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.