[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 113 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6211-S6214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 1419. A bill to promote research, development, and demonstration
of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Murkowski and I are
introducing legislation to promote a new form of hydropower, marine
hydrokinetic renewable energy, or MHK. An MHK project generates energy
from waves, currents, and tides in the ocean, an estuary or a tidal
area as well as from the free-flowing water in a river, lake, or
stream.
Our bill will help commercialize MHK technologies through research
and development and a more efficient and timely regulatory process for
the siting of pilot projects intended to demonstrate the viability of
these technologies. It is an ideal follow-up to a pair of bills, H.R.
267 and H.R. 678, to streamline the regulatory process for low-impact
conventional hydropower that were reported by the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources by unanimous bipartisan votes a few months ago.
Considered together, the two conventional hydropower bills approved by
the Committee along with this MHK legislation are a major step forward
in advancing carbon-free hydropower technologies.
MHK has tremendous potential to generate a substantial amount of
clean renewable energy in the United States and across the globe. It is
poised to be a key participant in the transition to a low carbon
economy.
What distinguishes MHK from conventional hydropower is that it
generates energy without the use of a dam or other impoundment. This
gets MHK off on the right foot in terms of minimizing any adverse
environmental impact. Investments to capture our nation's rich domestic
marine energy resources can also play a major role in the creation of
essential domestic engineering and manufacturing jobs.
The energy contained in predictable waves, tidal flows and currents
is the basis for worldwide investments in this emerging industry. Water
is approximately 800 times denser than air, providing great potential
power density along with predictability. These characteristics mean
that MHK technologies could provide predictable
[[Page S6212]]
base-load renewable power in the future.
At the present time there are many different types of MHK
technologies with multiple applications under development that are
intended to capture the power contained in waves, tides and currents.
Wave energy devices capture the heave and/or surge power of waves and
convert them via hydraulic or geared direct drive systems into
electricity. Some of these devices are moored to the ocean floor, some
are floating on the surface, while others are attached to breakwaters
near shore. By last count, there are over 100 wave energy devices under
development worldwide. Tidal energy technologies capture the ebb and
flow of tides. It is estimated that 60 different tidal energy
technologies are under development worldwide. There are other
technologies that include run-of-river systems and offshore ocean
current technologies. Most of these technologies under development
capture uni-directional water flows and look similar to the tidal
devices.
The United States has not been a world leader in the development of
these cutting edge technologies to date. Instead, our country is seen
as a huge potential market for our international competitors in this
new industrial sector. The United States has significant wave, tidal,
current and in-stream energy resources. The Electric Power Research
Institute has estimated that the commercially available wave energy
potential off the coast of the United States is roughly 252 million
megawatt hours--equal to 6.5 percent of today's entire generating
portfolio. This is approximately the amount of electricity presently
being produced by the existing fleet of American conventional
hydroelectric dams.
The Department of Energy, DOE, has released two nationwide resource
assessments that indicate the waves, tides, and ocean currents off the
nation's coasts could contribute significantly to the United States'
total annual electricity production. DOE is currently developing an
aggressive strategy to support its vision of producing at least fifteen
percent of our nation's electricity from water power, including
conventional hydropower, by 2030.
Our goal should be the establishment of a commercially viable U.S.
MHK renewable energy industry, supported by a robust domestic supply
chain for fabrication, installation, operations and maintenance of MHK
devices. The development of a substantial marine hydrokinetic industry
in the U.S. could drive billions of dollars of investment in heavy
industrial and maritime sectors, as well as in advanced electrical
systems and materials common to many renewable technologies. Federal
investments would stimulate private funds and jobs in the construction,
manufacturing, engineering, and environmental science sectors.
I am very pleased that my home State of Oregon has made a strategic
decision to be an international leader in the commercialization of the
marine renewable energy industry. Led by the Oregon Wave Energy Trust,
the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center co-located at
Oregon State University, and several private companies that are part of
the MHK supply chain, Oregon is positioning itself to be a leading
force supporting this newly emerging industry.
Unfortunately, the U.S. is falling behind in the race to capture the
rich energy potential of our oceans and the jobs that will come with
this new industry. The United Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, Scotland,
Australia, and other countries are committed to producing emission-
free, renewable energy from MHK sources. Scotland has had a grid-
connected, wave energy convertor unit in operation since 2001 and
maintains a national goal of producing 2 GW of generation capacity from
MHK renewable energy. The U.K. and Ireland have also set aggressive
goals for MHK generation by 2020.
The Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, the industry's trade group here
in Washington DC, calculates that more than $782 million has been spent
by the UK government on wave energy R&D over the past 10 years. That
total approaches $1 billion over the same period if you add in the
commitments to ocean energy R&D from France, Portugal, Spain, Norway,
and Denmark.
Early funding support, along with development of full-scale device
testing centers, demonstrates that the significant technological
advances and the competitive advantages in this industry are trending
in Europe's direction. As an example of the disparity in investments,
Europe currently has several wave and tidal energy test facilities, led
by the European Marine Energy Center in Scotland, that are helping
technology developers commercialize their wave and tidal energy
convertors. The United States clearly has a need for such
infrastructure. I know that Oregon State University has a strong desire
to compete for funding to help establish a testing center in the
Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, recent funding levels have not
supported development of such offshore testing infrastructure in the
U.S. to date.
Given this internationally competitive situation, I believe that
Congress must make targeted Federal investments to close the gap.
Commercialization of technologies to harness marine renewable energy
resources will require Federal funding to augment research and
development efforts already underway in the private sector. Just as the
wind and solar industries have received DOE funding support for over 3
decades, which has resulted in the rapid deployment of these
technologies in recent years, the nascent marine energy industry seeks
similar Federal assistance to develop promising technologies that are
on the verge of commercial viability.
Unfortunately, in addition to the limited private sector funding
available to these startup companies, permitting and regulatory
obstacles are tremendous disincentives to technology developers of
marine energy projects in the United States. While other countries have
adopted permitting and regulatory regimes that appear to be more
efficient, the United States is still struggling with how to permit and
regulate these technologies. I cannot overstate the seriousness of this
problem. To give just one example, it took one MHK developer 5 years
and $2 million to obtain a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for a 1.5 megawatt project.
The regulatory situation is simply unacceptable and is greatly
slowing progress in the MHK industry. Until companies get projects in
the water, Congress and the public will not learn about the
environmental impacts, engineering challenges or the true costs of
offshore renewables.
Capturing the benefits of our vast marine-based renewable resources
will require a mix of new incentives, updated regulatory regimes and
general outreach and education. However, the most important actions
that can be taken by the Federal Government in the short term are to
provide the necessary resources for research, development and
demonstration of various marine renewable energy technology platforms
and a workable and efficient regulatory process. Increased federal
support will accelerate deployment of these technologies, create
thousands of high paying jobs, give confidence to investors, and help
attract private capital.
The Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2013 helps
accomplish these goals in a number of ways. It reauthorizes the DOE's
MHK research, development and demonstration 3 programs, including the
National Marine Renewable Energy Research, Development, and
Demonstration Centers.
Increased resources for the DOE Water Power Program will enable the
United States to leverage its technological superiority in shipbuilding
and offshore oil and gas production. This will create jobs and
diversify these maritime industries. In the absence of such funding,
however, the United States will have to depend on foreign suppliers for
ocean energy technologies, and will have missed a significant
opportunity to expand our economic competiveness in this renewable
energy sector.
The regulatory component of the bill makes the regulatory process for
MHK of not more than 10 MW more efficient and timely. It modifies and
improves the FERC ``pilot license'' process in many ways. Improvements
include a goal to complete the pilot license process in 12 months or
less; a designation of FERC as the ``Lead Agency'' for the purpose of
coordinating environmental review; a clarification that any shut
[[Page S6213]]
down requirement be ``reasonable,'' and a clarification that an MHK
project does not need to be removed when it is shut down if FERC deems
leaving it in place is preferable for environmental and other reasons
MHK is a clean, home-grown, emissions-free source of electricity that
can improve the security and reliability of the electric grid.
Investing in MHK research, development and demonstration today will pay
great dividends in the future. MHK has tremendous potential to benefit
the United States and the entire world. Now is the time to move forward
on MHK and the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act is the way
to do it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1419
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marine and
Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2013''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
Sec. 101. Definition of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.
Sec. 102. Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy research and
development.
Sec. 103. National Marine Renewable Energy Research, Development, and
Demonstration Centers.
Sec. 104. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE II--MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY REGULATORY
EFFICIENCY
Sec. 201. Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy projects and
facilities.
TITLE I--MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
SEC. 101. DEFINITION OF MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE
ENERGY.
Section 632 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17211) is amended in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) by striking ``electrical''.
SEC. 102. MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 633 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17212) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 633. MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT.
``The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, shall carry out a program of research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application to
expand marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy production,
including programs--
``(1) to assist technology development to improve the
components, processes, and systems used for power generation
from marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy resources;
``(2) to establish critical testing infrastructure
necessary--
``(A) to cost effectively and efficiently test and prove
marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy devices; and
``(B) to accelerate the technological readiness and
commercialization of those devices;
``(3) to support efforts to increase the efficiency of
energy conversion, lower the cost, increase the use, improve
the reliability, and demonstrate the applicability of marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies by
participating in demonstration projects;
``(4) to investigate variability issues and the efficient
and reliable integration of marine and hydrokinetic renewable
energy with the utility grid;
``(5) to identify and study critical short- and long-term
needs to create a sustainable marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy supply chain based in the United States;
``(6) to increase the reliability and survivability of
marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies,
including development of corrosion-resistant and anti-fouling
materials;
``(7) to verify the performance, reliability,
maintainability, and cost of new marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy device designs and system components in an
operating environment;
``(8) to coordinate and avoid duplication of activities
across programs of the Department and other applicable
Federal agencies, including National Laboratories;
``(9) to identify opportunities for joint research and
development programs and development of economies of scale
between--
``(A) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
technologies; and
``(B) other renewable energy and fossil energy programs,
offshore oil and gas production activities, and activities of
the Department of Defense; and
``(10) to support in-water technology development with
international partners using existing cooperative procedures
(including memoranda of understanding)--
``(A) to allow cooperative funding and other support of
value to be exchanged and leveraged; and
``(B) to encourage the participation of international
research centers and companies in the United States and the
participation of research centers and companies of the United
States in international projects.''.
SEC. 103. NATIONAL MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION CENTERS.
Section 634 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17213) is amended by striking subsection (b)
and inserting the following:
``(b) Purposes.--The Centers (in coordination with the
Department and National Laboratories) shall--
``(1) advance research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application of marine and hydrokinetic renewable
energy technologies;
``(2) support in-water testing and demonstration of marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies, including
facilities capable of testing--
``(A) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy systems of
various technology readiness levels and scales;
``(B) a variety of technologies in multiple test berths at
a single location; and
``(C) arrays of technology devices; and
``(3) serve as information clearinghouses for the marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy industry by collecting and
disseminating information on best practices in all areas
relating to developing and managing marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy resources and energy systems.''.
SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 636 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17215) is amended by striking ``2008 through
2012'' and inserting ``2014 through 2017''.
TITLE II--MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY REGULATORY
EFFICIENCY
SEC. 201. MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
AND FACILITIES.
Part I of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 34. PILOT LICENSE FOR MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS.
``(a) Definition of Hydrokinetic Pilot Project.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `hydrokinetic
pilot project' means a facility that generates energy from--
``(A) waves, tides, or currents in an ocean, estuary, or
tidal area; or
``(B) free-flowing water in a river, lake, or stream.
``(2) Exclusions.--The term `hydrokinetic pilot project'
does not include a project that uses a dam or other
impoundment for electric power purposes.
``(b) Pilot Licenses Authorized.--The Commission may issue
a pilot license to construct, operate, and maintain a
hydrokinetic pilot project that meets the criteria listed in
subsection (c).
``(c) License Criteria.--The Commission may issue a pilot
license for a hydrokinetic pilot project if the project--
``(1) will have an installed capacity of not more than 10
megawatts;
``(2) is for a term of not more than 10 years;
``(3) will not cause a significant adverse environmental
impact or interfere with navigation;
``(4) is removable and can shut down on reasonable notice
in the event of a significant adverse safety, navigation, or
environmental impact;
``(5) can be removed, and the site can be restored, by the
end of the license term, unless the project has obtained a
new license or the Commission has determined, based on
substantial evidence, that the project should not be removed
because it would be preferable for environmental or other
reasons not to; and
``(6) is primarily for the purpose of--
``(A) testing new hydrokinetic technologies;
``(B) locating appropriate sites for new hydrokinetic
technologies; or
``(C) determining the environmental and other effects of a
hydrokinetic technology.
``(d) Lead Agency.--In carrying out this section, the
Commission shall act as the lead agency--
``(1) to coordinate all applicable Federal authorizations;
and
``(2) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
``(e) Schedule Goals.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the Commission receives a completed application, and
following consultation with Federal, State, and local
agencies with jurisdiction over the hydrokinetic pilot
project, the Commission shall develop and issue pilot license
approval process scheduling goals that cover all Federal,
State, and local permits required by law.
``(2) Compliance.--Applicable Federal, State, and local
agencies shall comply with the goals established under
paragraph (1) to the maximum extent practicable, consistent
with applicable law.
[[Page S6214]]
``(3) 1-year goal.--It shall be the goal of the Commission
and the other applicable agencies to complete the pilot
license process by not later than 1 year after the date on
which the Commission receives the completed application.
``(f) Size Limitations.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission may grant a pilot license
for a project located in the ocean if the project covers a
surface area of not more than 1 square nautical mile.
``(2) Exception.--The Commission, at the discretion of the
Commission and for good cause, may grant a pilot license for
a project that covers a surface area of more than 1 square
nautical mile.
``(3) Limitation.--For proposed projects located in an
estuary, tidal area, river, lake, or stream, the Commission
shall determine the size limit on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account all relevant factors.
``(g) Extensions Authorized.--On application by a project,
the Commission may make a 1-time extension of a pilot license
for a term not to exceed 5 years.''.
______