Tidal Project Draws Widespread Critics

Fisheries Groups and Competitors Alike Weigh in with Public Comments
on Experimental Venture

By JAMES KINSELLA
Gazette Senior Writer

The National Marine Fisheries Service has raised a cautionary flag
about a tidal hydroelectric power project proposed for Vineyard Sound.

"The tidal energy project proposed under this application
represents novel technology with the potential for significant adverse
effects to all marine resources that utilize Vineyard Sound for
spawning, rearing and migration, including finfish and marine
mammals," wrote Mary A. Colligan, assistant regional administrator
for protected resources, in a July 18 letter to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.

The fisheries service letter is among the responses filed with the
commission concerning the proposal by the Massachusetts Tidal Energy
Company of Washington, D.C., to create a hydroelectric tidal energy farm
in the Sound.

The company has proposed placing up to 150 submerged propeller units
- technically known as tidal in stream energy devices, or TISEC
devices - between Martha's Vineyard and the Elizabeth
Islands. The devices, powered by the tidal flow, would generate
electricity that would be fed into the power grid in Falmouth and
Tisbury.

The commission now will decide whether to grant the company a
preliminary permit. Under that permit, the company would have 36 months
to conduct an economic analysis, preliminary engineering plans and a
study of environmental impacts. Based on the studies, the company would
decide whether to apply for a permit to build and operate the project.

There is no deadline for the preliminary permit, according to
commission spokesman Celeste Miller.

But Ms. Miller said Wednesday that she expects the commission to
issue a decision in the coming months.

In its application, Massachusetts Tidal estimates each device would
generate from 500 kilowatts to 2 megawatts, with each device able to
provide power to about 750 homes. The company estimates the built-out
tidal farm could generate between 25 and 300 megawatts at any given
moment.

Others responding to the Massachusetts Tidal filing include the
Naushon Trust Inc., the owner of Naushon Island, which is adjacent to
the proposed site; a potential competitor, Verdant Power LLC of
Maryland; and a private citizen in New Hampshire who has questioned the
Massachusetts Tidal's plans. The comment period for the
preliminary permit application ended in July.

In a July 10 letter, a member of the board of trustees of the
Naushon Trust, Paul Elias, requested that the trust be named an
intervenor in the energy commission's review of the proposed
project.

"Generally, the people who live near these projects need to be
involved in the process," Mr. Elias said Wednesday. "As a
board, it's our responsibility to be in the loop and
informed."

Naushon's standing as an intervenor makes the trust party to
the proceeding. The trust has the power to appeal a decision made by the
commission.

On July 3, Verdant Power LLC of Rockville, Md., filed a motion to
intervene and protest in the commission's review.

In its motion, filed by attorney Gilbert P. Sperling, Verdant
identifies itself as a developer of kinetic hydropower projects, one
that has received a preliminary permit from the energy commission for an
energy project at Roosevelt Island in the East River in New York city.

Verdant's application for the Roosevelt Island project, the
company states, demonstrates that Verdant is "a serious developer
with the knowledge and capability to develop kinetic hydropower
projects."

Verdant claims that a single company, identified as Oceana or the
Tidal Energy Company and its affiliates have filed at least 10
applications for tidal energy projects across the United States,
including the Vineyard Sound project.

Because of the way the energy commission's review system
works, Verdant contends, the first company to seek a preliminary permit
for a project site almost certainly will secure the permit, effectively
deterring competitive filings for years.

Oceana and its affiliates, Verdant argues, are not qualified to
pursue hydroelectric tidal projects because they lack either the
necessary technology or any agreement to license the technology.

"At a minimum, awarding permits to companies like (Tidal
Energy) that realistically stand no chance of filing for a license
within the period of any preliminary permit issued to them delays
development of permit sites by bona fide developers for at least three
years," Mr. Sperling wrote.

In a July 17 letter filed with the commission, Massachusetts Tidal
fired back with a motion to dismiss Verdant's filing.

"We believe that the motion to intervene is outside the scope
of Verdant's legitimate interests and that Verdant's entire
filing is based on inaccurate assumptions and unfounded credibility
attacks that warrant dismissal of Verdant's request for lack of
merit," general counsel Mike Hoover wrote.

"Our company is neither incompetent nor interested in selling
sites," Mr. Hoover also wrote. "In fact, Verdant's
assumption shows its fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of
preliminary permits because they are not transferable."

Mr. Hoover claims that Verdant has no proximity to or legitimate
interest in the Vineyard Sound site, and therefore should not be granted
intervenor status; that Massachusetts Tidal doesn't specify a
technology for the site because that will come after a site analysis;
that a lack of commercial success by Verdant is responsible for any
competitive disadvantage it faces in the Vineyard Sound permit process;
that Massachusetts Tidal does have a technology of its own; and that
Massachusetts Tidal has disclosed and will disclose further its
qualifications and financial backing.

An attorney who served as an environmental advisor in the Clinton
White House, now conducting due diligence for a private equity fund
concerning possible investments in tidal hydroelectric power, also
vouched for Oceana.

Based on the diligence, Peter T. Frampton wrote in a July 18 letter
to the energy commission: "The fund I represent is seriously
interested in providing major capital to Oceana and believes that Oceana
has by far the best chance of exploiting tidal energy in the United
States in the next decade."

Another critique of the Oceana filings, including the Vineyard Sound
project, has been submitted by Robert Cinq-Mars of Lee, N.H. Mr.
Cinq-Mars said he holds a degree in electrical engineering and has
studied renewable energy for decades.

Mr. Cinq-Mars said Oceana filed for a series of permits across the
nation apparently in response to a detailed study by the Electric Power
Institute in Palo Alto, Calif.

He said tidal hydroelectric projects, unlike dam technology, can be
installed in almost any body of water by individuals or corporations
with limited expertise and resources, and the Oceana filings represent a
blanket permitting of vast resources.

In a July 17 response, Oceana's general counsel, Mr. Hoover,
said Oceana's proposals will become more specific as further tests
are conducted at the project sites. As for blanket permitting, Mr.
Hoover wrote: ". . . .in order for a startup company to secure
financing to undertake any meaningful advances in this industry,
investors require the potential for growth before committing risk
capital."

If Oceana had not submitted its applications when it did, Mr. Hoover
said, competing organizations likely would have requested some of the
same areas.

Comments on the Massachusetts Tidal application also came from the
Massachusetts Historical Commission and the Association to Preserve Cape
Cod.

The state commission is interested in the effect of the project on
historic and archaeological resources.

The Cape association, based in Barnstable, echoes the National
Marine Fisheries Service in questioning the effect of the propeller
units on marine species in the water column.

The association also noted that two other power projects have been
proposed for the Cape and Islands area - the Cape Wind wind farm
on Horseshoe Shoals in Nantucket Sound, and developer Daniel
Cashman's proposed wind turbines in Buzzards Bay. Each is
regulated by a different government entity. "The growing movement
to develop our coastal waters must be regulated in a consistent and
predictable manner," the association wrote.