Transmission Planning. Scheduled Discussion Items

Transcription

1 Wind Energy and Transmission Subcommittee Report Meeting of March 17, 2011 Keith Sexson (KS), Chair Russ Mason (MI), Vice Chair The meeting convened during 8:00am 12:00pm, chaired by Keith Sexson. 48 participants were in attendance. Scheduled Discussion Items Transmission Planning Funded by an ARRA grant from DOE, wind energy transmission planning is proceeding in the US through 3 interconnection transmission networks: the Eastern Interconnection (through the Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) and the Eastern Interconnection States Planning Council (EISPC); Texas Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT); and the Western Interconnection Effort (led by the Western Governors Association and Western Electricity Coordinating Council). Presentations to the Subcommittee by representatives of each effort highlighted the variation among the 3 processes. Eastern Interconnection Transmission Planning Ginny Kreitler of Audubon outlined the process thus far in the east and the opportunities for state fish and wildlife agencies to promote the inclusion of wildlife information in the development of energy zones in the east. Planning in the Eastern Interconnection includes two parallel, yet intertwined, processes. The Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) is a large stakeholder process concerned primarily with energy demand forecasting and planning scenarios. Meanwhile, the Eastern Interconnection States Planning Council (EISPC) has, to date, less stakeholder involvement and is focused on defining energy development zones. It is comprised largely of public utility commissions (PUCs). Each state will define its own energy development zones. Their work is recently underway and anticipated to take 1 to 2 years. A subset of the EIPC s NGO membership has funded a compilation of wildlife data (e.g., SWAP conservation focus areas, State Natural Heritage Program Data, Audubon Important Bird Areas, etc.) that will be submitted to the EISPC. A potential role for State Fish & Wildlife Agencies is to build a relationship with the Public Utility Commission (PUC) in their state and work to integrate wildlife habitat information into the delineation of the energy development zones. ERCOT Interconnection 1

2 Kathy Boydston, TPWD, presented on the ERCOT transmission planning process. The long-term planning began in June 2010 and the final plan will be complete by June Current analyses are focusing on a suite of scenarios (e.g., high economic growth, high coal prices, sustained drought, etc.) that could influence the supply and demand for transmission of wind energy. TPWD has been involved in ensuring that data such as range information for important bird species, designated FWS critical habitat, Edwards Aquifer, etc. is incorporated throughout the planning process. Western Interconnection Madeline West, Western Governors Association, presented a summary of the Western Interconnection planning process, with particular emphasis on efforts to incorporate important wildlife information into decisions that are being made about future electricity transmission and energy development in the region. In 2008, WGA launched the Western Renewable Energy Zones (WREZ) project to develop consensus among political jurisdictions in the western interconnection on how best to develop and deliver energy from renewable resource areas. Information on wildlife habitat and sensitivity was included among the many inputs through the Western Governors Wildlife Council. DOE has funded the further integration of wildlife sensitivity information into decision support systems for each state. Wind Energy Habitat Conservation Plan for Whooping Crane, Lesser Prairie- Chicken, Interior Least Tern, and Piping plover Ben Tuggle (USFWS, Southwest Regional Director) presented on the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) status. The effort involves 2 regions of USFWS, 9 states and 16 wind energy companies. Discussions on the development of the HCP began in 2008 around the whooping crane but expanded to cover the additional species. The covered area includes the entire 200-mile wide migratory corridor and wintering grounds of the Whooping crane plus the current and historical range of the Lesser prairie-chicken. The anticipated completion date for the plan is 2012 with public scoping meetings around the EIS are planned for summer Ongoing discussions continue pertaining to appropriate mitigation strategies (conservation banks, avoidance of suitable habitat, creation of new habitat, and habitat enhancement). Update on Activities of the American Wind Wildlife Institute 2

3 Taber Allison, Director of Research and Evaluation, for the American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI) provided the Subcommittee with an update of AWWI s progress and key programs to date. AWWI is a collaboration of wind industry, nonprofit and state agency leaders joined together to facilitate timely and responsible development of wind energy while protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat. AFWA is a sustaining partner and Jeff Vonk (SD GFPD) sits on the AWWI board of directors. AWWI s current initiatives include: Developing a comprehensive, peer-reviewed wind-wildlife research agenda that will answer priority questions, identify future challenges and engage experts in research and evaluation of wind-wildlife interactions. Develop a centralized database to house existing wind-wildlife data (Research Information System) Design and facilitate the implementation of mitigation projects to address unavoidable wildlife impacts including research into new, effective mitigation measures. In cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, develop a Landscape Asssessment Tool (went live in Jan.) that is designed as a landscape-level planning tool to identify sensitive wildlife habitat and areas that are likely to have low wildlife risk where wind energy development could be prioritized. Taber can be reached at [email protected] USFWS Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines Summary: Paul Schmidt, USFWS, presented a review of the draft guidelines published in the Federal Register on February 18, The guidelines were drafted based on recommendations of the Federal Advisory Committee and their intent is to assist industry in avoiding and minimizing impacts to federally-protected migratory birds, bats and other wildlife. Although the guidance is based on the FAC recommendations, the guidelines differ somewhat based on comments from other DOI agencies such as National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey. Additional modifications were made to align with USFWS practices and policies. In general, USFWS advocates the use of these guidelines as early in the wind project planning process as possible. The draft guidelines are set forth in a tiered approach: Tier 1: Preliminary evaluation or screening of potential sites Tier 2: Site Characterization 3

4 Tier 3: Pre-construction monitoring and assessments Tier 4: Post-construction monitoring of effects (fatality and other) Tier 5: Research (intent is that this stage will be rarely implemented in cases where the tiered approach has been appropriately followed). Kathy Boydston (Texas Parks & Wildlife Department) and Rob Manes (The Nature Conservancy) (both members of the FAC) presented a summary of their responses to the draft guidance. Overall and in spite of some significant concerns, both described the draft guidelines as workable with some modifications. They commended USFWS for the following major elements of the guidance: The draft guidance maintains that avoidance is the best mechanism to minimize impacts to wildlife. Maintains that places exist on the landscape where wind energy development is not appropriate The guidance applies beyond federal trust species Maintains a clear delineation between direct and indirect impacts on wildlife The following characteristics of the plan generally reflect causes for concern: Overall, the guidelines are less detailed and science-based than ideal Some of the few available scientifically documented wind energy-wildlife impact references have been removed to on-line references, weakening their applicability. Some issues with a scientific basis (e.g., noise and acoustic fragmentation; duration of post construction monitoring) lack credibility in the draft because they are not substantially referenced Outcomes that were arrived at by the FAC through delicate negotiations have been significantly altered or omitted. Ongoing and Next Steps: The guidelines are currently undergoing peer review The FAC will be reconvened on April 27 The public comment period on the draft guidelines is open until May 19, 2011 The complete draft Wind Energy Guidelines can be found at: Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance Summary: As a result of possible eagle collisions, many of the current and planned wind facilities will require permits in order to be in compliance with Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Paul Schmidt, USFWS, presented a review of the draft eagle conservation plan guidance. It too was published in the federal register on Feb. 18 th and is open for comment until May 19 th. The purpose of the eagle guidance is to provide guidelines for conservation measures 4

5 that wind projects can undertake to avoid and minimize the take of eagles to the maximum degree practicable. Doing so will keep the project in compliance with regulations of the programmatic take permits issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The guidance provides the information necessary for wind-facility project proponents to assess the risk to eagles and mitigate the risk through development of an Eagle Conservation Plan that includes appropriate siting, design, and operational modifications. USFWS recommends that the Eagle Conservation Plans be developed in 5 stages: Stage 1 - initial site assessment Stage 2 - site-specific surveys and assessment Stage 3 - initial fatality prediction stage Stage 4 - application of ACPs & compensatory mitigation Stage 5 - risk validation The Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance provides interpretive guidance to Service biologists and others in applying the regulatory permit standards as specified in the 2009 Final Eagle Permit Rule. This guidance does not impose additional regulatory requirements. The complete draft Eagle Conservation Guidance can be found at: Western States Sage Grouse Research Collaborative John Emmerich (WY GFD) gave an update on the Sage-grouse Research Collaborative. The Collaborative was formed in 2010 under the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative s wildlife group in coordination with WAFWA. The purpose of the Sage-grouse Collaborative is to coordinate studies examining the potential impacts of wind development on sage-grouse across their range. The Collaborative includes participation from academia, wind industry partners, federal and state agencies, and NGOs. Fundraising to date has pooled $1M from federal agencies that will be matched 2:1 by industry. Following on the RFP released last fall, three projects have been approved to date. Research projects are intended to operate on a 10-year timeframe including pre- and post- construction monitoring but include the publication of annual reports to convey findings on a timely basis. Additional information on the sage-grouse collaborative can be found at: OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS: N/A 5

6 PROGRESS AND OPPORTUNITIES: N/A THREATS AND EMERGING ISSUES IDENTIFIED: Offshore and near shore energy development continue to rise in importance. NEW OPPORTUNITIES IDENTIFIED: N/A ACTION ITEMS: 1. Encourage the 39 states included in the Eastern Interconnect to engage with their respective state PUCs to integrate wildlife sensitivity information into the delineation of energy development zones. Submitted by: Keith Sexson (KS), Chair Attendees Kathy Boydston, TPWD John Emmerich, WY Game & Fish Tom McCabe, USFWS-R8 Genevieve Thompson, AWWI/Audubon Russ Mason, MI DNR Environment Rob Manes, TNC Kevin Hunting, CA Fish & Game Ed Arnett, Bat Conservation International Michael Fey, American Bird Conservancy Benjamin Tuggle, USFWS Mary Rowland, USFS Rhonda Stewart, USFS Larry Paul, USFS Madeline West, Western Governors Association Ginny Kreitler, Audubon Jim Lyons, Defenders of Wildlife Larry Clark, USDA-APHIS-NWRC Clint Miller, The Conservation Fund Norman Murray, MO DOC Doyle Brown, MO DOC Matt Mattiodo, OK DOWC Matt Smith, KS DWP Leslie Dierant, USGS Mark Reiden, IN DNR/DFW 6

7 Jeff Underwood, USFWS Wendi Weber, USFWS Laurie Allen, USGS Geoff Geupel, PRBO Nancy Gloman, Defenders of Wildlife Carlos Madril, BLM Paul Johansen, WVDNR Jay Pruett, TNC OK Chapter Taber Allison, AWWI Eric Johnson, KS DWP Jack Connelly, ID DFG Randy Renner, DU Keith Trego, ND Natural Resources Trust Chris Iverson, USFS Barry Smith, CWS Jay Roberson, TX PWD Genevieve Thompson, Audubon/AWWI David Cottingham, USFWS Chris Smith, WMI Danielle Flynn, BLM Steve Adair, DU Michele Barsover, DJ Case & Assoc. Liz Lyons, MO DOC Marie Strassburger, USFWS Tom McCabe, USFWS Matt Hogan, USFWS Ren Lohoefner, USFWS William Woody, USFWS 7