On January 7, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the Del-Mar Energy Pathway Project. In both, Kent and Sussex counties in Delaware, and Wicomico and Somerset counties in Maryland, it “approves the construction and operation of new infrastructure facilities.”

Chesapeake Utilities Corporation’s Senior Vice President, Jeff Sylvester, assures, “bringing natural gas to a new area results in many positive enhancements for the community, both environmental and economic.” The project could lead to an increase in job growth and overall service expansion.

The Regional Economic Studies Institute of Towson University concluded the project would economically benefit the region through direct, in-direct, and induced employment. The FERC’s approval meets a growing demand for natural gas services for the consumer, and furthermore “expands our partnership in the local communities in which we live and work, bringing natural gas service to Somerset County for the first time and providing a cleaner, reliable and more cost-effective energy choice for customers on the Delmarva Peninsula,” according to Jeff Tietbohl, the Vice President of Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.

The construction of the Del-Mar Energy Pathway Project is set to begin within the first quarter of 2020. It will construct approximately 12 miles of natural gas infrastructure through Kent and Sussex counties and 7 miles through Wicomico and Somerset counties. Once running, it will provide roughly “11.8 million cubic feet per day of additional natural gas firm transportation service and 2.5 million cubic feet of off-peak transportation service to Chesapeake Utilities’ natural gas distribution subsidiaries on the Delmarva Peninsula and one industrial customer.”

The project is projected to cost approximately $37 million and reach completion within the fourth quarter of 2021. The foreseen annual gross margin for the Del-Mar Energy Pathway Project is $5.1 million.

For more information on the project, visit http://info.esng.com/delmar

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved two orders to implement Order No. 841, which is a “landmark storage rulemaking aimed at breaking down market barriers to electricity storage.” Order No. 841 was enacted in February 2018, and it “addresses the participation of electric storage resources in the capacity, energy, and ancillary service markets operated by organized wholesale power markets to more effectively integrate electric storage resources, enhance competition and help ensure that those markets produce just and reasonable rates.”

It “requires each organized power market to revise its tariff to establish a participation model consisting of market rules that recognize the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources and facilitate their participation in those markets.”

FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said “Electricity storage must be able to participate on an even playing field in the wholesale power markets that we regulate. Breaking down these market barriers encourages the innovation and technological advancements that are essential to the future of our grid.”

The orders they ruled in October 2019 address “compliance filings of Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and PJM Interconnection (PJM).” The two operators were found to have generally complied with the rule, but there was a need for further action. FERC “initiated proceedings under section 206 of the Federal Power Act to address the specific issue of minimum run-time requirements.”

“FERC found that both SPP’s and PJM’s proposals generally enable electric storage resources to provide all services they are capable of providing; allow electric storage resources to be compensated for those services in the same manner as other resources; and appropriately recognize the unique physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources.” They were instructed by FERC to submit compliance filings within 60 days.

The tariffs for both of the operators do “generally satisfy Order No. 841’s directive allowing electric storage resources to de-rate their capacity to meet minimum run-time requirements, FERC also found that neither market includes in its tariff minimum run-time requirements for resource adequacy and capacity.” Since these can impact rates and the terms and conditions of service, FERC “instituted 206 proceedings, and directed SPP and PJM to submit tariff provisions reflecting their rules and practices regarding resource adequacy minimum run-time requirements and capacity minimum run-time requirements, respectively, for all resource types.”

PJM and SPP have to submit the tariff provisions within 45 days of the 206 notice’s publication in the Federal Register.

Related documents in this ruling:

Order E-1

Order E-2

Presentation

Statement from Commissioner Bernard L. McNamee on E-1

Statement from Commissioner Bernard L. McNamee on E-2

The Office of Energy Projects finalized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Guidance for Horizontal Directional Drill Monitoring, Inadvertent Return Response, and Contingency Plans (HDD Guidance).

After FERC released its draft of the HDD Guidance, they “received comments from 15 entities including natural gas pipeline companies, engineering consulting firms, trade organizations, environmental interest groups, and state environmental departments.” Those led FERC to make revisions to address those comments. The comments that “either were too location-specific, were already adequately/accurately addressed as written, or regarded topics that were not relevant to the HDD Guidance” were not included in the modifications.

“The HDD Guidance is intended to assist the industry with preparation of their project HDD plans for FERC staff review.” FERC stressed that the “guidance does not substitute for, amend, or supersede the Commission’s regulations under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 or the Commission’s and Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act.” It does not grant additional rights or impose new legal obligations.

“The purpose of this guidance is to describe the technical components of an HDD Plan including drilling fluid composition and management, monitoring procedures, and response procedures for an inadvertent return of drilling fluid to the ground surface (IR).” They also provided an outline for an HDD Plan, which is formatted into “an effective presentation based on our experience, but is not mandatory and may be modified (including the use of footnotes where necessary for clarification) for individual projects.”

In June Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County in Washington filed a​ ​request for determination​ that “project investments over the term of the existing license” met the criteria in subsection 36(b)(2) of the Federal Power Act, to ensure “that the investments will be considered when the Commission sets the term for the next license for the project.” This is for the Rock Island Project on the Columbia River, near Wenatchee.

Chelan PUD predicts that by 2029 there will be a “total investment during the current license term of over $710 million. Specifically, Chelan PUD requests that the Commission determine whether the following project investments meet the criteria under FPA section 36(b)(2): (a) rehabilitation of Powerhouses 1 and 2; (b) design and construction of new office, warehouse, and storage facilities; (c) replacement of two spillway gate hoists; and (d) implementation of an Anadromous Fish Agreement and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).”

They noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “has not issued any order extending the existing license term,” which was issued in 1989. “Therefore, Chelan PUD maintains that the Commission must consider, at the time it determines the next license term, any investment meeting FPA section 36(b)(2)(A) criteria that was not a requirement of the 1989 license order.”

Chelan PUD has requested that FERC “consider the ‘significant’ investments it has made and is proposing to make to rehabilitate the two Rock Island Project powerhouses. Powerhouse 1 contains 10 turbine-generator units (B1 through B10); Powerhouse 2 contains eight
turbine-generator units (U1 through U8). In 2003 and 2017, Chelan PUD notified the Commission of its intent to rehabilitate 9 of the 10 generating units at Powerhouse 1.” Chelan PUD says that those units ““were reaching the end of their remaining useful lives,” and that
“rehabilitation was necessary to keep the project ‘in an adequate condition of repair.'”

Only three Powerhouse 1 units have been rehabilitated: “Unit B10 completed in 2008, Unit B9 completed in 2012, and Unit B6 completed in 2018.” They plan to have the remaining units rehabilitated by 2022. “By 2029, Chelan PUD plans to rehabilitate eight bulb turbine-generator units at Powerhouse 2. Chelan PUD anticipates that the rehabilitation of Powerhouse 2 will provide an additional 40 years of reliable and efficient power generation capability for the units. Chelan PUD estimates that it will cost approximately $270 million to rehabilitate Powerhouse 1, and approximately $352 million to rehabilitate Powerhouse 2.”

“Chelan PUD’s turbine and generator improvements will enhance the efficiency and reliability of the Rock Island Project. These improvements were not considered by the Commission as contributing to the existing 40-year license term. Therefore, we find that the Powerhouse 1 and Powerhouse 2 rehabilitation projects qualify as ‘rehabilitation or replacement of major equipment,’ meeting the criteria under FPA section 36(b)(2).”

“Chelan PUD intends to implement a long-term Rock Island facilities master plan that will include constructing or updating multiple office, warehouse, and storage facilities at the Rock Island Project, estimated at $40 million.” FERC noted that Chelan PUD’s request for determination had “limited information on this investment, such that it is unclear whether it would qualify as a ‘project-related’ investment under the criteria of section 36(b)(2)(A).” FERC is also uncertain if “Congress intended for us to consider ancillary facilities, such as office buildings, that do not have a demonstrated direct hydropower purpose, may not be necessary for project operation, and may have other uses. Therefore, based on the information before us, we cannot determine whether these investments meet the criteria under section 36(b)(2).” They noted that Chelan PUD was welcome to ” file further information on these matters during the relicensing process.”

Chelan PUD also said it ” plans to replace two spillway bay gate hoists to improve the safety and reliability of the spillway operation. In March 2020, Chelan PUD plans to replace the existing manually-operated hoists with automatic hoists, increasing the spillway gate capacity. Chelan PUD anticipates that these improvements will cost an estimated $4 million.”
“Chelan PUD’s planned replacement of manual spillway gate hoists with auto hoists will allow remote gate operation and increase gate capacity, improving the safety and reliability of the spillway. These improvements were not considered by the Commission as contributing to the existing 40-year license term. Therefore, we find that this planned investment meets the section 36(b)(2) criteria.”

In June 2004, FERC approved “a project-specific HCP for the Rock Island Project,” for which they amended “the license to incorporate the provisions of the plan as special articles. The Rock Island Project HCP is a comprehensive and long-term management plan for salmonid species affected by the project.” In order “To achieve the objective of the HCP – achieving and maintaining a ‘no net impact’ for each plan species – Chelan PUD explains that it has spent more than $44 million on fish passage survival studies, hatchery construction, operation and maintenance, annual funding for tributary protection and restoration projects, fish predator control programs, and ongoing passage facilities operations and maintenance.”

FERC found those measures applicable to FPA section 36(b)(2) criteria, but recommended that “during the licensing process, Chelan PUD may wish to provide additional information to clarify the nature of these measures, such as explanations of the extent to which the measures arise from HCP obligations, as opposed to the requirements of the 1987 settlement agreement regarding the project.”

FERC’s final determinations were:
“(A) that Chelan PUD’s investments made to rehabilitate the two Rock Island powerhouses, improve the project spillway, and implement its HCP appear to meet the criteria set forth in section 36(b)(2) of the Federal Power Act.

“(B) that it is unable to find whether Chelan PUD’s construction investments in new office, warehouse, and storage facilities meet the criteria set forth in section 36(b)(2) of the Federal Power Act.”