Download - Oregon's marine resource law
The Problem with Federal Wave Energy Licensing
And Oregon’s Solution as a Model for FERC
Lyle Birkey Johns Hopkins University M.S. Energy Policy and Climate Spring 2012
Outline of Logic OPPORTUNITY: Wave technology has large potentials on the West Coast
Total recoverable wave energy on the west coast is equal to 26.5 coal-‐fired power plants
PROBLEM: The large wave energy potentials are not being realized b/c of regulatory barriers Wave tech regulation/permitting based on hydroelectric regulation/permitting Inefficient and antiquated process
Different considerations in hydroelectric regulation that are not applicable to wave technology
SHORT–TERM SOLUTION: Oregon Territorial Sea Plan (TSP) was created to remedy the antiquated FERC regulation FERC acknowledges this with Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Works for Oregon, but does not necessarily fit with Washington or Californian states.
CASE IN POINT: Ocean Power Technologies Inc. used the TSP criteria to construct project proposal OPT was approved by FERC under the MOU between OTSP
SOLITION/ACTION: Why we need to act on SB 359 Although OTSP works as an informal process for evaluating proposed projects, it is not legislation and does not
identify single regulatory agency for wave tech
Demonstrates synergies and cooperation between Univ. Fed, NGOs and private sector
FUTURE RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS
Oregon’s Wave Energy Resources
Source: EPRI Report
Total recoverable offshore wave energy on the west coast is equal to 26.5 coal-‐fired power plants
Source: Renewable Northwest Project
Oregon’s Wave Energy Reserves (cont.)
440 TWh/year of wave energy resources on West Coast 35% of these resources are “recoverable” based on pre-‐existing
uses, protected habitat, and maximum density of buoy placement.
Total of 154 TWh/year of “recoverable” wave energy on the West Coast
Average coal power plant generates 5.8 TWh/year
This energy reserve is equal to the output of 26.5 coal-‐fired power plants on the west coast
What’s the hold-‐up?
Although wave energy facilities have been deployed and grid-‐connected in other countries, the U.S. is impeded by excessive and irrelevant regulatory framework
Currently wave energy projects are regulated by 10 federal agencies who are responsible for 7 separate licenses.
Longest application period is for FERC’s Hydroelectric License
Federal Licensing Agencies
Wave Facilities are Regulated Using Criteria Intended for Hydroelectric Dams
Large wave energy potentials are being held back by facing same regulatory approval process as hydroelectric dams FERC issues permits in accordance with the Energy Policy Act (2005)
Regulation of wave technology has drastically different cost/benefit considerations compared to new hydroelectric dams
≠
Differences in Regulatory Needs between Hydroelectric Dams and Wave Power
① Hydroelectric Dams are widely considered the most regulated power producing plants
② Wave energy has far fewer impacts on species habitat compared to the construction of hydroelectric dams
③ Wave energy does not present upstream/downstream conflicts or interstate water rights
④ Wave energy does not impact tribal lands (except in Washington where tribes have rights to 50% of total state catch)
⑤ Transmission for wave energy is mostly submarine with a substation necessary for grid connection
Oregon’s Solution: The Territorial Sea Plan
Oregon Territorial Sea Plan (TSP) was created to remedy FERC’s lack of wave energy permitting framework
FERC acknowledges Oregon’s TSP with Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
A band-‐aid fix for Oregon, but does not necessarily fit with other coastal states
(above) interactive Google Earth layered mapping http://oregon.marinemap.org/
Oregon’s Territorial Sea Plan and the Wave Energy Approval Process
Under the TSP, wave energy permitting proposals must include: A. Renewable Energy Facilities Development
1. Background 2. Policies
B. Implementation Requirements 1. Siting: areas designated for renewable energy facilities development. 2. State Agency Review Process 3. Project Review Process and Coordination 4. Resource Inventory and Effects Evaluation Standards
C. Operation Plan Development 1. Phased Development Plan 2. Facility Development Plan 3. Project Operation Plan 4. Decommissioning Plan 5. Financial Assurance Plan
Ocean Power Technologies Inc. (OPT)
Ocean Power Technologies (OPT), a Danish wave power company, used the framework of the TSP to submit a proposal to FERC.
FERC approved OPT proposal for a Wave Park in Reedsport Oregon (Aug 2012)
First license to be issued for a wave power station in the United States
The project is proposed to be built in phases: 1) one buoy (non-‐grid connected); 2) ten buoys for 1.5 megawatt, grid connected; 3) scale-‐up to 50 megawatts, grid connected.
Still held to operational standards of Hydroelectric facilities
Still may face BOEM intervention or injunction
Key Differences Between Oregon and Washington
Oregon and Washington perspectives regarding space, place, and use are similar in many respects. However, study participants in Washington, as well as some from Oregon, also clearly and strongly articulated that in some respects “Washington is different.” Commercial harvest in Washington is limited and/or controlled by government to government (tribal and U.S.) agreements, which allocate resources to both tribal and nontribal fishermen. As summarized by two study participants:
“There are no negotiated tribal rights off the coast of Oregon. That’s a whole other ball of wax that we haven’t dealt with in Oregon, but they certainly do in Washington.” “The tribes as a whole in Washington are allowed 50 percent of all of the catch. So they’re always negotiating with a) the non-‐tribal entities and b) amongst themselves for whatever fishery particular allocation. It’s very complicated.”
Other differences include the existence of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, concern about seismic activity, and the need to manage issues associated with an international border.
Call to Action – Oregon Senate Bill 359
Sponsored by Senator ROBLAN (D-‐OR)
“Exempts wave energy facility or project in territorial sea from licensing process for hydroelectric facilities”
Jan 14, 2013: Introduced and first reading. Referred to President’s desk
Jan 18, 2013: Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development
Mar 26, 2013: Public Hearing held
Turns MOU between OTSP and FERC into legislation
In public hearing, senator Roblan declared, “in consistent conversation, one thing we all agree on is that somebody needs to do something about this.”
Areas for Further Research
Define one central federal agency responsible for permitting wave energy facilities
Require this agency to consider state’s territorial sea plan in processing permits as exemplified by FERC & Oregon’s Memorandum of Understanding
Wave Energy Licensing Process in Oregon
And Oregon’s Solution as a Model for the U.S.