U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–690PDF 2010

MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC ENERGY

TECHNOLOGY: FINDING THE

PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 3, 2009

Serial No. 111–67

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

CHRIS KING Democratic Staff Director 

SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member 

ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member 

JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member 

DAN BYERSRepublican Professional Staff Member 

TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member 

JANE WISE Research Assistant 

ALEX MATTHEWS Research Assistant 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

December 3, 2009

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Subcommittee on 

Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 11

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 11

Witnesses:

Jacques Beaudry-Losique, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of 

Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14

Biography .......................................................................................................... 21

Roger Bedard, Ocean Energy Leader, Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24

Biography .......................................................................................................... 35

James G.P. Dehlsen, Founder and Chairman, Ecomerit Technologies, LLC 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37

Biography .......................................................................................................... 43

Craig W. Collar, P.E., Senior Manager for Energy Resource Development 

at Snohomish Public Utility District 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 45

Biography .......................................................................................................... 56

Gia D. Schneider, Co-Founder and CEO, Natel Energy, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 57

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 59

Biography .......................................................................................................... 67

Discussion 

The Problem of Outsourced Manufacturing and Test Beds .............................. 67

Pace of Test Bed Development ............................................................................ 68

Keys to Expediting Projects ................................................................................ 68

Species Safety ....................................................................................................... 68
Page

IV

Turbine Design ..................................................................................................... 69

Combining Wave and Wind Technologies .......................................................... 70

Comparing Economic Costs and Benefits of Energy ......................................... 71

Hydrokinetic Potential in the Great Lakes ........................................................ 72

Low Head Hydropower ........................................................................................ 73

Other Promising Technologies ............................................................................ 73

Lessons from Verdant Power in New York State .............................................. 74

Cost Competitiveness of MHK Technologies ..................................................... 75

Impacts on Scenic Views ..................................................................................... 75

Progress to Date and the Power Density of MHK ............................................. 76

2009 Stimulus Funding for MHK ....................................................................... 77

The Importance of Consistent Federal Support ................................................ 77

Permitting and Regulatory Structure ................................................................ 78

Energy Production From the Gulf Stream ......................................................... 81

Thermal Energy Potential in the Oceans ........................................................... 82

Closing .................................................................................................................. 83
(1)

MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC ENERGY 

TECHNOLOGY: FINDING THE 

PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Baird 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
2
3

1 Electric Power Research Institute, ‘‘North American Ocean Energy Status.’’ March, 2007. 

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology: 

Finding the Path

to Commercialization 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2009

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

PURPOSE 

On Thursday, December 3, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will 

hold a hearing entitled, ‘‘Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology: Finding the 

Path to Commercialization.’’ The purpose of the hearing is to explore the role of the 

Federal government and industry in developing technologies related to marine and 

hydrokinetic energy generation. 

Similar to wind technologies of a few decades ago, interest in marine and 

hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies is increasing around the world. Also, as with the 

emergence of wind technologies of the 1970s, MHK technologies of today need a considerable amount of RD&D before commercialization. These technologies include 

wave, current (tidal, ocean and river), ocean thermal energy generation devices and 

related environmental monitoring technologies. There are a variety of energy conversion technologies and companies active in this field, and some MHK devices 

being demonstrated, primarily outside of the United States.

WITNESSES

• Mr. Jacques Beaudry-Losique, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable 

Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

• Mr. Roger Bedard, Ocean Energy Leader, Electric Power Research Institute 

• Mr. Jim Dehlsen, Founder & Chairman, Ecomerit Technologies, LLC

• Mr. Craig W. Collar, P.E., Senior Manager for Energy Resource Development at Snohomish County Public Utility District

• Ms. Gia Schneider, Chief Executive Officer of Natel Energy, Inc.

BACKGROUND 

The marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) renewable energy industry is relatively new, 

yet some of its technologies have roots from the growing wind industry. Experts in 

the industry expect that MHK technologies will follow a similar path as wind turbines. Significant achievement in efficiency enhancements and cost reductions during the past 30 years in the wind industry are transferable to MHK technologies. 

Similarly, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) predicts that cost reduction 

forecasts for the MHK industry will follow a similar path as wind technologies, but 

not without overcoming some significant hurdles. 

Studies have estimated that approximately 10 percent of U.S. national electricity 

demand may be met through river in-stream sites, tidal in-stream sites, and wave 

generation. This estimate includes approximately 140 TWh/yr from tidal and instream river technologies and 260 TWh/yr from wave generated electricity.1 This 

does not include ocean thermal energy, ocean currents or other distributed generation in man-made water systems. 

MHK generation could be important as it would meet the demand for coastal regions of the U.S. Coastal regions are home to 53 percent of the population of the 

U.S. despite comprising only 17 percent of the land in the country. 23 of the 25 most 
4

2 National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, ‘‘Population Trends Along the Coastal 

United States’’. September 2004. 3This is the relationship between the density of the seawater (in kilograms per cubic meter) 

and the instantaneous speed or velocity of the stream (in meters per second). 4 Electric Power Research Institute. ‘‘North America Tidal In-Stream Energy Conversion Technology Feasibility Study’’. June 11, 2006. 

populous counties are located in coastal regions and the 10 fastest growing counties 

are in coastal states—California, Florida, and Texas.2

Technologies and Industry Activity 

Various MHK technologies can be used to harness energy from three major 

sources: currents (tidal, ocean and river), waves, and stored ocean thermal energy. 

Current (tidal, ocean and river) Energy Technologies 

There are several different energy technologies being used to harness the energy 

found in currents. Ocean currents of the world are untapped reservoirs of energy 

linked to winds and surface heating processes. The Gulf Stream is an example of 

an ocean current. Tides, another form of currents, are controlled primarily by the 

moon. As the tides rise and fall twice each day, they create strong tidal currents 

in coastal locations with fairly narrow passages. Examples include San Francisco’s 

Golden Gate, the Tacoma Narrows in Washington’s Puget Sound, and coastal areas 

of Alaska and Maine. Tidal in-stream energy conversion (TISEC) devices harness 

the kinetic energy of moving water and do not require a dam or impoundment of 

any type. Additionally, in-stream river technologies can be used in any kind of free 

flowing water, such as rivers or man-made canals. 

Conversion devices used to harness energy from tidal currents are similar to those 

used for river currents, the major differences being that river currents are 

unidirectional and contain fresh water. Different kinds of currents turn turbines- either horizontal (axis of rotation is horizontal with respect to the ground, and parallel to the flow of water) or vertical (axis of rotation is perpendicular to the flow 

of water). The kinetic motion of the water turns the blades of the rotor, which then 

drives a mechanical generator. The systems used to harness energy from tidal and 

river currents are similar to those used in wind energy applications. These similarities lead many experts to believe that the development time for TISEC and instream river current conversion technologies may be less than other MHK technologies, such as wave energy conversion or ocean thermal energy conversion 

(OTEC) technologies. 

Electricity generated from tidal currents has an estimated cost for a utility and 

municipal generator ranging from 4 cents/kWh to 12 cents/kWh, depending on 

power density.3 Additional cost reductions will be achieved through economies of 

scale and improved engineering.4 Despite the similarities between in-stream river 

devices and in-stream tidal devices, the former has no reliable studies regarding the 

cost of electricity. Research regarding the cost of electricity for river devices would 

help to expand the industry. 

Companies across the country are developing devices to harness energy from currents. Verdant Power, established in 2000 and based in New York, has three different projects. Its longest running project is the Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy 

(RITE) Project operated in New York City’s East River. In 2005, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a special Declaratory Order allowing Verdant Power to produce and deliver electricity to end users during the testing phase 

of the RITE Project. The first federally licensed, in-stream hydrokinetic power plant, 

developed by Hydro Green Energy, was deployed on the Mississippi River in 

Hastings, Minnesota and began operating commercially on August 20, 2009. This 

project was approved in December 2008 by FERC. Pre-installation environmental 

testing has occurred since February 2009. The turbine has a nameplate capacity of 

100 kW and its expected output is 35 kW. A second more efficient turbine is scheduled to come online in spring 2010. 

Wave Energy Technologies 

Wave energy conversion technologies use the motion of waves to generate mechanical energy that can be converted to electricity. There are many different devices in 

the testing, development, pre-commercial and commercial stages. While all systems 

operate under the same general concept of generating electricity through wave energy, they differ in design and method of electricity conversion components. Some 

of the most common technologies include: attenuators or linear absorbers, pitching/

surging/heaving/sway (PSHS) devices, oscillating water columns, overtopping terminators, point absorbers, and submerged pressure differentials. 
5

5 Electric Power Research Institute. ‘‘North American Ocean Energy Status’’. March 2007. 

6 Electric Power Research Institute. ‘‘Offshore Ocean Wave Energy: A Summer 2009 Technology and Market Assessment Update,’’ July 21, 2009. 

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) states that the cost of electricity for 

electricity generated through wave energy conversion devices can range from 11.1 

cents/kWh in parts of California to 39.1 cents/kWh in Maine. Wave technology is 

at approximately the same stage of development as wind technology 20 years ago, 

just starting its emergence as a commercial technology. At the beginning of wind 

power commercialization, the cost of electricity was over 20 cents/kWh. For each 

doubling of cumulative installed capacity, the cost of electricity from wind energy 

decreased by roughly18 percent. The cost of electricity is now around 6 cents/kWh 

(in 2006$). EPRI predicts that many MHK technologies will follow this same path.5

Despite the cost of wave energy generation several companies are pursing demonstration projects. Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) founded in 1994 and 

headquartered in Pennington, NJ has tested and is now deploying its PowerBuoy 

worldwide. In 2007, PNGC Power signed a funding agreement for OPT to develop 

a 150 kW PowerBuoy off the coast of Reedsport, Oregon. This project received $2 

million in support from DOE in 2008. The first PowerBuoy is expected to be deployed in 2010. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) is also looking at wave energy devices. They will be developing a testing center similar to the Wave Hub (discussed below) and has been awarded a cost sharing grant of 1.2 million by DOE 

for this project. The California Public Utility Commission is also contributing 4.8 

million. The proposed WaveConnect project, to be located in Humboldt County, will 

be able to test up to four wave technologies at one time. PG&E was granted its 

FERC preliminary permit in March of 2008 and is planning to apply for its pilot 

plant license with the FERC in spring 2010.6

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Technologies 

Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is an energy technology that converts 

solar radiation in the ocean to electric power. OTEC systems use the ocean’s natural 

thermal gradient—the ocean’s layers of water have different temperatures—to drive 

a powerproducing cycle. More than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered with 

oceans. This makes them the world’s largest solar energy collector and energy storage system. On an average day, 60 million square kilometers (23 million square 

miles) of tropical seas absorb an amount of solar radiation equal in heat content to 

about 250 billion barrels of oil. A fraction of this stored energy can be converted to 

electricity with OTEC technologies. 

The three types of systems used for OTEC are closed-cycle, open-cycle, and hybrid, 

which employ features from both closed and open-cycle systems. Closed-cycle utilizes 

a fluid with a low boiling point that is vaporized by warm surface seawater in a 

heat exchanger. The vapor turns a turbo-generator, and is then run though a second 

heat exchanger containing cold deep-seawater. This condenses the vapor back to the 

liquid form and it is then recycled through the system. Open-cycle technologies use 

warm seawater that boils when placed in a low-pressure container. The steam from 

the boiling water drives a low-pressure turbine that is attached to a generator. It 

is then condensed back to a liquid. Hybrid systems involve warm seawater which 

enters a vacuum chamber where it is flash-evaporated into steam, similar to the 

open-cycle evaporation process. The steam vaporizes a low-boiling-point fluid (in a 

closed-cycle loop) that drives a turbine to produce electricity. 

Even though OTEC systems have no fuel costs, the high initial cost of building 

a facility makes OTEC generated electricity more expensive than conventional alternatives. Existing OTEC systems have a low overall efficiency, but there is reason 

to believe that subsequent technology advances and an expanded body of research 

based on off-shore oil and gas industry can make OTEC technologies cost-effective. 

Lockheed Martin Corporation reports that one of the key challenges facing OTEC 

is creating an economically viable plant. This situation is due to the non-linear 

scale-up of major OTEC subsystems—increasing the output power by a factor of ten 

increases the plant capital costs by factor three. The resulting cost of electricity 

from the first 100 MW commercial facility is calculated to be approximately 21 to 

25 cents/kWh. These rates are competitive today in such locations as Hawaii and 

Guam. However, this number does not take into account several factors such as production and investment credits and decreased costs of future plants which further 

lower the cost. 

OTEC systems currently are restricted to experimental and demonstration units. 

Island communities which currently rely on expensive, imported fossil fuels for electrical generation are the most promising market for OTEC. DOE originally funded 

research in OTEC in 1980 and has recently awarded two grants to Lockheed Martin 
6

Corporation totaling $1,000,000. The funding will help develop and describe designs, 

performance, and life-cycle costs for both the near shore and offshore OTEC baseline 

cost figures. Additionally, funding will go towards the development of a GIS-based 

dataset and software tool to assess the maximum extractable energy potential globally using OTEC technologies. The U.S. Navy has expressed considerable interest 

in OTEC. In September of this year the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

(NAVFAC) recently awarded Lockheed Martin an $8.12 million contract to further 

the OTEC technology development. 

International Activities 

Many countries are developing MHK energy technologies. Brazil, Canada, the 

Netherlands, Italy, China, Sweden, Mexico, Germany, Australia, Portugal, India, 

Ireland, Japan, Denmark, Greece, New Zealand and many others are all operating 

MHK energy devices at the various scales of testing and commercialization. For example, South Korea deployed their first commercial tidal power plant in May of this 

year. It is estimated that this device will power approximately 430 households annually, and by 2013 it will have up to 90,000 kW of capacity and supply electricity 

to 46,000 houses. South Korea is also developing an additional 254 kW tidal power 

plant in Sihwa, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of next year. 

The United Kingdom (UK) has made efforts to develop MHK energy technology. 

It has established specific funding streams and centers for development and testing 

of MHK technologies. The UK’s marine energy goal is to have 2 GW of installed capacity by 2020. The Government is also developing a Marine Action Plan that is expected to be published by spring 2010. The Marine Renewables Proving Fund was 

established by the UK Government to provide up to $32.8 million in grants for the 

testing and demonstration of pre-commercial wave and tidal stream technologies. 

They also have established the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund, which will 

support technologies as they move from development to deployment. Additionally, 

three device testing centers have been established with a combined funding of up 

to $56.6 million from the UK Government. They are:

• New and Renewable Energy Centre (NaREC): The UK Government appropriated $14.5 million to build on and utilize existing infrastructure to provide 

an open access facility for marine developers to test and prove designs/components onshore. This facility includes complete in-house prototype development 

facilities for wave technology, including a wave tank, mechanical and electrical design engineering and procurement, electrical engineering consultancy 

and support for power conversion and drive train development, complete system testing from marine environment to grid connection, resource and feasibility assessment and consultancy, market analysis and research, and project 

management, funding, and investment coordination.

• European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC): EMEC was established following a 

recommendation by the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology in 2002. The UK will provide $11.9 million as part of a renewable energy strategy for their in-sea stage testing facilities—the only multi-berth, 

purpose-built, open-sea testing facilities in the world. The Edinburgh-based 

Pelamis Wave Power technology has generated electricity to the national grid 

from its deep water floating device at EMEC’s wave test site. After being tested, the Pelamis was deployed and connected to the Portuguese grid in the fall 

of 2008, but is currently not in operation. Verdant Power, Ocean Power Technologies and Columbia Power Technologies, as well as other MHK energy developers based in the United States have tested their technologies or 

interacted with EMEC’s testing facilities and staff. EMEC is linked with a 

range of different developers and devices, as well as academic institutions and 

regulatory bodies. EMEC aims to ensure that different devices are monitored 

in a consistent way, using the best available methods. Furthermore, the dissemination of monitoring information can be carried out throughout the industry, regulatory bodies and their advisors, as appropriate.

• The Wave Hub: Due to be built in 2010, the Wave Hub is a $62 million project 

in which a collection of wave energy conversion devices will be connected to 

the national grid through high voltage sub-sea cables. It will be the UK’s first 

offshore facility for the demonstration of wave energy generation devices.

Barriers to Generation in the United States 

Despite the fact that the U.S. has significant MHK resources and several companies interested in the technology, more investment and greater attention has been 

paid to these technologies in Europe. The U.S. MHK industry is behind Europe and 
7

7Fisheries. Volume 32 Number 4. ‘‘Potential Impacts of Hydrokinetic and Wave Energy Conversion Technologies on Aquatic Environments’’. April 2007. 

this could be because of a variety of interconnected financial, regulatory, and environmental barriers. 

While cost remains one of the largest barriers, it is estimated that with appropriate pilot and commercial scale demonstration of MHK technologies, the cost of 

MHK generated electricity will quickly decrease over time. Getting from pilot to 

commercial scale requires investment in small-scale systems which are not yet proven technologies. It is already difficult to finance new renewable projects with the 

existing state and federal incentives. MHK projects have an additional set of unique 

environmental and regulatory barriers which add to the cost of installation and 

project uncertainty which investors find risky. As a result, developers are put in the 

position of needing to push for large commercial technologies to drive costs down, 

but will not do so until a technology is demonstrated and proven commercially viable. 

Project finances are heavily dependent upon the pace of the regulatory permitting 

process. This regulatory permitting process can be costly, lengthy, and complex, and 

is a very significant barrier to MHK development in the United States (not the focus 

of this hearing). This process includes activities such as lease and revenue negotiations, submittal of plans and operations concerning the demonstration site assessment, construction and operations requirements, environmental and safety monitoring and inspections. Generally, many of these qualifications have not changed for 

over a half century and were developed for traditional hydropower plants or for oil 

and gas projects, not for demonstration MHK activities. Although earlier this year 

the FERC and Mineral Management Service (MMS) established a less complex permitting, licensing, leasing framework, and pilot project approval process, there are 

still upwards of 20 other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies which oversee 

MHK projects. 

Part of the complex net of regulatory barriers for MHK devices are the environmental impact requirements needed for permits and licenses. Baseline data collections and significant monitoring of individual sites are needed to fully understand 

the impacts of MHK devices on the environment. Although environmental issues are 

expected to be minor for small numbers of units, one factor to be considered is 

whether large numbers of units will have more significant impacts on the environment. Techniques or models are needed to predict the cumulative effects of multiple 

units in order to guide deployment and monitoring.7 A system of management practices, known as ‘‘adaptive management,’’ is being used to identify potential environmental impacts, monitor these impacts, and compare them against quantified environmental performance goals. Adaptive management is particularly valuable in the 

early stages of technology development. In addition to site-specific research, collaborative research that is shared across industry groups and federal agencies is being 

discussed as a way to meet environmental requirements. Participants in a workshop 

convened by the DOE agreed that a facility, like the UK’s EMEC, would be useful 

in carrying out environmental studies and making results publicly available. 

Department of Energy Marine and Hydrokinetic Activities 

The U.S. became involved in marine renewable energy research in 1974 when the 

Hawaii State Legislature established the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority. The Laboratory became one of the world’s leading test facilities for OTEC 

technologies, but work there was discontinued in 2000. In 1980, two laws were enacted to promote the commercial development of OTEC technology: the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act, (P.L. 96–320), later modified by P.L. 98–623, and the 

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, 

P.L. 96–310. 

The Congress did not act on MHK technology 2005 (P.L. 109–58). Included in section 931(a)(2)(E) was a broad authorization for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application programs for ocean energy, including wave energy. 

That authorization contained no further instructions on how to structure a MHK 

program and expires after FY 2010. Then as part of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110–140) the Marine Renewable Energy Research 

and Development Act of 2007 was authorized. This directed the DOE to support 

RD&D and commercial application programs for MHK renewable energy technologies, including tidal flow and ocean thermal energy conversion technologies, and 

authorized DOE to provide grants to higher education institutions for establishment 

of national centers for marine renewable energy research, development, and demonstration. This research received an authorization of appropriations for 

$50,000,000 annually from 2008 to 2012. Additionally, DOE is required to submit 
8

a report in June of 2009 to Congress that addresses the potential environmental impacts of MHK technologies—the report has not been submitted as of yet. 

Since the 2007 EISA authorization DOE has established a portfolio of RD&D activities within the Wind and Hydropower program in the Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. The DOE has received $10, $40 and $50 million over the 

last three years for all of the programs water activities, this includes traditional hydropower. The MHK activities have received a small amount of funding and the program has issued a variety of small awards to fulfill its statutory obligations. The 

two national centers were awarded $1.25 million each for up to 5 years: Northwest 

National Marine Renewable Energy Center, a partnership between Oregon State 

University and the University of Washington; and the National Marine Renewable 

Energy Center of Hawaii. DOE’s program priorities for their solicitations include 

systems deployment, testing and validation; cost reduction and system performance/

reliability; understanding environmental effects; resource modeling; and development evaluation and performance standards. 

Although DOE has made significant efforts to conduct MHK RD&D, it is not clear 

if DOE is able to meet the needs of the industry under the current structure of the 

program. This hearing seeks to address the following questions: (1) Should MHK activities be removed from the larger Wind and Hydropower program and become its 

own technology program? (2) How could test facilities or specific grants help deploy 

more MHK devices into the actual demonstrate sites? and (3) How can the DOE, 

working with other federal agencies, help overcome environmental and regulatory 

barriers through better practices and improved technologies? 

Chairman BAIRD. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our 

hearing on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology: Finding a 

Path to Commercialization. 

In today’s hearing we will explore the role of the Federal Government and industry in developing technologies related to marine 

and hydrokinetic energy generation. These technologies include devices which harness energy from waves, tidal, ocean and river currents, and ocean thermal gradients. Development of related environmental monitoring technologies is critical for appropriate implementation of these emerging technologies. 

Studies have estimated that approximately 10 percent of U.S. national electric demand may be met through energy generation from 

river in-stream sites, tidal in-stream sites and wave generation. 

This projection does not include ocean thermal energy, ocean currents or other distributed energy generation from manmade water 

systems. While there is a huge potential for energy from these 

technologies in the United States, the U.K. has been referred to as 

the world leader in ocean energy development by the International 

Energy Agency (IEA) and the Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI). The world-renowned testing facilities of the European Marine Energy Centre are at the forefront of technology development, 

and are the premier test bed and information center for policymakers, academia and U.S. companies with new technologies. 

The United States became involved in marine renewable energy 

research in 1974 and enacted two laws on ocean thermal energy in 

1980. The Congress did not authorize significant research on these 

technologies until the Energy Independence and Security Act 

(EISA) of 2007. Since then DOE has built up a modest portfolio of 

marine energy R&D activities within the Wind and Hydropower 

program of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

This program has received a small amount of funding and issued 

a variety of small awards to fulfill its statutory obligations. 

In my own home state of Washington, DOE has funded 

OpenHydro, a tidal technology developer based in Ireland and selected by the Snohomish County Public Utility District to design 
9

and install a tidal energy pilot plant in Admiralty Inlet. I am glad 

we have a representative of Snohomish here with us today so we 

can hear about this project, which is expected to begin operation 

as early as 2011 and produce up to one megawatt of energy—

enough to power roughly 700 homes. 

With few exceptions, marine and hydrokinetic technologies will 

need to be competitive in the marketplace if they are to be widely 

deployed. Therefore, I am especially interested to hear from our 

witnesses about the current and projected costs of electricity generated from marine and hydrokinetic technologies and how a more 

robust federal program might help in bringing these costs down. 

With that, I would like to thank our excellent panel of witnesses, 

who we will hear from a moment. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

In today’s hearing we will explore the role of the Federal government and industry in developing technologies related to marine and hydrokinetic energy generation. 

These technologies include devices which harness energy from waves, tidal, ocean 

and river currents, and ocean thermal gradients. Development of related environmental monitoring technologies is critical for appropriate implementation of these 

emerging technologies. 

Studies have estimated that approximately 10 percent of U.S. national electricity 

demand may be met through energy generation from river in-stream sites, tidal instream sites, and wave generation. This projection does not include ocean thermal 

energy, ocean currents or other distributed energy generation from man-made water 

systems. 

While there is huge potential for energy from these technologies in the U.S., the 

U.K. has been referred to as the world leader in ocean energy development by the 

International Energy Agency and the Electric Power Research Institute. 

The world renowned testing facilities of the European Marine Energy Centre are 

at the forefront of technology development, and are the premier test bed and information center for policymakers, academia, and U.S. companies with new technologies. 

The U.S. became involved in marine renewable energy research in 1974 and enacted two laws on ocean thermal energy in 1980. The Congress did not authorize 

significant research on these technologies until the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Since then DOE has built-up a modest portfolio of marine energy 

RD&D activities within the Wind and Hydropower program in the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This program has received a small amount of 

funding and issued a variety of small awards to fulfill its statutory obligations. 

In my home state of Washington, DOE has funded OpenHydro, a tidal technology 

developer based in Ireland and selected by the Snohomish County Public Utility 

District to design and install a tidal energy pilot plant in Admiralty Inlet. I am glad 

we have a representative of Snohomish here with us today so we can hear about 

this project which is expected to begin operation as early as 2011, and will produce 

up to 1 MW of energy - enough to power roughly 700 homes. 

With few exceptions marine and hydrokinetic technologies will need to be competitive in the marketplace if they are to be widely deployed. Therefore, I am especially 

interested to hear from our witnesses about the current and projected costs of electricity generated from marine and hydrokinetic technologies, and how a more robust 

federal program might help in bringing those costs down. 

With that, I’d like to thank this excellent panel of witnesses for appearing before 

the Subcommittee this morning, and I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member, 

Mr. Inglis, for his opening remarks.

Chairman BAIRD. At this point I recognize the distinguished 

Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

This is a timely hearing. This year we have held hearings on 

solar, wind and biomass energy sources. Hydropower contributes 
10

more renewable energy to the U.S. electrical grid than all these 

other renewable sources combined. Depending on rainfall and 

water storage, conventional hydropower accounts for 6 to 9 percent, 

that is 6 to 9 percent of the total U.S. electrical supply. 

Today we have the opportunity to explore ways to increase the 

contribution from hydropower through unconventional water 

sources. Marine-based hydropower represents a significant source 

of unused energy. South Carolina has a coastline of nearly 200 

miles and considerable tidal resources around the Sea Islands. 

Technologies that can take advantage of the waves, currents, temperature differences and tides can turn our abundant coastal and 

tidal zones into energy generators. 

As we will hear from our witnesses, these technologies will face 

a number of challenges related to environmental conditions and 

competition with recreational and commercial activities. I am confident, though, that we can manage all these challenges to utilize 

this large potential energy source. Microhydro represents a great 

opportunity for distributed electricity generation in streams and 

rivers, irrigation canals and other bodies of water previously not 

considered powerful enough for power generation. Hydropower installations of 1 megawatt or less can be deployed across the country, easing the burden on our electrical grid and increasing the security of electricity users around the country. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the 

current state of these technologies, what we need to move forward 

and what role the government should play in removing barriers to 

development and installation. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Good morning and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a timely hearing, Mr. Chairman. This year, we have held hearings on 

solar, wind, and biomass energy sources. Hydropower contributes more renewable 

energy to the U.S. electrical grid than all of these other renewable sources, combined. Depending on rainfall and water storage, conventional hydropower accounts 

for 6–9% of the total U.S. electricity supply. Today we have the opportunity to explore ways to increase the contribution from hydropwer through unconventional 

water sources. 

Marine based hydropower represents a significant source of unused energy. South 

Carolina alone has a coastline of nearly 200 miles and considerable tidal resources 

around the Sea Islands. Technologies that can take advantage of the waves, currents, temperature differences, and tides can turn our abundant coastal and tidal 

zones into energy generators. As we’ll hear from our witnesses, these technologies 

will face a number of challenges related to environmental conditions and competition with recreational and commercial activities. I am confident that we can manage 

all of these challenges to utilize this large potential energy source. 

Microhydro represents a great opportunity for distributed electricity generation in 

streams and rivers, irrigation canals, and other bodies of water previously not considered powerful enough for power generation. Hydropower installations of I megawatt or less can be deployed across the country easing the burden on our electrical 

grid and increasing the security of electricity users across the country. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the current state 

of these technologies, what we need to move forward, and what role the government 

should play in removing barriers to development and installation. Thank you again, 

Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
11

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing to examine 

the future of marine and hydrokinetic energy technology (MHT) research and development (R&D) efforts. 

MHT may become an efficient source of renewable energy in the future, and many 

U.S. companies have expressed interest in researching and developing technologies 

to harness energy from major sources of water. However, MHT remains years away 

from being a commercial source of energy because of several barriers, such as regulations and high costs. 

I am interested in hearing from our witnesses what steps they believe are necessary to move these projects to the demonstration phase and if there is a greater 

burden from the current regulatory system or if the financial barriers to developing 

large-scale markets is overly restrictive. I would like to know how this Subcommittee can help overcome these burdens to move this research forward. 

Finally, several of our international partners, in particular South Korea and the 

United Kingdom, have made substantial investments and developed large-scale 

demonstration projects in MHT. I am interested in hearing how U.S. research efforts can work with their international partners to learn from these demonstration 

projects. 

I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. Thank 

you again, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Thank you for holding today’s hearing on marine and hydrokinetic technologies 

and finding a pathway for their commercialization. 

Today we have an opportunity to discuss what could potentially be one of our 

greatest untapped renewable energy resources, water. Where there is moving water, 

there is an enormous potential for power. 

The possibility of utilizing the hydrokinetic energy our Nation’s vast coastlines 

possess is more than promising. Estimates suggest that the amount of energy that 

could feasibly be captured from U.S. waves, tides and river currents is enough to 

power over 67 million homes. As we search to find viable and sustainable renewable 

energy technology, we must consider the great potential hydrokinetic technologies 

promise to yield. 

My state of Texas has a solid industrial base for design, fabrication and installation of marine structures. Texas also has a trained workforce of divers and undersea 

technicians that would be easily employable in a marine power industry for installation and maintenance of these power facilities. The Gulf Coast including the complete Texas coastline has a strong potential for development. My district, which encompasses Dallas, Texas certainly has industry that could help marine and 

hydrokinetic power move forward. 

Although we can not, at the present, move completely away from finite resources 

for fuel, we should begin to research and employ renewable technology. Additionally, 

we must make a thoughtful transition to clean renewable energy in a manner that 

would sustain the competitiveness of crucial energy intensive industries that not 

only provide our Country with jobs but also provide the world with products. As we 

choose which energy resources to develop we must carefully weigh all of their impacts. 

Today’s witnesses are of some of the top experts in the fields of Marine and 

Hydrokinetic Energy. They have provided much thought to this topic. I am keenly 

interested to hearing your opinions on how we can provide a cost-effective environmentally safe method to deploy these technologies. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome today’s witnesses. Thank you, and I yield back 

the balance of my time.

Chairman BAIRD. I thank you, Mr. Inglis. We have been joined 

by Dr. Ehlers and also by Mr. Smith from Nebraska. I am always 

glad to see someone from Nebraska here at a tidal energy thing. 

It shows that the concerns about global warming must be real if 

we are planning on tidal energy in Nebraska. We have got problems on our hands. But good to see you, Mr. Smith. Thank you. He 

is an excellent Member of this committee. I am glad to have him 

here. 
12

With this, we will hear from our witnesses. Mr. Jacques 

Beaudry-Losique is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable 

Energy at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

for the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. Roger Bedard is the Ocean 

Energy Leader for the Electric Power Research Institute. Mr. 

James Dehlsen is the Founder and Chairman of Ecomerit Technologies LLC. Ms. Gia Schneider is the Chief Executive Officer of 

Natel Energy. Did I skip somebody? Oh, okay. I am sorry. And we 

are hoping Mr. Inslee will be here to introduce Mr. Collar but I get 

the pleasant duty of doing that. From my home state, Mr. Craig 

Collar is the Senior Manager of Energy Resource Development for 

Snohomish County PUD, or Snopud, as they sometimes call it, but 

I think Snohomish PUD is a better deal. A beautiful county and 

great tidal resources there if we can figure out how to harness 

them. So we have an outstanding panel of witnesses, and as our 

witnesses know, you will have five minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the record for the 

hearing. When you have completed your spoken testimony, we will 

begin with questions. Each member of our panel will have five minutes to question witnesses. With that, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you again for being here. 

Mr. Beaudry-Losique. 

STATEMENTS OF JACQUES BEAUDRY-LOSIQUE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, OFFICE OF 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. BEAUDRY-LOSIQUE. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis 

and Subcommittee Members, it is a pleasure to testify this morning. Thank you for your leadership in bringing these important marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies to the attention of the 

American public. The Department of Energy shares your belief that 

these technologies have significant potential to contribute to the 

Nation’s future supply of clean, cost-effective renewable energy. 

Studies conducted by the University of Washington, Virginia 

Tech and the Electric Power Research Institute estimate approximately 400 terawatt-hours per year can be extracted from marine 

and hydrokinetic technologies in this country, excluding ocean thermal systems. This is enough electricity to power cleanly approximately 36 million average American homes. 

The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy allocated a substantial portion of its Congressional 

appropriations for water power toward the support of marine and 

hydrokinetics projects. In fiscal year 2008, $9.1 million supported 

14 marine and hydrokinetic projects. In fiscal year 2009, funding 

more than tripled to $31.3 million, which supported a total of 41 

separate projects. And in fiscal year 2010 we expect approximately 

$35 million to support marine and hydrokinetics projects. 

The Department provides needed research and development 

funding for the industry, which is still at a relatively early stage 

of development and includes many small firms. Only one commercial project is currently operating in the United States, a 100-kilowatt in-river turbine on the Mississippi River in Hastings, Minnesota. Therefore, much of the work the Department funds focuses 
13

on two major priorities: one, assessing the Nation’s resources, and 

two, determining baseline potential future costs of energy through 

analysis and testing of device performance and reliability, and the 

extent to which there are environmental impacts associated with 

these technologies. 

In order to monitor this developing industry, the Department recently created an online database for devices under development. 

This database provides detailed information about the testing and 

deployment of these technologies around the world, even though 

the majority of development is occurring in Europe, North America, 

Japan and South Korea. The database currently tracks 149 companies working on 123 devices, which demonstrates that no firm industry consensus exists as to which technology will perform most 

efficiently. In fact, technology selection is highly dependent upon 

regional factors. 

We segment the marine and hydrokinetic industry into three 

major categories: one, wave energy, two, currents such as ocean, 

tidal and river; and three, ocean thermal energy conversion, or 

OTEC. In the first case, the United States has experienced significant growth in the wave energy industry in the last decade and 

there are currently more than a dozen domestic companies and developers in existence. The size of the domestic resources encourage 

the development of this technology, particularly in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

Second, the Department is committed to working with industry 

to develop ocean, tidal and river current technologies. For example, 

the Department recently made awards to develop the first drive 

train uniquely designed for large ocean current design devices and 

for a pylon-based mooring system to increase efficiency of in-river 

turbines. The Department also funds a number of projects in one 

of the most promising areas in the country for development of tidal 

energy: the Puget Sound in Washington the State. For the past 

year, DOE and the Snohomish County Public Utility District have 

jointly funded an initial survey siting and permitting work necessary for the construction and installation of up to three turbines 

at a tidal energy pilot in the Admiralty Inlet west of Whidbey Island. 

Third, ocean thermal energy conversion systems use the ocean’s 

natural temperature to generate power. OTEC could produce significant amounts of alternative energy for tropical island communities that rely heavily on imported fuels. The Department is currently assessing OTEC lifecycle costs, testing and manufacturing 

methods for coldwater pipes, developing a national resource assessment, and evaluating specific environmental impacts associated 

with large water intake systems. 

Furthermore, to help achieve program objectives, the Department 

created and currently utilizes National Marine Renewable Energy 

Centers. The centers are public private partnerships with the goals 

of promoting research, development and deployment of marine energy technologies. In 2009, two centers were formally established, 

one at the University of Hawaii and the other as a partnership between the University of Washington and Oregon State University. 

The Department is pleased with the progress that has taken place 

at the centers since their recent inception. As an aside, next week 
14

1 Bedard, Roger. George Hagerman. Brian Polagye. Mirko Previsic. ‘‘Ocean Wave and InStream ‘‘Hydrokinetic’’ Energy Resources of the United States.’’ Forthcoming publication in 

HydroReview. 2009. 2Figures are based on the assumptions of an average coal plant with 500 MW of capacity, 

operating with a 90% capacity factor, and the average marine and hydrokinetic plant operating 

with a 30% capacity factor. 3 Nihous, Ge ́rard. ‘‘An Order-of-Magnitude Estimate of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Resources.’’ Journal of Energy Resources Technology. December 2005. Vol. 127. p 328; Nihous, 

Ge ́rard. ‘‘A Preliminary Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Resources.’’ Journal 

of Energy Resources Technology. March 2007. Vol. 129. p. 17. 4 Estimates are between 3,000,000–5,000,000 MW for global installed capacity. 

I will visit the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Sequim Marine Research Facilities, which work in partnership with the centers. 

Finally, to enable market development, the Department collaborates with the International Electrotechnical Commission to develop codes and standards for all three groups of emerging technologies, as well as with the International Energy Agency to create 

a worldwide database of environmental research and best monitoring practices for these technologies. 

Looking to the future, the Department is currently developing an 

industry roadmap. This effort will identify the various barriers that 

limit progress and highlight the technology developments, policies 

and other activities necessary to overcome these barriers. The first 

step is essential to ensure that marine and hydrokinetic power can 

become another significant resource to the Nation’s clean energy 

portfolio in the long term. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss these important issues, and I am looking forward 

to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beaudry-Losique follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEAUDRY-LOSIQUE

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, Members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Water Power Program and its activities related to marine and hydrokinetic 

energy generation technologies. 

The global marine and hydrokinetic industry consists of energy extraction technologies that utilize the motion of waves, the currents of tides, oceans, and rivers, 

and the thermal gradients present in equatorial oceans. The Department of Energy 

(DOE) believes that marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies have significant 

potential to contribute to the nation’s future supply of clean, cost-effective, renewable energy. In its March 2007 Assessment of Waterpower Potential and Development 

Needs, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conservatively indicated that 

marine and hydrokinetic power (exclusive of ocean thermal energy resources) could 

provide an additional 23,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity by 2025 and nearly 

100,000 MW by 2050. In a more recent 2009 study appearing in HydroReview, collaborating authors from the University of Washington, the Virginia Tech Advanced 

Research Institute, and EPRI refined earlier estimates to conclude that resources 

could conservatively yield a total of 51,000 MW of extractable energy.1 This estimate 

is the equivalent of 34 conventional coal-fired power plants.2 The Department is currently developing predictive cost and performance models to assess the near- and 

mid-term economic potential for developing these resources. 

According to recent industry studies,3 potential ocean thermal energy conversion 

(OTEC) resources may be even larger.4 However, it is necessary to note that preliminary estimates of extractable U.S. resources are just estimates of technical potential that do not equate to economically recoverable energy. There still remains 

an industry need for detailed, comprehensive resource assessments and validation 

of the costs for recovering this energy, which the Department is currently supporting through its programs. 

The marine and hydrokinetic energy industry is still at a relatively early stage 

of development with less than a half dozen small commercial projects installed 
15

5The database can be accessed at http://windandhydro.energy.gov/. 6 ‘‘Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Database.’’ Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program. (Online, 6/19/2009, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/hydrokinetic/default.aspx).

worldwide and only one operating in the U.S., a river hydrokinetic project in 

Hastings, Minnesota. Much of the work being funded through the Department is, 

therefore, focused on evaluating the size, location and specific characteristics of the 

Nation’s off-shore ocean and river energy resources, establishing baseline cost, performance and reliability data for a variety of devices, and assessing the environmental impacts associated with various technologies. 

As part of our comprehensive effort to evaluate marine and hydrokinetic energy, 

the Department also funds targeted, innovative research and development projects 

with industry partners and the National Laboratories to address the near-term technical challenges to device development and deployment, helping to generate reliable, 

validated performance data and identify key cost drivers and reduction opportunities. The Department leverages its extensive expertise in technology development to 

identify and fund research in areas where industry currently lacks either the capabilities or financial resources. 

Technology Overview 

In order to monitor this developing industry, the Department has recently created 

an online database for marine and hydrokinetic devices that provides detailed information about the different technologies and deployment activities occurring around 

the world. There are currently dozens of unique device designs, and no firm industry 

consensus as to which technologies will perform the most efficiently and effectively. 

The database can present a snapshot of projects in a given region, assess the 

progress of a certain technology type, or provide a comprehensive view of the entire 

marine and hydrokinetic energy industry.5 Based on information collected for this 

database, the following is an overview of the different types of marine and 

hydrokinetic technologies being developed around the world. 

Wave Energy Technologies 

Wave energy can be harvested from offshore, near shore, and shore-based environments through a number of engineering approaches. While there is currently no 

international consensus on nomenclature for wave energy devices, the Department 

is working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Electrotechnical Commission on standards to better define terminology. 

Major technology types are listed below.

• Attenuators: linear, jointed structures aligned parallel to the direction of the 

oncoming wave. Attenuators capture wave energy from the relative motion of 

their jointed parts as the wave passes along them.

• Point absorbers: floating structures that captures energy through mechanical 

motion as they rise and fall with the waves at or near the water surface.

• Oscillating wave surge converters: near shore designs that derive power from 

the back and forth movement of wave surge. These devices often function as 

pumps, using pistons to drive water through submerged or land based turbines.

• Oscillating water columns: channel waves into a partially submerged hollow 

chamber. The rise and fall of water within the structure pressurizes the 

chamber’s air column and forces air through a turbine at high velocities.

• Overtopping devices: a category of floating or shore-based structures that are 

partially submerged, and funnel waves over the top of the structure into an 

elevated reservoir. Water then runs out of the reservoir through a turbine.

• A variety of fully submerged devices are under development that capture energy from the pressure differential induced within a device from passing 

waves. Such pressure difference can be used to drive a fluid pump to create 

mechanical energy.

Wave energy currently represents the largest sector of the marine and 

hydrokinetic industry both nationally and globally. The U.S. has experienced significant growth in the number of wave technology developers in the last decade, and 

there are now more than a dozen operating throughout the country, with the majority developing point absorber technologies.6 However, the United Kingdom still 

leads countries in the total number of wave technology developers, as well as the 

number of technologies in the latter stages of development. To date, the U.K. is the 
16

only country in which a company’s commercialized wave technology has been sold 

to a publicly traded utility. 

Current-Based Energy Technologies 

Technologies designed to capture the energy from moving ocean, tidal, or river 

currents represent a smaller sector of the marine and hydrokinetic industry, but can 

be considered more mature relative to wave technologies due to the mechanical similarities hydrokinetic turbines share with wind turbines. One of the main technological differences between tidal current devices and those designed to capture energy from ocean or river currents is the need for tidal devices to be either bi-directional or change their orientation with the ebb and flow of the tides. Generally, current-based technologies can be divided into three categories: axial flow turbines, 

cross flow turbines, and reciprocating devices.

• Axial or horizontal axis turbines: typically consist of three or more blades 

mounted on a horizontal shaft to form a rotor that is oriented toward the direction of the flow. The kinetic motion of the water current creates lift on the 

blades causing the rotor to turn driving a mechanical generator. Axial flow 

turbines can also utilize a shroud to protect and accelerate water past the 

blades.

• Cross flow turbines: typically have two or three blades mounted along a 

vertical shaft to form a rotor. These devices can extract multi-directional 

flows without the need to orient to the direction of the flow. The kinetic motion of the water current creates lift on the blades causing the rotor to turn 

driving a mechanical generator. • Reciprocating devices: generate electricity through an oscillating motion 

caused by the lift and drag forces of the water stream (similar to the tail motion of a fish or marine mammal like a whale or dolphin). Mechanical energy 

from this oscillation feeds into a power conversion system.

Although the roots of the modern current technology sector can be found in the 

U.S., developers of current-based technologies in the U.K. were quick to develop and 

deploy axial flow turbines during the late 1990s and early 2000s to take advantage 

of the strong tidal flows located in U.K. waters. The first grid-connected axial flow 

turbine, known as ‘‘Seaflow,’’ was installed in May of 2003 on the North Devon 

Coast in the U.K. Most of the technology development in this sector is focused on 

axial flow turbines and is occurring in the U.K., U.S., Ireland, Canada, Norway, 

Australia and New Zealand. With the exception of two companies that are currently 

developing cross flow turbines, all development of current-based technology in the 

U.S. has focused on axial flow turbines. 

Ocean Thermal Energy Technologies 

Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) systems use the ocean’s natural thermal 

gradient to drive a power-producing cycle. Temperature differences between warm 

surface waters and colder deep waters need to differ by about 20 °C (36 °F) for 

OTEC devices to produce significant amounts of power. 

The technology’s lack of widespread development is due in part to high upfront 

capital costs, which has delayed the financing of a permanent, continuously operating OTEC plant. However, OTEC technologies could potentially produce significant amounts of alternative energy for tropical island communities that rely heavily 

on imported fuels. Most research and development to date has taken place in the 

U.S., Japan, Taiwan, and India. 

Tidal Energy Case Study: Puget Sound 

As one of the most promising areas in the country for the development of tidal 

energy, the Puget Sound in Washington State is currently home to a number of 

projects being funded by the Department. For the past year, the Department and 

the Snohomish County Public Utility District (SnoPUD) have jointly funded the initial survey, siting and permitting work necessary for the construction and installation of up to three turbines at a tidal energy pilot plant in the Admiralty Inlet, west 

of Whidbey Island. It was recently announced that the turbines will be designed and 

constructed by OpenHydro, a company specializing in shrouded, horizontal-axis turbines. SnoPUD will also be working with the Department and the Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory over the coming year to determine the types of aquatic species 

present in the Admiralty Inlet, and will further determine both baseline levels of 

background noise as well as the acoustic impacts that hydrokinetic turbines could 

have on these species. Finally, as part of an ongoing project between the Department and the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center to develop integrated instrumentation packages to collect environmental data, researchers at the 
17

University of Washington have deployed state-of-the-art equipment at the potential 

SnoPUD site to evaluate water quality, flow characteristics, substrate composition 

and sedimentation rates. 

Overview of the Water Power Program 

The primary objective of the Department’s marine and hydrokinetic energy activities is to evaluate the potential contribution that each of the aforementioned technologies can make to the nation’s energy supply, through the development of accurate resource assessments, performance profiles, and lifecycle costs. Once the potential of the various technologies is better understood, the Department can make more 

targeted strategic decisions about which portfolio of research and development 

projects to support, based on the most promising marine and hydrokinetic technologies. 

Resource Assessments 

The Department is currently funding five separate resource assessments to quantify potential technically extractable marine and hydrokinetic energy by resource 

type and location. These include assessments for wave, tidal, ocean current, river 

current, and ocean thermal energy potential. The data generated by these projects 

will help stakeholders assess the potential contribution to the U.S. renewable energy portfolio and prioritize the level of investment for each resource type. Two assessments (wave and tidal) are scheduled to be completed by the end of fiscal year 

2010. The other three assessments were only recently awarded in September 

through the Department’s competitive solicitation process and are thus still in the 

process of negotiating contracts for the data collection. The Department aims to 

have each of those three assessments completed within one calendar year of project 

initiation. 

Siting Issues and Environmental Impacts 

The Department is also working to understand the environmental and navigational impacts of marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies and to find ways to 

mitigate any adverse impacts. DOE is using this information to identify best siting 

practices for marine and hydrokinetic technologies and to create mitigation strategies to address these impacts. DOE is also working with other government organizations to develop best practices for ensuring the process of siting and permitting is 

effective and efficient. 

Under a cost-share contract with the Department’s Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and funds from certain BPA customer utilities and Washington State organizations, Golder Associates has been developing the ‘‘Integrated Decision Support 

System (IDSS)’’ for location, assessment, and optimization of in-stream tidal power 

development in Washington State. The IDSS is a computing platform to identify and 

analyze potential environmental, navigation, and fisheries issues and conflicts related to siting. The platform will be a multi-user, web-based geographic information 

system and tidal simulation model database, including power estimation tools. The 

IDSS is intended to provide siting decision-makers the information they need to 

make sound siting decisions. 

In addition, the Department conducts targeted research into the impacts of marine and hydrokinetic technologies on ocean habitats and individual wildlife populations, including fish and marine mammals. This research includes studies how different types of hydrokinetic turbines can harm or change the behavior of fish, investigates the impacts of extracting energy from an ocean system on sedimentation 

rates, and tests a limited range marine mammal acoustic-deterrent system at an 

open water location. 

Technology Performance and Cost Modeling 

To determine the economic feasibility of harnessing the Nation’s marine and 

hydrokinetic energy resources, the Department is supporting the development of numerical predictive cost and performance models as well as technology development 

projects in each area to generate real-life data to support and validate the models. 

Although certain marine and hydrokinetic energy devices have been developed 

and deployed as pilot-scale demonstration projects, very few have operated continually for significant periods of time. As a result, the efficiency, reliability, survivability, and cost of the various devices types are not well quantified. 

To validate, refine, and improve these models, the Department is also partnering 

with industry to develop and deploy individual marine and hydrokinetic devices that 

will generate the real-world data necessary to inform accurate analyses of device 

cost, performance, and environmental impacts. Partnering with industry will directly reduce the time required to develop projects, and will provide critical data on 

device performance and reliability. The Department’s efforts include support for in-
18

water testing and development projects, as well as work to design devices, sub-systems, and components. 

Specific industry-led technology design and development projects include:

• Siting studies and the design of a grid-connected test berth being developed 

by Pacific Gas & Electric Company for multiple wave energy devices;

• Construction and demonstration of an oscillating water column device (called 

the Ocean Wave Energy Converter) by Concepts ETI, Inc.;

• Development and installation of a tidal energy device in the Puget Sound by 

Snohomish County Public Utility District;

• Demonstration of advanced composite cold water pipes for ocean thermal energy conversion devices by Lockheed Martin;

• Design and testing of a 2.5 MW Aquantis Current Plane ocean current turbine, intended for eventual deployment off the coast of southeastern Florida, 

by Dehlsen Associates, LLC;

• Optimization, demonstration, and validation of an intermediate-scale wave 

buoy from Columbia Power Technologies, Inc. in preparation for a full-scale 

ocean deployment;

• Scale-up of a previously tested power-buoy from Ocean Power Technologies, 

which will increase the power extraction rate, increase survivability, and reduce operation and maintenance costs;

• A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Verdant Power to 

improve and refine the company’s tidal turbine rotor;

• Design and validation of an innovative floating support structure from Principal Power Inc. that combines wave and wind energy power take-off mechanisms to defray the mooring and installation costs associated with higher 

power output;

• Design and testing of an easily replicable, modifiable mooring system for fastwater tidal energy devices by Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC; and

• Design, testing, and deployment in the Mississippi River of a pylon-based 

mooring structure for in-river turbine current technology from Free Flow 

Power Corporation.

In addition to the above projects that are focused on developing specific devices 

and technologies, the Department also funds the development of models, tools, and 

materials that can be widely used by the entire industry to optimize performance, 

predict loads, minimize failures, and reduce costs. The Department also maintains 

a database of all U.S. facilities capable of conducting hydrodynamic testing of marine and hydrokinetic devices, and is developing a program to aid developers in testing and validating initial sub-scale device designs. 

Budget and Funding for Specific Technologies 

The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE) has allocated a substantial portion of its Congressional appropriation for 

Water Power toward the support of marine and hydrokinetic projects. In fiscal year 

2008, $9.05 million supported marine and hydrokinetic projects, while $31.3 million 

in fiscal year 2009 funding supported these projects. Some projects utilizing these 

funds are technology-specific while others are cross-cutting in nature. The Department plans to continue to provide financial support for marine and hydrokinetic 

projects as appropriate and according to Congressional appropriations and guidance. 

In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the Department awarded approximately $5.8 million to five separate projects focused specifically on wave energy development. These 

projects included a resource assessment, the design and siting of a grid-connected 

open-water device testing berth, engineering and testing an intermediate scale oscillating water column device, and two projects to build and test next generation point 

absorbing buoys. 

During the past two years, the Water Power Program awarded approximately $4.5 

million to six tidal energy-specific projects. These include a U.S. tidal energy resources assessment, the testing of new environmental monitoring equipment for 

tidal projects, surveys of aquatic species in the Admiralty Inlet, engineering design 

and construction approvals for a pilot tidal plant, and projects to design more efficient tidal turbine rotors and more reliable mooring systems. 

In the area of ocean-current energy, the Program awarded $1.9 million across 

three ocean-current-specific projects, including the development of the first drive-
19

train uniquely designed for large ocean current devices, a U.S. resource assessment, 

and the development of environmental survey methodologies for potential projects 

located off the southeast coast of Florida. 

For river-current technologies, the Program awarded approximately $1.3 million 

to two river-current-specific projects, including the development of a pylon-based 

mooring system designed to reduce device installation and maintenance times and 

increase efficiency, and a nationwide assessment of in-stream hydrokinetic resources. 

The Department awarded approximately $2.6 million in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal 

year 2009 to four projects focused on OTEC. These projects include a specific evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the water intake systems, the validation and testing of a new manufacturing method for OTEC cold-water pipes, a 

resource assessment, and an assessment of the lifecycle costs of OTEC devices. In 

August 2009, the Navy also announced that it would award over $8 million to Lockheed Martin for OTEC component and subsystem design and testing. That project 

will be able to build upon the research currently being conducted by DOE, and collaboration between our two agencies will continue to ensure that there are no duplicated efforts. 

The Department is developing lifecycle cost and performance profiles for different 

marine and hydrokinetic energy device classes, including wave, tidal, ocean current, 

in-stream hydrokinetic, and ocean thermal energy conversion. These profiles are informed by baseline representative commercial project development data from specific sites. The baseline cost of energy data will allow the Department to characterize and evaluate competing device classes and to identify the key drivers affecting 

the cost of marine and hydrokinetic energy. Verification of these data will also help 

the Department prioritize research and development efforts in a manner that assists 

and complements the industry’s efforts. 

National Marine Renewable Energy Centers 

One of the mechanisms for achieving Departmental objectives has been to create 

and utilize National Marine Renewable Energy Centers (NMRECs), where a wide 

variety of work can be conducted. In 2009, two NMRECs were formally established—one at the University of Hawaii, and another as a partnership between the 

University of Washington and Oregon State University (known as the Northwest 

NMREC). The Centers are public-private partnerships between the universities, private companies, non-profits and governmental organizations, all with the goals of 

promoting research, development and deployment of marine energy technologies. 

The work at the Northwest NMREC is primarily focused on wave and tidal research, with Oregon State focusing on wave technology applications and the University of Washington concentrating on tidal technology. Projects currently underway 

include:

• development of advanced wave forecasting technologies;

• creation of models used to optimize the placement and spacing of wave devices;

• site selection and design for an open water test berth for wave energy devices; 

and

• development of integrated instrumentation packages to collect environmental 

data.

Projects at the NMREC in Hawaii are focused on both wave and ocean thermal 

energy conversion technologies, and include:

• validation of wave forecasting models using real-time data;

• upgrades to wave tank facilities to accommodate device testing by developers;

• identification and testing of environmentally friendly material coatings; and

• modification of a submersible transport and recovery vessel able to deploy 

large instrumentation packages.

The Department is pleased with the progress that has taken place at the Centers 

over the short one year period since inception. During the past month, the programs 

at both Centers were critiqued by a panel of independent experts as part of an 

EERE-mandated peer review for all marine and hydrokinetic projects. Peer Reviews 

are rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation processes that use objective criteria 

and qualified, independent reviewers to evaluate the technical, scientific or business 

merit, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and projects. 

The results of the peer review for the Department’s marine and hydrokinetic technology program will be made publicly available within the next three months. 
20

7Prioritized Research, Development, Deployment and Demonstration (RDD&D) Needs: Marine 

and Other Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA 2008. www.epri.com/

oceamemergy/

Because of the significant research and development work occurring outside the 

U.S., establishing and maintaining collaborative efforts with the international community has also been extremely important. Currently, representatives for the Department are leading work on Annex IV of the International Energy Agency’s Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems. The goal of this international collaboration is to assess worldwide research on the environmental effects and monitoring efforts for ocean wave, tidal, and current energy systems and will result in 

a global, publicly-available database of information, studies and best monitoring 

practices. 

The need for international metrics to determine technology readiness levels and 

performance is also paramount, and so the Department is engaged with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) to facilitate the development of relevant 

industry standards, provide consistency and predictability to their development, and 

to better represent U.S. interests. The IEC is based out of Geneva, Switzerland and 

is actively supported by 76 member countries in its efforts to prepare and publish 

international standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies. Because of their technical expertise, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) were jointly selected to represent the Department on the U.S. Technical Advisory Group to the 

committee and to support the participation of key U.S. industry technical experts 

in the four relevant standards development working groups of the IEC. 

Strategic Program Planning 

Looking to the future, the Department is supporting the marine and hydrokinetic 

energy sector in developing a unified industry vision and roadmap. This effort will 

detail the various technical, non-technical and market barriers that limit progress 

and highlight the technology developments, policies, and other activities necessary 

to overcome such barriers. Based on industry consensus, NREL was selected to lead 

the project to develop this roadmap on behalf of the Department, with work scheduled for completion by the end of fiscal year 2010. 

The Department has also convened several workshops with members of the marine and hydrokinetic industry in order to better align the Department’s efforts with 

the needs of industry stakeholders before a formal roadmap is completed. The first 

of these meetings, hosted by the Department and EPRI, was held in October 2008, 

and the resulting report is publicly available at http://oceanenergy.epri.com/

oceanenergy.html#briefings.7

The development of a marine and hydrokinetic industry roadmap directly supports DOE’s ongoing internal efforts to develop a detailed Multi-Year Program Plan 

for the Water Power Program. All of the resource and technology characterization 

work currently underway is a crucial part in developing such a plan. As an industry 

roadmap is developed and ocean energy resources are accurately characterized, the 

program will be able to more efficiently prioritize future efforts, and tackle the barriers to technology development and deployment that it is best suited to address. 

The Multi-Year Program Plan for the Water Power Program is scheduled to be completed and made publicly available by May 2010. 

The Department currently coordinates and leads an ad hoc advisory committee to 

the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Partnerships (the Joint Subcommittee on 

Ocean Science and Technology) focused on marine and hydrokinetic issues, which 

includes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Navy, U.S. 

Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

DOE is providing support to the National Park Service in their development of 

a report titled, ‘‘Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technologies and Recreation: A 

Guide to Concepts and Methods,’’ which will focus on potential impacts to recreation 

from marine and hydrokinetic technologies, and suggest ways in which those impacts can be studied and mitigated. 

The Department is collaborating closely with NOAA to develop an integrated permitting process for OTEC demonstration projects, which DOE has authority over, 

and OTEC pilot projects, which are to be regulated by NOAA. The Navy is also very 

involved in this process, based on their high levels of technical knowledge and experience with OTEC research. 

The Department also participates in the West Coast Governors Association’s 

Ocean Energy Action team and worked with MMS to organize its 2008 Alternative 
21

Energy Workshop. Finally, the Program helps to shape the Department’s position 

on national marine spatial planning efforts currently underway at the Federal level, 

and continually works to ensure that there is due consideration of marine and 

hydrokinetic energy technologies in all discussions and decisions. 

As stated previously, the marine and hydrokinetic industry is at a relatively early 

stage of development and maturity when compared to other renewable energy technologies, but the Department believes this industry can play a substantial role in 

the portfolio of clean, cost-effective, domestic energy that our Nation is dedicated to 

developing. To this end, DOE is committed to evaluating the realistic potential of 

the various resources and energy generation technologies and focusing Departmental efforts in the most efficient and effective areas. DOE has made key investments in this nascent industry and will continue to do so. Furthermore, DOE is 

uniquely positioned to aid in the development of marine and hydrokinetic technologies through continued support and collaboration with industry stakeholders, 

international partners and other non-governmental organizations. Most importantly, 

DOE’s continued involvement will help speed the deployment of these technologies, 

just as the Department’s commitment to wind energy has helped that industry to 

rapidly develop in recent years. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss these 

important issues. I am happy to answer any questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JACQUES BEAUDRY-LOSIQUE

Jacques Beaudry-Losique was appointed in December 2008 as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). EERE works to strengthen 

the United States’ energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality in 

public-private partnerships. In this role, he oversees a portfolio of more than $750 

million of Renewable and Clean Energy programs, including wind, water power, 

solar, biomass, geothermal and fuel cell technologies. 

Previously, Mr. Beaudry-Losique served as the Program Manager of DOE’s Office 

of Biomass Program. Over two years, Mr. Beaudry-Losique built what is now recognized as the largest and most advanced biofuels deployment program in the world. 

He was instrumental in accelerating the Office of Biomass deployment activities to 

support Presidential and Congressional goals. Among numerous milestones, his office initiated major programs to launch a cellulosic biofuels industry, including an 

investment of up to $272 million in four major cellulosic ethanol projects in 2007 

and another investment of up to $240 million in nine 10% cellulosic biofuels demonstration projects in 2008. Jacques’ office also played a leadership role in helping 

industry address environmental sustainability issues and supply chain bottlenecks 

such as the ‘‘ethanol blend wall.’’

Mr. Beaudry-Losique initially joined the Department as the Program Manager of 

the Industrial Technologies Program in June 2005, serving in that capacity until reappointed to the Office of Biomass Program in December 2006. He brought to the 

Office extensive experience in executive management, business development and 

commercial negotiations. 

Prior to joining DOE, he worked in numerous senior management roles in the private sector. As the business development leader of General Electric Power Systems 

investment activities, he was responsible for the placement of equity investments 

into strategic energy technology companies. Prior to that, he held senior management roles with Aspen Technologies, a leading engineering and supply chain software company with strong ties to MIT. Mr. Beaudry-Losique also has many years 

of experience as a management consultant with McKinsey and Company. 

Mr. Beaudry-Losique holds a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering 

from the University of Montreal and a Master of Science degree in Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management from Stanford University. As a recipient of 

a Canadian Science Foundation Fellowship, he attended the MIT Sloan School of 

Management, where he received a master’s degree in management in 1992.
22

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you very much. 

Before we proceed to Mr. Bedard, I want to briefly note that our 

colleague, Representative Inslee from my home State of Washington, has joined us. Mr. Inslee has introduced legislation pertinent to this topic, and without objection, I would like to ask my colleagues that Mr. Inslee be allowed to join us on the dais. Hearing 

no objection, thank you for joining us, Mr. Inslee. 

With that, we will proceed to Mr. Bedard. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER BEDARD, OCEAN ENERGY LEADER, 

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE (EPRI) 

Mr. BEDARD. Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis and Members of the Committee, again, my name is Roger 

Bedard. I am the Ocean Energy Leader at the Electric Power Research Institute, a collaborative, nonprofit R&D organization. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to this Committee on 

marine and hydrokinetic, or MHK, technology, and the pathway to 

commercialization. 

In 2004, we initiated wave energy technical and economic feasibility studies. In 2006, we followed that up with tidal hydrokinetic 

feasibility studies, and in 2008 with river hydrokinetic studies in 

the State of Alaska. Our studies have resulted in a substantial momentum, nationwide momentum towards adding MHK technologies 

to our national portfolio of energy supply alternatives. One measure of this momentum is the number of preliminary permits filed 

to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by private 

investors that reference the EPRI studies. 

I will focus my comments today on four key points. First, the 

wave and tidal hydrokinetic energy resource available to generate 

electricity in the United States is significant. Second, the technology to convert these resources to electricity is emerging and 

ready for testing in the ocean. Third, wave and tidal hydrokinetic 

energy can be cost competitive with other renewable technologies 

in the future. And fourth, significant challenges remain to finding 

the pathway to commercialization of MHK technologies. 

Our studies indicate the total recoverable ocean wave and tidal 

energy resource could enable electricity generation on the order of 

about 10 percent of the present electricity consumption, and that 
23

turns out to be about 400 kilowatt-hours per year. The most significant of these resources is wave energy and the locations with the 

most economically viable wave energy resources are Hawaii and 

the Pacific Northwest. It is important to understand, though, that 

many factors may limit the use of this technology, including electrical transmission capabilities, environmental concerns and societal considerations. 

There are many technology companies at various stages of development. The development cycle for these technologies is typically 

five to ten years. While there are now many companies ready for 

prototype testing in the ocean, only a few have reached that stage 

of development. 

As wind technology was beginning to emerge into the commercial 

marketplace, the wholesale cost of electricity was in excess of 30 

cents per kilowatt-hour. That is in 2009 dollars with no government financial incentives. Technology improvements and learning 

through production has cut that cost to about seven cents per kilowatt-hour today. Our studies indicate that MHK technology will 

enter the marketplace at a lower entry cost than wind energy did 

and will progress down a similar learning curve. The key reason 

for that is the high power density of the MHK resource compared 

to, say, the wind or solar resources. 

On the other side of that coin is a challenge. The challenge for 

the industry is to develop cost-effective deployment and operational 

maintenance technology given the remoteness, and at times, hostility, of the operating environment. 

We believe that a robust electrical system in the future will have 

a diversified portfolio of energy supply alternatives. Our Nation has 

investigated all known electricity supply alternatives except for 

one: the ocean. Our oceans are a public resource accommodating 

multiple uses including marine life, fishing, shipping and recreation. Ocean energy could work in harmony with those other users 

and provide renewable energy for the overall good of our society. 

It will take a sustained evolutionary effort over the next 20 years 

to perfect MHK energy technology. We need to build the capability 

in this country to design, analyze, fabricate, test and deploy these 

emerging technologies. 

In the area of testing and test facilities, currently the U.S. marine energy industry is challenged by the lack of proper and standardized infrastructure to deploy devices in the ocean. We are starting to make progress. The Northwest National Marine Research 

Center, led by Oregon State University and University of Washington, will provide ocean energy conversion system test berths for 

developers to perform ocean testing. The Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (PG&E) is developing a pre-commercial demonstration 

test facility known as WaveConnect for full system testing of arrays or farms of these devices. 

Long-term and consistent government funding support through 

this high-risk research, development and demonstration period is 

essential for building a globally competitive commercial U.S. industry. The idea of harnessing the vast power of the earth’s oceans has 

fascinated and tantalized humans for centuries. Today we may be 

on the cusp of realizing these potential MHK technology options 
24

that we expect will prove tremendously valuable to our Nation in 

a carbon-constrained future. Thank you. 

[The statement of Bedard follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER BEDARD

Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Mr. Inglis and Members of the 

Committee 

I am Roger Bedard, Ocean Energy Leader for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a non-profit, collaborative R&D organization. EPRI has principal locations in Palo Alto, California, Charlotte, North Carolina, and Knoxville, Tennessee. 

EPRI appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to the Energy and Environment Subcommittee on the topic of ‘‘Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) Technologies; 

Finding the Pathway to Commercialization.’’

In 2004, EPRI initiated technical and economic feasibility studies of ocean wave 

energy. We followed these studies with tidal hydrokinetic studies in 2006 and river 

hydrokinetic studies in Alaska in 2008. These studies have resulted in a substantial 

nationwide momentum towards adding MHK technologies to our national portfolio 

of energy supply alternatives. One measure of this momentum is the large number 

of preliminary permit applications filed by industry with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the development of MHK power generation projects which 

reference the EPRI studies. 

I will focus my comments today on four key points:

• First, the wave and tidal hydrokinetic energy resource available to the U.S. 

which can be converted to electricity is significant;

• Second, the technology to convert those resources to electricity is emerging 

and is ready for testing in the ocean;

• Third, wave and tidal hydrokinetic energy can be cost competitive with other 

renewable technologies in the future; and

• Fourth, significant challenges remain to finding the pathway to commercialization of MHK energy technologies.

The key message that I hope you will take away from my testimony is that MHK 

energy is a renewable resource that we as a nation should seriously consider as an 

addition to our national portfolio of energy supply alternatives and that this consideration requires Government support and incentives as it has with other energy 

technologies in the past. 

Background 

The idea of harnessing the vast power of Earth’s oceans has fascinated and tantalized humans for centuries. Today, we may be on the cusp of realizing this potential 

and enabling that to happen in the U.S. is within your jurisdiction. 

Marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies is a term used by the U.S. Congress 

to describe the conversion of ocean wave potential and kinetic energy, in-stream 

tidal, open-ocean and river current kinetic energy, and ocean thermal energy conversion It excludes offshore marine wind kinetic energy, does not mention ocean salinity gradient energy and should not be confused with conventional hydropower using 

a dam, impoundment or diversionary structure. 

EPRI believes that a robust electricity system of the future will be a balanced and 

diversified portfolio of energy supply alternatives. Our nation has investigated many 

if not all known electricity supply alternatives (including space-based power; i.e., 

photovoltaic panels in orbit beaming power to large antennas on Earth) except for 

one; our oceans (with two exceptions, a large ocean thermal energy conversion program in the 1980s and a more modest open-ocean current program in the 1970s). 

Our oceans are a public resource held in trust and accommodating multiple users; 

fisherman make their living from the ocean, commercial shipping navigates the 

oceans to deliver goods, recreational boaters, surfers and those who just walk on the 

beach enjoy the ocean and whales and other living creatures make the ocean their 

home. Ocean energy could be one of those users working in harmony with other 

users and providing renewable energy for the overall good of our society.
25

Some of the Benefits of Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy 

The advantages of ocean energy are numerous. First and foremost is a potential 

for costs that are competitive or lower than that of other renewable technologies. 

EPRI studies indicate that the high power density (kW/m2 for currents and kW/m 

of wave crest length for wave) of the MHK resource results in smaller and stronger 

energy conversion machines lower in capital cost than for other renewable technologies. The remoteness and at times, hostility of the ocean environment, however, 

results in higher deployment, operation and maintenance cost, but on balance, the 

cost of electricity can be comparable or lower than that with other renewable technologies. Other benefits include: (1) providing a new, environmentally friendly, renewable energy source for meeting load growth and legislated Renewable Portfolio 

Standard requirements; (2) easily assimilated into the grid (because of the predictability of the resource), (3) easing transmission constraints (since a large percentage 

of our population lives near the coast) with minimal, if any, aesthetic concerns; (4) 

reducing dependence on imported energy supplies and increasing national energy 

security; (5) reducing the risk of future fossil fuel price volatility; (6) reducing emissions of greenhouse gases as compared to fossil fuel-based generation; and (7) stimulating local job creation and economic development by using an indigenous resource. 

Existing industries in the U.S. such as ship building are looking for opportunities 

to diversify, grow, and compete. These industries provide a trained workforce and 

institutional knowledge that will benefit ocean renewable energy technologies while 

helping to re-vitalize their own sectors. 

The economic opportunities are significant. A relatively minor investment today 

could stimulate a worldwide industry generating billions of dollars of economic output and employing thousands of people while using an abundant and clean natural 

resource. 

EPRI’s Experience 

EPRI’s ocean energy experience is with wave and in-stream tidal and river 

hydrokinetic energy. In 2004, we initiated system definition technical and economic 

feasibility studies of ocean wave energy. At that time, the DOE was only able to 

provide in-kind services support to the EPRI efforts from the wind technology program at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which had an off shore 

component addressing related technical, environmental and regulatory issues. 

Under the leadership of Dr. Robert Thresher, Director of the National Wind Technology Center, NREL has provided valuable in-kind services and we continue working together today. EPRI followed the 2004–2005 wave energy studies in 2006–2007 

with tidal in-stream studies and in 2008–2009 with river in-stream studies in Alaska (over 50 reports are available on our public website www.epri.com/oceanenergy/

). The EPRI studies have resulted in a substantial nationwide momentum. One 

measure of this momentum is the large number of preliminary permit applications 

filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by industry for the development of MHK power generation projects in the U.S. 

The Ocean Wave and In-Stream Tidal Currents, Open Ocean Currents and 

River Currents Hydrokinetic Energy Resource 

Available Ocean Wave Energy Resource 

EPRI has estimated the U.S. wave energy resource using decades of measurements by NOAA and Scripps data buoys. We estimate the available wave energy 
26

resource to be about 2,100 TWh/yr (for all state coastlines with an average annual 

wave power flux > 10 kW/m). This energy is divided regionally as follows:

The amount of that available wave energy that can be converted into electrical 

energy is not known given the uncertainties of societal, device spacing, conflicts of 

sea space and environmental limits. 

A preliminary estimate can be made by assuming absorption of 15% of the total 

available wave energy resource, a power train conversion efficiency of 90% and a 

plant availability of 90%. The electricity produced using this assumption is about 

255 TWh/yr or equal to an average annual power of about 30 GW. The rated power 

is about 90 GW given a typical capacity factor of 33%. This amount of energy is 

comparable to the total energy generation from all conventional hydro power, or 

about 6.5% of current U.S. electricity consumption. This is significant. 

Early wave plants must be built-out in phases with environmental monitoring and 

an adaptively managed process to larger size plants so that the cumulative effects 

of these larger plants stay within societal limits of acceptability 

EPRI, teamed with NREL and Virginia Tech, has received grant funding from the 

DOE to perform a rigorous evaluation of the nation’s available ocean wave energy 

resource and practical electrical energy generation potential. This work is scheduled 

for completion in 2010. 

Available In-Stream Tidal Currents Hydrokinetic Energy Resource 

Tidal in-stream hydrokinetic energy resources are not as well understood as wave 

energy resources. Economically viable hydrokinetic tidal energy sites typically occur 

in narrow passageways between oceans and large estuaries or bays. EPRI has studied many but not all potential U.S. tidal energy sites. The tidal energy resource at 

a single transect for those sites evaluated by EPRI to date is estimated at 115 TWh/

yr with 6 TWh/yr at sites in the continental U.S. and the remaining 109 TWh/yr 

in Alaska. Tidal hydrokinetic energy resources may be locally important resources 

for the following regions in the lower 48 states; Maine, New York, San Francisco 

and Washington’s Puget Sound.
27

The 115 TWh/yr estimate excludes sites with annual average power densities less 

than 1 kW/m2. If in-stream energy conversion device technology is economical at 

power densities less than 1 kW/m2, then the available resource in the lower 48 

states could be much larger. These estimates should be considered as the lower 

bound of the tidal hydrokinetic resource because not all the U.S. tidal sites with potential have been evaluated. 

The amount of the available tidal hydrokinetic energy resource that can be converted to electrical energy is not known given the uncertainties in societal, physical, 

ecological and environmental limits. We understand how to estimate the kinetic energy resource across a particular transect at a particular site, however, we have 

learned that this estimate is a poor predictor of both the maximum possible level 

of extraction for that site as well as the environmental impacts of extracting kinetic 

energy from that site. From a purely physical standpoint, depending on the limitations of seabed space within the high-velocity transects and the requirement to 

maintain adequate navigation clearance, the number of turbines that could be sited 

within a constrained channel is known given a maximum packing fraction for turbines. However, this could be limited to even lower levels of extraction by the ecological implications of changing the tidal regime by extracting kinetic energy from 

the flow. There is a self-limiting point at which it will not be economic to add additional turbines to an array since extraction reduces the available kinetic energy. It 

is unclear whether the available space, social and environmental pressures, or economics will pose the most stringent limits on resource extraction. 

Furthermore, our current understanding of how extracting hydrokinetic energy at 

one site would affect the availability of hydrokinetic energy at another site within 

the same estuary or bay is insufficient to perform a resource estimate for an entire 

bay system. 

A conservative assessment of the deployment potential can be made by assuming 

absorption of 15% of the total available tidal hydrokinetic resource at a single transect of a tidal passageway (serving as a conservative proxy for the limiting factors 

discussed above), a power train efficiency of 90%, and a plant availability of 90%. 

The electricity produced using this assumption for the sites studied by EPRI is 

about 14 TWh/yr. This corresponds to an average annual power of 1,600 MW and 

a rated power of about 4,800 MW given a typical capacity factor of 33%. These estimates should be considered as the lower bound of the tidal hydrokinetic resource 

because not all the U.S. tidal sites with potential have been evaluated. 

Georgia Tech has received grant funding from the DOE to perform an assessment 

of the energy production potential from tidal streams in the U.S. This work is scheduled for completion in 2010. 

Available In-Stream River Current Hydrokinetic Energy Resource and Practical InStream River Current Hydrokinetic Electrical Energy Potential 

A study carried out by New York University (NYU) graduate students in 1986, 

using a set of assumptions which were stated to be conservative, reported that about 

110 TWh/year (average power of 12,500 MW) could be extracted from rivers using 

in-stream hydrokinetic energy conversion and that the majority of the nation’s river 

hydrokinetic energy resource is in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Significant rivers in the continental U.S. are illustrated below 

System definition and feasibility studies performed by EPRI in 2008-2009 showed 

that river in-stream hydrokinetic energy may be a feasible resource option for remote village electrification. EPRI surveyed six sites shown in the figure below and 

performed system definition and techno-economic feasibility studies for the three 

sites shown in yellow. Two pilot projects (Yukon River at Eagle and Kvichak River 

at Iguigig) are now underway at remote villages in Alaska, one funded by the Denali 

Commission and the other funded by the State of Alaska Renewable Energy Fund.
28

EPRI, teamed with NREL and the Universities of Alaska at Anchorage and Fairbanks, was recently selected by the FY2009 DOE Waterpower program for negotiation leading to award to assess the nation’s river in-stream hydrokinetic resources 

and was also recently selected to perform desktop and laboratory flume studies that 

will produce information needed to determine the potential for injury and mortality 

of fish that encounter hydrokinetic turbines of various designs. Behavioral patterns 

will also be investigated to assess the potential for disruptions in the upstream and 

downstream movements of fish. 

Available Open Ocean Current Resource and Practical Ocean Current Electrical Energy Potential 

The primary open-ocean current resource available to the U.S. is located about 30 

km off the shores of Southern Florida. The total available resource is not known, 

however, both Aeroviroment in the 1970s and recently Florida Atlantic University 

have estimated a practically recoverable electrical energy of 50 TWh/yr and an average annual power of about 10 GW (a capacity factor of 57%). Other ocean currents 

are typically located too far from shore or are too slow in current speed to provide 

for practical or economical transmission of power to load centers.
29

Georgia Tech was recently selected by the FY2009 DOE Waterpower program for 

negotiation leading to award to assess the nation’s open-ocean hydrokinetic resources. 

Resource Summary 

Research by EPRI suggests that ocean wave and in-stream tidal hydrokinetic energy resource is location specific and that the total electrical energy production potential is equal to about 10% of the present U.S. electricity consumption (or about 

400 Twh/yr). The most significant of these resources is wave energy and the locations in the U.S. with the most economically viable wave energy resource are Hawaii, Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (as far south as Point Conception which is 

just north of Santa Barbara, California). 

While this preliminary assessment provides a good first order indication of the resource potential, it is important to understand that many factors, such as electrical 

transmission capabilities, economic viability, environmental concerns and socio-economic considerations may impose additional limits onto these resources that may 

substantially alter full development potential. Given the present technical, environmental and economic uncertainties, it is important to pursue all MHK resources in 

a sensible and strategic manner. 

Status of Ocean Wave and In-Stream Tidal, Open Ocean and River Current 

Energy Conversion Technology 

Ocean Wave Energy Conversion Technologies 

Today’s wave energy conversion technologies are the result of many years of testing, modeling and development by many developer organizations. Total capacity deployed to date is about 4 MW worldwide, and most of the devices are engineering 

prototypes. The first shore-based grid-connected wave power unit was a system built 

into the coastline of the Island of Islay in Scotland in 2000. In 2003, WaveDragon 

of Denmark was the first offshore grid-connected wave power unit and was deployed 

in a protected bay due to its subscale design. The following year (2004), Pelamis of 

the U.K. was the first full-scale, offshore, grid-connected wave power unit deployed 

in open seas at the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) in the U.K. Based on 

successful testing at EMEC, the first commercial sale of an offshore wave power 

plant was announced by Pelamis Wavepower in May 2005 and the first 2.25 MW 

of that plant was deployed off the coast of Portugal in 2008. Unfortunately, the primary project investor, Brown and Babcock, recently declared bankruptcy and the 

project is now on hold pending further investment capital. 

A number of demonstration projects are ongoing and planned in the U.K, Ireland, 

Spain, Portugal, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the United States. If these 

early demonstration projects prove successful, medium-size wave farms up to 30-50 

MW in capacity could be deployed within the next five to eight years.
30

(a) PowerBuoy, courtesy of Ocean Power Technology, (b) OWC, courtesy of 

OceanLinx (c) Pelamis, courtesy of Pelamis Wave Power, and (d) WaveDragon, courtesy of WaveDragon, 

Tidal In-Stream Energy Conversion Technologies 

Today’s tidal in-stream energy conversion technologies, much like wave energy 

technologies, are the result of many years of testing, modeling and development by 

many developer organizations. Total capacity deployed to date is about 3 MW worldwide, and most of the devices are engineering prototypes. The first grid-connected 

power units were built and installed in the U.K. and Norway. 

A number of demonstration projects are ongoing and planned in the U.K, Norway, 

Sweden, France, Italy Korea, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. The 

first commercial in-stream tidal power plant has yet to be realized.

(a) East River Roosevelt Island Tidal Project Axial Turbine courtesy Verdant 

Power, (b) Gorlov Vertical Turbine courtesy Lucid Energy and (c) Cross Flow Turbine courtesy Ocean Renewable Power Corp 

River In-Stream Energy Conversion Technologies 

Today’s river in-stream energy conversion technologies are scaled down versions 

of larger tidal water turbines. Unlike wind turbines where the cost has come down 

as the sizes get larger, river in-stream developers hope to achieve cost reductions 

through high volume production of small machines, typically constrained in size due 

to river depth limitations and navigation requirements. 

Two river in-stream turbines have been deployed in the U.S.; a 5 kW hydrokinetic 

turbine in the Yukon River in Alaska and a 40 kW hydrokinetic turbine deployed 

downstream of the hydro potential turbines at a conventional hydroelectric dam in 

Hastings, Minnesota. 

Open Ocean Current Energy Conversion Technologies 

Today’s open-ocean current energy conversion technologies are similar to tidal and 

river in-stream technologies but with the potential of being very large in size due 

to the depths of the ocean. The 1970s Coriolis water turbine design diameter was 

170 meters. 

The first commercial in-stream open-ocean power plant has yet to be realized. 

Energy Conversion Summary 

There are many technology developers with different conceptual MHK energy conversion devices and those devices are at various stages of development. The time 
31

period for a MHK technology to progress from a conceptual level to deployment of 

a long-term full-scale prototype tested in the ocean is typically on the order of 5 to 

10 years. The technology is still in its emerging stage; like where wind technology 

was approximately 15 to 20 years ago. It is too early to know which technology will 

turn out to be the most cost-effective, reliable, and environmentally sound, but it 

is likely that many different MHK technologies will play a role in our energy future. 

Of the many technology developers (greater than 50 each for wave and marine 

water turbine hydrokinetic machines), only a few dozen have progressed to rigorous 

subscale laboratory tow or wave-tank model testing. Only two dozen have advanced 

to short-term (days to months) subscale tests in the ocean. Even fewer have progressed to long-term (>1 year) testing of a full-scale prototype systems in the ocean. 

Pre commercial ‘‘pilot demonstration power plants’’ are needed to address critical 

concerns about reliability, maintainability, environmental issues and costs. 

Status of MHK Power Projects and their Economic Competitiveness 

Today, a large number of small companies, backed by government organizations, 

private industry, utilities, and venture capital, are leading the commercialization of 

technologies to generate electricity from ocean wave and tidal, river and open-ocean 

current resources. A small number of companies are leading the commercialization 

of ocean thermal gradient (and salinity gradient) energy technologies. 

Over two decades ago, wind technology was beginning its emergence into the commercial marketplace at a busbar cost of electricity (CoE) in excess of 20 cents/kWhr 

(in 2004$ with production credits and 5-year accelerated depreciation). The historical wind technology CoE as a function of cumulative production thru 40,000 MW 

of cumulative production capacity deployed through 2004 is shown in the figure 

below. Wind technology experienced an 82% learning curve (i.e., the cost has reduced by 18% for each doubling of cumulative installed capacity). Over 1,500 MW 

of wind has now been installed worldwide. EPRI studies performed in 2004/2005 

project indicate that wave energy will enter the market place at a lower entry cost 

than wind energy did and will progress down a learning curve that is similar to that 

of wind energy. The wave energy industry has the advantage of higher power densities compared to wind energy and therefore should have lower capital cost. The 

challenge to the wave energy industry will be to develop cost effective deployment 

and high reliability operation and maintenance technologies with low costs. Otherwise, the cost of deploying and operating these machines in a remote, and sometimes, hostile environment will outweigh the initial capital cost advantages and the 

CoE may not be competitive with other options. 

The CoE is now approximately 7 cents/kWhr (in 2009$ with no incentives) for an 

average 30% capacity factor wind plant. Today, MHK technology status can be compared to wind 15 to 20 years ago; close to starting its emergence as a commercial 

technology.

Government Support of Marine and Hydrokinetic Research, Development 

and Demonstration (RD&D) and Commercialization 

The European Union (UK, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Spain, 

and Portugal) is leading the development and commercialization of emerging marine 

and hydrokinetic energy technologies. Their support to accelerate this development 

includes:

• Supporting the technology developers with funding

• Funding subscale and full scale test facilities
32

• Establishing goals for commercialization

• Developing roadmaps that point out the pathways to meet these goals

• Providing financial incentives necessary to meet those goals

The Europeans have a 10 year head start on us in developing MHK technology. 

Other nations are also starting to engage in MHK energy. In Canada for example, 

EPRI performed in-stream tidal system definition and feasibility studies in the Bay 

of Fundy (Nova Scotia and New Brunswick). Our 2006 studies resulted in an immediate announcement by Nova Scotia Power for a multi million dollar tidal pilot demonstration project in the Minas Passage. This project is now funded at $70 million 

and the first of three large scale (1 MW class) machines has been deployed. Two 

other tidal machines as well as the submerged transmission cable will be deployed 

in 2010. 

In the U.S., DOE manages a Waterpower RD&D program which began in FY2008 at $10 million, increased to $40 million in FY2009 and to $50 million in FY2010. 

This DOE program is funding many projects, including some of the EPRI work already discussed, but I will limit my testimony to one managed by universities and 

two managed by utilities which address a critical need; the need to test this new 

technology. Currently, the U.S. marine energy industry is challenged by the lack of 

proper and standardized infrastructure to deploy and test wave energy conversion 

devices in the ocean. Testing of these new devices needs to be done at scales that 

vary from small scale devices in subscale test facilities, to full scale ocean testing 

of prototype machines and to demonstration testing of pilot power plants. We are 

starting to make progress and sustaining this progress with long-term and consistent support is essential for building a globally competitive U.S. industry. 

(1). The Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center (NNMREC) is a 

DOE-funded partnership between Oregon State University (OSU) the University of 

Washington (UW) and the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). The University 

partition of responsibilities is as follows:

• OSU is responsible for wave energy research and development.

• UW is responsible for in-stream tidal energy research and development.

• Both universities collaborate on research, education, outreach, and engagement.

The NNMREC at OSU will provide wave energy conversion system developers 

with test berths to perform ocean testing, demonstration and advancement of subscale and full-scale devices. The first phase ocean test berths will be ‘‘mobile’’, with 

future plans to include both mobile and grid connected capabilities. The mobile 

ocean test berths (MOTBs) will consist of a power analysis and data acquisition 

(PADA) device and an adjustable load bank to simulate the utility grid as illustrated 

below

(2) Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) WaveConnect—PG&E is the largest investor 

owned utility in the country and its service territory includes about 600 miles of 

high wave energy coastline. PG&E seeks to complete final design, stakeholder outreach and permitting of two 5 MW pilot ocean wave demonstration plants in this 

current phase of the project. The next phase of the project will include building an 

undersea electrical grid connection several miles offshore. This ‘‘offshore electrical 

cable and socket’’ will connect wave energy converters from multiple vendors to the 

PG&E electrical grid (similar to the U.K. Wave Hub funded by the UK government) 

and provide for testing and evaluation of the devices for commercial deployment. 
33

The current final design and permitting phase of the project is supported through 

PG&E ratepayer funding (80%) and by the DOE (20%). A greater level of Federal 

Government support may be needed once the project enters into the construction 

phase.

(3) Snohomish County Public Utility District No 1 (SnoPUD) Admiralty Inlet 

Tidal Power Demonstration Project—SnoPUD is located near Seattle, Washington, 

and is the second largest publicly-owned utility in the Pacific Northwest, and the 

twelfth largest in the United States in terms of customers served. The PUD has a 

rapidly growing service load and is required by the Washington State Renewable 

Portfolio Standard (RPS) to supply 15% of its load from new, renewable energy resources by 2020. As a result of these factors, approximately 140 MW of renewable 

energy resources needs to be added each year, on average, for the next twelve years. 

The PUD believes that tidal hydrokinetic energy from the Puget Sound estuary has 

the potential to contribute significantly toward meeting this challenge, but also believes in-water testing is required to address uncertainties in performance, cost and 

environmental effects. 

The PUD is partnering with OpenHydro of Ireland to conduct the deployment, 

demonstration and testing of tidal in-stream energy conversion technology in the 

Admiralty Inlet region of the Puget Sound. The PUD currently envisions a ?1 MW 

pilot plant consisting of two to three OpenHydro turbines. The PUD envisions plant 

construction beginning in 2011. This project is currently supported at less than 50% 

by the DOE and may need greater Federal funding in the construction phase.

Conclusions 

EPRI estimates the recoverable potential to provide electricity from ocean wave 

and in-stream tidal hydrokinetic resources to be about 10% of today’s electric consumption in the U.S. The technology to convert those resources to electricity, albeit 

in its infancy, is available today for prototype and pilot demonstration testing and 

evaluation. Initial studies suggest that given sufficient deployment scale, these technologies will be commercially competitive with other forms of renewable power generation. However, significant technical, economic, operational, environmental and 

regulatory barriers remain to be addressed in order to progress this emerging industry to commercial development. 

It is critical for the success of this industry to gain a full understanding of all 

life cycle-related issues over the coming years to pave the way for larger scale com-
34

mercial deployments. Such understanding can only be gained in a practical way 

from the deployment of prototype and pilot demonstration systems in the ocean. 

Currently, the U.S. marine energy industry is challenged by the lack of proper and 

standardized infrastructure to deploy and test wave energy conversion devices in 

the ocean. We are starting to make progress and sustaining this progress with longterm and consistent support is essential for building a globally competitive U.S. industry. 

Successful deployment of prototype and pilot demonstration systems will not only 

address technology and economic related issues, but will also provide confidence to 

regulators, the general public and investors. Both market push (RD&D) and market 

pull mechanisms (economic incentives to encourage deployment) will be required to 

successfully move this technology sector forward and develop the capacity to harness 

energy from the ocean. 

It is very unlikely that any of this early stage development will be funded by the 

private sector because the risk of failure is too high. When an ocean energy development company can test a prototype scale machine that shows promising performance, reliability and cost, then the private sector investors may be interested. Even 

at that point, the private sector will not want to assume all of the financial risk 

and exposure to fully fund the first demonstration projects, or the first commercial 

projects, so some sort of support for these early commercial projects will be essential 

to get the industry started. 

In retrospect, it is interesting to note that there are currently only two major U.S. 

companies selling large utility scale wind turbines in the United States, out of about 

a dozen that attempted to develop wind systems over the past 30 years. On the 

other hand, there are six major global companies now selling wind turbines in the 

United States, and several smaller foreign companies. Long term and consistent 

support through the high risk research and development period and though demonstration is essential for building a globally competitive U.S. MHK industry and 

commercializing it. It should also be noted that the Europeans already have a 10 

year head start on developing MHK technology. 

The eventual level of MHK power capacity in the U.S. will be strongly dependent 

on enabling actions and policies that support the development of the industry. 

The establishment of national MHK deployment and timeline goals and the research, development and demonstration pathways or roadmap to success will assist 

in fully developing this potential. The funding needed to implement the roadmap 

and achieve the goals will be a significant higher than current levels, but within 

historical percentages for government agencies and private industry. Given the long 

technology development and deployment lead times inherent in capital intensive industries like energy, investment and policy decisions cannot be delayed without risk 

of losing opportunities for technology options that we expect will prove tremendously 

valuable to our nation in a carbon-constrained future.

Thank You

Roger Bedard

EPRI Ocean Energy Leader

November 29, 2009
35

BIOGRAPHY FOR ROGER BEDARD
36

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. 

Mr. Dehlsen. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES G.P. DEHLSEN, FOUNDER AND 

CHAIRMAN, ECOMERIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 

Mr. DEHLSEN. Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member 

Mr. Inglis and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jim 

Dehlsen. 

My work has been in renewable energy technology since 1980, 

mainly focused on wind turbine design, manufacturing and helping 

to build the industry. The companies I formed and led are today 

America’s two wind turbine manufacturers of utility-scale power 

generation: the wind division of General Electric with roots going 

back to Zond Systems, which I established in 1980, and the second 

formed in 2001, Clipper Windpower. I can state from this experience that both of these turbine manufacturers would not exist 

today had it not been for the enlightened U.S. energy policy stemming back to the oil embargo in the 1970s. Since 1999 I have also 

been engaged in marine renewable energy and recently formed 

Ecomerit Technologies with my son Brent to advance electric power 

systems based on wave and ocean currents. My wife tells me I 

flunked retirement. 

I have been asked to address three items: advancing marine renewable energy as a separate program from hydropower, the expected time for marine energy to reach commercial readiness and 

large-scale deployment, and the DOE industry partnership in wind 

technology and implications for marine renewable energy. 

First, hydropower and hydrokinetic have little in common. The 

basis for establishing a marine hydrokinetic program separate from 

hydropower is based not only on major differences in requirements 

for offshore marine versus land-based system deployment and operation, but also on very different technical, financial and technology 

maturity characteristics. These two hydros have little in common. 

Advances in the new marine technology will be far more robust and 

will occur more quickly and with marine hydrokinetic programs 

apart from, and not under, the federal hydropower program. 

Second, the cost of energy and deployment. For a decade I have 

engaged in an effort to advance utility-scale power generation technology for both wave energy and ocean currents. Based on our engineering, we are targeting a cost of energy for both technologies in 

the range of 10 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2015, a level that 

should enable early commercialization, provided the U.S. government implements an effective program of incentives that supports 

marine renewables more tangibly and consistently than the federal 

support for wind energy. We are suspecting early systems to be 

megawatt sized. Therefore, meaningful rates of deployment, several 

thousand megawatts per year, should come in the 2015 to 2020 

time frame in line with a forecast potential of 23 gigawatts by 

2025, which was a recent estimate by the CORE. While this appears quite accelerated when compared to the history of wind, solar 

and other renewable energy technologies, it must also be viewed in 

light of the advanced know-how which is brought forward from marine engineering and shipbuilding, offshore oil, submersible vehicles, knowledge we now have on structural loads and control sys-
37

tems of wind turbines, the advanced numerical model design tools 

and fabrication know-how of large composite structures. This substantially reduces development costs and timelines. 

Furthermore, the urgency that is now upon us from climate 

change and energy security is driving development of marine renewable energy not just in America but Europe as well, now with 

several years’ lead, so we can expect a fast and competitive pace 

of technology advancement. 

Learning from wind power: The U.S. renewable energy experience shows that in a government-industry partnership, the fundamental factor for success is a sustained federal commitment in the 

face of change, such as global price fluctuations or shifting national 

priorities that come with each Administration or political appointee. Perhaps the hardest public policy lesson that has come out 

of the American wind effort has been the repeated crippling effect 

on the industry from discontinuity in government support. The 

United States was in a clear leading position in wind power in the 

early 1980s due to early support which gave birth to the industry. 

Government support ended later that decade in the United States 

and the wind industry virtually collapsed. A series of on-again, offagain programs followed. While the U.S. wind industry continued 

in a struggle for survival, strong European Union support stimulated rapid growth throughout the continent. Today the European 

companies enjoy the lion’s share of the industry, creating several 

hundred thousand jobs, generating upwards of $40 billion a year 

and growing at 20 percent plus annually. Now we are seeing massive support for wind energy in China, which has initiated 10 separate 10,000-megawatt regions representing $200 billion in industrial activity fully supported by the central government. 

While America had the foresight and made the investment to 

launch the wind industry, discontinuity in support has allowed 

other nations to capture a major share of the long-term industry 

and industry benefits. We must not let this happen with marine renewables. Government support should be implemented quickly and 

sufficiently to sustain this emerging industry until it reaches industrial scale. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Dehlsen follows:]

PPREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES G.P. DEHLSEON

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the role that the government can play in advancing marine-based renewable energy technologies to meet a significant part of the nation’s 

future electricity supply. 

I am Founder and Chairman of Ecomerit Technologies, which has a focus on developing reliable, competitively priced, utility-scale ocean current and wave-powered 

electricity generating systems. We are also actively developing and investing in 

other sustainability-related technologies. We are located in Carpinteria, California. 

Ecomerit Technologies represents my third entry in developing industrial-scale renewable energy technology. In 1980, I established Zond Systems, Inc., which pioneered wind power technologies leading to three generations of advanced wind turbines, and grew to become one of the largest global companies in wind turbine manufacturing, project development and plant operation. Acquisition of this technology 

and manufacturing formed the basis for GE’s entry into the wind energy industry 

in 2002. As of last year, GE had produced over 10,000 turbines with worldwide deployment. 

I also founded Clipper Windpower in 2001 with my son, Brent, and serve as 

Chairman of the Board. Clipper manufactures a new generation wind turbine, the 

2.5 MW Liberty -the largest turbine produced in the U.S. -which received the De-
38

partment of Energy’s 2007 Outstanding Research and Development Partnership 

Award for its contribution toward industry advancements. Clipper is now in development on a 10 MW offshore turbine -the world’s largest -planned for introduction 

in 2012/2013. In its lifetime, one of these 10 MW turbines will have the equivalent 

electricity generation of about 2 million barrels of oil. 

It is important to note that the breakthrough wind energy technologies developed 

by Zond and Clipper were made possible by DOE/NREL grant funding and technical 

support, and this support also accounts for a substantial part of the technological 

innovation that has led to the success of the present $40 billion per year global wind 

industry. 

Key Elements for Success in Marine Hydrokinetic Technology (MHK) 

Drawing on my three decades in developing and commercializing renewable energy technologies, it is clear to me that marine hydrokinetic power can now play 

a significant role in adding to our national energy security, our economic development, and meeting our environmental goals. However, as with wind and solar energy, it will take a serious, robust and sustained partnership between the federal 

government and technology developers in a number of areas, including:

• Technology advancement, verification and acceptance through support for research, development and deployment;

• Clear, timely, predictable, and workable regulatory framework for siting and 

permitting of marine renewable projects;

• Clear, timely, and predictable incentive regime structure that facilitates rapid 

advancement of technology deployment;

• Close federal agency coordination and benefiting from lessons learned here 

and abroad in both wind and hydrokinetic power technology development and 

deployment; and

• The development of standards and certifications to provide confidence to customers and the financial markets.

Marine Renewables Overview 

Today’s emerging marine renewables industry includes technologies with the potential to convert the power of wave, tidal and constant ocean currents into utilityscale electricity supply. 

The U.S. is blessed with abundant marine renewable resources on our extensive 

coastlines. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, the commercially 

available U.S. wave energy potential, alone, is roughly equal to 6.5% of the nation’s 

entire generating portfolio. That is approximately the amount of electricity being 

produced by all traditional hydroelectric dams in the U.S. Another example is the 

Gulf Stream, just 15 miles off the coast of Florida, which has a constant flow equal 

to 50 times all the rivers of the planet and presents an opportunity to adapt much 

of the mature technology developed for wind power to provide thousands of 

megawatts of clean baseload power to the eastern seaboard states. Clearly, marine 

renewable energy can play a significant role in expanding our homeland energy supply and the power needs of our marine-related military facilities around the world. 

Federal commitment to creating a robust U.S. marine renewables energy industry 

will advance our national economic goals by creating high-quality employment in 

coastal communities, long-term production in shipyards, development of fleets of 

vessels for deployment and servicing, and strengthening the thousands of businesses 

that make up the U.S. industrial supply chain. The establishment and nurturing of 

a U.S.-based marine renewable industry would secure our nation’s place in developing offshore renewable energy technologies thereby ensuring that the United 

States is an exporter, not an importer, of these technologies. 

Federal Support and Industry Partnership 

The formation and growth of a U.S.-based marine renewables industry is not a 

given. It is essential to understand that marine renewables face significant challenges before they can become a meaningful part of the nation’s power supply. These 

challenges include the current limited federal support, lack of adequate regulatory 

framework, and the need for closer government agency cooperation. 

At the same time, there is the opportunity for accelerated growth of a U.S. marine 

renewables industry by adopting the ‘‘lessons learned’’ and building on the successes 

of wind and solar development programs both in the U.S. and Europe. 

I strongly support the current action in Congress that would address these issues 

head-on and with a strong sense of urgency. Specifically, I support the pending ma-
39

rine and hydrokinetic program reauthorization which would establish the following 

program parameters:

$250 million/five-year authorization of:

• Research, Development, Demonstration & Deployment (RDD&D)/separate 

program line for water power

• Device verification

• Five-year accelerated depreciation

I believe that this program could have a comparable success and payback to the 

nation as experienced with U.S. programs in support of wind power and solar energy technologies. 

One of the key issues I would like to stress today is the need for a serious, sustained federal effort to develop, demonstrate, and deploy marine hydrokinetic technologies to economically help meet its needs for energy security and CO2 reduction 

and for gaining a global leadership position in the marine renewable energy sector 

and benefit from the major industrial opportunity that it presents. 

The federal technology programs, particularly those at DOE, have over their 30-

year history directly enabled the development and commercialization of new energy 

technologies such as geothermal, solar, biomass and wind. The Department’s management -political and career -and the technical experts at headquarters and the national laboratories, can take much of the credit for helping to create today’s global 

renewable industries. They closely collaborated with the emerging industry players 

to understand, and then mitigate risk; they requested the funds necessary to research, develop and demonstrate new technologies; they shared the pride when technology achieved commercial success and gritted through the setbacks along the way; 

and they promoted the new technologies, within the government, as well as with 

the nation’s utilities, and their consumers. They helped launch major industrial activity and large-scale renewable power generation. 

The U.S. renewable energy experiences shows that in a government/industry partnership, the most fundamental factor in success is a sustained federal commitment 

in the face of changing or uncontrollable events, such as global oil price fluctuations 

or shifting national priorities that come with each new administration or political 

appointee.

I share two examples:

In the 1990’s, the DOE/NREL support for wind energy technology development 

and verification was highly effective and led to much larger and more efficient turbines. During that time, my company, Zond, developed three generations of turbines, greatly aided by technical and grant support from DOE/NREL. This enabled 

Zond’s growth to a leading position in the industry, and eventually GE acquired the 

technology and manufacturing for its entry into wind energy. By 2008, GE had produced over 10,000 turbines, placing it among the top global wind turbine companies. 

The $32 million in DOE/NREL grant support has leveraged well in excess of $15 

billion in direct economic activity. 

In 2001, we launched Clipper Windpower to produce a new generation turbine 

based on advanced powertrain architecture and controls. In the same year, DOE/

NREL solicited wind turbine technology proposals, and with good fortune, Clipper 

was selected for a $9 million matching grant. This was followed by over $150 million 

in private equity funding for the 2.5 MW Liberty turbine, which we started manufacturing in 2006. Clipper now has 800 employees, and there are 375 turbines deployed in 17 projects across the U.S., totaling 938 MW of generating capacity. This 

success would not have been possible without the DOE/NREL’s assistance, from design to development, from demonstration to deployment, and yielding the ‘‘most advanced and efficient wind turbine in the industry’’ (DOE 2006 Report). Our DOE/

NREL partnership again resulted in significant new manufacturing activity, created 

jobs, added to the Federal and State tax base, and helped grow the U.S. renewable 

power industry. 

But there is the other side of the coin. Clipper Wind was also seeking to partner 

with DOE/NREL to develop offshore wind technology when the offshore wind program was suddenly terminated in 2006, significantly shifting the early offshore wind 

technology lead to Europe. With this, Clipper had to revert to overseas for support, 

where government incentive structures for technology development were robust and 

consistent. Today, we are engineering the 10 MW Offshore Wind Turbine in Blythe, 

England, where production is planned to start in 2013. 

The UK now leads the world in offshore operating wind turbine capacity, and the 

European Union has accelerated their offshore wind program, expected to exceed 
40

1 American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), ‘‘The Outlook on Renewable Energy in 

America, Volume II: Joint Summary Report’’, March 2007; ACORE: Hydropower Industry Outlook, presentation to ‘‘Renewable Energy in America: Phase II Market Forecasts and Policy Requirements,’’ November 29–30, 2006. 

$150 billion by 2020. They have set goals of 20% from renewable energy deployment 

in 2020, which now includes offshore wind, wave, and tidal currents. This is supported by robust technology development grants and energy pricing mechanisms. 

UK offshore renewable energy produces roughly double the revenue compared to 

U.S. energy pricing. 

China has installed its first offshore turbines, and its land-based turbine deployment is expected to be the highest for any nation by 2010 and beyond. 

Hydropower and Hydrokinetic Have Little in Common 

The basis for establishing a marine hydrokinetic program, separate from hydropower, is based not only on major differences in requirements for offshore/marine 

vs. land-based system deployment and operation, but also very different technical, 

financial, and technology maturity characteristics. Traditional hydropower technology has remained relatively static for decades. These two hydros have little in 

common. Advances in the new marine technology will be far more robust, and 

progress will occur more quickly with the marine hydrokinetic program apart from, 

and not subsumed under, the federal hydropower program. 

Technology Verification Program 

I firmly support the Congressional language that would establish a technology 

verification effort to increase marine-based power experience and to build and operate enough candidate devices to obtain statistically significant operating and maintenance data. The technology verification program for wave, tidal, and current energy systems is the bridge to commercial deployment of marine renewable energy 

devices. This program is modeled on DOE’s successful wind turbine verification program of the 1990’s, which lead to invaluable experience on siting, permitting and 

operations. In particular, the program significantly increased data collection to address the uncertainty regarding impacts of the then-emerging wind industry. A 

similar effort directed towards marine-based renewable energy technologies would 

also enhance DOE’s ability to effectively manage an increased level of funding in 

a timely manner and with clear results. 

Government Coordination 

DOE should also work closely with other federal agencies that have an interest 

in marine renewables, particularly with the Department of Defense, the Department 

of Commerce (NOAA), and those agencies that have regulatory authority and can 

provide incentives. 

Since 2002, DOD has provided funding for the development of marine renewable 

technologies. DOD facilities also offer a market for marine renewable products and 

services, particularly to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, which can be 

extraordinarily costly when supplied to DOD and remote bases. 

The lack of a clear, timely, and predictable regulatory regime deters not only private investors in the technology, but also testing and near-term deployment funding. 

Federal agencies with regulatory authority or concerns related to marine renewables 

should work together to streamline deployment of MHK projects. The recent announcement by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it has signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with nine federal agencies to streamline the 

siting of transmission lines provides an excellent model that should be applied to 

the marine renewable energy sector. Federal agencies should also coordinate with 

states that are either investing in this technology or will play a role in permitting 

and siting projects, including Maine, New York, Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. 

Cost of Energy and Deployment 

Since 1998, I have engaged in an effort to advance utility-scale power generation 

technology for both wave energy and ocean currents. Based on this engineering, we 

are targeting a cost of energy for both technologies in the range of $0.10 to $0.12/

kWh by 2015, a level that should enable commercialization, provided the U.S. government implements an effective program of incentives for research, development, 

and deployment, that supports marine renewables more tangibly and consistently 

than the federal support for wind energy. Meaningful rates of deployment (several 

gigawatts/year) should come in the 2015 2020 timeframe in line with the forecast 

potential of 23 GW by 2025.1
41

While this appears quite accelerated when compared to the history of wind, solar, 

and other renewable energy technologies, it must also be viewed in light of the advanced know-how, which is brought forward from marine engineering in shipbuilding, offshore oil, submersible vehicles, knowledge we now have of structural 

loads and control systems of wind turbines, the advanced numerical model design 

tools, and fabrication of large composite structures. This substantially reduces development costs and timeline. Furthermore, the urgency that is now upon us from climate change and energy security is driving development of marine renewable energy not just in America, but Europe as well. So we can expect a fast and competitive pace in technology advancement. 

Learning from Wind Power Policy 

The U.S. renewable energy experiences shows that in a government/industry partnership, the fundamental success factor is a sustained federal commitment in the 

face of changing or uncontrollable events, such as global oil price fluctuations or 

shifting national priorities that come with each new administration or political appointee. 

Perhaps the hardest public policy lesson that has come out of the American wind 

effort has been the repeated crippling effect, on the industry, from discontinuity in 

government support. The U.S. was in a clear leading position in wind power in the 

early 1980’s due to the U.S. government’s investment in renewable energy technologies, which started during the oil embargo in the 1970’s. By the mid-1980’s, government support ended and the U.S. wind industry virtually collapsed. A series of 

on again, off again programs followed. While the U.S. wind sector continued in its 

struggle for survival, strong European Union support stimulated rapid growth 

throughout the continent. Today, European companies enjoy the lion’s share of the 

industry and have created several hundred thousand jobs, with a global wind industry generating upwards of $40 billion per year and growing at 20% annually. We 

are now seeing massive support for wind energy in China, which has initiated ten 

10,000 megawatt regions representing$200 billion in industrial activity fully supported by the Central Government. 

While America had the foresight and made the investment to launch the wind industry, discontinuity in federal support has allowed other nations to capture a major 

share of the long-term industry/energy benefits. We must not let this happen with 

marine renewables; government policy should be implemented quickly and sufficiently to sustain this emerging industry until it reaches industrial scale. 

Summary 

In summary, marine renewables offer enormous potential to stimulate our economy, address our environmental issues, and to provide an indigenous source of 

clean, renewable energy. I urge the Subcommittee to support a serious and sustainable federal investment to stimulate the continued development and ultimate deployment of U.S.-based marine renewables at home and around the world. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and I am happy 

to take your questions.
42
43

BIOGRAPHY FOR JAMES G.P. DEHLSEN

James G.P. Dehlsen James G.P. Dehlsen, recognized as a pioneer and world leader in wind power and renewable energy, co-founded Clipper Windpower, Inc., in 

2001 where he serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Clipper developed the 

breakthrough 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbine. Manufacturing started in 2007 and in 

2008, 289 turbines were produced, representing 722 MW and 8% of the U.S. market. 

Clipper is in development on a 10 MW offshore turbine planned for testing in 2011. 

Mr. Dehlsen founded Zond Corporation in 1980 and served as its CEO and Chairman of the Board. Zond pioneered wind power technology, growing rapidly to become one of the largest global companies in wind turbine manufacturing, wind 

power project development and plant operation. With its acquisition by Enron Corporation in 2000, Mr. Dehlsen ended his Zond tenure. In 2002, General Electric purchased the wind business and technology for its entry into wind energy and is now 

a global leader in the industry. 

Recognition for his work in the wind industry includes the Lifetime Achievement 

Award by the American Wind Energy Association, and the Danish Medal of Honor 

conferred by His Royal Highness, Prince Henrik of Denmark. He was inducted into 

the Environmental Hall of Fame as a leading environmentalist and ‘‘Father of 

American Wind Energy.’’ Mr. Dehlsen has served as an advisor to the Department 

of Energy’s Wind Program, testified at the first U.S. Senate hearings on global 

warming, and has served as a delegate to the Conference on Climate Change in 

Kyoto, Japan. Mr. Dehlsen has eight patents and seven patents pending.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Collar. 
44

STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. COLLAR, P.E., SENIOR MANAGER 

FOR ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AT SNOHOMISH 

PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT 

Mr. COLLAR. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Inglis and Members of the Committee. Again, I am Craig 

Collar from Snohomish County Public Utility District. Snohomish 

PUD is of course located in Washington State just north of Seattle. 

We are the 12th largest public utility in the country and we certainly appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on this important topic today. 

As you are all aware, the marine energy industry really today is 

in its infancy, and as a result there is very little data available relative to the viability of marine energy moving forward. In our view, 

the best way to close that data gap is by the responsible deployment and close monitoring of commercial-scale turbines at appropriately selected sites. In fact, that is the very purpose and objective of our project in the Puget Sound. Our project is already recognized as one of the leading efforts in the country. We have an extremely strong project team. It includes the University of Washington, the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, 

EPRI, two national labs, and of course, the Department of Energy. 

In working with our partners, we have selected Admiralty Inlet as 

the most appropriate site for our project, and as you can see from 

the chart, Admiralty Inlet is the main entrance to Puget Sound, 

and it is important to note, it is a very large body of water. It is 

nearly three and a half miles across. 

In terms of tidal technology, we have selected OpenHydro as our 

partner for the project. OpenHydro is an Irish company. They have 

licensed tidal turbine technology that was developed here in the 

United States, and they are one of the few companies in the world 

to have already deployed and tested large-scale tidal energy devices 

and generated some data and learning from those. In fact, one was 

deployed last month in the Bay of Fundy up in Nova Scotia. The 

turbines utilized for our project will be very similar to those for 

that project and in fact are similar to the ones shown in the picture 

that you seen on the screen. I will also take this opportunity to 

note that the rotor on this turbine rotates at a very low speed, only 

in the range of 10 to 20 RPM. 

Now, we intend that our demonstration project will consist of two 

to three of these OpenHydro turbines connected to the electric grid. 

The project will overall be a very limited scale relative to the size 

of Admiralty Inlet. In fact, it represents less than five 100ths of a 

single percent of the cross-section of Admiralty Inlet. This figure 

shows to scale what a tidal turbine in a cross-section of Admiralty 

Inlet would look like. It is also important to note that Admiralty 

Inlet is the main shipping channel in and out of Puget Sound, so 

all commercial traffic, military traffic, naval traffic all goes through 

Admiralty Inlet. So by any standard and definition, Admiralty Inlet 

is a working waterway. 

Lastly, this figure depicts a bird’s eye view of two turbines to 

scale in Admiralty Inlet. It might be hard to make out but the two 

small black dots that black arrow is pointing to, that is how large 

these commercial-scale turbines would be in Admiralty Inlet. 
45

To date our project has been granted approximately $2.5 million 

in mostly federal funding and primarily from the Department of 

Energy. So the Department of Energy support both currently and 

ongoing will be absolutely critical to our project. 

With respect to environmental considerations, one of the benefits 

of working with OpenHydro is they have actual data from deployments of these devices elsewhere in the world, primarily in Europe, 

and in fact, their projects have been continuously videotaped since 

2006 and to date there are absolutely no interactions with fish or 

marine mammals and the turbines while the turbines are operating. 

In terms of permitting, we are utilizing the FERC pilot process 

for our permitting effort. This process was developed by FERC specifically to facilitate the licensing of small, short-term, removable 

and carefully monitored projects just like ours while reducing the 

baseline study burden, thereby facilitating getting these projects 

into the water so we can gather data. 

Over the past three years we have conducted nearly 100 formal 

project communications meetings with over 50 various and different stakeholder groups, importantly including of course tribal 

governments and resource agencies. Now, one of the key challenges 

that we face with resource agencies in particular is balancing the 

small size and scope of our project with the level of baseline information necessary to support permitting. It is clearly recognized 

that if those requirements are too burdensome, pilot projects like 

ours will never be able to advance into the water and progress in 

the United States will essentially be at a standstill. 

Now, we believe that some resource agencies perceive that their 

existing regulatory accountability really precludes their support of 

a pilot process-type approach. For instance, the National Marine 

Fisheres Service feels they have little latitude to accept anything 

less than very detailed and rigorous baseline studies in order to 

support their analysis. Well, in fact, we are conducting in the 

neighborhood of $1 million of pre-installation and baseline studies 

just for our small research and development project and to date 

National Marine Fisheries has been reluctant to state really with 

any certainty that even that will be sufficient. Because these studies represent a very significant cost in advance of any certainty of 

actually getting a license for the project, it is very easy to see how 

this could easily prevent even leading research and development 

projects like ours from moving forward. 

So in conclusion, it seems clear that so long as key resource 

agencies are not enabled to effectively balance the facilitation of renewable energy with their existing responsibilities, the advancement of renewable energy in this country is unlikely to progress at 

a pace sufficient to meet our energy and environmental challenges. 

Well, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I certainly would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. COLLAR, P.E. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you to provide testimony on this important topic. I am Craig Collar, Senior Manager of Energy Resource Development for 

the Snohomish County Public Utility District. Snohomish PUD is located in Wash-
46

ington State just north of Seattle and serves approximately 318,000 electric customers and nearly 20,000 water customers. Our service territory covers over 2,200 

square miles, including both Snohomish County and Camano Island. 

Introduction 

Snohomish PUD is the twelfth largest publically owned utility in the nation and 

is located on the shores of the Puget Sound estuary. We believe there is significant 

potential to generate clean, renewable, environmentally benign, and cost effective 

energy from tidal flows at selected sites in the Puget Sound, and that successful 

tidal energy demonstration in the Sound may enable significant commercial development in the Sound and elsewhere resulting in important benefits for both the northwest region and the country. In order to meet the demands of a growing service 

load, as well as a state renewable portfolio standard, Snohomish is conducting exceptionally aggressive conservation and energy efficiency programs. Additionally, in 

just the past few years, Snohomish PUD has acquired the highest percentage of 

wind energy of any utility in the Northwest and is actively pursuing geothermal energy as well as solar, biomass and other clean resources. We believe that tidal energy also has the potential to contribute significantly as part of a richly diversified 

clean energy portfolio, but that in-water testing is required to address associated 

uncertainties in performance, cost, and environmental effects. Snohomish has made 

significant progress towards the deployment of such an in-water testing program, 

but while many barriers to this research and development effort have been overcome, substantial challenges remain to the successful deployment of tidal energy 

technology in our region. 

The marine energy industry today remains in its infancy; even in the United 

Kingdom which has largely led the world in marine energy development and testing, 

marine energy projects are limited to a small handful of fairly recent efforts. As a 

result, little data relative to the technical, economic, and environmental viability of 

ocean energy generation has yet been established. Our view is that the most effective way to address this data gap is via the responsible deployment, testing and 

monitoring of utility-scale ocean energy devices at appropriately selected sites—this 

in fact is the objective of the Snohomish PUD Puget Sound Tidal Energy Demonstration Project. The data from this project will inform Snohomish PUD’s potential development of other sites in and around Puget Sound, as well as provide important information for other marine energy developers in the nation. 

Snohomish PUD Puget Sound Tidal Energy Demonstration Project 

The purpose of the Snohomish tidal project is to gather data by conducting the 

deployment, demonstration, and testing of tidal energy conversion technology in the 

Puget Sound. The project is recognized as one of the leading marine energy efforts 

in the country, has substantial support in the region, and has built an exceptionally 

strong project team. Snohomish PUD, in partnership with the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE), the University of Washington (UW), the Northwest National Marine 

Renewable Energy Center (NNMREC), and the Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI) has conducted a thorough evaluation of potential tidal energy sites in the 

Puget Sound, and has selected Admiralty Inlet (Figure 1) as the most appropriate 

location to establish a demonstration project.
47

Snohomish PUD and its partners have conducted an extensive suite of studies 

both to establish the suitability of the Admiralty Site for tidal energy generation, 

as well as to characterize important environmental characteristics of the site. To 

date these activities have included:

• Acoustic Doppler current profiling and tidal current modeling

• Detailed bathymetry measurements and geotechnical evaluation of the seabed

• Remotely operated vehicle videography of the seabed

• Water quality measurements

• Background acoustics measurements

• Multiple hydro-acoustic surveys to determine the presence, location, and 

abundance of fish and other marine life

• Passive acoustic monitoring to detect marine mammal echolocation/vocalization

• Passive monitoring for acoustically tagged fish and marine mammals

• Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW) observation, tracking, and behavior 

assessment

• Tidal energy conversion technology assessment and selection

• Preliminary plant design and grid interconnection study

• Navigation, fishing and social considerations

Snohomish PUD engaged with over 30 tidal energy technology developers worldwide as part of its assessment and selection program. This effort included visits 

with the leading technology developers in the U.S., Europe, and Canada, as well as 

to the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) in the Orkney Islands, Scotland. 
48

Following a detailed evaluation process Snohomish PUD selected OpenHydro as its 

technology partner for the demonstration plant. OpenHydro is an Irish energy technology company whose business is the design and manufacture of marine turbines 

for generating renewable energy from tidal currents. The OpenHydro turbine technology was developed in the United States in the early 1990’s and the rights were 

subsequently licensed by OpenHydro in 2004. During 2006 OpenHydro completed 

the installation of the first tidal turbine at EMEC. This installation, mounted on 

a surface piercing testing rig, is shown in Figure 2.

In May 2008 OpenHydro successfully completed the connection of the test structure to the electricity distribution network, making OpenHydro the first company 

to deliver tidal stream power to the UK national grid. Since that time OpenHydro 

has successfully deployed two additional turbines on completely submerged gravity 

bases; one at EMEC and one in November 2009 in the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia. 

The turbines utilized for the Puget Sound demonstration plant will also be deployed 

on completely submerged gravity foundations (as shown below in Figure 3) similar 

to those used for the EMEC and Bay of Fundy efforts.

Snohomish envisions that the demonstration plant will consist of one or two 

OpenHydro turbines as large as 16 meters in diameter located about 1 kilometer 

offshore in approximately 60 meters of water depth. Power would be transferred to 

the electric grid on Whidbey Island via a seabed cable. The cable deployment will 

utilize horizontal directional drilling so as to avoid disturbing nearshore habitats. 

No anchor placements, pilings, or surface-piercing structures would be involved with 

the turbine installations or cable. In fact, both the turbines and their foundations 

are specifically designed to be completely removable for scheduled maintenance or 

other needs. The project would be of very limited scale relative to Admiralty Inlet, 

representing less than 0.05% of the Inlet’s cross-section. The small scale and temporary nature of the project significantly diminish the likelihood of adverse environmental effects. Likewise, the water depth at the site and its location outside of the 

shipping channel mitigates navigational concerns. Figure 4 depicts a tidal turbine 

to scale in a cross-section of Admiralty Inlet.
49

The OpenHydro turbine consists of a horizontal axis rotor with a single moving 

part and power take-off through a direct drive, permanent magnet generator. It is 

principally comprised of the rotor and the stator; there is no requirement for a gearbox. The design incorporates several key features to avoid or minimize environmental risk:

• No requirement for oil/grease lubrication.

• Rotor blade tips are retained within the outer housing.

• Slow rotational speed.

• Ability for the rotor to be stopped quickly and remotely

• Cavitation prevented by design at specified deployment depth.

• Deployment method and gravity base design eliminate need for drilling or piling operations, as well as facilitate potential relocation and complete removal 

of both the foundation/base and the turbine.

To date, the Snohomish PUD project has been granted approximately $2.5 million 

in funding to support technical design and environmental study efforts. Funding has 

been provided by the Bonneville Power Administration, energy and water federal 

appropriations, and most substantially by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Advanced Water Power Projects program. Specifically, Snohomish PUD has received 

two separate grants from the DOE to support project design and environmental 

studies, and has developed partnerships with numerous entities to carry out this 

work. In addition to the previously mentioned UW, NNMREC, and EPRI partnerships, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory are also on the Snohomish team. 

Snohomish PUD is also collaborating with the U.S. Navy’s Puget Sound KHPS 

Project, which is being conducted with Verdant Power. The KHPS project plans for 

a test deployment of Verdant Power turbines for a period of approximately one year. 

The proposed Navy project is located approximately six miles south of the Snohomish PUD project location as shown in Figure 5 below. The Navy has chosen the 

southernmost of the two potential sites indicated for their project.
50

The KHPS project will be interconnected to facilities at Naval Magazine Indian 

Island and will consistent of 3–6 Verdant Power turbines as shown in Figure 6. Snohomish PUD and the Navy have conducted some joint studies to share and reduce 

overall costs, and we are actively working to share information and collaborate in 

developing project operations and monitoring plans.

In addition to the Snohomish and Navy projects, there is also consideration being 

given to the potential establishment of a National Tidal Energy Facility (NTEF) in 

the Puget Sound. This facility would utilize the infrastructure that will remain at 

the KHPS project after the Verdant turbines have been removed, and would provide 

a characterized, permitted site for test and demonstration of tidal energy systems. 
51

The NTEF would be device-independent and would provide consistent, comparable 

performance data for a range of tidal energy devices and systems. The NTEF would 

provide developers with a permitted test site so that their resources can be better 

focused on technology development and not on permitting actions. Because the Snohomish and KHPS projects will both be in progress prior to the potential development of the NTEF, the data (technical, environmental, social, etc.) generated by 

these earlier projects should inform the ultimate design, utility and viability of developing the NTEF in the Puget Sound. 

Outside the Puget Sound, Oregon State University (OSU), as a NNMREC partner, 

is working primarily to advance the wave energy industry. This includes improved 

wave energy forecasting for both offshore and near shore locations, device and array 

optimization methods and models, environmental effects evaluation, and the development of a mobile test berth for full scale wave device testing. Testing and evaluation will identify best practices for maintenance and quality control of wave energy 

systems and refine wave energy power measurements. The State of Oregon has invested significantly in wave energy including the formation of the Oregon Wave Energy Trust and designation of State capital funds to OSU as direct investment in 

the development of the NNMREC. 

Environmental Considerations and Studies 

While they are limited in scope, existing data and assessments regarding currently operating and proposed tidal projects are notable in that they document no 

substantial or unanticipated environmental risk. Scotland’s Orkney Islands (where 

EMEC and the OpenHydro turbine are located) represent a very ecologically diverse 

and productive marine ecosystem which is home to a number of fish and marine 

mammal species. Fish and shellfish species include: mackerel, herring, haddock, cod, 

monkfish, several flat fish species, lobster, crab, and scallops. Marine mammal species include: otters, seals, minke whale, harbor porpoise, white-sided dolphin, common dolphin, killer whale, and pilot whale. Leatherback turtles also regularly visit 

Scottish waters between August and November. Operation of the EMEC OpenHydro 

turbine installation has been continuously videotaped while in operation since 2006 

and to date no marine life incidents have been recorded. Review of the videotape 

data indicates that fish and marine mammals avoid and do not interact with the 

device while it is rotating, but as might be expected some fish species do aggregate 

downstream of the turbine at tidal current velocities too low for the turbine to rotate 

(Figure 7).

During periods of tidal current velocity energetic enough to turn the turbine’s 

rotor the fish have been observed to leave the area rather than expend energy to 

maintain position against the flow of the tidal currents. It is also important to note 

that the flow dynamics of the turbine are such that the device will not ‘‘entrain’’ 

fish in any conventional hydropower turbine sense, but rather fish or other objects 

in the tidal flow would be drawn through the center opening or around the outside 

of the device. The previously noted OpenHydro installation in the Bay of Fundy was 

recently evaluated in a comprehensive Environmental Assessment report to Canadian federal and provincial governments; the likely effects of the project were found 

to be limited in scope and duration. While these and similar assessments do not by 

themselves document a lack of environmental effects for the Admiralty Inlet Pilot 

Project, Snohomish PUD believes they provide important context that must be considered in developing study plans and environmental analyses. Admiralty Inlet supports or includes designated critical habitat for eight ESA-listed species managed 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service (and two managed by the US Fish and 
52

Wildlife Service) and supports a wealth of unlisted marine resources as well. As is 

the case for the entirety of Puget Sound, Admiralty Inlet is designated as Essential 

Fish Habitat for a number of species and includes several Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. It is important to note that Admiralty Inlet also includes a major 

shipping lane utilized by essentially all commercial and military traffic in and out 

of Puget Sound, substantial shoreline development, and a busy ferry route operating 

directly to the south of the project site. 

Snohomish PUD is conducting environmental analyses by assessing potential 

mechanisms of effect for the species known or believed to occur in the project area 

based on existing information and a suite of pre-installation studies. Snohomish is 

also developing a significant monitoring effort to determine if unacceptable impacts 

occur or are likely to occur. An approach focused on monitoring enables direct evaluation of the primary unanswered question of how marine life will interact with the 

turbines. The NNMREC has been a key partner in the design and execution of 

project pre-installation studies conducted so far. An instrumentation platform designed by the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory to facilitate the 

study of tidal sites is shown in Figure 8. This platform is currently deployed on the 

seabed at the project site and has already delivered important information during 

the several months that it has been in service.

Because there is not yet any subsea cable run to the deployment site, the platform 

must be retrieved and redeployed approximately every three months to download 

collected data and replace batteries. While pre-installation studies have essentially 

been completely developed and are underway, development of studies intended to 

monitor the project once it is operating continues. Potential project effects identified 

by Snohomish include modifying local habitat by adding new structure, blade strike 

or collision and similar ‘‘near field’’ effects, altered behavior patterns of some marine 

mammals or fish, modification of the acoustic or hydrodynamic environment, and 

the accumulation of derelict fishing gear. The goal of Snohomish’s proposed monitoring efforts is to detect and describe in detail the potential for interactions between the project and marine species. 

The specific objectives of Snohomish’s proposed monitoring efforts are:

• Assess near-turbine presence and distribution of marine species;

• Assess near-turbine fish behavior;

• Identify near-turbine species composition;

• Evaluate the Project’s acoustic signature;

• Evaluate the Project’s effects on hydrodynamics; and

• Monitor and remove derelict gear.

• Evaluate potential effects of construction, decommissioning, or maintenance 

on aquatic species and water quality.

To address these objectives, Snohomish proposes to pursue the following monitoring efforts:

• Near-turbine monitoring and identification of aquatic species;

• Acoustic monitoring;

• Hydrodynamic effects monitoring;

• Derelict gear monitoring and removal; and

• Construction monitoring.
53

Snohomish believes the methods described below represent the best current practices for evaluating presence, distribution, and behavior of mobile marine species. 

At the same time, both hydrokinetic and hydroacoustic technologies are evolving at 

a rapid pace that makes it likely there will be significant technological advances and 

new information regarding hydrokinetic turbines during the course of pre-installation licensing efforts for the project. As a result, there is an expectation that 

changes will occur over time and will be addressed through an adaptive management program. 

Numerous technical hurdles will need to be considered and addressed as part of 

the successful implementation of the monitoring plan. Chief among these are a complex of questions related to selection, placement, deployment, and retrieval of monitoring gear. For example, many of the sonar transducers and cameras envisioned 

in the monitoring plan will require periodic maintenance, whether scheduled (e.g., 

lens cleaning) or unscheduled (e.g., flooded casings). Servicing this equipment likely 

will require bringing it to the surface, which presents substantial challenges related 

to physical and electrical connections with data and power cables, subsequent redeployment of the gear, correct orientation and calibration of redeployed equipment, 

and similar issues. Snohomish will pursue a continuing dialogue with technology 

providers as to potential methods of addressing and testing each of these issues; 

however it is important to note that no method to address these challenges is currently identified, which may substantially affect Snohomish’s monitoring abilities 

and technology decisions. 

Snohomish believes that many of the technical issues described above, as well as 

data interpretation associated with the monitoring effort, will warrant review and 

discussion by a technical working group. This group would oversee and evaluate results of pre-installation and monitoring studies. These results would be used in combination with an understanding of the ecosystem and information from other relevant sources to make adjustments to study methods as appropriate, and to manage 

aspects of the project operation in a manner that avoids or minimizes unexpected 

or undesirable impacts on resources. The adaptive management process allows for 

immediate action where necessary to address a critical adverse effect of the project 

should any occur. Snohomish envisions this as a consensus-based group that would 

include representatives from federal and state resource agencies, tribal governments, and other appropriate stakeholders. It would administer key topics related 

to the project, including:

• Consideration of results from pre-installation studies and monitoring efforts 

and subsequent adjustments to study methods as appropriate.

• Development of monitoring thresholds for inclusion in Project license conditioning.

• Evaluation or initiation of potential mitigation or impact avoidance measures.

Snohomish believes that the environmental monitoring plan represents a critical 

and particularly challenging element of the overall project. Close collaboration with 

tribes, agencies, and other stakeholders; technical support from NNMREC and the 

Pacific Northwest National Lab; and the ongoing and strong support from the DOE’s 

Advanced Water Power Projects program will all be important to the success of the 

effort. 

Permitting Process, Consultation and Outreach 

Snohomish PUD is utilizing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

Hydrokinetic Pilot Plant Licensing Process (Pilot Process) for the Admiralty Inlet 

project. The Pilot Process was proposed by FERC in late 2007 specifically to facilitate the licensing of small (rated capacity of less than 5 megawatts), short-term, removable, and carefully-monitored projects intended to test marine energy technologies, sites, or both. FERC recognized that there are a number of barriers to realizing the potential of these new technologies but that the primary barrier may be 

that they are as yet unproven, and that more data was necessary prior to any large 

scale commercial deployments. The purpose of the Pilot Process is to provide a 

means of testing new technology, including interconnection with the electric grid. 

The process aims to minimize both the up-front baseline study burden and the risk 

of adverse environmental effects by requiring a rigorous project operations monitoring effort, as well as project shutdown and removal if significant adverse environmental effects occur and cannot be mitigated. 

Snohomish was issued a preliminary permit from FERC for the Admiralty Inlet 

site on March 9, 2007, though as early as July of 2006 Snohomish had informed 

key stakeholders (tribes, state agencies, federal agencies, NGO’s, communities, etc.) 

of its intention to pursue tidal energy exploration in the Puget Sound. An initial 

project meeting was held with numerous stakeholders (tribes, state agencies, federal 
54

agencies, NGOs) on February 23, 2007 to formally introduce the project, answer 

questions, and discuss the consultation approach going forward. During the approximately two and one-half years since this initial meeting Snohomish has conducted 

nearly 90 formal project communication meetings with various stakeholders. These 

have included formal consultation meetings, community town hall meetings, conference presentations, NGO meetings, and more. Groups who have been engaged 

through these efforts have included:

• Washington Department of Ecology

• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Washington Department of Natural Resources

• Washington Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance

• Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development

• Washington State Attorney General’s Office

• Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council

• U.S. Department of Energy

• U.S. Navy Region Northwest

• Naval Station Everett

• Naval Magazine Indian Island

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

• National Marine Fisheries Service

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. National Park Service

• U.S. Coast Guard

• Puget Sound Pilots

• American Waterways Operators

• Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee

• Washington State Ferries

• Federal Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel

• Puget Sound Partnership

• Tulalip Tribes of Washington

• Suquamish Tribe

• Skagit River System Cooperative

• Pacific Northwest National Laboratories

• The National Renewable Energy Lab

• The University of Washington

• Washington State University Energy Extension

• Seattle Pacific University

• People for Puget Sound

• The Orca Network

• The Whale Museum

• The Sea Mammal Research Unit

• Beam Reach Marine Science and Sustainability School

• Northwest Straits Conservation Alliance

• Fort Casey State Park

• Ebey’s Landing National Historic Preserve

• Puget Sound Anglers

• Regional county Marine Resources Committees

• Regional city councils

• Numerous local community and service groups

As indicated by this level of engagement, Snohomish considers stakeholder outreach and consultation to be a critical element of project success, and believes that 

these efforts have been invaluable in keeping stakeholders informed and in maintaining open lines of communication for feedback and dialogue. Additionally and 

where practical, Snohomish has collaborated with regional stakeholders and marine 
55

experts to design and carry out certain studies. As one example, Beam Reach Marine Science and Sustainability School, the Whale Museum, and the Orca Network, 

all strong regional stewards for killer whales in Puget Sound, worked with Snohomish to design the project’s Marine Mammal Study Plan and are currently conducting the study in partnership with the Sea Mammal Research Unit. The Sea 

Mammal Research Unit is associated with the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, and is currently engaged with efforts to study sea mammal interactions with 

tidal turbines at projects in the UK. 

As required by FERC, Snohomish submitted a pre-application document (PAD) for 

the project in January 2008. The information provided in the PAD is intended to 

enable stakeholders interested in participating in the licensing process to become familiar with the project before any formal licensing procedure is initiated and assists 

these participants in identifying potential resource issues. The Snohomish PAD consisted of over 600 pages of information related to the project and project site and 

drew upon more than 700 different information sources to compile. As part of the 

PAD development effort, Snohomish reached out to 20 Indian tribes and organizations, 11 federal agencies, 9 state agencies, 13 Washington ports, 9 counties, 5 municipalities, and 49 non-governmental organizations representing environmental, 

recreation, and business interests. 

With respect to formal permitting requirements, the following is a list of the potential regulatory authorizations, licenses, permits, or regulatory approvals that 

may ultimately be required prior to constructing and operating a hydrokinetic 

project within Washington State waters:

• License from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

• Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Washington Department of Ecology.

• Marine Mammal Protection Act incidental take permit from the National Marine Fisheries Service.

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance through ESA Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

• Essential Fish Habitat Program review from the National Marine Fisheries 

Service pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

• National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance through consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, as well as the 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of any affected federally recognized Indian tribe.

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

• Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

• U.S. Coast Guard review for navigation impacts under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.

• Water right for a non-consumptive appropriation of waters of the State.

• Hydraulic Project Approval from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

• Aquatic land lease from Washington Department of Natural Resources.

• National Marine Sanctuary permit (for projects located in National Marine 

Sanctuaries—will not apply to Admiralty Inlet).

• Minerals Management Services (MMS) lease or right-of-way for projects located on the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). If a portion of the project 

is located outside of waters of Washington State (or Oregon State) on the federal OCS, then authorization from the MMS may be required. (Will not apply 

to Puget Sound)

• Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Certification from Washington Department of Ecology. Under Washington’s CZMA program, activities 

that require federal approval and affect any land use, water use or natural 

resource of the State’s coastal zone must comply with the enforceable policies 

within the six laws identified in the CZMA program document. The six laws 

are:

Æ the Shoreline Management Act (including local government shoreline master programs);
56

Æ the State Environmental Policy Act;

Æ the Clean Water Act;

Æ the Clean Air Act;

Æ the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council; and

Æ the Ocean Resource Management Act.

A key challenge faced by Snohomish and project stakeholders, particularly resource agencies, is balancing the small size and scope of the Admiralty Inlet Pilot 

Project with the level of baseline information necessary to evaluate the project and 

satisfy permitting requirements. As noted earlier, the FERC Pilot Process minimizes 

the baseline study burden so as to facilitate the deployment and rigorous testing of 

these new technologies, thereby generating the data necessary to fill existing information gaps. FERC and others recognized that if baseline information requirements 

are too burdensome, pilot projects will never advance into the water and progress 

in the U.S. will be at a standstill. We agree with the position of FERC that any 

incremental additional risk represented by the Pilot Process approach is more than 

adequately contained by the stringent safeguards within the Pilot Process license, 

i.e. the license only applies to small, temporary, closely monitored facilities which 

are required to be shut down and/or removed if significant adverse environmental 

effects occur and cannot be mitigated. 

Some resource agencies, however, perceive that their existing regulatory accountability precludes their full support of the FERC Pilot Process. For example, we understand that National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) generally supports the appropriate development of hydrokinetic projects in United States waters. Nonetheless, given the presence of endangered salmon and killer whales in Puget Sound, 

NMFS feels that they have little latitude to accept anything less than extremely detailed and rigorous studies in order to support their environmental analysis. While 

Snohomish has conducted or committed to approximately $1 million in pre-installation and baseline studies (the data from which will add to the already very substantial body of environmental information available for the Admiralty Inlet site) for the 

pilot project, NMFS is reluctant to state with any certainty that this baseline information is sufficient. Given that these studies necessarily incur significant cost prior 

to any certainty of actually receiving a plant license, it is not difficult to see how 

the study burden could easily prevent even small research and development projects 

like the proposed Admiralty Inlet effort from going forward. It seems clear that so 

long as key resource agencies are not enabled to effectively balance the proactive 

facilitation of renewable energy efforts with their existing responsibilities, the 

progress of renewable energy in the U.S. will advance at a pace unlikely to meaningfully address our country’s energy and environmental challenges. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this 

important topic. I would be happy to answer any questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CRAIG W. COLLAR, P.E. 

Mr. Collar has 25 years of operations and program/project leadership experience 

spanning a variety of technical and general management assignments. Mr. Collar 

has been accountable for all business results (safety, quality, energy/environmental, 

production, cost, asset management, capital projects, human resource development) 

for several major manufacturing departments (up to $60 million annual operating 

budget) including the leadership of groups of up to 170 team members in the production of a variety of consumer products. Mr. Collar also has multi-year experience 

leading the overall operation and maintenance of a 50 MW cogeneration facility as 

well as that for a naval submarine nuclear propulsion plant. 

Experience

• Senior Manager-Energy Resource Development, Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1, Everett, WA. (2006–Present).

• Engineering and Operations Management, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 

Fullerton, CA & Everett, WA. (1990–2006).

• Nuclear Submarine Officer, U.S. Navy, San Diego, CA (1985–1990).

Education and Certification

• Master of Business Administration, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
57

• Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.

• EAN/Six Sigma and Strategic Organizational Leadership Certificates,

Villanova University, Villanova. PA.

• Global Management Certificate, Thunderbird—The Garvin School of 

International Management, Glendale, AZ.

• Utility Executive Leadership Certificate, Willamette University, Salem, 

OR.

• U.S. Naval Officer Nuclear Power Training, Orlando, FL and Idaho Falls, 

ID (a one-year graduate level program).

• Registered Professional Mechanical Engineer.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. 

Ms. Schneider. 

STATEMENT OF GIA D. SCHNEIDER, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, 

NATEL ENERGY, INC. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Thanks very much, Chairman Baird, Ranking 

Member Inglis and members of the committee. 

I am founder and CEO of a company called Natel Energy and we 

are commercializing a new low-head hydropower technology that 

has the potential to cut the turbine plus generator costs of developing low-head projects by as much as 50 percent, and at the same 

time, we look to enable safe downstream fish passage. 

Low head is a term of art used in the hydropower industry to 

generally reference the amount of drop that you have available to 

generate energy at any particular site, and when we say low head, 

our particular focus is on sites that have greater than five feet but 

less than 20 feet of drop. The reason why we feel this is a really 

interesting place to focus is that there is actually quite a large 

amount of potential in low head in this country. According to a 

DOE study that was done back in 2004 that categorized separately 

low-head versus high-head potential in the country, there are about 

71 gigawatts of remaining undeveloped low-head potential in this 

country, and in comparison, that represents less than two percent 

of the total that has been developed. There are about 73 gigawatts 

total, and about 71 remain to be developed. That study actually did 

not even quantify an additional important source of low-head hydropower that exists within our existing manmade structure like 

irrigation districts, conduits and canals. There are thousands of 

miles of these existing canals, primarily in the western United 

States. These canals all have thousands of existing drop structures. 

Those drop structures were built specifically to dissipate energy to 

help make sure that the water velocities in those canals remained 

within the operating constraints of the canals. That is the place 

where we could actually, in a pretty straightforward fashion, if we 

had effective technology, retrofit those sites to capture energy and 

bring that energy onto the grid. 

The technical challenge is that, you know, the amount of power 

than you can generate at any given site is defined by the amount 

of head and the amount of flow. And the particular technical challenge that has prevented the development of low head in this country so far is that the technology that exists today is just very expensive. When you get down to heads that are less than 20 feet, 

the design constraints mean that using conventional technology 
58

just becomes way too expensive to develop these sites and so that 

is where we focus most of our innovation. 

There also are environmental concerns that have to be addressed, and just because you have a site that has a small amount 

of power output or is low head in nature does not necessarily mean 

that that these sites are low impact, so therefore, responsible siting 

is absolutely a factor. This is actually where we think manmade 

conduits and canals could play a really interesting role going forward because in a lot of those settings you could incur very minimal incremental environmental impact to develop those sites. 

Many of those low existing drops are close to roads, close to transmission lines, doesn’t require getting major new transmission infrastructure to be able to bring this power online. 

When you move out of existing canals and move into streams, 

your environmental issues absolutely do go up. So when we look at 

the 40,000 existing low dams in this country, most of which also 

don’t produce power, we have to start to look much more closely at 

environmental issues with respect to fish passage and water flow 

level fluctuations. This is also an area where development of monitoring technology and tools and R&D support into quantifying the 

environmental impact of putting low-head hydropower on these existing structures would be very valuable. Beyond that, when you 

start to look at putting multiple installations in series, multiple 

low-head installations in series looking at multiple low-head dams 

on a particular river or stream, the combined impact of those installations also has to be evaluated, and that is another very important area for focus for environmental impact study and research. 

So what are some of the ways to catalyze innovation in this 

space? Well, we actually have received DOE phase I SBIR grants 

in the latest stimulus bill funding round and we will use that to 

focus on optimizing blade design in our turbines going forward. 

This kind of support is absolutely critical. The technology that we 

are developing is actually coming in at an entry cost point that is 

pretty cost-competitive already. Right now we look at about eight 

cents a kilowatt-hour, so we are already, you know, well within the 

range of where we can start to actually develop sites today. At the 

same time, we think we can get that down to about five cents a 

kilowatt-hour. And further support from the DOE, further grant 

support to look at R&D specifically into components to make this 

technology and technology such as ours most cost-effective would 

be greatly used. 

I think the bigger barrier is actually coming on the environmental side. In the conduit and in manmade canal systems area, 

the challenges are a lot less from the environmental side and the 

environmental impacts are ones in which, as least certainly as we 

are finding talking to irrigation districts, we can start to get a handle on a lot of that. But as we look to move into streams, the studies that need to be done to effectively go through the licensing process to make sure that sites are chosen responsibly and to provide 

the data that is necessary in the licensing process becomes a lot 

more great, the burden becomes much greater. And so this is an 

area where we think additional funding through the DOE or 

through other programs that could focus on helping to collect 
59

standardized environmental impact assessment data and make 

that data available would be very useful. 

Finally, as private companies such as ourselves and other companies in this space, in the hydrokinetic and also in marine technology space as well, a lot of us are spending a fair amount of our 

own dollars doing a lot of these kinds of environmental assessments and so some form of incentive in the form of perhaps a tax 

credit could be very useful. It would help us. We are going to go 

forward. We have—we make the business cases through our investors to invest in this technology as they look forward to the role 

that these kinds of technologies could play in addressing our clean 

energy future. We are gathering private support, but at the same 

time, if we could recoup some sort of return or some sort of offset 

for that investment that we are making on our own, that would be 

helpful in itself. 

In summary, a little bit different from the focus from the rest of 

the panelz: Our focus is specifically to talk about low-head potential. We believe low-head hydropower is actually the low-hanging 

fruit, one of the true low-hanging fruit renewable energy opportunities in this country where we can bring, distribute renewable baseload power online relatively quickly. Thanks very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schneider follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GIA D. SCHNEIDER

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and members of the 

Committee and Subcommittee. My name is Gia Schneider and I am a co-founder 

and the chairman and CEO of Natel Energy, Inc. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to share Natel Energy’s story with the Committee, and to discuss the roles 

of the federal government and private industry in developing technologies suitable 

for low head hydropower energy generation. 

Natel Energy Background 

Natel Energy, Inc. is a California and Texas-based company that is commercializing a new hydropower technology called the Linear Hydroengine or SLH, which 

could cut the cost of low-head turbines by as much as 50%. Our mission is to maximize the use of existing water infrastructure in the U.S. to bring on-line cost-effective, distributed, baseload, renewable energy from low head hydropower sources 

with minimal negative environmental impacts. Indeed, in certain cases, we believe 

the potential exists to implement projects that both deliver renewable energy and 

create positive environmental co-benefits. For example, we are evaluating the potential to incorporate renewable energy into low dams in the Midwest whose primary 

purpose is to create wetlands that trap nutrient pollutants which are a primary 

cause of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. If we can successfully incorporate low 

head hydropower generation into some of these projects, we could create an additional revenue source for Midwest farmers, bring new renewable energy onto the 

grid, and reduce nutrient pollution. 

A patent on Natel Energy’s core technology was recently approved by the U.S. 

Patent Office under application number 11/695,358. Natel’s technology can be packaged into both low head and hydrokinetic configurations. We have chosen to focus 

on the low head market for several reasons. First, the economics of low head settings tend to be more favorable than hydrokinetic ones simply because the energy 

density is greater where a site has even a small amount of head. Second, there are 

numerous settings in the U.S. where existing low head infrastructure could be retrofitted to capture energy that is currently wasted. These opportunities include low 

drops and diversion dams in irrigation canals, water treatment plant outfalls and 

the approximately 40,000 existing dams less than 25 feet tall in the U.S., the majority of which do not produce power. Many of these sites with existing infrastructure 

are relatively close to roads and transmission lines; and would incur minimal additional environmental impact by virtue of being developed. 

In-line with our focus on low head potential in existing infrastructure, our first 

pilot commercial project is with an irrigation district called the Buckeye Water Con-
60

1GWa is the annual mean power which is a measure of the magnitude of a water energy resource’s potential power producing capability equal to the statistical mean of the rate at which 

energy is produced over the course of 1 year. GWa can be converted to GW of installed capacity 

by dividing by the capacity factor, which on average is 50% for the U.S. hydropower resource. 

See DOE study DOE/ID–11111 titled ‘‘Water Energy Resources of the United States with Emphasis on Low Head/Low Power Resources’’ for further details. 

servation and Drainage District in Arizona. The project is near the town of Buckeye, 

which is west of Phoenix, Arizona. We entered into a joint development agreement 

with the irrigation district in 2008, and filed for a FERC Exemption from Licensing 

in early 2009. The project received the FERC Exemption in September 2009; and 

installation has commenced this week. We hope to be online and generating electricity next month in January 2010. 

We have had discussions with more than 10 other irrigation districts and several 

municipal water treatment facilities with promising sites totaling over 100 MW of 

potential capacity. We are in the process of working with them to evaluate their 

sites to identify those with the best overall economics. I will discuss the potential 

we see for low head hydropower development in this space in the next section, but 

suffice it to say that we believe that 100 MW is just the start—there are over 800 

irrigation districts in the U.S. 

Natel Energy has been funded to-date by its founders, and by several committed 

seed investors. We are in the process of raising a Series B round of funding, which 

we hope to close in the first quarter of 2010. In addition, we are proud to have recently been awarded an ARRA Phase 1 SBIR grant from the Department of Energy. 

Natel Energy is an early-stage company that has its roots in my family’s, in particular my father Dan Schneider’s long-standing vision of environmentally friendly 

hydropower playing a significant role in mitigating the impacts of climate change 

while securing our nation’s future energy needs. My father first thought of the SLH 

concept in the first energy crisis in the 1970’s and was able to build early, small 

prototypes that showed promising efficiency results when tested in laboratory settings; a hydraulic efficiency of 80% was demonstrated at tests conducted at the University of California, Davis hydraulics laboratory in 1979. He then went on to build 

larger units, using those early alpha designs, and install them in field settings. The 

longest running alpha field unit ran for approximately 2 years. While the results 

from those early efforts were promising, the economic rationale to invest in further 

development disappeared when the energy crisis ended, and my father wound down 

his efforts in the early 1980’s. 

My brother, Abe, and I grew up tinkering with the early prototypes and that 

planted a seed which would later grow. Both of us went on to college at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I was a chemical engineering major, but decided 

to work in the energy space after school, working for Accenture in their energy practice, then Constellation Power, and then helping start the energy and carbon trading businesses at the investment bank Credit Suisse. My brother received both a 

bachelors and a masters degree in mechanical engineering from MIT and went on 

to establish himself in product design and development, with both large firms like 

Timken, where he worked in Advanced Product Development; and small, innovative 

startups such as the Google-funded high altitude wind company, Makani Power. 

Several years ago, in 2005, my father, Abe and I decided that our current energy 

crisis was here to stay, and that we wanted to put our respective talents to work 

to help solve America’s clean energy challenge and that led to the start of Natel Energy. We, and the entire Natel team, feel blessed to work in a field which gives each 

of us great personal satisfaction and are committed to the cause of delivering new, 

clean energy technologies to America. 

Low Head Hydropower Potential, Technology Challenges and Costs 

The potential for new low head hydropower development in the U.S. is quite substantial. The last study done by the Department of Energy that made a clear distinction between low head and high head potential was completed in 2004 and estimated the total developable low head resource at 71 GWa.1

The potential is significant, and yet less than 2 GWa of low head hydropower has 

been developed in the U.S. to date. In addition, none of the DOE’s analysis includes 

the low head potential that exists in the thousands of non-stream low head flows, 

such as low irrigation drop structures. Natel estimates that there is between 1 and 

5 GW of low head potential that could be harnessed at low, irrigation drop structures. Many of these structures are built specifically to dissipate energy to keep 

water velocities within the structural requirements of the irrigation canals.
61

Before delving further, I would like to lay out several terms commonly used, but 

not necessarily with common definitions, in hydropower. Hydropower is most commonly described in several ways as follows:

• Power generation potential—large, small, micro

Æ Large generally refers to projects greater than 30 MW in size, though 

sometimes the lower end is stretched down to 10 MW

Æ Small generally refers to projects anywhere between 100 kW and 10MW, 

though sometimes the upper end is stretched to 30 MW

Æ Micro generally refers to projects less than 100 kW in size

• Head available—high, medium, low, hydrokinetic

Æ High head generally refers to projects with large dams that are over 500 

feet tall

Æ Medium head generally refers to projects with between 30 and several 

hundred feet of drop

Æ Low head generally refers to projects with less than 20 feet of drop, 

though some definitions move the low head upper limit to 30 feet

Æ Hydrokinetic generally refers to projects where there is no head, and instead the energy is generated solely from the velocity of the water flow. 

This is analogous to the way wind turbines operate.

• Type of technology—conventional, unconventional

Æ Conventional technology generally comes in two types—impulse and reaction turbines. Some common names of impulse turbines are Pelton and 

Crossflow; common names of reaction turbines are Kaplan, Francis, propeller, bulb, and pit.

Æ Unconventional technology is a catchall bucket for a number of new turbine designs primarily aimed at hydrokinetic, marine and low head settings.

This creates a confusing landscape of terms, as they are not mutually exclusive. 

However, this can be somewhat simplified by remembering that for all sites, hydropower generation potential is defined by two variables—head and flow. Sites with 

either large flows or high head will generally create substantial amounts of power. 

Sites with both low head and low flows will generate small amounts of power. The 

below diagram illustrates the range of potential power across a hypothetical low 

head sites with 10 and 20 feet of head and varying amounts of flow. The photos 

illustrate the kinds of low head sites that would generally fall into the flow ranges 

described.
62

2 2004 DOE Report: http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/03-11111.pdf, 2006 

DOE Report: http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/mainlreportlappendixlal

final.pdf 

Some additional low head sites are shown below for further reference.

Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation District Drop Structure; 100 cfs; 10 feet head; 200 

kW potential

Gila Gravity Canal Headworks; 2,200 cfs max flow; 14 feet head; 2.4 to 5.9 MW 

potential 

U.S. Low Head Hydropower Potential 

As mentioned above, the potential for low head hydropower in the U.S. is significant. There is no one data source that details all aspects of the low head hydropower 

potential, but there are several good sources of data. The U.S. Department of Energy has conducted several studies of the hydropower potential in the U.S. with the 

most recent studies in 2004 and 2006.2 The 2004 report specifically identified low 

head potential separately from high head; but does not appear to capture low head 

potential in man-made channels such as irrigation districts. The 2006 report 
63

3 Virtual Hydropower Prospector: http://hydropower.inel.gov/prospector/index.shtml 4 National Inventory on Dams: https://rsgis.crrel.usace.army.mil/apex/f?p=397:1:128076

6746874154 5DOI/USACE/DOE Report: http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/1834/Sec1834lEPA.pdf 6 EPRI Report: http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/000000000001014762.pdf

dropped the categorization by head, keeping only categorization by rated power potential. However, the underlying data for the 2006 report can be queried directly 

through a tool developed by the Idaho National Laboratory called the Virtual Hydropower Prospector.3 In addition to the DOE studies, there is a National Inventory 

of Dams, which seeks to identify and catalogue all existing dams in the U.S.4 The 

Department of Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy published a report in 2007 on the hydropower potential at existing federal facilities.5 Also in 2007, the electric Power Research Institute published a report assessing the waterpower potential of the U.S. and development needs.6

Based on data from these sources, the overall estimated 71 GWa of low head hydropower potential in the U.S. can further be described as follows. In the below 

table, low head refers to sites less than 30 feet tall; low power refers to sites with 

less than 1 MW of potential. All numbers in the table below are in MWa.

The site specific data underlying the 2004 DOE report can be further analyzed 

using the Virtual Hydropower Prospector to specifically screen for sites between 5 

and 20 feet of head that are not in wilderness or other excluded areas. This identifies a total of 33.5 GWa of potential across 24,000 sites distributed as shown below.

The equivalent dataset underlying the 2006 DOE report, which applies a project 

development model to the potential to identify developable projects, can be analyzed 

in a similar fashion. From this dataset, only sites with between 5 and 20 feet of 

a head that are not in wilderness or other excluded areas, and that are less than 

1 mile both from roads and from some portion of the power transmission infrastructure were selected. This identifies a total of 8 GWa of potential across 10,100 sites 

distributed as shown below.
64

7 Navigant Report on Small Hydro in California: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/

CEC-500-2006-065/CEC-500-2006-065.PDF

As mentioned previously, neither of these datasets appear to capture the low head 

potential in man-made channels and conduits. The only study I have seen to date 

specifically focused on the potential in man-made irrigation canals was done by 

Navigant in California.7 They identified 255 MW of potential hydropower in manmade channels and conduits in California. It is interesting to note that the Navigant 

study identified more hydro potential in man-made channels and conduits in California than in in-stream settings in California based on the screened 2006 DOE 

data shown above. 

The final data set for analyzing low head potential in the U.S. is to look at existing structures identified in the National Inventory on Dams. According to the NID, 

there are over 40,000 existing dams in the U.S. less than 25 feet tall. Less than 

3% of existing dams in the U.S. generate hydropower and the majority of those 

power-producing dams are medium to high head.

Technology Challenges 

The technological challenge of generating electricity from water at low head settings comes from the fact described above that power is a function of head and flow. 

At low heads, the only way to scale to larger power output is to be able to pass larger volumes of water. Overcoming this hurdle, while keeping costs low and minimizing environmental impacts, has been the technological barrier to much development of low head hydropower resources in general. 

Environmental Concerns 

The environmental concerns for low head hydropower are driven by the characteristics of the site. Low head hydropower projects developed in existing, man-made 

channels or conduits with existing low drops or diversion structures will tend to 

have low incremental environmental impacts. Projects at existing low dams in 

stream settings will tend to higher potential impacts than projects in man-made 

conduits, though the magnitude of the impact will vary again depending on the setting. Arguably, putting power generation on existing structures such as locks and 

dams, provided that the installations do not interfere with transport and recreational uses, is another minimal impact kind of project. 
65

8Ogayar, B., P.G. Vidal. Cost determination of the electro-mechanical equipmentof a small 

hydro-power plant. Renewable Energy 2009;34:6–13. 9Singal, S.K., R.P. Saini. Analytical approach for development of correlations for cost of canalbased SHP schemes. Renewable Energy 2008;33:2549–2258. 10Turbine quotes compiled from feasibility studies including: http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu/

ims/Park.html; T3http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/hydropowerlfeasibiltylstudyljuly2009; T3http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/TR-112350-V2.pdf 11Gray, D. Hydro Life Extension Modernization Guides Volume 2: Hydromechanical Equipment, TR–112350–V2 Final Report, August 2000. EPRI. 

The environmental concerns that projects in river settings will need to address 

include:

• Fish passage

• Water flow modifications, if any

• Impacts from any required civil works construction

• Disturbed riverbank habitat

However, I believe that low head hydropower projects also have the potential in 

certain cases to help address certain environmental concerns such as nutrient pollution and sediment loading. Indeed, some existing research indicates that low dams 

spread across a watershed can mitigate flooding from runoff of large intense storms 

and can also sequester significant amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus. A study 

completed in 2004 of a system of 26 low dams across the Red River Basin in south 

central Manitoba showed significant and consistent retention of nitrogen and phosphorous in the small ponds and wetlands created by the dams over the four years 

of study. More research needs to be done to better understand how to truly manage 

our watersheds to deliver water for human consumption, for agriculture, for healthy 

ecosystems, for power production, and for recreational uses. However, another tool 

in the waterpower development toolbox that enables cost-effective low head hydropower development will have great use in many settings that do not have a high 

degree of environmental sensitivity. 

Costs 

A major factor inhibiting the development of America’s hydropower resources on 

man-made conduit or water conveyance systems and existing low head, non-powered 

dams has been the high cost of available turbomachinery. Conventional low-head 

waterpower technology, such as Kaplan turbines and similar devices (bulb, tube, 

and even propeller turbines) has proven to be too costly for widespread market 

adoption. For example, several recent surveys of low-head hydropower plants built 

with Kaplan turbines have reported values of over $2,800/kW for the 

electromechanical equipment alone, given a 100 kW turbine operating with 3 meters 

of head (Singal 2008, Ogayar 2009).8 9 Natel’s own survey of a variety of quotes from 

Kaplan turbine manufacturers indicates that the real market prices might be even 

higher. A surface fit following the same methodology disclosed by Ogayar, but using 

turbine quotes compiled from a range of feasibility studies conducted for low head 

sites, results in a predicted price of roughly $4,200/kW for a 100 kW Kaplan turbine 

at 3 meters of head.10 Unfortunately for prospective low-head waterpower project 

developers, these numbers represent only the electromechanical equipment component of initial capital cost, covering the turbine runner, wicket gates, draft tube, 

generator, control system, and switchgear. Often, civil works and other project costs 

might equal or exceed the electromechanical component, leading to total installed 

costs which require extremely high capacity factors, high electricity prices, or both, 

to justify plant investment. 

One of the primary reasons for the high cost of conventional turbomachinery is 

the complex blade shape of conventional turbine runners. According to the Electric 

Power Research Institute, the cost of a Kaplan runner may exceed 50% of the 

electromechanical component cost.11 This is an indication of the complexity and fine 

manufacturing precision by which Kaplan turbine runners are characterized, but 

also is indicative of an opportunity for innovation in reducing an important barrier 

to low head hydropower development: cost. 

For comparative purposes, the table below describes the economics for a 1 MW 

site with 10 feet of head using current conventional turbine costs, Natel’s current 

SLH cost; and Natel’s projected SLH cost at full-scale commercial operation. For the 

purposes of this comparison, all non-electromechanical costs are assumed to remain 

the same and are set at $1.48M—this would cover civil works, permitting, interconnect, etc. In addition, the capacity factor is assumed to be the same in all three 

cases and is set to 65%. For clear illustrative purposes, the payback time period is 
66

calculated using a 10 ¢/kWh power price with no project leverage and no incentives 

(no Production Tax Credit or renewable energy credits).

The purpose of the above table is simply to highlight that there is room for innovation in low head waterpower technology, and that innovation, if successful at lowering costs while keeping environmental impacts low, will enable the addition of significant new renewable generation to the grid. We have developed one new technology and there are a number of other companies working hard to innovate in the 

low head, marine and hydrokinetic space as well. 

Areas where federal support would useful 

The following kinds of federal support would help to reduce costs and transition 

our technology, and other innovative waterpower technologies more quickly into the 

market:

• RDD&D guidance and funding support to help reduce some of the costs of 

demonstrating and scaling up new low head waterpower technologies;

• Specific grant funds and research focused on better understanding the environmental issues for low head projects, particularly in river settings;

• Testing facilities for measuring the environmental and operational performance of new waterpower technologies;

• Tax credits or other incentives for companies investing in studies or monitoring programs that gather environmental performance data at installed new 

waterpower technology power projects;

• Beyond the immediate RDD&D needs:

Æ A long term extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Clean Renewable Energy Bond (CREB) programs would foster investment in retrofitting the many existing low head, non-power structures to produce new, 

distributed, baseload, renewable energy, by encouraging private sector investment and providing low cost financing to public entities such as most 

irrigation districts;

Æ Section 45 Production Tax Credit parity for all low head hydropower, 

hydrokinetic, marine and other innovative water power technologies;

Æ Inclusion of all low head hydropower, hydrokinetic, marine and other innovative water power technologies at existing, non-powered dams in a federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS).

Closing 

I would like to thank the Committee again for inviting me to testify and for its 

attention to the issues before the Committee. It has been a pleasure to appear before the Committee today and Natel Energy stands ready to work with the Committee in the future as needed. America is in a position to lead the world in clean 

energy technology development, but only by taking decisive action we will catch and 

surpass our international counterparts in waterpower technology development. In so 

doing, we, and many other innovative companies like us, will create new manufacturing and power sector jobs and help pave the way towards a clean, secure energy 

future for America while tackling the environmental issues we face as a country in 

an increasingly competitive world. 

Thank you for your time. 

Contact Information 

If the members of the Committee or their staff would like additional information, 

please do not hesitate to contact Natel Energy at your convenience. Contact information is found below.

Gia Schneider 

Chairman & CEO 

917 558 2718

gia@natelenergy.com
67

BIOGRAPHY FOR GIA D. SCHNEIDER

Gia Schneider is the acting CEO of Natel Energy, Inc., which is commercializing 

a new, low-head hydropower technology that will cut the non-civil works cost of developing low head projects by as much as 50%. She is also a partner at EKO Asset 

Management and has extensive experience in the renewable energy and climate sectors. Previously, she worked in the Energy Trading Group at Credit Suisse where 

she helped start the carbon emissions desk. Prior to Credit Suisse, she worked in 

the Strategy Group at Constellation, a leading power generation company, and as 

a consultant with Accenture where she developed and implemented trading and risk 

management solutions for the utility industry. Gia received her bachelor of science 

degree in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She 

has a long standing interest in climate change, sustainable development and renewable energy.

DISCUSSION

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you very much, Ms. Schneider. Excellent testimony, not surprising, given the backgrounds of the distinguished witnesses. I will recognize myself for five minutes and then 

we will proceed in alternating order. We have been joined by Mr. 

Davis, Mr. Tonko and previously—oh, there he is, the number one 

expert on wave energy in the U.S. Congress, Mr. Rohrabacher. I 

say that because he is our surf advocate. I hear that Bilbray is a 

better surfer, however. But he is very passionate about the ocean. 

THE PROBLEM OF OUTSOURCED MANUFACTURING AND TEST

BEDS

A number of questions come up, more than I could possibly cover 

in five minutes but I will start with a few. One of the issues is, 

it is very troubling. Mr. Dehlsen, you talked about it, and Mr. 

Bedard, you alluded to it. I am so frustrated to see U.S.-developed 

technology consistently, the initial technology, developed here and 

then capitalized and engineered elsewhere, then manufactured 

elsewhere. We are seeing it here again apparently. One of the limitations in addition to some of the environmental issues that Mr. 

Collar and Ms. Schneider mentioned, it seems to me that the test 

beds right now are elsewhere. We don’t have yet, that I know of 

in place on either coast, a reliable place where if I am a manufacturer of some equipment I can say okay, I am going to work with 

FERC and DOE, we are going to ship it out there, drop it in the 

water and see what it does. What is being done to do that, Mr. 

Bedard? You talked about some potential facilities. What is being 

done and how is the government helping with that at the federal 

level and what can we do better? 

Mr. BEDARD. What is being done is that just last year—I am 

sorry. I will take that back. The fiscal year 2008 appropriation initiated some national marine energy centers, specifically Oregon 

State University on wave, University of Washington on tidal, University of Hawaii on both OTEC and wave, and Florida Atlantic 

University, I believe, received—is receiving an earmark on ocean 

currents. So this country, we are just starting. Europeans are 10 

years in front of us. Their governments have established test facilities that have been in place now for more than five years. So we 

have started. What we need is, as I said, consistent, long-term, sustained support to these test facilities so that developers do have 

places to go and put their machines into the water and develop the 
68

technology as step one. And then once that prototype gets developed, we then need to have systems test facilities, much like PG&E 

and Snohomish are doing, with a fully integrated grid connected 

array of systems. 

PACE OF TEST BED DEVELOPMENT

Chairman BAIRD. When we will have these test beds ready to go? 

Mr. BEDARD. In a number of years. It is really uncertain because 

of the regulatory issues associated with—we have to even permit 

these test beds and so there is uncertainty in terms of when—there 

are literally dozens of regulatory agencies that have to be dealt 

with. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. That is very helpful. That is consistent 

with the concerns of Mr. Collar. 

KEYS TO EXPEDITING PROJECTS

Mr. Collar, let me follow up on that regulatory issue because it 

seems that the test bed issue—as I have read your testimony and 

listened to you, it seems that this test bed issue is central. Mr. 

Dehlsen talked about the reliability of funding. You know, this annual extension of the production tax credit is not going to cut it. 

We need a sustainable, predictable situation including tax incentives. But this regulatory environment issue is very, very central. 

Talk to us a little bit about what you think we ought to do, Mr. 

Collar. 

Mr. COLLAR. It really is one of the key challenges to moving 

these kinds of projects forward, and I think a lot of it is because 

really again that lack of data. It is very much a chicken or the egg 

kind of a situation. It is difficult to get projects like this permitted 

because there is no data and you can’t get the data because you 

can’t get the project permitted to get it into the water to generate 

that information. So I think again it is finding ways to strike that 

balance within the agencies between the facilitation of renewable 

energy and fully meeting their existing responsibilities and accountability. You know, one of the ways that we seek to do that 

with our project is via the very small, contained scale of the 

project. We wouldn’t advocate nor would anyone else that we are 

aware of, you know, the installation of many, many turbines in a 

place like Admiralty Inlet before we first installed one or two and 

learned from those devices. But until we do that and until we can 

do that in a reasonable way in terms of both cost and resources 

and effort, it is going to be very difficult to move beyond that stage. 

So I think one of the things is to come to grips or gain good 

alignment with the agencies around, you know, what is an appropriate amount of risk to take with some of these early projects? But 

the experts that we talked to in the Puget Sound would say the 

risk of our project is almost vanishingly small but it is not zero, 

and I think that sometimes the agencies really have discomfort 

until they can really see zero risk. 

SPECIES SAFETY

Chairman BAIRD. Are you dealing with ESA (Endangered Species 

Act) issues? I mean, is this—the question for me is, so what is the 
69

problem, you know, given the model you talked about and the tiny 

scale, and I understand the baseline data. I am proud to be a scientist and happy to be on this Committee, but what is it you are—

I have been told you have to have at least a year of baseline data 

before you put something in the water. Is that accurate? 

Mr. COLLAR. At least a year. There certainly has been pressure 

to have much more than that, and it is also a degree of to what 

level of detail the data needs to be. 

Chairman BAIRD. What is the specific concern? Is it that we just 

don’t know what the concern is because we haven’t done it yet or 

are we saying well, we are expecting salmon or sturgeon or ground 

fish, or what is the story? 

Mr. COLLAR. The most specific and the largest concerns in Puget 

Sound, Admiralty Inlet in particular, are the effects of installations 

like this on ESA-listed species, particularly orca and salmon. Those 

are the key species. So really, that is the question that we are 

grappling with now is, what is the right degree of information in 

terms of the currents’ behavior or abundance of salmon species and 

orca in Admiralty Inlet? And of course, there is a lot of information, 

historical information available relative to those questions, so it is 

really, how much more do you need before you can go forward with 

a project like the one we propose? 

TURBINE DESIGN

Chairman BAIRD. Ms. Schneider, I grew up in canal country, 

western Colorado. It was irrigated and we used to boogie board on 

those canals. It was pretty dangerous. Periodically one of our 

friends would disappear. It was kind of a bad deal. But it seems 

to me that there is a lot of potential for this. Have you actually 

got—is this just a more efficient turbine design? I don’t remember 

seeing in your testimony a picture. Maybe it is proprietary and you 

don’t want to share with us lest we branch out in new career paths. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. No, no, no. 

Chairman BAIRD. What does this look like? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. It actually doesn’t look like any kind of conventional rotary turbine that you have seen. The technical term for it 

would be called a two-stage fully flooded impulse turbine. 

Chairman BAIRD. Oh, yeah, I knew that. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. So it is a new turbine. It is a new turbine design, and the specific aspects of it are, basically it has very simple 

blades which kind of allows us to drive down costs. So cost of manufacture is a lot lower than conventional reaction turbines, the 

other conventional technology, and at the same time the generating 

side is fairly—the generator interface is fairly efficient because it 

actually has what is called a high specificity, without getting into 

too much technical terms. 

Chairman BAIRD. Vern will explain all this later to us. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. But, I mean, we have an installation that is 

going forward actually with an irrigation district in Arizona. We 

just started installation at the beginning of this week so we have 

been through the FERC exemption process, received the FERC exemption in September, and that should be online and generating 

electricity hopefully in January. 

Chairman BAIRD. That is exciting. Thank you. 
70

I recognize Mr. Inglis for five minutes. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I found it interesting, Ms. Schneider and Mr. Collar both spent 

some time discussing the impact on species. It is worth paying 

some attention to that. It is also worth paying attention to if you 

consider the ocean acidification problem related to the incumbent 

fuels, the tradeoffs in life, and we might should put pedal to the 

metal and—‘‘might should’’, that is the way we say it down in 

South Carolina. 

Chairman BAIRD. That is right good. 

Mr. INGLIS. So it is interesting that both of you spent considerable time trying to allay those concerns but if you compare it to the 

other concerns, it is really rather small so pedal to the metal. 

COMBINING WAVE AND WIND TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. Dehlsen, we are the happy beneficiaries of all your work. I 

didn’t realize we had you to thank, but I thank you for having—

General Electric is in our district, makes wind turbines, and there 

are 1,500 engineers and 1,500 production people, some which work 

on wind, some on gas turbines, but—so you are the father of that 

and we thank you. So for any of you, what do you think about the 

possibility of combining wave barges with wind barges such that 

you get a two-fer out of the lines, I guess, running back to shore? 

Is this possible? 

Mr. DEHLSEN. We are looking at that actually for projects in the 

U.K. Clipper Windpower is currently in advanced engineering 10-

megawatt offshore wind turbine for deployment in U.K. waters, 

and we believe that for every turbine that goes in, we could probably deploy three wave devices of the type that we are in design 

on. Those are each four and a half megawatts, so for every 10 

megawatts’ worth of infrastructure that you are putting in, you 

pick up another thirteen and a half megawatts of wave energy. We 

think it is quite a nice way to bring down the cost of energy by 

combining the two technologies. 

Mr. INGLIS. In part what you are doing in some of those designs 

is using the weight of the apparatus, right, as the tide drops to 

move turbines or something so that you basically end up getting 

the benefit from the weight of all the stuff you got up on doing the 

wind. Is that—have I got that right? Is that one of the designs? 

Mr. DEHLSEN. There are designs like that. Ours is one where between the turbines, which are centered on about 1,200 meters, you 

would accommodate three of what we call a centipod wave generator, which are very long barges there, about 650 feet long and 

have 56 pods on each side so they are fully exposed to the wave 

front and can yaw into the wave front. It is quite an unusual design actually. 

Mr. INGLIS. So you use the motion through that barge apparatus 

to create the energy? 

Mr. DEHLSEN. That is right, through the pods moving up and 

down while the barge itself, and it is really not a barge. It is a lattice, open lattice structure that allows the wave to pass through it, 

and as the wave passes through it causes the pods go up and down, 

drive hydraulic fluid through to drive a hydroelectric system. 

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah, interesting. 
71

Mr. Bedard. 

Mr. BEDARD. There is also another benefit in addition to the cost 

two-foe that you mentioned, and that is the fact that you have two 

resources that have variability to them and you put those two together and you get less variability. There are less number of hours 

with no resource available when you have a hybrid wind-wave system than either a single wind or wave system. I tried to sell one 

of our EPRI feasibility studies a couple of years ago on that very 

topic and was told by all of the state energy agency and utility potential clients that I tried to sell that I was 25 years ahead of my 

time. 

Mr. INGLIS. Yes. Of course, the thing that I hope that you are 

prophetic there and maybe ahead of your time but hopefully people 

will catch up with you is that it is economics that will drive this. 

If it is economically viable, then it will be deployed. I learned a 

great new definition of sustainability from an entrepreneur in 

Spartanburg, South Carolina, who recycles PET (Polyethyleneterephthalate) to make bottles again. He says the definition of sustainability is making a profit, and I think that is a very good definition. If you can make a profit, it is sustainable. If you can’t, it 

is not, and so that is what we need to be focused on is figuring out 

how you can get two-fers or three-fers and so it makes sense economically. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. 

I recognize—who is on deck? Mr. Davis was next in line. 

COMPARING ECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ENERGY

TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. DAVIS. As we engage in this debate that we have had for 

some time on all different types of sources of energy and we continue to find new sources that we believe will be alternatives and 

renewables and less expensive, oftentimes we don’t compare the 

cost of the current methods of producing energy and our cleaning 

up maybe some of those pollutants that we have such as coal or 

look at natural gas or look at other sources. We seem to get a great 

deal of excitement about sources of energy that may or may not 

produce an abundance or at least close to the same amount of energy for a similar cost as what we produce today. So I think that 

as we engage in these conversations, the hearing we are having 

today is certainly good for us, this Nation to be having these hearings. But I would like to hear more from each of you. When you 

take a kilowatt being produced today, what would it cost for the 

same and how quickly can this be put online to where we can start 

using this to benefit economically and job creation? How quick can 

this happen, how soon can we expect to see benefits from this and 

how costly will it be compared to what we produce today? That is 

basically my comment that I want to make. Can anyone answer 

that question? 

Mr. BEAUDRY-LOSIQUE. Thank you for the question. I would say 

it is fairly important for us to always consider a balanced portfolio 

of technologies, some of those being near term and being able to deploy and make a difference. We are working on some of those, technologies. For example, at DOE like land-based wind, for example, 
72

and some elements of solar technologies. So it is important to not 

neglect longer-term very large sources of energy that could also 

make a difference 10 or 20 years from now. I believe this is one 

of the roles of government. Some of these resources could include 

offshore wind and some of these marine and hydrokinetic resources, and I think the question is, how do we strike the right balance with near-term technologies that can make a difference and 

long-term, very large-scale sorts of technologies? And I mentioned 

a couple here. And also how do you compare these technologies to 

the cost of existing technology? Will that improve versus existing 

technology? Are we chasing technology that will never be competitive? And I would say we are currently going through a strategic 

planning exercise at DOE to address precisely that question and 

see if we can optimize or improve our portfolio of technology while 

we strive to do so. 

Mr. DAVIS. I have a situation in Kingston, Tennessee, that perhaps everyone in this room or certainly if you watched TV in the 

last year would be aware that there was a huge ash spill at the 

Kingston steam plant. We are told it will probably cost close to $1 

billion plus for that cleanup that will go on the bills of almost 8 

million users in the Tennessee Valley to help pay for that cost. 

That is a substantial amount of money that we have deferred for 

the last 30 or 40 years. And so as we engage in this debate, it is 

my hope that we look at every situation, alternatives, renewables 

and others, about whether or not this will help us get away from 

that situation. I asked the TVA officials and others if we were to 

take that billion dollars and build a solar farm in Tennessee, what 

percentage of the energy being produced at the steam plant could 

we produce with that billion-dollar investment, and I am told somewhere between 12 to 25 percent of energy that would be a renewable source. So as we engage—the reason I ask the question and 

made the comment is, as we engage in the conversation, it seems 

that we from time to time don’t look at the actual total cost of what 

the cost would be to us 10 years, 20, 30 years or 40 years down 

the road. I hope as we engage in this debate as we continue to have 

hearings here and in other committees in the House that we become a little bit more focused on the proposals we are making and 

how successful they would be or is this just a new concept or idea 

that may or may never work. 

Thank you all, and thanks, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

HYDROKINETIC POTENTIAL IN THE GREAT LAKES

Mr. EHLERS. Being from Michigan, are there any opportunities 

for hydrokinetic energy in Lake Michigan or some of the other 

Great Lakes? We are talking about putting wind energy in the middle of the lake far enough from shore so no one can see it but visible enough so boats won’t run into it. Are there any hydrokinetic 

energy possibilities in the Great Lakes or is it just not worth the 

trouble? Mr. Bedard? 

Mr. BEDARD. Yes, most probably. We have not studied it but 

most probably just from the basic understanding there is not a 
73

hydrokinetic potential in the Great Lakes. For wave energy one 

needs to have a long distance of ocean, a long fetch of ocean where 

the winds blow across that to build up the waves, and the Great 

Lakes are big but they are just not as big as the Pacific Ocean, and 

certainly there is no tidal energy, there is no current flow. Now, 

there are potential locations where the lakes flow when the water 

flows out of the lakes like they do I know in upstate New York, 

for using hydrokinetic energy. I wouldn’t look in the lake but I 

would like where the water flows out of the lake. 

LOW HEAD HYDROPOWER

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. 

I also want to mention this is really solar energy, and we might 

as well identify the source correctly. I think solar has immense possibilities in many different manifestations. When you mention 

solar, people automatically think of photoelectric cells and things 

like that but there are tremendous opportunities created by the 

wind, and this is just another manifestation of that. You talked 

about low head. How big is a low head? When you say low head, 

I immediately think of a submerged restroom but I don’t think that 

is what you are talking about. How big a head is low head? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Well, low head in the context that we are focused on, it would be a drop across a structure that is less than 

20 feet, but in general greater than five, and the reason for the cutoff is five is just when we run economic analysis on a number of 

sites, once you get below five feet it just is very, very hard. 

OTHER PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. EHLERS. And a lot of effort appears to be going into developing appropriate turbines for this. Is that the best way to get energy, or can you just anchor something, the generator to the ocean 

bottom and the up-and-down motion of the waves? Is there any 

possibility of somehow extracting energy from the up-and-down motion of the waves rather than the lateral motion? Any comment on 

that? Mr. Bedard? 

Mr. BEDARD. Yes, there are many different ways to convert either the potential or kinetic energy in waves. Many of the devices 

do work by using totally the potential energy, the up-and-down motion of a floating buoy that is then reacted either to the bottom or 

to a reactionary plate which is submerged in the water column, so 

yes, many devices work through the up-and-down motion of the 

waves. 

Mr. EHLERS. And which appears to be most promising at this 

point? 

Mr. BEDARD. We are not far enough along in the technology to 

know which of the different energy conversion devices will turn out 

to be most cost-effective in the future. Wind has obviously gotten 

there. You look at the wind machines. They are all open rotor, 

three-bladed, you know, machines on a mono pile. With wave energy, we are just not there yet. We need to test and evaluate the 

different energy conversion devices first. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. Yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Ehlers, thank you. 
74

Mr. Tonko. 

LESSONS FROM VERDANT POWER IN NEW YORK STATE

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to our panelists, and Mr. Bedard, thank you for mentioning the turbulent 

flow of waters in upstate New York. That is part of my district 

area. 

Prior to arriving here as a freshman this year in Congress, I 

served as president and CEO of NYSERDA, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which as you know has 

this demonstration project, had the demonstration project along the 

East River along the island of Manhattan with Verdant Power’s 

project, and they did disassemble that project for improvements 

and sent it over to the Colorado lab of DOE, and I believe we are 

back up and running, or not. Okay. We are supposed to be. But 

anyhow, I just want to know what Snohomish—perhaps Mr. Collar 

or Mr. Bedard or whomever on the panel might address your comments to what might have been learned from Verdant Power’s 

project in that East River demonstration. 

Mr. COLLAR. Certainly. I think there are a number of things. 

First of all, you really have to applaud Verdant, I think, for the effort, really blazing the trail here in a lot of ways for efforts like 

ours. So, I mean, a couple of things that were learned were in 

terms of deployment methodology in relatively shallow water. Folks 

might assume that this would be a relatively simple and straightforward evolution. It is not. It is very difficult even in places like 

the East River, so there is some learning there obviously in terms 

of the robustness and the design of the turbines themselves and 

the blades in particular. You know, you are going to have some failures like that along the road so, you know, learning from those and 

sharing that learning through efforts like the DOE’s programs is 

important and has occurred. And then lastly, I think we also 

learned a fair bit in terms of monitoring technologies for monitoring the interaction of fish and marine life with turbines like the 

Verdant turbines, specifically in that case using the BiosSonics 

hydroacoustic technology. There were some parts of that that 

worked really well and there were some parts that we would choose 

to do differently in the future, so those would probably be the top 

three things that I would point out. 

Mr. TONKO. As I understand it, it was not just the blades of that 

design but also the assembly, the assemblage of the blades that 

had to be improved on. 

Mr. Bedard, were you going to comment on that? 

Mr. BEDARD. I was going to add, sir, that Verdant completed 

their experimental phase about six months ago and they took the 

six units out. They got lots of good environmental data. They have 

now filed a draft license application with FERC to go to the next 

phase, which is installation of 30 of the units, about one megawatt 

of rated power, and so they will be in the regulatory process now 

for another year or two years before they hopefully get the license 

to install their next generation of turbine in that same location between Roosevelt Island and Queens in about two more years. 

Mr. TONKO. And it was interesting to see what that meant to the 

Roosevelt Island population with some of the power that was ex-
75

changed for them. It is hoped that as much as 1,100 kilowatts 

worth of power could be utilized in kinetic format in New York 

State, so it is rather encouraging to see the promise that it holds. 

And in terms of the PUD plan here with Snohomish, just how—

what are your plans to interconnect the tidal project to the main 

grid? 

Mr. COLLAR. They actually intend to connect on Whidbey Island, 

which is adjacent to our site. Specifically we are working with Seattle Pacific University. In fact, their marine science lab is right on 

the shores where we would interconnect, so currently we are in dialog with them about rebuilding their marine science lab into one 

facility that can both serve their educational purposes as well as 

our need for onshore infrastructure and provide them with a pretty 

neat educational opportunity to leverage the results of our project 

to fulfill their mission. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

am sorry I missed the first three witnesses. And Mr. Bedard, I remember JPL and— 

Mr. BEDARD. Yes, sir, I worked on Mars Rover back in the late 

1980s. 

COST COMPETITIVENESS OF MHK TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I remember visiting you there once, I believe. 

I don’t think the question about cost was answered correctly, 

fully. I would like to—obviously if we are developing an energy resource that has to be of competitive cost in some way or it is just—

we are just playing games here, so we are going to create technology in order to create technology when it is going to be integrated into an energy system that has other factors as well that 

cost. How will this—once we develop these technologies that you 

are talking about, how competitive will it be as compared to other 

sources of electricity? 

Mr. DEHLSEN. The technologies we are working on I believe can 

be in the 10- to 12-per-kilowatt-hour range, and we are pretty confident on those numbers. It is really a function of how much steel 

goes into the machine versus how much power you can generate. 

Yes, you have cost for mooring and that sort of thing but that is 

the main driver, and— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How would that be interpreted in terms of, 

oil would have to come to a certain barrel price in order to permit 

the electricity to be—for you to be competitive with electricity. 

What would that be? 

Mr. DEHLSEN. Well, carbon fuels are in the range of about four 

to seven cents per kilowatt-hour but that is without counting the 

external costs. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. DEHLSEN. So if you give credit for that, which is a point that 

came up earlier, these technologies would be competitive. 
76

IMPACTS ON SCENIC VIEWS

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. One of the things that I have noticed, 

seeing that I live along the coast and I spent a lot of time in the 

water, that—and although that is the case, I have also been supportive of offshore oil and gas development, that wealthy people 

tend to live near water and they tend not to want to have their 

view disturbed and their view is more important than energy for 

the people. Would your alternatives create a view problem for people? 

Mr. DEHLSEN. Certainly wind provides a very strong visual impact but what I think I have been saying anyway is that people 

now are starting to understand that there are priorities beyond the 

view aspect. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope so. You know, I would really 

hope that some of the people who are the most—have really enjoyed the fruits and benefits of our society would be a little bit 

more considerate of everybody else rather than just worrying about 

their view, seeing that we have about a trillion dollars worth of energy in terms of oil and gas that we should be utilizing offshore, 

but I would hate to see situations like great alternatives in the future—look, 100 years from now whether it is 10 years from now or 

100 years from now, the type of ideas you are going to bring up 

are things that mankind is going to have to depend upon and you 

may be exploring an area that is really 100 years from now we may 

get vast amounts of energy from what you are doing and might be 

dependent upon that far more than we are on oil and gas. 

Mr. DEHLSEN. I would hope so. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope so. That is correct. So Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for your leadership in this. I see this as a visionary approach which I think that we should be exploring and I 

wish you all success. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you for your observations and insights. 

Mr. Inslee is recognized. Thanks for joining us today, Mr. Inslee. 

PROGRESS TO DATE AND THE POWER DENSITY OF MHK 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, and thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. This is something we are looking in the future and 

I appreciate your willingness to explore this. It is something that 

hasn’t totally arrived commercially and your willingness to do this 

I am very appreciative of. I am also appreciative of Mr. Ehlers’ insight that all this is solar power except nuclear and engineered 

geothermal. I think that is a great insight. He is the only other 

Congressman that I have heard share that other than this one, so 

thanks, Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. Collar, welcome, and Mr. Dehlsen, I want to thank you for 

being the personification of what I view as a dynamic here which 

basically is following wind into the water as far as the dynamic, 

the economic dynamic. You are the absolute personification of that. 

You may not remember but you and I spoke a couple years ago 

when I was writing a book and you told me an interesting story 

about Clipper Wind and the development of wind power about a 

bolt that broke. Do you want to share that? It is kind of a meta-
77

phor for what we are talking about here. Do you remember the 

story? 

Mr. DEHLSEN. Well, I remember one in the very beginning of 

wind power and it was the first wind conference in Palm Springs, 

and there was a lot of excitement around a machine that Bendix 

had put out that was a Darius machine. It looked like a big egg 

beater. Everybody had gathered out there to watch the machine 

perform. A bolt gave out and fortunately it could have decapitated 

the whole crowd, but that was one of the, kind of the early lessons 

on structures and how these things have to really have pretty rigorous kind of engineering. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I appreciate the story, and the reason is, is despite that failure, the industry is now very commercially viable and 

robust and is the most dynamic thing in the energy industry probably right now, and I sense that that is the kind of experience we 

are going to have in the hydrokinetic field. You said something that 

was interesting, that you were optimistic about this, and maybe it 

was you or Mr. Bedard, I am not sure, that the density of energy 

associated with water as compared to wind may give this industry 

a faster up tick than wind. Do you want to elaborate on that, 

whichever one of you was that said that? 

Mr. BEDARD. That was myself, Mr. Inslee, and the point I was 

making was that the fact that the power density of the 

hydrokinetic resource is much, much greater than that for wind 

and solar. That allows smaller machines with less material and 

capital cost—there is a potential capital cost advantage of a 

hydrokinetic machine, say, compared to a wind or solar machine 

but there is another side to that coin, and the other side is that 

it is operating in a very remote, hostile environment so the challenge to the marine hydrokinetic industry is going to be to develop 

the deployment technology and the operation and maintenance 

technology that will allow the total lifecycle cost to be less than or 

competitive to other renewable sources. 

2009 STIMULUS FUNDING FOR MHK 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Beaudry-Losique, I am sorry, I don’t know if that is the correct pronunciation, we are so far a little bit disappointed in the 

stimulus funding. We haven’t seen any of the stimulus funding 

dedicated to this particular industry. Do you have any insights on 

that? Do we have some hope in that regard? 

Mr. BEAUDRY-LOSIQUE. I would say the Recovery Act mandates 

are fairly specific. Their focus was on creating jobs that would have 

short-term impact. Regarding the allocation to the water budget, 

we felt that traditional hydro projects could be put in operation 

fairly shortly and that there was no truly immediate device that 

was ready to go at a commercial scale for marine hydrokinetics and 

that our R&D budget for hydrokinetics is fairly plentiful right now, 

and we have what we need. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENT FEDERAL SUPPORT

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we will continue to kind of provide you some 

additional resources, and I am appreciative of the vision that the 
78

Department has shown and hope it will continue. One of the 

things, I have introduced a bill and we are looking forward to reintroduction of a bill that would establish a dedicated department 

really for this particular technology and hydrokinetic. I think it 

would helpful in focusing, and the reason I note that is, I think almost all of the witnesses talked about the importance of stability 

in federal policy of a long-term federal commitment that is not dependent on the personnel that happens to sit in a particular chair 

for three or four years, it is not dependent on who the majority is 

in Congress but it is a long-term federal commitment, and I think 

the establishment of an office would go a long way to helping in 

that regard and I look forward to talking to Members and the 

Chair about that. I hope we can advance that. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Inslee, and thank you for your 

many years of leadership on not only this particular form of energy 

but the whole issue of alternative energy and your book, which you 

brought with you. What is the title of that book, Mr. Inslee? 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I appreciate your efforts, but I don’t know if 

I can put you in the five percent plan for marketing, Mr. Chair. I 

appreciate that. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Inslee wrote an outstanding book, Apollo’s 

Fire, and it is an outstanding compendium, a bit dated because the 

transitions are happening so fast, but very few Members of Congress know as much about this topic as Mr. Inslee, and thank you 

for your leadership on that. 

Mr. INSLEE. If I can note, though, I just want to note, Mr. 

Dehlsen was one of the most interesting people I met in the production of this book and I remember very specifically getting to 

talk to him about this story, and Mr. Dehlsen, I want to thank you 

for your leadership now on multiple technologies. We really appreciate it. 

Chairman BAIRD. Are there any other members that are wishing 

for me to plug their book? I would be happy to at this point. 

PERMITTING AND REGULATORY STRUCTURE

Let me follow up. I would like to do a brief second round. We 

may have some votes coming up. Mr. Beaudry-Losique, we have 

heard a lot about this issue of permitting and regulatory structure. 

Has your operation sat down with MMS (minerals management 

service) and the other regulatory bodies and said how can we work 

together, what changes do you need, how do we make those 

changes happen, and if you haven’t, can we do that? 

Mr. BEAUDRY-LOSIQUE. We are working with other agencies on 

a lot of our different renewable technologies. I would say this is a 

problem that is not unique to marine and hydrokinetics. It is 

shared by offshore wind. It is shared to some extent with solar deployment on BLM (Bureau of Land Management) lands. It is 

shared by on-land wind as well. So we have had numerous discussions with the Department of Interior, with FERC, within the Department of Interior. We are working specifically with MMS, which 

has a lot of the jurisdiction offshore for speeding up permitting 

both for offshore wind and for marine and hydrokinetics technology. We hope to have a memorandum of understanding in place 
79

with them shortly. But I would completely agree with my fellow 

panel participants that this is a very serious issue and that we are 

putting a lot of resources against it. Furthermore, we are doing a 

lot of the environmental studies to help pre-permit these marine 

research energy centers so we can have test beds to plug in smallscale marine devices fairly quickly, and that is part of our funding 

is actually to establish that pre-permitting that would help speed 

up testing these technologies. 

Chairman BAIRD. I have done a lot of work on the permitting 

issue back home because we have a lot of water and a lot of endangered species where I live, and one of the things that really seems 

to help is to get all the agencies in a room with the consumers of 

the agency services, i.e., the permit applicants, and then try to see 

if you can’t come up with some standardized permit structures. You 

know, back home it is not the first time a dolphin has ever been 

put—I don’t mean a swimming dolphin, I mean the things you 

moor a boat to—it is not the first time we have put one of those 

in the Columbia River over the last couple of centuries, and yet 

there was a long process where each time you had to do a brandnew EIS (environmental impact statement) as if nobody had ever 

done it. So they have now got streamlined mechanisms for that. So 

my question would be, has there been a meeting, a conjoined meeting of your operation within DOE, the tidal hydro side, with the 

multiple regulatory agencies, with the applicants together to say 

let us figure out how to do this, come up with some target 

timelines, some reasonable expectations for baseline and then follow-up data, et cetera, particularly as we try to set up this test 

bed? Has that happened yet? 

Mr. BEAUDRY-LOSIQUE. I would say it is fair to say that there 

has been a series of bilateral discussions with key agencies and it 

is definitely in our work plan, for example, with DOE and MMS, 

to get all the agencies in the same room in a working group with 

applicants to help determine what are the best intervention points 

to speed up the permitting process but this meeting has not occurred yet. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. I will ask the witnesses, would that 

make sense to have a meeting like that? Would that be helpful to 

you? 

Mr. COLLAR. I think from our perspective, it certainly would be 

very helpful. I think it is a logical next step. It is something we 

have not done to this point and I can see where it could be pretty 

useful, yes. 

Mr. DEHLSEN. At approximately the same stage in wind going 

back in the early 1980s, what was done in a number of counties 

was to designate zones, and so rather than each time a developer 

having to go through the process, just approving a zone would be 

extremely helpful. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. Mr. Bedard? 

Mr. BEDARD. I am fortunate enough, Chairman Baird, to work 

for a technology organization and I don’t have to get into the permitting. In fact, when I had my three children and needed a larger 

house, I even avoided adding a room on and going through the permitting process. I just bought a new house. So I don’t like to deal 

with the pain. 
80

Chairman BAIRD. Ms. Schneider, I mean, I know your issues are 

somewhat separate but perhaps you have some insights. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. I mean, in the sense of creating, especially as 

you look to low-head applications in streams, it is the same general 

concept that applies in terms of gathering standardized information 

and then feeding that into a streamlined process with FERC, not 

just the resource agencies but also then moving on to FERC. One 

of the things—and we certainly actually had a reasonably good 

path, I guess, through the process on this first project but that is 

also because we put a lot of effort in front in talking to all the 

stakeholders involved. 

Chairman BAIRD. Shifting topic a bit, you know, Dr. Ehlers 

called much of this solar power. I believe some of it is lunar power 

as well, is it not? 

Mr. DEHLSEN. Yes. 

Chairman BAIRD. Puget Sound I guess would be, the Admiralty 

Inlet source, a fair bit of lunar power. That is a lead-in actually to 

a more substantive question, which is, Dr. Bedard, you talked 

about wave energy being the most promising. We have got a lot of 

big waves off our coast, and I am glad to see that has been recognized, but it seems to me the more predictable source is tidal flow 

and we know when it is going to happen, we know it is velocity. 

You know, when I scuba dive up in that area, man, you literally 

start it to the minute in some of these dives because if you are not 

out of that water when that tide changes, you have got a real problem up there. So we know to the minute, and that is not the case 

with wind, it is not the case with even solar in many cases and it 

is a real problem up in the Northwest as we try to integrate grid 

with unpredictable sources. Yet tidal is probably more predictable 

than wind. What is your take on that? Yeah, I think it is clearly 

more predictable than wind, probably more predictable than wave 

as well. 

Mr. BEDARD. It certainly is. As a matter of fact, one can predict 

the tidal speeds centuries in advance because they are totally dependent upon the relative location of the earth-moon-sun system. 

With waves, it is also a good situation in that the waves are created from storms in the Pacific Northwest off Japan, the Gulf of 

Alaska, so we know three days in advance before the waves are 

going to hit the beaches. Mr. Rohrabacher, who is a surfer, would 

know that the maverick competition at Half Moon Bay, they call 

in the expert surfers one day in advance before the biggest waves 

are going to hit. So that definitely—the predictability is definitely 

an advantage. When I said that wave is the most significant, in the 

lower 48 states, there is only maybe a handful or a dozen or so 

really good tidal sites. Most of—the ocean energy in our country is 

in the State of Alaska. They have by far the most wave and tidal 

resources. 

Chairman BAIRD. We have got, I mean actually a little bit north 

of us but off Vancouver Island there are some hellacious—and 

Point Defiance. 

Mr. BEDARD. Absolutely. 

Chairman BAIRD. I almost said whitewater kayaked. I sea 

kayaked there and it is like whitewater kayaking at times, pretty 

exciting. 
81

Mr. DEHLSEN. I would like to offer another source of energy and 

that is the rotation of the planet and the Coriolis effect, which 

drives the Gulf Stream, and the energy resource off of the southeastern United States by the Gulf Stream is quite enormous. It is 

equal to about 50 times the rivers of the planet and it flows 12 to 

15 miles off the coast of Florida, which doesn’t have much else in 

the way of renewable energy, geothermal, et cetera. So that is a 

very important one, and the technology for doing that is very much 

like what you see coming out of wind power. So that is the area 

we are focusing on actually, that and wave power. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. One last comment. I drove by San 

Francisco Bay a while back and saw all those ships moored way 

up the bay there, they are permanently moored there. And I 

thought, Archimedes tells us there is an awful lot of weight being 

lifted every day and lowered back down every day and lifted every 

day. It is too bad we can’t attach that to some kind of generator, 

and maybe somebody can figure it out. 

Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Ehlers, do you have— 

Mr. EHLERS. A quick comment. 

Mr. INGLIS. Sure. 

Chairman BAIRD. I am going to get a lecture on Archimedes here. 

Mr. EHLERS. No, except that apparently there is no historical evidence that he ran through the streets naked shouting ‘‘Eureka.’’ 

Chairman BAIRD. That was my favorite part. 

ENERGY PRODUCTION FROM THE GULF STREAM

Mr. EHLERS. I know. It is most everyone’s favorite part. 

No, I was just going to comment on the Gulf Stream. I am very 

afraid of tampering with the Gulf Stream because we don’t know 

how stable it is, and it would be disastrous for Europe if our attempts to extract energy from it somehow interfered with the flow 

of the Gulf Stream, and I have no idea what—you know, I just 

don’t know what the tipping point is and I am not sure anyone 

knows, so I just wanted to toss that in. 

Mr. DEHLSEN. Can I respond to that? 

Chairman BAIRD. I will tell you what. Let me recognize Mr. Inglis for his five minutes and Dr. Ehlers will get his shot, unless Mr. 

Inglis wants to hear about the Gulf Stream. 

Mr. INGLIS. That would be great. I would be happy for you to answer that question. 

Mr. DEHLSEN. We had the University of Delaware do a study in 

that topic and their conclusion was that at 10,000 megawatts it 

was essentially within the noise of natural variability, so effectively 

you could extract that from the Gulf Stream, say, off of Florida, 

and really have no impact on that circulation pattern. That is a 

very important topic to be aware of. 

Mr. INGLIS. And just two observations. One is, you know, as a 

guy that is into sailing, I think that the scene of being able to see 

wind turbines off shore is like looking at sailboats, and for the wellheeled that Dana was speaking of that don’t like their view interrupted, I think they need to rethink that and just imagine that 

that is a beautiful sailboat out there. In fact, maybe we could put 
82

some colorful sort of spinnaker kind of sails on them or ribbons and 

make them look more like sailboats. I think they are really beautiful, particularly when you think about how they are out there 

producing no emissions. It is a rather beautiful scene. You should 

invite people over to see out of your window what we are doing out 

there, it seems to me. 

The other thing is, since we are plugging, and I am not plugging 

a book, I am plugging a bill. I mentioned earlier Carlos Gutierrez’ 

definition of sustainability that is making a profit. The challenge 

that we hear from this witness table a lot in transportation fuels 

is that incumbent fuel there being petroleum doesn’t have all the 

costs in. If the costs were all in and a proper cost accounting, even 

for the simple thing of the defense expenditures associated with 

protecting that supply line, even if that were only attributed to the 

price of petroleum, then a lot of what we hear from that witness 

table would become economically viable. What we are hearing 

today is that this wave energy, tidal energy could become viable if 

the costs were in on coal, the dominant incumbent technology. If 

all the costs were in there, wow, you would be in business. So these 

ideas would not be ideas, they would be actually being deployed 

and being developed. So I have got a bill that does that. It is 15 

pages compared to cap and trade, which is a 1,200-page monstrosity, and so it is 15 pages of a simple concept, a revenue-neutral tax swap, reduce payroll taxes, impose a tax on emissions, 

make it border adjustable so it is removed on export, imposed on 

import, and it is pretty exciting. Fifteen pages gets the job done. 

And it would change the economics and make it so what we hear 

from that table would suddenly become viable and fit with Carlos 

Gutierrez’ definition of sustainability. If you can make a profit, it 

is sustainable; if you can’t, it is not. But when the incumbent technologies get to hide the cost with negative externalities that are not 

internalized, there is a market distortion and especially conservatives should rise up and say we can’t tolerate market distortions 

because we believe in the power of markets and we believe in the 

power of free enterprise. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that opportunity to plug my bill 

as well as a book. 

Chairman BAIRD. I fully support your bill, and the only drawback 

is that it sinks less carbon in the text of the bill than does the competing cap-and-trade model, but I think it is a much more elegant 

and likely to succeed strategy than the cap-and-trade model. The 

key point, though, to make this technology work, you have got to 

purely value carbon in some fashion and I think yours is a better 

way to do it, frankly. 

Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Very briefly, I totally agree with the 

comments of Mr. Inglis, and it is certainly a more intelligent approach to take to the cap and trade, simply add a tax and give the 

money back to the people in a different way. I also commend Mr. 

Inglis on his comments about the view and I decided after your discussion of how beautiful they are that you obviously could improve 

your salary by selling real estate. You have a real talent there for 

making property look good. With that, I yield back. 
83

THERMAL ENERGY POTENTIAL IN THE OCEANS

Chairman BAIRD. One final topic. The bells imply that we have 

a vote. We have not talked about thermal potential within the 

oceans, and I wonder if any of you would like to chat about that 

briefly. It may not be within your purview but possibly Mr. 

Beaudry-Losique could talk a little bit about the thermal potential 

energy because I understand it is fairly significant. 

Mr. BEAUDRY-LOSIQUE. We agree that the potential of ocean 

thermal is fairly enormous. However, because of the relatively low 

difference in temperature between the top and the bottom of the 

ocean, we need still fairly large-scale device, enormous devices with 

very high capital cost. So we are going to spend the next year or 

two to try to validate the economics of OTEC and try to—and work 

also with the Navy on that topic and try to determine what is going 

to be the ultimate potential of driving that cost down. That will 

drive where would it best fit: a tropical island or for more mainstream applications. 

Chairman BAIRD. Does anyone else wish to comment on that? 

Mr. DEHLSEN. Yes. With the Gulf Stream application, the machine that we are developing is one that can also—other than generating electricity, you can generate high-pressure water to shore 

and use that water for reverse osmosis desalinization because if 

you are drawing the water off of depths, you pick up about a 20-

degree differential. So central cooling of Miami, for example, is a 

possibility. And the energy payback on that is enormous. If you 

combine the residual electricity that you could generate off of the 

reverse osmosis flow that remains plus the central cooling, it really 

helps significantly the economics of that technology. 

Chairman BAIRD. Maybe some low-head hydro applications there 

as well. 

CLOSING

I want to thank our witnesses for very, very fascinating work 

and in all of your case lifetime of contribution to this important 

issue. As always, the record of this hearing will remain open for 

two weeks for additional statements from the members and for answers to any of the follow-up questions the Committee may ask of 

the witnesses. I would like personally to maybe follow up with 

some of you about the idea of a joint meeting with some of the regulators, some of the applicants and the research side so we can possibly get this thing moving a little bit faster and maybe a lot bit 

faster, and with that, the witnesses are thanked for their time. My 

colleagues, thank you for your input as always and thanks to the 

staff, and the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ