Obama move to cut wave power funding upsets NW advocates May 30, 2009

The Obama administration has proposed a 25 percent cut in the research and development budget for one of the most promising renewable energy sources in the Northwest – wave and tidal power.

At the same time the White House sought an 82 percent increase in solar power research funding, a 36 percent increase in wind power funding and a 14 percent 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 percent of the nation’s electricity demand, about the same as hydropower currently delivers. Some experts have estimated that if only 0.2 percent 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 percent 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 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The law sets up interim targets of 3 percent by 2012 and 9 percent 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.

LES BLUMENTHAL, THE BELLINGHAM HERALD – http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/northwest/story/761430.html

Klamath farmers oppose planned dam removals May 14, 2009

For several weeks now, farmer Tom Mallams has been carting around the Oregon Capitol a 1-foot-thick bundle of petitions signed by 1,850 Klamath area residents opposed to a plan to remove four Klamath River dams.

The bundle, he said, is heavy and cumbersome. But it is the best way he knows to show lawmakers the considerable opposition to the dam-removal plan.

The plan, called the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, was hammered out over a four-year period by a diverse group of stakeholders, including farmers, ranchers, tribes, conservation groups, fishermen, federal agencies and PacifiCorp, which owns the dams and uses them to generate electricity.

Individual stakeholders, according to the group, all compromised in coming to terms on what they say is the best solution to a controversy that spans decades.

The controversy boiled over in 2001 when the federal government ordered water masters to shut off the flow of Klamath River water to irrigation canals. The shut-off cost Klamath Basin farmers millions of dollars in lost crops.

In addition to removing the four dams, the restoration plan calls for farmers in the Klamath Basin irrigation project to leave in-stream up to 100,000 acre feet of water in dry years – or nearly one-third of their water allocation claims – in exchange for water-delivery assurances.

Farmers outside the project are being asked to leave up to 30,000 acre feet of water in-stream for fish.

The loss of irrigation supplies is painful, said Greg Addington, head of the Klamath Water Users Association. But, Addington said, to be assured of some water is better than risking another complete shut-off.

Under the plan, PacifiCorp ratepayers would pay $200 million toward the cost of removing the dams. California lawmakers are preparing a $250 million bond measure to put before voters to provide backup if the costs exceed $200 million.

Oregon ratepayers, which comprise about 90 percent of PacifiCorp’s approximately 600,000 customers, would pony up $180 million of the $200 million ratepayer fund.

The plan calls for PacifiCorp to start removing the dams in 2020. The projected completion date is 2025.

The stakeholders, one and all, call the plan a major achievement.

But Mallams and others disagree.

In hearings before legislative committees on a bill that would set the plan in motion by capping Oregon ratepayers’ responsibility at $180 million, they argue the potential loss of irrigation water could devastate their ability to raise crops.

And, they say, removing the dams could cost PacifiCorp ratepayers – and possibly Oregon taxpayers – billions of dollars in unforeseen costs.

The opponents, who claim they were shut out of the stakeholder negotiations – a contention other stakeholders deny – say the $450 million top figure of dam-removal costs falls woefully short. As evidence, they point to two studies – one commissioned by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission showing costs could reach $4.5 billion and another showing costs peaking in the $840 million range.

Who, they wonder, will get stuck paying those added costs?

Supporters counter that so-called “off-ramps” are built into the plan. If additional studies show costs will exceed the $450 million top figure, they say federal agencies and others will rethink the plan. Further muting overrun concerns, they say, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission must sign off on rate increases, providing another off-ramp.

The restoration plan’s genesis can be traced to two events: the water shutoff in 2001, which showed Klamath Basin farmers what can happen if they do nothing to protect endangered salmon runs, and the pending expiration of PacifiCorp’s federal license to operate the dams. As part of relicensing provisions, PacifiCorp has been ordered to install fish ladders and conduct other extensive and expensive improvements to the structures, which are 50 years or more old.

A FERC study estimates the expense of installing fish ladders at $350 million.

Also on the table is a state law requiring utilities to generate 25 percent of the state’s power from renewable resources by 2025. Removing the dams and replacing the lost power with renewable energy resources will help PacifiCorp meet those requirements, company officials said.

Also on the plus side, dam removal is expected to enhance fish runs, opening traditional spawning grounds now off-limits to endangered salmon – a contention Mallams and others dispute.

“This offers us the surest and quickest ways of restoring fish runs,” said Jeff Mitchell, tribal council member for the Klamath Tribes. “We’ve gone without salmon now for decades.”

The biggest unknown in the dam-removal cost is the toxicity of sediment that has built up behind the four dams. Particularly worrisome is the amount of asbestos, which was used extensively in dam construction.

Preliminary studies show the sediment contains only minor levels of toxicity. But those studies, even proponents admit, are cursory. Comprehensive studies are planned before steps are taken to remove the dams.

If the sediment is found to be highly toxic, project backers say the secretary of the federal Department of the Interior could put a halt to the plan in 2012, when the department is projected to rule on whether to go forward.

At that point, money collected from ratepayers in a surcharge pot called for in Senate Bill 76 would either be reimbursed or put toward a beneficial use. For example, it could go toward paying for fish ladders and other structural improvements necessary to relicense the dams.

But opponents say the opt-outs don’t provide sufficient protection against officials pushing the plan forward even if dam removal costs skyrocket.

Also, they say, at some point in the dam decommissioning process it will be too late to turn back – regardless of the level of toxicity found in the sediment.

Opponents also question whether PacifiCorp can replace the lost power. If nothing else, they argue, lawmakers should wait for further studies before passing any bill that sets the plan in motion.

“It is irresponsible for us to render a decision on SB76 at this time,” Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, said in testimony before a House committee last week.

Garrard also told committee members the majority of people in his district oppose dam removal.

“I ask you to please wait until we know if dam removal is the right thing to do,” he said.

Plan proponents, meanwhile, say it is critical to move forward now with Senate Bill 76. By amortizing the cost to ratepayers over 10 years, they say, it will add only between $1.50 and $1.80 a month to the average electric customer’s bill.

Waiting to implement the surcharge, they say, puts ratepayers at risk for a dramatic rate increase at some future date.

“This bill is needed now, not only to demonstrate Oregon’s commitment to the (restoration) agreement, but to soften the impact on ratepayers.” said Mike Carrier, natural resources policy advisor for Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

But adopting SB76, opponents argue, sets in motion a slippery slope they fear could be far more costly for ratepayers in the long run.

Mitch Lies, Capital Press – http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=618&ArticleID=51237&TM=51459.98

Ocean power surges amid tide of energy alternatives May 9, 2009

Three miles off the craggy, wave-crashing coastline near Humboldt Bay, Calif., deep ocean swells roll through a swath of ocean that is soon to be the site of the nation’s first major wave-power project.

Like other renewable energy technology, ocean power generated by waves, tidal currents, or steady offshore winds has been considered full of promise yet perennially years from reaching full-blown commercial development.

That’s still true – commercial-scale deployment is at least five years away. Yet there are fresh signs that ocean power is surging. And if all goes well, WaveConnect, the wave-energy pilot project at Humboldt that’s being developed by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E), could by next year deploy five commercial-scale wave systems, each putting 1 megawatt of ocean-generated power onto the electric grid.

At less than 1 percent of the capacity of a big coal-fired power plant, that might seem a pittance. Yet studies show that wave energy could one day produce enough power to supply 17 percent of California’s electric needs – and make a sizable dent in the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Nationwide, ocean power’s potential is far larger. Waves alone could produce 10,000 megawatts of power, about 6.5 percent of US electricity demand – or as much as produced by conventional hydropower dam generators, estimated the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the research arm of the public utility industry based in Palo Alto, Calif., in 2007. All together, offshore wind, tidal power, and waves could meet 10 percent of US electricity needs.

That potential hasn’t gone unnoticed by the Obama administration. After years of jurisdictional bickering, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Interior last month moved to clarify permitting requirements that have long slowed ocean energy development.

While the Bush administration requested zero for its Department of Energy ocean-power R&D budget a few years ago, the agency has reversed course and now plans to quadruple funding to $40 million in the next fiscal year.

If the WaveConnect pilot project succeeds, experts say that the Humboldt site, along with another off Mendocino County to the south, could expand to 80 megawatts. Success there could fling open the door to commercial-scale projects not only along California’s surf-pounding coast but prompt a bicoastal US wave-power development surge.

“Even without much support, ocean power has proliferated in the last two to three years, with many more companies trying new and different technology,” says George Hagerman, an ocean-energy researcher at the Virginia Tech Advanced Research Institute in Arlington, Va.

Wave and tidal-current energy are today at about the same stage as land-based wind power was in the early 1980s, he says, but with “a lot more development just waiting to see that first commercial success.”

More than 50 companies worldwide and 17 US-based companies are now developing ocean power prototypes, an EPRI survey shows. As of last fall, FERC tallied 34 tidal-power and nine wave-power permits with another 20 tidal-current, four wave-energy, and three ocean-current applications pending.

Some of those permits are held by Christopher Sauer’s company, Ocean Renewable Power of Portland, Maine, which expects to deploy an underwater tidal-current generator in a channel near Eastport, Maine, later this year.

After testing a prototype since December 2007, Mr. Sauer is now ready to deploy a far more powerful series of turbines using “foils” – not unlike an airplane propeller – to efficiently convert water current that’s around six knots into as much as 100,000 watts of power. To do that requires a series of “stacked” turbines totaling 52 feet wide by 14 feet high.

“This is definitely not a tinkertoy,” Sauer says.

Tidal energy, as demonstrated by Verdant Power’s efforts in New York City’s East River, could one day provide the US with 3,000 megawatts of power, EPRI says. Yet a limited number of appropriate sites with fast current means that wave- and offshore-wind power have the largest potential.

“Wave-power technology is still very much in emerging pre-commercial stage,” says Roger Bedard, ocean technology leader for EPRI. “But what we’re seeing with the PG&E WaveConnect is an important project that could have a significant impact.”

Funding is a problem. As with most renewable power, financing for ocean power has been becalmed by the nation’s financial crisis. Some 17 Wall Street finance companies that had funded renewables, including ocean power, are now down to about seven, says John Miller, director of the Marine Renewable Energy Center at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth.

Even so, entrepreneurs like Sauer aren’t close to giving up – and even believe that the funding tide may have turned. Private equity and the state of Maine provided funding at a critical time, he says.

“It’s really been a struggle, particularly since mid-September when Bear Sterns went down,” Sauers says. “We worked without pay for a while, but we made it through.”

Venture capitalists are not involved in ocean energy right now, he admits. Yet he does get his phone calls returned. “They’re not writing checks yet, but they’re talking more,” he says.

When they do start writing checks, it may be to propel devices such as the Pelamis and the PowerBuoy. Makers of those devices, and more than a dozen wave-power companies worldwide, will soon vie to be among five businesses selected to send their machines to the ocean off Humboldt.

One of the major challenges they will face is “survivability” in the face of towering winter waves. By that measure, one of the more successful generators – success defined by time at sea without breaking or sinking – is the Pelamis, a series of red metal cylinders connected by hinges and hydraulic pistons.

Looking a bit like a red bullet train, several of the units were until recently floating on the undulating sea surface off the coast of Portugal. The Pelamis coverts waves to electric power as hydraulic cylinders connecting its floating cylinders expand and contract thereby squeezing fluid through a power unit that extracts energy.

An evaluation of a Pelamis unit installed off the coast of Massachusetts a few years ago found that for $273 million, a wave farm with 206 of the devices could produce energy at a cost of about 13.4 cents a kilowatt hours. Such costs would drop sharply and be competitive with onshore wind power if the industry settled on a technology and mass-produced it.

“Even with worst-case assumptions, the economics of wave power compares favorably to wind power,” the 2004 study conducted for EPRI found.

One US-based contestant for a WaveConnect slot is likely to be the PowerBuoy, a 135-five-foot-long steel cylinder made by Ocean Power Technology (OPT) of Pennington, N.J. Inside the cylinder that is suspended by a float, a pistonlike structure moves up and down with the bobbing of the waves. That drives a generator, sending up to 150 kilowatts of power to a cable on the ocean bottom. A dozen or more buoys tethered to the ocean floor make a power plant.

“Survivability” is a critical concern for all ocean power systems. Constant battering by waves has sunk more than one wave generator. But one of PowerBuoy’s main claims is that its 56-foot-long prototype unit operated continuously for two years before being pulled for inspection.

“The ability to ride out passing huge waves is a very important part of our system,” says Charles Dunleavy, OPT’s chief financial officer. “Right now, the industry is basically just trying to assimilate and deal with many different technologies as well as the cost of putting structures out there in the ocean.”

Beside survivability and economics, though, the critical question of impact on the environment remains.

“We think they’re benign,” EPRI’s Mr. Bedard says. “But we’ve never put large arrays of energy devices in the ocean before. If you make these things big enough, they would have a negative impact.”

Mr. Dunleavy is optimistic that OPT’s technology is “not efficient enough to rob coastlines and their ecosystems of needed waves. A formal evaluation found the company’s PowerBuoy installed near a Navy base in Hawaii as having “no significant impact,” he says.

Gauging the environmental impacts of various systems will be studied closely in the WaveConnect program, along with observations gathered from fishermen, surfers, and coastal-impact groups, says David Eisenhauer, a PG&E spokesman, says.

“There’s definitely good potential for this project,” says Mr. Eisenhauer. “It’s our responsibility to explore any renewable energy we can bring to our customers – but only if it can be done in an economically and environmentally feasible way.”

Offshore wind is getting a boost, too. On April 22, the Obama administration laid out new rules on offshore leases, royalty payments, and easement that are designed to pave the way for investors.

Offshore wind power is a commercially ready technology, with 10,000 megawatts of wind power already deployed off European shores. Studies have shown that the US has about 500,000 megawatts of potential offshore wind power. Across 10 to 11 East Coast states, offshore wind could supply as much as 20 percent of the states’ electricity demand without the need for long transmission lines, Hagerman notes.

But development has lagged, thanks to political opposition and regulatory hurdles. So the US remains about five years behind Europe on wave and tidal and farther than that on offshore wind, Bedard says. “They have 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind and we have zero.”

While more costly than land-based wind power, new offshore wind projects have been shown in some studies to have a lower cost of energy than coal projects of the same size and closer to the cost of energy of a new natural-gas fired power plant, Hagerman says.

Offshore wind is the only ocean-energy technology ready to be deployed in gigawatt quantities in the next decade, Bedard says. Beyond that, wave and tidal will play important roles.

For offshore wind developers, that means federal efforts to clarify the rules on developing ocean wind power can’t come soon enough. Burt Hamner4plans a hybrid approach to ocean energy – using platforms that produce 10 percent wave energy and 90 percent wind power.

But Mr. Hamner’s dual-power system has run into a bureaucratic tangle – with the Minerals Management Service and FERC both wanting his company to meet widely divergent permit requirements, he says.

“What the public has to understand is that we are faced with a flat-out energy crisis,” Hamner says. “We have to change the regulatory system to develop a structure that’s realistic for what we’re doing.”

To be feasible, costs for offshore wind systems must come down. But even so, a big offshore wind farm with hundreds of turbines might cost $4 billion – while a larger coal-fired power plant is just as much and a nuclear power even more, he contends.

“There is no cheap solution,” Hamner says. “But if we’re successful, the prize could be a big one.”

KIVI -http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10320129

Wave Power Coming on Slow Rollers April 21, 2009

Two years ago, there was a “gold rush” on the ocean to stake claims for wave energy. Now the spray is settling. As it clears, fewer heads remain above water. Energy developers have given up on about a quarter of the wave projects they proposed along the West Coast. Some tidal power proposals are ebbing away as well. The slow arrival of this new source of renewable energy is just fine with some coastal residents who still harbor doubts about the technology. We get more on the story from KPLU’s Tom Banse.

For more information:
Congressional letter – March 2009 Congressional letter requesting $250 million of DOE stimulus funds be set aside for marine renewable power technology R&D. Signers include Jay Inslee (D-WA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), and David Wu (D-OR)

West Coast wave energy projects proposed to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (www.ferc.gov) listed from north to south (filing date):

P-12751 Makah Bay (Finavera) application to surrender license filed 2/09

P-13058 Grays Harbor Ocean Energy (Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Company, LLC) 11/2007

P-13047 Oregon Coastal Wave Energy (Tillamook Intergovernmental Dev. Entity) 10/2007

P-12750 Newport OPT Wave Park (Ocean Power Technologies) permit surrendered 3/09

P-12793 Florence Oregon Ocean Wave Project (Oceanlinx) 4/2007, withdrawn 4/08

P-12713 Reedsport OPT Wave Park (Ocean Power Technologies) 3/2006

P-12743 Douglas County Wave Energy (Douglas County, OR) 9/2006 (oscillating column device on Umpqua River jetty)

P-12749 Coos Bay OPT Wave Park (Ocean Power Technologies) 3/2006

P-12752 Coos County Offshore (Bandon, Oregon) (Finavera) permit cancelled w/o objection 6/08

P-12779 Humboldt County WaveConnect (PG&E) 2/07

P-12753 Humboldt County Wave Energy (Finavera) permit surrendered 2/09

P-13075 Centerville OPT Wave Park (Ocean Power Technologies) 11/2007

P-12781 Mendocino County WaveConnect (PG&E) 2/07

P-13053 Green Wave Mendocino Wave Park (Green Wave Energy Solutions, LLC) filed 10/07 pending

P-13377 and P-13378 Fort Ross Project- N & S (Sonoma County Water Agency) 2/09 pending

P-13376 Del Mar Landing Project (Sonoma County Water Agency) 2/09 pending

P-13308 San Francisco Ocean Energy Project (Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Company, LLC) 10/08 pending

P-13379 San Francisco Ocean Energy Project (City and County of SF) 2/09 pending

P-13052 Green Wave San Luis Obispo Wave Park (Green Wave Energy Solutions, LLC) filed 10/07 pending

P-13309 Ventura Ocean Energy Project (Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Company, LLC) filed 10/08 pending

Total proposed wave energy projects since 2006: 21
Total projects scrubbed for any reason: 5

KPLU, http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kplu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1496258&sectionID=1

House passes wilderness/Renewable energy lands bill March 25, 2009

Congress on Wednesday set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness – from California’s Sierra Nevada mountains to the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

The legislation is on its way to President Barack Obama for his likely signature.

The House approved the bill, 285-140, the final step in a long legislative road that began last year.

The vote came two weeks after the House rejected the bill amid a partisan dispute over gun rights. The measure was brought up again in the Senate and approved last week, setting up Wednesday’s vote.

The bill – a collection of nearly 170 separate measures – would be one of the largest expansions of wilderness protection in a quarter-century. It would confer the government’s highest level of protection on land in California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.

Supporters called the bill landmark legislation that will strengthen the national park system, restore national forests, preserve wild and scenic rivers, protect battlefields and restore balance to the management of public lands.

Opponents, mostly Republicans, called the bill a “land grab” that would block energy development on vast swaths of federal land.

“After nearly a decade during which our parks were taken for granted and our range lands were scarred by a spider-web of roads and (drilling) well pads,” the lands bill “represents a new dawn for America’s heritage and American values,” said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and other Republicans complained that the measure would lock up millions of acres of land that could be explored for energy and used for other development.

“Our nation can’t afford to shut down the creation of jobs for jobless Americans, and we can’t afford to become even more dependent on foreign sources of energy,” Hastings said.

The bill “even locks up federal lands from renewable energy production, including wind and solar,” he said.

Hastings and Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to allow visitors to national parks to carry concealed, loaded weapons. A federal judge last week struck down a Bush administration rule allowing loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges.

Because of a parliamentary rule adopted in the Senate, the House took up the bill under a rule that blocked amendments.

Land to be protected in the bill ranges from California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range and Oregon’s Mount Hood to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

Land in Idaho’s Owyhee canyons, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan and Zion National Park in Utah also would win designation as wilderness, and more than 1,000 miles of rivers in nearly a dozen states would gain protections. The proposals would expand wilderness designation – which blocks nearly all development – into areas that now are not protected.

The bill also would let Alaska go forward with plans to build an airport access road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge as part of a land swap that would transfer more than 61,000 acres to the federal government, much of it designated as wilderness.

The bill is H.R. 146.

By MATTHEW DALY, The Associated Press – http://www.theolympian.com/nationworld/story/798416.html

Governors envision eco-friendly fuels at I-5 rest stops March 11, 2009

Gov. Chris Gregoire and her counterparts in Oregon and California are considering a plan they hope would help transform Interstate 5 from a freeway ruled by gasoline burners to a haven for eco-friendly cars and trucks.

The three governors envision a series of alternative fueling stations stretching from the Canadian border to Mexico, creating what has been dubbed a “green freeway.”

As the plan stands, motorists eventually would be able to pull off at I-5 rest stops for more than a cup of coffee and roadside relief: They also would be able to charge, or swap out, their electric-vehicle batteries or fill their tanks with biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen or compressed natural gas.

The idea is drawing opposition from interest groups that say the state-approved stations would compete with nearby private businesses.

But supporters say services for alternative-fuel vehicles are often tough to find near the 1,382-mile interstate. If approved, the project could begin in Washington as early as this coming summer.

It would mark the first time U.S. drivers could travel a long stretch of freeway with easy access to alternative fuel.

“We originally coined it the B.C.-to-Baja green highway,” said Jeff Doyle, director of public-private partnerships at the Washington State Department of Transportation. “The three states are trying to find out if we can all march forward together.”

The fueling stations and battery swap-out docks would be the first businesses allowed by West Coast states to operate at rest stops, Doyle said. To help companies with their initial costs, they would not be charged rent until they started turning a profit, he said.

The move would need to clear layers of local and federal approval. Supporters say the plan would fit with the nationwide push for green jobs and alternative-energy development, and put the states in line for some of the $15 billion in federal stimulus money dedicated to energy-related programs.

Marty Brown, Gregoire’s legislative liaison, said Gregoire, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski are beginning to figure out how to make the plan work. The three briefly discussed the idea last month during a meeting in Washington, D.C.

Priming investment

Doyle said he has been working with the Oregon and California transportation departments for months in developing a way to “partner with next-generation fuel providers to spur private investment.”

He said Oregon and California are not likely to start on their ends of the project as soon as Washington, which also is looking at setting up alternative-fuel stations at Park-and-Ride lots.

Separately in Olympia, Rep. Deb Eddy, D-Kirkland, is sponsoring a bill that would give businesses a sales-tax exemption to establish battery charging and exchange stations, as well as create the infrastructure to transform the state automobile fleet from gasoline to electric.

“If we expect to ever meet our state greenhouse-gas goals, we will have to tackle transportation,” Eddy said.

Eddy said she is not working with Gregoire and the California and Oregon governors in her efforts, but she said she’d like charging and battery swap-out stations at rest stops by the end of 2015.

Eddy said her proposal, House Bill 1481, is likely to be voted out of the House in coming days.

Business opposition

Jim Whitty, manager of the Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding office in Oregon, said his state wants to push forward with the rest-stop fueling stations but is tied up by opposition from the National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO) and national gasoline distribution groups.

NATSO contends the stations would draw potential customers from truck stops, hotels, restaurants and other businesses near rest stops.

The owner of a Eugene, Ore., company that works with I-5 tractor-trailer drivers to reduce greenhouse emissions by upgrading their vehicles, remains hopeful for the rest-stop businesses. Sharon Banks, CEO of Cascade Sierra Solutions, said the proposal would appeal to truckers who choose rest areas over truck stops as places to pull off the freeway.

In the Puget Sound region, Susan Fahnestock, who co-owns Bellevue’s Green Car Co., which sells electric, plug-in hybrid and biodiesel vehicles, said the proposal is timely because numerous types of electric cars are hitting the market.

“I think people know this is coming. We have got to start somewhere,” Fahnestock said.

Doyle said he’s slogging through the legalities of getting the federal government to approve commercial development alongside an interstate. He said that if the plan is approved, the rest stops would not resemble some East Coast rest areas that feature fast-food restaurants and souvenir shops.

Doyle said the state wouldn’t want alternative-fuel stations to disrupt rest-area traffic, so contract companies would have to provide small, low-profile setups. Doyle added that rest-stop fueling sites would be self-service and likely to have little or no on-site staffing.

There already are dozens of compressed natural gas, ethanol and biodiesel stations in Washington and Oregon, but the closest hydrogen station is at Humboldt State University in Northern California.

Company interested

Doyle said no contracts for the fuel stations have been signed. But the head of a California-based company that has electric-car service stations in Israel, and is in the midst of expanding to Hawaii, the Bay Area, Australia and Ontario, Canada, has met with Gregoire, Brown said.

The company, Better Place, is led by Shai Agassi, a former Silicon Valley software executive who has been traveling the world touting his vision of a network of electric-vehicle charging stations.

Jeff Miller, who works in global development at Better Place, said that if the company were hired it would build charging stations in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles, and battery switch-out stations at rest areas about every 40 miles along the I-5 corridor. Electric vehicles, he said, have a battery life of about 100 miles.

Better Place’s stations are fully automated and require about five minutes to switch out a battery, which can be less time than it takes to fill up a gas tank, Miller said.

Jennifer Sullivan, Seattle Times – http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008827158_greenfreeway08m.html

Eureka, CA looks to digest food refuse into energy March 11, 2009

In the ever-challenging goal to trim down Humboldt County’s waste stream, food refuse is a heavyweight — and waste management officials are hoping it can be digested to save money, generate power and meet state mandates.The Humboldt Waste Management Authority and the cities of Arcata and Eureka are looking to develop a regional food waste digester they believe could save millions over the next two decades. Instead of sending the area’s food waste by truck to a landfill, it would go to the digester to be converted into methane and used to produce electricity.

Recycling bottles, cans, paper and other items has pared down the amount of waste sent to landfills over the years. But some cities have had trouble meeting a 2000 state demand to keep at least 50 percent of their waste streams out of landfills. Proposed legislation on waste and pollution are likely to tighten regulations in coming years.

Food waste is heavy — it’s 75 to 80 percent water — and represents about 20 percent of households’ waste, and 38 percent of businesses’ waste, according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. That means it costs a lot to put it on a truck and ship it to a landfill 190 miles away.

”When you think about hauling water — it doesn’t make sense,” said Humboldt Waste Management Authority Program Analyst Juliette Bohn.

Despite its estimated $6 million to $7 million price tag and $618,000 yearly operating cost, a waste authority feasibility

analysis approximated that such a facility would save more than $4 million over 20 years by cutting tipping fees, producing electricity and reducing long haul trucking costs. Some 11,800 tons of organic waste could be diverted to the digester each year, the study estimated.Food waste digesters have the benefit of extracting energy from refuse and leaving a potentially compostable residue, wrote California Integrated Waste Management Board spokeswoman Charlene Graham in an e-mail. The board’s primary concern is that the technology meets environmental standards, Graham wrote. Technologies that have multiple benefits are usually worth pursuing, she wrote.

Digesters have long been used to process manure and solid waste from wastewater treatment facilities. What’s different is the process to grind up the food before it’s sent to the digester, Bohn said, and how to operate the plant given food’s quick putrefaction.

There are about 70 food digesters in Europe, but only a handful of small-scale projects in the United States.

”Because it’s a new take on an old process,” Bohn said, “there’s been a learning curve.”

A project in Humboldt County could answer remaining questions about food waste digestion and serve as a demonstration for other communities that might be interested, Bohn said.

The waste management authority is applying for grants for permitting, and for design and engineering of a facility. It’s also looking into government loans and public-private partnerships to facilitate the construction.

Ideally, Bohn said, ground could be broken in as little as two years.

John Driscoll, The Times-Standard – http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11885675

WA and Nor Cal Wave-Energy projects halted February 11, 2009

A small wave-energy project off Washington’s northwest coast won’t be built after its British Columbia-based developer decided to halt all wave-energy projects and focus instead on wind power.

The one-megawatt project planned for Makah Bay in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary was the country’s first wave-energy project to receive an operating license. Its developer, Finavera Renewables, also pulled permits for a larger project it had planned off the Northern California coast.

Such projects use buoys equipped with turbines that harness the power of the rolling waves to generate electricity.

Finavera declined to comment about why it decided to give up its wave-energy projects, but officials said its most pressing concern is finishing a handful of wind projects in Canada and Ireland.

The company’s wave-power buoy sank unexpectedly during a test run more than a year ago off the Oregon coast, and the plans to place four buoys in Makah Bay have lagged because of state and federal permitting.

Finavera’s decision isn’t surprising given the wave-energy industry’s infancy compared with wind, which now has honed its turbine technology and lowered power costs, said Roger Bedard, ocean-energy leader with the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute.

Bedard said he was optimistic that wave-device testing and planned commercial projects by different companies and Oregon State University off the Oregon coast will propel the young field forward.

By Michelle Ma, Seattle Times – http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008730967_waveenergy11m.html

PG&E customers to pay for wave power studies January 31, 2009

Pacific Gas and Electric Company has won approval to recover from ratepayers $4.8 million in wave energy development costs.

The California Public Utilities Commission this week approved the funding mechanism for the company’s WaveConnect project, said Jana Morris, a PG&E spokeswoman, said.

“Over time, it will be incorporated into the rates like some of our other projects,” she said. She did not provide any specific information of when or how bills will be affected.

The funding approval allows the company to move forward with wave energy studies, which remain in the exploratory stages.

“It’s a small amount” when it’s spread out over time and shared by all California PG&E customers, said Fort Bragg City Councilmember Dave Turner.

Of more concern are the project’s potential environmental, economic and visual effects, he said.

County officials and area residents said they favor “green energy” projects, but want to know more about the potential impacts to the ocean and coast before they take a stand on wave energy.

The devices could damage fisheries, interfere with whale migration and create visual blight on a seascape that is crucial to tourism, critics say.

There are dozens of wave energy devices PG&E will study. Some look like giant buoys bobbing in the ocean while others are train-sized contraptions that snake along the surface.

The energy generators could be placed between a half-mile and five miles offshore at depths of up to 600 feet, according to PG&E’s proposal. Each device could potentially generate from 150 kilowatts to 4 megawatts, which at the upper limit is enough to power about 3,000 homes.

Each of the two WaveConnect project sites could produce up to 40 megawatts of clean renewable electricity, according to PG&E.

Morris said the company is years away from launching ocean wave energy devices, Morris said.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090130/ARTICLES/901309845/1042/OPINION?Title=PG_E_custuomers_to_pay_for_wave_studies

Northwest states among wind energy leaders January 28, 2009

Wind energy grew at a record pace in 2008, according to a recent industry report.

The American Wind Energy Association reports that 8,358 megawatts of generating capacity were installed in 2008, a 50 percent jump from the previous year. The organization also reports that enough wind energy is generated in the U.S. to power seven million homes, or 25,170 megawatts in total.

According to the report, Washington is now fifth in the nation in wind production, with 1,375 megawatts. Texas is the leader at 7,116, followed by Iowa (2,790), California (2,517) and Minnesota (1,752). Oregon was also noted for becoming seventh in the nation as it passed 1,000 megawatts of wind generating capacity.

“The U.S. wind energy industry’s performance in 2008 confirms that wind is an economic and job creation dynamo, ready to deliver on the President’s call to double renewable energy production in three years,” said Denise Bode of the AWEA, going on to warn that a difficult economy in 2009 could set back the industry without prompt action on the renewable energy-friendly federal stimulus bill.

Out of last year’s combined new power-producing capacity, the AWEA says that wind accounted for 42 percent, resulting in 44 million tons of carbon emissions being saved.

http://www.washingtonenergy.com/articles/article/306/northwest-states-among-wind-energy-leaders

BLM opens 4 new offices to expidite Renewable development January 20, 2009

The Bureau of Land Management has authorized the establishment of 4 special offices to expedite and accelerate the development of renewable energy resources on public land.

1 of those offices will be in Wyoming. The others are planned for Arizona, Nevada and California.

Outgoing Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said in a statement last week that the primary job of the four new offices is “to expedite development of wind, solar, biomass and geothermal resources on public lands.”

He also mentioned the development of electrical transmission facilities.

The renewables offices are to be staffed by BLM employees working in a variety of natural resource specialties, and receive staff support from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experts and other agencies within the Interior Department.

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=9704477&nav=menu227_8

PG&E gives more specifics about Hydrokenitic project in Fort Bragg, CA January 16, 2009

Pacific Gas & Electric has volunteered to pay the city of Fort Bragg’s costs for wave energy as any other developer of a local project would do, City Manager Linda Ruffing told a City Council committee on Tuesday.

After nearly two years of local pleas for specifics about the WaveConnect project, PG&E representatives surprised city and county representatives with many new details. Those included the promise by PG&E that all environmental studies would be public, not private information. The utility had been resisting calls by competitors and ratepayer advocates before the California Public Utilities Commission to make public more information learned during the WaveConnect study.

Another surprise was that PG&E has found about 10 different viable wave energy technologies — far more than first envisioned. The utility will choose the top three or four wave energy devices and test those under a pilot project license.

PG&E representatives had said in the past that the pilot license was not a good fit because they wanted to take all the time needed for study.

On Tuesday, the pilot license process became the biggest issue for Mayor Doug Hammerstrom and other wave energy officials gathered at Town Hall to hear two top officials explain the roles of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, and the California Coastal Commission.

Both Tom Luster, who will oversee all wave energy projects for the California Coastal Commission and 23-year FERC veteran

Ann Miles said Fort Bragg has had more interest in wave energy than anywhere else in California.

Ruffing told Miles that FERC’s 30-day comment period for the pilot license was an “outrageously” short amount of time for comments, a concern echoed by Hammerstrom and Terri Gross from the Mendocino County Counsel’s Office.

Hammerstrom said 30 days wasn’t enough time to hire a consultant much less employ one to provide comments for the city. He said further there should be a provision to react to the suggestions of others made during that 30-day period.

The much quicker pilot license process was invented in the heyday of Neoconservative policy from the Bush administration which sought new ways to cut through red tape. Miles said she couldn’t answer questions about how the Obama administration might change this approach, as that was beyond the scope of her visit to Fort Bragg.

Miles said the pilot process is intended to cause minimal impacts with more extensive monitoring while generating power. A pilot project must be able to be shut down and removed quickly under FERC rules.

Ironically, PG&E may have chosen the faster pilot process to give themselves more time, locals at the morning meeting speculated.

Miles said PG&E would need to file for a conventional license by this March under FERC rules. Using the “faster” pilot license gives them until next March to get started.

Miles, who is director of FERC’s Division of Hydropower licensing, provided lengthy and knowledgeable explanations of convoluted FERC processes during a three-hour meeting. But PG&E’s new announcements, which came in private meetings last week, overshadowed the presentations by the top state and federal officials.

Luster explained how the California Coastal Commission would work with the State Lands Commission to review any wave energy project within three miles of shore.

But PG&E is now saying their 40-megawatt powerplant will be located “well beyond” that three-mile state limit. The powerplant would likely come after the five-year pilot project license.

That announcement unexpectedly changed the game for the state.

Luster said the big power cable that extends to shore would be regulated by the Coastal Commission, but development beyond three miles would be regulated only for “federal consistency.”

PG&E told the city that wave energy is “more robust farther from shore,” Ruffing reported. Questions have been repeatedly raised locally and never answered about the impracticality of attaching cables to the bottom in waters as deep as those more than three miles from shore.

Some locals have speculated the real intent of working so far from shore is oil and gas exploration, a notion PG&E has denied.

PG&E has not released any of its new information to the press. Ruffing said she emailed her summary of what the company is now saying to the PG&E representatives, who provided no objections by reply.

While planning for an eventual project many miles from shore, PG&E will give up on areas more than 3 miles from shore for now, they have told FERC.

PG&E told the city they would site the pilot project much closer to shore, to avoid the jurisdictional conflict between FERC and fellow federal agency Minerals Management Service, or MMS.

FERC claims the authority to be the regulatory authority for all water energy projects in the United States. MMS claims authority for ocean federal waters, which are those more than 3 miles from shore.

PG&E’s 68-square-mile preliminary permit area, which runs from Point Cabrillo to Cleone and to more than three miles offshore, will be trimmed down to eliminate areas beyond the federal-state jurisdiction line.

“PG&E expects that MMS and FERC will have worked out their dispute by the time PG&E is ready to apply for a long-term license,” Ruffing reported.

PG&E representatives are now promising significant help to local governments.

“All of the power generated by the 40 megawatt WaveConnect would be consumed in Mendocino County and would provide for nearly all of Fort Bragg’s electric demand when WaveConnect is generating,” Ruffing reported.

Additionally, the city and county have been promised that PG&E will pay their expenses, including reviewing, permitting and the community process for public participation.

Miles said FERC has no requirements in place to determine that a developer be able to pay for removal of devices in case of bankruptcy or disaster.

Luster said the State Lands Commission handles financial arrangements, such as bonding of projects.

That question has come up more with GreenWave LLC, which has proposed a wave energy project off Mendocino village. The LLC stands for limited liability company, a business form invented to allow greater risks to be taken.

GreenWave’s preliminary permit application is in the public comment phase until Feb. 3. The GreenWave permit has not been issued, as was reported here previously. FERC always grants these permits, unless they directly violate federal law, which is not the case with GreenWave.

Miles was making her first ever visit to Northern California. She was set to answer questions from the general public at a Town Hall forum Tuesday night.

She came equipped with a powerpoint presentation that illustrated the process. She offered a map that showed all hydrokinetic projects. There have been 137 hydrokinetic preliminary permits issued, with another 68 pending, as of December. Most of those are clustered in the Mississippi River, the Yukon River, below Niagara Falls and off the Washington, Oregon and Northern California coasts. The East Coast features a cluster of tidal energy projects.

Judith Vidaver and Char Flum, of the local Ocean Protection Coalition, also attended Tuesday morning’s Council. Committee meeting.

Jim Martin and John Innes of the FISH committee (Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics) also were in attendance. PG&E also apparently met with the FISH committee. Also on hand was Lisa Badenfort, who will now represent the Mendocino County Chief Executive’s Office on wave energy issues.

A report on Tuesday night’s public meeting with Miles will appear in the Jan. 22 edition of the Fort Bragg Advocate-News.

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2129662/

Solar Manufacturing: Sacramento Plant cuts 105 workers January 13, 2009

Solar panel maker OptiSolar Inc. is laying off nearly half of its workers, including 105 of the 175 employees at its McClellan Park plant, the Hayward-based firm announced Friday.

“It’s because of the terrible economy and our inability to access investment capital,” said spokesman Alan Bernheimer. The company also laid off 185 workers at its only other facility, in Hayward.

OptiSolar roared into the Sacramento region last year with plans to remodel former Air Force warehouses into a 1 million-square-foot factory that would employ up to 1,000 people – ultimately the biggest solar-panel plant on the continent, according to OptiSolar.

In March, Sacramento County supervisors approved a $20 million package of tax breaks for the company over 25 years.

In November, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stood before the OptiSolar factory as he ordered the state’s utilities to provide more of their power from renewable sources.

For most of last year, the solar business was an island of optimism in the darkening economy. The industry’s U.S. sales volume more than doubled in 2008, according to preliminary estimates, and in October, Congress extended a key subsidy program for eight years.

But now the downturn has caught up to solar as well. Local solar-panel installers have reported losing bank lines of credit. Financial giants that had been pouring money into solar have collapsed or pulled back.

OptiSolar is applying for a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy which, if granted, would help the company raise money, Bernheimer said.

A small assembly line is operating at the McClellan site, producing solar panels for a photovoltaic energy farm OptiSolar is constructing in Ontario, Canada. The layoffs will not affect those operations, Bernheimer said.

But expansion of the plant is on hold until at least the second half of 2009, he said. Optisolar must dramatically expand capacity at the site to produce the panels for its flagship project, a 10-square-mile array of solar panels proposed for San Luis Obispo County.

At 550 megawatts, the project would be bigger than any solar power system yet built. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2010, with costs estimated at $2 billion. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has signed a contract to buy the power beginning in 2011, but OptiSolar must finance and build the project.

Sacramento County’s package of tax breaks for OptiSolar hasn’t taken effect yet, said county Economic Development Director Rob Leonard. The discounts on electricity and property taxes are tied to employment and investment targets the company did not meet in 2008, he said.

Supervisor Roger Dickinson said Friday he believes OptiSolar will recover and that green tech remains a sound economic development priority for the region.

“Everyone’s struggling with finding capital,” he said. “I still think there’s an enormous amount of potential in the field of alternative energy.”

As required under state law, employees will receive full wages and benefits for 60 days after the announcement of the layoff.

http://www.sacbee.com/business/story/1530884.html

More on Weed, CA Biomass plant lawsuit January 9, 2009

An environmental lawsuit has delayed Roseburg Forest Products’ plans to make power by burning scrap wood in Weed, which the company points to as the cause of 33 layoffs.

A regional manager with the company based in Dillard, Ore., said he was surprised by the opposition to the $15.5 million project.

“The same groups that I thought would be behind green power and green energy are against it,” said Steve Henson, Roseburg’s California operations manager.

The Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center and Weed Concerned Citizens, a pair of Siskiyou County environmental groups, filed the lawsuit in mid-December. In it, they claim the planned biomass energy operation at the company’s Weed veneer plant would sully the air and create noise pollution.

The groups aren’t trying to stop the plant; rather, they want changes made to its design that would make it more environmentally friendly, said Karen Rogers, a board member for the ecology center.

“There are some very specific things that could be done that would make us happy,” she said.

Rogers said those things include using pollution control systems that would lessen the plant’s impact on the county’s air.

Because of the nationwide sag in the building market, Henson said the demand for veneer is down, and the company planned to use the biomass project as a way to keep workers at the mill busy. Because of the lawsuit, he said the company reduced the mill’s work force from 138 to 105 last month.

But Rogers said the mill worker layoffs were already in the works because of the recession and the company is now blaming it on the lawsuit.

“It’s simple scapegoating,” Rogers said.

The Siskiyou County Planning Commission approved Roseburg’s plans in September. Two months later, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors denied an appeal to that decision brought by the environmental groups.

Late last month, the five-member board issued a statement reiterating its support of the project.

“It means jobs for Siskiyou County and it’s a renewable energy start for California,” said Supervisor Michael Kobseff, whose district includes Weed.

He said the project meets county, state and federal environmental requirements.

Roseburg owns 186,000 acres of north state timberland and has run the mill for 25 years. Steam already was used to dry wood and produce veneer, and the plan was to use it to power an electricity-producing turbine, said Bill Carlson, principal of Carlson Small Power Consultants, who helped design the project. Scrap wood is chipped and then burned to boil water, making the steam.

To maximize the power production, he said the mill would double the amount of dry wood it burns each year from 50,000 to 100,000 tons.

The resulting 10 megawatts of electricity would power about 8,000 homes, Carlson said.

As the former manager of the Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Co. in Anderson, he said the Roseburg project would be about one-fifth of the size of Wheelabrator.

Carlson argued that the wood chips that will be burned at the mill put off lower emissions than straw and other wastes burned at other biomass plants.

“This is cleaner than most,” he said.

http://www.redding.com/news/2009/jan/09/roseburg-blames-environmental-suit-for-layoffs/

Environmental Groups file suit against Weed, CA biomass project January 8, 2009

The Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center and Weed Concerned Citizens filed a suit in mid-December against the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, challenging their Nov. 13 decision to approve a use permit for Roseburg Forest Products to build a 15-megawatt biomass cogeneration plant in Weed.
The petition alleges that the supervisors’  actions violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the petitioners are seeking a determination from the Siskiyou County Superior Court that the board of supervisors’  actions were invalid and void.
According to the suit, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project fails to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA guidelines.
The board of supervisors, in a strong response dated Dec. 29 and e-mailed to news organizations on Jan. 5, stated their continuing support for the project.
Titled  “Statement of Board of Supervisors Regarding Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, et al. v. County of Siskiyou and Roseburg Forest Products,” the statement reads:
“The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors is issuing this statement with respect to its position regarding the recent lawsuit filed challenging the approval of the biomass cogeneration electric power plant to be constructed by Roseburg Forest Products Company at the Weed Veneer Mill facility.
“The Board of Supervisors continues to stand firmly behind this project and the approval granted. It is unfortunate that a few disgruntled individuals have filed, what appears to be, a suit lacking in substance in an attempt to forestall the development of this critically needed facility.
“Not only is this facility consistent with the Governor’s desire to develop renewable energy resources, but it is also essential for the continued economic vitality of the County of Siskiyou.
“It is the Board of Supervisors’  understanding that as many as 33 employees could be laid off within the next few weeks because of this lawsuit and that there is a very real potential for permanent harm to the County’s economic base. It is the Board of Supervisors’  opinion that this lawsuit is an abuse of the CEQA process and the Board calls on the Governor of the State of California, the Legislature, and the Attorney General, to take immediate action to support the County of Siskiyou in its efforts to comply with the State’s desire to have these types of environmentally friendly facilities created.
“In light of the fact that the State is supporting the removal of clean hydroelectric power from the County, it is even more essential that environmentally friendly sources of power generation be put in place. The Board directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Statement to the Governor of the State of California, and the Attorney General of the State of California, as well as the County’s Legislative Representatives and Congressman Wally Herger, as its request for their support for this project.

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x1060501669/Groups-file-suit-against-Roseburg-biomass-project

Red Bluff, CA impressed with solar street lights January 5, 2009

Things are brightening up in Red Bluff with a little help from the sun.Three solar-powered parking lot lights at Red Bluff Skate Park have made an impression on the city, and if they continue to prove their success, they may be the motivation for going green with lighting in other areas around town.

I think we took a chance, because we had never really seen solar parking lot lights in action, but they are a great thing and they work great, said Debbie Carlisi, director of Parks and Recreation Department.

The solar lights were installed in September, she said. They soak up the sun s rays all day and store the power in a battery.

The Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments decided to use solar lighting instead of traditional because it was more cost-effective, she said. These are the first solar lights the city of Red Bluff has used, but they will probably not be the last.

Of course, everybody wants to go green, Carlisi said. By using solar, that s helping.

They are also economically efficient.

We don t have to pay anybody as long as the sun shines, Carlisi said.

The city also saved with installation costs.

Traditional lighting estimates were more than $20,000 to dig trenches, run an electrical supply and for engineering costs for new service from Pacific Gas & Electric, said Public Works Director Mark Barthel.

The solar lights themselves were similar in cost to traditional lights, about $6,500 each, he said. The city estimates

it saves about $250 a year in electricity costs for the three lights, plus an additional savings from not having billing.We are thrilled with them, Barthel said.

The solar panels should have a 15-year lifespan and the batteries should last five to seven years, depending on how much they have to be cycled and recharged, he said.

We are going to give them a little more time to see how well they do, Barthel said.

But if the solar lights continue to prove themselves as an economically and environmentally efficient lighting method, the city will probably look into using them elsewhere, he said.

If some dollars came along for some green type of technology where we could apply solar lighting, we would probably look at some areas where we need lighting or need lighting replaced, Barthel said.

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/ci_11371504

FERC and Fort Bragg, CA residents clash over likely hydrokinetic power development December 30, 2008

On January 13, 2009, a “top official from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will appear to explain the agency’s strategy on developing what it calls “hydrokinetic” power as an alterative energy source.

Ann F. Miles, FERC’s director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing, will meet with county and city officials before attending the public meeting in Fort Bragg.

“The FISH Committee is looking forward to FERC’s visit, and welcomes the opportunity to learn about the different FERC licensing processes for wave energy, and how fishermen and other affected people can participate and have their voices heard,” said attorney Elizabeth Mitchell, who represents the Fisherman Involved for Safe Hydrokinetics.

Ocean waters off the Mendocino Coast, from Little River to Cleone, are now claimed under exclusive study permits by two different wave energy developers. GreenWave LLC claims 17 square miles of waters from Little River to Point Cabrillo, while PG&E claims 68 square miles from Point Cabrillo to Cleone.

Preliminary permits granted by FERC give not only exclusive study rights to the claimants, but also licensing priority to develop wave energy upon successful completion of the three-year studies.

Fort Bragg has become ground-zero for wave energy regulation. The federal Minerals Management Service, which is involved in an open feud with FERC over wave energy regulation, has sought to make Fort Bragg its test case.

FERC drew local ire by denying local efforts to intervene in the study process. At one point, protesters carried signs targeting the obscure federal agency with messages such as “Don’t FERC with us.”

One FERC insider said commissioners had complained that more fuss had been made in tiny Fort Bragg than the entire rest of the nation.

FERC later relented and on appeal granted intervener status to Mendocino County, for the PG&E project. The period to intervene and comment on GreenWave’s permit closes Friday, Feb. 6. As yet, nobody has filed anything with FERC, according to its Website.

“The commission’s existing procedures are well-established and well-suited to address this expansion of conventional hydropower with new technologies,” Miles told Congress last year, “and we are prepared to learn from experience in this rapidly evolving area and to make whatever regulatory adjustments are appropriate in order to help realize the potential of this renewable energy resource.”

FERC expanded its domain into all tidal, wave, river flow and ocean current study and licensing with its novel concept of a unified “hydrokinetic” regulation.

From the Yukon River in Alaska to the ocean currents off the Florida Keys, FERC has grown its regulatory territory dramatically since the start of the Bush administration. The agency is now explaining how dam regulation and wave energy innovation can go together. FERC recently granted the first hydrokinetic plant permit for production of energy in the Mississippi River in the state of Minnesota.

The independent agency has moved quickly with Neo-Con era disdain for regulation, eschewing calls from fellow federal and state agencies for a conventional rulemaking process. Instead FERC has adjusted its process as it goes along.

Read More: http://mendocoastcurrent.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/ferc-official-appearing-in-fort-bragg-in-january-2009/

Bill intoduced in CA state senate to compensate small solar producers December 17, 2008

State Senator Patricia Wiggins has introduced new legislation to encourage more production of solar power by compensating smaller producers for all of the solar power that they generate.

Currently, residential electric customers can participate in the state’s solar program, known as the California Solar Initiative, and receive subsidies for the installation of photovoltaic panels to produce solar power. They may also participate in “net-energy metering,” a program that gives customers credits for the amount of solar power they produce against their electric bills. However, power produced beyond their own use is returned to their electric provider for free.

SB 7 would not only allow residential utility customers to continue to receive credits for the solar power they produce for their own use, it would also allow them to contribute more solar-based power to the electrical grid and be compensated for it at the same rate a utility provider would pay.

The state already has legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by getting 33 percent of its power from renewable sources.

”My bill offers a fair and reasonable path to increased production of solar power, and it contributes a win-win for solar power producers, utility providers and our environment,” Wiggins said.

http://www.redwoodtimes.com/local/ci_11254111

Update on No. California wave power, White Papers Presented December 16, 2008

The report for the California Energy Commission and the Ocean Protection Council looked at the possible socioeconomic and environmental effects of the infant industry, including what it might mean for fisheries and coastal habitat.

”Site selection and project scale are critical factors in anticipating these potential effects,” the report reads. Depending on their size and location, the study reads, commercial and sport fisheries might be impacted, but new projects would yield construction and operations jobs for nearby communities.

But projects could also interfere with wave shoaling and beach building by stripping some energy out of waves, and that in turn could affect species from the high tide line out to the continental shelf. The buoys or other structures designed to convert wave power to electricity are also likely to act like artificial reefs where reef-related fish would congregate, the report reads, a change from what would typically occur in the open ocean.

Still, the report concludes that there aren’t any dramatic impacts expected, and recommends that the push to develop projects proceed carefully, listing a slew of research that should be done to help understand the potential for problems.

Greg Crawford, an oceanographer with Humboldt State University and an author of the paper, said that much depends on what type of wave projects are employed. ”This stuff needs to be approached holistically,” Crawford said. While some wave energy projects are beginning to be used around the world, there is little information on how durable they are over the long term. As Crawford pointed out, they are deployed in particularly difficult and treacherous environments.

The report recommends starting small, both in the laboratory and with small-scale projects to help begin to understand the effects they might have when deployed on an industrial scale.

The Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has won authorization from the federal government to study several areas off the Humboldt and Mendocino coasts, but the company recently ran into what appears to be an insurmountable obstacle from state utilities regulators on another project off Trinidad. In October, the California Public Utilities Commission denied the first wave power project it has ever considered, on the grounds that the Trinidad Head proposal isn’t viable, and the contract price to sell the power is too expensive.

A feud of sorts over final jurisdiction on wave energy projects persists between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Mines and Minerals Service. And it’s not clear exactly what agency would make the determination of whether the costs of projects outweigh their benefits, said HSU economist Steve Hackett, another author of the study.

”I think it’s a very daunting situation for the public utilities or a power company to take on,” Hackett said.

While environmental issues will be hashed out in an environmental analysis, economic effects should also be considered, Hackett said. That includes the detriments to a struggling fishing fleet and the upside of jobs from energy projects, he said.

Bill Tomar, PG&E senior program manager that heads up its ocean wave program, said the report will be an important document in moving forward with the Humboldt and Mendocino efforts. He said he’s not daunted by the report’s findings, and compared the potentially high price of wave power today with the once-high price of wind power 20 years ago.

Tomar said it will be worth it to the company to develop the initial projects to move it toward an economy of scale so that it can be included in its portfolio of other renewable energy sources like solar, biomass and geothermal.

”We believe this will accelerate the actual maturation of the industry,” Tomar said of the Northern California projects.

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11235993

The report is available online at http://www.resources.ca.gov/copc/docs/ca_wec_effects.pdf.

Wave Power may be coming to Humboldt and Mendocino Counties December 13, 2008

San Francisco’s PG&E hopes to get permission from the California PUC later this week to pursue wave-power generation off the coasts of Humboldt and Mendocino counties, according to Bedard. PG&E declined to comment.

This article has some new information on the recent developments in wave/tidal power as well.  A great read.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/13/BUAD14L0O8.DTL&tsp=1

Weed, CA OK’s Co-Generation Power Plant November 19, 2008

Co-Gen facilities are popping up everywhere as timber companies have began to embrace the green technology, and the economic savings. These plants burn the bark from trees, which is very abundant waste product at mills. This turns a turbine, thus producing energy. The emissions from the burning process, mostly steam in these facilities, then powers a second turbine. This effectively generates twice the energy compared to older wood burning plants. It also generates a whole lot less pollution, because of carbon sequestration technologies.  All this from a renewable resource that was all but a throw-away waste product just a few years ago.

Best of all, in almost all cases these plants can pay for themselves in just a few years. When you spend  $700,000 a month powering your dry kiln, a $18 million investment in a co-gen facility that can do the same job just makes good business sense.

Here is the LInk

4 dams on the Klamath River Could be Removed by 2020 November 16, 2008

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger calls it the “the largest dam removal project ever in history”.

A nonbinding agreement to remove the four Klamath River dams has been reached between the Bush administration and the states of California and Oregon. U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne said that if the data collected over the next four years proves that dam removal is “environmentally prudent,” the target removal year is 2020.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski said the state of Oregon will assist PacifiCorp in replacing the hydroelectric energy these dams produce with “even better renewable energy.”

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x466655762/Power-company-states-feds-reach-tentative-deal-to-breach-dams