Allison’s Sister Recording Stories from Kent State

KEVIN FAGAN, San Francisco Chronicle, July 31, 2010

It happened a long time ago in a state on the other side of the country, but the day Ohio National Guardsmen killed four students at Kent State University during an anti-war protest is still a fresh hurt for Laurel Krause.

Her sister, 19-year-old freshman Allison Krause, was one of those killed in what became a tragic touchstone for protests against the Vietnam War. Now, 40 years after the May 4, 1970, shootings that also left nine wounded, Krause has launched a personal project to collect a video history of the event.

The 55-year-old Mendocino County woman will be coming to San Francisco on Aug. 7 and 8 to set up a camera and record the testimonials of anyone who was at the shootings or was directly affected by them. Witnesses, people who were wounded, relatives of victims, teachers, administrators, National Guardsmen – they’re all welcome, she said.

The event will be webcast live from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day on MichaelMoore.com.

‘Truth Tribunal’

Krause, an environment blogger, is calling her project “The Kent State Truth Tribunal.” Her first collection of oral histories – about 70 in all – was recorded in early May at Kent State, when the university was commemorating the 40th anniversary of the killings. After San Francisco she intends to record more recollections in New York City on October 9 and 10.

Co-directing the project with Krause is filmmaker Emily Kunstler, daughter of the late civil rights lawyer William Kunstler.

“Based on what we’ve been told over the years, we think the second-largest group of participants and witnesses to the shootings is in California, and we expect people to come from this state, Washington, Oregon and anywhere else nearby,” Krause said. “We are hoping to get all sides of the story. We want the whole truth to come out about these shootings.”

Public apology

In 1990, then-Ohio Gov. Richard Celeste apologized publicly for the shootings, but nobody was ever officially held accountable for the killings. Varying accounts have been offered over the years of whether the National Guardsmen were ordered to open fire on the anti-war protesters or did so spontaneously.

Krause is convinced the shooting was deliberate. She wants an apology from the federal government, because the U.S. invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam War was what precipitated the protests that led to the shootings.

“Even 40 years later, it’s still a horrible thing for me and my family,” Krause said. “Allison was my only sibling. She wanted to be an art therapist. And I can never, ever see her again.”

Krause intends to give her collection to a library at New York University.

Earlier this year, the shooting site at Kent State was added to the National Register of Historic Places, and the university started a walking tour of it. The school’s library already has more than two floors worth of archives, including 100 oral histories, devoted to the shootings – but its archivists pick no sides in the historical debate, said Cara Gilgenbach, head of special collections and archives.

“There are many varying narratives of what occurred,” she said.

Find out more

To find out more about the tribunal event in San Francisco, and to register to give a testimonial, go to truthtribunal.org.

Read Full Post »

Pacific Northwest Waves are Getting Bigger

msnbc.com, January 27, 2010

Lots has been said about warming temperatures and rising sea levels, but a new study puts the spotlight on a more imminent threat to coastal communities: extreme waves that are growing taller in some parts of the world.

Data from buoys off the Pacific Northwest coast found that since the mid-1970s the height of the biggest waves has increased on average by nearly four inches a year. That’s about 10 feet over that period.

“The waves are getting larger,” said lead author Peter Ruggiero, an assistant geosciences professor at Oregon State University.

And that, he said, means “the rates of erosion and frequency of coastal flooding have increased over the last couple of decades and will almost certainly increase in the future.”

In the study published in the journal Coastal Engineering, Ruggiero and his colleagues report that the reasons are not completely certain.

“Possible causes might be changes in storm tracks, higher winds, more intense winter storms, or other factors,” Ruggiero said. “These probably are related to global warming, but could also be involved with periodic climate fluctuations such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and our wave records are sufficiently short that we can’t be certain yet.”

The team also looked at how high a “100-year event” might be, given that planners use those scenarios in approving development projects. Using the new data set, the researchers  estimated that the biggest waves could get up to 46 feet tall — a 40 percent increase from 1970s estimates of 33 feet.

Ruggiero said that the study reinforces earlier ones showing similar trends off some other coasts, among them the U.S. Southeast Atlantic, the Northeast Pacific and southwest England. On the other hand, areas like the North Sea and the Mediterranean have shown little to no increase.

Double Whammy

Ruggiero said he’s working on a publishing another study that shows the increase in Pacific Northwest wave heights over the last 30 years “has been significantly more important than sea level rise” in terms of flooding and erosion threats to the coast.

“The bottom line,” Ruggiero said, “is that water levels have already increased in the Pacific Northwest due to wave heights and as sea level rise accelerates the region will experience a ‘double whammy’. So it is critical for engineers and planners to consider both processes.”

Both “winners and losers” are expected in terms of beach stability, with some areas gaining sand, but already some negative effects are visible in coastal towns like Neskowin, Ore.

“Neskowin is already having problems with high water levels and coastal erosion,” Ruggiero said.

“Communities are going to have to plan for heavier wave impacts and erosion, and decide what amounts of risk they are willing to take, how coastal growth should be managed and what criteria to use for structures,” he added.

Ruggiero emphasized that another factor for the Pacific Northwest is that a large earthquake could drop the shoreline by several feet, worsening the impact of extreme waves.

That proved to be the case in Sumatra, Indonesia, during the 2004 quake and tsumani, he said, and some of the shoreline there dropped by up to five feet.

Read Full Post »

Obama Moves to Cut Wave Energy Funding

LES BLUMENTHAL, The Bellingham Herald, May 30, 2009

The Obama administration has proposed a 25% cut in the research and development budget for one of the most promising renewable energy sources in the Northwest – wave and tidal energy. At the same time the White House sought an 82% increase in solar power research funding, a 36% increase in wind power funding and a 14% increase in geothermal funding. But it looked to cut wave and tidal research funding from $40 million to $30 million.

The decision to cut funding came only weeks after the Interior Department suggested that wave power could emerge as the leading offshore energy source in the Northwest and at a time when efforts to develop tidal power in Puget Sound are attracting national and international attention. By some estimates, wave and tidal power could eventually meet 10% of the nation’s electricity demand, about the same as hydropower currently delivers.

Some experts have estimated that if only 0.2% of energy in ocean waves could be harnessed, the power produced would be enough to supply the entire world. In addition to Puget Sound and the Northwest coast, tidal and wave generators have been installed, planned or talked about in New York’s East River, in Maine, Alaska, off Atlantic City, N.J., and Hawaii. However, they’d generate only small amounts of power.

The Europeans are leaders when it comes to tidal and wave energy, with projects considered, planned or installed in Spain, Portugal, Scotland, Ireland and Norway. There have also been discussions about projects in South Korea, the Philippines, India and Canada’s Maritime provinces.

The proposed cut, part of the president’s budget submitted to Congress, has disappointed Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. “Wave and tidal power holds great promise in helping to meet America’s long-term energy needs,” Murray said, adding that Washington state is a leader in its development. “It’s time for the Department of Energy to focus on this potential. But playing budget games won’t get the work done.” Murray’s staff said that while $16.8 billion in the recently passed stimulus bill is reserved for renewable energy and energy efficiency, none of it is earmarked for wave and tidal power.

Energy Department spokesman Tom Welch, however, said the Obama administration is asking for 10 times more for tidal and wave power than the Bush administration did. “The trend line is up,” Welch said. “The department is collaborating with industry, regulators and other stakeholders to develop water resources, including conventional hydro.”

Murray sees it differently. Congress appropriated $40 million for the current year, so the Obama administration proposal actually would cut funding by a fourth. Utility officials involved in developing tidal energy sources said the administration’s approach was shortsighted. “We need all the tools in the tool belt,” said Steve Klein, general manager of the Snohomish County Public Utility District. “It’s dangerous to anoint certain sources and ignore others.”

The Snohomish PUD could have a pilot plant using three tidal generators installed on a seabed in Puget Sound in 2011. The tidal generators, built by an Irish company, are 50 feet tall and can spin either way depending on the direction of the tides. The units will be submerged, with 80 feet of clearance from their tops to the water’s surface. They’ll be placed outside of shipping channels and ferry routes. The pilot plant is expected to produce one megawatt of electricity, or enough to power about 700 homes. If the pilot plant proves successful, the utility would consider installing a project that powered 10,000 homes.

“A lot of people are watching us,” Klein said. The Navy, under pressure from Congress to generate 25% of its power from renewable sources by 2025, will install a pilot tidal generating project in Puget Sound near Port Townsend next year.

In Washington state, law requires that the larger utilities obtain 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The law sets up interim targets of 3% by 2012 and 9% by 2016. Most of the attention so far has focused on developing large wind farms east of the Cascade Mountains. Because wind blows intermittently, however, the region also needs a more reliable source of alternative energy.

Tidal and wave fit that need. Also, at least with tidal, the generators would be closer to population centers than the wind turbines in eastern Washington. “The potential is significant and (tidal and wave) could accomplish a large fraction of the renewable energy portfolio for the state,” said Charles Brandt, director of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s marine sciences lab in Sequim.

Read Full Post »

US Senate Bill May Boost Ocean Energy Research

SustainableBusiness.com News, April 30, 2009

A bill introduced in the Senate aims to encourage development of renewable ocean energy.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) today introduced the legislation as a companion to a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Jay Inslee, (D-Wash.), that would authorize as much as $250 million a year to promote ocean research.

The Marine Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2009 and a companion tax provision would expand federal research of marine energy, take over the cost verification of new wave, current, tidal and thermal ocean energy devices, create an adaptive management fund to help pay for the demonstration and deployment of such electric projects and provide a key additional tax incentive.

“Coming from Alaska, where there are nearly 150 communities located along the state’s 34,000 miles of coastline plus dozens more on major river systems, it’s clear that perfecting marine energy could be of immense benefit to the nation,” said Murkowski, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “It simply makes sense to harness the power of the sun, wind, waves and river and ocean currents to make electricity.”

The legislation would:

• Authorize the U.S. Department of Energy to increase its research and development effort. The bill also encourages efforts to allow marine energy to work in conjunction with other forms of energy, such as offshore wind, and authorizes more federal aid to assess and deal with any environmental impacts. 
• Allow for the creation of a federal Marine-Based Energy Device Verification program in which the government would test and certify the performance of new marine technologies to reduce market risks for utilities purchasing power from such projects.
• Authorize the federal government to set up an adaptive management program, and a fund to help pay for the regulatory permitting and development of new marine technologies.
• And a separate bill, likely to be referred to the Senate Finance Committee for consideration, would ensure marine projects benefit from being able to accelerate the depreciation of their project costs over five years–like some other renewable energy technologies currently can do. The provision should enhance project economic returns for private developers

 The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that ocean resources in the United States could generate 252 million megawatt hours of electricity–6.5% of America’s entire electricity generation–if ocean energy gained the same financial and research incentives currently enjoyed by other forms of renewable energy.

“This bill, if approved, will bring us closer to a level playing field so that ocean energy can compete with wind, solar, geothermal and biomass technologies to generate clean energy,” Murkowski said.

Read Full Post »

Wave Energy Not Yet Ready for Prime Time

COLIN SULLIVAN, The New York Times, April 14, 2009

Palo Alto — Technology for tapping ocean waves, tides and rivers for electricity is far from commercial viability and lagging well behind wind, solar and other fledgling power sectors, a panel of experts said last week during a forum here on climate change and marine ecosystems.

While the potential for marine energy is great, ocean wave and tidal energy projects are still winding their way through an early research and development phase, these experts said.

“It’s basically not commercially financeable yet,” said Edwin Feo, a partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, during a conference at Stanford University. “They are still a long ways from getting access to the capital and being deployed, because they are simply immature technologies.”

Ocean and tidal energy are renewable sources that can be used to meet California’s renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent of electricity by 2010. But the industry has been hampered by uncertainty about environmental effects, poor economics, jurisdictional tieups and scattered progress for a handful of entrepreneurs.

Finavera Renewables, based in British Columbia, recently canceled all of its wave projects, bringing to a close what was the first permit for wave power from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And last fall, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) denied Pacific Gas & Electric Co.’s application for a power purchase agreement with Finavera Renewables, citing the technology’s immaturity.

Roger Bedard, head of the Electric Power Research Institute’s wave power research unit, said the United States is at least five and maybe 10 years away from the first commercial project in marine waters. A buoy at a Marine Corps base in Hawaii is the only wave-powered device that has been connected to the power grid so far in the United States. The first pilot tidal project, in New York’s East River, took five years to get a permit from FERC.

Feo, who handles renewable energy project financing at his law firm, says more than 80 ocean, tidal and river technologies are being tested by start-ups that do not have much access to capital or guarantee of long-term access to their resource. That has translated into little interest from the investment community.

“Most of these companies are start-ups,” Feo said. “From a project perspective, that doesn’t work. People who put money into projects expect long-term returns.”

William Douros of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) expressed similar concerns and said agency officials have been trying to sort through early jurisdictional disputes and the development of some technologies that would “take up a lot of space on the sea floor.”

“You would think offshore wave energy projects are a given,” Douros said. “And yet, from our perspective, from within our agency, there are still a lot of questions.”

‘Really exciting times’

But the belief in marine energy is there in some quarters, prompting the Interior Department to clear up jurisdictional disputes with FERC for projects outside 3 miles from state waters. Under an agreement announced last week, Interior will issue leases for offshore wave and current energy development, while FREC will license the projects.

The agreement gives Interior’s Minerals Management Service exclusive jurisdiction over the production, transportation or transmission of energy from offshore wind and solar projects. MMS and FERC will share responsibilities for hydrokinetic projects, such as wave, tidal and ocean current.

Maurice Hill, who works on the leasing program at MMS, said the agency is developing “a comprehensive approach” to offshore energy development. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar himself has been holding regional meetings and will visit San Francisco this week to talk shop as part of that process.

Hill said MMS and the U.S. Geological Survey will issue a report within 45 days on potential development and then go public with its leasing program.

“These next couple of months are really exciting times, especially on the OCS,” he said.

Still, Hill acknowledged that the industry is in an early stage and said federal officials are approaching environmental effects especially with caution.

“We don’t know how they’ll work,” he said. “We’re testing at this stage.”

‘Highly energetic’ West Coast waves

But if projects do lurch forward, the Electric Power Research Institute’s Bedard said, the resource potential is off the charts. He believes it is possible to have 10 gigawatts of ocean wave energy online by 2025, and 3 gigawatts of river and ocean energy up in the same time frame.

The potential is greatest on the West Coast, Bedard said, where “highly energetic” waves pound the long coastline over thousands of miles. Alaska and California have the most to gain, he said, with Oregon, Washington and Hawaii not far behind.

To Feo, a key concern is the length of time MMS chooses to issue leases to developers. He said the typical MMS conditional lease time of two, three or five years won’t work for ocean wave technology because entrepreneurs need longer-term commitments to build projects and show investors the industry is here to say.

“It just won’t work” at two, three or five years, Feo said. “Sooner or later, you have to get beyond pilot projects.”

Hill refused to answer questions about the length of the leases being considered by MMS.

Read Full Post »

Finavera Sinks their own Wave Energy Projects

Publisher’s Note:  Feb 09, 2009 – Not only has Finavera surrendered their Makah Bay license noted below, they also announced surrendering the Humboldt County, California Preliminary Permit to explore wave energy:

“Finavera Renewables has filed applications to surrender its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license for the Makah Bay Wave Energy Pilot Project in Washington and the Humboldt County Preliminary Permit for a proposed wave energy project in California.”

MendoCoastCurrent readers may recall Finavera’s inability to secure CPUC funding for the Humboldt project; noted below capitalization, financial climate as key reasons in these actions.

MendoCoastCurrent, February 6, 2009

Today Finavera Renewables surrendered their Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Makah Bay, Washington wave energy project license, commenting that the Makah Bay Finavera project “never emerged from the planning stages.”

And “due to the current economic climate and the restrictions on capital necessary to continue development of this early-stage experimental Project, the Project has become uneconomic.  Efforts by Finavera to transfer the license were not successful.  Therefore, Finavera respectfully requests that the <FERC> Commission allow it to surrender its license for the Project. ”

Back in early 2007, Finavera’s Makah Bay project looked like it would become the first U.S. and west coast project deployment of wave energy devices.  And this project also had a unique status based on Native American Indian land/coastal waters, so the rules of FERC, MMS were different due to sovereign status.

Then AquaBuoy, Finavera’s premier wave energy device, sank off the Oregon coast due to a bilge pump failure in late October 2007.  

Recently noted was Finavera’s comment that they are currently focusing their renewable energy efforts toward wind energy projects closer to their homebase in British Columbia, Canada and in Ireland.

Read Full Post »

FERC Chief Resigning

MendoCoastCurrent, January 7, 2009

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher today issued the following statement:

Today I announce my intention to step down as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), effective January 20, 2009. Although my term as commissioner does not end until 2012, I will also immediately begin to recuse myself from FERC business, as I explore other career opportunities.  

Read Full Post »

Wave Energy Pilot with Grays Harbor Off Rhode Island

TED NESI, Providence Business News, December 5, 2008

The list of suitors lining up to develop renewable energy projects off Rhode Island’s coastal waters is getting longer.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has begun reviewing a permit application from Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Co., a year-old company based in Seattle, to build 100 large towers that would generate electricity from wave energy and wind turbines. The towers, which Grays Harbor says would use the same support technology as offshore oil platforms, would be located in a 96-square-mile area of federal waters 12 to 25 miles to the south of Block Island. Wind turbines could be placed on top of the towers, although that would require a separate application process. The company estimates the total cost of the project would be between $400 million and $600 million.

Grays Harbor asserts that the structures, known as Oscillating Water Columns, “will be visible from shore for only a few days a year under extremely clear visibility conditions.”

The company also says it will not need to utilize the entire 96 square miles designated in its federal permit. Instead, it will determine which section of that area would be the most conducive to wind-energy generation.

News of the proposed project comes as state officials continue work on an Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the coastal waters off Rhode Island – a project undertaken in part to facilitate permitting of a $1.5-billion offshore wind farm backed by Gov. Donald L. Carcieri. However, the project proposed by Grays Harbor is outside the area to be covered by the Ocean SAMP.

Rhode Island officials said the company’s application took them by surprise: Grover Fugate, executive director of the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council, found out about it when the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) forwarded a copy of the document to him as a courtesy.

“It was news to us, when we heard from MMS,” said Laura Ricketson-Dwyer, spokeswoman for CRMC. “But that’s not totally uncommon,” since the CRMC does not have jurisdiction over federal waters. “FERC did not have to notify us.”

The electricity would be transmitted from the converters into an offshore substation, and then the power would be sent to Block Island via a single transmission cable buried about three feet beneath the sea floor. Part of that energy would be used on Block Island, which has some of the highest electricity costs in the country, and the rest would be transmitted to the mainland, coming ashore in the Narragansett village of Jerusalem.

Grays Harbor says it is already in negotiations “with a consortium of local utilities and companies” for them to purchase electricity from the project, and says existing overhead cables could handle the additional load it creates.

Although local officials have doubts about the prospects for wave energy here, Grays Harbor says prior research has given the company confidence it could work in the area. “The site proposed therefore is not speculative,” Grays Harbor president W. Burton Hamner wrote in a letter to FERC Secretary Magalie Salas. “It is the best place for the only technology package we believe will work in that region.” Hamner’s company cites a 2004 study published by the Electric Power Research Institute that said a 100-megawatt wave energy project would be competitive with a 100-megawatt wind farm. But that study looked at wave-energy resources in Massachusetts, not Rhode Island, and Grays Harbor acknowledges in its permit that “Rhode Island wave energy is less than [in] Massachusetts.”

Grays Harbor is specifically applying for a preliminary permit from FERC, which would allow the company to do in-depth research on the project for three years. From there, the company would apply for a pilot project permit, which would allow it to build a 5-megawatt demonstration version of the project. If the pilot project is successful, the company would apply for a standard 30-year FERC permit to build the full-scale development. If all were to go as Grays Harbor hopes, the company expects to have the 5-megawatt demonstration project up and running in 2011, with the full project to follow in 2016.

Grays Harbor cited two issues that could hamper the project: One is the structures’ possible impact on navigation lanes, although the company downplayed the likelihood of that being a problem. The other is the project’s possible impact on fishermen.

“There is no question that where there are wave-energy systems, recreational and commercial fishing will be affected,” the company says in its application. “This is unavoidable because of the conflicting use of the ocean space.” To reduce the project’s impact on fisheries, Grays Harbor said it is considering turning the wave structures into “artificial reefs … that can support fish and other marine organisms.”

The public has until January 28, 2009 to comment on the proposal at the commission’s web site.  The permit application for the Rhode Island offshore wave energy project was filed by Grays Harbor on October 22 and processed by FERC on November 28.

On the same day it submitted its application to develop the Block Island project, Grays Harbor filed applications for nearly identical projects off Cape Cod, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and San Francisco and Ventura, Calif.

And in July, the company was granted a preliminary FERC permit for a similar project in Washington state. “Our intention in applying for nearly identical projects in several sites is to achieve significant economics of scale in site evaluation and to help federal agencies develop effective agreements regarding management of ocean renewable-energy projects,” Hamner wrote in his letter to Salas.

But all the projects depend in part on the outcome of a bureaucratic turf war between two federal agencies:

• The MMS, which was granted jurisdiction over most offshore energy projects by a 2005 federal energy law to the MMS, but which is still completing its final regulations for offshore projects.
• And the FERC, which already has jurisdiction over inland hydroelectric projects, and this fall asserted its right to review and permit wave-energy projects as well.

Unsurprisingly, Grays Harbor has sided with FERC and agreed that the commission has authority over wave-energy projects. But the company also said the MMS still has jurisdiction over leasing the area in question – an issue the FERC has promised to work out.

In its permit application, Grays Harbor promised to work closely with state and local authorities. The company raised the prospect of establishing public development authorities with area communities to establish co-ownership of the project, and also says it “will develop a Settlement Agreement with stakeholders.”

Grays Harbor also pledged to hire local workers for the project, if possible. “The Providence area has capabilities for manufacturing wave energy converters and every attempt will be made to locally construct the machinery needed for the project,” the company says in its application.

Ricketson-Dwyer, the CRMC spokeswoman, said she is not surprised to see more companies moving quickly to develop ocean-energy projects. “People are – no pun intended – entering the waters here and getting into this.”

The CRMC plans to keep an eye on what happens over the next few weeks, she said, adding: “It’s really to early for us to even know if we have any role in any of this.” Meanwhile, Ricketson-Dwyer said, the proposal underlines the need to finish the state’s Ocean SAMP, in order to streamline the permitting process for offshore energy projects.

Read Full Post »

Concerns Emerge About Environmental Effects of Wave Energy

MICHELLE MA, Seattle Times, November 17, 2008

What started out as a mad dash to extract energy from the ocean’s waves and tides has slowed to a marathoner’s pace — complete with a few water breaks and sprained ankles along the way.

In the past three years, more than 100 preliminary permits have been issued nationally for wave and tidal energy projects, and nearly 100 more are pending approval. But only one has won a license to operate — a small wave energy development off Washington’s northwest coast.

That project is still awaiting state and federal permits, and its British Columbia-based developer, Finavera Renewables, doesn’t know when the first devices will go in the water. It doesn’t help that a wave power buoy the company was testing off the Oregon coast unexpectedly sank last year.

Tapping the power of waves and tidal currents to generate electricity is promoted as one of many promising alternatives to the fossil fuels that contribute to global warming.

But no one knows exactly how the technologies will behave in the water, whether animals will get hurt, or if costs will pencil out. The permitting process is expensive and cumbersome, and no set method exists for getting projects up and running.

“The industry is really young, and everything is hodgepodged right now,” said Jim Thomson, an oceanographer at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Lab who is involved in tidal research.

A new report that collected findings from dozens of scientists raises concerns about the impact wave energy developments could have on the ocean and its critters. Wave energy buoys could alter the food chain or disrupt migrations, the report says.

Still, developers, regulators and researchers are moving forward. A 2.25-megawatt project off the coast of Portugal went on line this fall, becoming the world’s first commercial wave energy development in operation. It can supply 1,500 households with electricity.

The first commercial wave energy park in the U.S. could go in off Reedsport, Ore., within the next two years.

Tidal energy has yet to go commercial, but devices have been tested in Ireland and Canada. Turbines have been placed in New York’s East River, and a demonstration project is planned for the Bay of Fundy off Northeastern U.S.

In the Northwest, the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) has narrowed its search for tidal power sites in Puget Sound, although the PUD doesn’t expect to have a test project in the water for another two years.

Race to develop

Dozens of developers have staked claim to plots in the ocean and in waterways that could provide wave and tidal energy. But despite the jostle for space, getting projects off dry land has proved difficult.

Wave power generators use the up-and-down motion of the ocean’s swells to produce electricity. Tidal generators act like underwater windmills, spinning as the tides move in and out.

To get small projects in the water quicker federal regulators recently created a five-year pilot license for tidal and wave developments. That’s meant to help developers gather data they need to launch future projects, said Federal Energy Regulatory Commission spokeswoman Celeste Miller.

Yet even with a more streamlined process, no one has applied for the pilot license, Miller said. Finavera received its license for the 1-megawatt Makah Bay wave project before this option became available.

Given the unknowns in a young industry, it’s not surprising projects are taking longer than some developers would like, said Myke Clark, senior vice president of business development for Finavera.

His company encountered another hurdle when Pacific Gas and Electric’s agreement to buy power from a planned Finavera wave energy project off California was rejected last month by the state’s Public Utilities Commission.

Regulators said the rates were too high and the buoy technology not yet ready.

Clark said the decision wouldn’t affect Finavera’s Makah Bay project.

Research under way

Researchers from the University of Washington and Oregon State University hope that a new national marine renewable energy research center in the Northwest will help answer questions about tidal and wave energy.

A federal grant provides $1.25 million annually for up to five years. The UW will continue research on tidal energy in Puget Sound, while OSU will focus on wave energy.

“The feeling is that a lot of questions being asked now are only questions that can be answered with a responsible pilot [project],” said Brian Polagye, who is pursuing his doctorate in mechanical engineering at the UW.

Locally, researchers want to see where marine life in Puget Sound congregates and to create a standard way to evaluate sites around the country to determine which would be good candidates for tidal energy projects.

Admiralty Inlet, between Whidbey Island and Port Townsend, is the likely spot for the Snohomish County PUD’s small test project set to launch at least two years from now, said Craig Collar, the PUD’s senior manager of energy resource development.

The inlet’s tides are strong, and the area is large enough to accommodate a tidal project without interfering with other activities such as diving and ferry traffic.

Finavera wants to install four wave energy buoys in Makah Bay in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary to test its technology. Developers also plan to monitor the project for effects on wildlife and shoreline habitat, keeping an eye on federally listed species such as the marbled murrelet, a small bird that dives for food.

Finavera doesn’t intend to continue the project after its five-year license expires. Still, if the company can negotiate a purchasing agreement with the Clallam County Public Utility District, homes in the area could use the wave generated power while the project is in the water, Clark said.

The Makah Nation wants to see what effect the project might have on the environment before deciding whether wave energy is a viable long-term option, said Ryland Bowechop, tourism and economic-development planner for the tribe.

The buoys would sit just offshore from the tribal headquarters in Neah Bay.

“We are always concerned because our livelihood is the ocean,” Bowechop said.

Concerns linger

The environmental effects of wave and tidal energy are largely unknown and require more studies, dozens of scientists concluded after meeting a year ago at OSU’s Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, Ore.

The group was concerned that electromagnetic cables on the ocean floor could affect sea life, and that buoys could interfere with whale and fish migration.

Large buoys might actually attract more fish, but the marine ecosystem could be altered if more predators move in. Buoys also could disrupt natural currents and change how sediment is moved. Shorelines might be affected as energy is taken from the waves.

Even if environmental concerns are checked, costs to extract the power remain high. Wave energy costs at least 20 cents per kilowatt hour to generate, compared with 4 cents per kilowatt hour for wind power, said Annette von Jouanne, leader of OSU’s wave energy program. Wind energy used to be much more expensive 20 years ago.

In comparison, coal-generated power costs about 5 cents per kilowatt hour, and power from dams can be as low as 3 cents, said Roger Bedard, ocean energy leader with the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute.

Tidal energy costs are harder to determine because there aren’t any projects trying to sell electricity, Bedard said.

Fishermen have their own worries. They fear that wave and tidal projects could further reduce access to fishing grounds, said Dale Beasley, a commercial fisherman in Ilwaco, Pacific County, and president of the Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association.

“There’s so many things coming at the ocean right now,” he said.

Beasley says the industry wants a say in how wave and tidal energy projects are developed.

“Coastal communities are going to have to figure out a way to deal with this, and if they don’t, the character of the coast will change dramatically,” he said.

Read Full Post »

Race to Turn Waves, Tides & Currents into Electricity is On

ISABEL ORDONEZ, Dow Jones News Service, October 6, 2008

Surfers aren’t the only ones itching to jump in the water and catch some big waves.

Dozens of companies, from oil giant Chevron Corp. to smaller firms like Ocean Power Technologies Inc., have invested in or are evaluating the potential of technology designed to harness electrical energy from waves, tides and currents.

Ocean Power, of Pennington, N.J., and Verdant Power Inc., of New York, are among the firms that already have built or plan to build wave and tidal power stations in oceans or adjacent waters. Others, such as Chevron, are seeking government approval to study the feasibility of such projects. All are in a race to harness what some scientists contend is among the nation’s largest unexploited sources of renewable energy.

“Chevron is monitoring ocean energy technology and considering how it might be integrated into our operations,” says Kim Copelin, a spokeswoman for the San Ramon, Calif., company, which is seeking a permit from the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission to start researching a possible tidal-power project in Alaska’s Cook Inlet.

These projects represent a rebirth of interest in the ocean and other waters as a source of energy, which intensified during the 1970s oil crises but fizzled in the 1980s when the price of oil dropped. Now, with concerns growing about global climate change, foreign oil dependency and rising commodity prices, companies and governments are taking another look.

Ocean-energy technology is in its infancy, and big hurdles to its widespread use remain. Among them: figuring out how to economically produce power on a large scale without harming marine life, and navigating a permitting process that companies say is lengthy and cumbersome but that some government agencies say is necessary to protect the environment.

Despite the hurdles, supporters believe there is an abundance of energy sitting off the U.S. coast just waiting to be tapped. While the amount of energy currently being produced by ocean-energy projects is minuscule, the Electric Power Research Institute — the research arm of U.S. utility companies — estimates that oceans eventually could supply about 10% of the electricity consumed in the U.S.

“Oceans are an enormous resource that should be seriously considered as part of the U.S. renewable energy portfolio,” says Sean O’Neill, president of the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, a national trade organization. Oceans “have waves, tides, currents, even offshore winds that don’t need to compete for precious land resources to generate plenty of electricity.”

Predictability of Tides

Companies are using a variety of devices to create electricity from moving water.

Ocean Power, for example, uses a network of buoys. The up-and-down movement of the ocean’s waves is converted into hydraulic pressure by pistons and cylinders located inside the buoys. That pressure spins a turbine, which turns a generator. The resulting electricity is sent ashore via an underwater cable. The company has a contract with the U.S. Navy to install and test its devices off the Marine Corps base at Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. It also is working with a utility company in California and Oregon to build four wave-power stations, pending federal approvals.

Verdant Power, meanwhile, produces power for a supermarket and parking lot using six underwater turbines in New York’s East River. The movement of water from the river’s tides turns blades on the turbines, creating a rotary motion that runs a generator. The company says it has a list of customers waiting for it to get the necessary approval to start generating electricity on a larger scale.

The prime territory in the U.S. to harvest energy from wave power is in the Pacific Ocean, off the coasts of Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and northern and central California. The optimum spot for tapping into ocean currents, which are steady flows of water going in a prevailing direction, is off the shores of south Florida, while parts of the Alaska coastline, including the upper Cook Inlet around Anchorage, have some of the strongest tides in the world. The edges of Maine, New York, San Francisco and Washington state’s Puget Sound also look to be ideal for tidal energy, researchers say.

Tidal energy is drawing special interest because, though intermittent, it is more predictable than wind, solar or wave energy. While those energy sources rely on the weather, tides depend on the position of the sun, Earth and moon and gravitational forces that can be accurately predicted years in advance, says Roger Bedard, ocean energy leader at the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute.

Regulatory Jockeying

New York, Maine, Alaska and other coastal states are investing in ocean energy projects, as is the U.S. Department of Energy, which spent $7.5 million in fiscal 2008 and could spend as much as $35 million in fiscal 2009 to help advance the viability and cost competitiveness of ocean water driven power systems.

“We need everything we can get to try to address energy supply issues,” says Steven Chalk, deputy assistant secretary for renewable energy at the Department of Energy. “If we have a true supply diversification, we will be less vulnerable to, say, rising oil prices.”

But proponents of ocean energy say private investment is being deterred by what they call an overly lengthy and complicated permitting process. Companies sometimes need more than 20 local, state and federal regulatory permits to start ocean energy research, says Mr. O’Neill of the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition. As an example, Verdant Energy says it has spent more than $2 million on environmental research and waited more than five years to get to the final stages of obtaining the permits it needs to install more underwater turbines and produce electricity on a larger scale.

“In a perfect world, the U.S. will have a fast way to deal with new emerging technologies that allow companies to get into the water and start testing how efficient the equipment is and to measure the environmental impacts,” says Mr. O’Neill. “But that is just a dream.”

The projects facing the biggest logjams are those proposed for federal waters on the outer continental shelf, which generally begins three miles beyond the U.S. shoreline. Companies interested in generating energy from that part of the ocean need approval from both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — the U.S. agency that regulates interstate natural gas and electricity transactions — and the U.S. Minerals Management Service, a branch of the Interior Department that oversees offshore energy development.

An effort to end what many companies say is a jurisdictional overlap was unsuccessful, and last month, the Minerals Management Service unveiled a set of proposed permitting rules, including environmental regulations, that it expects to have in place by later this year.

Mark Robinson, director of the office of energy projects at FERC, says his agency believes the Minerals Management Service’s proposed process is too long and costly and “will work to the disadvantage of an industry” that is trying to get on its feet.

The Minerals Management Service says that it is still evaluating comments on its proposed rules but that it has two main responsibilities when it comes to offshore energy production: securing the nation’s energy resources and protecting the environment. “We take both very seriously,” says David Smith, the agency’s deputy chief of public affairs. “We work to try to find that balance.”

In the meantime, the Minerals Management Service is granting interim leases that allow companies to test the energy potential in various spots in the ocean. More than 10 companies have obtained interim leases to begin work along the coasts of Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Florida and California. Still, there are no guarantees that those businesses will be able to obtain approval to work the patches of ocean they are researching.

Moving Too Fast?

Ocean-energy projects are also making surfers and fishermen nervous. Those groups say they want to be consulted on any proposed projects because the impact on ocean recreation, ecology, public safety and fishing remains mostly unknown.

“What we want is that any company who wants to put a project in waters used by commercial fishermen contact the local fishermen group and work with them so they don’t harm the fishing industry,” says Linda Buell of the Fisherman’s Advisory Committee of Tillamook, a large coastal county in Oregon. “Nothing right now is written into the rules.”

Marine scientists, meanwhile, want more research done on the unintended consequences that large ocean-energy structures could have on marine organisms. These structures could possibly conflict with migratory pathways of great whales, says George Boehlert, director of the Hatfield Marine Science Center at Oregon State University. “But this is largely unknown,” he says.

Read Full Post »

US Wave Energy Having Temporary Setbacks

Platts/McGraw-Hill, August 2008

Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) is looking to generate power from Scottish waters as well. Nasdaq-listed OPT reported July 28 that it had signed a berth agreement with the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) in Orkney, Scotland. OPT can, under the berth agreement, deploy and operate its unit as well as hook up to EMEC’s dedicated 2-MW subsea cable connected to the Scottish grid and will sell power to the grid up to the unit’s 2-MW capacity limit, using the EMEC berth for other deployments.

Across the Atlantic, wave energy development in the United States, another country looking to assume market leadership, suffered a temporary setback in late June 2008 when Finavera Renewables scuttled plans for a wave energy project off the Oregon coast to focus on developing the technology needed for other projects.

Finavera let preliminary permits granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) expire by not filing required reports. FERC cancelled Finavera’s preliminary permit on June 26 for the proposed 100-MW Coos Country project, saying the company had failed to file six-month progress reports on studies that the company was required to perform for the project to move forward. The preliminary permit allowed for further site assessment and so-called micro siting to determine the best location for the proposed wave park, and allowed studies on such topics as oceanographic conditions, marine mammal resources, shoreline conditions, and public safety. “We had to focus some of our resources on a couple [of] other high priority projects,” said Myke Clark, vice president of corporate development for Finavera.

These include a planned 2-MW wave energy initiative at Makah Bay, California, which has already secured a long-term power purchase contract in December 2007 with California utility Pacific Gas & Electric – the first commercial PPA for a wave project in North America. In developing the new technology, engineers are tackling such challenges as the intermittency of waves and how to produce electricity from new types of equipment cheaply enough to make it profitable, he said. “We’re definitely in an intensive phase right now in terms of this technology,” Clark said, adding that the company is cancelling the project because “we need to focus a bit more on the technology development.”

The marine energy industry in America faces policy as well as technology obstacles.

As FERC promotes development of hydrokinetic energy and companies seize opportunities, the agency has issued preliminary permits that allow environmental assessments and other studies to be performed – only to have its regulatory authority questioned by other federal agencies.

The US Department of the Interior in April 2008 asserted that FERC lacked the authority to issue leases for hydrokinetic projects on the Outer Continental Shelf and called on FERC to rehear its decisions to issue two preliminary permits for wave electricity projects being considered off the coast of California.

FERC issued a license to Finavera in December 2007 for a 1-MW wave energy project in Clallam County, Washington, but several parties sought rehearing of the decision, claiming FERC violated the Clean Water Act by issuing a license before the state ecology department had issued a water quality certificate and other state permits and authorizations. In a March 20 order FERC said the rehearing requests are moot since the state issued the necessary permits to Finavera in February 2008. FERC said that its initial order was a conditional license that did not authorize construction or installation of facilities and “expressly stated that no such authority would be granted until Finavera obtained all necessary authorizations.”

The US wave energy industry received a boost in late July 2008, though, when the US Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that regulates offshore energy development, said it intends to issue leases for thirteen alternative energy research projects in the federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, including wave-energy projects off the California coast.

Read Full Post »

FERC Grants Washington Coast Studies for Wind & Wave Energy

RACHEL THOMSON, The Daily World, August 5, 2008

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued a preliminary permit to grant the Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Co. the exclusive right to conduct a feasibility study for generating power from wind and wave energy on a 28-mile stretch of the Pacific Coast from Ocean Shores to Grayland over the next three years. The permit, issued August 1, 2008, does not authorize any construction.

The project foresees as many as 90 260-foot tall steel wind turbines, as well as wave energy converters to convert ocean waves and wind into a renewable source of energy and could supply enough energy to power the entire Olympic Peninsula and make Grays Harbor one of the largest producers of renewable energy in the world, according to Burton Hamner, president of Hydrovolts, Inc.—the creator of the Grays Harbor Energy Co. Hamner also said the project has the potential to create numerous jobs within the county because the renewable energy equipment would be manufactured locally.

“The ocean off of Washington has the potential to provide all the electricity needed for the western half of the state by 2025,” Hamner said. “We are leading the investigation how to make this a reality and encourage everyone interested in locally-generated clean power to learn more about the possibilities.”

The feasibility study will seek to find out if the turbines would affect gray whale migration patterns and flight patterns of birds, according to Hamner. Hamner said the study will also examine whether or not the locations of the turbines could limit the areas in which fisherman can fish.

Hamner said a cost for completing the project has not been determined, but the feasibility study could cost upward of $500,000. Funding would come from state and federal grants as well as from the Bonneville Power Administration, he said.

Even after the feasibility study is completed, it would take about four years to begin construction, Hamner said.

Read Full Post »

Pacific Coast Governors Embark on Ocean Action Plan

Environmental News Service, July 29, 2008

The governors of California, Oregon and Washington Tuesday announced the details of their plan to address ocean and coastal management issues such as polluted runoff, oil spills and marine garbage along the West Coast.

The West Coast Governors’ Ocean Action Plan is the result of a 2006 agreement signed by the three governors that established a long-term partnership to tackle obstacles facing the Pacific Ocean and its coastal communities.

The three states will work together on 26 actions. They promised to advocate for stricter ocean going vessel emission standards, prevent the introduction of invasive species, explore the feasibility of offshore alternative ocean energy development, improve ocean research, increase ocean education and prevent and respond to offshore oil spills, among other efforts.

Each action within the plan contains benchmarks and a timeframe for action. The governors have formally committed to report on the status of actions at the end of two years.

“This agreement is another key step in our aggressive efforts to maintain clean water and beaches along our coast,” said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, speaking with his fellow governors via satellite.

“I believe our commitment to working together and putting this plan into action will help effectively tackle critical issues up and down the West Coast,” he said, “ensuring a healthy ocean environment for current and future generations.”

Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon views the effort as another successful regional compact. “Just as we’ve seen with the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, collaboration on complex natural resource issues leads to improved management, inspires innovation and ensures a healthier environment. Together, we can sustain our marine resources and the communities that depend upon them.”

“While Washington is making significant strides with state initiatives such as the Puget Sound Partnership, the crisis facing salmon this year is an example of why we must address these issues together as a region,” said Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington. “Our waters know no boundaries.”

“This plan commits us to combining our resources and ideas, and prioritizes restoring and maintaining the health of our marine and coastal waters to ensure a sustainable future,” she said.

California, Oregon and Washington have worked closely with key federal agencies as well as ocean users, academic institutions, the public, tribes, and other state and regional entities to develop the plan and will continue to collaborate with these groups to accomplish the tasks identified in the plan.

The three governors sent a joint letter to Congress asking for $5 million in federal support for implementation of the action plan. Congress has provided funding and support for similar regional ocean initiatives, such as the Gulf of Mexico Alliance.

To support the states’ agreement, a Federal Working Group, co-led by the U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has been established and will work with the states in implementing the actions.

The action plan commits the three states to collaborate with each other and federal partners on seven priority areas related to ocean protection:

• Ensuring clean coastal waters and beaches;
• Protecting and restoring healthy ocean and coastal habitats;
• Promoting the effective implementation of ecosystem-based management of our ocean and coastal resources;
• Reducing adverse impacts of offshore development;
• Increasing ocean awareness and literacy among our citizens;
• Expanding ocean and coastal scientific information, research and monitoring; and
• Fostering sustainable economic development throughout our diverse coastal communities.

Read Full Post »

Ecology Challenges FERC for Bypassing Environmental Reviews of Energy Projects

Press Release from the Washington State Dept. of Ecology, March 15, 2008

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) today filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to protect the state’s role in federal licensing procedures for energy projects. The petition asks the court to clarify federal law regarding a recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decision.

In December, FERC sidestepped the established licensing procedure by granting a conditioned license to Finavera Renewables, superseding decisions from other federal and state agencies with authority in the federal licensing process. Finavera proposes a wave energy project at Makah Bay off the Washington coast.

FERC denied Ecology’s initial appeal of the Finavera conditioned license in March.

Ecology argues that federal law does not allow FERC to offer a conditioned license in advance of obtaining input and consideration from the other agencies with a regulatory role in the licensing process. Today’s petition would permit the federal court to determine if FERC’s action is consistent with federal law. Ecology requests the court confirm the existing requirements of federal law by declaring that FERC does not have authority to issue conditioned licenses.

“One of Ecology’s concerns is providing a straightforward process of licensing and ensuring applicants are not given false expectations that their projects have all of the approvals to move forward when they do not,” said Ecology program manager Gordon White. “This new policy by FERC has the strong potential to confuse and even lengthen the process for applicants.”

Ecology has responsibility under the federal Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act to authorize that project proposals can be undertaken without harming water quality or sensitive shoreline areas. The agency reviews applications and can write conditions into the approvals to ensure any potential impacts are avoided or minimized.

Historically, agencies with responsibility for protecting water quality, shorelines, fish and other environmental resources review and decide upon applications before FERC issues a final license. That did not happen in this instance.

FERC’s role is to grant a final license that incorporates state and federal laws and conditions after a thorough review by agencies charged with upholding those regulations. Under its newly issued policy, FERC says it plans to consider amendments to its conditioned licenses. However, contrary to existing law, it will not guarantee that an amended version will include all the necessary conditions to protect the environment identified by other agencies.

White says changing the sequence of approvals would set a dangerous precedent for the applicant, interested citizens and the environment.

“Without FERC’s guarantee that the final license will include environmental protections, its new policy on conditioned licensing will be a major concern for us,” White explained. “Applicants deserve to understand what protections they must build into their projects, and the process we have been using gives them that certainty.”

Ecology gave approval for Finavera’s proposed wave energy project with conditions to protect water quality and environmental resources. The agency supports the development of alternative energy sources.

Once receiving the petition, the District Court will determine the schedule for the remaining court process such as filing opening briefs, receiving supporting or opposing briefs and hearing arguments. The court typically takes a few months to complete this whole process.

Read Full Post »

Let Us Be Together in This

This is an older FERC map showing detail of Oregon & Washington best.

Read Full Post »

FERC Gives the Green Light to Makah Wave Energy Project

From the Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant, Offshore Energy Renewable Law Blog

When we last checked in on the status of the the first ever conditional license issued by FERC for a wave energy project (Finavera’s 1.4 MW, 4 buoy Makah Bay Offshore Wave Pilot), several parties had challenged FERC’s decision. Two Washington state agencies argued that FERC lacked the power to issue a license without a Section 401 water quality certificate (WQC) and a Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) certification from the state authorizing the project. And the Makah Tribe challenged FERC’s finding that the Olympia Coast Marine Sanctuary is a reservation which would give NOAA mandatory conditioning authority under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act.

Typically, FERC can take up to a year to resolve rehearing requests, but here, FERC resolved the parties’ challenges in just two months with the issuance of this order. Accounting for FERC’s quick action is the fact that the state agencies eventually issued a WQC and CZMA certification during the pendency of their appeal, thereby rendering their challenges moot.

By way of background, on December 21, 2007, FERC issued a conditional license for the Makah Pilot Wave Project. FERC stated that the license would become final only when Finavera, the licensee, received the required WQC and CZMA certifications from Washington State. On January 21, 2008, the state agencies sought rehearing of FERC’s order, arguing that FERC was precluded from taking any action on the license until the state certifications issued. But on February 28, 2008, the Department of Ecology issued a CZMA certification and a WQC. FERC amended the conditional license to incorporate the terms and conditions contained in the CZMA certification and the WQC. Because the necessary certifications were issued, FERC found that the state’s argument that the certifications are a prerequisite to license issuance were moot. Nevertheless, FERC maintained that its issuance of a conditioned license did not violate the CZMA or the CWA because FERC expressly provided that the license would not authorize any activity that would trigger the requirements of either of these statutes.

As to Makah’s objections, FERC agreed that the submerged lands within the marine sanctuary where the project would be sited were not a reservation within the meaning of the Federal Power Act. FERC concluded that the state of Washington held title to the submerged lands, while the definition of reservation under the FPA required a federal ownership interest. Because the sanctuary lands are not a reservation, NOAA did not have the power to proposed mandatory conditions in the license under Section 4(e) of the FPA. In any event, FERC decided to adopt all but two of NOAA’s measures, minimizing the impact of denying NOAA mandatory conditioning authority. However, now that FERC has concluded that the project lands are state owned, Finavera must obtain the right to use these state owned lands before it can construct the project.

FERC’s incorporation of the state certifications and all but two of NOAA’s proposed recommendations into the license makes it less likely that these entities will appeal the license. Still, even with a license issued (and assuming no appeals), it’s unlikely that we’ll see the project in the water anytime soon – in addition to obtaining authorization to use project lands, the license also requires Finavera to prepare and file a variety of plans for monitoring electronic magnetic fields (EMF) and water quality and preventing marine entanglement. And all of this will take time.

Read Full Post »

Troubled Seas: Washington DOE Challenges FERC License to Makah Wave Energy

ALYSSA MOIR, Marten Law Group, January 30, 2008

The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) took the unusual step this month of challenging a decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to issue a license for a wave energy project on the grounds that FERC had approved the project prior to having received certification from the State of Washington that the project complies with state environmental laws. The project, to be constructed in the Pacific Ocean just off Washington’s coast, appeared to clear a major hurdle in December, 2007 when FERC granted its first-ever wave project license to Finavera Renewables, Inc. of Vancouver, British Columbia. Ecology is now requesting reconsideration of that decision.

Background

The Finavera project consists of four large wave buoys anchored three miles from shore that would produce one megawatt of electricity (enough to supply about 150 homes each year), transmitted to land by an undersea transmission line. The aquatic portion of the project is within Washington State waters, the federal Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and the Washington State Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge. The land portion of the project is within the Makah Indian Nation’s reservation.

Under the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), any FERC licensing decision must incorporate Ecology’s certification that the project is consistent with state environmental regulations. Specifically, Section 401 of the CWA requires that applicants seeking a license from a federal agency such as FERC, for any activity that may result in a discharge into navigable waters, must first receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the state that the proposed discharge will meet the state’s water quality standards and other aquatic protection regulations. The state may impose conditions on the certification of a project to assure compliance with various provisions of the CWA and with “any other appropriate requirement of State law.” Such conditions become mandatory conditions of the federal license, and cover both the construction and the operation of the proposed project. The state has one year to complete its certification review.

Similarly, under the CZMA, a federal agency cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state’s coastal zone without a determination that the project is consistent with the state’s coastal zone management program (CZMP). In Washington, the CZMP covers the state’s 15 coastal counties as well as activities outside those counties that may impact coastal resources. Any federal project within the CZMP must comply with six state laws: The Shoreline Management Act, the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”), the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and the Ocean Resources Management Act. In order to receive federal consistency certification for federal licenses, including FERC licenses, a project applicant must prepare a statement that the activity is consistent with the six laws and submit that statement directly to Ecology. Ecology then has six months to approve or deny the certification.

Because the aquatic portion of the Makah Bay project is, in part, within Washington State waters, Finavera filed a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) seeking water quality certification from Ecology, and a statement of consistency with the CZMA, seeking Ecology’s agreement. Because the land portion of the project is within the Makah Indian Nation’s reservation, Finavera also requested a Section 401 water quality certification from the Makah Indian Tribe, which was issued in June of 2007. The need for the Makah’s certification arises under the CWA, which authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to treat a qualified Indian tribe as a state for purposes of certain sections of the CWA, including Section 401. The Makah Indian Tribe received its “Treatment as State” authorization and adopted surface water quality standards in 2006, which include a process for Section 401 Certification.

Under an agreement between Finavera and Ecology, Ecology’s CZMA decision was stayed until it issued its Section 401 Certification decision, which is due in mid-February 2008. However, before Ecology reached a decision on whether to issue the requested certifications, FERC issued its license to Finavera on December 21, 2007.

FERC’s Fast-Tracked License for the Makah Bay Project

Depending on one’s perspective, obtaining state approval prior to federal licensing is either a clear and efficient process or a burdensome barrier to realizing the potential of new technologies. FERC’s traditional procedure has ensured compliance with state laws designed to protect a state’s water quality and shorelines, but has also resulted in delays in project developers’ non-construction activities, such as obtaining financing or power purchase agreements with utilities. Citing the benefits of hydrokinetic power and the quickly increasing number of hydrokinetic permit applications, FERC is now acting on its announced intent to accelerate the development of the new technology while also monitoring its environmental impacts and collecting information for future projects.

FERC’s commitment to this policy is evidenced by its December 20, 2007 decision to conditionally license the Makah Bay project. Released on November 30, 2007, FERC’s new policy applies to new hydrokinetic projects only, and involves issuing project licenses where FERC has completed processing an application but other authorizations, including state certifications, remain outstanding. The pilot licenses include conditions precluding the licensee from beginning construction until it has received all of the necessary authorizations. This is similar to pilot licenses that FERC has issued under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), which fast-tracked the construction of liquefied natural gas facilities. However, this is the first time that FERC has applied this policy to a hydropower project.

The license for the Makah Bay project grants Finavera a conditional five-year license for the proposed project, and includes measures for monitoring the effects of the project on marine and ocean resources, and a requirement to remove the project at the end of the license term. The license is conditioned on Finavera obtaining all additional federal and state permits before construction may begin. Finavera had already signed a purchase power agreement with PG&E just prior to FERC’s licensing decision. While it finalizes its Section 401 Certification and CZMA consistency certification with Ecology, Finavera is now able to move forward with the portions of the license that do not require construction, such as environmental plans. If any adverse environmental impacts arise, the pilot license contains a provision to shut down or remove the project.

Ecology’s Response

In its request for a rehearing, Ecology argues that FERC ignored Congress’ intent to reserve to the states the responsibility for certifying compliance with water quality standards and coastal management regulations. Ecology’s Director, Jay Manning, has said that although the agency “fully supports renewable energy projects in Washington, especially those designed to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases and other climate-changing pollutants,” FERC “does not have the authority – by statute or Congressional intent – to set aside existing environmental laws designed to protect our state’s water quality and shorelines.” Gordon White, manager for Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance program, said that the agency was set to make a 401 Certification decision for Finavera by mid-February, and was also on course in its determinations that the project was consistent with the state CZMA.

Ecology also disagrees with FERC’s assertion that because it has fast-tracked licenses under the NGA, similar procedures can be used to issue hydrokinetic licenses. Ecology argues that “the fact that the Commission, on more than one occasion, elected to issue licenses under the NGA in advance of compliance with Section 401 of the CWA does not indicate that such an approach is consistent with the legal requirements of Section 401. Nor does it lend support in this case where the Commission is issuing a license under the FPA [Federal Power Act].” The agency also takes FERC to task by arguing that “the mere fact that it may take the applicant some time to obtain a water quality certification does not provide [FERC] with the authority to ignore the clear terms of Section 401(a)(1).” Instead, Ecology proposes, FERC could issue draft licenses notifying developers of the conditions that it intends to impose, or simply issue a license the day after an applicant receives its water quality certification.

In broader terms, Ecology has expressed concern that FERC’s issuance of a temporary license has created uncertainty for other developers and regulators as to whether a project has FERC’s approval. Because FERC has indicated that issuance of a conditioned license will constitute a final agency action, subject to rehearing, developers believing that they can move forward with non-construction elements of a project may still face delays as state agencies request rehearings as a means to clarify FERC’s new policy. Further, Ecology notes that pilot licenses do not give developers assurance that their project will indeed meet all environmental regulations as required, potentially creating difficulties in developing environmental plans or obtaining reliable funding.

Practical Implications

Over a dozen in-water renewable energy projects, in California, Oregon, and Washington, are either in the process of obtaining state environmental permits, or about to begin this process. While FERC’s pilot license policy may facilitate moving renewable energy projects forward more quickly, project developers are now caught between FERC’s policy and the State’s argument that the developer must first demonstrate compliance with state environmental laws. The issue of whether the developer needs to acquire state permits prior to receiving its FERC license has been brought to the forefront by Ecology’s request for reconsideration of FERC’s decision, and both developers and regulators have a substantial stake in the outcome.

Read Full Post »

Washington DOE Battles FERC Over Makah Wave Energy

January 21, 2008 by 8string

The feds outlandish behavior over states rights to determine environmental policy continues. This will probably end up in court for some time to come. It’s a pity, as we need to be moving alternative energy forward, but not at the sake of our local decision making process.

————————————–

Department of Ecology News Release – January 18, 2008

08-016

Ecology seeks rehearing of federal decision made without considering state environmental reviews for renewable energy projects

OLYMPIA – The Department of Ecology (Ecology) has filed a request with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to rehear a Dec. 20, 2007, decision that FERC made to try and move a proposed energy project forward by circumventing state environmental protection requirements.

In an unparalleled move, FERC sidestepped Ecology’s authority to provide timely environmental reviews of renewable energy projects. The commission gave Finavera Renewables of Vancouver, British Columbia, a special five-year environmental approval to move forward with a wave energy project at Makah Bay.

Any FERC licensing decision must incorporate Ecology’s decision under the federal Clean Water and the Coastal Zone Management acts.

Gordon White, manager for Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance program said that Ecology and the state Office of Regulatory Assistance were on track to make a water-quality certification decision for Finavera by mid-February.

He said that the department also was on course to determine that the project was consistent with state and federal shoreline regulations.

As outlined in the plan, the Finavera offshore energy project consists of four large wave buoys anchored three miles or less from the Makah Bay shore that would produce one megawatt of electricity. Power would be transmitted to shore by an undersea transmission line.

“By trying to circumvent other state and federal environmental permit processes, FERC’s decision gives companies like Finavera no assurance that their project will finally meet all environmental regulations,” White said. “It could even make it more difficult for companies to get reliable funding by muddying the waters in our attempt to streamline the state permitting process for renewable energy projects.”

White noted that there are eight to 10 other “in-water” renewable energy projects either seeking, or about to seek, environmental permits from Ecology. Some of the potential projects would be located in the Puget Sound, the Columbia River and on the state’s outer coast.

“It is imperative that we have a clear efficient process for reviewing these projects. Unfortunately FERC’s decision to issue a temporary permit decision leaves everyone unclear about whether a project has their approval or not.”

Ecology Director Jay Manning said the department “fully supports renewable energy projects in Washington, especially those designed to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases and other climate-changing pollutants. However, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not have the authority – by statute or Congressional intent – to set aside existing environmental laws designed to protect our state’s water quality and shorelines.”

Read Full Post »

FERC Approves Wave Energy Project at Makah

December 2007: Compelling documents — Approved FERC Order and official announcements related to Makah Bay wave energy project being undertaken by Finavera. -LKBlog

Thanks for Tom Schlosser at Morisett Schlosser for these docs: Here is the FERC announcement and the statements of commissioners Spitzer and Kelliher.

Read Full Post »

Finavera Granted a License for Makah Bay Project

RALPH THOMAS, Seattle Times Olympia Bureau, December 21, 2007

OLYMPIA — The waters off Makah Bay near the tip of Washington’s Olympic Peninsula could become home to the world’s first commercial wave-energy project.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday issued its first license for a so-called hydrokinetic energy project to British Columbia-based Finavera Renewables, a company working to develop wind- and wave-energy projects in the U.S., Canada, Ireland and South Africa.

If all goes as planned, Finavera’s Makah Bay Wave Pilot Project would begin generating enough electricity to supply at least 150 homes by 2011.

“This is very, very significant,” Jason Bak, Finavera’s CEO, said Thursday. “The road has pretty much been cleared for us.”

But the company still must find investors for the project and someone to buy the power. And, under conditions of the FERC license, Finavera cannot begin construction until it gets all the necessary environmental permits.

Still, the company and federal regulators hailed Thursday’s action.

“Today is historic as we enter a new energy frontier,” FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller said in a written statement. “For the first time, we allow the harnessing of electricity from wave-energy power that results from the gravitational pull of the moon.”

Finavera is one of several companies racing to develop technology to capture hydrokinetic energy along the wind-swept coastline of the Pacific Northwest — where waves big enough to generate power are present nearly all the time.

To date, Finavera is the only company that has sought an FERC license to move ahead on a project. But numerous companies have applied for permits to begin studying proposed projects.

A Seattle-based company, for instance, has applied for a permit to conduct a feasibility study on what would be a massive wind- and wave-energy farm along a 28-square-mile stretch along the coast at Westport and Ocean Shores, Grays Harbor County.

Finavera also is hoping to develop a wave-energy project off the coast of Northern California, where earlier this week the company announced a power-purchasing agreement with a major U.S. utility.

Bak said another company’s proposed wave-energy project in Portugal is the only other one worldwide that is nearing commercial status.

Ideas abound for capturing wave power, including some that are quite elaborate. Finavera’s approach sounds fairly simple: wave-energy buoys that use the heaving motion of the ocean to drive a piston that forces seawater through a turbine.

This fall, the company deployed its first test wave-energy buoy off the coast of Newport, Ore.

The 75-foot-tall prototype buoy performed well, Bak said. But when the company was trying to retrieve the buoy, it began taking on water and sank.

The company hopes it can figure out what went wrong after it retrieves the buoy during the first good weather break next month.

Finavera’s Makah Bay project calls for four wave-energy buoys, each capable of producing 250 kilowatts of power. The buoys would be connected to a nearly 4-mile-long underwater transmission line that would carry the electricity to shore, where it would be fed into the grid through a Clallam County Public Utility District line.

The PUD has twice signed agreements to purchase power from the project, but both expired. An official from the utility said it would be “very interested” in renewing the agreement.

According to Finavera, the aquatic portions of the project would fall within state waters as well as within the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and the Washington State Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge.

Bak said the company needs to get permits from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He said he isn’t aware of any required state permits.

In a news release announcing the license, FERC said Finavera must develop a plan for monitoring the underwater transmission cable to make sure it remains in place and doesn’t entangle debris. The company also must assess whether noise from the buoys will have any impact on marine mammals.

The license also gives FERC authority to shut down or remove the project if it is found to be harming the environment.

Bak said one of the biggest challenges will be finding investors. He pointed out that investors have poured billions of dollars into developing solar and biofuel technologies.

“Now we need to see some of that capital come into wave energy,” Bak said.

 

 

Read Full Post »

First Wave Energy Project Conditionally Approved

On December 21, the Finavera Renewables Ocean Energy, Ltd conditionally secured a FERC license for its hydrokinetic power project located 1.9 nautical miles offshore Washington State. The 5-year license to the Makah Bay Offshore Wave Pilot Project is designed “to demonstrate the economic and environmental benefits of wave energy conversion power plants near coastal communities.” The project will generate an average of 1,500 MWh annually.

The innovative technology is powered by a closed-loop hydraulic system inside four (4) 19.5 feet x 16.4 feet buoys filled with 1,850 gallons of fresh water. An acceleration tube converts a wave’s kinetic energy into pressurized water through a piston system that lowers and stretches with each wave motion, thereby pressurizing water to the nozzles of a turbine housed near the top of a buoy. A 3.7 mile submarine transmission cable anchored to the ocean floor will lead to an onshore connection to the utility grid.

FERC Commissioner Moeller lauded the license since “[c]onsumers are demanding more renewable energy options, especially those sources that are domestic, renewable, and carbon-free.” Commission Moeller added that “it demonstrates this Commission’s proactive approach to enable the development of this and other sources of hydropower.”

The license is conditioned on, among other things, Finavera’s written notification to FERC that all other authorizations have been obtained as required under federal law. This condition is consistent with the agency’s November 2007 Policy Statement on Conditioned Licenses for Hydrokinetic Projects in which FERC enumerated its policy of conditioning licenses to hydrokinetic projects “on the licensee being precluded from commencing construction until the necessary authorizations are received.”

Finavera filed its application on November 8, 2006, and construction must be completed within three years from the effective date of the license.

— from Energy Legal Blog at http://energylegalblog.com/

 

Read Full Post »

Wave Energy Projects Present Permitting Challenges

Note: This is an older article from 2007 yet still very current in its coverage of environmental and permitting concerns related to Wave Energy and Tidal Energy projects.

MICHAEL LUFKIN & LAURA FANDINO, Marten Law Group, July 11, 2007

The adoption of renewable energy portfolio standards promises to push forward investment in the development of wave and tidal power. Projects are being developed in New York, Washington, Oregon, California and other states, spurred in part by state laws requiring public and private utilities to obtain a portion of their electricity from renewable resources. As an example, Oregon recently adopted a renewable electricity portfolio standard which requires the state’s largest utilities to meet 25% of their electric load with new renewable energy resources by 2025. Challenges to these projects include the environmental and land use impacts associated with them. Just as wind power has drawn its share of opponents, so too are critics of tidal and wave energy raising concerns about the impacts of large-scale development of these resources.

What is Tidal and Wave Energy?

Two types of marine renewable energy resources have garnered substantial interest: wave energy and tidal energy. There are several methods to capture energy from ocean surface waves. For example, one wave power device slated for use by Finavera Renewables, Ltd. (“Finavera”) in Makah Bay, Washington, involves the use of moored wave energy conversion buoys (the “Aquabuoy”) similar in size to the large navigational aids that demarcate shipping lanes. Aquabuoy converts the kinetic energy of the vertical motion of waves into pressurized water, which is directed into a conversion system consisting of a turbine that drives an electrical generator. The power from the buoys is then transported to shore through the use of an anchored submarine transmission cable installed on or just beneath the sea floor. While the Finavera plans to operate the Makah Bay project 3.7 miles offshore, wave energy devices may be used at the shoreline, nearshore, and offshore.

Another ocean energy resource, tidal energy, captures energy from the rise and fall of tides. Most tidal energy projects rely on offshore turbines, which operate much like an underwater wind farm. The ebb and flow of the tides is used to turn the blades which are connected directly to an electrical generator. Energy produced by the system is transferred to shore through the use of a submarine transmission cable installed on the sea floor. In France, and several other countries, tidal energy production has involved the construction of a dam (or barrage) to block incoming and outgoing tides across a delta, estuaries, or other coastal basin area, where the amplitude of tides are increased. In that case, the ebb and flow of the tides is used to turn turbines, or push air through a pipe which then turns a turbine, that drives an electric generator.

Preliminary Projects

Eight tidal energy projects are currently under development in Washington State that use offshore turbine technology. On March 9, 2007, the Snohomish County Public Utility District (“PUD”) received preliminary permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) to conduct technical and economic feasibility studies and evaluate tidal energy potential at seven locations in Puget Sound: Spieden Channel, San Juan Channel, Guemes Channel, Agate Pass, Rich Passage, Admiralty Inlet and Deception Pass. FERC has also granted a preliminary permit to Tacoma Power to evaluate the development of tidal power in the Tacoma Narrows. Each of the preliminary permits will enable these entities to study tidal energy at the permitted sites for a period of three years.

In addition to Washington State, FERC has issued preliminary permits for tidal energy projects in Alaska, California, Maine, Oregon, and New York. In New York, the Verdant Power Roosevelt Island Tidal (“RITE”) Project, is on its way to becoming the first tidal energy project to be licensed by FERC. FERC granted a preliminary permit for the RITE project, located in New York’s East River, in September 2002. FERC is licensing the RITE project under the authority granted through the preliminary permit. The project will consist of 200 turbines and will generate up to 10 MW of distributed power.

In addition, Finavera is currently developing a 1 MW demonstration wave power plant at Makah Bay, Washington. The company completed a Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment in October of 2006 which concluded with a finding of no significant environmental effects from the technology. In Oregon, FERC issued preliminary permits to Ocean Power Technologies (“OPT”) to develop a project off the coast of Reesport, southwest of Eugene, and AquaEnergy Group, Ltd. to develop an offshore wave energy project in Coos Bay.

Environmental Concerns

The primary concerns raised by critics of tidal and wave energy projects are their potential adverse impacts on marine ecosystems, fishery resources, and mammals. Environmental concerns raised by these groups include noise, species’ effects, and the physical disturbance of marine habitat. Environmental noise is said by some to affect the behavioral patterns of marine species i.e., feeding, mating and migration in areas where the habitat of protected marine species overlaps with the project. Habitat disturbance is also raised as a concern, as is displacement of benthic organisms in the footprint of the construction, including endangered or threatened species. Other concerns raised are the potential loss of fishing areas and impacts on shellfish resources.

Operating concerns include: (a) potential injuries to marine wildlife and diving birds arising from direct contact with tidal energy turbines; (b) behavioral impacts to marine species; (c) habitat disturbance, including disturbance of contaminated sediments, and impacts to sensitive spawning and nursery areas; (d) water quality impacts; and (e) hydrodynamic impacts. Hydrodynamic impacts resulting from the extraction of energy and physical presence of tidal project structures can include direct alteration of area siltation patterns, and changes to area ecology by alteration of substrate type.

Additional Barriers to Commercial Development

Permitting Process

Because of the relative infancy of wave and tidal energy development, there remains some uncertainty and confusion over which federal and state agencies have regulatory jurisdiction over marine energy projects. Generally speaking, a project’s location determines which federal agency takes the lead in overseeing the permitting process. Under the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), FERC has the authority to regulate and license all hydroelectric facilities on navigable waters of the United States. FERC has interpreted its authority under the FPA broadly to include essentially all wave and tidal energy projects, including ocean projects. In 2005, Congress muddied the jurisdictional waters by granting lead federal agency status to the Minerals Management Service (“MMS”) for renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”). Congress stated, however, that in granting MMS lead agency status over projects on the OCS, it was not eliminating the jurisdiction of other federal agencies. Thus for now, it appears that FERC and MMS will share lead agency status for OCS projects, while FERC will have exclusive authority to license projects in rivers and ocean waters out to the OCS.

The FERC Process

Most of the tidal and wave energy projects under consideration in the Pacific Northwest have not formally entered the FERC licensing process. Rather, these projects have received a preliminary permit from FERC which reserves a project location for the permit holder while environmental and feasibility studies are conducted. The preliminary permit is valid for three years. At the end of the three years, the permit holder must file a license application or lose priority for the location. Construction activities are not allowed during the period in which a project is being studied under a permit.

To construct and operate a tidal or wave energy project a developer must either obtain a hydropower operating license from FERC, or be granted an exemption from licensing. The process for obtaining a FERC operating license can often take five to seven years and requires significant analysis and consultation with state, federal, and tribal resource agencies. Operating licenses are normally granted for 30 to 50 year periods.

Because of the burdensome nature of the licensing process, some developers have sought an exemption from FERC licensing requirements. FERC may exempt hydropower projects “which are 5 megawatts or less, that will be built at an existing dam, or projects that utilize a natural water feature for head or an existing project that has a capacity of 5 megawatts or less and proposes to increase capacity.” FERC has shown a willingness to grant short term exemptions that allow for the deployment and testing of new generation technology. Projects determined to be exempt from FERC licensing requirements must still comply with applicable state and federal environmental and resource protection laws.

Transmission

Another issue affecting the commercial viability of wave and tidal power is the ability and cost of bringing the power to the market. Like other types of renewable based generation, wave and tidal power resources are often located a significant distance from load centers and/or existing transmission systems. The construction costs and additional environmental impacts associated with constructing transmission lines to bring wave and tidal power to the grid can be a challenge to the viability of a project.

Read Full Post »