Resource Documents: Virginia (24 items)

RSSVirginia

---

Virginia and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

Author:  Stevenson, David

Virginia Governor Northam led the Commonwealth into the multi-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). I conducted a multi-state study, updated for Virginia, which came to the same conclusion as a Congressional Research Center study [1]. The dozen-year-old RGGI program has resulted in no significant additional emission reduction compared to comparison states, but did shift generation to other states. Virginia electric generation fell 9% in the first ten months of 2021 despite a 7% increase in demand as the purchase of RGGI allowances began. Virginia natural gas fired power plants lost against regional electric grid bids from non-carbon tax states with 10% to 13% lower cost as shown in the following table [2].

Fuel Source	2021 MWh	2020 MWh	Difference	% Change
Coal	2,785,000	2,891,000	(106,000)	−4%
Natural Gas	45,673,000	54,297,000	(8,624,000)	−16%
Petroleum	291,000	174,000	117,000	67%
Other Gases	438,000	461,000	(23,000)	−5%
Total Fossil Fuel	49,187,000	57,823,000	(8,636,000)	−15%
Nuclear	23,846,000	24,734,000	(888,000)	−4%
Net Hydro	614,000	775,000	(161,000)	−21%
Biomass	2,898,000	2,870,000	28,000	1%
Solar	3,170,000	1,348,000	1,822,000	135%
Total Zero CO₂	30,528,000	29,727,000	801,000	3%
Total	79,715,000	87,550,000	(7,835,000)	−9%
Electric Demand	103,768,000	97,336,000	6,432,000	7%
October year to date totals from US EIA Electric Power Monthly

The RGGI program requires power plants to buy emission allowances for each ton of CO₂ emissions with allowances sold in quarterly auctions. Speculators can participate and potentially resell allowances at higher prices. Virginia power plants will lose about $330 million in generation revenue in 2021 (9.4 million lost MWh annualized @ $35/MWh). The loss of in state generation will continue to rise as RGGI allowance prices rise. A study of the RGGI state of Delaware showed natural gas generation could fall to zero at a $16/ton allowance price (see graph below). Generation will likely shift out of Virginia much faster than new wind and solar generation can be built.

The first question to consider is how Virginia emissions reductions compare to the RGGI states from 2007 to 2019:

• Per capita emissions from Virginia electric power plants fell 46 percent [3]. RGGI states fell 40 percent after adjusting for the emissions RGGI states shifted elsewhere by importing more electricity from other states, and industrial business lost to other states.
• Total Virginia power plant emissions fell 17.5 million tons [3].
• The Virginia generation mix changed by reducing coal-fired generation by 42 percentage points [3] compared to 16 in RGGI states. Natural gas generation increased by 43 percentage points, 10 in RGGI states. RGGI states added 5 percentage points of zero emission resources, and Virginia saw no change as solar added 4 percentage points replacing the same amount of nuclear and hydro power.

It is no surprise Virginia had a higher rate of reduction in emissions than RGGI states as that was similar to the conclusion of my peer reviewed study published in the Cato Journal, “A Review of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” [1]. RGGI had essentially no impact on emissions reductions compared to five other states who had similar energy policies except for RGGI. Consequently, there will likely be no environmental benefits from Virginia joining RGGI.

Importing power adds cost to cover the greater transmission distances and congestion at key transmission sub-stations. Well-paying jobs at the power plants would be lost, and that has secondary impacts on the economy. The direct cost of RGGI is currently about $58/year based on a Dominion Power rate increase request to the utility commission of $4.37/Megawatt-hour [4], and an average monthly usage of 1.1 megawatt- hour per month [5]. A large industrial customer using 6,000 Megawatt-hours a month in a utility commission example would pay about $315,000/year in 2022 for RGGI.

Allowance prices averaged $9.60/ton in 2021 and ended the year at $13 [6], and resulted in $128 million in costs added to electric bills. RGGI, Inc. itself shows prices rising to as much as $24/ton [7] by 2030. RGGI costs may average $250 million a year through 2030 based on the RGGI upper end forecast, or $2.5 billion over 10 years. RGGI, Inc. raised $284 million in RGGI auction revenue which was added to electric bills, and claims to have saved $112 million on electric bills by investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas abatement [8]. Our analysis [1] showed the savings estimates are questionable as no robust auditing has been done on the supposed savings, or of how money was spent. For example the RGGI report shows Connecticut invested money, but in actuality the state directed RGGI revenue to its general fund. In any case the supposed savings were insignificant. Energy efficiency and renewable energy savings represented 0.09% of RGGI state electric generation in 2019.

Joining RGGI would require electric generators to reduce CO₂ emissions 65% from 2007 levels, or an additional 13 million tons by 2030. In 2020 coal fired power plants emitted 4.5 million tons of CO₂. Closing those power plants would meet 35% of the emissions goal. Electric generation would fall 3.3 million Megawatt-hours. That is lost power plant generation worth about $115 million (3.3 million MWh @ $35/MWh). Decommissioning costs for those power plants would be about $325 million [9]. Coal production in Virginia would fall about 1.8 million tons a year currently worth $90 million a year [10] at $50/ton.

The balance of the emission reduction would have to come from natural gas fired plants reducing generation by about 19.3 million Megawatt-hours. Lost generation would be worth about $675 million a year by 2030 (19.3 million MWh @ $35/MWh). Virginia produces enough natural gas to generate 14.7 million megawatt-hours of natural gas that should be worth an average of $500,000 a year a year by 2030 [10]. By 2030 35% of Virginia natural gas generation would have to close with a decommissioning cost of $83 million [8].

The average annual cost between now and 2030 of lost generation, and lost coal and natural gas production could be as high as $560 million. RGGI expense may be $250 million a year, and there may be $400 million in one-time power plant decommissioning cost. Over 10 years RGGI might have a direct cost of $8.5 billion. Indirect and induced impacts are calculated using a regional multiplier from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is 1.2983 for utilities [11] may cost $19.5 billion to reduce emissions by about half. To go to zero emissions with RGGI alone may cost $39 billion.

The costs don’t count the impact of lost grid reliability. No longer exporting dispatchable power, and relying on intermittent wind and solar power, could cause electric grid reliability issues in the thirteen state PJM, Interconnection electric grid potentially leading to untold cost.

Notes:

1) Congressional Research Service, “The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Lessons Learned and Issues for Congress”, Jonathan L. Ramseur, May 16, 2017, sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41836.pdf . Cato Journal, “A review of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative”, www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2018/review-regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative

2) US Energy Information Agency, Electric Power Monthly, Electric Power Monthly – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

3) Author calculation from U.S. Energy Information Agency, “Detailed State Data”, www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/ : Emissions, Generation, Demand, and Capacity Charts by State 1990 to 2020. Inside Energy, Lost in transmission: How much electricity disappears between a power plant and your plug? www.insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/

4) Thomas Jefferson Institute, “Youngkin to Withdraw from RGGI, End Carbon Tax”, jeffersonpolicyjournal.com/youngkin-to-withdraw-from-rggi-end-carbon-tax/

5) Virginia State Corporation Commission, Carol Meyers cost testimony on Dominion Power Integrated Resource Plan, scc.virginia.gov/docketsearch/DOCS/4p8t01!.PDF

6) Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Auction Results, www.rggi.org/auctions/auction-results

7) Draft 2017 Model Rule Policy Scenario Overview Sept. 25, 2017, page 13, www.rggi.org/sites/default/files/Uploads/Program-Review/9-25-2017/Draft_IPM_Model_Rule_Results_Overview_09_25_17.pdf

8) RGGI, Inc., “The Investment of RGGI proceeds in 2019”, www.rggi.org/sites/default/files/Uploads/Proceeds/RGGI_Proceeds_Report_2019.pdf

9) Resources for the Future, “Decommissioning US Power Plants”, Daniel Raimi, Oct. 2017, media.rff.org/documents/RFF20Rpt20Decommissioning20Power20Plants.pdf . Average cost/MW is $117,000 for coal, $15,000 for NG.

10) US EIA weekly coal production, Weekly Coal Production by State (eia.gov), coal prices, Coal prices and outlook – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas production, table_02.doc (eia.gov). Freeing Energy: “Straight Facts on the environmental impact on coal”: 1100 pounds of coal/MWh; Straight facts on the environmental impact of coal: CO₂ emissions, pollution, land, and water (freeingenergy.com)

11) U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Impact Multiplier System, composite multiplier for indirect impact of utilities is 1.2983, available by subscription service only

—1/12/2022
David T. Stevenson, Director
Caesar Rodney Institute Center for Energy Competitiveness

Download original document: “Virginia and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative”

---

New evidence renewables don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions

Author:  Stevenson, David

This comparison of actual regional grid carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions between 2019 and 2021 shows increased use of wind and solar did not reduce emissions. Wind and solar electric generation are actually poor technologies no one would use without permanent government mandates and massive subsidies and taxes that are adding $1 billion a year in power cost. They are also unreliable, non-recyclable, have negative environmental impacts [1], have shorter productive life spans than alternative power sources, and take up a lot of ground. If it doesn’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions why are we using wind and solar?

The PJM regional electric grid serves over 65 million people in thirteen states. It is the largest such regional grid providing 22% of the countries electric power. Table 1 below shows how generation from various technologies changed from 2019 to 2021, Key changes are:

• Natural gas replaced coal almost one to one as it has been doing so for about the last decade.
• Special oil based backup generators ran significantly more often.
• Total carbon based generation stayed about the same at over 60% of total generation.
• Zero emission nuclear generation fell over 2%, and hydro fell about 5%.
• Combined wind and solar generation grew about 30% replacing lower nuclear and hydro generation plus covering a 0.2% increase in total regional generation, but still only equaled about 4% of total production despite over a decade of mandates and subsidies.
• Overall the emissions fell 0.8%, a small improvement.

Table 1: PJM electric generation by technology 2019 to 2021
Fuel	2019	2021	Change MWh	Change %
Coal	195,288,353	181,354,222	−13,934,131	−7.1%
Oil	833,249	1,469,140	635,891	76.3%
Natural Gas	299,925,492	313,750,191	13,824,699	4.6%
Other Gas	2,941,982	2,882,541	−59,441	−2.0%
SubTotal	498,989,076	499,456,094	467,018	0.1%
Hydro	11,047,831	10,509,639	−538,192	−4.9%
Nuclear	278,794,565	272,524,267	−6,270,298	−2.2%
Bio/Wood/Landfill	5,574,896	5,650,284	75,388	1.4%
Solar	2,734,753	7,336,368	4,601,615	168.3%
Wind	24,147,354	27,628,094	3,480,740	14.4%
Sub Total	322,299,399	323,648,652	1,349,253	0.4%
Total	821,288,475	823,104,746	1,816,271	0.2%
CO₂ systems mix	851.1926	843.3056	7.8870	−0.9%
Source: PJM Systems Mix [2]

Table 2 details the actual change in CO₂ emissions, but also considers how emissions may have fallen had the rate of emissions by megawatt-hour (MWh) remained the same as 2019. The key points are:

• Coal emissions should have fallen the same 7% generation did, but only fell about half as much as power plant efficiency fell.
• Emissions from oil based backup generation grew 60%, but efficiency improved about 25%.
• Natural gas generation grew 4.6%, but emissions only grew 3.6% as efficiency improved.
• Overall emissions would have fallen 2.3% instead of the actual 0.8% mainly caused by falling coal generation efficiency.

Table 2: PJM Carbon dioxide emissions by carbon-based fuels
Fuel	2019 tons	2021 tons	Difference	% Change	2021 with 2019 Emission Rates	Difference	% Change
Coal	208,669,670	200,861,367	7,808,303	−3.7%	193,780,761	14,888,909	−7.1%
Oil	1,201,503	1,923,964	(722,461)	60.1%	2,118,426	(916,923)	76.3%
Natural Gas	132,674,207	137,397,814	(4,723,607)	3.6%	138,789,663	(6,115,455)	4.6%
Other Gas	7,063,985	6,653,028	410,957	−5.8%	6,921,261	142,724	−2.0%
Total	349,609,366	346,836,173	2,773,193	−0.8%	341,610,111	7,999,254	−2.3%
Source: PJM Systems Mix [2]

Fuel switching from coal to natural gas would most likely have occurred even if no wind and solar power were available. Natural gas has about 60% lower emissions than coal for each MWh produced. Some of that fuel switching was caused by lower natural gas fuel prices, and part was simply replacing closed coal- fired power plants. As generation at coal plants falls the plants become less efficient actually increasing emissions per MWh as shown in Chart 1 below. Coal plants were not designed for frequent stops and starts and doing so can more than double emissions per MWh of production. Calculating from PJM Systems Mix data shows coal emissions grew 3.4%/MWh. Without that increase the actual total emission reduction may have fallen 2.3% instead of 0.8%.

Solar and wind generation increased about 30%, or by 8.1 million MWhs. Nuclear power fell 6.3 million MWhs with 85% of that decrease related to the closing of the last unit at Three Mile Island. If you have been following the news many nuclear power plants are in financial trouble [3] and some plants are closing. Nuclear power generation has to be continuous as there is limited ability to ramp a plant up and down so those plants largely follow prices set by other generation sources. Federal tax credits for wind power of over $20/MWh [4] are awarded based on the amount of power generated and were close to the PJM average wholesale energy price for 2021 of $30.84/MWh [5]. So wind projects will bid low or even negative prices sometimes to reap those tax credits and nuclear plants follow even when losing money. Hydropower is very flexible and can be ramped down if the prices go too low.

There is more to the story. Electric demand and supply must be in absolute balance every second or there are brownouts and blackouts. To keep everything in balance PJM can call on fast reacting oil and natural gas-fired generators known as peaking generators. They meet the demand but are less efficient than regular equipment and increase emissions. The tables shows a large increase in oil-fired generation, and emissions. That increase is likely a direct result of wind and solar power ramping up and down as the wind and sunlight stopped or slowed. Without that extra peaking plant operation total PJM emissions may have fallen another 0.2%.

This lack of CO₂ reduction by wind and solar comes at a high cost. Tax payers and electric customers provide expensive subsidies totaling almost $2 billion in the 2020-21 period, or $1 billion a year;

• Besides selling power into the competitive PJM market wind generation receives $18 to 23/MWh [4] in federal Production Tax Credits paid by taxpayers depending on the year built for an average of $20.50/MWh. With 54 million MWh produced in 2020 and 2021 [2] the total cost was $1,107 million.
• PJM reports [6] show from 6/1/2019 to June 1/2021, 1,077 MW of new solar capacity was added. Reports from the Solar Energy Industry Association [7] indicate the average installed cost of utility scale solar with tracking over that period was $0.96/Watt for a total investment of $1,034 million. Solar projects received a 26% federal Investment Tax Credit[5] from taxpayers, or $269 million.
• Four states (NJ, DE, MD, VA) participated in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that requires carbon based generators to buy allowances to emit CO₂. The cost gets passed on in electric bills. For example Virginia, the only one of the four states with integrated generation and distribution, received $228 million8 in RGGI taxes in 2021. Dominion Energy passed on $6.67/MWh to ratepayers, or about $80/year. In deregulated states the RGGI cost ($434 million[8] in 2020-21) are passed on indirectly in higher average PJM energy prices.

In summary, the minor reduction in emissions occurred because lower emission natural gas replaced coal. The emissions reduction might have been as much as 2.5% instead of 0.9%. Increased reliance on intermittent wind and solar power increased the use of inefficient peaking power plants, and as generation volume at coal plants fell they became less efficient. Increases in wind and solar generation offset zero emission nuclear and hydro generation (84% of increase), with the balance going to higher overall PJM generation. The conclusion is wind and solar power are not yielding lower carbon dioxide emissions, but are adding $1 billion a year in costs. Without lower emissions why are we mandating and subsidizing wind and solar power?

References:

1) Union of Concerned Scientists, “Environmental impacts of wind power”, https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-wind-power

2) PJM Systems Mix, https://gats.pjm-eis.com/gats2/PublicReports/PJMSystemMix

3) Institute for Energy Research, “Wind PTC threatens grid reliability”, https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/wind-ptc-threatens-grid-reliability/

4) US EIA, Higher renewable capacity additions in AEO2016 reflect policy changes and cost reductions, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26492 and Wind production tax credit extended to 2021, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46576

5) PJM 2021 Markets Report, page 5, https://pjm.com/-/media/committees-groups/committees/mc/2021/20210503/20210503-item-07b-1-2021-annual-meeting-markets-report.ashx

6) PJM Capacity by Fuel Type, https://www.pjm.com/-/media/markets-ops/ops-analysis/capacity-by-fuel-type-2021.ashx and https://www.pjm.com/-/media/markets-ops/ops-analysis/capacity-by-fuel-type-2019.ashx

7) Solar Energy Industry Association, Solar Market Insight Report 2021 Q4, https://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-2021-q4

8) RGGI, Inc., Auction Results, https://www.rggi.org/auctions/auction-results

9) Caesar Rodney Institute, “Virginia your green new price tag is showing”

—5/17/2022
David T. Stevenson, Director
Caesar Rodney Institute Center for Energy and Environment

Download original document: “New evidence renewables don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions”

---

Senator Jay Rockefeller asked to reconsider his position on industrial wind

Author:  Spiggle, Wayne

Dear Senator Rockefeller,

Please accept my personal warm greetings. We have visited on several occasions, particularly on health care. You may remember me as a physician who yearns for an improved Medicare for All, as embodied in (H.R. 676).

I’ve just read with interest the email response you are making to people actively concerned about your policies on “renewable” energy and I’d like to make the following comments about industrial wind. Personally, I favor subsidies that go to small hydropower development and research on burning coal more cleanly and think they should be increased.

But, on industrial wind:

• Thank you for your steady objection to (H.R. 2454). The Cap and Trade policy has not worked in Europe and will not work in the U.S. Purchasing a permit to pollute and passing the cost to the public just does not make sense.
• Your support of (S. 1462), (S. 3813) and (S. 433) appears to be stated in the affirmative when you say that, in the past, you have supported renewable energy standards and have been the major driving force behind the construction of new wind turbines across the country. This is where I plead for you to re-examine your policy. Please, please educate yourself about the unintended consequences of the proliferation of wind turbines, particularly along Appalachian ridge tops. If you do, you will find:

1. The inefficiency of the turbines related to wind fluctuations will require far more land disruption than does strip mining for coal. First reported by the Nature Conservancy and subsequently documented elsewhere, even by Senator Lamar Alexander you will find it very apparent that if you pass laws that mandate even 15% of electricity be from sources like industrial wind you will be sentencing the majority of our celebrated West Virginia Hills to be pock marked with giant turbines and thousands of miles of new transmission lines to serve them. Tragically, this physical and ecologic transformation of West Virginia’s trademark landscape will have no significant amelioration of green house gasses because of the required co-generation of base load stand by.
2. The federal and state tax subsidies for industrial wind (and solar) are far out of balance for other energy sources, 15 times more. Industrial wind must receive this largess to get started AND to keep going. Explain to me how it is good public policy to provide such a favoritism to an industry that cannot contribute to the global warming problem in a significant way?
3. Imposing renewable standards will drive up electricity costs very significantly. That means the cost of this new energy policy will be disproportionally borne by the middle class and the poor. I feel very confident that is not your intent and will be very sad if it becomes your legacy.

Senator, I belong to The Allegheny Highlands Alliance (AHA), a relatively new grass roots organization with representation in WV, MD, PA, VA, and SC. Our mission is to, in an intellectually honest, scientifically based way; educate the public about the realities of industrial wind and the pending legislation that would further codify its undeserved position. There are several other issues, including impact on migrating song birds and raptors, destruction of habitat for rare terrestrials (both concerns of the USFWS and the WVDNR), negative health impacts from constant low frequency noise inflicted on people living close to an industrial wind facility, water resource disruption, to site a few.

We believe there is a better way to promote alternative energy than to dictate a percentage standard and then to sit back to see what happens. That is getting the cart before the horse. Once again, I implore you, with the assistance of staff to open your mind and investigate the above observations. AHA has extensive expertise on this subject and, if invited, we would appreciate the honor to meet with you for a briefing.

Thank you,

Wayne C. Spiggle, MD
West Virginia

(((( ))))

Allegheny Treasures notes:

Dr. Wayne Spiggle is well known in West Virginia and Maryland as an effective social justice advocate and environmental leader. As a former president of MedChi, the Maryland Medical Society, he pressed for universal health care and he is still involved in that fight. As a Mineral County commissioner, he has promoted quality of life issues and emphasized the importance of developing a welcoming environment to encourage jobs and business development. For his public health initiatives he was recently recognized by the West Virginia State Medical Society with their prestigious Excellence in Medicine Award.

Spiggle has studied industrial wind with the critical eye of a scientist. He has concluded that industrial wind is poor public policy because it requires base load back up from fossil fuel, cannot reduce green house gases, receives public subsidies some 15 times more than other energy sources, is destined to raise electricity bills for homes and businesses and is handicapped by very significant environmental issues sufficient to bring about a transformation of Appalachian ridge tops of geologic proportions while having a disastrous mortality on migrating song birds, raptors and resident bats.

A member of the Allegheny Highlands Alliance (AHA), he has joined their mission to inform the public about industrial wind by adhering to the principals on intellectual honesty and scientific based knowledge.

The Allegheny Highlands Alliance (AHA) is a consortium of citizen/environment organizations with membership in five states along the Allegheny Front. The AHA is in the process of discovering the facts about industrial wind, its potential to reduce green house gases, its economics and the impact of industrial wind energy project installations on the ecology and human health.

The purposes of AHA shall include but not be limited to the following:

1. To advance public knowledge and understanding of the cultural, biological, environmental diversity, uniqueness, and sensitivity of the major ridgelines that comprise the Allegheny Highlands;
2. To preserve and protect areas of particular scenic, geologic, biologic, historic, wilderness, and/or recreational importance in the Allegheny Highlands;
3. To aid in the establishment of responsible policies to protect scientific, educational or aesthetic values;
4. To conduct regional and resource studies as a basis for the wise use of the various resources of the Allegheny Highlands; to develop programs in energy conservation and wise production; and to serve local communities, the region, the people of the Allegheny Highlands as an agency for popular enlightenment, for cultural improvement, and for scientific advancement;
5. To advocate governmental policies for the conservation and wise management of energy and natural resources of the Allegheny Highlands.

AHA Contact Larry Thomas, President, at larryvthomas@aol.com

---

Comments and Questions on Proposed Wind Energy Permit by Rule

Author:  Webb, Rick

Date: October 5, 2010

To: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Re: Follow-up Comments and Questions on Proposed Regulation; 9VAC15-40. Small Renewable Energy Projects (Wind) Permit by Rule (adding 9VAC15-40-10 through 9VAC15-40-140)

This submission includes follow-up comments, questions, and requests for information concerning the regulations proposed by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to implement the Permit by Rule (PBR) legislation for wind energy projects. These follow-up comments, questions, and information requests focus on the DEQ’s responses to specific questions posed in my original comments, dated August 18, 2010.

I have three major objections to the process followed by the DEQ in the development of the proposed regulations.

1) Decisions concerning a number of critical regulatory requirements are described by the DEQ as based on Regulatory Advisory Panel (RAP) consensus. This is evasive or nonresponsive to requests for the basis of important rule-making decisions. As specified below, I am asking that the DEQ identify the objective criteria that served as the basis for RAP consensus decisions. I am also asking that the DEQ provide the documents and other information that were considered by the RAP as the basis for its consensus decisions.

2) Contrary to the stated intent of the PBR legislation and the DEQ’s stated intent in the notice of proposed regulation, the DEQ indicates that it intends to rely in a number of instances on guidance “to be developed” for implementation of the PBR rather than setting forth permit requirements “up front.” This both defeats the intent of the legislation to provide certainty in the permitting process and denies the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on the rules that will ultimately be in effect.

3) The DEQ failed to respond to my specific comment and question concerning the basis for ruling that only T&E and SGCN wildlife species warrant site-specific data collection. The DEQ also fails to explain why, for onshore wind projects, mitigation plans to provide wildlife protection are only required when state T&E wildlife or bats are found within the defined disturbance zone. The PBR legislation does not limit wildlife protection to only these few species, nor does it define “significant adverse impacts to wildlife” to exclude consideration of impacts to wildlife other than state T&E species and bats. The DEQ’s proposed regulations are thus not compliant with the PBR legislation.

Specific additional comments, questions, and requests for information related to my original comments (in green) and DEQ responses follow. The numbering of my original comments is the same as in my original comment submission.

1. How was it determined that a disturbance zone defined as the directly impacted area plus a margin of 100 feet provides a sufficient criterion for evaluation of potential wildlife impacts?

• DEQ response to (1): Issue resolved by consensus of members of the RAP.
• Follow-up question: What objective criteria provided the basis for the RAP determination?
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the RAP in making this determination.

4. Given that the legislation does not appear to impose any such limitation, how was it determined that only T&E and SGCN wildlife species warrant site-specific data collection?

• DEQ response to (4): The DEQ provided no response.
• Follow-up question: What objective criteria provided the basis for the DEQ or RAP determination to limit site-specific data collection to only these species?
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the DEQ or RAP in making this determination.

5. What protocols or standards does the DEQ intend to require, and if it is the intent of the legislation to create a PBR process that clearly establishes permit review requirements “upfront,” is it not necessary to include explicit language in the regulations concerning protocols and standards required for all surveys, data collection, and analysis?
6. If the public is to be provided an actual opportunity to make informed and meaningful comments on the proposed PBR regulations, doesn’t the public need an opportunity to examine and comment on the protocols and standards for required surveys, data collection, and analysis?
15. Will the DEQ review and approve monitoring plans, and what criteria, including search methods, search frequency, search area, and searcher qualifications, will the DEQ consider in approving monitoring plans?

• DEQ response to (5), (6), and (15): Protocols and methods details were developed by consensus of the RAP. The DEQ plans to include these as a guidance to be written after the regulations are final, per consensus of the RAP. Guidance drafting is not subject to Administrative Process Act.
• Follow-up question and comments: What objective criteria provided the basis for the RAP determination that protocols and methods should not be included as regulations subject to formal public review and comment? Informal development of requirements as guidance at an unspecified later time does not conform with the purpose of the PBR or the stated intent of the DEQ to provide certainty and rules “up front.” Protocol and method requirements should be proposed as regulations and the public should be provided a new formal comment period to review and provide input on these requirements.
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the RAP or DEQ in developing protocols and methods details. Please provide copies of the guidance provisions suggested by the RAP and any other guidance provisions under consideration by the DEQ.

7. Does the DEQ plan to require access to all wildlife data and analysis results?
16. Will the DEQ require submission of all monitoring data, and will this data be made available to the public?

• DEQ response to (7) and (16): The DEQ intends to clarify requirements related to data submission, evaluation, retention, and public availability in regulation or guidance.
• Follow-up comment: The DEQ should make requirements known “up front,” and requirements should be proposed as regulations rather than guidance. The public should be provided a new formal comment period to review and provide input on these requirements.
• Request for information: Please provide any documents and information under consideration by the DEQ that concern data submission, evaluation, retention, and public availability requirements.

9. Is there a threshold of potential environmental harm that will result in permit denial or substantial project modification?
10. Can wind energy projects be permitted in cases where significant adverse impacts to state-listed T&E wildlife cannot be avoided?

• DEQ response to (9) and (10): The DEQ provided no specific response to (9). The DEQ indicates that approval decisions such as approval of mitigation plans will be based on the final version the PBR regulations after consulting with “sister” agencies.
• Follow-up comments and question: The DEQ should respond to the simple question posed in question (9): Is there any threshold of potential environmental harm that will result in permit denial or substantial project modification? Consistent with the intent of the PBR legislation, the DEQ should make requirements known “up front,” and requirements should be proposed as regulations rather than guidance. The public should be provided a new formal comment period to review and provide input on these requirements.

11. What does this mean [“development of reasonable and proportionate mitigation plans that offset adverse impacts”]; does it mean that an applicant might satisfy mitigation requirements by providing protection for historic resources other than the particular historic resource that is adversely affected by the project?

DEQ response to (11): Questions on this were resolved by consensus of the RAP with DHR input. DEQ will draft guidance.

Follow-up comment: The DEQ should make requirements known “up front,” and requirements should be proposed as regulations rather than guidance. The public should be provided a new formal comment period to review and provide input on these requirements.

Request for information: Please provide copies of the RAP’s recommended guidance provisions.

12. What criteria or rationale support the decision to limit money spent on, or cost of, avoidance of bat mortality to $5,000 per turbine?

• DEQ response to (12): The issue was resolved by consensus of members of the RAP.
• Follow-up question: What objective criteria provided the basis for the RAP consensus determination?
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the RAP in making this determination.

14. Why hasn’t the DEQ required curtailment or turbine shutdown to protect raptors and migratory birds?

• DEQ response to (14): Wildlife mitigation issues were resolved by consensus of the RAP.
• Follow-up question: What objective criteria provided the basis for the RAP consensus determination?
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the RAP in making this determination.

Please consider the above requests for documents and information as Freedom of Information Act requests. I also requests that a new formal public comment period be provided once the DEQ has provided the requested information and completed development of a complete set of proposed regulations to implement the PBR.

Download original document: “Comments and Questions on Proposed Wind Energy Permit by Rule”

---

Earlier Documents »

Click here to send in ordinances, contracts, research, testimony, presentations, etc.
Or see Contact page for more anonymous options.