DOCSLIB.ORG

Impact and Process Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Wind

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impact and Process Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Impact and Process Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Powering America Initiative Prepared for: Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Prepared by: Navigant Consulting, Inc. FINAL REPORT May 2013 DOE/EE-0897 Acknowledgements This study has benefited from the contributions of many individuals. Jeff Dowd of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) initiated the study. Navigant performed the evaluation under subcontract to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (LBNL). Ed Vine and Yaw Agyeman, LBNL’s study managers, provided invaluable oversight and critical guidance that helped keep the project on track. The Navigant study team comprised Frank Stern, principal investigator; Charlie Bloch, principal analyst for the study; and a diverse team of analysts, researchers, writers and advisors, including Lindsay Battenberg, Mark Bielecki, Rachel Dickenson, Terese Decker, Jennifer Hampton, Jan Harris, Jane Hummer, Julianne Meurice, Bill Provencher, Stuart Smoller, Rebecca Stoecklein, and Dan Violette. Various industry stakeholders and current and former Wind Powering America (WPA) staff provided valuable guidance and input during the initial evaluation planning and data collections stages, including Jim Ahlgrimm, Dwight Bailey, Ian Baring-Gould, Stan Calvert, Phil Dougherty, Michele DesAutels, Larry Flowers, Randy Manion, Walt Musial, Brian Parsons, Brian Smith, Jennifer States, Amanda Vanega and Ryan Wiser. The team wishes to particularly thank Heather Rhoads-Weaver of eFormative Options for the provision of detailed small-wind capacity installation data and the team at the North Carolina Solar Center, North Carolina State University and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council for maintaining the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) website. The following reviewers provided valuable input during the study. Those who reviewed the evaluation design and draft report provided advice that greatly helped the study team deal with the challenges of the research subject and evaluation design. The study team is grateful for their comments. External reviewers: Eric Blank, President and Co-Founder, Community Energy Edgar DeMeo, President, Renewable Energy Consulting Services, Inc. Tom Feiler, Director of Business Development, AMSC Kenneth M. Keating, PhD, Consultant Internal reviewers: Jeff Dowd, Program Evaluation Lead, Policy & Analysis Team, Strategic Programs, DOE/EERE Yaw Agyeman, Project Manager, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Ed Vine, Project Manager, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Jonathan Bartlett, Strategic Marketing & Outreach Manager, Wind & Water Power Program, DOE/EERE Ian Baring-Gould, WPA Technical Lead, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Ben Chicoski, Senior Analyst, Energetics Incorporated Michele DesAutels, former DOE National Coordinator of WPA (2009-2012), U.S. Coast Guard Impact and Process Evaluation: DOE Wind Powering America Initiative Page i Notice This document 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, usefulness, or 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. This report is being disseminated by the Department of Energy. As such, this document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and information quality guidelines issued by the Department of Energy. [Further, this report could be “influential scientific information” as that term is defined in the Office of Management and Budget's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin). This report has been peer reviewed pursuant to section II.2 of the Bulletin.] Impact and Process Evaluation: DOE Wind Powering America Initiative Page ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... x 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 WPA Initiative and Objectives ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 WPA Design and Approach ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 Initiative Objectives .................................................................................................. 1-2 1.1.3 WPA State-Based Activities ..................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.4 WPA Timeline and Funding ..................................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Evaluation Objectives............................................................................................................ 1-5 1.3 Overview of this Report ......................................................................................................... 1-6 2. WPA Logic Model .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 WPA Logic Model Diagram ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Market Barriers ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 WPA Inputs and External Influences .................................................................................... 2-3 2.5 WPA Strategies and Activities .............................................................................................. 2-4 2.6 WPA Initiative Outputs and Outcomes.................................................................................. 2-5 3. Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Researchable Questions and Metrics ................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Research Design ................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Historical Tracing Approach ..................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Expert Judging Approach ......................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.3 Modified Delphi Process (Seeking Consensus and Bounding Uncertainty) .......... 3-12 3.2.4 Data Analysis and Derivation of Capacity-Equivalent Estimates of WPA’s Influence ................................................................................................................. 3-13 3.2.5 Limitations of Data and Analysis ............................................................................ 3-17 3.2.6 Statistical Approaches Considered ........................................................................ 3-19 3.3 Sample Development .......................................................................................................... 3-21 3.4 Final Disposition of Interviews and Response Rates in Sampled States ........................... 3-24 4. WPA Impact Findings ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 WPA’s Influence on Wind Capacity Additions in Targeted States ........................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Market Factors’ Perceived Share of Influence on Wind Capacity Additions............ 4-2 4.1.2 WPA’s Estimated Influence on Wind Capacity Additions in Targeted States .......... 4-5 4.2 WPA’s Influence on Wind Capacity Additions in Non-Targeted States .............................. 4-15 4.2.1 Market Factors’ Perceived Share of Influence on Capacity Additions ................... 4-15 4.2.2 WPA’s Estimated Influence on Wind Capacity Additions in Sampled Non-Target States .................................................................................................. 4-16 4.3 Wind Working Group’s Ability to Leverage WPA Funding .................................................. 4-18 4.3.1 Availability of WPA Budget Data ............................................................................ 4-18 4.3.2 WPA Approach to Initiative Funding ...................................................................... 4-18 4.3.3 Sources and Importance of Leveraged Funding .................................................... 4-19 4.3.4 Coordinating Organizations’ Ability to Secure Additional Funding ........................ 4-21 4.3.5 Timing of Leveraged Funds ................................................................................... 4-21 4.4 Replication of WWG Activities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wind Powering America FY07 Activities Summary
    Wind Powering America FY07 Activities Summary Dear Wind Powering America Colleague, We are pleased to present the Wind Powering America FY07 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 2007, there were more than 11,500 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed across the United States, with an additional 4,000 MW projected in both 2007 and 2008. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that the U.S. installed capacity will exceed 16,000 MW by the end of 2007. 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. Seventeen states now have more than 100 MW installed. We anticipate five to six additional states will join the 100-MW club early in 2008, 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. WPA continues to work with its national, regional, and state partners to communicate the opportunities and benefits of wind energy to a diverse set of stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Wind Energy
    Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, AICP , Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, AICP , Editors American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 566 Planning for Wind Energy is the result of a collaborative part- search intern at APA; Kirstin Kuenzi is a research intern at nership among the American Planning Association (APA), APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, was program development se- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the nior associate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, is a research American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and Clarion associate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. Associates. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department The authors thank the many other individuals who con- of Energy under award number DE-EE0000717, as part of tributed to or supported this project, particularly the plan- the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges funding ners, elected officials, and other stakeholders from case- opportunity. study communities who participated in interviews, shared The report was developed under the auspices of the Green documents and images, and reviewed drafts of the case Communities Research Center, one of APA’s National studies. Special thanks also goes to the project partners Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful outreach, and education that advance green communities edits and comments, as well as the scoping symposium through planning. For more information, visit www.plan- participants who worked with APA and project partners to ning.org/nationalcenters/green/index.htm. APA’s National develop the outline for the report: James Andrews, utilities Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and specialist at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; education involving community health, natural and man- Jennifer Banks, offshore wind and siting specialist at AWEA; made hazards, and green communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen John Stadler
    STEPHEN JOHN STADLER Professor Fall 2018 Address: Department of Geography Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-4073 Phones: Office (405) 744-9172 Home (405) 624-2176 Fax: Office (405) 744-5620 Electronic mail: [email protected] EDUCATION Date Institution Degree 1979 Indiana State University Ph.D (Physical Geography) 1976 Miami University M.A. (Geography) 1973 Miami University B.S. Ed., Cum Laude, (Social Studies) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2017-Date National Geographic Society Geography Steward of Oklahoma 2015-Date State Geographer Emeritus of Oklahoma (gubernatorial designation) 1993-Date Professor, Department of Geography Oklahoma State University 2013-Date President, Oklahoma Alliance for Geography Education 2012-Date Member, Smart Energy Source team 2011-Date Member, National Energy Solutions Institute committee, Oklahoma State University 2009-Date Geography Program Advisory Board, University of Central Oklahoma 2008-2008 Elected Representative, Oklahoma State University Faculty Council 2008-Date Wind Turbine Program advisory board, Oklahoma State University—Oklahoma City 2008-Date Geography Program advisory board, University of Central Oklahoma 2004-2015 The State Geographer of Oklahoma (gubernatorial appointment) 2004-Date Member, State GIS Council 2004-Date Board Member, Oklahoma Alliance for Geographic Education 1988-Date Steering Committee, Oklahoma Mesonetwork Project 1991-1994 Faculty Supervisor, OSU Center for Applications of Remote Sensing 1985-1993 Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Oklahoma State University. 1980-1985 Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Oklahoma State University. 1979-1980 Temporary Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Michigan State University. Spring 1979 Instructor, Indiana State University Short Course in Remote Sensing. Spring 1978 Lecturer, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Indiana University - Purdue University at Fort Wayne.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Powering America's Wind for Schools Project
    Wind Powering America’s Wind for Schools Project Summary Report I. Baring-Gould and C. Newcomb NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Management Report NREL/MP-7A20-51180 June 2012 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Wind Powering America’s Wind for Schools Project Summary Report I. Baring-Gould and C. Newcomb Prepared under Task No. WE11.1102 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Management Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/MP-7A20-51180 Golden, Colorado 80401 June 2012 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Usa Wind Energy Resources
    USA WIND ENERGY RESOURCES © M. Ragheb 2/7/2021 “An acre of windy prairie could produce between $4,000 and $10,000 worth of electricity per year.” Dennis Hayes INTRODUCTION Wind power accounted for 6 percent of the USA’s total electricity generation capacity, compared with 19 percent for Nuclear Power generation. A record 13.2 GWs of rated wind capacity were installed in 2012 including 5.5 GWs in December 2012, the most ever for a single month. The total rated wind capacity stands at about 60 GWs. Utilities are buying wind power because they want to, not because they have to, to benefit from the Production Tax Credit PTC incentive. The credit has been extended for a year to cover wind farms that start construction in 2013. Previously it only covered projects that started working by the expiration date. Asset financing for USA wind farms was $4.3 billion in the second-half compared with $9.6 billion in the first six months of 2012. Component makers are the General Electric Company (GE), Siemens AG, Vestas AS, Gamesa Corp Tecnologica SA and Clipper Windpower Ltd., which is owned by Platinum Equity LLC. Equipment prices for wind have dropped by more than 21 percent since 2010, and the performance of turbines has risen. This has resulted in a 21 percent decrease in the overall cost of electricity from wind for a typical USA project since 2010. From 2006 to 2012 USA domestic manufacturing facilities for wind turbine components has grown 12 times to more than 400 facilities in 43 states.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind for Schools: a Wind Powering America Project (Brochure)
    Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Wind for Schools: A Wind Powering America Project Donna Berry - Utah State University/PIX13969 1 What is the Wind for Schools Project? The wind turbine located at a school, when combined with science-based curricula, provides students and teachers with a Energy is largely taken for granted within our society, but that physical example of how communities can take part in perception is changing as the economic and environmental providing for the economic and environmental security of impacts of our current energy structure are more widely the nation while allowing exciting, hands-on educational understood. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Wind opportunities for the students. The project implementation also Powering America program sponsors the Wind for Schools provides solid experience for the college students that, when Project to raise awareness in rural America about the benefits combined with wind energy coursework, prepares them to of wind energy while simultaneously developing a wind energy enter the wind energy workforce. It is expected that through knowledge base in the United States to educate future leaders this project, small wind turbines will be installed at five to of our communities, states, and nation about the importance eight new schools while graduating 10 to 15 university of renewable energy. engineering students with wind energy experience in each The three primary project goals of the Wind for Schools targeted state each year. Project are to: How does Wind for Schools address the • Engage rural school teachers and students in wind energy education need for wind workforce development? • Equip college students in wind energy applications and In 2006, President Bush emphasized the nation’s need for education to provide interested and equipped engineers greater energy efficiency and a more diversified energy for the growing U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • IPR Support in the United States
    Evaluation of a Portfolio of Technologies: Wind Energy American Evaluation Association: Annual Conference Session 576 Denver, CO November 7, 2008 Rosalie T. Ruegg Managing Director, TIA Consulting, Inc [email protected] TIA Consulting, Inc. Presentation Source This presentation draws on a study nearing completion: Linkages from DOE’s Research and Development in Wind Energy to Commercial Renewable Power Generation by Rosalie Ruegg, TIA Consulting, Inc. Patrick Thomas, 1790 Analytics, LLC Study purpose: to trace how outputs from more than 3 decades of DOE’s investment in wind energy R&D are linked to downstream power generation by wind + to assess feasibility of & inform a follow-on benefit-cost evaluation 2 TIA Consulting, Inc. Study Methods • interviews with experts • searches of databases • review of documents • analysis of patent and publications 3 TIA Consulting, Inc. Study challenges • multiple DOE strategies to advance technology and commercial deployment • multiple technologies to consider • multiple markets—utility-scale and distributed • data issues 4 TIA Consulting, Inc. Outline for Remainder of Presentation • Wind Energy Challenges • Overview of DOE Wind Program budgets & strategies • Before and after: technology & market snapshots • Study findings—examples of evidence of direct & indirect linkages • How historical tracing also has informed feasibility of benefit-cost evaluation 5 TIA Consulting, Inc. Wind Technology—Technically Challenging Source: Wind Power Today, 2000 (DOE 2001, p.5) 6 TIA Consulting, Inc. Wind Energy—Resource Challenging 7 TIA Consulting, Inc. Prior to DOE’s Wind Energy Program: High Costs/Short Life/Small Size ____Turbines before 1975__+_ Cost/kWh $0.50-$1.00 Operating Life 1-5 years Turbine Size < 20 kW Source: NREL In Review, Fall 1995, p.6 8 TIA Consulting, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Options for Clean Air and Sustainable Energy in Texas
    Policy Options for Clean Air and Sustainable Energy in Texas January 2009 Prepared by: Daniel Cohan Birnur Buzcu-Guven Daniel Hodges-Copple Rice University Dan Bullock Ross Tomlin Houston Advanced Research Center Prepared for: Texas Business for Clean Air ii Acknowledgements The authors thankfully acknowledge the valuable contributions of Mr. Oviea Akpotaire. iii This page intentionally left blank. iv Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................VII LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................... VIII POLICY OPTIONS FOR CLEAN AIR AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY IN TEXAS: ..................................X EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................X CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................................1 THE AIR QUALITY CHALLENGE IN TEXAS ....................................................................................................1 1.1 OZONE ................................................................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Ozone formation .........................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Energy: Considerations for Georgia
    Offshore Wind Energy: Considerations for Georgia Christine Laporte and Merryl Alber August 2011 About the Georgia Coastal Research Council: The Georgia Coastal Research Council (GCRC) was established to provide mechanisms for improved scientific exchange between coastal scientists and decision makers, and to promote the incorporation of best-available scientific information into State and local resource management. The Council is not a policy organization, but rather seeks to provide unbiased, objective information about scientific issues. Baseline support for the program is shared by the Coastal Resources Division (CRD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (through the Coastal Management Program) and Georgia Sea Grant, with project-specific support from the NSF and other agencies. GCRC staff are located in the School of Marine Programs at the University of Georgia. For more information please contact us at [email protected] or see our website at http://www.gcrc.uga.edu. Suggested citation: Laporte, C. and M. Alber. 2011. Offshore Wind Energy: Considerations for Georgia. Prepared by the Georgia Coastal Research Council, for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division. 41 pages. Contact: Christine Laporte - [email protected] This report was prepared by the Georgia Coastal Research Council under grant award # NA10NOS4190211 to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, and award # NA10OAR417009 to Georgia Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of DNR, OCRM or NOAA. Offshore Wind Energy: Considerations for Georgia This document provides background about offshore wind energy, with a specific focus on its potential development in Georgia coastal waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Testimony of *******
    STATE OF MAINE LAND USE REGULATION COMMISION In the matter of Rezoning Application ZP 702 Maine Mountain Power, LLC PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A HEWSON JR ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS OF THE WESTERN MOUNTAINS Q: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, OCCUPATION AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. A: My name is Thomas A Hewson Jr. I have been an energy and environmental consultant for 30 years. Since 1981, I have been a Principal at Energy Ventures Analysis that is located at 1901 N. Moore St. Suite 1200, Arlington, Virginia, 22209-1706. My resume and relevant experience to the issues in this proceeding are provided in Exhibit TAH-1. Q: ON WHOSE BEHALF ARE YOU SUBMITTING TESTIMONY? A: I am submitting testimony on behalf of the Friends of the Western Mountains. Q: PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSIGNMENT YOU WERE GIVEN FOR THIS PROCEEDING A: I was asked to review the information Maine Mountain Power LLC has provided on the 90 MW Redington Mountain Wind project in its rezoning application to the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission and provide an independent opinion on its claims of power output, project need, local economic benefits and pollution prevention claims. 1 Q: COULD YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR FINDINGS? A: My testimony covers four areas. My major findings discussed in my testimony are: • Project output estimates unsupported and likely overstated • No demonstrated need for the Redington Mountain Wind project • Project’s local economic impacts unstudied with no examination of offsetting economic costs • Project will provide no incremental air pollution control benefits Q: HAVE YOU REVIEWED MAINE MOUNTAIN POWER LLC’S REZONING APPLICATION? A: Yes, I have reviewed their rezoning application.
    [Show full text]