|
The testimony of a number of Washington County residents and organizational leaders in Augusta on March 19 resulted in LD 295, An Act to Promote Tidal Energy Projects, to be killed by the legislature's Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology. At a workshop held on March 25, the committee voted unanimously to give the bill an ought not to pass recommendation.
For those who went to speak on March 19, it was a long day of waiting, with two other bills on energy issues taking the first four or so hours of their waiting time. However, when their time came, most were in strong opposition to the bill. Out of the 20 people who filed testimonies concerning LD 295, only three were in favor of the bill: CEO and President Ted Verrill of Halycon Tidal LLC, the company behind the Pennamaquan tidal range project proposed for Pembroke, and for which the bill appears to have been created; the construction company Reed & Reed Wind Power Services; and the bill's sponsor, Senator David Burns of Whiting.
Representatives Joyce Maker, William Tuell and Matthew Dana II provided statements, with Maker and Tuell offering a "neutral" opinion in favor of hearing the pros and cons of the tidal project and related bill and Dana offering an argument in favor of "ought not to pass" because of concerns about sacred Passamaquoddy cultural sites and fishing grounds.
The bill, summed up by the Office of the Public Advocate, would have revised the state's Ocean Energy Act to include not just hydrokinetic tidal action but hydropower projects that use "the difference between water levels on either side of a marine enclosure," which could mean a dam, barrage or impoundment system. In addition the bill would increase net installed generating capacity from five megawatts to 25. The intent of the Ocean Energy Act is to promote research and development for hydrokinetic tidal energy demonstration projects. Public Advocate Timothy Schneider stated that there is "exactly one such project that would fit these [LD 295] specifications in Maine, the Pennamaquan tidal project proposed by Halycon. ... The bill amends the Ocean Energy Act to fit this single developer's preferred project size and contact structure."
The Pennamaquan tidal project envisions a 1,675-foot-long tidal barrage stretching across the river in Pembroke from Leighton Neck to Hersey Neck. It would be built of concrete and consist of different sections of walls, a powerhouse, 16 reversible turbines, a boat lock and additional built infrastructure.
Former Rep. Albion Goodwin of Pembroke, who is chair of the citizen‑led Pennamaquan Tidal Power Advisory Committee, stated, "We have always thought of a demonstration to be [a] short-term trial assessment. Report on project results and go away. A dam/barrier is not short-term with a life span of 120 years."
Others providing testimony pointed to the livelihoods made on the bay and the inherent risks to the ecosystems. Cobscook Bay Fishermen's Association Chair Scott Emery wrote, "Whether you call a dam a dam, a barrage or a marine enclosure, these structures will restrict access for fish and fishermen, change the sediments where we dig clams and disrupt the currents that deliver fish and spat to our fishing grounds. We can't imagine why, when dams around the state are being removed to restore historically important fish runs, anyone would be proposing to start building new ones."
Trescott resident Julie Keene said that during her 17 years of fishing on the Pennamaquan, "I have seen so many alewives and smelts there at night that you could walk on them. I have seen things on that river that are incredible. It is alive at night." She added, "The questions are endless," and listed as one the safety risks to fishermen within the confines of the barrage if a boat should go over and a rescue boat had to navigate the lock system for 20 to 30 minutes.
On the pragmatic side, representatives from Central Maine Power, Emera Maine, the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Governor's Energy Office all noted that if LD 295 were to be enacted the state's electricity customers would pay higher rate costs. Emera's representative Jim Cohen stated, "The cost to long‑term contracts is paid for by our customers. Generally speaking, long‑term capacity contracts that utilities enter into -- as directed by the Maine PUC -- must show a benefit to ratepayers. By contrast, contracts entered into under the Ocean Energy Act need not show a benefit to ratepayers. As a result, these contracts have been far above market rates. These above‑market rates -- essentially ocean energy R&D [research and development] costs -- are borne by our customers, many of whom are struggling to get by."
Touching on a potential regulatory conflict if the bill were to be enacted, University of Maine School of Marine Sciences Associate Professor Dr. Gayle Zydlewski noted that when the Ocean Energy Act was created an agreement was created between the state and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Because FERC does not include marine impoundments, dams or diversionary structures in its definition of hydrokinetic pilot or demonstration projects, the state would be in conflict with FERC's licensing laws. "Not only does this proposal conflict with the associated federal law, but it also conflicts with the MOU [memorandum of understanding] the state signed with FERC. As such, the definition of pilot and demonstration projects in terms of device type and length of deployment cannot be decided unilaterally by the state." Zydlewski stressed that her testimony should be considered in the "neither for nor against" category and that she had presented much the same in the previous year's bill, LD 1781, An Act to Amend Tidal Energy Demonstration Project Laws. Last year's bill was also killed by the committee. |
