DOCSLIB.ORG

Epa Contract No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epa Contract No Prepared for: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 100 Cambridge Street - Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 RENEWABLE ENERGY SITING STUDY ENV 09 POL 05 Prepared by: NOBLE & WICKERSHAM LLP Megdal & Associates April, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Overview......................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Scope and Methodology ..............................................................................................1-1 1.3 Organization of the Report...........................................................................................1-2 2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Permitting and Approval Processes .............................................................................2-1 2.2 Massachusetts Overview..............................................................................................2-3 2.2.1 Local Issues..........................................................................................................2-3 2.2.2 State Issues...........................................................................................................2-4 2.2.3 Federal Issues.......................................................................................................2-5 3.0 NON-PROJECT SPECIFIC INTERVIEWS WITH DEVELOPERS .....................3-1 3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Methodology................................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Findings........................................................................................................................3-3 4.0 ANALYSIS OF SIX MASSACHUSETTS WIND POWER PROJECTS ................4-1 4.1 Purpose of Case Studies...............................................................................................4-1 4.2 Methodology................................................................................................................4-3 4.3 Findings........................................................................................................................4-3 4.3.1 Hoosac Wind Project...........................................................................................4-3 4.3.2 Berkshire Wind Project........................................................................................4-9 4.3.3 Princeton Wind Project......................................................................................4-14 4.3.4 Orleans Wind Project.........................................................................................4-18 4.3.5 Fairhaven Wind Project.....................................................................................4-22 4.3.6 Hull Wind I and II..............................................................................................4-25 4.4 Summary of Key Case Study Results ........................................................................4-29 5.0 REGULATORY PROGRAMS IN OTHER STATES ...............................................5-1 5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Methodology................................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Summary of Findings...................................................................................................5-1 5.4 Findings........................................................................................................................5-2 5.4.1 Massachusetts ......................................................................................................5-2 5.4.2 Connecticut ..........................................................................................................5-4 5.4.3 Maine ...................................................................................................................5-5 5.4.4 New Hampshire ...................................................................................................5-7 5.4.5 Rhode Island........................................................................................................5-8 5.4.6 Vermont ...............................................................................................................5-8 5.4.7 New York.............................................................................................................5-9 5.4.8 Pennsylvania ......................................................................................................5-11 5.4.9 West Virginia.....................................................................................................5-12 5.5 Analysis of Different State Approaches to Permitting Wind Projects.......................5-14 L2009-123 i 165122 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................6-1 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................7-1 FIGURES Figure 1. Locations of Six Case Study Projects..........................................................................4-2 Figure 2. Hoosac Wind Projects – Florida and Monroe Massachusetts .....................................4-4 Figure 3. Berkshire Wind Project Hancock and Lanesborough, Massachusetts ......................4-10 Figure 4. Princeton Wind Project – Princeton, Massachusetts .................................................4-15 Figure 5. Orleans Wind Project – Orleans, Massachusetts.......................................................4-19 Figure 6. John Young Windmill ...............................................................................................4-20 Figure 7. Fairhaven Wind Project – Fairhaven, Massachusetts................................................4-23 Figure 8. Hull Wind Project – Hull, Massachusetts..................................................................4-27 Figure 9. Timeline for Six Case Study Wind Projects in Massachusetts..................................4-31 TABLES Table 1: Developer Wind Projects By State ...............................................................................3-2 Table 2. Existing and Proposed Wind Projects to be Studied in Detail......................................4-1 Table 3. Permit Requirements.....................................................................................................4-3 Table 4: Summary of Actions, Venues and Rulings of Hoosac Wind Project ...........................4-7 Table 5. Hoosac Wind Project Timeline.....................................................................................4-8 Table 6. Berkshire Wind Project Timeline ...............................................................................4-13 Table 7. Princeton Wind Project Timeline ...............................................................................4-17 Table 8. Orleans Wind Project Timeline ..................................................................................4-21 Table 9. Fairhaven Wind Project Timeline...............................................................................4-25 Table 10. Hull Wind Project Timeline......................................................................................4-28 Table 11. Summary of Case Study Results...............................................................................4-29 APPENDICES Appendix A – Project Timelines for Case Studies Appendix B – State Regulatory Table Appendix C – Sample Interview Forms L2009-123 ii 165122 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BEP Board of Environmental Protection BMPs Best Management Practices CARE Citizen Advocates for Renewable Energy CCI CCI Energy CEI Community Energy Inc. CMR Code of Massachusetts Regulations CPG Certificate of Public Good CSC Connecticut Siting Council CWA Clean Water Act DALA Division of Administrative Law Appeals DCNR Department of Conservation and Natural Resources DCR Department of Conservation and Recreation DEC Department of Environmental Conservation DEM Department of Environmental Management DEP Department of Environmental Protection DisGen Distributed Generation Systems DNH Declaration of No Hazard DOER Division of Energy Resources DPU Department of Public Utilities DTE Department of Telecommunications and Energy EEA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs EENF Expanded Environmental Notification Form EFSB Energy Facilities Siting Board EHB Environmental Hearing Board EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement ENF Environmental Notification Form EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration HB House Bill HMLP Hull Municipal Light Plant I&M Plant Iron and manganese removal treatment plant kV Kilovolt kW Kilowatt LURC Land Use Regulation Commission MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act MHC Massachusetts Historical Commission MMWEC Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company MRET Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust MTC Massachusetts Technology
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES July 14, 2008 D.P.U. 07-80 Petition of Massachusetts Electric Company, New England Power Company and PPM Energy, Inc. for a determination by the Department of Public Utilities under the provisions of G.L. c. 164, § 72 that construction and operation of an approximately 6.1 mile 34.5 kV tie line in the Towns of Florida and Monroe is necessary, will serve the public convenience and is consistent with the public interest. ______________________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: Paige Graening, Esq. Brooke E. Skulley NATIONAL GRID 25 Research Drive Westborough, MA 01582 And Robert L. Dewees, Jr. NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 FOR: MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY Petitioner Jay Wickersham NOBLE & WICKERSHAM LLP 1280 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 FOR: PPM ENERGY, INC. Petitioner D.P.U. 07-80 Page i I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... Page 1 A. Project .......................................... Page 1 B. Procedural History .................................. Page 2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................. Page 3 III. DESCRIPTION ......................................... Page 4 A. Project Overview ................................... Page 4 B. Need for the Proposed Project ........................... Page 7 C. The Proposed Project and Alternatives . Page 8 D. Impacts of Proposed Project ........................... Page 13 1. Land Use and Visual Impacts . Page 13 2. Water Resources.............................. Page 14 3. Electromagnetic Fields .......................... Page 15 4. Other Impacts................................ Page 17 IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .............................. Page 19 A. Need for the Proposed Project . Page 19 B. The Proposed Project and Alternatives . Page 20 C. Impacts of the Proposed Project . Page 21 D. Conclusion ...................................... Page 24 V. ORDER ............................................. Page 25 D.P.U.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL of EPA REGION 1 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL OF EPA REGION 1 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont OPEN-FILE REPORT 93-292-A Prepared in Cooperation with the | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 9'% 1993 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC RADON POTENTIAL OF EPA REGION 1 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont R. Randall Schumann EDITOR OPEN-FILE REPORT 93-292-A Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1993 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. CONTENTS SECTION____________________________________PAGE 1. The USGS/EPA State Radon Potential Assessments: An Introduction 1 Linda C.S. Gundersen, R. Randall Schumann, and Sharon W. White Appendix A: Geologic Time Scale 19 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms 20 Appendix C: EPA Regional Offices, State Radon Contacts, 26 and State Geological Surveys 2. EPA Region 1 Geologic Radon Potential Summary 36 Linda C.S. Gundersen, R. Randall Schumann, and Sandra L. Szarzi 3. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Connecticut 47 Linda C.S. Gundersen andR. Randall Schumann 4. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Maine 83 Linda C.S. Gundersen andR. Randall Schumann 5. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Massachusetts 123 R. Randall Schumann and Linda C.S. Gundersen 6. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of New Hampshire 157 Linda C.S. Gundersen andR. Randall Schumann 7. Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Rhode Island 191 Linda C.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Web Edition Part 2 Public Co
    From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:13 AM To: [email protected]; Launder, Kelly; [email protected]; [email protected]; Margolis, Anne; Markowitz, Deb; Governor Peter Shumlin; Darling, Scott; PSB - Clerk Subject: Lowell Mountain Reduced Production http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53258/examples-wind-power-learnAll, I am surprised GMP did not do a timely study of Lowell's impact on the NEK grid. As a result, the $10.5 million synchronous-condenser system for power factor correction (losses of up to 3%) will not be completed until about the end of 2013. There are many factors reducing ridge line IWT CFs. Here is an excerpt from http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated Below are some numbers regarding the much less than expected results of the Maine ridge line IWTs for the past 12 months. http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/maine_wind_thru_3q2012m1.pdf Mars Hill, 42 MW 0.353; uniquely favorable winds due to topography. Stetson I, 57 MW 0.254 Stetson II, 26 MW 0.227 Kibby Mtn 132 MW 0.238 Rollins, 60 MW 0.238 Record Hill, 50.5 MW 0.197 The Maine weighted average CF = (42 x 0.353 + 57 x 0.254 + 26 x 0.227 + 132 x 0.238 + 60 x 0.238 + 50.5 x 0.197)/(42 + 57 + 26 + 132 + 60 + 50.5) = 0.247; excluding Mars Hill, the CF would be 0.234. Note: CF reduction due to aging is not yet a major factor, as all these IWTs were installed in the past 5 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed
    Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed Section 604(b) Project Number 04-02/604 Prepared by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian A. Bowles, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Laurie Burt, Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Hass, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Municipal Services Steven J. McCurdy, Director June 2008 This project has been financed partially with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) under a s.604(b) Water Quality Management Planning Grant. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of EPA or of the Department, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed Prepared by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments Planning Department Peggy Sloan, Director of Planning and Development Kimberly Noake MacPhee, P.G., Natural Resources Program Manager Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Whitty Sanford, Assistant Planner Franklin Regional Council of Governments 425 Main Street, Greenfield, MA 01301 413-774-3167 www.frcog.org Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Current State of Knowledge of Northeastern Bats
    PHASE I BAT RISK ASSESSMENT Mount Wachusett Community College Wind Energy Project Worcester County, Massachusetts Prepared for: Mount Wachusett Community College Prepared by: D. Scott Reynolds, Ph.D. and Jacques Veilleux, Ph.D. North East Ecological Services 52 Grandview Road Bow, NH 03304 05 December, 2008 MWCC Wind Energy Project Bat Risk Assessment Phase I Bat Risk Assessment Mount Wachusett Community College Wind Energy Project Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 1.0 Project Overview 5 1.1 The Mount Wachusett Community College Wind Project 5 1.2 Phase I Habitat Assessment 5 2.0 Current State of Knowledge on Bat Species 7 2.1 Bats in the State of Massachusetts 7 2.2 Distribution and Brief Biology of Listed Species in Massachusetts 7 2.2.1 Indiana myotis, Myotis sodalis 7 2.2.2 Eastern small-footed myotis, Myotis leibii 9 2.3 Bats at Higher Risk of Turbine Collision Mortality 12 2.3.1 Hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus 13 2.3.2 Silver-haired bat, Lasionycteris noctivagans 14 2.3.3 Eastern red bat, Lasiurus borealis 15 2.3.4 Eastern pipistrelle bat, Perimyotis subflavus 16 2.4 Other Bats Likely to Occur Near the MWCC Wind Project Site 17 2.4.1 Little brown myotis, Myotis lucifugus 18 2.4.2 Northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis 19 2.4.3 Big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus 20 3.0 Migratory Behavior of Bats 21 3.1 Long-Distance Migratory Bats 21 3.2 Short-Distance Migratory Bats 22 3.2.1 Hibernating Bats 22 3.2.2 Regional and Elevational Migrants 23 3.3 Evidence of Bats Migrating in Groups 23 3.4 Potential Threats to Migratory Bats 24 4.0 Sources
    [Show full text]
  • PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Mount
    Wind Energy Project Mount Wachusett Community College Final Environmental Assessment Gardner, Massachusetts ________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES Appendix 1.1 FAA Determination on Turbine 1 Appendix 1.2 FAA Determination on Turbine 2 Appendix 1.3 FAR Part 77 Airspace Obstruction Report Appendix 2. Avian Risk Assessment Appendix 3.1. Bat Risk Assessment Appendix 3.2. Bat Acoustic Studies Appendix 4. EMI Report Appendix 5. Visualization Study Appendix 6.1 Wetland Report Appendix 6.2 Wetland Determination Appendix 6.3 Wetland Order of Conditions Appendix 7 Sound Analysis Appendix 8 Shadow Flicker Analysis Wind Energy Project Mount Wachusett Community College Final Environmental Assessment Gardner, Massachusetts ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 1.1 FAA Determination on Turbine 1 Wind Energy Project Mount Wachusett Community College Final Environmental Assessment Gardner, Massachusetts ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2008-ANE-276-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 11/04/2008 Rob Rizzo Mount Wachusett Community College 444 Green Street Gardner, MA 01440 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Wind Turbine MWCC Wind Turbine 1 Location: Gardner, MA Latitude: 42-35-26.13N NAD 83 Longitude: 71-59-03.39W Heights: 415 feet above ground level (AGL) 1573 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Power® Partner
    Politics, i deas & civic life in Massachusetts GreenCan it really create Power new jobs, curb greenhouse gases, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, save us money – and keep the lights on? s p e c i a l i s s u e ENERGY 2010 $5.00 ENERGY commonwealthmagazine.org ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 2010 CommonWealth 1 CommonWealth editor Bruce Mohl [email protected] | 617.742.6800 ext. 105 executive editor Michael Jonas [email protected] | 617.742.6800 ext. 124 managing editor Robert David Sullivan [email protected] | 617.742.6800 ext. 121 senior associate editor Gabrielle Gurley [email protected] | 617.742.6800 ext. 142 associate editor Alison Lobron [email protected] | 617.742.6800 senior investigative reporter Jack Sullivan [email protected] | 617.742.6800 ext. 123 art director Heather Hartshorn contributing writers Dave Denison, Colman M. Herman, Dan Kennedy, Neil Miller, Laura Pappano, Robert Preer, Phil Primack, B.J. Roche washington correspondent Shawn Zeller proofreader Jessica Murphy editorial advisors Mickey Edwards, Ed Fouhy, Alex S. Jones, Mary Jo Meisner, Daniel Okrent, Ellen Ruppel Shell, Alan Wolfe publisher Gregory Torres [email protected] | 617.742.6800 ext. 103 sponsorship and advertising Samantha Vidal [email protected] | 617.742.6800 ext. 147 MassINC would like to welcome circulation Krisela Millios the members of the newly [email protected] | 617.742.6800 ext. 145 created MassINC Associate Board, > Full contents, as well as online exclusives, are whose mission is to build a new available at www.commonwealthmagazine.org generation of civically engaged leaders for the Commonwealth. CommonWealth (ISSN pending) is published quarterly by the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth (MassINC), 18 Tremont St., Suite 1120, Board members will serve as Boston, MA 02108.
    [Show full text]