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."
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 navigable. Show all posts
Showing posts with label navigable. Show all posts
FERC and microhydro licensing
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Federal energy regulators have ruled that a micro-hydroelectric project proposed in New York cannot be constructed or operated without a license.
The proposed Henson Micro Hydroelectric Project would be located on the West Branch of Onondaga Creek, near Onondaga, New York. It would include an existing 14-foot-high concrete dam, plus new construction including a penstock, a powerhouse, and a 10 kilowatt generating unit. The dam was rebuilt in 2002, and had previously been used to power a grist mill. The project developer, an individual, proposed to use the project power to provide electricity to his home and barn.
In his declaration of intention, the developer described himself and his approach to project development and compliance:
In the Henson project's case, the developer filed a Declaration of Intention on December 18, 2015. That declaration was supplemented; after the second supplement, FERC issued its public notice of the declaration. No protests, comments, or motions to intervene were filed.
On May 10, FERC issued its ruling on the declaration, finding that licensing is required. FERC easily found that the project would not occupy any public lands or reservations of the United States or use surplus water or waterpower from a Federal government dam. It found "insufficient evidence" to determine whether the West Branch of the Onondaga Creek is navigable.
However, FERC found that the West Branch of Onondaga Creek is a headwater or tributary of the Oswego River, a navigable water of the United States. As a result, FERC concluded the project would be located on a "Commerce Clause stream." FERC noted the project would be constructed after 1935.
FERC also concluded that the project would affect interstate commerce through its connection to the interstate grid, relying on precedent that "small hydroelectric projects that are connected to the interstate grid affect interstate commerce by displacing power from the grid, and the cumulative effect of the national class of these small projects is significant." Thus even though the Hanson project's developer proposed using project power for the onsite home and barn, the fact that those buildings were grid-tied drove FERC to conclude that licensing was required.
On this reasoning, FERC concluded that construction, operation, and maintenance would require a license. As an alternative, FERC suggested the developer consider applying for an exemption from licensing as a small hydroelectric power project.
By contrast, another recent FERC decision concluded that a micro-hydro system proposed in Massachusetts did not require licensing, because (among other reasons) neither the project nor the structures it would serve would be grid-tied. Thus whether or not the project and the facilities it serves are grid-tied or off-grid can be an important factor in whether a FERC hydropower license is required.
The proposed Henson Micro Hydroelectric Project would be located on the West Branch of Onondaga Creek, near Onondaga, New York. It would include an existing 14-foot-high concrete dam, plus new construction including a penstock, a powerhouse, and a 10 kilowatt generating unit. The dam was rebuilt in 2002, and had previously been used to power a grist mill. The project developer, an individual, proposed to use the project power to provide electricity to his home and barn.
In his declaration of intention, the developer described himself and his approach to project development and compliance:
Identifying what approvals are necessary is a core step in developing any project. Under section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, a non-federal hydroelectric project must be licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal permit) if it:I would like to point out that I am not a corporation, or a rich man just a simple middle class Joe. I am an hourly employee at AT&T. Although blessed beyond what I actually deserve, I do not have a bunch of money that I could spend. In fact I am using funds recently obtained from a loss of use settlement from the NYS Workers Compensation Board to fund this. I am trying to do the right thing for the environment and save some money on my power bill. I am hoping that we can work this out to everyone’s satisfaction based upon the material and information that I currently have available. Of course, if additional information is required by you folks I will do everything to comply.
(a) is located on a navigable water of the United States;To reduce uncertainty over whether a project will require licensing, a developer may file a Declaration of Intention with the FERC describing the project. Following public notice and an opportunity for protests, comments, and motions to intervene, FERC will rule on the jurisdictional questions raised by the declaration.
(b) occupies lands or reservations of the United States;
(c) utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or
(d) is located on a stream over which Congress has Commerce clause jurisdiction, is constructed or modified on or after August 26, 1935, and affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce.
In the Henson project's case, the developer filed a Declaration of Intention on December 18, 2015. That declaration was supplemented; after the second supplement, FERC issued its public notice of the declaration. No protests, comments, or motions to intervene were filed.
On May 10, FERC issued its ruling on the declaration, finding that licensing is required. FERC easily found that the project would not occupy any public lands or reservations of the United States or use surplus water or waterpower from a Federal government dam. It found "insufficient evidence" to determine whether the West Branch of the Onondaga Creek is navigable.
However, FERC found that the West Branch of Onondaga Creek is a headwater or tributary of the Oswego River, a navigable water of the United States. As a result, FERC concluded the project would be located on a "Commerce Clause stream." FERC noted the project would be constructed after 1935.
FERC also concluded that the project would affect interstate commerce through its connection to the interstate grid, relying on precedent that "small hydroelectric projects that are connected to the interstate grid affect interstate commerce by displacing power from the grid, and the cumulative effect of the national class of these small projects is significant." Thus even though the Hanson project's developer proposed using project power for the onsite home and barn, the fact that those buildings were grid-tied drove FERC to conclude that licensing was required.
On this reasoning, FERC concluded that construction, operation, and maintenance would require a license. As an alternative, FERC suggested the developer consider applying for an exemption from licensing as a small hydroelectric power project.
By contrast, another recent FERC decision concluded that a micro-hydro system proposed in Massachusetts did not require licensing, because (among other reasons) neither the project nor the structures it would serve would be grid-tied. Thus whether or not the project and the facilities it serves are grid-tied or off-grid can be an important factor in whether a FERC hydropower license is required.
FERC holds CO microhydro needs license
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
In an order issued earlier this month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that the developer of a micro-hydropower project proposed in Colorado must obtain a license for the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project's construction, maintenance, and operation. The order illustrates one challenge facing small, distributed hydroelectric projects in the U.S.: a federal regulatory process that at times can treat microhydro projects much like traditional large dams, despite interest in a streamlined permitting process for small projects.
At issue is Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act. It provides that any person intending to construct project works on a non-navigable commerce clause water must file a declaration of their intention to do so with the Commission. Section 23(b) further provides that upon the filing of a Declaration of Intent, the Commission will investigate the proposed project, and, if it finds that the “interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected” by the proposed project, then the person intending to construct the project must obtain a Commission license before starting construction.
Under section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 817(1), a non-federal hydroelectric project must be licensed (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal permit) if it:
In the case of the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project, the Commission found that licensure is required under the fourth prong of Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, which itself has three components.
First, the Commission found that the Patton project would be located on a "Commerce Clause stream." Specifically, the Commission found that Colombine Creek is a headwater or tributary of the South Fork of the Rio Grande, which is a tributary of the Rio Grande River, a navigable water of the United States. Under a 1965 Supreme Court precedent, for purposes of FPA section 23(b)(1), the headwaters and tributaries of navigable rivers are Commerce Clause streams.
Second, the project would be constructed after August 26, 1935.
Third, citing a 1992 opinion from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Commission noted, "It is well settled that small hydroelectric projects that are connected to the interstate grid affect interstate commerce by displacing power from the grid, and the cumulative effect of the national class of these small projects is significant for purposes of the FPA section 23(b)(1)." Thus the Commission concluded that the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project would affect interstate commerce through its connection to the interstate grid.
Based on these conclusions, the Commission found that in accordance with section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, the applicant must obtain a license for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project. The Commission also ruled that no construction or operation of the project may commence until a license has been obtained.
Notably, the Commission was able to reach this conclusion without making a navigability finding for Colombine Creek itself. In particular, the order notes "insufficient evidence to determine whether Colombine Creek is navigable." But because the Commission found licensing to be required on other grounds -- grounds derived from the ultimate navigability of a downstream river -- it did not make a navigability finding for the river reach where the project would be located.
The Commission's order did suggest that an easier path may be available for the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project. In particular, the order notes that the project may be eligible for an exemption from licensing. It suggests that the applicant consider applying for a small hydroelectric power project exemption of 10 megawatts (MW) or less. This more limited approval could enable project development and operation through a more streamlined regulatory processes than that required for a full project license.
Incentives and policy support for microhydro projects are growing. But as the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project case before the FERC illustrates, even small hydropower projects may be subject to federal regulation. For some projects, an exemption may be available, but others may not be able to be developed without a FERC license. Even an exemption can take time and expense to secure, and it can be hard to preduct the outcome of an application for an exemption. How does this dynamic affect the rate of development of U.S. micro-hydropower projects?
At issue is Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act. It provides that any person intending to construct project works on a non-navigable commerce clause water must file a declaration of their intention to do so with the Commission. Section 23(b) further provides that upon the filing of a Declaration of Intent, the Commission will investigate the proposed project, and, if it finds that the “interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected” by the proposed project, then the person intending to construct the project must obtain a Commission license before starting construction.
Under section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 817(1), a non-federal hydroelectric project must be licensed (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal permit) if it:
(a) is located on a navigable water of the United States;On May 11, 2015, as supplemented on November 10, 2015, Steve Patton filed a Declaration of Intention with the Commission concerning the proposed Patton Colorado Hydropower Project. The project would be located on Colombine Creek, a feeder stream to the South Fork of the Rio Grande, near the town of South Fork, Mineral County, Colorado. It would consist of an intake and pipes feeding a gravitation water vortex-type generating unit rated between 2 and 10 kilowatts with 2.5 feet of head, transmission line, and appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would be connected to the interstate electric grid.
(b) occupies lands or reservations of the United States;
(c) utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or
(d) is located on a stream over which Congress has Commerce clause jurisdiction, is constructed or modified on or after August 26, 1935, and affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce.
In the case of the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project, the Commission found that licensure is required under the fourth prong of Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, which itself has three components.
First, the Commission found that the Patton project would be located on a "Commerce Clause stream." Specifically, the Commission found that Colombine Creek is a headwater or tributary of the South Fork of the Rio Grande, which is a tributary of the Rio Grande River, a navigable water of the United States. Under a 1965 Supreme Court precedent, for purposes of FPA section 23(b)(1), the headwaters and tributaries of navigable rivers are Commerce Clause streams.
Second, the project would be constructed after August 26, 1935.
Third, citing a 1992 opinion from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Commission noted, "It is well settled that small hydroelectric projects that are connected to the interstate grid affect interstate commerce by displacing power from the grid, and the cumulative effect of the national class of these small projects is significant for purposes of the FPA section 23(b)(1)." Thus the Commission concluded that the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project would affect interstate commerce through its connection to the interstate grid.
Based on these conclusions, the Commission found that in accordance with section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, the applicant must obtain a license for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project. The Commission also ruled that no construction or operation of the project may commence until a license has been obtained.
Notably, the Commission was able to reach this conclusion without making a navigability finding for Colombine Creek itself. In particular, the order notes "insufficient evidence to determine whether Colombine Creek is navigable." But because the Commission found licensing to be required on other grounds -- grounds derived from the ultimate navigability of a downstream river -- it did not make a navigability finding for the river reach where the project would be located.
The Commission's order did suggest that an easier path may be available for the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project. In particular, the order notes that the project may be eligible for an exemption from licensing. It suggests that the applicant consider applying for a small hydroelectric power project exemption of 10 megawatts (MW) or less. This more limited approval could enable project development and operation through a more streamlined regulatory processes than that required for a full project license.
Incentives and policy support for microhydro projects are growing. But as the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project case before the FERC illustrates, even small hydropower projects may be subject to federal regulation. For some projects, an exemption may be available, but others may not be able to be developed without a FERC license. Even an exemption can take time and expense to secure, and it can be hard to preduct the outcome of an application for an exemption. How does this dynamic affect the rate of development of U.S. micro-hydropower projects?
Restoring old mill hydro sites and FERC licensure
Friday, February 5, 2016
Suppose you own an existing water powered mill complex whose hydromechanical facilities have not been operational for decades. You would like to develop a hydropower project at the site, using the existing dam, headrace, and headgates, plus new equipment including two small generators, penstocks, and appurtenant facilities, to provide electricity to your home and workshop. Do you need a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission?
In the case of the Egnaczak Net Zero Hydro Project proposed for the outlet of the Hoosic River in Cheshire, Massachusetts, the FERC concluded that section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act requires that project's owners to obtain a license for the project's construction, maintenance, and operation. Proposed by Kenneth and Susan Egnaczak, the Egnaczak Net Zero Hydro Project would have a total generating capacity of 10.7 kilowatts.
Pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, a non-federal hydroelectric project must be licensed (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal permit) if it:
First, FERC found that the Egnaczak project is located on a Commerce Clause stream. Under a 1965 Supreme Court ruling, for purposes of Federal Power Act section 23(b)(1), Commerce Clause streams are the headwaters and tributaries of navigable waters of the United States. While FERC declined to determine whether the Hoosic River is navigable at the site of the project, it concluded that downstream segments of the Hoosic are navigable, as is the Hudson River into which the Hoosic flows.
Second, FERC next found that installing new hydroelectric generating capacity constitutes post-1935 construction within the meaning of Federal Power Act section 23(b)(1).
Third, FERC found that the project would offset both electrical and heating needs that would have been otherwise supplied by the interstate grid -- and thus that the project would affect the interests of interstate commerce. A footnote notes, "It is well settled that small hydroelectric projects that are connected to the interstate grid affect interstate commerce by displacing power from the grid, and the cumulative effect of the national class of these small projects is significant for purposes of FPA section 23(b)(1)."
FERC concluded that because the project would be located on a Commerce Clause stream, would be constructed after 1935, and would affect interstate commerce through its connection to the interstate grid, Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act requires Kenneth and Susan Egnaczak to obtain a license for the project's construction, maintenance, and operation. The FERC order also suggests the project may be eligible to obtain an exemption from licensing as a small hydroelectric power project of 10 megawatts or less, and encourages the applicants to investigate the requirements for securing an exemption from licensure.
In the case of the Egnaczak Net Zero Hydro Project proposed for the outlet of the Hoosic River in Cheshire, Massachusetts, the FERC concluded that section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act requires that project's owners to obtain a license for the project's construction, maintenance, and operation. Proposed by Kenneth and Susan Egnaczak, the Egnaczak Net Zero Hydro Project would have a total generating capacity of 10.7 kilowatts.
Pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, a non-federal hydroelectric project must be licensed (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal permit) if it:
(a) is located on a navigable water of the United States;The fourth prong itself has three main elements: project located on a Commerce Clause stream, post-1935 construction or modification, affecting interstate commerce. In this case, FERC concluded that the Egnaczak project satisfied the fourth prong.
(b) occupies lands or reservations of the United States;
(c) utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or
(d) is located on a stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, is constructed or modified on or after August 26, 1935, and affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce.
First, FERC found that the Egnaczak project is located on a Commerce Clause stream. Under a 1965 Supreme Court ruling, for purposes of Federal Power Act section 23(b)(1), Commerce Clause streams are the headwaters and tributaries of navigable waters of the United States. While FERC declined to determine whether the Hoosic River is navigable at the site of the project, it concluded that downstream segments of the Hoosic are navigable, as is the Hudson River into which the Hoosic flows.
Second, FERC next found that installing new hydroelectric generating capacity constitutes post-1935 construction within the meaning of Federal Power Act section 23(b)(1).
Third, FERC found that the project would offset both electrical and heating needs that would have been otherwise supplied by the interstate grid -- and thus that the project would affect the interests of interstate commerce. A footnote notes, "It is well settled that small hydroelectric projects that are connected to the interstate grid affect interstate commerce by displacing power from the grid, and the cumulative effect of the national class of these small projects is significant for purposes of FPA section 23(b)(1)."
FERC concluded that because the project would be located on a Commerce Clause stream, would be constructed after 1935, and would affect interstate commerce through its connection to the interstate grid, Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act requires Kenneth and Susan Egnaczak to obtain a license for the project's construction, maintenance, and operation. The FERC order also suggests the project may be eligible to obtain an exemption from licensing as a small hydroelectric power project of 10 megawatts or less, and encourages the applicants to investigate the requirements for securing an exemption from licensure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
