DOCSLIB.ORG

Exploring the Barriers to Wind Development in Appalachia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exploring the Barriers to Wind Development in Appalachia 20% BY A Windfall for Coal Country? ExploringFP the Barriers to Wind Development in Appalachia Brent Bailey Evan Hansen Holly Groschner Rory McIlmoil Laura Hartz Jen Shaver Anne Hereford The Mountain Institute Appalachia Program 235 High Street, Ste. 706 Morgantown, WV 26505 www.mountain.org Downstream Strategies 295 High Street, Ste. 3 Morgantown, WV 26505 www.downstreamstrategies.com June 25, 2012 A Windfall for Coal Country? Exploring the Barriers to Wind Development in Appalachia Brent Bailey, Evan Hansen, Holly Groschner, Rory McIlmoil, Laura Hartz, Jen Shaver, Anne Hereford ABOUT THE AUTHORS Brent Bailey, Ph.D., Director, Appalachia Program, The Mountain Institute. Dr. Bailey directs the Appalachia Program at The Mountain Institute. He has more than 20 years' experience in forestry, natural resource management, environmental education, and local community development on three continents. Evan Hansen, M.S., Principal, Energy Program, Downstream Strategies. Mr. Hansen founded Downstream Strategies and has 20 years of experience as an environmental consultant on energy, greenhouse gas, and water resource issues for nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and private businesses. He has developed and applied computer models; provided training and expert testimony on issues related to environmental laws, policies, and permits; and led multi-disciplinary research teams. Holly Groschner, J.D., New Mountain Wind. Ms. Groschner has made her career at the interface of development and regulation in the utility sector, working to find common ground among publicly traded companies; local landowners; and federal, state, and municipal governments. Ms. Groschner received her J.D. from Vermont Law School, served as a law clerk for the Honorable Louis J. Peck at the Vermont Supreme Court, practiced law as a partner at Vermont’s largest law firm, and served as senior vice president at a publicly traded company in Pittsburgh. She works from Pittsburgh and Corinth, Vermont. Rory McIlmoil, M.A., Project Manager, Energy Program, Downstream Strategies. Mr. McIlmoil has a background in environmental science and policy with a focus on the analysis and presentation of scientific and economic data relevant to environmental policy and energy development. He has three years of experience working on energy and economic policy issues relevant to Appalachia. Laura Hartz, M.S., Project Manager, Land Program, Downstream Strategies. Ms. Hartz researches science and policy related to energy, agriculture, and the environment. She brings a strong background in federal policy analysis, technology and sustainability, and natural resource and environmental economics. Jen Shaver, J.D. Ms. Shaver received a Master of Studies in Environmental Law (M.S.E.L.) from Vermont Law School and a J.D. from the Appalachian School of Law. She served as law clerk for the Honorable Patrick R. Johnson, Circuit Court Judge of the 29th Judicial Circuit of Virginia and was an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney in the Russell County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. She now works for the Virginia Gas Owners Litigation Group. Anne Hereford, M.S., Project Environmental Scientist, Downstream Strategies. Ms. Hereford has a background in environmental science, with diverse experience in GIS development, watershed planning, permit research, aqueous geochemical modeling, data analysis, water monitoring, and science education. ii | P a g e ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was supported by grant DE-EE0000509 from the United States Department of Energy’s 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges Program to The Mountain Institute. We gratefully acknowledge this support. The JOBS Project’s Eric Mathis and Jenny Hudson contributed substantially to the development and implementation of this project. We thank our Advisory Committee. Christine Risch (Marshall University) and Brad Stephens (Stephens Law Office) provided very valuable edits to the draft report, and Larry Flowers (Principal Project Leader, National Wind Technology Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory) and Buzz Belleville (Appalachian School of Law) provided helpful guidance to the project. Our work was helped considerably by the many people who provided data, information, and perspectives: Bobby Baloski (Cambria County Conservation District, Cambria County, Pennsylvania), Dan Boone (Independent Environmental Consultant), Lowrey Brown (Senior Policy Analyst, Western Resource Advocates), Elizabeth Byers (Project Ecologist, West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources), Kerry Campbell (Manager, Division of Energy Policy and Technology Deployment, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection), Chris Caffyn (Senior Energy Developer, Community Energy, Inc.), Lisa Daniels (Executive Director, Windustry), Josh Framel (Project Manager, Gamesa Energy), Andrew Gohn (Clean Energy Program Manager, Maryland Energy Administration), Sue Jones (President, Community Energy Partners), Neil Joshipura (Division of Energy Regulation, Virginia State Corporation Commission), Pam Kasey (Reporter, The State Journal), Ken Landgraf (Forest Planner, Jefferson National Forest and George Washington National Forest), Earl Melton (West Virginia Public Service Commission), Jessica Morey (Project Director, Clean Energy Group), John Moskal (New England Region Energy Team, United States Environmental Protection Agency), Kelly Ostertag (Member Relations, PJM Interconnection, LLC), Hugh Rogers (President, West Virginia Highland Conservancy), Kate Shanks (Director of Renewable Energy, Kentucky Energy & Environment Cabinet), Dirk Shulund (Project Manager, Transmission Tariff Coordinator, Western Area Power Administration Upper Great Plains Region), John Shupp (Division of Engineering, Electric Branch, Kentucky Public Service Commission), Charlie Smith (President, Utility Wind Integration Group, National Renewable Energy Laboratory), Matthew Stoltz (Manager Transmission Services, Basin Electric Power Cooperative), Eric Supey (Environmental Program Manager, Northeast Regional Office, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection), Kim Van Fleet (Important Bird Area Coordinator, Audubon Pennsylvania), and Erick Walker (Acting Manchester District Ranger, Green Mountain National Forest). DISCLAIMER This report is accurate as of November 2011, when it was finalized. Even though wind development has continued since then, the authors believe that the fundamental conclusions and recommendations stand as written. iii | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... IX 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. ELECTRICITY, WIND, AND COAL IN APPALACHIAN COAL COUNTRY ................................................................ 7 2.1 WEST VIRGINIA ................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 PENNSYLVANIA ................................................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 MARYLAND ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.4 VIRGINIA ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 2.5 KENTUCKY ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 2.6 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 3. GEOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................ 26 3.1 MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN OF APPALACHIA ............................................................................................................. 26 3.2 LIMITED INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................................... 26 3.3 ABUNDANCE OF WIND RESOURCE ON ECOLOGICALLY VALUABLE LAND ......................................................................... 28 3.4 LAND AND MINERAL OWNERSHIP ......................................................................................................................... 29 3.5 SUMMARY: BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................................. 31 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................... 32 4.1 REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESSES IN EACH STATE .................................................................................................... 32 4.2 SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES........................................................................................................................ 34 4.3 SUMMARY: BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................................. 37 5. POLICY ........................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy Production: Legal Issues and Related Liability Concerns for Landowners
    Wind Energy Production: Legal Issues and Related Liability Concerns for Landowners 2321 N. Loop Drive, Ste 200 Ames, Iowa 50010 www.calt.iastate.edu Updated June 20, 2011 ‐ by Roger A. McEowen* Overview Current Emphasis On Wind-Generated Electricity Farmers have long used the wind. Beginning in the 1800’s, farmers in the United States installed In large part, the current push for wind- several million windmills across the Midwest generated electricity (and other forms of and Plains to pump water and (later) generate “renewable” energy) is based in power for lights and radios. Those windmills fit environmentalism.4 Concerns over the nicely into the existing landscape and generally environment began to be raised in the U.S. did not create problems for others. Today, during the 1960s and the 1970s. These concerns however, the wind energy industry is using the have had a profound impact on the political wind in a different manner by virtue of large- debate surrounding the belief by some in “global scale aerogenerators1 that have a tremendous climate change.”5 Proponents of wind energy impact on the visual landscape and the rural claim that wind generated electricity reduces culture.2 In some communities, wind energy emissions of carbon dioxide, which they claim development has raised issues between (contrary to a scientific study by the U.S. neighbors, between private landowners and wind National Academy of Sciences) is a significant energy development companies, and between contributor to “global warming.”6 local officials and development companies.3 Note: The National Research Council of Some farmers and other rural landowners have the National Academies concluded in a 2007 entered into long-term agreements with wind study that even under the most optimistic energy companies for the placement and conditions, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • WHERE IS ELECTRIC GENERATION HEADED? Rodney Andrews, Phd
    WHERE IS ELECTRIC GENERATION HEADED? Rodney Andrews, PhD PE Director UK Center for Applied Energy Research The Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (January 29, 2020) 2 Key Takeaways from U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2020 • The electricity generation mix continues to experience a rapid rate of change, with renewables the fastest‐growing source of electricity generation through 2050 because of continuing declines in the capital costs for solar and wind that are supported by federal tax credits and higher state‐level renewables targets. With slow load growth and increasing electricity production from renewables, U.S. coal‐fired and nuclear electricity generation declines; most of the decline occurs by the mid‐2020s. • The United States continues to produce historically high levels of crude oil and natural gas. Slow growth in domestic consumption of these fuels leads to increasing exports of crude oil, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas. 3 Production grows faster than consumption with shift toward electrification Energy production (AEO2020 Reference case) Energy consumption by sector (AEO2020 Reference case) quadrillion British thermal units quadrillion British thermal units 2019 2019 50 50 history projections history projections dry natural gas 45 45 electric power 40 40 35 35 industrial 30 30 25 crude oil and lease 25 condensate transportation 20 other renewable energy 20 15 15 coal residential 10 natural gas plant 10 commercial liquids 5 nuclear 5 hydro 0 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 4 What is driving the energy markets nationally? • Future oil prices are highly uncertain and are subject to international market.
    [Show full text]
  • Much Like the Oil Farms of the Last Century Were
    A CONTEMPORARY USE FOR A HISTORIC ENERGY SOURCE Kenneth C. Wolensky with photographs by Don Giles uch like the oil farms of the last century were for drillers and riggers, Pennsylvania’s wind farms are M proving grounds for engineers and technicians as they harness wind power. The long-standing use of wind power that for centuries propelled sailing vessels has been transformed throughout the world to produce electricity. Farmers used wind power in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to pump water, grind grain, and, sometimes, generate electricity. And Pennsylvania was no exception. PHMC staff photographer Don Giles captured both the symmetrical beauty and implications for Pennsylvania’s energy future at Locust Ridge Wind Farm, straddling Schuylkill and Columbia counties. PHMC STATE MUSEUM OF PENNSYLVANIA/PHOTO BY DON GILES 66 PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA HERITAGEHERITAGE FallFall 20092009 www.paheritage.orgwww.paheritage.org www.phmc.state.pa.uswww.phmc.state.pa.us PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA HERITAGEHERITAGE FallFall 20092009 77 Lancaster County inventor David Herr Bausman (1864–1911) fuels led to advancements in wind technology and turbines, patented a windmill in March 1885 and designed four models particularly in the western world. In 2008, the United States between 1884 and 1900, which were erected on farms in generated more electricity from wind turbines than Germany: a Pennsylvania. The son of a Pennsylvania German farmer, total of 25,000 megawatts (MW). (A megawatt is equal to one Bausman was twenty-one when he submitted his first drawings million watts; a watt is equal to one joule of energy per for what he called a “Wind Engine” to the United States Patent second.) Wind turbines in the United States produce enough Office (now the United States Patent and Trademark office).
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment
    U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment Issue Date | March 2020 Prepared By American Wind Energy Association Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Current Status of U.S. Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lessons from Land-based Wind ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Announced Investments in Domestic Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Tool ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Energy Economy
    JUNE 2009 The Pew Charitable Trusts applies the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. Our Pew Center on the States identifies and advances effective policy approaches to critical issues facing states, and our Pew Environment Group promotes practical, meaningful solutions to some of the world’s most pressing environmental problems. PEW CENTER ON THE STATES PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP Susan Urahn, managing director Joshua Reichert, managing director Project Team Kevin Curtis Kil Huh Brendan Hill Phyllis Cuttino Lori Grange Jeannette Lam Laura Lightbody E. Brooks Riley Michele Mariani Vaughn Shannon Heyck-Williams Jill Antonishak Melissa Maynard Jane Breakell Carla Uriona, design Sean Greene Research Consultants: Collaborative Economics, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report benefited tremendously from the insights and expertise of an advisory panel and two additional external reviewers. These experts provided feedback and guidance at critical stages in the project. While they have screened the report for accuracy, neither they nor their organizations necessarily endorse its findings or conclusions. Advisory Panel: Marilyn Brown, professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology; Doug Cameron, managing director and chief science advisor, Piper Jaffray; Joe Cortright, vice president and principal, Impresa; Jeff Finkle, CEcD, president and CEO, International Economic Development Council; Tim Woodward, managing director, Nth Power; and Joel S. Yudken, PhD, principal, High Road Strategies, LLC. External Reviewers: Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and director, Atmosphere/Energy Program, Stanford University; and Joe Fargione, Lead Scientist, North America Region, The Nature Conservancy. We would like to thank our Pew colleagues—Andrew McDonald, Brandon MacGillis, Kymberly Escobar, Lisa Cutler, Janet Lane, Alyson Freedman and Jessica Riordan—for their assistance with communications and dissemination.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule MPS-1 Page 1 of 9
    Grain Belt Express Clean Line Additional Information on Qualifications and Experience of Selected Clean Line Management Team Members and Employees Michael Skelly President and CEO Horizon Wind Energy – Chief Development Officer . Built and developed over 2,600 MW of electric projects, including: Blue Canyon V Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Pine Tree Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Rail Splitter Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Rattlesnake Road Wind Farm, Twin Groves II Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Meridian Way I & II Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Lone Star II Wind Farm, Pioneer Prairie I & II Wind Farm, Prairie Star Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Twin Groves I Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Lone Star I Wind Farm, Elkhorn Wind Farm, Maple Ridge I & II Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Wild Horse Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Blue Canyon I & II Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Mill Run Wind Farm, Somerset Wind Farm, Top of Iowa Wind Farm, Madison Wind Farm, Tierras Morenas Wind Farm. Participated in construction supervision, onsite inspections, the review of quality assurance/quality control procedures, the implementation of safety strategies, and resolving logistical issues of wind farms and generation tie lines. Responsible for purchasing equipment from wind turbine manufacturers. Responsible for negotiating EPC contracts for both equipment and construction, hiring construction supervision teams, negotiating balance of plant contracts for the turbine equipment, and performing development activities, including land acquisition, permitting, and turbine siting. Wayne Galli, Ph.D, P.E. Executive Vice President, Transmission and Technical Services NextEra Energy Resources – Director, Transmission Development ▪ Responsible for routing, siting and engineering for approximately 330 miles of new transmission lines, including HVDC lines for the CREZ Transmission Projects in Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Feasibility Study for Transitioning Louisville, Kentucky's
    a Feasibility Study for Transitioning Louisville, Kentucky’s Transportation and Electricity Generation to Renewable Sources The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Darst, Timothy. 2016. a Feasibility Study for Transitioning Louisville, Kentucky’s Transportation and Electricity Generation to Renewable Sources. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33797349 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA A Feasibility Study for Transitioning Louisville, Kentucky’s Transportation and Electricity Generation to Renewable Sources Timothy J. Darst A Thesis in the Field of Sustainability and Environmental Management for the Degree of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2016 © 2016 Timothy J. Darst. Abstract Climate change is caused mainly by humans and there is a great risk of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems” (IPCC, 2014). It has been proposed by many that America can address climate change by simply buying electric cars and then obtaining all electricity from renewable sources (Deutch, & Moniz, 2010; Freeman & Parks, 2016). This “silver bullet” is appealing; however, without detailed study it is not known whether this is a viable solution in many communities across the United States. Louisville, Kentucky was chosen as a case study to determine if it is feasible for conversion to a 100%-renewably-sourced electricity grid and all-electric transportation model.
    [Show full text]
  • EIA) 2011 December EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2011 December EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File NET State MWh in State MW in Plant ID Plant Name Operator Name MW Installed State Year GENERATION CF* Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CF* CF* (mWh) 6304 Kotzebue Kotzebue Electric Assn Inc 3.0 AK 2011 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57187 Pillar Mountain Wind Project Kodiak Electric Assn Inc 4.5 AK 2011 12,445 31.6% 418 59 1,564 438 936 1,090 1,300 1,429 753 1,154 1,682 1,621 7.5 12,445 12,445 4.5 31.6% 57098 Dry Lake Wind LLC Iberdrola Renewables Inc 63.0 AZ 2011 124,401 22.5% 4,340 13,601 15,149 18,430 17,297 16,785 7,124 5,735 4,036 6,320 11,154 4,430 57379 Dry Lake Wind II LLC Iberdrola Renewables Inc 65.1 AZ 2011 124,330 21.8% 4,340 13,789 16,021 19,219 16,686 16,398 6,345 5,569 3,743 6,281 11,579 4,360 57775 Kingman 1 Kingman Energy Corp 10.0 AZ 2011 6,848 7.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,026 1,663 2,999 1,160 138.1 255,579 248,731 128.1 22.2% 7526 Solano Wind Sacramento Municipal Util Dist 63.0 CA 2011 221,067 40.1% 6,705 12,275 17,464 27,415 29,296 29,128 24,813 25,928 14,915 11,870 12,233 9,025 10005 Dinosaur Point International Turbine Res Inc 17.4 CA 2011 23,562 15.5% 715 1,308 1,861 2,922 3,123 3,105 2,645 2,763 1,590 1,265 1,304 962 10027 EUIPH Wind Farm EUI Management PH Inc 25.0 CA 2011 46,718 21.3% 1,417 2,594 3,691 5,794 6,191 6,156 5,244 5,479 3,152 2,509 2,585 1,907 10191 Tehachapi Wind Resource I CalWind Resources Inc 8.7 CA 2011 15,402 20.2% 467 855
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]