Marine hydrokinetic energy technologies capture the energy embodied in moving ocean water such as tides, currents, and waves. While the marine hydrokinetic industry is relatively young, at least one project has been licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and built off the Maine coast. Research and development efforts are ongoing regarding a variety of marine hydrokinetic technologies and devices, and their environmental impacts continue to be studied.
The recently-announced federal funding aims to support that environmental evaluation. Working with the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wind and Water Power Technologies Office has issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement entitled “Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) Environmental Effects Assessment and Monitoring.”
Under that Funding Opportunity Announcement, the Department of Energy offers $1.9 million in funding to be split by up to 11 recipients. Specific project areas include studies of fish behavior and mortality around hydrokinetic turbines, improved environmental monitoring of marine hydrokinetic projects, and predictive modeling of marine hydrokinetic projects' environmental impacts based on surrogate technologies with stressors and receptors similar to those expected from marine hydrokinetic technologies.
Under the competitive solicitation, the Department of Energy requested Letters of Intent to be submitted by 11:59 Eastern Time on April 18, 2013. Full applications, which must include specified documents, must be submitted by 5:00 PM ET on May 16, 2013. For more information, visit the Department of Energy's official Funding Opportunity Announcement website or contact Todd Griset at Preti Flaherty.
 |
| Looking east from Griffith Head, Reid State Park, Maine. Damariscove Island, a proposed offshore wind site, sits on the right horizon. |
Marine hydrokinetic energy technologies capture the energy embodied in moving ocean water such as tides, currents, and waves. While the marine hydrokinetic industry is relatively young, at least one project has been licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and built off the Maine coast. Research and development efforts are ongoing regarding a variety of marine hydrokinetic technologies and devices, and their environmental impacts continue to be studied.
The recently-announced federal funding aims to support that environmental evaluation. Working with the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wind and Water Power Technologies Office has issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement entitled “Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) Environmental Effects Assessment and Monitoring.”
Under that Funding Opportunity Announcement, the Department of Energy offers $1.9 million in funding to be split by up to 11 recipients. Specific project areas include studies of fish behavior and mortality around hydrokinetic turbines, improved environmental monitoring of marine hydrokinetic projects, and predictive modeling of marine hydrokinetic projects' environmental impacts based on surrogate technologies with stressors and receptors similar to those expected from marine hydrokinetic technologies.
Under the competitive solicitation, the Department of Energy requested Letters of Intent to be submitted by 11:59 Eastern Time on April 18, 2013. Full applications, which must include specified documents, must be submitted by 5:00 PM ET on May 16, 2013. For more information, visit the Department of Energy's official Funding Opportunity Announcement website or contact Todd Griset at Preti Flaherty.
May 26, 2011 - NJ to withdraw from greenhouse gas compact
Thursday, May 26, 2011
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has announced that he will pull New Jersey out of the nation's leading regional greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program.
Since 2007, New Jersey has participated in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. RGGI is the first market-based greenhouse gas regulatory program in the United States. RGGI represents a cooperative effort by Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. These ten states agreed to cap and reduce their electrical energy sector's greenhouse gas emissions by 10% by 2018.
While each state's legislature implemented its own version of the compact, the overall structure is that carbon allowances are auctioned off to the power sector. Proceeds from these auctions are invested in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. The program has been a success in creating jobs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, and funding high-yield energy efficiency projects at businesses.
If New Jersey withdraws from RGGI, it will be the first state to end its participation in the program. Other states are considering whether to stay in the compact. For example, New Hampshire recently considered the question, and the Maine Legislature's energy committee recently voted to support a bill to withdraw from RGGI if enough other states withdraw first. Under LD 793 as amended, Maine would withdraw from RGGI if the total carbon dioxide emissions budget for remaining states is less than 35,000,000 tons. While New Jersey's departure alone would not shrink the program below Maine's proposed threshold, it would represent the first concrete erosion of RGGI's base.
 |
| The Maine State House, seen on a recent day of legislative debate over energy policy. |
Since 2007, New Jersey has participated in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. RGGI is the first market-based greenhouse gas regulatory program in the United States. RGGI represents a cooperative effort by Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. These ten states agreed to cap and reduce their electrical energy sector's greenhouse gas emissions by 10% by 2018.
While each state's legislature implemented its own version of the compact, the overall structure is that carbon allowances are auctioned off to the power sector. Proceeds from these auctions are invested in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. The program has been a success in creating jobs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, and funding high-yield energy efficiency projects at businesses.
If New Jersey withdraws from RGGI, it will be the first state to end its participation in the program. Other states are considering whether to stay in the compact. For example, New Hampshire recently considered the question, and the Maine Legislature's energy committee recently voted to support a bill to withdraw from RGGI if enough other states withdraw first. Under LD 793 as amended, Maine would withdraw from RGGI if the total carbon dioxide emissions budget for remaining states is less than 35,000,000 tons. While New Jersey's departure alone would not shrink the program below Maine's proposed threshold, it would represent the first concrete erosion of RGGI's base.
February 7, 2011 - $50 million more for offshore wind
Monday, February 7, 2011
Offshore wind just got another boost. Today Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu released a joint National Offshore Wind Strategy, which bills itself as the first-ever interagency plan on offshore wind energy. As part of this strategy, the U.S. Department of Energy envisions 10 gigawatts of offshore wind generating capacity by 2020 and 54 gigawatts by 2030.
That's not all: the Secretaries also announced up to $50.5 million in new funding for projects that support offshore wind energy deployment. The plan includes three solicitations, proposing to award up to $50.5 million over 5 years, to promote offshore wind R&D and eliminate market barriers. Up to $25 million will be available for technology development for wind turbine design tools and hardware. Up to $18 million will be available for studies and research to identify and remove market barriers. Up to $7.5 more million will bne used to fund R&D into wind turbine drivetrains.
The announcement also includes the designation under the "Smart from the Start" program of high priority Wind Energy Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia. To reduce the burden on project developers, these areas will receive advanced environmental reviews by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). If BOEMRE's review does not identify any significant impacts, leases could be available by the end of this year.
That's not all: the Secretaries also announced up to $50.5 million in new funding for projects that support offshore wind energy deployment. The plan includes three solicitations, proposing to award up to $50.5 million over 5 years, to promote offshore wind R&D and eliminate market barriers. Up to $25 million will be available for technology development for wind turbine design tools and hardware. Up to $18 million will be available for studies and research to identify and remove market barriers. Up to $7.5 more million will bne used to fund R&D into wind turbine drivetrains.
The announcement also includes the designation under the "Smart from the Start" program of high priority Wind Energy Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia. To reduce the burden on project developers, these areas will receive advanced environmental reviews by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). If BOEMRE's review does not identify any significant impacts, leases could be available by the end of this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
