On Tuesday of this week the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and Department of Public Health (MDPH) released the Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel (January 2012). Among other things, the expert panel was charged by the two agencies with identifying and characterizing the attributes of concern most commonly reported by individuals residing near wind power projects (e.g., noise, infrasound, vibration, and shadow flicker) and then – based on a evaluation of peer-reviewed scientific studies – assessing the magnitude and frequency of any potential impacts and risks to human health associated with the operation of these projects. Findings by the expert panel include:
MassDEP and MDPH will be holding three public meetings on the Report in February and will receive public comment until Monday, March 19 at 5 p.m. Electronic comments may be submitted to: WindTurbineDocket.MassDEP@MassMail.State.MA.US How the Report will be used both in Massachusetts and elsewhere in the northeast will be interesting to follow.
Additionally, although not part of the expert panel’s original charge, two members of the panel also provided MassDEP and MDPH an addendum, A Brief Review of Wind Power in Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Vermont, and Maine (January 2012). The addendum looks at wind power development in the two New England states and three countries with the goal of identifying whether there are best practices or lessons learned that could benefit Massachusetts. The authors identify three factors they believe contribute to greater project success:
The addendum identifies the Fox Islands Wind project on Vinalhaven Island in Maine as the one project in Maine or Vermont that is “especially noteworthy” because of its success and community involvement.
2011 finished with a flurry of New England renewable energy news. Here's what we've been following in the new year:
Cape Wind bouyed as SJC allows utility deal
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has upheld the Department of Public Utilities' approval of the power purchase agreement between Cape Wind and National Grid. Cape Wind is still seeking long term agreements for the remainder of the energy produced by the facility.
New Hampshire biomass plants score PPAs while RPS undergoes revisions
In a deal apparently intended to head off appeal of the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission's approval of long term contract with the developer of a 75-MW biomass in Berlin, NH, five independent biomass power producers have obtained approval of power purchase agreements with PSNH that will allow them to remain in operation.
Connecticut announces 20-year deals with two solar projects
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection announced that it has selected two 5 MW solar projects that will receive 20-year PPAs to purchase power at 22.2 cents per kWh.
Balsams conservation bid buoyed by online gift-giving
The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forest reports that it has raised over $315,000 for purchase of a conservation easement on a key parcel of land in Dixville Notch needed for the Northern Pass. The Society has until January 15th to raise the $850,000 needed for the easement; Northern Pass has offered $3 million for the property.
On December 15, Maine Public Utilities Commission Chairman Tom Welch addressed attendees of the Maine Renewable Energy Association’s 17th Annual Gathering. In his thoughtful and thought provoking presentation (pdf), Mr. Welch questioned the role of renewable energy in addressing climate change in the near- and medium-term, as well as the difficulty in achieving any politically palatable policy changes that could alter trends over the next century or two. What might this mean for the renewable energy industry, he asked? He suggested that in explaining the need for renewable energy to the public and to policy-makers, proponents of these sources of energy might need to change their focus. Instead of highlighting the reduction in carbon emissions achievable through a shift to renewable energy, proponents may find it more helpful, and even necessary, to highlight the other benefits of renewable energy projects. Mr. Welch summarized what he sees as the other key benefits in his presentation. His insightful remarks are well worth the read.
The details of the 2012 legislative session are now coming into focus as the Legislature prepares for the start of the new session on January 4, 2012. Among the proposals that will confront the Legislature are two hydropower-related bills that will be considered by the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee.
The first bill, LD 1686, An Act To Amend the Process for Issuing State Water Quality Certificates to Hydropower Projects That Withdraw Water from Great Ponds, is sponsored by Representative Ralph Sarty (R – Denmark). This bill would require the Department of Environmental Protection to consult with the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Department of Conservation before issuing a water quality certificate for hydropower projects that withdraw water from impoundments managed as great ponds. Significantly, in order for the DEP to issue a water quality certificate, DIFW and DOC would have to agree that the hydropower project does not violate water quality standards as they relate to fishing, recreation, and habitat for aquatic life.
Attorneys from Pierce Atwood have met with Representative Sarty regarding this proposal as it was being developed. Representative Sarty, who formerly worked for the Maine Warden Service, is very strong in his support for this bill and will certainly be a strong advocate for his proposal.
The second bill, An Act To Improve Maine’s Capacity To Produce Low-cost Renewable Energy, is sponsored by Representative Johnson (R – Greenville). This proposal, which has not yet been printed, has been summarized by the Legislative Information Office as follows: “This bill would prohibit the issuance of a permit to remove a dam from hydroelectric generating capacity unless there is a demonstrated replacement for the energy.”
As the Governor’s and the Legislature’s agendas come together for 2012, it is clear that energy will be one of the most discussed issues this legislative session. Obviously, hydropower will be an integral part of this discussion. If you have any questions or would like further information, or are interested in assisting us as we work to shape these bills, please contact Matt Manahan, John Delahanty, or Avery Day.
Here's what we're following this week:
Massachusetts wind energy siting bill dies
The chairman of the Senate committee considering the bill has asked to table the bill, though the bill has been declared dead before, and may yet return.
Vermont releases final Comprehensive Energy Plan
The report, issued by the Vermont Department of Public Service, continues the state's support for renewable energy, including a recommendation that the legislature consider adopting a renewable portfolio standard with a target of 75% renewables by 2031.
Pro-renewables NGO takes swing at DOE renewables loans
Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) filed a lawsuit last week challenging the loan guarantees made to utility-scale renewable energy projects, alleging that DOE issued the guarantees prior to issuing regulations as required by statute.
Northern Pass buys Franklin parcel
Northern Pass has purchased land for the site of the HVDC converter station in Franklin, New Hampshire for $2.35 million. The final route for the line remains unknown as the company negotiates with landowners elsewhere in the state.
The U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) convened the Maine Renewable Energy Task Force yesterday in South Portland, Maine to consider a lease application submitted by Statoil North America, Inc. for an offshore wind power project on a site approximately 12 miles offshore, south of Boothbay Harbor, Maine. The Statoil application is posted at http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/State-Activities/Maine.aspx. Statoil’s application covers a twenty-two square mile area, with the expectation that the final lease request may be reduced to less than four square miles following completion of environmental and wind resource assessments. On November 30, BOEM determinedthat the application is complete. The Task Force, comprised of federal, state, local and tribal representatives, was originally convened in 2010 as part of a federal-state effort to coordinate to make offshore marine renewable energy leasing process more efficient.
Statoil submitted the lease application in connection with its response to the Maine Public Utilities Commission's September 1, 2010 Request for Proposals for Long-term Contracts for Deep-Water Offshore Wind Energy Pilot Projects. Statoil proposes to construct a 12 MW project with three turbines, and to sell the electricity generated under a long term power purchase agreements under the framework of the Maine PUC pilot project program. Statoil plans to begin construction in 2016. If the pilot project is successful, Statoil would build upon the project to construct a much larger wind power project, likely in the same general vicinity.
At the December 8 meeting, the Task Force first convened in an intergovernmental session, comprised of a series of presentations on the OCS leasing process for offshore wind sites and role of various federal agencies, followed by a general public Q&A session with BOEM representatives. BOEM’s Project Coordinator for the Statoil application, Aditi Mirani, served as the meeting coordinator, and Ned Farquhar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management in DOI, Brian Hooker, Marine Biologist, and Tim Redding, Program Analyst at BOEM, also participated. Other Task Force presentations included a presentation by George Detwiler of the US Coast Guard indicating that the Coast Guard’s preliminary assessment is that the lease would not pose impermissible navigational hazards (subject to further information and analysis). Department of Defense personnel made a presentation indicating that DOD’s preliminary assessment that the proposed project would not interfere with DOD uses of the lease areas. NOAA’s Susan Tuxbury, Fishery biologist, and USFW’s Linda Welch, also presented on the NOAA and USFW roles and data requirements in the BOEM leasing process. Both NOAA and USFW emphasized the very limited data available concerning wildlife at the proposed site, and Linda Welch emphasized the strong potential for interaction between OSW projects and birds and bats. Ms. Welch emphasized that recently collected data confirm that birds and bats are year-round users of the Gulf of Maine, and are present more than twenty miles offshore. USFW emphasized that at least two years of baseline data would be required, followed by at least three years post-construction monitoring.
During the public session, representatives of several fishing organizations criticized the proposed lease site as posing an unacceptable conflict with existing fisheries in the area. Representatives of the Maine Lobsterman’s Association, the Maine Fisherman’s Association, and the American Blue Fin Tuna Association appeared to express concern, and characterized the proposed lease location as a fishing “hot spot” for groundfish, herring, shrimp and lobster fishing.
At the conclusion of the Task Force meeting, BOEM representatives indicated that BOEM’s next steps would be to complete a review of the technical and financial qualifications of Statoil, and then to publish a Request for Competitive Interest, in order to determine whether there are other competitor companies interested in leasing these lease blocs. BOEM will then determine whether to process the Statoil lease as a competitive or non-competitive lease application. BOEM promised to keep TASK Force Members informed, invited Task Force members to seek out information from stakeholders in Maine and to provide that information to BOEM, and also promised to reconvene the Task Force following future substantive filings on the project and environmental impacts by Statoil.
The price of energy was a top issue in Maine’s 2010 gubernatorial election, and earlier this week the Maine legislature’s Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology took up Governor LePage’s energy bill, LD 1570 “An Act to Reduce Energy Prices for Maine Consumers.” The bill would cap the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) at 4% of sales in 2010: as currently enacted, the RPS is set to climb to 10% from new renewable resources by 2017. The bill also would cap the alternative compliance mechanism to 110% of the cost of RECs from the previous year.
LD 1570 also revises 35-A M.R.S. § 3210-C, the Maine Public Utilities Commission’s (MPUC) long term contracting authority, preventing the MPUC from approving any long term contract whose price is greater than 90% of the average market price for capacity resources, and requiring the MPUC to obtain approval of the legislature before entering into any long term contracts. The existing law does not include a hard cap on price.
The bill appears likely to move to the full legislature for a vote, where its future is uncertain: support for the bill from the Maine business community was somewhat tepid, and Maine’s renewable energy companies have been vocal in their opposition.
If anything, the bill serves to highlight the limits on a state governor’s ability to lower energy prices in a regional market for electricity. Though the costs of compliance with Maine’s RPS will likely rise as the target percentages increase, to date the costs to individual ratepayers have been minimal. Earlier this year, the MPUC released its annual report to the Legislature on the RPS for the 2009 compliance year, which described the cost of complying with the new renewables target:
During 2009, the cost of [Class I] RECs used for compliance ranged from approximately $6.50 per MWh to $44 per MWh, with an average cost of $26.28 per MWh and a total cost of $4,587,052. A minority of suppliers (4 out of 47) choose to satisfy the portfolio requirement through the ACM at the rate of $60.92 per MWh for a total cost of $319,233. Thus, the total cost to ratepayers during 2009 was $4,906,285, which translates into a rate impact of .06 cents per kWh (or about 35 cents monthly increase to a typical residential bill).
More than 85% of those Class I RECs came from facilities in Maine, the vast majority of which were biomass. Many of these facilities are on-site at mills and pulp and paper facilities, where revenue from RECs and the use of biomass boilers (including the sale of excess energy) have helped to provide an additional income stream and some level of insulation from high energy prices. The story with long term contracts is similar: the MPUC has approved just two long-term contracts under § 3210-C, the most recent of which was intended to enable Verso’s Bucksport mill to convert from fossil fuels to biomass.
Last week, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) submitted a revised version of its draft of the new regulations for biomass facilities under its Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) to the Massachusetts legislature. The revised draft regulations (pdf) include only relatively minor revisions to the previous draft, and not the wholesale revision many in the biomass and forest products industry had hoped for. If implemented, the new rules will dramatically increase the compliance burden for Massachusetts RPS-eligible biomass facilities, and could lead to a substantial reduction in the contribution of biomass to the Massachusetts RPS.
DOER released the first draft (pdf) of the regulations in September, 2010, followed by two public hearings that October (public comments here). The initial regulations were based on the controversial findings of a study conducted by the Manomet Center for Conservation Science on behalf of DOER, which concluded that use of biomass for electricity generation released more greenhouse gases than comparable fossil fuel generation. The proposed rules required biomass generation units to meet certain efficiency standards and submit a fuel supply plan and a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis showing a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases in order to be eligible for the Massachusetts RPS. The proposed rules also tightened the restrictions on eligible biomass fuels, and introduced a certification process for forest-derived biomass fuels intended to monitor and limit the amount of such fuels removed from harvest sites.
Despite the substantial lag between the end of the public comment period and the issuance of the revised draft rules, the revisions (yes, another pdf) are relatively minor. DOER concluded that the rule limiting the amount of eligible biomass material to be harvested from a site to 15% of the total amount harvested for forest producst was “arbitrary and insufficiently based on science.” In place of the 15% cap, the DOER has substituted a matrix specifying the percentage that may be removed based on soil type, ranging from zero to 40%. DOER has also revised the rules for efficiency calculations to incorporate variations in the heat content of biomass fuels, on-site usage of thermal energy, and the efficiency benefits of on-site generation compared to energy delivered via the grid. Other revisions include a standard methodology and template for calculating life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, and the explicit exclusion of construction and demolition waste as an eligible biomass fuel.
The regulations are expected to be referred to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy for 30-day review. That Committee will offer comments, and the DOER will promulgate final regulations after an additional 30 days.
In Monday's post, I discussed US Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. This post focuses on a second draft guidance document with implications for wind developers, FWS's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (pdf). The draft Eagle Guidance is intended to “interpret and clarify” the Eagle Permit Rule that went into effect in November 2009, but “not [to] impose any binding requirements beyond those specified in the regulations.” For those not familiar with this rule, the Eagle Permit Rule was enacted pursuant to BGEPA, which long had prohibited the “take” of bald and golden eagles but effectively had been dormant. Since both raptors were included on the federal endangered and threatened species list and, therefore, protected under the Endangered Species Act, an additional layer of regulation under BGEPA simply was not needed. With the recovery of the bald eagle and its federal delisting, the eagle was no longer covered by the ESA and BGEPA once again became relevant. FWS developed a permitting program under BGEPA – the Eagle Permit Rule – authorizing the unintentional “take” of bald or golden eagles under that act. Without a take permit, the unintentional killing and even disturbance of an eagle is a violation of BGEPA.
The Eagle Permit Rule itself is relatively short and provides limited assistance to developers and potential applicants about what specifically is required of them if they believe their project may result in a take. The Eagle Guidance fills some of the gaps, recommending the preparation of an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) to support an application for a “programmatic” take permit, one of the two types of permits established by the rule. The Eagle Guidance identifies five stages that should be competed in the course of creating an ECP. While every element of each stage may not be appropriate or necessary for an applicant seeking an individual permit, as opposed to a programmatic permit, the five stages provide relevant guidance for all potential take permit applicants, regardless of the specific type of permit being sought.
The five stages overlap the tiers in FWS's Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, but are different:
How the draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines and draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance will be receive by stakeholders will become more evident after the conclusion of the comment period ending May 19, 2011. The initial reaction for the wind power industry, however, suggests that project developers will have some concerns.
Last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published two draft guidance documents of potential interest to those involved with the development of wind power projects – Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (pdf)and Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (pdf). Both documents are part of the Department of Interior’s effort to “provide clarity and guidance to stakeholders, including developers and employees, about smart siting and effective mitigation for renewable energy projects.” FWS is accepting comments on both documents until May 19, 2011. This post discusses the Guidelines, while a post later this week will discuss the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance.
The draft Guidelines are intended to promote compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) by encouraging wind power project developers, owners, and operators to adopt and follow a “five tiered approach.” Beginning with site selection and continuing through operation, the five tiers help guide decision-making during all phases of a project’s life, with the goal of avoiding, minimizing where unavoidable, and compensating for adverse impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat:
While the Guidelines are voluntary, FWS states in the draft document that it will consider adherence and regular communication with FWS as “evidence of due care with respect to avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating adverse impacts to species protected by the MBTA and BGEPA, and will take such adherence and communication fully into account when exercising its discretion with respect to any potential referral for prosecution related to death of or injury to any such species.” In other words, those who choose not to follow voluntary Guidelines will do so at their own risk.