DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Brief of Nextera Energy Resources, Llc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Brief of Nextera Energy Resources, Llc COMMON\MEALTH OF' MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Joint Petition of Fitchburg Gas and ) Electric Lieht Company dlbl a U nitil, ) Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company dlbla ) National Grid, and NSTAR Electric ) Company and Western Massachusetts ) D.P.U. 18-64 Electric Company, each dlbla ) D.P.U. l8-65 Eversource Energy, for approval oflong- ) D.P.U. 18-66 term contracts for renewable energy, ) pursuant to Section 83D of An Act ) Relative to Green Communities, St. 2008, c.169, as amended by St. 2016, c. ) 188, $ 12. ) INITIAL BRIEF OF NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC March 22,2018 70995546v.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW..................... 1 III. ARGUMENT....... ..J A. The PPAs do not comply with the statutory definition of CEG ..J B. The Companies have failed to show the proposed tracking of CEG is appropriate 7 C. The Companies' failure to require fully incremental hydroelectric energy renders the evaluation and selection results invalid 9 D. The PPAs and TSAs fail to satisfr certain enumerated criteria...... .....13 E. The material changes from the form PPA to the proposed PPA are inconsistent with the 83D RFP process .22 IV. CONCLUSION.......... .25 I 70995546v.1 I. Introduction On July 23,2018, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company d/olalJnitil, Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company dlbla National Grid, and NSTAR Electric Company and Western Massachusetts Electric Company, each dlbla Eversource Energy ("the Companies") filed a joint petition with the Department seeking approval of long-term contracts for the New England Clean Energy Connect project ("NECEC"), pursuant to Section 83D of An Act Relative to Green Communities, St. 2008, c. 169, as amended by St. 2016, c. 188, $ 12, An Act to Promote Energy Diversity ("83D"). Specifically, the Companies seek approval of Transmission Service Agreements ("TSA") with Central Maine Power Company ("CMP") and Power Purchase Agreements ("PPA") with H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.), Inc. ("HQUS"). The Companies filed joint direct testimony on July 23,2018.. NextEra Energy Resources, LLC ("NextBra"), the Attorney General, and the Department of Energy Resources submitted direct testimony on December 21,2018. The Companies filed joint rebuttal testimony on February I, 2019. NextEra and the Attomey General filed surrebuttal testimony on February 15, 2019. Evidentiary hearings were held on Februar y 25,26, and.28,20lg. II. Standard of Review The Department is required to determine whether the TSAs and PPAs are in compliance with Section 83D and Department's regulations,220 C.M.R. $ 24.00 etSgq. The Departmentmust determine whether the HQUS hydroelectric energy associated with the NECEC project complies with the 83D definition of Clean Energy Generation ("CEG"). The CEG definition requires that oofirm such energy be service hydroelectric generation from hydroelectric generation alone," with the term firm service hydroelectric generation defined as ". hydroelectric generation provided without intemrption for I or more discrete periods designated in a long-term contract, including but not limited to multiple hydroelectric run-of-the-river generation units managed in a portfolio 1 70995546v.1 that creates firm service though the diversity of multiple units."l Therefore, as a threshold issue, the Department is required to find that the HQUS hydroelectric energy satisfies the CEG definition; if it does, then the Department determines whether the proposed PPAs and TSAs satisfy the following criteria: l. Provide enhanced electricity reliability within the Commonwealth; 2. Contribute to reducing winter electricity price spikes; J Are cost effective to Massachusetts electric customers over the term of the contract taking into consideration potential economic and environmental benefits to the ratepayers; 4. Avoid line loss and mitigate transmission costs to the extent possible and ensure that transmission cost ovemrns, if any, are not borne by ratepayers; 5. Allow for long-term contracts for CEG resources to be paired with energy storage systems; 6 Guarantee energy delivery in winter months; 7 Adequately demonstrates project viability in a commercially reasonable timeframe; 8 Where feasible, creates and fosters emplo¡rment and economic development in Massachusetts; and 9 Are a cost-effective mechanism for procuring low-cost renewable energy on a long-term basis. Finally, the Department is required to ensure that an appropriate tracking mechanism is used to accurately measure the progress of achieving the goals set forth in the Global Warming 'When Solution Act ("GV/SA").3 the standard of review is applied to the record in this proceeding, rChapter 188, Section l2 (definition of CEG); 220 C.M.R. {i$ 24.02 and,24.05 283D (d);220 C.M.R. 24.0s (l) 3a:l $ 6¡. 2 70995546v.1 it is clear the petition fails to satisfu the requirements of Section 83D and the Department's regulations. Accordingly, the Department should reject the TSAs and PPAs. III. Argument A. The PPAs do not comply with the statutory definition of CEG The definition of CEG is unambiguous and requires that the HQUS' energy come from hydroelectric energy alone and that the energy must be firm.a The record, however, reveals that HQUS' energy is neither from hydroelectric energy alone nor is the energy firm. Indeed, the proposed PPAs' definition of "Hydro-Quebec Power Resources" states that the hydroelectric generating stations are operated as a system that provides electric energy which consists "predomínantly" ofhydroelectric energy. The use ofthe term predominantly in the proposed PPAs is a result of the following facts: (1) while the Hydro Quebec system is predominantly hydroelectric, energy is also produced by various fuel sources (including wind, fossil, biomass, and biogas) that flow over the same Hydro Quebec TransEnergie ("HQT") transmission systems to which the PPAs' Quebec Line will interconnect;6 Q) Hydro Quebec imports energy to its transmission system from other regions that produce energy from nuclear, renewables, and fossil;7 aChapter 188, Section 12 (definition of CEG) (emphasis added). sAttåchment 3 to EDC-NEER 1-2, showing over 5%o of Hydro Quebec system mix is wind, biomass, biogas, waste, and solar, with some nuclear and fossil fuel generation as well. Attachment 5 to EDC-NEER 1-2 at 17, Hydro Quebec "purchase[s] all the output from 39 wind farms (3,508 MW) and 7 small hydropower plants (107 MV/) and almost all the ouþut from 8 biomass and 4 biogas cogeneration plants (272 MW) operated by independent power producers. Moreover, 988 MW are available under long-term contracts with other suppliers." (emphasis added). Attachment I to EDC-NEER l-2 at 1, reflects purchases of wind energy at ll.2 TWhs and biomass at 1.8 TWhs. Attachment I to EDC-NEER l-2 at 3: "We [Hydro Quebec] buy wind power from independent producers and feed it reliably into our grid." 6Exhibit oo'Interconnecting JII-3 at 14: Utility' shall mean, as the context requires, TransÉnergie or the utility providing interconnection service for the Hydro-Québec Power Resources to the transmission system of that utility." isee Attachment I to EDC-NEER l-2 at4, Hydro Quebec purchases from ISO-NE, Ontario, and New Yor( Exhibit RSW (Direct Testimony of Whitley et el.) at 21, Figure A (generation mix of ISO-NE, Ontario, and New York). J 70995546v.1 and (3) the vast majority of the HQT transmission and generation system is located behind the proposed alternating current ("4C") to direct current ("DC") Appalaches converter substation on the Quebec Line.8 This allows for various sources of generation and imports on the HQT system to flow over NECEC to the ISO-NE Larrabee Road delivery point.e In fact, the diversity of energy sources is required to meet Hydro Quebec Distribution ("HQD") load requirements, as Hydro Quebec cannot meet its system peak with Hydro Quebec Production ("HQP") hydroelectric generation alone,l0 and thus, must integrate other fuel sources reliably onto its transmission g.id.ll The PPAs' acknowledgement that the HQUS is predominately from hydroelectric energy is consistent with HQUS' recent bid into the Connecticut Procurement for Zero-Carbon,l2 as well as its sale of energy to a number of Vermont utilities. The HQUS-Vermont PPA recognizes that the HQUS system energy cannot come from 100 percent hydroelectric energy, and, therefore, the sThe Quebec Line is defined as ". a 1,200 MW +/-320 kV high-voltage direct current ('HVDC') transmission line from the converter station at the Appalaches substation in Thetford Mines, Québec to the U.S. Border" to be owned by HQT. Exhibit JU-4-A at 6. Also, see NEER Hearing Exhibit 7 (HQT documents on the location of the euebec Line and Appalaches AC to DC converter substation). During the hearing, the Hearing Examiner took under advisement the Companies' objection to the NextEra hearing exhibits. All the NextEra hearing exhibits are publically available documents obtained from the public websites of Hydro Quebec, State of Vermont and Connecticut agencies, or the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and, as publically available records they are properly allowed as record evidence in Department proceedings. See, e.s., G.L. c. 233 þ76A. The documents are also identical or similar to evidence that was entered on the record without objection. See, e.e., Attachments l-6 to NEER l-2 and Attachments l-3 to NEER 1-3. eThe closest source of generation to the Appalaches AC-to-DC converter substation is fossil and wind generation, not hydroelectric. NextEra Hearing Exhibit 7 at 8 (wind facilities); Attachment 5 to NEER l-2 at 4 (Becancour fossil facility). r0Attachment 5 to EDC-NEER l-2 at7 and 11, note b (Hydro Quebec's system peak was 38,204 MWs, while its installed capacity of hydroelectric generation was only 36,767 MV/s). rrSee. e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Competing to Overcharge Consumers: the Competitive Electric Supplier Market in Massachusetts
    Why Competing to Overcharge Consumers: The Competitive Electric Supplier Market in Massachusetts April 2018 By Jenifer Bosco National Consumer Law Center® © Copyright 2018, National Consumer Law Center, Inc. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jenifer Bosco is a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) with a focus on energy and utility issues that affect low-income consumers. Prior to joining NCLC, she was the first director of the Office of Patient Protection at the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission. Previously, Jen advocated for low-income clients at Health Law Advocates, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and Merrimack Valley Legal Services. She also served as an Assistant Attorney General with the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General and began her legal career as a law clerk for the Massachusetts Superior Court. Jen holds a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. from Boston College. She is a co-author of Access to Utility Services and a contributing author to Collection Actions and Consumer Banking and Payments Law. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks NCLC Senior Attorney Charlie Harak and NCLC Deputy Director Carolyn Carter for their insightful reviews and comments, and Ana Girón-Vives of NCLC for her research and data analysis. Barbara Alexander generously shared her extensive knowledge of competitive supply markets and provided invaluable support and insight. The author also thanks Elizabeth Berube of Citizens for Citizens, Inc., Darlene Gallant of Lynn Economic Opportunity, Richard Berkley of the Public Utility Law Project of New York, and NCLC colleagues Olivia Wein, John Howat, Jan Kruse, Svetlana Ladan, and Cleef Milien for their invaluable assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the True Impacts of Champlain Hudson Power Express
    UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE IMPACTS OF CHAMPLAIN HUDSON POWER EXPRESS Prepared by: Energyzt Advisors, LLC Prepared for: Independent Power Producers of New York January 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... ES-1 1. OVERVIEW OF CHPE ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Evolution of CHPE ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2. 2017 Assessment of Carbon Reductions – Grossly Overstates Benefits ................... 4 1.3. 2019 Climate Mobilization Act – CHPE does not help New York State goals ......... 6 2. SOURCE OF CHPE ENERGY SUPPLY ................................................................................ 11 2.1 Quebec is short capacity and long on energy........................................................... 11 2.2 Hydro-Québec’s excess energy available for exports is limited ............................. 14 2.3 Hydro-Québec firm energy is very expensive ......................................................... 18 3. HYDRO-QUÉBEC WOULD DIVERT ENERGY TO SUPPLY CHPE ................................. 22 3.1. Quebec is interconnected with multiple markets .................................................... 23 3.2. Hydro-Québec has enough transmission capacity to sell its excess energy .......... 26 3.3. Hydro-Québec is motivated to maximize profits ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Imports
    INCREMENTAL HYDROPOWER IMPORTS WHITEPAPER Fall 2013 New England States Committee on Electricity CONSIDERATIONS, OPTIONS, AND MARKET OVERVIEW REGARDING THE POTENTIAL TO INCREASE HYDROPOWER IMPORTS FROM EASTERN CANADIAN PROVINCES TO NEW ENGLAND New England States Committee on Electricity – Incremental Hydropower Imports Whitepaper Fall 2013 This whitepaper is provided solely as a source of information for New England state policymakers. The information provided is largely drawn from publicly available reports and other documents and should be independently verified before it is relied upon. Any views that may be expressed in or inferred from this whitepaper should not be construed as representing those of NESCOE, any NESCOE Manager, or any state agency or official. 2 New England States Committee on Electricity – Incremental Hydropower Imports Whitepaper Fall 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 6 I. NEW ENGLAND’S COMPETITIVE WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY MARKETS, MECHANISMS TO SATISFY POLICY OBJECTIVES, AND CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATING STATE POLICIES IN THE WHOLESALE MARKETS ........................................................................................................................ 7 A. Electric Industry Restructuring and Generation Divestiture.............................. 7 B. Identifying Least-Cost Resources to Serve Customers and Examples of Existing Mechanisms to Achieve Public Policy Objectives......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. EC11-35-000 Northeast Utilities
    136 FERC ¶ 61,016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur. NSTAR Docket No. EC11-35-000 Northeast Utilities ORDER AUTHORIZING MERGER AND DISPOSITION OF JURISDICTIONAL FACILTIES (Issued July 6, 2011) 1. On January 7, 2011, NSTAR and Northeast Utilities (collectively, Applicants) filed pursuant to sections 203(a)(1) and 203(a)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)1 and Part 33 of the Commission’s regulations a joint application for authorization of a proposed transaction by which NSTAR will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northeast Utilities (Proposed Transaction). The Commission has reviewed the application under the Commission’s Merger Policy Statement.2 As discussed below, we will authorize the Proposed Transaction as consistent with the public interest. 1 16 U.S.C. § 824b (2006). 2 See Inquiry Concerning the Commission’s Merger Policy Under the Federal Power Act: Policy Statement, Order No. 592, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 (1996), reconsideration denied, Order No. 592-A, 79 FERC ¶ 61,321 (1997) (Merger Policy Statement). See also FPA Section 203 Supplemental Policy Statement, 72 Fed. Reg. 42,277 (Aug. 2, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,253 (2007) (Supplemental Policy Statement). See also Revised Filing Requirements Under Part 33 of the Commission’s Regulations, Order No. 642, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,111 (2000), order on reh’g, Order No. 642-A, 94 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2001). See also Transactions Subject to FPA Section 203, Order No. 669, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,200 (2005), order on reh’g, Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Retail Competition in Electricity
    33% RETAIL COMPETITION IN ELECTRICITY WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED IN 20 YEARS? July 23, 2019 Authored by: Lisa M. Quilici, Danielle S. Powers, Gregg H. Therrien, Benjamin O. Davis, and Olivia A. Prieto CEADVISORS.COM © 2019 Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc. 1 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Regulation and Restructuring ............................................................................................................................... 1 B. Survey of U.S. States .................................................................................................................................................. 1 C. Retail Rates for Residential Customers ............................................................................................................. 3 D. The Need for a Fully Functioning Wholesale Market .................................................................................. 4 E. Resource Planning and Reliability....................................................................................................................... 4 F. Generation Divestiture and Stranded Costs .................................................................................................... 5 G. Transition in Generation Fleet .............................................................................................................................. 5 H. Innovation in the
    [Show full text]
  • EFSB 02-2 for Approval to Construct Two 115 Kv ) Electric Transmission Lines ) ______)
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Energy Facilities Siting Board ____________________________________ In the Matter of the Petition of Cape Wind ) Associates, LLC and Commonwealth ) Electric Company, d/b/a NSTAR Electric ) EFSB 02-2 for Approval to Construct Two 115 kV ) Electric Transmission Lines ) ____________________________________) FINAL DECISION M. Kathryn Sedor Presiding Officer May 11, 2005 On the Decision: William Febiger Barbara Shapiro John Young APPEARANCES: David S. Rosenzweig, Esq. Keegan, Werlin & Pabian, LLP 265 Franklin Street, 6th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02110-3113 FOR: Cape Wind Associates, LLC Petitioner Mary E. Grover, Esq. Assistant General Counsel NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation 800 Boylston Street, P1700 Boston, Massachusetts 02199 FOR: Commonwealth Electric Company d/b/a NSTAR Electric Petitioner Kenneth L. Kimmell, Esq. Jeffrey M. Bernstein, Esq. Elisabeth C. Goodman, Esq. Bernstein, Cushner & Kimmell, P.C. 585 Boylston Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 FOR: Town of Yarmouth Intervenor Myron Gildesgame, Director Office of Water Resources Department of Environmental Management 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 FOR: Department of Environmental Management Ocean Sanctuaries Act Program Intervenor Christopher H. Kallaher, Esq. Robinson & Cole LLP One Boston Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 FOR: Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound Intervenor -i- Douglas H. Wilkins, Esq. Anderson & Kreiger LLP 43 Thorndike Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141 FOR: Massachusetts Audubon Society Intervenor David P. Dwork, Esq. Roger T. Manwaring, Esq. Barron & Stadfeld, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1310 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 FOR: Save Popponesset Bay, Inc. Intervenor Paige Graening, Esq. National Grid USA Service Company 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01582 FOR: Nantucket Electric Company Limited Participant Margo Fenn, Executive Director Cape Cod Commission 3225 Main Street P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 | Eversource 2019 Sustainability Report
    1 | EVERSOURCE 2019 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS MESSAGE FROM JIM JUDGE ............................................. 4 SUSTAINABILITY AT EVERSOURCE ..................................... 7 REPORT ASSURANCE ..................................................... 9 OUR ENVIRONMENT ...................................................... 10 LOWERING OUR OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................. 11 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................................................... 13 Our Footprint ................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Operations Optimization .................................................................................................................................................. 17 ADDRESSING REGIONAL ENERGY CHALLENGES .................................................................................................... 20 Clean Energy ................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Electric Vehicles .............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Energy Efficiency Programs ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • COMPARISON of ELECTRICITY PRICES in MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIES Rates in Effect April 1, 2014
    COMPARISON OF ELECTRICITY PRICES IN MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIES Rates in effect April 1, 2014 0,0272 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 METHOD 7 HIGHLIGHTS 9 Residential Customers 9 Small-Power Customers 10 Medium-Power Customers 11 Large-Power Customers 14 DETAILED RESULTS 1 Summary Tables (excluding taxes) 17 2 Summary Tables (including taxes) 23 3 Detailed Tables – Residential 29 4 Detailed Tables – Small-Power 35 5 Detailed Tables – Medium-Power 41 6 Detailed Tables – Large-Power 47 APPENDICES A Rate Adjustments 53 B Time-of-Use Rates Adjustment Clauses 57 C Applicable Taxes 63 D Utilities in the Study 71 1 INTRODUCTION Every year, Hydro-Québec compares the monthly electricity bills of Québec customers in the residential, commercial, institutional and industrial sectors with those of customers of the various utilities serving 21 major North American cities. This report details the principal conclusions of this comparative analysis of prices in effect on April 1, 2014. There are three sections. The first describes the method used to estimate electricity bills. The second examines the highlights of the seven consumption levels analyzed, with the help of charts. Finally, the third section presents the results of the 21 consumption levels for which data were collected and compiled in the form of summary and detailed tables. The most recent rate adjustments, time-of-use rates, adjustment clauses and applicable taxes, as well as a profile of the utilities in the study, appear in separate appendices. 3 MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIES AVERAGE PRICES
    [Show full text]
  • COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of NSTAR Electric Company D/B/A Eversource Energy Pursuan
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a ) Eversource Energy Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69J ) for Approval to Construct and Operate a New ) 115-kV Electric Transmission Line Between the ) EFSB 19-06 Bourne Switching Station and West Barnstable ) Substation ) ) Petition of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a ) Eversource Energy Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69J ) for Approval to Construct and Operate a New ) 115-kV Electric Transmission Line Through the ) D.P.U. 19-142 Towns of Bourne, Sandwich, and Barnstable ) ) ) Petition of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a ) Eversource Energy Pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 3 ) for Individual and Comprehensive Exemptions ) from the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of ) D.P.U. 19-143 Barnstable ) ) ) MAYFLOWER WIND ENERGY LLC’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Pursuant to 980 CMR § 1.05, 220 CMR § 1.03, and the Notice of Adjudication and Notice of Public Comment Hearing issued by the Energy Facilities Siting Board (the “Siting Board”) on May 7, 2020, Mayflower Wind Energy LLC (“Mayflower Wind” or “Mayflower”) hereby petitions the Siting Board for leave to intervene as a full party in the above-referenced consolidated proceedings. Mayflower Wind states the following in support of this Petition: Eversource’s Proposed Project 1. On November 8, 2019, NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy (“Eversource”) filed a petition seeking approval from the Siting Board pursuant to G.L. c. 1 104515976.8 164, § 69J (the “Section 69J Petition”). In the Section 69J Petition, Eversource proposes to construct and operate an approximately 12.5-mile, overhead 115-kilovolt (“kV”) electric transmission line (the “New Line,” and together with related station improvement, the “Mid Cape Reliability Project”).
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Wind Project Is Drastically Reduced Due to the Minimal Shipping Traffic That Takes Place in the Vicinity of Horseshoe Shoal
    U.S. Department of the Interior Appendix G MM S Minerals Management Service Biological Assessment Appendix G Biological Assessment Cape Wind Energy Project January 2009 Final EIS Cape Wind Energy Project Nantucket Sound Biological Assessment Minerals Management Service for Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries May 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior Appendix G MM S Minerals Management Service Biological Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project History.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Federal Consultation Action History ...........................................................................1-3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AND ACTION AREA......................................2-1 2.1 Wind Turbines .............................................................................................................2-3 2.2 Inner Array Cables.......................................................................................................2-4 2.3 Electrical Service Platform ..........................................................................................2-4 2.4 Staging Areas...............................................................................................................2-5 2.5 Project Activities and Operations ................................................................................2-6
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Primer a Handbook of Energy Market Basics April 2020
    Energy Primer A Handbook of Energy Market Basics April 2020 The Energy Primer is a staff product and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or any Commissioner. Energy Primer A Handbook of Energy Market Basics Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Physical Fundamentals ............................................................................................... 1 Financial Markets and Trading ................................................................................... 2 Market Manipulation ................................................................................................... 3 Additional Information ................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2 Wholesale Natural Gas Markets .............................................................................. 5 Natural Gas .................................................................................................................. 5 Natural Gas Industry ................................................................................................... 5 Natural Gas Demand ................................................................................................... 7 Natural Gas Supply .................................................................................................... 10 Liquefied Natural Gas ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force
    REPORT TO CONGRESS ON COMPETITION IN WHOLESALE AND RETAIL MARKETS FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY Pursuant to Section 1815 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force The Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force Members: J. Bruce McDonald, Department of Justice Michael Bardee, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission John H. Seesel, Federal Trade Commission David Meyer, Department of Energy Karen Larsen, Department of Agriculture Report Contributors: Robin Allen – Department of Justice Kathleen Barrón – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tracey Chambers – Department of Justice Lee-Ken Choo – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Jade Eaton – Department of Justice Patricia Ephraim – Department of Energy Douglas Hale– Department of Energy; Energy Information Administration John Hilke – Federal Trade Commission Douglas Hilleboe – Federal Trade Commission David Kathan – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Robin Meigel – Department of Agriculture Richard O'Neill – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Moon Paul – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Astrid Rapp – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Steven Reich – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Janelle Schmidt – Department of Energy Harry Singh – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Michael Wroblewski – Federal Trade Commission (left the FTC in June 2006) David Zlotlow – Department of Justice This report was prepared by the Task Force with the assistance of the Department of Justice, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Department
    [Show full text]