MMS-FERC Jurisdictional Smackdown!

Ever since the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which amended Section 8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize the Department of Interior/Mineral Management Service to issue leases for development of alternative energy sources on the OCS, I wondered how long it would take for MMS to fully establish its exclusive primacy over the OCS.  It wasn't long after EPAct 2005 that MMS first flexed its jurisdictional muscle, not just by taking over as lead agency for the Cape Wind permit process, but also refusing to rely on the Corps' voluminous draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and instead, preparing its own EIS.   And earlier this month, MMS finally made clear in these recent comments (filed by MMS at FERC) that it wasn't going to stand for encroachment on its powers over wave and tidal projects on the OCS by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission   (FERC).
 

Here's the back story on the MMS-FERC brawl.  Back in 2003, relying on tenuous reasoning, FERC asserted jurisdiction over wave and tidal projects on the OCS with its decision in AquaEnergy Group, 102 FERC para. 61242 (2003).  FERC found that AquaEnergy's proposed ocean project, which would use five buoys to capture the motion of waves and convert it to electricity, was a "hydroelectric project" within the meaning of the Federal Power Act.  FERC squeezed the AquaEnergy Project into the definition of a hydroelectric project (which under the statute includes features such as a dam, impoundment and powerhouse) by finding that the tiny project buoy operated as a powerhouse, because it housed a generator.  FERC also found that the project, located three miles offshore in a Marine Sanctuary was in navigable waters over which FERC had licensing authority.   Moreover, FERC held that the scope of its power over wave and tidal power went beyond the traditional 3 mile limit of navigable waters applied by other agencies (such as the Corps of Engineers) and extended a full twelve miles out, to the limits of the territorial sea. 

Now back in 2003, no one, including FERC paid much attention to the AquaEnergy decision, figuring that wave energy technology was just another crazy idea.  At the same time, over on the East Coast, Cape Wind was struggling with its offshore wind proposal.  In an effort to resolve concerns over Cape Wind's ability to site a large project on the OCS without paying rental fees, Congress authorized MMS to issue leases and assess royalty payments for use of lands to develop renewable energy resources on the OCS.   But when Congress passed EPAct in 2005, it did not know that FERC, by its own regulatory order, had already staked a claim to the OCS for wave and tidal projects.

As a result, EPAct 2005 gives rise to a system of dual jurisdiction on the OCS.  Other federal agencies, such as the Corps, have authority to issue permits for structures on the OCS, but the Corps does not apply the same comprehensive development analysis as FERC and MMS.  Both MMS and FERC seek to be the lead agencies for licensing projects, but each plan a different scheme for evaluating competing applications, determining appropriate terms and conditions for inclusion in the license and overseeing project operation.  Thus, MMS and FERC jurisdiction overlap and potentially conflict; by contrast, the Corps' Section 10 authority is not as robust and thus, can be more easily subsumed within the MMS process.

So why don't one of the agencies - either MMS or FERC - simply bow out?  Well, that's not possible for MMS.  In order to obtain sufficient property rights to site a wave or tidal project on the OCS, a developer must obtain a lease from MMS.  FERC acknowledges MMS' power, but has maintained that tiny wave and tidal developers can simply comply with both regimes:  first, obtain a lease from MMS and subsequently a license from FERC. 

MMS' authority stops at the three mile limit, so for projects located less than three miles from shore (or ten miles in the case of Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida), FERC will have power to license wave and tidal projects.  And right now, that's where most wave and tidal developers are proposing projects - both to keep transmission costs down, but also to eliminate the possibility of dual jurisdiction. 

In my view, MMS and FERC ought to split the buoy, so to speak, and do it quickly to resolve regulatory uncertainty.  MMS can take the lead on projects on the OCS, and FERC maintain regulatory authority over projects on state submerged lands.  This solution also matches the traditional scope of navigable waters which are typically defined by statute as extending three miles out.  For that reason, in fact, the Corps of Engineers lacked the power to issue Section 10 Rivers and Harbors permits on the OCS until Section 4(d) of the OCSLA extended the Corps' authority beyond the three mile limit to the OCS.  Unlike the Corps, FERC has not received comparable statutory authorization to exceed the three mile limit in its licensing jurisdiction, which has always been analogous in scope to the Corps' aurhority under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harborts Act.

I find it odd that MMS and FERC are tussling over jurisdiction, when neither has been moving very rapidly towards expediting permitting of wave and tidal projects.  Evidently, both agencies recognize the enormous potential of the marine renewables industry, as shown by the jurisdictional spat.  Yet neither regards these projects as significant enough to make them a priority now.

Comments

[foreplay for women]

I found this part of the article very interest "MMS' authority stops at the three mile limit, so for projects located less than three miles from shore (or ten miles in the case of Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida), FERC will have power to license wave and tidal projects. And right now, that's where most wave and tidal developers are proposing projects - both to keep transmission costs down, but also to eliminate the possibility of dual jurisdiction.

[Volker from Germany]

Hi,
I randomly came on this side and would like to leave nice greetings. I would be glad if you visit my homepage also! Maybe you want to visit Sylt Westerland in Germany http://www.MeerblickSylt.de or the Baltic Sea http://www.OstseeblickHolm.de for vacation?! We have there very nice flats with a nice view. Maybe we'll see soon!
Kind regards

[kamagra]

I'm leaving this blog with various information I learn a lot, thank you indeed. To let these links as an input, perhaps he is someone who visits your blog for you ...

http://www.yourkamagra.com/buy.html

http://www.yourkamagra.com/pills.html

[Küchen Freiburg]

Grüße from Freiburg

[Justine]

Thanks for the read. I agree with the points you made. http://www.rapidhawk.com also has peoples thoughts on the matter.

[Puma Shoes]

I so glad i determined this webpage and it really is essentially a great site becayse i can watch free movies without having downloding anything.

[Nike Dunks]

Your blog gives people the life is beautiful! Heart as long as optimistic there will be hope!

[Cheap Nfl Jerseys]

I would, however, like to emphasize a point I obliquely in that review. My primary criticisms are not aimed at Mr. Diallo whatsoever. He is clearly a very skilled photographer and photographic post-processor. His knowledge shines through despite the impediments presented by the book's truly awful design.

[RamonGustav]

Do you desire a house but you lack enough cash to acquire it?

[RamonGustav]

Are you eager to secure funds for that dream project of yours?

[Music_master]

I think you are not quite right and you should still studying the matter.

[Music_master]

Congratulations! You have so much useful information, write more.

[Music_master]

I think you are not quite right and you should still studying the matter.

[Retro Jordan]

I doubt itill ever go public because Google is very strict who they give a license to, even though they didn't create the content they do whatever they want with it.
and I hope you will see my website also,so link my name and see some good produces I have,perhaps you will order some,believe me,come on!

[RX-order]

buy cialis buy cialis at a discount buy cialis brand buy cialis by the pill buy cialis canada buy cialis cheap buy cialis cheaper online buy cialis mexico buy cialis omline buy cialis online 20mg buy cialis online site buy cialis online viagra buy cialis pharmacy buy cialis pills generic

[RX-order]

buy cialis buy cialis at a discount buy cialis brand buy cialis by the pill buy cialis canada buy cialis cheap buy cialis cheaper online buy cialis mexico buy cialis omline buy cialis online 20mg buy cialis online site buy cialis online viagra buy cialis pharmacy buy cialis pills generic

[school_dubl]

Happy New Year! Happiness and success in 2011.

[school_dubl]

Happy New Year! The author write more I liked it.

[Realestate]

Hi Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

[Realestate]

With the new 2011. Year! Congratulations.

[snowlin]

http://16097739.blog.hexun.com/

[dui attorney arizona]

I find your blog helpful on my part. Thanks for sharing.