DOCSLIB.ORG

Using Gis to Estimate the Spatial Distribution of Wind-Power

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

USING GIS TO ESTIMATE THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF WIND-POWER ROYALTIES IN WEST TEXAS A Thesis by MARY ELIZABETH TILTON Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Chair of Committee, Christian Brannstrom Co-Chair of Committee, Andrew Klein Committee Member, Russell Feagin Head of Department, David Cairns December 2015 Major Subject: Geography Copyright 2015 Mary Tilton ABSTRACT Wind energy is one of the fastest growing sources of renewable energy in the United States, particularly in the Great Plains region. This remarkable expansion has been attributed to high social acceptance, a simple permitting system, renewable portfolio standards, and tax incentives. However, the extent of financial benefits of wind energy (royalties) to landowners is poorly known, and scholars have not yet estimated how royalties are distributed spatially. This research utilizes land parcel information in conjunction with County Appraisal District records for Nolan and Taylor Counties in west Texas; wind turbine (n = 1,746) location, name and nameplate capacity; and a royalty estimation. The research examines the spatial distribution of royalties, to compare local and absentee benefits, and to estimate the disparity in estimated royalty payments between landowners with turbines and those without who receive no direct financial benefits. The mean estimated royalty payment per turbine per year is $7,404 and total royalties for the wind-farms in the two counties is more than $11 million annually which is captured by approximately 3% of all rural landowners. Non-resident landowners with turbines, defined as those landowners who live more than twenty miles from their tax addresses (approximately 46% of total landowners), receive 47% of total royalties, with the majority (70%) of royalties received by non-residents in Texas, and 61% of royalties remaining in the two-county study area. When key components of the wind contract depress, the total mean estimated average royalty for the study site also depresses, with capacity factor having the most effect on royalties. More than 30% of ii landowners with turbines have some land tenure in effect, and 45% of royalties are distributed to this faction. Turbines, and therefore, royalties appear to be distributed unequally amongst rural landowners and parcel size is highly correlated to number of turbines and royalty payments. Many residents continue to welcome wind power despite the inequality of benefits, but more research is needed to determine what factors may affect public perceptions and how royalties may affect spending in the area. Future research should focus on how royalties are used. iii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my husband for his encouragement and support throughout all stages of graduate school, but most importantly, his patience with the writing process and insistence that I am capable of completing this arduous task. It may have taken longer than expected, but I did it! I would also like to dedicate this thesis to my family for being my cheerleaders and understanding every time I pushed my deadline. Your unfailing support means the world to me. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Klein, Dr. Brannstrom, and Dr. Feagin, for their guidance and support throughout the course of this research. You all gave me direction when I was lost, encouragement when needed, and valuable advice for research and writing. Thanks also go to my colleagues and the Geography department faculty and staff for making my time at Texas A&M University a great experience. I also want to extend my gratitude to Dr. Wendy Jepson, who provided the data for this study. Thanks to my family for their assistance and support throughout graduate school and for encouraging me to pursue this amazing opportunity to broaden my career options. Finally, thanks to my husband for his love, patience, and gentle urging to write; and Holly and Annie for their nose and paw keystroke contributions to my thesis. v NOMENCLATURE US United States KW Kilowatts KWh Kilowatt hours MW Megawatts MWh Megawatt hours GW Gigawatts GWh Gigawatt hours CF Capacity Factor NIMBY/PIMBY ‘Not In My Back Yard”/”Please In My Back Yard” AWEA/WWEA American/World Wind Energy Association PTC Production Tax Credit RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RES Renewable Energy Standard vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... v NOMENCLATURE .................................................................................................. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1 CHAPTER II THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF WIND ENERGY ..................... 8 II. 1 The social dimension ................................................................................... 8 II. 2 The socio-economic dimension ................................................................... 21 II. 3 The public policy dimensions ...................................................................... 24 CHAPTER III DATA AND METHODS ............................................................... 28 III. 1 Data ............................................................................................................ 28 III. 2 Methods ...................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER IV RESULTS ....................................................................................... 43 IV. 1 Spatial distribution of turbines .................................................................. 43 IV. 2 Spatial distribution of royalties .................................................................. 49 IV. 3 Resident/non-resident comparisons ........................................................... 56 IV. 4 Landowner type and land tenure ................................................................ 63 IV. 5 Sensitivity of royalties to fluctuation of contract terms ............................. 65 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 70 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 77 vii Page REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 80 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................... 88 viii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Nolan and Taylor Counties in west Texas with parcel delineation and turbine points ........................................................ 29 Figure 2 Nolan and Taylor Counties with urban areas removed .................................................................................................... 35 Figure 3 Nolan and Taylor Counties with urban areas removed and dissolved by landowner address ......................................... 36 Figure 4 Nolan and Taylor Counties with urban areas removed, dissolved by landowner address, and landowners with turbines only .................................................................. 37 Figure 5 Output of code which feeds in the coordinate of the centroid of the parcel and the tax address and gives an output of the driving distance and time between the two points ..................................................................... 39 Figure 6 Parcels of landowners with turbines who live less than or equal to 20 miles driving distance or 45 minutes driving time from tax address ................................................ 41 Figure 7 Counties of landowners with turbines who live more than 20 miles or 45 minutes from the tax address (non-residents). ............................................................................ 42 Figure 8 Distribution of turbines by landowner quintiles ........................................ 47 Figure 9 Total turbines by land size in hectares ...................................................... 48 Figure 10 The spatial distribution of royalties to all landowners with turbines .......................................................................... 50 Figure 11 Total mean estimated royalty by land size in hectares ..................................................................................................... 51 Figure 12 Distribution of total mean estimated royalties per year by landowners quintiles .............................................................. 54 ix Page Figure 13 The spatial distribution of royalties for resident landowners of Nolan and Taylor Counties illustrated in gradients of blue .................................................................. 57 Figure14 Drive distance (in km) from situs address to tax address for all landowners in Nolan and Taylor Counties ...................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File

    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
  • Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe

    Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe

    Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe August 2020 Michael C. Allen, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, Matthew Campo, Senior Research Specialist, Environmental Analysis & Communications Group, Rutgers University Prepared for the New Jersey Climate Change Alliance (https://njadapt.rutgers.edu/). Working Group Members: John Cecil, New Jersey Audubon Tim Dillingham, American Littoral Society Patty Doerr, The Nature Conservancy of New Jersey Russell Furnari, PSEG Kevin Hassell, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Anthony MacDonald, Urban Coast Institute at Monmouth University Martha Maxwell-Doyle, Barnegat Bay Partnership David Mizrahi, Ph.D., New Jersey Audubon Technical Reviews and Acknowledgments Joseph Brodie, Ph.D. Jeanne Herb Marjorie Kaplan, Dr.P.H. Josh Kohut, Ph.D. Richard Lathrop, Ph.D. Julie Lockwood, Ph.D. Douglas Zemeckis, Ph.D. https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-wn1p-cz80 1 ABSTRACT Offshore wind energy is poised to expand dramatically along the eastern United States. However, the promise of sustainable energy also brings potential impacts on marine ecosystems from new turbines and transmission infrastructure. This whitepaper informs government officials, scientists, and stakeholders in New Jersey about the current policies and monitoring methods other jurisdictions use to monitor potential ecological impacts from offshore wind installations. We reviewed policy documents in the eastern U.S. and Europe, reviewed the scientific literature, and conducted stakeholder interviews in Spring 2020. We found: 1. Short-term (3-5 year) project-specific efforts dominate coordinated regional and project life duration ecological monitoring efforts at offshore wind farms in North America and Europe.
  • Wind Powering America Fy08 Activities Summary

    Wind Powering America Fy08 Activities Summary

    WIND POWERING AMERICA FY08 ACTIVITIES SUMMARY Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Dear Wind Powering America Colleague, We are pleased to present the Wind Powering America FY08 Activities Summary, which reflects the accomplishments of our state Wind Working Groups, our programs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and our partner organizations. The national WPA team remains a leading force for moving wind energy forward in the United States. At the beginning of 2008, there were more than 16,500 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed across the United States, with an additional 7,000 MW projected by year end, bringing the U.S. installed capacity to more than 23,000 MW by the end of 2008. When our partnership was launched in 2000, there were 2,500 MW of installed wind capacity in the United States. At that time, only four states had more than 100 MW of installed wind capacity. Twenty-two states now have more than 100 MW installed, compared to 17 at the end of 2007. We anticipate that four or five additional states will join the 100-MW club in 2009, and by the end of the decade, more than 30 states will have passed the 100-MW milestone. WPA celebrates the 100-MW milestones because the first 100 megawatts are always the most difficult and lead to significant experience, recognition of the wind energy’s benefits, and expansion of the vision of a more economically and environmentally secure and sustainable future. Of course, the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report (developed by AWEA, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and other stakeholders) indicates that 44 states may be in the 100-MW club by 2030, and 33 states will have more than 1,000 MW installed (at the end of 2008, there were six states in that category).
  • Renewable Energy: Wind and Solar

    Renewable Energy: Wind and Solar

    Renewable Energy: Chapter | 19 Wind and Solar ❖ Can Texans harness the wind and sun and even the jobs that go with these energy sources? 600-turbine development across 336,000 Introduction acres of West Texas. Financed by Chinese In late 2009, German utility giant E.ON banks, the development will feature new constructed the world’s largest wind farm in turbines made in China and will bring the tiny West Texas town of Roscoe. The 300 temporary construction jobs and 30 Roscoe wind farm has the capacity to produce permanent jobs to the area. Renewable 781.5 megawatts — enough electricity for energy in Texas is new — and it has already every home in Plano, McKinney and the been globalized. rest of the 265,000 households in Collin These giant wind projects illustrate County. The $1 billion project in Roscoe two key trends: Texas is emerging as took 21 months to complete and employed the capital of renewable energy, and 500 construction workers, who built 627 wind foreign companies are moving fast to take turbines on the fields of 300 property owners advantage. “People in Texas think it has — land that once pumped oil. got to be conventional energy or renewable The wind turbines of West Texas spin at energy. It’s not. It’s both,” said Michael 7 miles per hour. And one turbine produces Webber, an engineering professor at the about as much electricity as 350 households University of Texas at Austin and associate consume in a year. These economics are director of the Center for International attracting more wind turbines to the state, Energy and Environmental Policy.
  • Summary Report of Wind Farm Data September 2008 Yih-Huei Wan

    Summary Report of Wind Farm Data September 2008 Yih-Huei Wan

    Technical Report Summary Report of Wind NREL/TP-500-44348 Farm Data May 2009 September 2008 Yih-huei Wan Technical Report Summary Report of Wind NREL/TP-500-44348 Farm Data May 2009 September 2008 Yih-huei Wan Prepared under Task No. WER8.5001 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 NOTICE 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. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O.
  • Perceived Risk and Response to the Wind Turbine Ice Throw

    Perceived Risk and Response to the Wind Turbine Ice Throw

    PERCEIVED RISK AND RESPONSE TO THE WIND TURBINE ICE THROW HAZARD: COMPARING COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL IN TWO REGIONS OF TEXAS by Greg Klaus, B.S., M.A.G. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a major in Environmental Geography May 2017 Committee Members: Denise Blanchard-Boehm, Chair Richard Dixon Richard Earl Todd Moore COPYRIGHT by Greg Klaus 2017 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Greg Klaus, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. DEDICATION The author would like to dedicate this dissertation to the men and women who work in the wind energy industry who at times put themselves in harm’s way in order to provide for their families and also supply this great nation with a clean, renewable source of electricity. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank his committee chair Dr. Denise Blanchard for all of her support and guidance throughout the dissertation process; as well as thank committee members Dr. Richard Dixon, Dr. Richard Earl, and Dr.
  • Ride Like the Wind: Selected Issues in Multi-Party Wind Lease Negotiations

    Ride Like the Wind: Selected Issues in Multi-Party Wind Lease Negotiations

    Texas A&M Journal of Property Law Volume 1 Number 3 Wind Farming: Obstacles to Planning Article 5 and Development 2014 Ride Like the Wind: Selected Issues in Multi-Party Wind Lease Negotiations Rod E. Wetsel University of Texas School of Law Steven K. DeWolf University of Texas School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/journal-of-property-law Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons Recommended Citation Rod E. Wetsel & Steven K. DeWolf, Ride Like the Wind: Selected Issues in Multi-Party Wind Lease Negotiations, 1 Tex. A&M J. Real Prop. L. 447 (2013). Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/JPL.V1.I3.5 This Symposia Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Texas A&M Journal of Property Law by an authorized editor of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\T\TWR\1-3\TWR305.txt unknown Seq: 1 5-MAY-14 16:43 RIDE LIKE THE WIND:† SELECTED ISSUES IN MULTI-PARTY WIND LEASE NEGOTIATIONS By Rod E. Wetsel and Steven K. DeWolf ‡ I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 448 R II. HISTORY OF WIND DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS: THE WIND BOOM ............................................ 448 R III. THE TEXAS WIND LEASE ............................... 452 R A. Origins and Evolution .............................. 452 R B. Major Elements ..................................... 453 R IV. MULTI-PARTY WIND LEASE NEGOTIATIONS ............ 453 R A. The Town Hall Meeting Concept .................... 454 R B. Some Wind Groups and their Creators: Signing Parties .............................................
  • ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES by FUEL (As Named As of March 4 for the Period Between Feb

    ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES by FUEL (As Named As of March 4 for the Period Between Feb

    ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name Unit Name Seasonal M.. MW Reduct.. Fuel Type CITY OF AUSTIN DBA COAL FAYETTE PLANT COAL AUSTIN ENERGY (RE) FPP_G1 603 453 ENERGY STORAGE 1 AND 2 LOWER COLORADO RIVE.. HYDRO NATURAL GAS COLETO CREEK POWER LLC COLETO CREEK COLETOG1 655 655 NUCLEAR (RE) SOLAR UNKNOWN CPS ENERGY (RE) CALAVERAS JKS1 560 315 WIND 410 412 424 560 JKS2 785 0 LOWER COLORADO RIVER Sandy Creek UNIT1 933 73 AUTHORITY (RE) Energy Station SANDY CREEK ENERGY ASSOCIATES LP (RE) 933 BRAZOS SANDY CREEK EL.. NRG TEXAS POWER LLC LIMESTONE LEG_G1 824 262 (RE) PLANT 301 LEG_G2 836 194 290 396 836 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name Unit Name Seasonal M.. 3M9W6 Reduct.. Fuel Type COAL NRG TEXAS POWER LLC LIMESTONE LEG_G2 836 COAL (RE) PLANT 836 ENERGY STORAGE HYDRO NATURAL GAS WA PARISH WAP_G5 664 80 NUCLEAR SOLAR UNKNOWN 136 WIND 146 664 WAP_G7 577 22 51 58 61 300 577 OAK GROVE MANAGEMENT OAK GROVE SES UNIT1A 855 855 COMPANY LLC (RE) UNIT2 855 855 BLUE SUMMIT STORAGE ENERGY BLUE SUMMIT BATTERY 30 15 LLC (RE) STORAGE COMMERCE ST CPS ENERGY (RE) SWRI 10 10 ESS KEY CAPTURE ENERGY LLC PORT LAVACA BESS1 10 10 2 (RE) BATT ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb.
  • Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and Other Renewables

    Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and Other Renewables

    ESL-TR-20-07-01 STATEWIDE AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS FROM WIND AND OTHER RENEWABLES VOLUME I A Report to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality For the Period January 2019 – December 2019 Juan-Carlos Baltazar, Ph.D., P.E.; Jeff Haberl, Ph.D.; Bahman Yazdani, P.E.; David Claridge, Ph.D., P.E.; Sungkyun Jung; Farshad Kheiri; Chul Kim July 2020 Page 1 ENERGY SYSTEMS LABORATORY July 15, 2020 Mr. Robert Gifford Air Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, TX 78711-3087 Dear Mr. Gifford, The Energy Systems Laboratory (ESL) at the Texas Engineering Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System is pleased to provide its annual report, “Statewide Emissions Calculations From Wind and Other Renewables,” as required by the 79th Legislature. This work has been performed through a contract with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In this work, the ESL is required to obtain input from public/private stakeholders, and develop and use a methodology to annually report the energy savings from wind and other renewables. This report summarizes the work performed by the ESL on this project from January 2019 to December 2019. Please contact me at (979) 845-9213 should you have questions concerning this report or the work presently being done to quantify emissions reductions from renewable energy measures as a result of the TERP implementation. Sincerely, David E. Claridge, Ph.D., P.E. Director Enclosure . Page 2 Disclaimer This report is provided by the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES) as required under Section 388.003 (e) of the Texas Health and Safety Code and is distributed for purposes of public information.
  • Wind Energy in Texas: an Argument for Developing Offshore Wind Farms

    Wind Energy in Texas: an Argument for Developing Offshore Wind Farms

    4A2EF709-5F17-08B920.DOC 6/9/2009 5:00 PM RECENT DEVELOPMENT WIND ENERGY IN TEXAS: AN ARGUMENT FOR DEVELOPING OFFSHORE WIND FARMS I. INTRODUCTION Because of the place of oil in Texas history, many find it surprising that Texas leads the nation in the development of wind energy. Even California, which many would suspect to lead the nation (though ranking second in the nation) does not produce half of the wind energy that Texas produces: 2,484 megawatts as compared to 5,317 megawatts of wind capacity.1 Texas is committed to the continued development of wind energy.2 In fact, the state is about to undertake a $4.93 billion expansion of its grid system in large part to facilitate additional wind capacity.3 Capacity upgrades to the transmission grid will allow for dramatic growth of wind farms in West Texas and allow consumers to access it.4 That is not to say that Texas does not 1. GOVERNOR’S COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL, 2008 TEXAS STATE ENERGY PLAN 18 fig.8 (2008), available at http://governor.state.tx.us/files/gcc/2008_Texas_State_Energy_Plan.pdf. “Capacity” measures the productivity of a power production facility. AM. WIND ENERGY ASSOC., WIND ENERGY BASICS, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html (last visited Mar. 28, 2009) (“It compares the plant's actual production over a given period of time with the amount of power the plant would have produced if it had run at full capacity for the same amount of time.”) . 2. GOVERNOR’S COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL, supra note 1, at 49. 3. ELEC.
  • Alta East Avian Report

    Alta East Avian Report

    Appendix D-8 Avian Baseline Studies 2011 Avian Baseline Studies at the Alta East Wind Resource Area Kern County, California Final Report July 10, 2010 – June 1, 2011 Prepared for: CH2M HILL 155 Grand Avenue Oakland, California 94612 Prepared by: Andrea Chatfield, Wallace Erickson, and Kimberly Bay Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 July 13, 2011 NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS Alta East Final Avian Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July of 2010, on behalf of CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. and Alta Windpower, LLC (Alta Windpower), Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) initiated a second year of avian studies in the Alta East Wind Resource Area (AEWRA) in Kern County, California. The results of the first year of avian studies conducted at the proposed wind energy facility in 2009 and 2010 indicated that a facility at the AEWRA, with appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, would not have significant impacts to any avian species. During the 2009 – 2010 surveys, use by golden eagles and two golden eagle nests were documented in areas outside the AEWRA boundary. The use by golden eagles occurred to the north, northeast, and west of the current AEWRA boundary, while the nests were located approximately 3.5 and 11 miles (5.6 and 17.7 kilometers [km]) from the boundary. The project boundary was modified to avoid this area of documented use by eagles and a second year of avian study was initiated. The following document presents results of fixed-point bird use surveys and raptor nest surveys conducted during the second year of baseline avian studies at the AEWRA in 2010 - 2011.
  • THE SPATIAL ASPECTS of the WIND FARMS IMPACT on the Environmentboško Josimović SPECIAL ISSUES No

    THE SPATIAL ASPECTS of the WIND FARMS IMPACT on the Environmentboško Josimović SPECIAL ISSUES No

    About the Author 89 ISSUES No. SPECIAL THE SPATIAL ASPECTS Inserts from reviews Boško Josimović was born in 1974 in the Belgrade neighbourhood of Zemun, where he finished elementary and secondary school. He graduated in 2000 OF THE WIND FARMS IMPACT from the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geography, Department of Spatial Planning, completing a BA thesis “The Urban Development of the Town of Novi Bečej”. He obtained an MA degree in 2003, defending a thesis titled ’The monograph “The Spatial Aspects of the Wind Farm Impact on “The Implementation of an Environmental Management System in Spatial ON THE ENVIRONMENT the Environment” by Dr Boško Josimović examines thoroughly a Planning”, and a PhD in 2008, with a dissertation titled “The Spatial Aspect in specific aspect of the environmental impact assessment of wind Managing Communal Waste in the Region of Kolubara”. Both his MA and PhD farms, also applicable in developing strategic environmental theses were defended in the Spatial Research and Planning programme at the assessments. The author underscores the possibility and significance University of Belgrade’s Faculty of Geography. Boško Josimović Boško of applying the concept of preventive environmental protection Between 2002 and 2003 he was attached to the Institute of Architecture and BOŠKO JOSIMOVIĆ as the most efficient principle of protection, which can be applied Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia (IAUS) on a scholarship from the Ministry in the process of assessing the strategic impact of wind farm plans of Science, Technology and Development of the Republic of Serbia. He gained on the environment. The monograph has a firm scientific grounding employment at IAUS in 2003 and is still employed there.