water issues for energy development - law seminars … gish thomas 6-5... · 2012-06-16 · water...
TRANSCRIPT
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
1
Water Issues for Energy Development
Presented by:Elizabeth Thomas [email protected] 206.370.7631Kenneth J. Gish [email protected] 206.370.6585
Washington Water Law ConferenceJune 4-5, 2007Seattle, Washington
Introduction
When do we need water for power? Traditional hydropower Traditional thermal generation (gas, coal, nuclear)
Water-cooled Dry-cooled
Alternative energy resources Alterative hydro Other alternative resources (wind, solar, landfill gas,
biomass, etc.)
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
2
Traditional hydropower
PNW is uniquelydependent:
Hydro
52%
Natural Gas
21%
Petroleum
0%
Nuclear
3%
Wind
1%
Biomass
3%
Coal
20%
Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council
But the picture is changing …
1960 1980 2003
Other
Wind
Uranium
Natural Gas
Hydro
Coal
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Aver
age
Meg
awat
ts
Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
3
Hydropower regulation
FERC: Project license/relicense NEPA ESA §7 consultation Mandatory and recommended agency conditions Shoreline permitting
State: Water right 401 certification Shoreline Management Act
Source Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Large-Scale Hydro
Few if any new projects Relicense existing projects
License 30-50 years ECPA impact (Cushman)
Expand/upgrade existing projects Key issues:
Fish Water quality
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
4
FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process
Goals: Streamlining Predictability
Means: Substantial pre-filing process Ongoing narrowing of issues Procedure to challenge study design Procedure to challenge proposed mandatory
conditions (EPAct)
Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
* Section 241 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in pink.
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
5
Mandatory conditioning agencies
FPA Section 4(e) “Reservations” USFS (Cushman) Interior
FPA Section 18 “Fishways” NOAA Fisheries US Fish & Wildlife Service
CWA Section 401 – conditions on WQC
Traditional Thermal: Chehalis Power Case Study
CCCT - ~ industrial facility – including: Land use approval Fuel supply (natural gas, distillate) Water supply for cooling (~ 90% evaporation), steam
production, inlet fogging & other purposes Transmission service Wastewater discharge Air emissions
Size (460 MW) → EFSEC jurisdiction
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
6
Source: Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
Progressive Water Supply Planning
#1: Aquifer storage Store surplus winter water for summer withdrawal Technically feasible Wholly unacceptable to community
#2: Reclaimed water Use City effluent whenever available Build new WWTP, treat all effluent regardless of need Supplement under City permit in summer EFSEC: ok. Governor: no raw water from City.
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
7
Final Water Supply Plan
Use air instead of water to cool equipment Saves ~ 90% of water Costs ~ 3% in efficiency, air emissions; bulkier, noisier facility
Water supplied by City, subject to conditions City Permit - 50 cfs instream flow; WAC - 165 cfs
Retire 102 acre-feet of local water rights Construct storage Limited rate of purchase of water in summer No purchase at ≤ 165 cfs except from city conservation Limited authority to fire with distillate in summer Pay Ecology $16,000
Image © Suez Energy Resources NA
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
8
Better?
Less total consumption of water Indirect increase of City’s instream flow requirement 3-year construction delay No wastewater reclamation; no $$ for City WWTP Lower electrical output per unit of fuel Higher air emissions per unit of fuel
New Hydropower Technologies:Which Bandwagon to Jump On?
Images © Finavera Renewables
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
9
Small or Add-On Hydro
Anywhere water flows down hill is a hydro site Swalley Irrigation District (Bend, OR)
Piping 5.1 miles of Swalley Canal Conserving 27 cfs Preventing “attractive nuisance”
Pressure issues at end of pipe 1 MW hydropower plant
Estimated $250,000/year
Ocean Wave and Tidal Current Generation
Potential for 350-terawatthours per year
Technical challenges FERC issued NOPR to
address preliminary permitsfor wave/tidal power
Prototype Projects world-wide
Images © Washington State Department of Ecology & Finavera Renewables
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
10
Ocean Power Delivery LTD.Pelamis Wave Energy Converter
Wave Farm(Artist’s Impression)
Full scale prototype in the North Sea
Images © Ocean Power Delivery Ltd.
Enersis Wave Farm – Portugal
Phase I in progress Three Pelamis WECs
Phase II Expand to approx 22.5 MW 15,000 homes 60,000 tonnes of CO2
Images © Ocean Power Delivery Ltd.
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
11
Finavera AquaBuOY System
AquaBuOY Array
Images © Finavera Renewables
AquaBuOY
FinaveraAquaBuOY System
Point Absorber Approximate .25 MW per
buoy Power transmitted via
submerged cable to shore
Images © Finavera Renewables
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
12
Makah Bay Pilot Project
Four AquaBuOY conversionbuoys (1 MW total)
Applied for minor licensewith FERC Alternative Licensing
Process Completed Environmental
Assessment in Oct. 2006
Images © Washington State Department of Ecology
Tidal Power Generation Similar conceptually to
Wind Turbines Siting Concerns
Multi-directional Prototypes and Site
Evaluation
Turbine Field underwater (artisitic impression)
Nose Cone underconstruction
Images © Verdant Power, LLC
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
13
Verdant PowerRoosevelt Island Tidal Energy Site (RITE) Free-flowing, bi-directional
turbines Rated capacity of 21kW per
turbine Goal is 10 MW NEPA Scoping Process
underway Field test successful
Image © Verdant Power, LLC
Aerial view of Roosevelt Island from Manhattan
Verdant PowerRoosevelt Island Tidal Energy Site (RITE)
Test area cross-section
Turbine onmonopile
Images © Verdant Power, LLC
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
14
Verdant PowerRoosevelt Island Tidal Energy Site (RITE)
Image © Verdant Power, LLC
Puget Sound Tidal Current Development
Snohomish PUD Seven Preliminary Permits
issued early 2007 Tacoma Power
Tacoma NarrowsPreliminary Permit
Eight total sites underinvestigation
Images © Washington State Department of Ecology
Tacoma Narrows
Deception Pass
Speakers 25 & 26: Elizabeth Thomas and Kenneth J. Gish, Jr. of K&L Gates a-
Law Seminars International | Washington Water Law | 6/4/07 in Seattle, WA
15
Which Bandwagon?
Image © Washington State Department of Ecology
In-line and End of Pipe Hydro Known technology – lower risk Lower potential yield – lower reward
Wave and Ocean Current Generation New technology – higher risk Enormous power potential – higher reward
Financial Incentives Tax credits Sales of Renewable Energy Credits
Questions?