DOCSLIB.ORG

RELDI Report MBG 2.22.21

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OPPOSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES February 2021 © 2021 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law develops legal techniques to fight climate change, trains law students and lawyers in their use, and provides the legal profession and the public with up-to-date resources on key topics in climate law and regulation. It works closely with the scientists at Columbia University's Earth Institute and with a wide range of governmental, non- governmental and academic organizations. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Columbia Law School 435 West 116th Street New York, NY 10027 Tel: +1 (212) 854-3287 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.ColumbiaClimateLaw.com Twitter: @ColumbiaClimate Blog: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange Disclaimer: This report is the responsibility of The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law alone, and does not reflect the views of Columbia Law School or Columbia University. This report is an academic study provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and the receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. No party should act or rely on any information contained in this report without first seeking the advice of an attorney. Coordinating Editor: Hillary Aidun Authors: Kate Marsh, Neely McKee, and Maris Welch Opposition to Renewables in the United States CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Alabama ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Local Laws/Ordinances ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Contested Projects .............................................................................................................................. 3 3. Alaska ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Local Laws/Ordinances ...................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Contested Projects .............................................................................................................................. 4 4. Arizona ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 4.1 Local Laws/Ordinances ...................................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Contested Projects .............................................................................................................................. 4 5. Arkansas ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Local Laws/Ordinances ...................................................................................................................... 5 5.2 Contested Projects .............................................................................................................................. 5 6. California ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 6.1 Local Laws/Ordinances ...................................................................................................................... 5 6.2 Contested Projects .............................................................................................................................. 6 7. Colorado ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 7.1 Local Laws/Ordinances ...................................................................................................................... 7 7.2 Contested Projects .............................................................................................................................. 7 8. Connecticut ................................................................................................................................................. 7 8.1 State Policy ........................................................................................................................................... 7 8.2 Local Laws/Ordinances ...................................................................................................................... 7 8.3 Contested Projects .............................................................................................................................. 8 9. Delaware ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 9.1 Local Laws/Ordinances ...................................................................................................................... 8 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law | Columbia Law School i Opposition to Renewables in the United States 9.2 Contested Projects .............................................................................................................................. 8 10. Florida .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 10.1 Local Laws/Ordinances ...................................................................................................................... 9 10.2 Contested Projects .............................................................................................................................. 9 11. Georgia ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 11.1 Local Laws/Ordinances .................................................................................................................... 10 11.2 Contested Projects ............................................................................................................................ 10 12. Hawaii ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 12.1 Local Laws/Ordinances .................................................................................................................... 11 12.2 Contested Projects ............................................................................................................................ 11 13. Idaho .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 13.1 Local Laws/Ordinances .................................................................................................................... 11 13.2 Contested Projects ............................................................................................................................ 12 14. Illinois ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 14.1 Local Laws/Ordinances .................................................................................................................... 12 14.2 Contested Projects ............................................................................................................................ 13 15. Indiana ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 15.1 Local Laws/Ordinances .................................................................................................................... 14 15.2 Contested Projects ............................................................................................................................ 17 16. Iowa ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 16.1 Local Laws/Ordinances .................................................................................................................... 18 16.2 Contested Projects ............................................................................................................................ 18 17. Kansas ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 17.1 State Policy ......................................................................................................................................... 19 17.2 Local Laws/Ordinances .................................................................................................................... 19 17.3 Contested Projects ............................................................................................................................ 20 Sabin Center for Climate Change
Recommended publications
  • Return of Private Foundation CT' 10 201Z '

    Return of Private Foundation CT' 10 201Z '

    Return of Private Foundation OMB No 1545-0052 Form 990 -PF or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable Trust Department of the Treasury Treated as a Private Foundation Internal Revenue Service Note. The foundation may be able to use a copy of this return to satisfy state reporting requirem M11 For calendar year 20 11 or tax year beainnina . 2011. and ending . 20 Name of foundation A Employer Identification number THE PFIZER FOUNDATION, INC. 13-6083839 Number and street (or P 0 box number If mail is not delivered to street address ) Room/suite B Telephone number (see instructions) (212) 733-4250 235 EAST 42ND STREET City or town, state, and ZIP code q C If exemption application is ► pending, check here • • • • • . NEW YORK, NY 10017 G Check all that apply Initial return Initial return of a former public charity D q 1 . Foreign organizations , check here . ► Final return Amended return 2. Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, check here and attach Address chang e Name change computation . 10. H Check type of organization' X Section 501( exempt private foundation E If private foundation status was terminated Section 4947 ( a)( 1 ) nonexem pt charitable trust Other taxable p rivate foundation q 19 under section 507(b )( 1)(A) , check here . ► Fair market value of all assets at end J Accounting method Cash X Accrual F If the foundation is in a60-month termination of year (from Part Il, col (c), line Other ( specify ) ---- -- ------ ---------- under section 507(b)(1)(B),check here , q 205, 8, 166. 16) ► $ 04 (Part 1, column (d) must be on cash basis) Analysis of Revenue and Expenses (The (d) Disbursements total of amounts in columns (b), (c), and (d) (a) Revenue and (b) Net investment (c) Adjusted net for charitable may not necessanly equal the amounts in expenses per income income Y books purposes C^7 column (a) (see instructions) .) (cash basis only) I Contribution s odt s, grants etc.
  • DIVERSE EQUITABLE INCLUSIVE K-12 Public Schools a New Call for Philanthropic Support

    DIVERSE EQUITABLE INCLUSIVE K-12 Public Schools a New Call for Philanthropic Support

    DIVERSE EQUITABLE INCLUSIVE K-12 Public Schools A New Call for Philanthropic Support the Sillerman Center FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PHILANTHROPY Acknowledgements This report was written by Dr. Susan Eaton and Dr. Suchi Saxena. This report grows out of a long-running project of the Sillerman Center that engages grantmakers who want to better understand the causes, myriad harms and potential cures for racial and socioeconomic segregation in our nation's K-12 public schools. This report was informed by interviews with a wide variety of educators and other practitioners working towards diverse, equitable and inclusive schools, by numerous convenings and conferences, by research and by the authors' experience in this field. We wish to thank our project collabora- tors and sponsors, The Ford Foundation and the Einhorn Family Charitable Trust. We deeply appreciate all the people who reviewed this report for us, who participated in interviews and who attended meetings that we hosted in 2017. Special thanks to Sheryl Seller, Stacey King, Amber Abernathy and Victoria St. Jean at the Sillerman Center, to Mary Pettigrew, who designed this report and our beloved proofreader, Kelly Garvin. We especially appreciate the thorough reviews from Gina Chirichigno, Itai Dinour, Sanjiv Rao and Melissa Johnson Hewitt, whose suggestions greatly improved this report. Susan E. Eaton Director, The Sillerman Center for the Advancement of Philanthropy Professor of Practice in Social Policy The Heller School for Social Policy and Management Brandeis University Table of
  • Kawailoa Wind Power Draft HCP Amendment

    Kawailoa Wind Power Draft HCP Amendment

    Kawailoa Wind Power Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment Applicant Kawailoa Wind, LLC 1166 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036 HCP Amendment Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 737 Bishop Street, Suite 2340 Honolulu, HI 96813 Revised September 2018 This page intentionally left blank Kawailoa Wind Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment Table of Contents Introduction and Project Overview ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Summary ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Hawaiian Hoary Bat .............................................................................................. 1 1.1.2 Hawaiian Petrel .................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Applicant Background ................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Project Description ................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Project History ..................................................................................................... 5 1.4.2 Project Design and Components ............................................................................. 5 1.4.3 Purpose and Need for Kawailoa Wind Project ...........................................................
  • State Attorneys General: Empowering the Clean Energy Future

    State Attorneys General: Empowering the Clean Energy Future

    Copyright © 2019 by the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center. All rights reserved. State Energy and Environmental Impact Center NYU School of Law https://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/state-impact The primary authors of this report are Jessica R. Bell, Clean Energy Attorney at the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center, and Hampden Macbeth, Staff Attorney at the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center. The authors and the Center are grateful for the research contributions of Ryan Levandowski, a student at the Georgetown University Law Center, and Maggie St. Jean, a student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. This report does not necessarily reflect the views of NYU School of Law, if any. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Section I. Overview of the Role of Attorney General Activities in Energy Matters ............................................................ 5 Protecting States’ Energy Rights ................................................................................... 5 Background .................................................................................................................... 5 Mutual Accommodation of Federal and State Energy Rights .............................. 6 Defending States’ Rights Against Preemption and Dormant Commerce Clause Claims .......................................................................................... 7 Defending States’ Rights Against Discriminatory Federal
  • Report for America's Host Newsroom Partners for 2021-2022 (Current And

    Report for America's Host Newsroom Partners for 2021-2022 (Current And

    Report for America’s host newsroom partners for 2021-2022 (current and new) State Newsroom Beat(s) Anchorage Daily News / AK adn.com Healthcare and public health in Alaska AK KCAW Coverage of Sitka and surrounding communities AK Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Health care in rural Alaska AK KUCB Regional reporting in the Eastern Aleutians 1) Child wellness and mental health in Alabama 2) AL AL.com educational opportunity in Birmingham AL Montgomery Advertiser Alabama's rural "Black Belt" region AL WBHM Education in Birmingham, AL AR Southwest Times Record Food insecurity and poverty in Fort Smith, AR KAWC Colorado River Public AZ Media Latino communities in Yuma County African-American and Latino communities in South AZ The Arizona Republic Phoenix Arizona Center for AZ Investigative Reporting Health care crises on the Arizona-Mexico border AZ Nogales International Eastern Santa Cruz County, AZ AZ TucsonSentinel.com Government accountability and equity issues in Tucson State-by-state data journalism to serve legislative CA Associated Press--Data reporters nationwide Growth and development in San Diego County's CA inewsource backcountry Inequality and income disparities in the Mission District CA Mission Local of SF CA Radio Bilingüe, Inc. San Joaquin Valley Latino community Education, childhood trauma and the achievement gap CA Redding Record Searchlight in and around Redding The effect of environmental regulation on salmon runs, wildfires, the economy and other issues in Mendocino CA The Mendocino Voice County, CA Childhood poverty in San
  • Appendix H Public Comments and Responses to DEIS

    Appendix H Public Comments and Responses to DEIS

    APPENDIX H PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT According to NEPA, federal agencies are required to identify and formally respond to all substantive public comments. A standardized content analysis process was conducted to analyze the public comments on the Draft EIS. Each comment letter and email message received was read, analyzed and considered by BLM, Reclamation, and Western to ensure that all substantive comments were identified. In performing this analysis, the BLM, Reclamation, and Western relied on the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations to determine what constituted a substantive comment. A substantive comment does one or more of the following: Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information and/or analysis in the EIS. Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the information and/or analysis in the EIS. Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the Draft EIS that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and addresses significant issues. Questions, with a reasonable basis, the merits of an alternative or alternatives. Causes changes in or revisions to the proposed action. Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the planning process itself. Thirty-seven individual comment letters and/or emails were submitted to the BLM during the 45-day comment period. Within the 37 comment letters, 322 comments were identified and addressed. Comments on the Draft EIS that failed to meet the above description were considered non-substantive because they expressed personal opinions or preferences that were not relevant to the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIS, or represented commentary regarding resource management unrelated to the Draft EIS.
  • Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs

    Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs

    WHITE PAPER Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs Prepared by: Taber D. Allison, PhD, AWWI Director of Research Novermber 15, 2018 AWWI White Paper: Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs American Wind Wildlife Institute 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 950 Washington, DC 20005 www.awwi.org For Release November 15, 2018 AWWI is a partnership of leaders in the wind industry, wildlife management agencies, and science and environmental organizations who collaborate on a shared mission: to facilitate timely and responsible development of wind energy while protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat. Find this document online at www.awwi.org/resources/bat-white-paper/ Acknowledgements This document was made possible by the generous support of AWWI’s Partners and Friends. We thank Pasha Feinberg, Amanda Hale, Jennie Miller, Brad Romano, and Dave Young for their review and comment on this white paper. Prepared By Taber D. Allison, PhD, AWWI Director of Research Suggested Citation Format American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI). 2018. Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs. Washington, DC. Available at www.awwi.org. © 2018 American Wind Wildlife Institute. Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs Contents Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Bats of the U.S. and Canada ..............................................................................................................................
  • Mundt Resume and Responses

    Mundt Resume and Responses

    TODD MUNDT [email protected] KUOW - Seattle, WA March 2015 - Present Managing Producer Responsible for the output of KUOW’s producers and hosts. Assesses content and presentation, based on KUOW editorial priorities. Works with the managing editor for news to take KUOW’s reporting and producing capacity to the next level of public service. Louisville Public Media - Louisville, KY March 2008 - March 2012 / April 2014 - March 2015 Chief Content Officer; WFPL Program Director Responsible for content and strategy on WFPL, WUOL, WFPK and associated sites and platforms. Developed strategies for on-air fundraising. Supervised of on-air staff, news department and station managers. NPR - Boston, MA April 2012 - March 2014 Editorial Director, Digital Services Worked with NPR stations to build authority and audience across digital platforms. Oversaw NPR/Knight digital news training for member stations, and a team of six trainers. Shaped the editorial focus of products and software developed by DS, working collaboratively with other departments. Served as an advocate for station needs inside the organization, and met regularly with station managers and content directors to survey industry trends and digital innovation. Iowa Public Radio - Des Moines, IA August 2006 - March 2008 Director of Content and Media Created the three streams of Iowa Public Radio on more than 20 stations across the state. Responsible for content strategy on newly-created network; development and implementation of formats and schedules for News, Triple A, and Classical networks. Michigan Public Media - Ann Arbor, MI September 1997 - August 2006 Chief Content Officer Responsible for creating and curating local productions on Michigan Radio, Michigan Television, The Michigan Channel, and related online ventures; oversaw development of Play, a curated web site featuring the work of video artists.
  • Wind Energy & Wind Park Siting and Zoning Best Practices And

    Wind Energy & Wind Park Siting and Zoning Best Practices And

    2012 Wind Energy & Wind Park Siting and Zoning Best Practices and Guidance for States NARUC Grants & Research January 2012 NARUC The National Association A report for the Minnesota Public Utilities of Regulatory Commission Funded by the U.S. Department of Utility Energy Commissioners The report you are reading was created under the State Electricity Regulators Capacity Assistance and Training (SERCAT) program, a project of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Grants & Research Department. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-OE0000123. The report was authored by Tom Stanton. Throughout the preparation process, the members of NARUC provided the author(s) with editorial comments and suggestions. However, the views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author(s) and may not necessarily agree with positions of NARUC or those of the U.S. Department of Energy. Special thanks to the Commissioners and staff at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for guiding this work, and to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the National Energy Technology Lab for their continued technical assistance to NARUC. Please direct questions regarding this report to Miles Keogh, NARUC’s Director of Grants & Research, [email protected]; (202) 898-2200. Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
  • 2015 Renewable Energy Data Book Acknowledgments

    2015 Renewable Energy Data Book Acknowledgments

    2015 Renewable Energy Data Book Acknowledgments This report was produced by Philipp Beiter and Tian Tian, edited by Mike Meshek, and designed by Alfred Hicks of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). We greatly appreciate the input, review, and support of Assistant Secretary David Friedman, Ookie Ma, Steve Capanna, Paul Basore, Hoyt Battey, Charlie Gay, Susan Hamm, Ian Hamos, Fred Joseck, Benjamin King, Tien Nguyen, Sunita Satyapal, Paul Spitsen, Rich Tusing, Timothy Welch, and Jeff Winick of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as well as Chad Augustine, Jerry Davis, Judi Deitchel, David Feldman, Ran Fu, Bryan Hannegan, Caley Johnson, Henry Johnston, Eric Lantz, Al LiVecchi, Jeff Logan, David Mooney, Robin Newmark, Gian Porro, and Paul Schwabe of NREL. Notes Capacity data are reported in watts of alternating current (AC) unless indicated otherwise. The primary data represented and synthesized in the 2015 Renewable Energy Data Book come from the publicly available data sources identified on page 122. Front page inset photos (left to right): iStock/754519; iStock/4393369; iStock/354309; iStock/2101722; iStock/2574180; iStock/5080552; Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; iStock/11265066 Page 2: iStock/721000; page 6: iStock/5751076; page 17: photo from Invenergy LLC, NREL 14369; page 41: iStock/750178; page 53: iStock/ 754519; page 63: iStock/4393369; page 71: iStock/354309; page 77: iStock/2101722; page 83: iStock/2574180; page 87: iStock/5080552; page 91: photo by Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; page 99: iStock/11265066; page 109: iStock/330791; page 119: iStock/3459287 Key Findings • The overall U.S. energy consumption decreased to 97.7 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2015—a 0.6% decline from 2014.
  • Board of Trustees

    Board of Trustees

    Board of Trustees Research and Innovation, Legal and Legislative Affairs Committee February 13, 2020 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY Research and Innovation, Legal and Legislative Affairs Committee 12:45 PM – Thursday – February 13, 2020 Board of Trustees Room 315 Altgeld Hall AGENDA 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Verification of Quorum and Appropriate Notification of Public Meeting 3. Meeting Agenda Approval .................................................................................... Action.......... i 4. Review and Approval of Minutes of August 15, 2019 ......................................... Action..........1 5. Chair's Comments/Announcements 6. Public Comment* 7. University Reports a. Exceptions to Full-Time Requirements for Tenured Positions.............. Information........20 b. State Legislative Report ......................................................................... Information........22 c. Federal Legislative Report ..................................................................... Information........24 d. Sponsored Program Administration Quarterly Report ......................... Information........27 e. Faculty Presentation .............................................................................. Information........46 8. Other Matters 9. Next Meeting Date 10. Adjournment *Individuals wishing to make an appearance before the Board should consult the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University, Article II, Section 4 – Appearances before the Board. Appearance request
  • Area Wide Plan

    Area Wide Plan

    nye County esmeralda County WhIte PIne County Area Wide Plan Inyo County lInColn County Coalition Assessment Grant funded through the US Environmental Protection Agency [This page intentionally left blank.] Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Coalition ............................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Description/Overview ................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.1 History ................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.2 Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Renewable Energy Factors ............................................................................................................ 8 1.2.1 Clean Energy Resources and Technologies .......................................................................... 9 1.2.2 Energy