The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for relicensing “Pacific Gas and Electric Company and City of Santa Clara, California’s (co-applicants) existing 84.8-megawatt Bucks Creek Hydropower Project No. 619.”

The application for this project was filed in December 2016 and is ” located on Bucks, Grizzly, and Milk Ranch Creeks in Plumas County, California. The project consists of the Bucks Creek and Grizzly Developments and, as proposed, would occupy 1,316 acres of federal lands within the Plumas National Forest.”

There were a number of modifications proposed for the facilities:

“Install a Howell-Bunger valve at the end of the existing low-level outlet of Bucks Lake Dam to release the minimum instream flows into Bucks Creek.

“Cap or cover Milk Ranch Conduit Diversion No. 8 to prevent diversion of water from Bear Ravine.

“Enhance existing recreation facilities, including campgrounds, picnic areas, boat launches, day use areas, and trails at Bucks Lake, Lower Bucks Lake, and Grizzly Forebay, and construct a Bucks Lake Shoreline Trail and new facilities at the Bucks Lake Boat-In Campground.”

There were four primary issues that were associated with the project:

1.            “The protection of aquatic habitats including stream flows, water temperature, and recruitment of spawning gravel and woody material;

2.            “The protection of special-status wildlife species from human disturbance;

3.            “The need for additional recreational opportunities and facilities in the project area;

4.            “The protection of cultural resources.”

There are some “temporary minor, unavoidable, adverse effects on soil, geomorphic, water quality, aquatic, and terrestrial resources. Effects on geology and soil resources could include some temporary minor continued erosion associated with project operation, the renovation of recreation facilities, and interruption of sediment transport at project reservoirs. Most of these effects would be reduced by recommended resource enhancement measures, including implementation of the following plans and measures:

·                     “Erosion Management Plan;

·                     “Gravel Augmentation Plan;

·                     “passing large woody material at Bucks Lake, Lower Bucks Lake, and Grizzly Forebay Dams;

·                     “Hazardous Materials Management Plan.”

FERC “recommended the staff alternative” in the final EIS, “which consists of measures included in the co-applicants’ proposal, as well as most of the mandatory conditions and recommendations made by state and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations, and some additional measures developed by the staff.”

There may be further changes to the mitigation measures from other agencies once they have had the opportunity to review the final EIS.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the “Magnolia LNG Production Capacity Amendment proposed by Magnolia LNG, LLC (Magnolia LNG).” Magnolia LNG had request authorization to “increase the liquefied natural gas (LNG) production capacity of the previously authorized Magnolia LNG Project in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana… from 8 million metric tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 8.8 MTPA. The increased production capacity would be achieved through the optimization of Magnolia LNG’s final design, including additional and modified process equipment.”

“The equipment changes identified by Magnolia LNG in its application and supplements and/or determined by FERC staff via data requests include the following:

·         “increased ammonia compressor capacity and system pressures;

·         “increased number of ammonia air coolers;

·         “increased mixed refrigerant system operating pressure;

·         “additional ammonia/mixed refrigerant cooler;

·         “additional heavy hydrocarbon removal vessels and compressor;

·         “relocation of main flare stack; and

·         “addition of marine flare stack.”

FERC noted that the EIS was prepared following the “requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500–1508 (40 CFR 1500-1508), and FERC regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380).” FERC stated that the “U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (USDOT PHMSA)” all aided in the preparation of the EIS.

FERC believes that “With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the supplemental EIS, staff concludes the LNG terminal design would include acceptable layers of protection or safeguards that would reduce the risk of potentially hazardous scenarios from developing into an event that could impact the offsite public. USDOT PHMSA will issue a Letter of Determination regarding the facilities’ compliance with siting requirements for LNG facilities in 49 CFR 193 Subpart B.” The new facility would also “be subject to the USDOT PHMSA’s inspection and enforcement program.”

“FERC staff concludes that the modifications associated with the Production Capacity Amendment, with the additional mitigation measures recommended in the supplemental EIS, would continue to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant levels.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) took action to ensure that the nation’s bulk power system remains secure and reliable by “approving two reliability standards and endorsing the continued work of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).”

It was the Five-Year Performance Assessment for NERC, and FERC recognized that NERC has been developing and enforcing reliability standards and that it “continues to satisfy the criteria for certification as the [Electric Reliability Organization (ERO)] that is responsible for developing and enforcing the Commission’s mandatory reliability standards” and that the regional entities of NERC continue meeting their requirements as well.

NERC and the Regional Entities have made significant achievements over the last five years, including a risk-based approach to focus resources on matters of most significance to reliability,” FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said.

FERC found some areas of improvement for NERC: “the ERO’s periodic audits of the Regional Entities, its use of reliability and security guidelines to address risks, performance metrics and oversight of the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, sanctions guidelines and its organization certification program.”

NERC was also directed to “amend its Sanction Guidelines to provide more transparency into how it applies penalties, adjustment factors and non-monetary sanctions.” NERC must also submit ” any tools or formulas used to implement the guidelines” to FERC for review.

FERC also “approved reliability standards for Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements… and Cyber Security — Communications between Control Centers.” A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued by FERC “that would approve NERC’s proposed retirement of 74 of the 77 Reliability Standards developed under NERC’s Standards Efficiency Review Project, which identifies standards that provide little benefit, are administrative in nature, or are redundant.”

The standards build on the “current standard by requiring a more comprehensive study of the potential impacts of protection system single points of failure. It also sets new requirements related to planned maintenance outages and stability analysis for spare equipment strategies.”

The new cyber standard will enhance the “current Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards on mitigating risks associated with communications between bulk electric system control centers. It requires responsible entities to protect the confidentiality and integrity of real-time assessment and real-time monitoring data transmitted between control centers.” NERC has also been directed to develop more “modifications requiring protections regarding the availability of communication links and data communicated between those control centers.”

Both of these new rules will go into effect 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

For more information on these rules and the NERC performance assessment, you can view them at:

Order E-20

Order E-21

Order E-22

Order E-24

Presentation

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued its regular Energy Infrastructure Update for November 2019. This update covers the news and highlights for energy around the country, in gas, hydropower, and electric generation.

In November, one new natural gas pipeline was placed into service, bringing the year’s total up to 10, compared to 21 in 2018. Two pipelines were certified in November, bringing the year’s total up to 30, compared to 46 in 2018. There was nothing new for storage facilities in November. Two new LNG export facilities were placed into service, and another four import/exports were certified, bringing the year’s totals up to seven and 11, respectively; in 2018, there was only one of each.

There were no hydropower project activities in the month of November.

The electric generation highlights detailed the new and expanded units in November, along with year-to-date totals, and a comparison of this period in 2018. There was relatively little in this area in November. Only one new wind power unit was placed in service, which brings the total for the year up to 35, compared to 47 in 2018. Solar power had 13 units added, bringing the year’s total up to 364, compared to 514 in 2018.

There were a number of proposed additions and retirements of generation units in November, all planned to occur by November 2022. Coal had one proposed addition and 50 retirements. Natural gas had 213 additions, 98 of which are currently under construction, and 76 retirements. Nuclear power had seven additions, two are under construction, and six retirements. Oil had 11 additions, one is under construction, and 15 retirements. Hydropower had 241 additions, 95 are under construction, and 12 retirements. Wind power had 512 additions, 184 are under construction, and three retirements. Biomass had 51 additions, 21 are under construction, and 28 retirements. Geothermal steam had 12 proposed additions, four are in construction now, and no retirements. Solar power had the most proposed additions at 2,732, with 673 under construction; there were no proposed retirements for solar power.

For electric transmissions, in the ≤230 voltage range, six miles of line completed in November, compared to 49.7 the previous year. This brings the total for the year up to 190.6 miles, compared to 521.5 in 2018. There are another 533.8 miles planned to be added by December 2021. There was nothing new in the 345-voltage range or the 500-voltage range in November. There are a planned 637.5 miles for the 345-voltage, and 670 for the 500-voltage range.