On May 1, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued their final Environmental Impact Statement for Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project, a five-megawatt project, proposed by Kenai Hydro, LLC. Kenai Hydro first filed its application for the Grant Lake Project in April 2016, and after amending their application in January, May, and August, a draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued in October 2018.

The Grant Lake Project will be located in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, on Grant Lake and near Grant Creek. It will “occupy 1,688.7 acres of federal lands within the Chugach National Forest, administered by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.”

FERC has identified “the primary issues associated with licensing the project are erosion and sedimentation control; protection of aquatic habitats including stream flows, water temperature and spawning gravel recruitment and movement; recreation use in the proposed project area and potential conflicts with the Iditarod National Historic Trail; and the protection of cultural resources.”

FERC “recommended the staff alternative, which consists of most measures included in Kenai Hydro’s proposal, as well as many of the mandatory conditions and recommendations made by state and federal agencies, and some additional measures developed by the staff.”

In the Statement, Kenai Hydro said they would take the following measures to protect the environment:

“Project Construction

• “Designate a third-party environmental compliance monitor (ECM) to oversee construction activities and ensure compliance with measures to protect natural resources.

• “Develop an erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) that includes best management practices (BMPs) to prevent sediment mobilized during construction from entering Grant Creek or Grant Lake.

• “Restore areas disturbed by construction to pre-existing conditions.

• “Develop a hazardous materials containment/fuel storage plan that includes measures to contain all hazardous materials used during construction.

• “Consult with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Alaska DFG), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to finalize design details for fish exclusion measures in the tailrace.

• “Consult with Alaska DFG’s habitat biologist to establish timing windows for instream construction and stream-crossing activities.

• “Develop a bear safety plan that includes: (1) keeping construction sites and refuse areas clear of substances that attract bears, (2) installing bear-proof garbage receptacles and other measures during construction to prevent bears from obtaining food or garbage, (3) minimizing possible conflict with bears during construction and operation, (4) establishing protocols for dealing with problem bears, 10 and (5) notifying authorities of any bear-human conflict.

“Project Operation

• “Provide the following minimum flows in the bypassed reach: 5 cfs from January 1 through July 31, 10 cfs from August 1 through September 31, 7 cfs from October 1 through October 31, and 6 cfs from November 1 through December 31 to protect aquatic habitat and support benthic macroinvertebrates.

• “Provide the following instantaneous minimum flows downstream of the tailrace: 60 cfs from January 1 through May 15, 80 cfs from May 16 through May 31, 150 cfs from June 1 through June 30, 195 cfs from July 1 through September 1, 150 cfs from September 1 through September 30, 125 cfs from October 1 through October 15, 72 cfs from October 16 through November 15, and 60 cfs from November 16 through December 31 to protect habitat for salmonids and benthic macroinvertebrates.

• “Use variable depth withdrawals from the project intake to control water temperature in Grant Creek.

• “Use variable depth withdrawals from the project intake to control water temperature in Grant Creek.

• “Provide channel maintenance flows of 800 cfs to the Grant Creek bypassed reach for a continuous 8-hour duration, once per year, in a minimum of 2 years in each moving 10-year period to promote sediment recruitment and transport from the bypassed reach to Grant Creek.

• “Limit upramping rates to 1 inch per hour during the winter (November 16 through May 15) and 2 inches per hour during the summer (May 16 through November 15). Limit downramping rates to 1 inch per hour from November 16 through May 15 and 2.25 inches per hour from May 16 through November 15.

• “Limit upramping rates to 1 inch per hour during the winter (November 16 through May 15) and 2 inches per hour during the summer (May 16 through November 15). Limit downramping rates to 1 inch per hour from November 16 through May 15 and 2.25 inches per hour from May 16 through November 15.

• “Implement the Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan (filed on January 16, 2018) that includes: (1) lake level and temperature monitoring in Grant Lake; (2) flow and temperature monitoring in Grant Creek bypassed reach; (3) flow and temperature monitoring in Grant Creek tailrace; (4) failsafe provisions; (5) a schedule for installing, maintaining, and collecting flow and temperature instrumentation; and (6) reporting.

• “Develop a spill prevention, control, and containment plan and a hazardous materials containment/fuel storage plan to prevent hazardous materials from entering Grant Creek or Grant Lake during construction and operations.

• “Implement the Biotic Monitoring Plan (filed on January 16, 2018) that includes monitoring juvenile and adult salmonid abundance and habitat use, and monitoring gravel transport in Grant Creek to assess project effects on salmonid spawning habitat.

• “Conduct biological monitoring in Grant Creek to determine the need for gravel augmentation as well as the effectiveness of the proposed enhancement/mitigation measures, including minimum flows in the bypassed reach and minimum flows downstream of the tailrace, and to evaluate the need for removal of a log jam to increase flow in a Grant Creek side channel.

• “Implement the Vegetation Management Plan (filed on January 16, 2018) that includes: (1) invasive plant management and control, (2) revegetation, (3) vegetation maintenance, (4) sensitive plant species protection and monitoring, and (5) pale poppy population management.

• “Implement the Avian Protection Plan (filed on January 16, 2018) that addresses migratory species and bald eagles and minimizes potential for electrocutions or collisions with the project transmission line.

• “Develop an Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) re-route plan that includes constructing the southern half of the proposed INHT re-route from the existing route to Grant Creek.

• “Restrict public access to the project using signage and gating/fencing of the access road to address local residents’ concerns about encouraging motorized use near the project and reduce the potential for unauthorized motorized use and on adjacent National Forest System lands (NFS lands).

• “Develop a fire prevention plan.

• “Implement the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) (filed on January 16, 2018) to protect historic properties in the project area.”

On April 18, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) directed the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) and PJM Interconnection (PJM) to begin implementing tariff changes in order to ensure that their pricing for fast-start resources is both reasonable and just. This concludes FERC’s investigations into PJM and NYISO regarding section 206 of the Federal Power Act; these investigations began in December 2017.

In the preliminary findings, FERC found both NYISO and PJM’s current practices to be “unjust and unreasonable because those practices do not allow prices to accurately reflect the marginal cost of serving load when a fast-start resource is needed to quickly respond to unforeseen system needs.”

These reforms are part of FERC’s broader price formation initiative. “Fast-start resources are typically committed in real-time, very close to the interval when needed, and can respond quickly to unforeseen system needs.” However, when there is no fast-start pricing, “some fast-start resources are ineligible to set prices, often due to inflexible operating limits.”

They also found that “even when fast-start resources can set prices, they may not be able to recover their commitment costs, such as start-up and no-load costs, through prices.” Because of this, “prices may not reflect the marginal cost of serving load, muting price signals for efficient investments. Several RTOs and ISOs have already implemented fast-start pricing practices to address these issues.”

In the April 18 order, FERC found that PJM and NYISO’s “fast-start pricing practices are unjust and unreasonable because they do not allow prices to reflect the marginal cost of serving load.” FERC addressed these findings by directing the “grid operators to change their fast-start pricing practices.”

“Specifically, the Commission is directing NYISO to make the following tariff revisions to its fast-start pricing practices: 

• Modify its pricing logic to allow the start-up costs of fast-start resources to be reflected in prices;
• Relax the economic minimum operating limits of all fast-start resources, including dispatchable fast-start resources, by up to 100 percent for the purpose of setting price.”

NYISO is required to make a compliance filing by the end of 2019, and it has to implement the tariff changes by the end of 2020.

“The Commission is requiring PJM to make the following tariff revisions: 

• Implement software changes so that fast-start resources are considered dispatchable from zero to their economic maximum operating limits for the purpose of setting prices;
• Apply fast-start pricing to all fast-start resources;
• Alter its real-time energy market clearing process to consider fast-start resources in a way that is consistent with minimizing production costs;

• Restrict eligibility for fast-start pricing to fast-start resources that have a start-up time (including notification time) of one hour or less and a minimum run time of one hour or less;
• Include commitment costs in energy prices for fast-start resources in both the day-ahead and real-time markets;
• Implement its proposal to use lost opportunity cost payments to offset the incentive for over-generation or price chasing.”

PJM has to make their compliance filing by the end of July 2019. PJM also has to “file a one-time informational report by August 30, 2019, explaining how the proposed tariff provisions do not raise new market power concerns.”

On April 18, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved two new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export pipeline projects, the Port Arthur LNG and Pipeline projects and the Driftwood LNG and Pipeline projects.

“Today’s orders show that FERC is making a lot of headway on processing LNG applications in a more efficient manner, and I’m proud of the work that we are doing,” FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said. “LNG exports can help increase the availability of inexpensive, clean-burning fuel to our global allies who are looking for an efficient, affordable, environmentally friendly source of generation. FERC continues to focus on developing a regulatory ecosystem that allows new technologies to flourish.”

The Driftwood LNG project will be located in Calcasieu Parish, La and it has been authorized to construct LNG facilities that “would export an estimated 27.6 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas per year.” Driftwood’s Pipeline project will consist of “6 miles of mainline pipeline, 3.4 miles of lateral pipeline, 15 new meter stations, and three new compressor stations to transport up to 3.9 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per day to feed the LNG facilities.”

The Port Arthur LNG project will have a “total production capacity of an estimated 13.5 million metric tons per year,” and it will be located near Port Arthur, Texas. The Port Arthur Pipeline project will “consist of two pipelines – the 130.9-mile Louisiana Connector Project and the 34.2-mile Texas Connector Pipeline, each with a capacity to transport up to 2 Bcf of gas per day to feed the LNG facilities.” There will also be “three compressor stations and other related facilities” in the Pipeline project.

Both the Driftwood project and the Port Arthur project will “export gas to Free Trade Agreement (FTA) countries.” The sponsors for both projects currently “have applications pending before the U.S. Department of Energy seeking authorization to export gas to non-FTA countries.”

FERC currently has 10 LNG export projects pending.

The concurrence for the Driftwood Projects can be read here. The concurrence for the Port Arthur Projects can be read here.