<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.hydroreform.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Hydropower Reform Coalition - New York</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/46/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en-Custom</language>
<item>
 <title>FERC Reinstates School Street License</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2010/04/16/ferc-reinstates-school-street-license</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

  &lt;span class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/school-street-p-2539&quot;&gt;School Street : P-2539&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;In a ruling issued yesterday, FERC reinstated the license for School Street project issued in February 2007, thereby giving a serious blow to Green Island Power Authority’s (GIPA’s) plan to get a license for their proposed 100 MW Cohoes Falls project, just downstream of the current School Street site. The project is located on the Mohawk River in Albany and Saratoga Counties, New York.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 10, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2009/08/19/court-vacates-license-order-says-ferc-should-have-analyzed-all-alternatives&quot;&gt;vacated&lt;/a&gt; the license order for the 38.8 MW School Street Project (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hydroreform.org/projects/school-street-p-2539&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;P-2539&lt;/a&gt;) and asked FERC to determine whether the offer of settlement filed by Erie Boulevard Hydropower, the licensee for the School Street project, constituted material amendment, in which case FERC would have been obligated to grant an intervener status to GIPA. In yesterday’s ruling, FERC determined that the offer of settlement did not constitute material amendment and thus FERC did not err in denying GIPA intervention. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the ruling, FERC states-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;...although the changes proposed in the 2005 settlement provided significant benefits to the resources involved, they did so without radically altering the overall plans of development for the site. The 2005 settlement proposed to develop the same basic project, with minor adjustments.  Accordingly, we find that the 2005 offer of settlement, in its entirety, did not constitute a material amendment of the relicense application.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERC went on to clarify that minor adjustments to operation of the project do not constitute material amendment. However, cumulative effect of all of such adjustments, when considered together, could constitute a material amendment. This has a huge bearing in resource protection as public participation is allowed only in case of material amendment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERC also analyzed GIPA’s proposed project and determined that the Cohoes Falls Project is not an economically feasible alternative to the School Street Project. Licensing and constructing GIPA’s Cohoes Falls project would have required decommissioning of the School Street project and removal of the dam.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read FERC’s ruling &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12321873&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2010/04/16/ferc-reinstates-school-street-license#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1007">alternatives</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1469">Amendment</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1447">court decision</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1058">FERC policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1595">intervention</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1544">Mohawk</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/settlement">settlement</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:57:12 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">4512 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Court Vacates License Order, Says FERC Should Have Analyzed All Alternatives</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2009/08/19/court-vacates-license-order-says-ferc-should-have-analyzed-all-alternatives</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

  &lt;span class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/school-street-p-2539&quot;&gt;School Street : P-2539&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a 2007 FERC license order for the School Street Project and asked FERC to revisit the proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERC was challenged by Green Island Power Authority (GIPA), which wants to develop its proposed 100-MW Cohoes Falls project just downstream of the existing 38.8 MW School Street Project (&lt;a href=&quot;/P-2539&quot;&gt;P-2539&lt;/a&gt;). The Cohoes Falls project would inundate the downstream project, rendering it inoperable. FERC had repeatedly denied GIPA’s late motion to intervene in the relicensing of the School Street project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Court did not tell FERC to grant GIPA’s motion to intervene, but rather told FERC that it did not use the correct criteria when determining that a settlement agreement did not constitute a “material amendment” to the license application for School Street. Had the settlement constituted such a change, FERC would have been obligated to solicit interventions, and it is possible FERC would have had to grant GIPA’s intervention.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;More important, however, is the Court’s stern reminder to FERC that it is obligated to consider and analyze all reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, even if FERC may not issue a license that includes those alternatives. This is a fundamental tenant of environmental law, and it is encouraging to see a Court remind FERC of the importance of alternatives analysis in its decision making.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read the full court order &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/513bbc5d-3a1f-4eb8-958d-9caad3424e24/1/doc/07-1737-ag_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/513bbc5d-3a1f-4eb8-958d-9caad3424e24/1/hilite/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2009/08/19/court-vacates-license-order-says-ferc-should-have-analyzed-all-alternatives#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1007">alternatives</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1447">court decision</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1544">Mohawk</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1543">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/settlement">settlement</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:06:07 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">4309 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>New York Project Will Receive Production Tax Credits</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2009/04/17/new-york-project-will-receive-production-tax-credits</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

  &lt;span class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/lower-raquette-river-p-2330&quot;&gt;Lower Raquette River : P-2330&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The additional generation at Raquette River project in New York will now be eligible to receive tax credits under EPAct 2005.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yesterday FERC issued a &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=11991682&quot;&gt;letter&lt;/a&gt; certifying that the four developments in the project owned by Erie Boulevard had generated 24912 kWh more than the historic annual generation of 70,271 kWh.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A license amendment issued in late 2006 had allowed the project to increase the capacity by 6 MW. The amendment had also changed the project from a peaking mode to run-of-river mode. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The EPAct 2005 allows for hydropower facilities to receive tax credits if a project increases generation through efficiency improvements or capacity additions. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the &amp;quot;bailout package&amp;quot;) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2008/10/03/tax-extensions-approved-for-renewable-energy&quot;&gt;extended&lt;/a&gt; that provision for until the end of 2011, which otherwise would have expired at the end of 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2009/04/17/new-york-project-will-receive-production-tax-credits#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1518">capacity addition</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1070">economic valuations</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/epact">EPAct</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1377">production tax credits</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1523">Raquette River</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1287">renewable energy</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:56:21 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">4237 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Hudson River project gets tax credits for additional generation</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2008/10/27/hudson-river-project-gets-tax-credits-for-additional-generation</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

  &lt;span class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/hudson-river-p-2482&quot;&gt;Hudson River : P-2482&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=11838842&quot;&gt;certified &lt;/a&gt;additional electricity generation at the Hudson River hydroelectric project as being renewable energy eligible to receive tax credits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP, the licensee for the project, stated in its application filed on September 29 that replacement and installation of new turbine generators would increase electricity generation by 10.94%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The increase in generation comes from upgrades at the Sherman Land development which will increase its capacity from 28.8 to 37.2 MW boosting the total capacity for the project from 73.2 to 81.6 MW. The project consists of one other development- the Spier Falls development which generates 44.4 MW.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under the Energy Policy Act 2005, additional electricity generated from an existing hydropower project is eligible to receive renewable energy tax credits, also known as production tax credits (PTC), if such addition is achieved by improving efficiency or by adding capacity. However, such increment has to be first approved by FERC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2008/10/27/hudson-river-project-gets-tax-credits-for-additional-generation#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1070">economic valuations</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1452">Hudson River</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1377">production tax credits</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1287">renewable energy</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:49:45 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">4091 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>LIHI Certifies One and Recertifies Another Hydroproject in the Northeast</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2008/07/14/lihi-certifies-one-and-recertifies-another-hydroproject-in-the-northeast</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

  &lt;span class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/worumbo-p-3428&quot;&gt;Worumbo : P-3428&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt; | &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/oswego-falls-p-5984&quot;&gt;Oswego Falls : P-5984&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt; | &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/oswego-river-p-2474&quot;&gt;Oswego River : P-2474&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;On July 3, the Low Impact Hydropower Institute&amp;#39;s board certified the Oswego River Project , on the Oswego River, New York as a &amp;quot;low-impact&amp;quot; hydropower project. Similarly, the Worumbo project on the Androscoggin River, Maine was also recertified. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Oswego Project consists of five developments (Oswego Falls East, Oswego Falls West, Fulton, Minetto, and Varick developments) and comprises two FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects along the Oswego River in Oswego County, New York. Read more about the project and the certification on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lowimpacthydro.org/events/47.aspx&quot;&gt;LIHI&amp;#39;s website&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 19.4 MW Worumbo hydro project, on the other hand, had already received LIHI&amp;#39;s low-impact certification in 2004. Read more on the project at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lowimpacthydro.org/application-details.aspx?id=12&quot;&gt;LIHI&amp;#39;s project page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So far 35 hydroelectric projects around the country have been recognized as low-impact by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute, while seven more have submitted their applications. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the LIHI website, &amp;quot;LIHI certification means that the hydropower facility has been found to meet or exceed the Institute&amp;#39;s Certification Criteria which address eight key areas: river flows, water quality, fish passage and protection, watershed protection, threatened and endangered species protection, cultural resource protection, recreation, and facilities recommended for removal.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2008/07/14/lihi-certifies-one-and-recertifies-another-hydroproject-in-the-northeast#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1397">Androscoggin River</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/east">East</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/lihi">LIHI</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/maine">Maine</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1394">Oswego</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1395">Oswego River</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1396">Worumbo</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:04:08 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">4013 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Pre-Application Document filed for Oswegatchie River Hydro Project</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2008/01/08/pre-application-document-filed-for-oswegatchie-river-hydro-project</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

  &lt;span class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/oswegatchie-river-p-2713&quot;&gt;Oswegatchie River : P-2713&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Erie Boulevard hydropower, L.P. has submitted its &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary-backup.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=11549157&quot;&gt;Pre-Application Document&lt;/a&gt; for the Oswegatchie River Hydroelectric Project. This 30 MW project expires in December 31, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2008/01/08/pre-application-document-filed-for-oswegatchie-river-hydro-project#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1326">Oswegatchie River</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1325">PAD</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:01:34 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Rupak Thapaliya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3874 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>American Rivers &amp; NOAA now accepting proposals for river restoration grants</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2007/10/01/american-rivers-noaa-now-accepting-proposals-for-river-restoration-grants</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;a rel=&quot;lightbox&quot; href=&quot;/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1116_1043289829_1faa58a36c.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;a rel=&quot;lightbox&quot; href=&quot;/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1116_1043289829_1faa58a36c.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;img width=&quot;100&quot; class=&quot;flickrstickr_image&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; src=&quot;/sites/www.hydroreform.org/files/images/1116_1043289829_1faa58a36c.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;American Rivers &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americanrivers.org/NOAAGrants&quot;&gt;seeks proposals for river restoration project grants&lt;/a&gt; as part of its partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/projects_programs/crp/index.html&quot;&gt;Community-based Restoration Program&lt;/a&gt;.  Program funding is provided through NOAA’s Open Rivers Initiative, which seeks to enable environmental and economic renewal in local communities through the removal of stream barriers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This Partnership funds stream barrier removal projects that help restore riverine ecosystems, enhance public safety and community resilience, and have clear and identifiable benefits to diadromous fish populations. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_migration&quot;&gt;Diadromous fish&lt;/a&gt; migrate between freshwater and saltwater during their life cycle.  Examples include alewife, American eel, American shad, blueback herring, salmon, steelhead, shortnose sturgeon and striped bass.  Projects in the Northeast (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI), Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA, DE, VA, MD, DC), Northwest (WA, OR, ID), and California are eligible to apply.  Projects located within the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes Basin are not eligible for funding in the December 2007 grant round.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Eligible applications will be evaluated based upon four priority criteria:  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Ecological merits of the project,&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Technical feasibility of the project,&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Benefits provided to the local community, and &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Financial clarity and strength of the application.  &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Grants are provided for three distinct project phases: Feasibility Analysis, Engineering Design and Construction.  Average grants are $25,000 - $50,000.  Successful applicants for one project phase will not be eligible to receive additional funding for that same project phase in future grant rounds.  See the Funding Guidelines for additional details. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americanrivers.org/NOAAGrants&quot;&gt;Applications are currently being accepted&lt;/a&gt; for the first cycle of fiscal year 2008 with a deadline of December 3, 2007.  Applications for projects must be postmarked by the deadline for consideration in this funding cycle.  Potential applicants should contact American Rivers to discuss potential projects prior to submitting an application.  Applicants can expect notification about funding decisions in early March 2008.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americanrivers.org/NOAAGrants&quot;&gt;Obtain the Application for Financial Assistance and Funding Guidelines on the American Rivers web site.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2007/10/01/american-rivers-noaa-now-accepting-proposals-for-river-restoration-grants#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/national">National</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/california">California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1311">community-based restoration program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/connecticut">Connecticut</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/843">dam removal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/delaware">Delaware</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/district-of-columbia">District of Columbia</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/east">East</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/fish-passage">fish passage</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1308">grant</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/idaho">Idaho</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/maine">Maine</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/maryland">Maryland</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/massachusetts">Massachusetts</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-hampshire">New Hampshire</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-jersey">New Jersey</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1309">NOAA</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/oregon">Oregon</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/pennsylvania">Pennsylvania</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/rhode-island">Rhode Island</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/taxonomy/term/1310">stream barriers</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/vermont">Vermont</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/virginia">Virginia</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/washington">Washington</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:48:12 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Seebach</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3844 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>License amendment on Lower Raquette adds generation and environmental benefits</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2006/12/12/license-amendment-on-lower-raquette-adds-generation-and-environmental-benefits</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

  &lt;span class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/lower-raquette-river-p-2330&quot;&gt;Lower Raquette River : P-2330&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=11199505&quot;&gt;license amendment&lt;/a&gt; for Erie Boulevard&amp;#39;s Lower Raquette River project will increase the project&amp;#39;s generating capacity by 50% (from 12 to 18 MW) while converting four dams from peaking generation into run-of-the-river mode, speeding up the license&amp;#39;s fish protection and downstream fish passage measures by three years (from 2010 to 2007), and adding upstream eel passage at four dams.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2006/12/12/license-amendment-on-lower-raquette-adds-generation-and-environmental-benefits#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/american-eel">american eel</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/ferc">FERC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/fish-passage">fish passage</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/amendment">license amendment</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:16:04 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Seebach</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2917 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>FERC seeks input on Mongaup River recreation usage</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2006/12/06/ferc-seeks-input-on-mongaup-river-recreation-usage</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

  &lt;span class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/rio-p-9690&quot;&gt;Rio : P-9690&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt; | &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/swinging-bridge-p-10482&quot;&gt;Swinging Bridge : P-10482&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;FERC is &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=11199285&quot;&gt;seeking public comments&lt;/a&gt; on recreation usage at Mirant&amp;#39;s Rio Project on New York&amp;#39;s Mongaup River. In particular, the Commission is seeking comments on Mirant&amp;#39;s 2004 &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10646791&quot;&gt;Recreation Usage Report&lt;/a&gt;, which FERC will use to determine if &amp;quot;changes are needed to the whitewater releases at the project.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Comments are due on January 5, 2007.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report was originally submitted in July of 2005, but FERC chose to hold off on its evaluation because of problems at the Swinging Bridge project that temporarily halted recreation on the river. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2006/12/06/ferc-seeks-input-on-mongaup-river-recreation-usage#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/ferc">FERC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/recreation">recreation</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/whitewater">whitewater</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:19:44 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Seebach</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2909 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>FERC issues preliminary permit for Mineville project</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2006/11/29/ferc-issues-preliminary-permit-for-mineville-project</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;FERC issued a &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=11178364&quot;&gt;preliminary permit&lt;/a&gt; for a proposed 189MW pumped storage project in Essex County, New York. From FERC&amp;#39;s order Issuing Preliminary Permit (for docket P-12635):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;The proposed [189-megawatt (MW] Mineville Pumped Storage Project would be located in the existing Old Bed, New Bed, and Harmony Mines within the town of Moriah in Essex County, New York. The mines are owned by X-Earth Corporation of Elizabethtown, New York, and by Rhodia Corporation of Cranbury, New Jersey.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The proposed [project] would consist of: (1) an upper reservoir using the existing + 200 level of the underground Harmony Mine having a surface area of 99 acres, with a storage capacity of 1,900 acre-feet and a normal water surface elevation of 200 feet NGVD, (2) a lower reservoir using the existing underground -1185 level of the Harmony Mine having a surface area of 75 acres, with a storage capacity of 2,500 acre-feet and a normal water surface elevation of -1,135 feet NGVD, (3) seven identical 1000-foot-long, 96-inch-diameter vertical bored penstocks with grouted steel casing, (4) a proposed powerhouse containing seven generating units having a total installed capacity of 189 MW; (5) a proposed 1-mile-long, 115-kV transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an annual generation of 650 GWh.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2006/11/29/ferc-issues-preliminary-permit-for-mineville-project#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/ferc">FERC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/preliminary-permit">preliminary permit</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:16:26 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Seebach</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2896 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>FERC Allows Unlicensed Testing of New Technology</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2005/04/14/ferc-allows-unlicensed-testing-of-new-technology</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;In an April 14, 2005 &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10495410&quot;&gt;order&lt;/a&gt;, FERC permitted &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.verdantpower.com/&quot;&gt;Verdant Power&lt;/a&gt; to test its new &amp;quot;damless&amp;quot; hydropower technology without a license on &lt;a href=&quot;http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;ll=40.760586,-73.948202&amp;amp;spn=0.032831,0.055618&amp;amp;t=k&amp;amp;om=1&quot;&gt;Roosevelt Island&lt;/a&gt; in the East River in New York City.  At the end of an 18-month test period, Verdant must return to FERC  and seek a new license in order to continue operating.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FERC contends that nothing in its ruling establishes new precedent.  It  makes three key findings that differentiate this project from any other project:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The technology is truly experimental.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The technology needs a short-term testing period to determine viability.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The project will not contribute power to the grid.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The final finding was a change to Verdant&amp;#39;s proposal, which included supplying power to nearby commercial customers.  The Order affirmed that such a project still requires a preliminary permit and that in order to contribute power to the grid, the project must ultimately  obtain a license.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the meantime, at the request of resource agencies, FERC stated that nothing in its order absolves the project from obtaining necessary state and federal permits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Coalition is watching to see whether FERC&amp;#39;s order is effectively encouraging new technologies while protecting rivers and maintaining its responsibilities under the Federal Power Act.  Stay tuned.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10495410&quot;&gt;Read FERC&amp;#39;s order.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10493225&quot;&gt;Read FERC&amp;#39;s press release, &amp;quot;Commission Order Aims to Promote Development of New Submarine Hydropower Technology&amp;quot; here.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2005/04/14/ferc-allows-unlicensed-testing-of-new-technology#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/national">National</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/ferc">FERC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/preliminary-permit">preliminary permit</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/tidal-hydropower">tidal hydrokinetic</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/verdant-power">Verdant Power</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Seebach</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">284 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Permit for Mohawk River (NY) Dam Rejected</title>
 <link>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2005/01/21/permit-for-mohawk-river-ny-dam-rejected</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-nodereference field-field-project&quot;&gt;

  &lt;span class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Project:&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
  &lt;span class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/projects/school-street-p-2539&quot;&gt;School Street : P-2539&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;
          &lt;div class=&quot;field-item&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;On January 19, 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10374057&quot;&gt;rejected&lt;/a&gt; Green Island Power Authority&amp;#39;s (GIPA) &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10199988&quot;&gt;bid for a preliminary permit&lt;/a&gt; to construct a new dam on the Mohawk River in upstate New York. P-12522 (also known as the Cohoes Falls project) would consist of a 20-foot dam above Cohoes Falls and a powerhouse below the falls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Why did FERC reject this small first step in licensing a new project?  Because the Cohoes Falls project would have been located only half a mile downstream from another hydropower dam called School Street (FERC Project  No.  P-2539).  School Street is built with the same power generation design, only smaller - the dam is only 16 feet high.  GIPA&amp;#39;s Cohoes Falls project would have created a reservoir that inundated the School Street dam, rendering it inoperable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under the Federal Power Act, FERC cannot issue contradictory licenses. In other words,  if FERC authorizes  one project under a given set of terms, it cannot authorize a second project that would conflict with the terms of the first project. This case, however, was somewhat unique because of timing and politics.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;School Street was one of several licenses in New York that expired in 1993.  The New York water quality agency refused to permit them all at once, instead setting up a schedule for dealing with each license  in turn through settlement negotiations. School Street was the last project on this list.  Because project negotiations began nearly a decade after the original license had expired, and because FERC cannot issue a license without state water quality certification,  School Street has been operating on annual licenses since 1993. The  settlement team  expects to reach a settlement soon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;GIPA, a quasi-governmental agency, argued that since the School Street relicensing process has taken intolerably long, and since GIPA&amp;#39;s proposal has far more public benefit, FERC should waive its constricting regulations, terminate the School Street license,  and authorize GIPA to start the licensing process.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;GIPA&amp;#39;s proposal  also had the support of some  big names.  Senators Clinton and Schumer wrote letters supporting the proposal; Congressman McNulty appeared before the FERC Commissioners to  voice his support for  the Cohoes Falls project.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, FERC refused the permit. In its &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10374057&quot;&gt;order&lt;/a&gt;, FERC determined that the Federal Power  Act - a law which FERC does not have the authority to waive - both prohibits a new license application from being filed at the project (more than 13 years after the deadline for such applications had passed) and prevents the Commission from issuing a license that would constitute revocation or alteration of the School Street Project&amp;#39;s existing license. The order also cites FERC&amp;#39;s existing regulations and precedents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10374057&quot;&gt;FERC Order.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.hydroreform.org/news/2005/01/21/permit-for-mohawk-river-ny-dam-rejected#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/ferc">FERC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/gipa">GIPA</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/region/great-lakes">Great Lakes</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/state/new-york">New York</category>
 <category domain="http://www.hydroreform.org/news/hrcnews/tag/preliminary-permit">preliminary permit</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:00:00 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Seebach</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">295 at http://www.hydroreform.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

