Article Rating
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
Article Tools
Email This Story Share This Story Add to Bookmarks Printer Friendly Version 4 Comments
Article Tool Sponsor:

Learn More About Online Advertising with RenewableEnergyWorld.com

Verdant Says Tidal Power Sites are Being Tied Up

by Tina Seeley, Bloomberg News
Published: August 9, 2006

Verdant Power LLC, builder of the first tidal-power project in the U.S., says a competitor is blocking access to prime sites by applying for permits with no intention of developing them. Oceana Energy Co. denies it is blocking development at any of the 12 sites where it has asked for permission to place tidal-power projects. Tidal energy uses the movement of waters in ocean channels to run turbines.

"Any company that is banking sites should be tarred and feathered.''

-- Sean O'Neill, Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, president
Verdant, based in Arlington, Virginia, describes its turbines as "underwater windmills.'' Sean O'Neill, president of the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, a trade group in Potomac, Maryland, said it is difficult to sort people who are tying up sites speculatively from those legitimately seeking locations that would be best suited for their technology. He declined to characterize Oceana's activities.

"Speculation, and the fact it could hold up a site for anywhere from three to six years, that certainly is not good for the industry,'' O'Neill said in an interview. "Any company that is banking sites should be tarred and feathered.''

In a July 3 filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), closely held Verdant compared Oceana's moves to the dot-com tactic of registering Internet domain names and holding them "for ransom." The company said it believes Oceana "intends to bank the sites and auction them off for its own private gain when tidal technology matures."

A preliminary FERC permit gives developers three years exclusive access to a site.

Fledgling Industry

Oceana will harm development of tidal energy "at a time when large institutional companies are beginning to invest in wave and tidal companies," Verdant said. "These investors most likely will pull their money, with a possible death-spiral effect on this fledgling industry."

Washington-based Oceana filed applications with the commission seeking permits for sites in Alaska, Washington, Massachusetts, Maine, New York and New Hampshire. The company already has a permit for a site in San Francisco Bay.

"We don't know at this point if we would go forward with developing one site or all of them," said Mike Hoover, general counsel for Oceana Energy. "The sites are worth nothing at this point to anyone.''

Most of the permits Oceana seeks are for sites identified as ideal for tidal power in reports funded by the utility industry's research organization, EPRI.

Site Finder

The commission has approved 11 preliminary permits for tidal energy since 2004, according to spokeswoman Celeste Miller. Another 22 permits are pending, she said.

Roger Bedard, ocean energy leader for EPRI and author of the EPRI reports, said the number of tidal project proposals has boomed since the reports were issued late last year and early this year.

"I think our feasibility study has something to do with it,'' he said.

Verdant said in its filing that Oceana is targeting sites identified in the EPRI report and has failed to propose any specific projects or technologies.

The company lacks "any reputation in the still relatively close-knit ocean energy community,'' Verdant said.

Verdant is preparing to install next month the first tidal energy facility in the U.S. in New York City's East River. The test facility will provide 200 kilowatts of power. It could be expanded to 300 turbines capable of generating a total of 10 megawatts, enough power for about 8,000 average U.S. homes.

Oceana's founders include William Nitze, former assistant administrator in the Environmental Protection Agency and a former general counsel for Mobil Oil Corp. The former chairman of the White House Counsel on Environmental Quality, George Frampton Jr., told regulators in a July 18 filing that he is conducting due diligence on Oceana on behalf of "a major private equity fund interested in being the lead investor in Oceana.''

Article reprinted in full with permission from Bloomberg News Service

To read the EPRI reports on tidal energy, see the second of two links below.

Additional Information
Previous Article
Next Article
Add Your Comment 4 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 4
August 11, 2006
I'm not sure this is as great a disaster as it seems at first glance. Is making good progress, but the technology is still in its infancy. It sounds like the FERC made some mistakes in their regulatory policy that allow ocean power squatters to tie up these resources, but that just means that they can work out the kinks in the regulatory regime before the squatters get in the way of more economic projects. It might even turn out to be a good thing, with the prime sites not all being taken up with technology which quickly becomes obsolete.

There are wind turbines in Tahachapi pass (a prime CA wind site) that no longer work, but the they can't be taken down because if they were officially decommissioned, the investors would be hit with a giganitc tax bill.
No image available
Comment
2 of 4
August 11, 2006
Lets not be too seduced by this attractive scheme, ignoring global warming's demands for a reduction in energy use and waste. Oceana and it's cluster of companies, is here to generate PROFIT. The local partnerships to be established are with T&D companies, not with the communities that are influenced by their presence. The power will be delivered to the archaic and inefficient grid.
Particularly distressing is the failure of any state to show interest in how their natural resources are being depleted - free for the takers - another repeat of the early years of free petroleum.
No image available
Comment
3 of 4
August 11, 2006
I dont know how permits are issued, however tidal potential is a public good, and presumably licences would be issued by auction, with strong penalties increasing with time for non delivery of the good. ( like spectrum for mobile licences in the UK)

If oceana has no intention of using the permits they would presumably be building up a large penalty...or doesnt it work this way?
No image available
Comment
4 of 4
August 26, 2006
Has the other company made a bid for the rights resource. If they cannot build they must sell. A piece of real estate has economic value and supposedly taxes are to be collected. It seems that non-payment of taxes may take precedence before the six years. In Washington State the county assessor can foreclose on property after four years. Someone else could then pay the real estate taxes and interest and grab the goods. This really sounds like a lact of real estate county assessors problem than anything else.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
 
Johnson Controls, Inc. Trina Solar Ltd. Expansion Media marcus evans Unirac, Inc. Green Power Conferences AEE Solar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters