ISO New England

Archived Posts from this Category

Rolling over on a River: the real cost of pumped storage energy

Posted by on 26 Oct 2016 | Tagged as: American shad, climate change, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, Connecticut River Watershed Council, Daily Hampshire Gazette, ecosystem, Entrainment, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeion, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC, fossil fuels, Greenfield Recorder, ISO New England, MA Division of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, NOAA, Northfield Mountain, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Reservoir, nuclear power, Public Comment period, public trust, pumped storage, Relicensing, shad, shortnose sturgeon, Society of Environmental Journalists, The Recorder, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vermont, Vermont Digger, Vermont Yankee

Copyright © 2016 by Karl Meyer

(Note: this essay appeared in September and October in these MA and VT media and newspaper outlets: Vermont Digger, www.vtdigger.org ; The Daily Hampshire Gazette; and The Recorder.)

besttfemptybed

The de-watered CT below Turners Falls Dam that few people see. (Click, then click again to enlarge.)

Rolling over on a river

Since time began rivers have been the Earth’s arteries—the foundation of its ecosystems. Here in New England it’s “last chance” time for our Great River. On April 30, 2018 the fate of the long-foundered Connecticut River migratory fisheries restoration—and the survival of a four-state river ecosystem, will be decided for what’s essentially forever. New Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydro licenses are expected to be signed then by government agencies and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board–latest purchaser of the Turners Falls and Northfield Mountain projects. That company’s stated investor mandate is “to maximize investment returns without undue risk of loss.”

Over two generations ago public-trust mistakes were made favoring power companies, fish hatcheries, and high-end salmon-fishing interests that rendered eight miles of the Connecticut in Massachusetts a massively-suctioned, partially-dewatered flush sink. Sanctioned by fisheries agencies and non-profits, those decisions, severed an ecosystem in two. They forced all migrating fish into a deadly power canal, leaving three emptied miles of riverbed below Turners Falls Dam, while four turbines at the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station five miles upstream consumed massive amounts of nuclear energy to suck a river backward and uphill to a mountaintop reservoir.

Those turbines were built to run on the promised endless supply of overproduced juice generated nightly at the local, now-closed, Vermont Yankee nuke, 15 miles away. Today, running on giant slugs of imported fossil fuel, they continue to spin, sucking the river up in endless gulps into a 4 billion gallon pool a mile up Northfield Mountain. That daily suctioning creates riverbank eroding “tides” higher than those at Hyannisport, MA—with some rivaling the ten-foot fluctuations of Fundy Bay.

Back then, predecessors of today’s National Marine Fisheries Service, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, Massachusetts’ Fish & Wildlife and the Connecticut River Watershed Council signed off on an agreement with the Federal Power Commission and Western Massachusetts Electric that strangled the river in northern Massachusetts. It resulted in the failure of migratory fish passage and a promised renewal of the river’s ancient seafood resources upstream to Vermont, New Hampshire, and northern Mass. Few American shad emerged alive after diversion into that canal. It also failed the shortnose sturgeon—this river’s only federally endangered migratory fish, leaving it without flow or monitoring at its only documented natural spawning site.

Upstream at Northfield the destruction was yet more complete. The suck and gush appetite of that nuclear-charged contraption virtually disassembled the river. It gulped flow at a rate of 15,000 cubic feet per second, often for hours at a time—drawing on the river pool above Turners Falls Dam where, 70% of the time, the Connecticut’s natural routed flow is less than 15,000 cfs. Boaters a mile downstream could find themselves drifting upriver via Northfield’s unearthly pull. All fish and organisms drawn up through the sphere of that suction were deemed “functionally extirpated”–dead to the ecosystem by virtue of being sieved twice through the turbines. It was evolution in reverse, a river ripped away from its eternal run to the sea.

Today, climate-blind FERC labels Northfield as a source of “renewable clean” energy—but there’s nothing clean, renewable or sustainable about its imported, twice-produced, peak-priced electricity crippling this river. ISO New England, FERC’s Northfield-cheering, ever-energy-hungry cousin, also ignores climate and its environmental dismemberment. “Pumped storage” is not hydropower—not even by the industry’s own technical terminology. Northfield-produced power in fact represents the heavy planetary burden of fossil fuel used to push a mountain of water uphill, merely as a weight to produce high-cost, second hand electricity. It cares nothing of rivers, fish or ecosystems.

If bureaucrats again fail the public trust and don’t demand critical habitat protections, flows, and the day-to-day monitoring needed to fulfill U.S. environmental statutes, Canadian pension speculators will be left as the de facto controlling interests on our river. The new owners have asked FERC to merge two separate licenses for Northfield and Turners Falls into a single new license dubbed the “Northfield Project.” What’s represented as mere bureaucratic streamlining would actually enshrine, by precedent–next time and forever, river-killing pumped storage.

Any responsible environmental agency should deny this single-license merger, and seek to have Northfield kept in use as emergency infrastructure only—with the ultimate remedy it’s dismantling in tandem with a move to a decentralized, far less vulnerable system than today’s expanding mega-grid. Massachusetts legislators are currently signing onto backroom energy deals for a glut of future hydropower from Quebec. Some 1,200 megawatts of those penciled-in imports could easily replace the few hours of daily juice Northfield puts out–while keeping it available for rare emergencies. Though the new Canadian power imports largely ignore conservation and innovation, they could be employed to end the river carnage here and begin restoring a future for a critical New England ecosystem.

(Note: timely public comment on licensing issues is carefully considered by FERC. Go to: http://ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp and use “E-Comment.” Check “Hydro” and address to Secretary Kimberly D. Bose, using the required identifiers “P-2485” and “P-1889” for Northfield and Turners Falls.)

Karl Meyer lives in Greenfield MA. He is participating in the FERC relicensing process and is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

CASHING IN ON A CASH COW

Posted by on 15 Jan 2016 | Tagged as: American shad, climate change, Connecticut River, Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, Daily Hampshire Gazette, endangerd shortnose sturgeon, Endangered Species Act, Energy Capital Partners, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC, FirstLight, fossil plant, GDF-Suez FirstLight, ISO, ISO New England, MA Division of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, New Hampshire, NMFS, NOAA, non-renewable, Northfield Mountain, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, Rock Dam, shortnose sturgeon, The Greenfield Recorder, The Pioneer, The Recorder, Turners Falls dam, Uncategorized, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vermont

The following piece appeared in the Daily Hampshire Gazette(www.gazettenet.com) and the Recorder(www.recorder.com) in the first week of January 2016.

CASHING IN ON A CASH COW

Copyright © 2015 by Karl Meyer

Ever dreamed of owning your own bank? I got a deal for you! Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project is for sale again, along with the Turners Falls canal and dam—and a string of little assets down in Connecticut. But Northfield’s the cash cow. Fourth time in a decade they’re unloading this golden calf–always at a tidy chunk of change. A quickie corporate win-win! It’s really like an A.T.M., run at the expense of the Connecticut River ecosystem.

Place works like a giant toilet–suck huge amounts of the river backward and uphill, then flush it all back and—viola, money spews out the other end. Could be ours! They’re holding bidder tours as we speak. I just need a few partners with ready credit. We go in on short-money and cash-in on the no-brainer electricity “spot market” for a few years. Then, with inflated power-price futures in play, we offload this puppy for a final cash-out of 30%–maybe 50%!

Here’s how it goes down. With the cheerleading of Northfield’s not-so-silent partner, ISO New England–the “independent” system operator (created by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), we simply slow dance this darlin’ past the banks, the FTC and FERC. Then, in 2016, its sweet business-as-usual—maybe with new shirts for employees.

Trust me, this works every time. Everyone walks away with full pockets—without the public knowing what hit them. Northfield got wholesaled in 2006 by Northeast Generations Services(formerly WMECO—formerly of Northeast Utilities, now Eversource—you follow?) They grabbed a quick $1.34 billion for the package, slipping it to a trio of Jersey venture capitalists, Energy Capital Partners. ECP renamed their little project FirstLight Energy. Those smartest-guys-in-the-room hung-in and grabbed Northfield’s peaking spot-market profits for two years, before off-loading it for a nifty $1.89 billion in that crazy year, 2008.

With that, GDF-Suez, third owner in four years, swept in–the world’s largest private energy corporation, based in France. They’ve been gobbling up contracts to run water systems across the US under the name Suez United Water. But GDF-Suez recently did a clever name-change to Engie, keeping the public totally confused. They got game! The true costs of these premium-priced plant sales get buried in the list of acronyms on electric bills. It’s like owning a 25-mile stretch the Connecticut River to dip into for cash any time you please.

This is a turn-key operation–with us, the new guys, pushing the buttons. The joke is that the public thinks Northfield is a hydropower operation, while this baby has never produced a single watt of its own energy. It’s imported!–huge swatches of bulk electricity now run-in from outside the region to suck a mountain’s worth of flow from the Connecticut up to a reservoir. Then, dump it out on the power lines when prices peak. It’s hugely inefficient, now largely carbon-based—and massively damaging to the river. But amazingly profitable!

That’s where we come in. Sure it was built as a sister to the region’s nukes to gobble up their monstrous stream of unused electricity–because nukes can’t shut down their feverish output at night. That’s how you get to put in a giant straw and suck the Connecticut uphill at a rate of 15,000 cubic feet per second–more than enough to pull the river backward for a mile downstream under low flow conditions. But who’s watching? When the region’s last nuke shut down, nobody said ‘boo!’ with Northfield going fossil. What climate change?

And when it became clear years back that Northfield operations were imperiling spawning success for the federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon at the Rock Dam in Turners Falls–their singular natural spawning site going back into pre-history, again, nobody came forward. Not the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service or the MA Division of Fish & Wildlife—or any river protection group. No bureaucrats, no suits–nobody. At Turners Falls—instead of 70% of migratory fish heading upstream toward Vermont and New Hampshire, they squeeze out 4%. We have it made!

Still skeptical? ISO and FERC are addicted to Northfield—even though its power-flush characteristics might come into play maybe a handful of times a year, if at all. For this they let owners cash in on the river whenever y they want. In 2012, the owners of this “asset” collection of 1500 megawatts(of which over 1100 MW derived from Northfield alone) told investors a full 40% of their profits were realized from “Capacity Fees.” What that means is you get paid for holding back the Connecticut! They’re not required to use it at all if they don’t want to—just flush when prices are high. Paid for being you! Of course another 50% of profit comes from generating, though the public doesn’t know it only operates a few hours a day when prices are highest.

Here’s the kicker: in 2014, after a cry-wolf energy deficit winter that never materialized, FERC–with ISO as cheerleader, sanctioned the doubling of those “capacity fees”. Plants are now collecting 2X the amount they were two years back, for having the potential to dump some power on the lines—not for actually generating. Paid for being you! With 1100 potential megawatts at Northfield, how quick can you say “windfall at the public’s expense?” Lastly, Northfield petitioned FERC the last two winters to increase its reservoir storage by a full 25%, with ISO their biggest cheerleader. FERC agreed, twice. Double-dip with a cherry, anyone?

This thing’s a cinch! Even with all the nukes shut—when this should have been moth-balled to emergency use as more climate-warming, spent nuclear junk, it soldiers on as a virtual river monopoly with the blessings of FERC and ISO. Trust me, no one goes to court. Ecosystem damage, costs to the public? Fuggetaboutit!

Got credit? Give a call!

FERC Comments as FirstLight seeks unprecedented mid-license power increase

Posted by on 10 Nov 2015 | Tagged as: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC licensing process, FirstLight, forward market power auction, ISO New England, Mt. Tom Coal Plant, Northfield Mountain, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Reservoir

The following are comments submitted to FERC concerning what would be an unvetted and potentially precedent-setting mid-license power uprate for FirstLight’s Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station.

Karl Meyer, M.S.
Greenfield, MA, 01301
October 29, 2015

The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
88 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426

PROTEST against the granting of application for Amendment for Minimum and Maximum Reservoir Elevation for P- 2485-070, FirstLight Hydro Generating Company’s Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station.: Application for Temporary Amendment of Minimum and Maximum Reservoir Elevation Requirement, filed September 1, 2015.

Dear Secretary Bose,

In the 43-year operating history of the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project a full assessment of the project’s impacts on the public’s river and terrestrial resources has never occurred. It has long been understood that NMPS significantly impacts some 50 miles of the Connecticut River’s riparian, stream bank, farmland and flood plain habitat from Vernon, VT to Holyoke, MA. The application before FERC requests a major, mid-license expansion of this facility’s storage and generating capacity without a full vetting of its impact on public resources.
If granted, the proposal before FERC represents a license to benefit—unrestricted and at profit, from a full 25% increase in generation capacity from NMPS’s Upper Reservoir for a 120 day period each fall, winter, and early spring, until 2018.

Given that NMPS is in the midst of its first-ever relicensing studies to gauge the impacts of its operations, it is not in the public interest to see this ongoing, 3 year, “temporary” storage amendment granted. Doing so without a full vetting of the emerging science and without the full participation of all stakeholders would amount to an Ex parte ruling—basically a precedent-setting gift to the power company during its run-up to a relicensing decision on April 30 2018.

NMPS has been granted extra cold season storage capacity only four times over its 43 year history. Each of those–save 2014, was restricted to extenuating circumstances where ISO would request NMPS to pump and generate beyond its mandated parameters after a trigger was reached. In requesting and being granted extra-limital storage last year, ISO and FirstLight appear to have entered into a new partnership of open-ended, unrestricted use of the public’s Connecticut River resources. This request is being made without investigation or any recompense to the public’s benefit beyond what both the utility and ISO refer to as “flexibility” in times of limited on-line capacity or restricted generation.

However, neither ISO or FirstLight has supplied any information as to how NMPS was used in any “emergency” capacity last winter—a winter that was prematurely touted as one with a tight energy market. Though a price squeeze was visited upon the public last winter in the form of vastly inflated energy bills, the predicted energy shortage never materialized. Both Northfield and ISO like to tout NMPS’s “black start” capability. However, to my knowledge the plant has only been used in that manner once, during the August 2003 Blackout, and increased storage capacity was not a factor in its use at that time.

ISO has in the past been tagged by FERC Board Members as supporting stilted judgements and sanctioning Foreward Market Capacity auction results that were clearly only in the interest of the power company—costing the public millions. That included 2013, when they sanctioned results from market bids by Energy Capital Partners(former owners of NMPS), who had unloaded their massive Somerset Coal Plant causing a dip in the future winter capacity outlook, sending energy bid prices soaring for ECP.

FirstLight has put itself in line to benefit from the same situation. They did not mention in any application that their Mt. Tom Plant was shuttered recently, and they stand to benefit if NMPS is granted open-ended generating privileges on the heels of a planned shutdown of one of their assets.

Further, it should be noted that FirstLight submitted only limited information on water levels in the CT River at their Turners Falls Dam and further downstream at the Montague USGS Gauge. No information was provided on how often, and by how much, the river fluctuated daily in the Turners Falls Pool due to their pumping and generating. They contend they generally strayed little from the average elevations in the TF Pool. Daily up-and-down figures during winter freezing, wetting, thawing, and rewetting, are wholly lacking.

FirstLight offers that it generated less in winter 2014/2015 than in many other years, but that tells only their story. When, and under what circumstances they generated, and at what profit, are really what’s required for a full assessment of the plant’s public good. Offering that “we only used a little” see?—is not any reasonable way to assess what might happen with an open-ended license to benefit from “peaking” spot market fluctuations this winter–or in 2016, 2017, and 2018.

Further, NMPS’s ownership changed hands three times over the last decade. Granting a mid-license capacity uprate to this plant could lead to speculation and instability in the deregulated market, causing a bubble in its asset value. If GDF-Suez decides to sell their NMPS plant in the interim, only merchants will benefit—with the public left in the dark on impacts, price, and profits.

I protest the granting of FirstLight an amendment to increase its minimum and maximum storage capacity for the remainder of its license. Further, FERC should not grant a one-year amendment without requiring a public accounting of how the plant was used in any “emergency” fashion—if any, last winter, and how its increased generation was harvested for profit on a daily basis last winter. If these are not provided, the amendment should be denied. Any amendment granted NMPS should include a capacity trigger from ISO, so as to ensure the public is not being gouged by winter fear-mongering.

Sincerely,
Karl Meyer, M.S.
Greenfield, MA, 01301

A look inside the FERC licensing process

Posted by on 06 Jan 2015 | Tagged as: 5-year FERC licensing process, Drew Huthchison, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, FERC license, FERC licensing process, fracked gas licensing, GDF-Suez FirstLight, ISO New England, Kinder Morgan, Kinder Morgan pipeline, Mt. Tom Coal Plant, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, shad, shad larvae, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Geological Service’s Silvio O. Conte Anadromous Fish Lab, USFWS, Vermont Yankee, Yankee Rowe Nuclear Plant

In mid-December I was interviewed on Greenfield Community Television’s Local Bias feature by Mark Wisniewski, former Greenfield City Council President. In a wide-ranging talk we discussed my experiences with the ongoing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process as both a journalist and stakeholder in the hydro projects at Northfield Mountain and the Turners Falls Power Canal on the Connecticut River. The FERC licensing process is a cumbersome and lengthy ordeal–transpiring over a 5- year swatch of time.

Anyone interested in–or involved as a citizen in, the deluge of FERC projects currently affecting our region, might gain some insight by tuning in: from fracked-gas pipelines, to hydro, nuclear, climate and ecosystem impacts.

Local Bias airs beginning Wednesday, at 5:30 pm, and repeats on Thursday and Saturday nights at 9 pm throughout the month of January 2015.

Local Bias is produced and directed by Drew Hutchison.

Try the link below,.. or go to look up GCTV, Local Bias to connect to a copy of the show.

http://gctv.org/videos/local-bias-karl-meyer-121514

FERC grants Northfield “temporary” Power Up-rate: the downside impacts of a studied pumped storage operation, re-posted.

Posted by on 04 Dec 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, FERC, FERC license, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, ISO New England, Mt. Tom Coal Plant, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, USFWS

On November 26, 2014, FERC issued an “Order Granting a Temporary Amendment” for P-2485, the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station to increase its storage capacity by 25%, and generate electricity during times of peak demand–or peak prices on the electricity “spot” market, without restriction.

In its power uprate application GDF-Suez FirstLight stated that this extra capacity was necessary due to power plant closures in Vermont and coastal Massachusetts and a predicted cold winter–a forecast for the Northeast that has now been re-evaluated, with a warmer winter now predicted.  GDF-Suez FirstLight did not mention in its application that it was shuttering its own 130 megawatt Mt. Tom plant in Holyoke in October. Another factor that may have played a part in the power uprate bid: GDF-Suez North America Hydro had had its bond rating downgraded in the prior fiscal year.

Given the unprecedented power hike granted Northfield, with ISO-New England formally jumping in the middle and cheering on the process with a formal letter to FERC, I thought I might republish testimony I sent to FERC last spring, when FirstLight submitted–then subsequently retracted as a “mistake,” testimony it posted on behalf of their plant’s storage flexibility cited the wind and solar benefits of a pumped storage plant in Ludington, Michigan.

If you read through the testimony you’ll see how devastating to the ecosystem and fisheries that Ludington Pumped Storage Plant has been.  That plant, though significantly larger, has a similar timeline–first started in the early 1970s, and currently undergoing relicensing. The big difference has been that local non-profits and agencies didn’t let them off the hook for the massive habitat destruction during their first licensing period–actually winning a $172 million dollar settlement from the owners some 20 years back.  Sadly, it was too late to shield their ecosystem or save their fisheries.

So, Northfield will pump more this winter.  It seemed a good time to re-post what the STUDIED damages were at another pumped storage plant over a similar time frame.  Sadly, we can’t know what we’ve lost across the decades here on the Connecticut River.

Read below:

New Stakeholder Comments filed with FERC re: Northfield Mountain

Posted by karlmeyer on 21 May 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, Bellows Falls, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, ecosystem, Endangered Species Act, EPA, ESA, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, GDF-Suez FirstLight, Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, New Hampshire, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, shad larvae, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vermont Edit This

The following Stakeholder Comments were filed today, 5/21/2014, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission respecting Connecticut River fish mortality investigations at Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage station (NMPS)

Karl Meyer, M.S., Environmental Science

85 School Street, # 3

Greenfield, MA 01301

 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

88 First Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20426

Stakeholder Comments, RE: FERC P-2485-063, and P-2680-108: relevance of FirstLight Hydro Generating Company’s document submission issued by FERC as “Conference/Meeting Transcript issued in FERC P-2485-063, et al” on May 9, 2014 for Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage project (NMPS). The inclusion of “Transcript of the April 17, 2014 FERC Scoping Meeting held in Pentwater, Michigan re Consumers Energy Company’s et al Ludington Pumped Storage Project under P-2680-108” offers an incomplete, unsubstantiated and confusing picture of its applicable connection to the relicensing of NMPS on the main stem of a four-state river system in Massachusetts.

Dear Secretary Bose,

Please consider the following comments respecting the relevance of FirstLight Hydro Generating Company’s recent document filing as it seeks a new license for the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage station. I testified as a Stakeholder in the NMPS Study Dispute Panel Technical Conference along with officials from the USFWS and Trout UnLimited on Tuesday, April 8, 2014. The Dispute Panel was convened out of concerns that no study of the entrainment of eggs and larvae of migratory American shad was being required as part of a relicensing bid from GDF-Suez FirstLight Power for NMPS. I find no clear context provided by FirstLight for the inclusion of a transcript for the April 17, 2014 FERC Scoping Meeting for the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant–a lakeside Michigan-based facility, as part of the NMPS relicensing proceedings.

NMPS’s pumping/generating impacts are known to reach downstream to Holyoke Dam at river-mile 86 and affect spawning-run migratory fish that utilize Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont habitats upstream to Bellows Falls Dam at river-mile 172. It is critical to the relicensing of any pumped storage generation on this four-state river to have robust studies with measurable outcomes to protect the public’s interest in a balanced and functioning Connecticut River ecosystem.

NMPS impacts migrating and spawning anadromous fish in a four-state ecosystem that has been the focus of a federal fisheries restoration program begun in 1967, “to provide the public with high quality sport fishing opportunities in a highly urbanized area, as well as provide for the long term needs of the population for seafood.” NMPS, completed in 1972, has been shown to have direct impacts on migratory fish entrainment and fish passage from northern Massachusetts to central Vermont and New Hampshire.

The US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and fisheries directors in MA, NH, VT, and CT are all charged with protecting these resources for the public. Federal and state laws, licenses and statutes governing these mandated protections include the federal Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and federal-trust fish protections beginning with the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965. FERC authority also mandates licensee compliance and protections for the public’s fisheries resources and restoration projects. FERC itself is mandated to comply with federal environmental law.

The Ludington Pumped Storage Plant is a FERC licensed facility sited and operating within a single state on a lakeshore well over 100 miles from it closest bordering state—and situated with 118 miles of open water at its back. Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage, situated adjacent to the Connecticut River, operates on the Navigable Waters of the United States in Massachusetts just 10 miles from where the Connecticut River passes out of Vermont and New Hampshire. NMPS pumps and generates from a narrow ribbon of river that is less than 1,000 feet wide—during warm seasons it sometimes draws more water than the river’s natural output.

In short, these are two very different animals, operating in very different habitats.

However, there are similarities in the long-term environmental impacts of these far-flung pumped storage facilities. They both kill large quantities of the public’s fish. Unfortunately, those impacts were not cited or included in FirstLight’s submission to FERC in either Dispute Resolution Panel documents or its license application documents. In 1995 the owners of the Ludinton Plant agreed to a $172 million dollar settlement for its killing o fish during the previous two decades. The public there at least had the minor benefit of one-time study that showed LPSP “in a single year, killed 440,000 salmon and trout, 85,000 perch and millions of forage fish that served as food for valuable game.”

Unfortunately, to date, we have no such data from a study of NMPS, nor any compensation for the long-term damage to a public resource and a long-term fisheries restoration project. In Michigan, a US-based entity was required to pay restitution and undertake remedial action. Here at NMPS the plant operator is a transnational corporation, based outside the United States, that is “taking” an unknown quantity of a public resource without compensation or required analysis. If a US Citizen were to do this they would be subject to legal action.

 

Please see below: Ludington Daily News, August 13, 1987: “Federal agency rules on fish kill, Ludington hydro plant must comply within 60-90 days.”

The Ludington plant had begun operations in 1973, and had been the subject of legal proceedings from that time forward. The State of Michigan had filed a suit in Ingham County Circuit Court seeking more than $147 million in damages, and the National Wildlife Federation had won a federal court order that Consumers needed a pollution discharge permit for the plant.

In summary here are several excerpts from that article defining the impacts at that time including references to a single study that found the plant killed millions of native fish in a single year, species that are today disappearing, or have essentially disappeared, in Lake Michigan waters:

“Environmentalists and state officials Wednesday hailed a federal ruling designed to end the fish kills at the Ludington Pumped Storage Facility operated by Consumers Power Co.” (Co-owned with Detroit Edison Co.)

“Finally, after 14 years of negotiations and litigation, and the destruction of millions of Lake Michigan sports fish, we’re going to see an end to this needless waste of an important resource,” said Thomas Washington, executive director of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs.

“The MUCC, National Wildlife Federation and Department of Natural Resources have negotiated fruitlessly for years with Consumers Power to stop the fish kills.”
“The plant, in operation since 1973, pumps Lake Michigan water uphill into a reservoir, and generates electricity during times of high demand by letting it flow back to Lake Michigan through generators. In the pumping process, it kills millions of fish.”

“The MUCC said that a study commissioned by Consumers Power showed the plant, in a single year, killed 440,000 salmon and trout, 85,000 perch and millions of forage fish that served as food for valuable game.”

However, it took another eight years of environmental damage and drawn-out court proceedings before a settlement—totaling $172 million, was finally reached in 1995. See: Ludington Daily News, March 7, 1995: “Local groups urged to begin working on projects for fish kill settlement plan.”

“While 12 to 18 months more may pass before the settlement, valued at $172 million, becomes final state officials urged local groups not to wait to prepare proposals for enhancing local fishing.”

“Many audience questions fielded by the five-person panel concerned the perception the settlement doesn’t do much for Ludington area fishing specifically—the fishing most affected by the fish kill at the plant.”

It was only after 1995 that some of the large-scale impacts of Ludington Pumped Storage Plant began to be addressed. Ultimately, a FERC-sanctioned 2-1/2 mile long (12,850 ft) barrier net was deployed across hundreds and hundreds of acres of riverbed and bank.

Sadly, it seems that net did not mitigate or resolve the loss of local fisheries in the Ludington region. Its deployment was either ineffective or far too late for a regionally- and culturally-important sustained harvest of local- sourced and eaten native yellow perch and lake trout. Those perch have now essentially disappeared in the Ludington-Manistee region—which is noted in Stakeholder Testimony supplied for the Ludington Scoping Meeting on April 17, 2014 where Mr. Richard Underwood testified that past Michigan DNR creel surveys had found: “close to a quarter million perch” in Ludington habitats. “In the last few years, four years, we have had a total of zero count of perch in Ludington, and that’s how it has affected.”

The giant Ludington barrier net appears to be one key player in the puzzle of the missing perch. It appears to act as a fish trap. According to Mr. Underwood that net, along with an artificial reef constructed nearby, attracts a giant collection of cormorants that feed on the fish trapped within the confines of the net, “There were so many birds on the reef and inside the barrier net you couldn’t count them. I estimated there were 3,500.”

Ironically too, in recent years, federal hatcheries in the Connecticut River basin have been producing lake trout to supplement the now-crippled and dwindling native population of lake trout on Lake Michigan.

Another similarity in these two relicensing proceedings is that FERC’s Scoping Site Visits at both the NMPS plant and LPSP were scheduled either before the PAD had been given to Stakeholders, as it was NMPS, or—as noted in state fisheries testimony at Ludington, the Site Visits are not scheduled to take place until well after Study Requests and Stakeholder Comments are due.

Both of these processes deprived the public and officials the ability to visit, witness, and develop an understanding of the complex impacts of these pumped storage plants before submitting testimony, comments, and informed study requests.

Similarly, both plants have deployed barrier nets as a means of diminishing their fish kills and entrainment/mortality impacts. And, at both sites the fishing is poor and with stocks deteriorating.

The difference on the Connecticut River is that migratory fish here are forced to encounter two entrainment opportunities through FirstLight facilities. The first occurs seven miles downstream, when they are deflected by attraction flows into the Turners Falls Power Canal, with Cabot Station turbines operating on the downstream end.   The small percentage of fish that manage to survive the 2-1/2-mile, 8-day (average) transit to the head of that canal—and the even smaller number that actually exit upstream(1-10%), then get the chance to be culled by NMPS turbines, just five miles further upstream.

In its filing of the Ludington Scoping Meeting documents, GDF-Suez FirstLight seems to be suggesting some link between the large-scale wind power facilities built by LPSP owners Consumers and DTE, and a key, future role for renewables here in sucking the Connecticut River backward and pulling it uphill into the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage reservoir.

That connection is tenuous, at best. Consumers and its partner DTE now own and operate a large-scale wind farm consisting of some 56 turbines. Its deployment required the purchase or easement rights to 16,000 acres of Michigan property, most of it to trench-out underground power lines to reach back to their grid and pumped-storage plant. Their large-scale wind operations are due to the presence of 118 miles of open Lake Michigan at their back, as well as a flat, open, prairie landscape to site giant turbines on.

FirstLight seems to be implying that NMPS will be similarly employed at some future date—its ecosystem impacts ignored because of the huge amount of surplus, cheap, local, renewable energy available to pump a river uphill at night. But solar doesn’t generate at night; and available local hydro here is modest and run-of-river—it would not constitute a “renewable” source to be tapped to pump water uphill. And, wind power opportunities here are spotty, small scale, and generally available on isolated ridge tops.

Clearly the Connecticut River Valley has none of the necessary features that might facilitate the large-scale wind renewables/pumped storage relationship found at LPSP. Nor, has FirstLight proposed plans for any large-scale wind projects in the region. No other entity has either. Cape Wind, whose large scale deployment will be installed miles off the Atlantic shore, is not proposing a pumped storage plant be built above the Truro Cliffs in order for its renewable energy megawatts to be consumed. Here, there just aren’t flatland mega-farm acres available, and only a few ridge tops here have proven suitable for siting isolated turbines.

GDF-Suez Manager John Howard stated at the Dispute Resolution Panel: “We can manage fluctuations in energy schedules with wind, solar, and imports from Canada and New York, primarily. And then the ability to respond very quickly to energy and operating reserve needs of the power system, any time of the day or calendar year.” He states that “We can manage…” But there is nothing backing up the statement. Nothing that proves there is a surplus amount of renewable energy reaching NMPS to state clearly that “We do manage…” or “We will be managing…”   The implication is that NMPS is a necessity here in order to implement renewable energy in the region. Where is the science to back that up? Solar is not around at night. And the region is sub-marginal for large-scale wind, as well as lacking in opportunities for securing thousands of acres of right-of-way here. So, where is the implied connection between these two facilities—beyond fisheries destruction?

Michigan, with its open face to the winds—which do blow at night, apparently ignores the to damage to its Great Lake ecosystem and fish, and tallies the wind-energy driving Lake Michigan waters and uphill to its pumped-storage plant as “renewable.” We don’t have that wind here, and solar power generation is a whole different animal–not in any way the high-octane source needed to push a river uphill at NMPS. FirstLight has built a 2 MW solar installation atop the 11 acres of land it was mandated to construct for silt-settling ponds by the EPA in 2010 after being sanctioned for massive infractions of the federal Clean Water Act by dumping up to 45,000 tons of pumped storage reservoir silt and sludge into the Connecticut River , the company has not included any information on how that solar facility connects to, and interacts with, and powers its pumped storage operations. Unlike large-scale wind, solar does not deliver its energy at night–when NMPS asserts that it will do most of its pumping.

Pumped storage can only be deemed “renewable” energy in a generating environment where ecosystem impacts are not considered. Pumped-storage itself was a net-loss bargain that was ill-considered even back when there was actually surplus nuclear available in the region. Now this taking-of-a-river is mostly accomplished at NMPS by climate-warming, non-renewable fossil fuels. This is a lose-lose situation for renewable energy use–and for an ecosystem.

GDF-Suez FirstLight’s NMPS plant does feature “black-start” capabilities, and does offer FERC and ISO the ability to accomplish load-leveling at certain critical times. However, these attributes must be balanced against long-standing federal and state efforts to complete a forty-seven year old migratory fisheries restoration on the Connecticut, and the public’s long-term need to have a sustainable Connecticut River ecosystem. NMPS operations also need to adhere to federal and state environmental law.

In 1995, Consumers and DTE paid the public $172 million for their past fish kills of the previous decades. Thus far, the public has not been compensated for the on-going taking of fish at NMPS on the Navigable Waters of the United States, nor have citizens in MA, VT, NH and CT been able to reap the benefits of anything near the stated goals of a four-state fisheries restoration program targeting recreation fishing and harvestable seafood.

Studies with measurable results are required for a fair relicensing process. Stated steps in the FERC relicensing process should be followed to allow the public a contextual look at the operations before the need to suggest studies or prepare testimony. To facilitate a fair process, FERC should require context and full disclosure of all submitted documentation on the part of the applicant, as well as phone conference transcripts to allow an understanding of the ongoing dispute procedure.

Placing a net in front of LPSP and NMPS has not stopped the fish kills at either plant. A band-aid should not be applied to a gaping wound. Complete and proper studies of all life stages of fish mortality are needed for NMPS relicensing. Regulatory pumping and generating restrictions that protect the public resources of US citizens are overdue and necessary there. The studies needed to accomplish this should take place before any new license allows this ongoing “take” to continue through 2048.

End of Formal Comments

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in improving license requirements and protecting the Connecticut River ecosystem for future generations.

Sincerely,

Karl Meyer, M.S.

Stakeholder COMMENTS to FERC on Northfield Up-rate Request

Posted by on 10 Oct 2014 | Tagged as: Connecticut River ecosystem, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, GDF-Suez FirstLight, ISO New England, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project

*The following Stakeholder Comments were submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on October 2, 2014.

Karl Meyer, M.S. Environmental Science
85 School Street # 3
Greenfield, MA, 01301
413-773-0006 October 2, 2014

The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
88 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426

COMMENTS: on P- 2485-065, GDF-Suez FirstLight Hydro Generating Company’s:
Application for Temporary Amendment of Minimum and Maximum Reservoir
Elevation Requirement.

Dear Secretary Bose,

The Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project is currently undergoing
studies under the 5-year FERC relicensing process in order to continue
plant operations beyond 2018. NMPS was built as a peaking power plant—
making use of the surplus power generated from a cluster of Western New
England nuclear power facilities: Yankee Atomic, Vermont Yankee, and
Haddam Neck. Yankee Atomic and Haddam have long-since ceased operation,
and VY will close on December 29, 2014.

After that date, NMPS is requesting to remain in service as an entirely
different entity: a peaking plant, with no surplus regional nuclear power
to draw on. It will then be relying on coal, oil, gas, and imported
hydro to pump water uphill—a very expensive and inefficient process,
consuming what amounts to baseload energy to create peaking generation.
This will be bought on the open market; then resold to ratepayers at
peaking-market prices. The first question that must be asked is: is it
fair to consumers?

Why should such an open-ended power up-rate be allowed when stakeholders
are deep in the discovery phase of the relicensing process? Studies just
months down the road will help determine the current operational,
commercial and environmental impacts of NMPS.

This open-ended request uses NMPS’s “emergency” capabilities as a veil.
In truth, as ISO-NE well knows, it can—and does, take over NMPS on rare
emergency occasions, paying market rates to GDF-Suez for the plant’s
output. Thus, hiding behind an “emergency” goodwill intention is not a
forthright argument from FirstLight, and should not be accepted rationale
for granting NMPS an open-ended and, unstudied, 20-plus percent power
generation capability increase.

Looked at head-on, this is an attempt to turn a plant into a facility
that would now generate using legacy fuels to supply ratepayers with
peaking-priced, spot-marketed power in a quasi-baseload producer fashion.
If FERC were to allow such an increase for a full one-third of a year, it
would be creating a whole new animal in the energy market—without a
requisite public process.

FirstLight’s argument in its generation and storage capacity increase is
that it will be available for “emergency” situations which might arise in
winter markets. The reality is—request aside, NMPS is and has always
been a station prescribed for emergency use. That has been a chief
selling point since it opened 1972. And, it is still available as such—
without any amendments to its current license. Thus, no changes should
be made to current operational limits, as the plant can be called upon
under unusual-event circumstances by ISO within all currently sanctioned
parameters.

Allowing NMPS to begin generating as a baseload plant
without study or understanding of the full impacts of longer pumping and
generation would be an abrogation of FERC’s public responsibilities.
Under current operating conditions, NMPS creates what amount to erosive
tidal conditions in the Turners Falls Impoundment that exceed the daily
tides experienced at Hyannisport, MA. The requested new pumping and
expanded limits at NMPS during winter months will undoubtedly result in
an increase in erosion and sediment load in the river and at the NMPS
reservoir. Daily increases in freezing and thawing along sensitive
riverbanks dictate that.

In 2010 FirstLight attempted to clear its reservoir of sediment and failed
to accomplish the task. The result was a complete outage lasting seven months,
with NMPS unavailable for any emergency output. Most troubling was that
FL attempted to clear its reservoir and intakes by shoveling the silt and muck
directly into the Connecticut River. The EPA issued a cease and desist order in early
August, and FL was found to be in gross violation of the federal Clean
Water Act for polluting the navigable waters of the United States.

It should also be helpful to know that NMPS has never successfully
discharged the silt from its reservoir in its entire history without
experiencing a partial or full outage in its turbine battery. Given that
history, allowing NMPS to potentially create more siltation in the CT
River at their plant should not be allowed until they have proven it will
not impact emergency operations.

Further, attempts by a previous owner to utilize more of the NMPS
reservoir in the 1980s were turned back by a public process that
shed light on the fact that increased pumping of the Connecticut River
would result in significant impacts to the ecosystem. That request—to use
the Connecticut River as a drinking water source to be shifted up to the
NMPS reservoir and then transferred out of basin tothe Quabbin Reservoir,
was ultimately not implemented. In fact, it resulted in the implementation of
a new law, the Inter-Basin Transfer Act, which would only allow water to be
taken from the river in an emergency situation, after all logical engineering
steps were taken to plug holes and eliminate waste in the Boston water delivery
system.

That should be the situation going forward. NMPS remains in service as
currently licensed—available for use in specifically defined emergency
situations by ISO-NE, until studies are complete.

Lastly, is important to note that GDF-Suez FirstLight made no mention of
the closure of their own 135 megawatt Mt. Tom coal plant in Holyoke this
20141002-5022 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/2/2014 8:40:09 AM
fall, when they listed several outlier plant closures as reason for their
request to help as fill -in for a tight winter market. At the very least
that is disingenuous. Some might see it as market manipulation.

Thank you,
Karl Meyer, MS