Pacific Crossing, NASCA Hope to Move Marine Renewable Energy Pilot Project Near Seattle

The operator of a trans-Pacific submarine cable is trying to stop or move a pilot tidal energy project at the mouth of Puget Sound in Washington state. Pacific Crossing and the association that represents undersea cable operators are pushing the FCC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to come up with a set of guidelines for how close oceanic energy projects can be to their cables. FERC is set to rule on a proposed permit for a pilot tidal energy project in Admiralty Inlet, a project that’s been funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and is being managed by the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) in Admiralty Inlet. Pacific Crossing worries the project is too close to its PC-1 cable connecting the U.S. to Japan, and could inadvertently damage its cable or impair its ability to maintain and repair it.

"We believe a decision like this shouldn’t be made on an ad hoc basis where projects are sited at whatever distance is convenient to the developer,” said Kurt Johnson, Pacific Crossing’s chief financial officer. There should be a common set of standards and guidelines, he said. The company wants at least 500 meters of separation between its cables and any undersea tidal energy turbines. The project currently would put the turbines within 170 and 238 meters of the cable, Johnson said.

National standards for siting such projects don’t exist. The Snohomish pilot would be the second of its kind to go into U.S. waters, following a similar effort off the coast of Maine. The nascent marine renewable energy industry has gotten more traction overseas with such submarine energy projects, said Brian Polagye, co-director of the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center. The International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) recommends that offshore wind farms be at least 500 meters from undersea cables, but the committee has no recommendation yet for undersea turbines, according to filings with FERC.

Setting up standards for siting such projects is a good idea, but it’s not particularly relevant for a project the size of the one the Snohomish PUD plans, Poladgye said. “There’s no guarantee there is going to be a marine renewables industry in the United States, which is why it’s important that pilot projects move forward.” It’s not likely that the pilot project will set a precedent for siting larger marine renewable energy projects if the industry takes off, he said. “Just because one or two turbines is OK within 200 meters of a cable doesn’t mean that 100 turbines is a good idea,” he said. “I see a very distinct difference between pilot projects and commercial projects” in terms of the need to set up hard and fast rules, he said.

But undersea cable operators worry about the precedent the Snohomish PUD project could set. In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, North American Submarine Cable Association (NASCA) President Robert Wargo urged the agencies to convene a joint, public process to come up with separation guidelines for communications cable and future marine energy projects (http://1.usa.gov/WSRRPQ). “Establishing proper review and recognition of industry guidelines among and between federal agencies (and applicants) in these permitting processes will go a long way in promoting offshore resources development ... at the same time averting systemic risks to a component of our nation’s Critical Infrastructure,” the letter said. GCI, which also operates undersea cables in the vicinity, also raised concerns with FERC (http://1.usa.gov/14ulVPi).

In a draft environmental assessment of the pilot project, FERC staff recommended the project move forward with some tweaks to what the PUD initially proposed. Initially, the FCC Public Safety Bureau filed comments with FERC recommending it follow the 500-meter separation ICPC recommends for wind farms and undersea (http://1.usa.gov/XqQq9m). But the FCC later clarified its position. In October, Bureau Chief David Turetsky wrote to FERC that the bureau does not oppose licensing the project at the proposed distances “so long as FERC determines through its own licensing process” that the PUD and its contractors adhere to safety and separation commitments it made in filings with FERC.

That letter followed a meeting between PUD and FCC staff, said Craig Collar, assistant general manager for power and transmission at the Snohomish PUD. “When we became aware of the fact that the FCC had concerns about the project, largely, as we understand, because of information Pacific Crossing gave them, we met with the FCC and provided them with the facts and project design and how it would be carried out,” Collar said. “And that was it.” The bureau had no comment.

"FERC has relied on the FCC’s change of position, which we find difficult to understand,” said Pacific Crossing’s Johnson. Pacific Crossing is seeking “the same kinds of guidelines and standards the FCC refers to in its” report on last year’s Northeast U.S. derecho storm for international cable, so that cable and energy industries have a set of standards to follow “to protect the infrastructure,” he said.