DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix H Public Comments and Responses to DEIS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. These comments did not provide specific information to assist the BLM and Reclamation in selecting the Preferred Alternative, did not suggest other alternatives, and did not take issue with methods used in the Draft EIS. Of the 322 comments, 21 were determined by BLM, Reclamation, and Western to be non-substantive in nature, as they were not relevant to the EIS scope, analysis, or process as stated in CFR 1503.4(c). Table H-1 provides a list of the commenters and their affiliations (if applicable). A systematic process was used for responding to comments to ensure all substantive comments were tracked and considered. The comments received on the Draft EIS are organized by agency (federal, state, county and local), organization or company, and individuals. Each comment within each letter is assigned a number, and each numbered comment received a response. The following pages provide copies of the coded letters and/or emails, with a side-by-side response to each coded comment. H-1 Table H-1 Commenters and Affiliations on the Proposed Mohave County Wind Farm Draft EIS Comment Comment Letter Commenter Affiliation Number(s) Federal Agencies Enrique Manzanilla, U.S. Environmental Protection Comments 1 Director Communities and Agency, Region IX through 50 Ecosystem Division Anne Ardillo, Lead Reviewer Bill Werner U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Comments 51 Debra Bills Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona through 63 Ecological Services Office William K. Dickinson, U.S. Department of Interior, Comments 64 Superintendent National Park Service, Lake Mead through 86 National Recreation Area State Agencies Linda Taunt, Arizona Department of Comments 87 Deputy Director Water Quality Environmental Quality through 94 Division Organization or Company Matt Clark, Defenders of Wildlife (email) Comment 95 Southwest Representative Ian Dowdy, AICP Arizona Wilderness Coalition Comments 96 Conservation Outreach Associate through 182 Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Comments 96 Chapter Director Chapter through 182 John Shepard, Sonoran Institute Comments 96 Joint Signatories Senior Adviser through 182 on one letter Matt Clark, Defenders of Wildlife Comments 96 Southwest Representative through 182 Alex Daue, The Wilderness Society Comments 96 Renewable Energy Associate through 182 The Tucson Audubon Society Comments 96 through 182 Kevin Emmerich Basin and Range Watch Group Comments 183 Laura Cunningham through 234 Daniel J. Runyan, BP Wind Energy Comments 235 Vice President Business through 239 Development Lisa T. Belenky, Center for Biological Diversity Comments 240 Senior Attorney through 254 Dave Garello, Johnson Wind Tower Comment 255 Vice President Sales Leonard Mardian The Mardian Ranch Comment 256 Richard A. Zander, Zander Environmental LLC, Comment 257 Principal Representing SpiderPlow Services, Inc. Elno Roundy Colorado Mining Company, LLC Comment 258 Individuals Anonymous Comment 259 Dan Bastian Comments 260 Debbie Bastian and 261 H-2 Comment Comment Letter Commenter Affiliation Number(s) Judy Bundorf Comments 262 through 274 Sandra Burton Comments 275 through 278 Gloria J. Davidson Comment 279 Bill Eddy Comment 280 Chantal Eddy Comment 281 Andy Fiora Comment 282 William Gann Comment 283 Matthew T. Grider Comment 284 George Heilman Comments 285 Carol Heilman through 293 Steen Hillestrom Comments 294 through 297 Dennis Jablonski Comments 298 and 299 Dawn Lenza Comment 300 Aubrey Loucks Comments 301 through 303 Zenon Mocarski Comments 304 and 305 Jean Public Comments 306 through 309 Catherine Robertson Comment 310 Elno Roundy Comment 311 John Sandow Comment 312 Rick Sherwood Comments 313 through 319 Tom Treaccar Comment 320 Arthur J. Schlosser, Jr. Comments 321 and 322 H-3 This page intentionally left blank 3 LETTER UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 JUN 1 8 2012 Ruben Sanchez Bureau of Land Management/Renewable Energy Coordination Office Arizona State Office One North Central A venue, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mojave County Wind Farm Project (CEQ #20120120) Dear Mr. Sanchez: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the April2012 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Mohave County Wind Farm Project, Mohave County, Arizona. Our review and comments are provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations ( 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and our NEPA review authority under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. EPA supports increasing the development of renewable energy resources, as recommended in the National Energy Policy Act of 2005, in an expeditious and well planned manner. Using renewable energy resources such as wind power can help the nation meet its energy requirements while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We encourage BLM to apply its land management and regulatory authorities in a manner that will promote a long-term sustainable balance between available energy supplies, energy demand, and protection of ecosystems and human health. Based on our review of the DEIS and the updated estimate of impacts to jurisdictional waters described below, we have rated the action alternatives and the document as Environmental Concerns- Insufficient Information (EC-2). Please see the enclosed "Summary of EPA Rating Definitions." An "EC" signifies that EPA's review of the DEIS has identified. environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Conective measures may require changes to the proposal or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. A "2" rating signifies that the DEIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. The DEIS states that it is possible that up to 74 miles (93.8 acres) of waters of the U.S. could be affected by construction of the project due to the construction of access roads, grading, and placement of foundations for turbines. We understand that BLM views this as an unlikely, worst case estimate and that, because the jurisdictional delineation of waters of the United States has 4 Letter Continued not been finalized, the actual likely full extent of impacts has not been determined. As a result of our discussions with BLM and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, it was suggested by USACE that BP Wind Energy update its estimate of potential waters impacts, based on refinements to project elements that were not available at the time of publication of the Draft EIS. Subsequently, in a memo dated June 8, 2012 (Enclosed), BP Wind Energy described the two tier method that it employs in the development of wind projects, and indicated that the current conservative estimate of potential impacts to the waters of the U.S. would be reduced to between 14.34 acres and 14.95 acres for Alternative A, between 12.79 acres and 13.39 acres for Alternative B, and between 12.92 acres and 13.49 acres for Alternative C. In addition, with micrositing of project structures, the impacts are expected to be further reduced. This new information is helpful and encouraging, and we appreciate BLM' s responsiveness to our concerns regarding the magnitude of the potential impacts projected in the DEIS. It is unclear why this information was not included in the DEIS. We strongly recommend that, in the future, this sort of analysis be completed prior to the issuance of a DEJS, so that it can be incorporated into the document for public consideration during the comment period. EPA is also concerned with the potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources. We believe that alternatives may be available that could avoid or significantly reduce the proposed project's adverse impacts. In the enclosed detailed comments, we provide specific recommendations regarding analyses and documentation needed to assist in assessing potential significant impacts from the proposed Project, and for minimizing adverse impacts. We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS and are available to discuss our comments. Please send one hard copy and one CD ROM copy of the FEIS to the address above (mail code: CED-2) at the same time it is officially filed with our Washington D.C. Office. If you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 972-3843, or Anne Ardillo, the lead reviewer for this project.
Recommended publications
  • GWEC Global Wind Report 2016

    GWEC Global Wind Report 2016

    GLOBAL WIND REPORT ANNUAL MARKET UPDATE 2016 Opening up new markets for business: Mongolia 8TH NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY FORUM Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 5 May 2017 Mongolia’s wind has the technical potential of 1TW. GWEC is paving the road to that potential. www.gwec.net TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . 4 Foreword from our sponsor . 6 Corporate Sourcing of Renewables – A New Market Driver for Wind . 8 Global Status of Wind Power in 2016 . 12 Market Forecast 2017-2021 . 20 Argentina . 26 Australia . 28 Brazil . 30 Canada . 32 Chile . 34 PR China . 36 Denmark . 40 The European Union . 42 Finland . 44 Germany . 46 India . 48 Japan . 50 Mexico . 52 Netherlands . 54 Norway . 56 Offshore Wind . 58 South Africa . 66 Turkey . 68 United States . 70 Vietnam . 72 About GWEC . 74 GWEC – Global Wind 2016 Report 3 PREFACE verall, the wind industry fi nished up 2016 in good installations of 8,203 MW were about the same as 2015’s, and shape, with solid prospects for 2017 and beyond. The despite the political goings-on, seem to be on track for a strong O economics of the industry continue to improve, with 2017, with 18+ GW either under construction or in advanced record low prices for the winning tender in Morocco last year stages of development. So far so good – fi ngers crossed! of about $30/MWh, and very competitive prices in auctions Europe’s numbers were surprisingly strong, actually sur- around the world, while more and more companies’ P&Ls have passing 2015 for Europe as a whole on the strength of Turkey’s come out of the red and into the black.
  • 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
  • Financing the Transition to Renewable Energy in the European Union

    Financing the Transition to Renewable Energy in the European Union

    Bi-regional economic perspectives EU-LAC Foundation Miguel Vazquez, Michelle Hallack, Gustavo Andreão, Alberto Tomelin, Felipe Botelho, Yannick Perez and Matteo di Castelnuovo. iale Luigi Bocconi Financing the transition to renewable energy in the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean Financing the transition to renewable energy in European Union, Latin America and Caribbean EU-LAC / Università Commerc EU-LAC FOUNDATION, AUGUST 2018 Große Bleichen 35 20354 Hamburg, Germany www.eulacfoundation.org EDITION: EU-LAC Foundation AUTHORS: Miguel Vazquez, Michelle Hallack, Gustavo Andreão, Alberto Tomelin, Felipe Botelho, Yannick Perez and Matteo di Castelnuovo GRAPHIC DESIGN: Virginia Scardino | https://www.behance.net/virginiascardino PRINT: Scharlau GmbH DOI: 10.12858/0818EN Note: This study was financed by the EU-LAC Foundation. The EU-LAC Foundation is funded by its members, and in particular by the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and cannot be considered as the point of view of the EU- LAC Foundation, its member states or the European Union. This book was published in 2018. This publication has a copyright, but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education, and research, provided that the source is properly acknowledged. The co- pyright holder requests that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation and adaptation,
  • Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility

    Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility

    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Final Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-L020-2010-0007-EA October 2010 Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility Location: Spring Valley, White Pine County, Nevada Applicant/Address: Spring Valley Wind LLC 1600 Smith Street, Suite 4025 Houston, Texas 77002 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Schell Field Office Phone: (775) 289-1800 Fax: (775) 289-1910 This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Assessment Spring Valley Wind CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................................ 4 1.3 PRELIMINARY ISSUES ............................................................................................................. 5 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................... 7 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Wind Energy Facility Construction ................................................................................
  • Economic Impact of the Pleasant Ridge Wind Energy Project

    Economic Impact of the Pleasant Ridge Wind Energy Project

    PLEASANT RIDGE EXHIBIT 115 Economic Impact of the Pleasant Ridge Wind Energy Project October 2013 David G. Loomis, Ph.D. 2705 Kolby Court Bloomington, IL 61704 309-242-4690 Dr. David G. Loomis is About the Professor of Economics at Illinois State University and Director Author of the Center for Renewable Energy. He has over 10 years experience in the wind industry and has performed economic analyses at the county, region, state and national levels for both wind farms and the wind turbine supply chain. He has served as a consultant for the State of Illinois, Illinois Finance Authority, Illinois State Energy Office, Invenergy, Clean Line Energy Partners, Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Geronimo Energy and others. He has testified on the economic impacts of wind energy before the Illinois Senate Energy and Environment Committee and the LaSalle and Livingston County Boards in Illinois. Dr. Loomis is a widely recognized expert and has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, Associated Press, and Chicago Tribune as well as appearing on CNN. Dr. Loomis has published over 15 peer-reviewed articles in leading energy policy and economics journals. He has raised and managed over $5 million in grant and contracts from government, corporate and foundation sources. He received the 2011 Department of Energy’s Midwestern Regional Wind Advocacy Award and the 2006 Best Wind Working Group Award. Dr. Loomis received his Ph.D. in economics from Temple University in 1995. I. Executive Summary of Findings .................................................................. 1 Table of II. U.S. Wind Industry Growth and Economic Development....................... 2 Contents a.
  • Vineyard Wind Connector 2: Analysis to Support Petition Before the Energy Facilities Siting Board

    Vineyard Wind Connector 2: Analysis to Support Petition Before the Energy Facilities Siting Board

    Vineyard Wind Connector 2: Analysis to Support Petition Before the Energy Facilities Siting Board Docket #EFSB 20-01 Volume I: Text May 28, 2020 Submitted to Prepared by Energy Facilities Siting Board Epsilon Associates, Inc. One South Station 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 Submitted by In Association with Vineyard Wind LLC Foley Hoag LLP 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 Stantec, Inc. New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 Gradient Geo SubSea LLC ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT PETITION BEFORE THE ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD DOCKET #EFSB 20-01 Vineyard Wind Connector 2 VOLUME I: TEXT Submitted to: ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD One South Station Boston, MA 02114 Submitted by: VINEYARD WIND LLC 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 New Bedford, MA 02740 Prepared by: EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC. In Association with: 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 Foley Hoag LLP Stantec, Inc. Gradient Geo SubSea LLC May 28, 2020 Table of Contents Table of Contents VOLUME I 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION 1-1 1.1 Introduction/Siting Board Jurisdiction 1-2 1.2 Offshore Wind, Background 1-4 1.2.1 Background on Offshore Wind Lease Areas 1-7 1.2.2 Connecticut Energy Legislation (An Act Concerning the Procurement of Energy Derived from Offshore Wind) 1-8 1.2.3 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan 1-9 1.3 Project Overview 1-10 1.3.1 Offshore Wind Array (Federal Waters, for background) 1-10 1.3.2 Offshore Transmission Cables 1-12 1.3.3 Onshore Export Cables 1-14 1.3.4 Substation 1-16 1.3.4.1 Containment System 1-18
  • Renewable Energy Powers Silver State As a Clean Energy Industry Hub

    Renewable Energy Powers Silver State As a Clean Energy Industry Hub

    RENEWABLE ENERGY POWERS SILVER STATE AS A CLEAN ENERGY INDUSTRY HUB Lydia Ball, Executive Director Clean Energy Project March 2014 With a very special thanks to the Nevada Governor’s Office of Energy, the American Wind Energy Association, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and the Geothermal Energy Association, for their contributions to this white paper. Powering the clean energy economy. CLEAN ENERGY POWERS NEVADA Clean energy investment in Nevada has accelerated large-scale wind project, the Spring Valley Wind Farm, rapidly in the past five years and is now well over now generates enough energy for 45,000 homes and a $5 billion investment in Nevada, an economic suc- additional wind developments are currently underway.4 cess story that is symbolized this year by three major Due to Nevada’s vast solar, wind, geothermal and trade associations holding their annual events in the biomass resources, the state has excelled at meeting state. demand in and out of it’s borders leading to significant clean energy capital investments. As of 2014, Nevada The Renewable Energy Tax Abatement program has 480 MW5 of clean energy developed or being devel- administers Nevada’s renewable energy tax abatements, oped to meet its energy demand and 985 MW6 of clean extended by the Nevada Legislature in 2009 and trans- energy exported to other states.5 ferred to the Governor’s Energy Office’s jurisdiction in 2011. The program awards partial sales and use tax and The cumulative capital investments for projects sold partial property-tax abatements to eligible renewable to in-state and out-of-state customers, including trans- energy producers.
  • Gwec – Global Wind Report | Annual Market Update 2015

    Gwec – Global Wind Report | Annual Market Update 2015

    GLOBAL WIND REPORT ANNUAL MARKET UPDATE 2015 Opening up new markets for business “It’s expensive for emerging companies to enter new markets like China. The risk of failure is high leading to delays and high costs of sales. GWEC introduced us to the key people we needed to know, made the personal contacts on our behalf and laid the groundwork for us to come into the market. Their services were excellent and we are a terrific referenceable member and partner.” ED WARNER, CHIEF DIGITAL OFFICER, SENTIENT SCIENCE Join GWEC today! www.gwec.net Global Report 213x303 FP advert v2.indd 2 8/04/16 8:37 pm TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 4 Preface 6 Global Status of Wind Power in 2015 8 Market Forecast 2016-2020 20 Australia 26 Brazil 28 Canada 30 PR China 32 The European Union 36 Egypt 38 Finland 40 France 42 Germany 44 Offshore Wind 46 India 54 Japan 56 Mexico 58 Netherlands 60 Poland 62 South Africa 64 Turkey 66 Uruguay 68 United Kingdom 70 United States 72 About GWEC 74 GWEC – Global Wind 2015 Report 3 FOREWORD 015 was a stellar year for the wind industry and for Elsewhere in Asia, India is the main story, which has now the energy revolution, culminating with the landmark surpassed Spain to move into 4th place in the global 2Paris Agreement in December An all too rare triumph of cumulative installations ranking, and had the fifth largest multilateralism, 186 governments have finally agreed on market last year Pakistan, the Philippines, Viet Nam, where we need to get to in order to protect the climate Thailand, Mongolia and now Indonesia are all ripe
  • Manufacturing Climate Solutions Carbon-Reducing Technologies and U.S

    Manufacturing Climate Solutions Carbon-Reducing Technologies and U.S

    Manufacturing Climate Solutions Carbon-Reducing Technologies and U.S. Jobs CHAPTER 11 Wind Power: Generating Electricity and Employment Gloria Ayee, Marcy Lowe and Gary Gereffi Contributing CGGC researchers: Tyler Hall, Eun Han Kim This research is an extension of the Manufacturing Climate Solutions report published in November 2008. It was prepared on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (http://www.edf.org/home.cfm). Cover Photo Credits: 1. Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Credit – Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. (formerly PPM Energy, Inc.) 2. Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Credit – Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. (formerly PPM Energy, Inc.) 3. Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Credit – Reseburg, Amanda; Type A Images © September 22, 2009. Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, Duke University The complete report is available electronically from: http://www.cggc.duke.edu/environment/climatesolutions/ As of September 22, 2009, Chapter 11 is not available in hardcopy. 2 Summary Wind power is a cost effective, renewable energy solution for electricity generation. Wind power can dramatically reduce the environmental impacts associated with power generated from fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). Electricity production is one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States. Thus, adoption of wind power generating technologies has become a major way for the United States to diversify its energy portfolio and reach its expressed goal of 80% reduction in green house gas (GHG) emissions by the year 2050. The benefits of wind power plants include no fuel risk, no carbon dioxide emissions or air pollution, no hazardous waste production, and no need for mining, drilling or transportation of fuel (American Wind Energy Association, 2009a).
  • Nevada State Demographer's Office

    Nevada State Demographer's Office

    Nevada County Population Projections 2008 to 2028 August 2008 Prepared By: The Nevada State Demographer’s Office Jeff Hardcastle, AICP NV State Demographer Dilek Uz, Demographic Graduate Assistant University of NV Reno MS/032 Reno, NV 89557 (775) 784-6353 [email protected] [email protected] The NV State Demographers’s Office is part of the NV Small Business Development Center and Is funded by the NV Department of Taxation Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................... 1 Specific Factors Considered In The Projections Clark County (Las Vegas Valley) Hotel Rooms ......................... 5 Mining Employment............................................... 8 Housing......................................................... 9 Other Projects Reported By Local Governments...................... 11 Population Projections For Nevada’s Counties 2008 to 2028 .................. 12 Appendices Appendix A - Nevada Mining Outlook ...................................... 1 Appendix B - Nevada Housing Unit and Household Creation From 2000 to 2007 . 2 Appendix C - Projects Identified By Local Governments IN 2008 ............... 6 The following report contains projections for Nevada and its counties beginning in 2008 through 2028 (starting from the last estimate done in 2007). It is being produced during a period when the state is experiencing economic challenges from the housing bubble and increasing energy costs. These challenges come at a time when Nevada has been the fastest growing state in the country for 20
  • Economic Impact of Wind and Solar Energy in Illinois and the Potential Impacts of Path to 100 Legislation

    Economic Impact of Wind and Solar Energy in Illinois and the Potential Impacts of Path to 100 Legislation

    Economic Impact of Wind and Solar Energy in Illinois and the Potential Impacts of Path to 100 Legislation December 2020 Strategic by David G. Loomis Strategic Economic Research, LLC S E R Economic strategiceconomic.com Research , LLC 815-905-2750 About the Author Dr. David G. Loomis Professor of Economics, Illinois State University Co-Founder of the Center for Renewable Energy President of Strategic Economic Research, LLC Dr. David G. Loomis is Professor of Economics Dr. Loomis has published over 25 peer-reviewed at Illinois State University and Co-Founder of the articles in leading energy policy and economics Center for Renewable Energy. He has over 10 years journals. He has raised and managed over $7 of experience in the renewable energy field and has million in grants and contracts from government, performed economic analyses at the county, region, corporate and foundation sources. Dr. Loomis state and national levels for utility-scale wind and received his Ph.D. in economics from Temple solar generation. He has served as a consultant for University in 1995. Apex Clean Energy, Clean Line Energy Partners, EDF Renewables, E.ON Climate and Renewables, Geronimo Energy, Invenergy, J-Power, the National Renewable Energy Laboratories, Ranger Power, State of Illinois, Tradewind, and others. He has testified on the economic impacts of energy projects before the Illinois Commerce Commission, Missouri Public Service Commission, Illinois Senate Energy and Environment Committee, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and numerous county boards. Dr. Loomis is a widely recognized expert and has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, Associated Press, and Chicago Tribune as well as appearing on CNN.
  • Appendix Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report Rounds I-VI

    Appendix Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report Rounds I-VI

    Appendix Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report Rounds I-VI February 11, 2014 Alaska Energy Data Gateway, developed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences (BES), under EPSCoR Award # DE-SC0004903 (database and web application development), and by Alaska Energy Authority (Renewable Energy Fund data management and report- ing). Database and web hosting is provided by Arctic Region Supercomputing Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 1 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report, Rounds I-VI Contents Statewide 8 OCEAN/RIVER . 8 Statewide Hydrokinetic . 8 Aleutians 9 GEOTHERMAL . 9 Akutan Geothermal Development Project . 9 HEAT RECOVERY . 11 Atka Hydro Dispatched Excess Electrical Power . 11 Cold Bay Heat Recovery . 12 Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade . 13 Unalaska Heat Recovery . 14 HYDRO .............................................................. 15 Akutan Hydroelectric System Repair and Upgrade . 15 Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric . 16 Loud Creek Hydro . 17 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project . 18 OTHER .............................................................. 20 Adak Diesel Hybrid . 20 Aleutians East Borough . 21 WIND ............................................................... 22 Cold Bay Wind Energy Project . 22 False Pass Wind Energy Project . 23 Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project . 24 Nikolski Wind Integration . 25 Sand Point Wind . 26 Savoonga..........................................................