Thursday, May 17, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
US JOBS
US AMASSeco It Services .Our world in which information is like air, what happens to power?
New technologies and a closely related culture of collaboration present radical new models of social organisation. This project brings together leading practitioners and thinkers in this field and asks them to determine the opportunity for government.
This website features all material being created during the making of the film.
"if you treat people as kind of passive recipients of things you will just end up with a very, very aggressive grumpy people who will present you with a set of demands that you cannot possibly meet. "
Matthew Taylor
Buy The Film: http://indieflix.com/film/us-now-31958/
Watch more documentary films at http://www.renderyard.com/
New technologies and a closely related culture of collaboration present radical new models of social organisation. This project brings together leading practitioners and thinkers in this field and asks them to determine the opportunity for government.
This website features all material being created during the making of the film.
"if you treat people as kind of passive recipients of things you will just end up with a very, very aggressive grumpy people who will present you with a set of demands that you cannot possibly meet. "
Matthew Taylor
Buy The Film: http://indieflix.com/film/us-now-31958/
Watch more documentary films at http://www.renderyard.com/
see all
All Comments (128)
-
I agreed. But this video shows us also that some people use their mobile phone just like a toy. And because of that, they shut themselves off from the rest of the world and became little by little agoraphobic and lazy. They also think that people on phone are more credible than people on the street. This year, 57% of people on earth talk to people more online than they do in real life. And It makes lazy geeks happy! Look at his face expression at 11:43 ... he's so proud of his useless service XD
-
But the whole idea is that you would educate yourself on the issues and try to gather a deeper understanding because it directly effects you. Also the video doesn't call for the entire rejection of standard Representative government, it just says that we should have more say in thing that are more personal to us as citizens. So people wouldn't be allowed to vote on issues of immigration or tax rates, but they would be allowed to have more say on where the money should go.
-
I think that is only one of the possible functions of the service. I believe the service could also be used to help find things and also get advice about where the person is going, things to do, things to see, and maybe things to avoid. Like going to a restaurant they could get first person reviews from locals and get truthful opinions. I think your looking at the service in a closed minded way and not really looking at the full potential of such a program. But that is just my opinion.
-
there are too many blind and uneducated people that would vote for things that they had no clue what they were talking about. That why i believe the system would never work It takes no effort to collaborate or vote online which in my opinion is not a good thing
-
Great video, liked it very much!
-
I have to say it is a beautiful thing to witness the collective mind in cooperation creating a better place for all! Thank you for this video!
-
Really? I thought it just happens in my contry, which is China, the people's republic of.
-
Po prostu dno. Chessssssssssssssssss
-
The Documentary hits you in the face. Are we ready for change? are we going to open our eyes or keep them shot. Are we going to use these tools of mass collaboration to create a better world.
-
3:16
Veterans' Voices On PTSD
by VeteransMTC
44,282 views
Ad
-
49:28
Children Of Chernobylby JourneymanVOD952 views -
30:06
The Day the Wave Cameby journeymanpictures61,273 views -
54:15
Trench Townby JourneymanVOD119 views -
49:51
Children of Chernobylby journeymanpictures39,011 views -
53:43
Atomic Woundsby journeymanpictures45,387 views -
1:13:50
Remembering 9/11by InceptionVOD
Gloria Valadez
Extreme narcissists tend to be persons who move towards eventually cutting others off and becoming emotionally isolated. There are all types of levels on that road to isolation. Narcissists come in all shapes, sizes, and degrees. I would like to address how a person becomes an extreme narcissist.
Narcissism, in lay terms, basically means that a person is totally absorbed in self. The extreme narcissist is the center of his own universe. To an extreme narcissist, people are things to be used. It usually starts with a significant emotional wound or a series of them culminating in a major trauma of separation/attachment. No matter how socially skilled an extreme narcissist is, he has a major attachment dysfunction. The extreme narcissist is frozen in childhood. He became emotionally stuck at the time of his major trauma of separation/attachment.
In my work with extreme narcissist patients I have found that their emotional age and maturity corresponds to the age they experienced their major trauma. This trauma was devastating to the point it almost killed that person emotionally. The pain never was totally gone and the bleeding was continuous. In order to survive, this child had to construct a protective barrier that insulates him/her from the external world of people. He generalized that all people are harmful and cannot be trusted.
The protective insulation barrier he constructed is called a false persona. He created a false identity. This identity is not the true person inside. The many types of false personas or identities that an extreme narcissist creates can vary.
Some narcissists may have the ability to change into a variety of identities according to the situation. The wounded child inside may choose to present a front as a “bad ass” and tough individual. He may look, by appearance, intimidating and scary to the average person. He could also play the “nice guy/person” whom everyone likes. A corporate type version can be one that is diplomatic, proper, and appearing to care but in reality does not. Another very likeable extreme narcissist can be the one that chooses the comedian role. He is the life of the party and has everyone in stitches, making them laugh constantly. Everyone wants to include this person because they are a lot of fun.
Try to get close or ask personal questions as to how he is internally doing and feeling and you will find is that he will quickly distract you. They will sidestep the question with another joke, making you suddenly forget what you were asking. Narcissists can be very skilled at dodging and ducking personal questions. If you press them, they will then slot you as “unsafe” and will begin to avoid you and exclude you from their life.
There is also the success oriented narcissist. She will be your friend and keep you close to her as long as you are useful. Once you do not have anything more to offer and she has taken all they wanted from you, you are history. You are no longer desired, wanted, or sought.
I remember a significant half dozen of these in my life. One narcissist in particular avoids me like the plague because he knows that I do not ultimately plan my life around whether people like me or not. Hence my behavior cannot be controlled by him. He is threatened by my self-assuredness. I’m not safe to him. It does not matter that I have helped him in critical moments of his life. When he realized that he could not control me to make him look good when I was with him, he dropped me like a heavy weight. I received no more phone calls and was taken off his radar screen.
Another extreme narcissist stopped calling me when I got my Ph.D. I believe that, in his insecurity, he could no longer look “better” than me and be the focal person. As a result, he felt threatened that I had a more powerful image than he did. I think it is silly because I do not care about whether people have degrees to validate their intrinsic value as a human being.
In my ministerial past, I have had several colleagues that I considered to be like blood brothers. We had sworn honesty and loyalty to each other. Once I opened up my weaknesses to them and then asked them to reciprocate, they looked for excuses to label me and reject me. The more I pressed them about their lack of being forthcoming and failing at their own promise of commitment to the friendship, the more vehement they became at avoiding disclosure of their warts to me. Of course, I already knew many of their flaws and already had no problem accepting them. Now it was their turn and they shut down and put up the thick wall.
This is what genuine narcissists do. This is sad but it happens all the time with individuals that are scared to go down the road to becoming whole and healthy. It is like going under the knife of a surgeon. When there is a legitimate organic threat as with a malignant tumor, it can be hard to submit to the truth and then the treatment. This, however, is a door to a better life.
Is there hope for an extreme narcissist living in an emotional and relational fort of isolation. Is a narcissist able to have a healthy life? Definitely! I’ve seen many extreme narcissists become extremely healthy in their emotional and relational life. The first step is to find competent and safe help that knows how to heal emotional traumas. Just because a counselor may have all kinds of credentials it does not mean they are competent in dealing effectively with trauma issues. Because extreme narcissists tend to have an early history of emotional wounds they are full of distrust. If they can get past this hurdle then they can begin to find help to heal.
Second, extreme narcissists have to be willing to enter the realm of their feelings again. They have been the masters of covering and hiding, even to themselves. They now have to start uncovering painful wounds. They have taught themselves to stuff and disconnect their own feelings for years. Because of this, they tend to live inside their heads, in the realm of so called reason. They are likely to live in the world of rational principles, laws, rules, which are all linear. This domain is a realm they feel they can control. It is devoid of feelings. The realm of the heart or feelings is very intimidating and unsafe to them because it is non-linear and there is very little control of the outcomes. If extreme narcissists can overcome these two hurdles then there is much hope for them. They are on their road to healing.
us amasseco
A recent trip to North America was a source of inspiration for the Green Building Council
of Australia’s Executive Director of Advocacy and International, Robin
Mellon. Here are some of his views on the thought-provoking green
building and community projects driving the green building movement on
the other side of the Pacific.
Management
The
California Academy of Sciences Building, in San Francisco’s Golden Gate
Park, is not only a LEED Platinum-rated development, but is a smart,
well-connected building. The Building Users’ Guide teaches visitors of
all ages about the building, which is insulated using materials such as
recycled denim, and the living roof. It also informs guests about local
and global climate change and environmental impacts and about the
ecology of the surroundings.
Indoor Environment Quality
The goals of the recently-completed High Tech High Chula Vista School in California are to create a toxin-free
learning environment, use resources sustainably and cost-effectively
and teach, learn and engage at every opportunity. This should be the
standard for every school, not just a lone stand-out.
Energy
Futuristic Architecture Plan Has New York Seeing Green
Offering a glimpse into what could be the New...
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Validity News
AMASSeco Testimony of
Jeff C. Wright
Director, Office of Energy Projects
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC, 20426
202-502-8700
Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
United States House of Representatives
Oversight Hearing on
“The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012”
May 9, 2012
Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Jeff Wright and I am the Director of the Office of Energy Projects at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the draft legislation entitled, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012. As a member of the Commission’s staff, the views I express in this testimony are my own, and not those of the Commission or of any individual Commissioner.
I. Background
The Commission regulates over 1,600 hydropower projects at over 2,500 dams pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Together, these projects represent 54 gigawatts of hydropower capacity, more than half of all the hydropower in the United States. Hydropower is an essential part of the Nation's energy mix and offers the benefits of an emission-free, renewable, domestic energy source with public and private capacity together totaling about nine percent of U.S. electric generation capacity.
Under the FPA, non-federal hydropower projects must be licensed by the Commission if they: (1) are located on a navigable waterway; (2) occupy federal lands; (3) use surplus water from a federal dam; or (4) are located on non-navigable waters over which Congress has jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, involve post-1935 construction, and affect interstate or foreign commerce.
The FPA authorizes the Commission to issue either licenses or exemptions for
2
projects within its jurisdiction. Licenses are generally issued for terms of between 30 and 50 years, are renewable, and carry with them the right to exercise federal eminent domain to obtain property necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a project. Exemptions are perpetual, and thus do not need to be renewed, but do not permit the use of eminent domain. Congress has established two types of exemptions. First, section 30 of the FPA allows the Commission to issue exemptions for projects that utilize, for generation, the hydroelectric potential of manmade conduits that are operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption, and not primarily for the generation of electricity. Conduit projects must be located on non-federal lands, and have a maximum capacity of 15 megawatts (40 megawatts if the exemptee is a state or local government entity). Second, in section 405(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, Congress authorized the Commission to grant exemptions for small hydroelectric power projects having an installed capacity of 5,000 kilowatts or less. To qualify for this type of exemption, a project must be located at an existing dam that does not require construction or the enlargement of an impoundment, or must use the hydropower potential of a natural water feature, such as a waterfall. Both types of exemptions are subject to mandatory fish and wildlife conditions provided by federal and state resource agencies.
The Commission has established three licensing processes, with the intent of allowing parties to select the process that is best suited to individual proceedings. The integrated licensing process (ILP) frontloads issue identification and environmental study to the period before an application is filed, and is thus well-suited to complex cases with
3
substantial issues. The alternative licensing process (ALP) allows participants significant flexibility to tailor licensing procedures in a manner that may work well for unique cases. The traditional licensing process (TLP), in which environmental and other work can occur after the application is filed appears to work best for less controversial matters. The TLP may be the process that is best-suited for many simple cases involving exemptions or small, low impact licenses. Commission staff has also developed a pilot licensing process for marine and hydrokinetic projects in which, with the assistance of federal and state resource agencies, a project can be licensed in as little as six months.
It is extremely important to note that project developers and other stakeholders, not the Commission, in most instances play the leading role in determining project success and whether the regulatory process will be short or long, simple or complex. The first key issue is site selection and proposed project operation. For example, the processing of applications tends to be expedited when applicants propose projects that: (1) are located at an existing dam where hydropower facilities do not currently exist, (2) would result in little change to water flow and use, (3) are unlikely to affect threatened and endangered species and are unlikely to need fish passage facilities, and (4) involve lands and facilities that are already owned by the applicant. To the extent that a proposed project, even one of small size, raises concerns about water use and other environmental issues, it may be difficult for the Commission to quickly process an application. It is also important to remember that the small capacity of a proposed project does not necessarily mean that the project has only minor environmental impacts.
Another, and related, factor is the extent to which project developers reach out to
4
affected stakeholders. If a developer contacts concerned citizens, local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and environmental organizations, and works with them to develop consensus as to what information is needed to understand the impacts of a project and what environmental measures may be appropriate, and to develop support for the project, the application and review process is likely to be simpler and quicker. Where a project comes as a surprise to affected entities or where a developer does not respond to expressed concerns, the Commission’s job becomes much more difficult.
A final, and again related, matter is the development of the full record that the Commission needs to act on an application. A potential applicant needs to work with Commission staff and with federal and state resource agencies and other stakeholders to determine what information is needed to support an application, and to provide the Commission with a complete application. Where Commission staff or other stakeholders must ask an applicant to provide information that is missing from an application, the regulatory process slows down.
The other entities with roles in the licensing and exemption process regarding small hydropower projects are also key to its success. The quickest, most efficient process can be achieved only where federal and state agencies, as well as other stakeholders, devote the resources early on to help project review move ahead, and where they display the flexibility to look at the merits of individual projects and the willingness to shorten the process in appropriate cases. Commission staff is dedicated to making the regulatory process as short and cost-effective as possible. We can only do that where applicants, resource agencies, and other stakeholders serve as willing partners in the
5
process.
II. Commission Efforts Regarding Small and Innovative Projects
The majority of the hydropower projects regulated by the Commission are small projects, with about 71 percent having an installed capacity of 5 megawatts (MW) or less. In recent years, the Commission has seen a greatly increased interest in small hydropower projects, in innovative marine and hydrokinetic projects, and in pumped storage projects, particularly closed-loop pumped storage, which does not involve regular water withdrawals from rivers or other water sources. The Commission has responded by implementing a number of measures to facilitate efficient review of project proposals. In 2007, in order to provide personalized, responsive service to entities seeking to develop small hydropower projects, Commission staff established a dedicated phone line and email address for inquiries on small hydropower, developed a brochure to provide guidance to potential developers of small, low impact hydropower projects, and put these resources and a list of frequently-asked questions on the Commission’s website.
In light of the continued growing interest in such development, the Commission held a technical conference on December 2, 2009, at its Washington, D.C. headquarters to explore issues related to licensing, and exempting from licensing, small non-federal hydropower projects in the U.S. The technical conference generated discussion on recommendations that could improve the process for authorizing small hydropower projects. In addition to insights received from the panelists and attendees at the technical conference, written comments were solicited and over 40 comment letters were received from industry representatives; federal, state, and local agencies; private citizens; and non-
6
governmental organizations. At the Commission’s April 15, 2010 meeting, staff reported on the conference and the comments received, and presented an action plan to assist and expedite the review of small hydropower proposals. The action plan adopted the following immediate changes: (1) adding new web-based resources to the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) to make it easier for applicants to understand and complete the licensing process; (2) updating or creating Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with other agencies to improve coordination; (3) continuing our small hydropower hotline and email address to answer applicant questions; and (4) educating potential small hydropower developers through a new education and outreach program.
The Commission has, under its small hydro initiative, held numerous outreach meetings with small hydropower developers and interested stakeholders, and implemented web based tools, such as application templates and application checklists, which potential applicants can use to prepare their applications. The small hydro website further contains guidance and sample letters that applicants can use to obtain waivers from fish and wildlife agencies for part of the prefiling consultation process. The Commission staff has also relaxed some of the standards, under Section 4.39 of its regulations, for exhibits and drawings for exemption applications. For those applicants that have filed complete and adequate applications, and for which the Commission has determined that impacts are minimal, the Commission has reduced the public notice period from 60 days to 30 days and the reply period from 45 days to 15 days. A number of conduit exemptions have been approved in as short as two months from the date that an application has been deemed complete.
7
Since the April 15, 2010 Commission meeting, we have signed an MOU with the State of Colorado to expedite the small hydro licensing process (August 2010); updated our MOU with the Army Corps of Engineers (March 2011); launched a small hydro program website (August 2010); participated in small hydro workshops across the U.S.; conducted webinars on our small hydro website (November 2010, December 2010, June 2011, and January 2012); and updated our small hydro brochure. Upcoming outreach efforts will include participating on a small hydro panel in Louisville, Kentucky, as well as conducting a small hydro workshop with the Department of Interior and Alaska state agencies in Sitka, Alaska later this summer. As a result of these efforts, consultation has improved, applications are more complete, and application processing times have been reduced.
With this background, I will turn to the draft legislation.
III. The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012
The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012, has the commendable goal of increasing hydropower capacity and generation in United States. I strongly support that goal, and offer comments on specific sections of the bill.
A. Section 4
Section 4 would establish various measures to promote conduit hydropower projects. Again, this goal is consistent with Commission policy and has been a major focus of Commission’s staff’s effort in the last few years.
Section 4(a) would amend section 30 of the FPA to establish a procedure whereby conduit projects with an installed capacity of 5 MW or less would not be required to be
8
licensed, provided the applicant makes a showing that the project qualifies as a conduit project. I support this provision, which should serve to increase the amount of electric generation derived from conduits. This section would also allow the Commission to grant conduit exemptions for those projects with an installed capacity of up to 40 MW. This proposed upper limit would apply to non-municipal, as well as municipal applicants.
B. Section 5
Section 5 would amend the FPA to authorize the Commission to extend the term of a preliminary permit issued under FPA section 5 once for up to two years. Preliminary permits grant the permittee a “first-to-file” preference with respect to license applications for projects being studied under a permit. Commission staff has heard anecdotally that developers are concerned that the need for environmental studies in some instances makes it difficult to complete a license application within the current maximum three-year term of a permit, with the result that a developer which has invested substantial time and money studying a project may face the possibility of losing its project based on competition from other entities – particular those with statutorily-granted municipal preference -- if it needs to seek a subsequent permit. I therefore support the proposed FPA amendment, which could ameliorate this problem. It might be worth considering, as an alternative, authorizing the Commission to issue permits for terms of up to five years, which could avoid the need for developers to go through the process of seeking an extension.
C. Section 6
Section 6 would require the Commission to investigate the feasibility of
9
implementing a two-year licensing process, in particular, with respect to hydropower development at existing, non-powered dams, and for closed-loop pumped storage projects.
I support the goal of an expedited licensing process. Indeed, as I have discussed, it is Commission staff’s goal to act on all license applications as quickly as possible, and the Commission has established processes that allow for great flexibility and efficiency. I am thus not certain whether an additional licensing process is necessary. During the last few years, we have been able to issue some licenses in a matter of a few months, where the project proponent had selected a site wisely, stakeholders had agreed on information needs, and state and federal agencies performed their responsibilities quickly. Moreover, the Commission operates under significant constraints imposed by the FPA, and by other legislation affecting the licensing process – the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act among them. In the absence of the ability to waive sections of the FPA and other acts, or to set enforceable schedules in licensing proceedings, it is not clear that the Commission, under its existing authorities, can mandate a shortened process.
C. Section 7
Section 7 would require the Department of Energy to study the flexibility and reliability that pumped storage facilities can provide and the opportunities and potential generation from conduits. While I can not speak for the Department of Energy, I support this research.
10
11
IV. Conclusion
There is a great deal of potential for the development of additional hydropower projects throughout the country, including small projects and marine and hydrokinetic projects. Working within the authority given it by Congress, the Commission continues to adapt its existing, flexible procedures to facilitate the review and, where appropriate, the approval of such projects. Commission staff remains committed to exploring with project developers, its sister federal agencies, Indian tribes, the states, local government, and other stakeholders every avenue for the responsible development of our nation’s hydropower potential. The legislation under consideration will, as I have testified, assist in realizing that potential.
This concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Jeff C. Wright
Director, Office of Energy Projects
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC, 20426
202-502-8700
Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
United States House of Representatives
Oversight Hearing on
“The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012”
May 9, 2012
Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Jeff Wright and I am the Director of the Office of Energy Projects at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the draft legislation entitled, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012. As a member of the Commission’s staff, the views I express in this testimony are my own, and not those of the Commission or of any individual Commissioner.
I. Background
The Commission regulates over 1,600 hydropower projects at over 2,500 dams pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Together, these projects represent 54 gigawatts of hydropower capacity, more than half of all the hydropower in the United States. Hydropower is an essential part of the Nation's energy mix and offers the benefits of an emission-free, renewable, domestic energy source with public and private capacity together totaling about nine percent of U.S. electric generation capacity.
Under the FPA, non-federal hydropower projects must be licensed by the Commission if they: (1) are located on a navigable waterway; (2) occupy federal lands; (3) use surplus water from a federal dam; or (4) are located on non-navigable waters over which Congress has jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, involve post-1935 construction, and affect interstate or foreign commerce.
The FPA authorizes the Commission to issue either licenses or exemptions for
2
projects within its jurisdiction. Licenses are generally issued for terms of between 30 and 50 years, are renewable, and carry with them the right to exercise federal eminent domain to obtain property necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a project. Exemptions are perpetual, and thus do not need to be renewed, but do not permit the use of eminent domain. Congress has established two types of exemptions. First, section 30 of the FPA allows the Commission to issue exemptions for projects that utilize, for generation, the hydroelectric potential of manmade conduits that are operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption, and not primarily for the generation of electricity. Conduit projects must be located on non-federal lands, and have a maximum capacity of 15 megawatts (40 megawatts if the exemptee is a state or local government entity). Second, in section 405(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, Congress authorized the Commission to grant exemptions for small hydroelectric power projects having an installed capacity of 5,000 kilowatts or less. To qualify for this type of exemption, a project must be located at an existing dam that does not require construction or the enlargement of an impoundment, or must use the hydropower potential of a natural water feature, such as a waterfall. Both types of exemptions are subject to mandatory fish and wildlife conditions provided by federal and state resource agencies.
The Commission has established three licensing processes, with the intent of allowing parties to select the process that is best suited to individual proceedings. The integrated licensing process (ILP) frontloads issue identification and environmental study to the period before an application is filed, and is thus well-suited to complex cases with
3
substantial issues. The alternative licensing process (ALP) allows participants significant flexibility to tailor licensing procedures in a manner that may work well for unique cases. The traditional licensing process (TLP), in which environmental and other work can occur after the application is filed appears to work best for less controversial matters. The TLP may be the process that is best-suited for many simple cases involving exemptions or small, low impact licenses. Commission staff has also developed a pilot licensing process for marine and hydrokinetic projects in which, with the assistance of federal and state resource agencies, a project can be licensed in as little as six months.
It is extremely important to note that project developers and other stakeholders, not the Commission, in most instances play the leading role in determining project success and whether the regulatory process will be short or long, simple or complex. The first key issue is site selection and proposed project operation. For example, the processing of applications tends to be expedited when applicants propose projects that: (1) are located at an existing dam where hydropower facilities do not currently exist, (2) would result in little change to water flow and use, (3) are unlikely to affect threatened and endangered species and are unlikely to need fish passage facilities, and (4) involve lands and facilities that are already owned by the applicant. To the extent that a proposed project, even one of small size, raises concerns about water use and other environmental issues, it may be difficult for the Commission to quickly process an application. It is also important to remember that the small capacity of a proposed project does not necessarily mean that the project has only minor environmental impacts.
Another, and related, factor is the extent to which project developers reach out to
4
affected stakeholders. If a developer contacts concerned citizens, local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and environmental organizations, and works with them to develop consensus as to what information is needed to understand the impacts of a project and what environmental measures may be appropriate, and to develop support for the project, the application and review process is likely to be simpler and quicker. Where a project comes as a surprise to affected entities or where a developer does not respond to expressed concerns, the Commission’s job becomes much more difficult.
A final, and again related, matter is the development of the full record that the Commission needs to act on an application. A potential applicant needs to work with Commission staff and with federal and state resource agencies and other stakeholders to determine what information is needed to support an application, and to provide the Commission with a complete application. Where Commission staff or other stakeholders must ask an applicant to provide information that is missing from an application, the regulatory process slows down.
The other entities with roles in the licensing and exemption process regarding small hydropower projects are also key to its success. The quickest, most efficient process can be achieved only where federal and state agencies, as well as other stakeholders, devote the resources early on to help project review move ahead, and where they display the flexibility to look at the merits of individual projects and the willingness to shorten the process in appropriate cases. Commission staff is dedicated to making the regulatory process as short and cost-effective as possible. We can only do that where applicants, resource agencies, and other stakeholders serve as willing partners in the
5
process.
II. Commission Efforts Regarding Small and Innovative Projects
The majority of the hydropower projects regulated by the Commission are small projects, with about 71 percent having an installed capacity of 5 megawatts (MW) or less. In recent years, the Commission has seen a greatly increased interest in small hydropower projects, in innovative marine and hydrokinetic projects, and in pumped storage projects, particularly closed-loop pumped storage, which does not involve regular water withdrawals from rivers or other water sources. The Commission has responded by implementing a number of measures to facilitate efficient review of project proposals. In 2007, in order to provide personalized, responsive service to entities seeking to develop small hydropower projects, Commission staff established a dedicated phone line and email address for inquiries on small hydropower, developed a brochure to provide guidance to potential developers of small, low impact hydropower projects, and put these resources and a list of frequently-asked questions on the Commission’s website.
In light of the continued growing interest in such development, the Commission held a technical conference on December 2, 2009, at its Washington, D.C. headquarters to explore issues related to licensing, and exempting from licensing, small non-federal hydropower projects in the U.S. The technical conference generated discussion on recommendations that could improve the process for authorizing small hydropower projects. In addition to insights received from the panelists and attendees at the technical conference, written comments were solicited and over 40 comment letters were received from industry representatives; federal, state, and local agencies; private citizens; and non-
6
governmental organizations. At the Commission’s April 15, 2010 meeting, staff reported on the conference and the comments received, and presented an action plan to assist and expedite the review of small hydropower proposals. The action plan adopted the following immediate changes: (1) adding new web-based resources to the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) to make it easier for applicants to understand and complete the licensing process; (2) updating or creating Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with other agencies to improve coordination; (3) continuing our small hydropower hotline and email address to answer applicant questions; and (4) educating potential small hydropower developers through a new education and outreach program.
The Commission has, under its small hydro initiative, held numerous outreach meetings with small hydropower developers and interested stakeholders, and implemented web based tools, such as application templates and application checklists, which potential applicants can use to prepare their applications. The small hydro website further contains guidance and sample letters that applicants can use to obtain waivers from fish and wildlife agencies for part of the prefiling consultation process. The Commission staff has also relaxed some of the standards, under Section 4.39 of its regulations, for exhibits and drawings for exemption applications. For those applicants that have filed complete and adequate applications, and for which the Commission has determined that impacts are minimal, the Commission has reduced the public notice period from 60 days to 30 days and the reply period from 45 days to 15 days. A number of conduit exemptions have been approved in as short as two months from the date that an application has been deemed complete.
7
Since the April 15, 2010 Commission meeting, we have signed an MOU with the State of Colorado to expedite the small hydro licensing process (August 2010); updated our MOU with the Army Corps of Engineers (March 2011); launched a small hydro program website (August 2010); participated in small hydro workshops across the U.S.; conducted webinars on our small hydro website (November 2010, December 2010, June 2011, and January 2012); and updated our small hydro brochure. Upcoming outreach efforts will include participating on a small hydro panel in Louisville, Kentucky, as well as conducting a small hydro workshop with the Department of Interior and Alaska state agencies in Sitka, Alaska later this summer. As a result of these efforts, consultation has improved, applications are more complete, and application processing times have been reduced.
With this background, I will turn to the draft legislation.
III. The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012
The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012, has the commendable goal of increasing hydropower capacity and generation in United States. I strongly support that goal, and offer comments on specific sections of the bill.
A. Section 4
Section 4 would establish various measures to promote conduit hydropower projects. Again, this goal is consistent with Commission policy and has been a major focus of Commission’s staff’s effort in the last few years.
Section 4(a) would amend section 30 of the FPA to establish a procedure whereby conduit projects with an installed capacity of 5 MW or less would not be required to be
8
licensed, provided the applicant makes a showing that the project qualifies as a conduit project. I support this provision, which should serve to increase the amount of electric generation derived from conduits. This section would also allow the Commission to grant conduit exemptions for those projects with an installed capacity of up to 40 MW. This proposed upper limit would apply to non-municipal, as well as municipal applicants.
B. Section 5
Section 5 would amend the FPA to authorize the Commission to extend the term of a preliminary permit issued under FPA section 5 once for up to two years. Preliminary permits grant the permittee a “first-to-file” preference with respect to license applications for projects being studied under a permit. Commission staff has heard anecdotally that developers are concerned that the need for environmental studies in some instances makes it difficult to complete a license application within the current maximum three-year term of a permit, with the result that a developer which has invested substantial time and money studying a project may face the possibility of losing its project based on competition from other entities – particular those with statutorily-granted municipal preference -- if it needs to seek a subsequent permit. I therefore support the proposed FPA amendment, which could ameliorate this problem. It might be worth considering, as an alternative, authorizing the Commission to issue permits for terms of up to five years, which could avoid the need for developers to go through the process of seeking an extension.
C. Section 6
Section 6 would require the Commission to investigate the feasibility of
9
implementing a two-year licensing process, in particular, with respect to hydropower development at existing, non-powered dams, and for closed-loop pumped storage projects.
I support the goal of an expedited licensing process. Indeed, as I have discussed, it is Commission staff’s goal to act on all license applications as quickly as possible, and the Commission has established processes that allow for great flexibility and efficiency. I am thus not certain whether an additional licensing process is necessary. During the last few years, we have been able to issue some licenses in a matter of a few months, where the project proponent had selected a site wisely, stakeholders had agreed on information needs, and state and federal agencies performed their responsibilities quickly. Moreover, the Commission operates under significant constraints imposed by the FPA, and by other legislation affecting the licensing process – the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act among them. In the absence of the ability to waive sections of the FPA and other acts, or to set enforceable schedules in licensing proceedings, it is not clear that the Commission, under its existing authorities, can mandate a shortened process.
C. Section 7
Section 7 would require the Department of Energy to study the flexibility and reliability that pumped storage facilities can provide and the opportunities and potential generation from conduits. While I can not speak for the Department of Energy, I support this research.
10
11
IV. Conclusion
There is a great deal of potential for the development of additional hydropower projects throughout the country, including small projects and marine and hydrokinetic projects. Working within the authority given it by Congress, the Commission continues to adapt its existing, flexible procedures to facilitate the review and, where appropriate, the approval of such projects. Commission staff remains committed to exploring with project developers, its sister federal agencies, Indian tribes, the states, local government, and other stakeholders every avenue for the responsible development of our nation’s hydropower potential. The legislation under consideration will, as I have testified, assist in realizing that potential.
This concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
A project of the Participatory Politics Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation Login with OC Register Login with Facebook OpenCongress -Send us a tip about Congress Click to Show A non-profit, non-partisan public resource Everyone can be an insider. Learn how. Bills Senators Representatives Votes Issues Committees The Money Trail Blog Groups > Start a New Group Resources > Wiki Vote Comparison Site Widgets States How-to Use OpenCongress Follow Our Twitter All Resources close Blank name and email The easiest way to email your members of Congress Donate Now You may have some of the best information on what's really happening in Congress -- submit a tip to the open-submissions Congress Gossip Blog using the form below. Or, if you know of a helpful news article or blog post about Congress, send us a tip with your suggested link. You may submit your tip anonymously, using any e-mail of your choosing, or attributed to your own name and e-mail. All tips and links will be reviewed by OpenCongress site editors, and selected ones will be published on the Congress Gossip Blog. Not every tip may be published, and tips may be edited when re-published. Wherever possible, please provide links to relevant websites. The Congress Gossip Blog submit-a-tip form can be a tool for exposing corruption, putting a spotlight on wasteful spending, reporting a piece of news you learned from contacting a Member of Congress, or simply sharing a juicy political tidbit. If you're a political insider, this is an open public forum to get your tips out of the Beltway and into the public eye. Or, if you're a citizen journalist researching the legislative records of Members of Congress, you can use the form below to share what you've found. It's open to everyone, so send us a tip and help build public knowledge about Congress. Your name Your email Link (optional) Text OpenCongress Search About OpenCongress Help FAQ RSS Feeds Widgets Developers/API Our Staff Contact Us Go to Bills Senators Representatives Votes Issues The Money Trail Go to Wiki Blog Video Resources My OpenCongress Login OpenCongress is a free and open-source project of the Participatory Politics Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization with a mission to increase civic engagement. The non-profit Sunlight Foundation is the Founding and Primary Supporter of OpenCongress. Creative Commons The Open House Project GovTrack Questions? Comments? Contact Us
Free and open markets are the foundation of a vibrant economy.
Aggressive competition among sellers in an open marketplace gives
consumers — both individuals and businesses — the benefits of lower
prices, higher quality products and services, more choices, and greater
innovation. The FTC's competition mission is to enforce the rules of the
competitive marketplace — the antitrust laws. These laws promote
vigorous competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers
and business practices. The FTC's Bureau of Competition, working in
tandem with the Bureau of Economics, enforces the antitrust laws for the
benefit of consumers.
The Bureau of Competition has developed a variety of resources to help
explain its work. For an overview of the types of matters investigated
by the Bureau, read Competition Counts. This Guide to the Antitrust Lawscontains
a more in-depth discussion of competition issues for those with
specific questions about the antitrust laws. From the menu on the left,
you will find Fact Sheets on a variety of competition topics, with
examples of cases and Frequently Asked Questions. Within each topic you
will find links to more detailed guidance materials developed by the FTC
and the U.S. Department of Justice.
For additional information about the work of the Bureau, or to report a suspected antitrust violation, contact us. To learn more about how the Bureau is organized and who to contact with a competition question, consult the Bureau of Competition User's Guide.
The Commission cannot represent individuals or businesses, and these
resources are not intended to substitute for legal advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Top Comments