by Carolyn Elefant on October 3, 2011
It’s not often that the United States Supreme Court hears a case with consequences for the offshore wind and marine hydrokinetic industry. The last time I mentioned a Supreme Court case was back in April 2008, where I posted about Delaware v. New Jersey. There, the Court interceded to resolve a dispute over whether the State of Delaware could veto an LNG project that originated in New Jersey’s portion of the Delaware River (answer – it can, based on the terms of a 1905 Compact between the two states).
Whereas Delaware v. New Jersey bears on permitting offshore renewables project by clarifying that all states need to be on board, Pacific Operators Offshore LLP v. Valladolid, the case scheduled for oral argument before the Court tomorrow headline, will have a far less immediate impact. Pacific Operators raises the question of whether a worker on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) who is injured while on the job, but off the OCS, is eligible for compensation under the OCS Lands Act (OCSLA) which provides for compensation for “any injury occurring as a result of operations conducted on the OCS.”
[click to continue…]
by Carolyn Elefant on August 24, 2011
Let me begin by saying that I don’t harbor any ill-will towards hydropower. In fact, I’m a fan. I started my career in FERC’s Office of General Counsel as an attorney-advisor on electric and hydro issues. As a baby-attorney, I have fond memories of plowing through the Federal Power Act’s rich, more than half-century history and visiting existing and proposed project sites all over the countries. Some of my favorite clients – and biggest wins – have been mom & pop hydro developers. And it was hydropower that opened the door to my career in the MHK industry.
Still, that doesn’t mean that MHK should always be lumped with hydropower – or vice versa for that matter. Yet, that’s what the Department of Energy has done at its newly revamped website, marring an otherwise laudable effort that I discussed at my companion blog, Next Generation Energy Lawyer. The DOE site pigeon-holes information on marine hydro-kinetic (MHK) technologies within the generic waterpower category depicted by a photo of a dam instead of creating a separate MHK category.
The problem isn’t just one of preference. Placing MHK in waterpower makes it less visible on the DOE renewable energy page and therefore, more difficult to locate. Many international visitors who closely track the MHK industry, simply don’t associate MHK with hydropower. They’re much more accustomed to stand-alone MHK events, or seeing MHK included with offshore wind. Thus, DOE’s organization makes it difficult for overseas companies and regulators to take advantage of the vast wealth of information that DOE makes available.
Although one can debate whether permitting processes in other countries are superior to the US, there’s no dispute in my mind that the US regulatory system is far better at transparency and making useful information available at no cost. With the launch of its new website, DOE has set the gold-standard both in the US and worldwide as a model for how a government body should design and operate a website. Let’s hope that MHK companies remain at DOE’s website long enough to appreciate these virtues, instead of turning away because they don’t think to look for industry information in the waterpower category.
