Greening Greenfield

Page updated 02/23/23

On this LEARN MORE page scroll down to find:

Key Players/Agencies
MA input into Federal (FERC) license
- MA Water Quality Certificate process graphic
Pumped Storage and its Role in the Grid
Links to Other Information Sources and Documents
Acronyms

KEY PLAYERS / AGENCIES

The owner/operator of all the hydro facilities we are watching. Despite the impression one could receive from their website, their parent company is Canadian. (Video describing the intricate family tree here.) These facilities are estimated to bring in revenue of up to $140 million/year as recently as 2019. They have applied to the FERC for a federal power license to continue operations of existing facilities.

FERC

At the federal level, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC*) is where most efforts have focused to date. Karl Meyer's blog and his letters in the Greenfield Recorder have explained how to look up information about their records on this project, and how to add your own comments to the public record. We have gathered this information about how to contact FERC here.

MassDEP / EEA

At the state level, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, EEA, houses a number of state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection. Under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act "a federal agency may not issue a permit or license to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into waters of the United States unless a Section 401 water quality certification (WQC) is issued, or certification is waived. States and authorized tribes where the discharge would originate are generally responsible for issuing water quality certification. MassDEP logo "

In Massachusetts, the DEP is the entity that will issue the WQC. We know this is confusing. An analogy for how to think about this relationship is in this MyTurn.

Massachusetts Legislative Delegation for CT River communities

Our State Senators and Representatives are currently meeting weekly with EEA to track progress and pass on our comments and concerns. Thank them for their hard work! They have shared with us: their August 2020 joint delegation letter to EEA/DEP & the Governor, about the re-licensing; their Shared Concerns document, currently the March 9, 2022 version, where they list issues they are tracking (note this version was before the new Fish and Flow AIP was issued); and their June 2022 notes of progress and commitments.

MEPA

There is a potential parallel state track under which the projects might be reviewed, which is the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA. The MEPA Office like the MassDEP, is under the Energy & Environmental Affairs (EEA) umbrella. Its purpose includes requiring state agencies, such as the MassDEP, to study the environmental consequences of their actions. See MEPA purpose & intent.

On July 6, 2012, FirstLight applied to the MEPA Office for an "Advisory Opinion" about whether "the upcoming licensing of the Northfield Mountain and Turners Falls Projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) subjects either project to" MEPA jurisdiction. That document, though old, is very helpful in understanding the exact language of the pieces of the projects, and the originally projected timeline. In it, FirstLight essentially argues that they will not be making enough changes to their existing practices allowed under the then-current license to make them subject to MEPA review. Or if they do make changes that major, it will only be because the FERC makes them, so MEPA shouldn't get involved until after FERC checks in. A week later, the MEPA Office agreed, granting them the Advisory Opinion that MEPA review was not necessary.

However, that decision is currently under review and could be revised by the current MEPA Director, who has not stated definitively yet whether or not they agree with this prior opinion, as of June, 2022, nor apparently by February 2023.

Some of us feel that letters to the MEPA Office, encouraging their immediate involvement could be helpful. MEPA has a strong interest in having parties explore alternatives, and with the climate crisis and the potential 40-50-year license, we think some things will change during that time frame.

Ready to TAKE ACTION? Go Here

MA INPUT INTO FEDERAL (FERC) LICENSE

FirstLight has already submitted its initial application to the FERC. (Executive Summary of December 2020 application.) FERC has asked for additional information and has asked clarifying questions, and we are able to submit comments to the FERC right now. Also, FirstLight has requested that FERC not proceed yet with issuing a "Ready for Environmental Analysis" (REA) determination, so that Settlement Talks could take place. The Settlement Talks have been going on for some time, and as of early January 2023, another delay has been approved (see last 2 paragraphs), giving FirstLight until March 31 2023 and FERC until May 31 2023 to issue the REA notices. FERC then has 60 days to file their 401 application with MassDEP for a WQC, and then MassDEP has 12 months to respond.

What are Settlement Talks?

Interested Parties (FirstLight, federal and state agencies, non-profits, local towns) who were willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement have been invited into "the room where it happens" to try to hash out details of what any new license might look like. Greening Greenfield is not involved in these talks. These talks are to negotiate detailed terms regarding flow and erosion controls; fish protections, habitat, and migration patterns; protections for other aquatic life and riparian habitat; recreational provisions; and more. They are private talks in order to allow the players the space and ability to understand each other's positions. We don't know those details, and Greening Greenfield is not the right entity to ask.

It is the goal of these Settlement Talks to improve FirstLight's hydro applications. Although in theory they could result in a signed agreement, we have been advised that MassDEP does not plan to sign anything before the public process has even begun.

However, there are three "AIP"s so far, coming out of the Settlement Talks. An "Agreement in Principle" means that FirstLight and the other parties who sign agree they've done their best to negotiate and the bits they've agreed on are put in writing, and then those bits can be clarified, but not gone back on by those parties. Parties who did not sign may still protest.

The first 2 AIPS on (Whitewater) Boating Release, and on Recreation are HERE. (This is one document with Boating on page 5, and Recreation on page 18.) We've already shared the outline of the Recreation Improvements AIP, below. The 3rd AIP on Fish and Flow is HERE, but this is apparently not the final one. Note that the Connecticut River Conservancy did not sign on to this AIP. Their press release listing some of their concerns is HERE.

MassDEP is not a signatory, as stated above. Nor is the FERC. The parties who are, now have their hands somewhat tied. Those of us who are not, may try to make improvements. A downside of MassDEP not participating in Settlement Talks is that they have not been able to push for some studies that are needed to make the final document well-informed. Our congressional delegation is expected to relay some of this to DEP.

The Public Process

When the Settlement Talks have done as much as they can, FirstLight will make whatever changes they want to their application (Amended Final License Application, AFLA), (currently due by 3/31/23) and when the FERC is ready (currently by 5/31/23), FERC will issue a "notice of acceptance and Ready for Environmental Analysis" (REA). At that point, FirstLight has 60 days (so 7/31/23) to file an application with MassDEP for a Water Quality Certificate (WQC) under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, sometimes called "a 401". Then MassDEP has 12 months to respond.

As mentioned before, it would be legal for MassDEP to throw one notice in the paper, accept written comments on the 401 for 20 days, and move on. We do not want this to be any kind of rubber stamp process, though it appears that regulations might limit the FORMAL public comment period to that 20 day period. Work over the last few years is making progress toward enabling MA to use its power, taking a full 12 months for thorough review, not just 60 days it could be limited to. This is where we all come in.

Certificate process graphic draft3 PDF

Ready to TAKE ACTION? Go Here

PUMPED STORAGE AND ITS ROLE IN THE GRID

What is Pumped Storage?

A pumped storage facility is a means of storing energy in the form of water that has been pumped to an upper reservoir. This water can be released when needed to run turbines to generate electricity. This much is good, because it makes clean, hydroelectric power that can be generated when needed, acting like a giant battery.

However, all energy storage systems lose energy during the process, and pumped storage facilities are no exception. They take more energy to pump water to the top than they generate when the water comes back down. About 20 - 30% of the energy is lost.

Although that sounds intuitively like a bad idea, there are times when this storage capacity is worth it (more below). They pump water up when electric demand is low (mostly at night when electric prices are cheaper), and let it out when there is peak demand (and prices are higher, like a summer afternoon when the whole world wants to run air conditioners).

How is the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Facility different than most?

All pumped storage systems need an upper and a lower reservoir. Northfield Mountain has an upper reservoir, where the top of the mountain was dug out to make a lake. However, instead of a human-made lake for the lower reservoir, Northfield Mountain / FirstLight uses the Connecticut River that has been backed up for miles by the Turners Falls Dam. This is called the "impoundment area" and it goes upstream from the dam, through Barton Cove, all the way to the dam at the Vernon VT hydro project. (Great River Hydro owns that facility, also up for FERC re-licensing.)

So why / how is that a problem?

Greening Greenfield believes the issues with the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage facility fall into 2 basic categories:

Fossil Fuel Used: The fact that the energy used to pump water up comes from the MA utility grid, the majority of which is generated from fossil fuels at this time. Thus the produced hydro energy should not be claimed to be "clean, renewable energy".

Environmental Impact on the River: There are numerous environmental impacts that result from using the Connecticut River as a lower reservoir. These include issues of flow - too much and too little - causing erosion and allowing a nearly dry riverbed; and the effects on aquatic life of all sorts, including, but certainly not limited to adult fish.

Greening Greenfield will continue to advocate for changes to the operation that halt this ongoing destruction and repair damage already done. GG also supports improved recreational opportunities, and increased sensitivity to the cultural history of the area and the past and current relationships of native populations with the river.

So why would anybody want Northfield Mountain at all, besides the owners to make money?

It is true that Northfield Mountain facility was originally built to complement the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant operation. Since nuclear facilities do not start and stop their operations, but keep running and generating electricity even when the demand is low, the excess power at night was used to pump water to the top of Northfield Mountain. Vermont Yankee is now closed.

HOWEVER, the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable sources such as solar and wind energy requires energy storage. Wind doesn't always blow at the same rate, and solar power varies depending on time of day, year and weather conditions. But people use electricity regardless of those facts.

Storage could be from batteries, but existing batteries use toxic materials and healthier possibilities are not available at scale yet. Northfield Mountain can store a LOT of energy. FirstLight's website says it is the largest energy storage facility in New England. Several of the offshore wind facilities off Cape Cod that are under construction or under consideration have partnered with FirstLight. They have to show the ability to produce consistently for the grid. Without Northfield Mountain, we probably won't be able to get the wind power we need to transition away from fossil fuels. That doesn't mean we want the Northfield Mountain facility operating in the way it has been.

If we don't have storage such as this, then we'll need more fossil fuel peaker plants like this gas one proposed to be built, brand new, in Peabody, MA. (5.33 minute video).

One other side note: Northfield Mountain can make money by NOT making electricity, too. They get paid to have the ability (a full upper reservoir) to generate electricity in case more traditional sources run into trouble from storms, equipment failure, etc. FirstLight relies on Northfield Mountain to restart the electric grid if the grid goes down. This is called a "black start".

$$ TWO OTHER NOTES ON MONEY $$

1. Some of us are requesting that if MassDEP grants a WQC, they make one of the Conditions a requirement that FirstLight set up a decommissioning fund. Some day – sooner or later – the day will come when the dam or generating stations or pumped storage facility isn't cost-effective. While it is, they are making money and are going to want to run it. When it is not, by definition, it will not be a good time to convince the owners to put forth the large amounts of money to remove structures and restore a free-flowing river. Require the money to be set aside now. When it is de-licensed, there is much less ability for government to keep an owner from walking away and leaving us holding the bag.

2. Some of us are also requesting that while the facilities are operating, under the principle that the responsible party should pay, that FirstLight be required to pay MassDEP an annual fee sufficient to cover MassDEP's costs of inspection of the facilities and enforcement of any issues that may arise. An understaffed, publicly-financed agency cannot keep up with all of its oversight functions while only utilizing taxpayer dollars. Private, for-profit facilities should not be allowed to overwhelm staff who have other duties beyond this oversight.

Greening Greenfield is currently focusing on the PROCESS of relicensing.

Consult other sources for more information about the technical aspects of river flow, erosion, fish habitat, recreation, and more.

LINKS TO OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS

DEP's web page about this relicensing

The Connecticut River Conservancy hydro pages

The Connecticut River Conservancy YouTube channel

Karl Meyer's CommonWealth Journal article

CT River MA legislative delegation's SHARED CONCERNS spreadsheet

CT River MA legislative delegation's June 2022 meeting notes with EEA

Greening Greenfield's 1/24/22 web event about the relicensing

News Article, Recorder 01/26/2022 re web event

If you can make time for only one webinar describing the whole interconnected River issues and licensing process, we highly recommend CRC's one-hour webinar below. PLEASE NOTE: Timelines have changed, and ongoing settlement negotiations may result in different proposed measures than those submitted in December 2020 in the Amended Final License Application that were summarized in the video. LiveStream Season 2, Episode 2, Hydropower in MA

FirstLight's proposals:

Older documents are at Northfield-Relicensing.com (Good luck)

Executive Summary

January 12, 2023 Letter from FERC to FirstLight approving latest delay

Recreation, Existing and Proposed

Agreements in Principle on Boating Release and Recreation

Agreement in Principle on Fish and Flow (note that a final has been submitted to FERC, but not yet published as of 1/16/23)

(Don't forget that this is what's currently public, but there will surely be amendments made as a result of the Settlement Talks.)

Ready to T AKE ACTION? Go Here

*ACRONYMS

AIP - Agreement in Principle

AFLA - Amended Final License Application