In the Matter of the Application of )

1 DNR Exhibit ___(JS-1) 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE 8 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 9 OF MARYLAND 10 11 12 13 14 15 16In the Matter of the Application of ) 17Clipper Windpower, Inc. for a ) 18Certificate of Public Convenience and ) Case No. 8938 19Necessity to Construct a 101 MW ) 20Generating Facility in Garrett County, ) 21Maryland ) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF 29 JOHN SHERWELL 30 31 32 33 34 35 ON BEHALF OF THE 36 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 37 POWER PLANT RESEARCH PROGRAM 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 December 6, 2002 1 2 3 4 BEFORE THE 5 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 6 OF MARYLAND 7 8 9In the Matter of the Application of ) 10Clipper Windpower, Inc. for a ) 11Certificate of Public Convenience and ) Case No. 8938 12Necessity to Construct a 101 MW ) 13Generating Facility in Garrett County, ) 14Maryland ) 15 16 17 18 19DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOHN SHERWELL 20 21 22Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR, OCCUPATION AND CURRENT POSITION.23A. My name is John Sherwell. I am the Administrator for Atmospheric Sciences for the Power Plant 24 Research Program (PPRP) at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). I am also 25 the Department’s Project Manager for reviewing the Clipper Windpower, Inc. (Clipper) 26 application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct a 27 windpower facility in the Allegheny Heights area of Garrett County, Maryland. As explained 28 more fully below, I am also the coordinator of the project for interested State agencies.2930Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH PPRP.31A. I have been employed by PPRP since September 1993. My primary responsibility is in the area of32 air quality assessment. A statement of my educational background, occupational history, and 33 professional qualifications is attached to this testimony as Appendix A.3435Q. HAVE YOU TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN OTHER CPCN LICENSING 36 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC)?37A. Yes. I have been responsible for managing previous licensing cases including the “green power” 38 development at the Brown Station Road landfill in Prince George’s County, Maryland and the 39 Eastern Sanitary Landfill in Baltimore County, Maryland.1 1 12Q. WHAT ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE'S REVIEW 3 OF THE PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A WINDPOWERED GENERATION FACILITY 4 IN THE ALLEGHENY HEIGHTS AREA OF WESTERN MARYLAND?5A. As the Department’s Project Manager for the CPCN review of the Clipper proposal, I am 6 responsible for the implementation and direction of the technical, policy, and regulatory related 7 evaluations performed by PPRP, and for coordinating the positions of all interested State agencies.8 To complete these evaluations, I have directed the work of PPRP’s technical consultants. 910Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?11A. My testimony summarizes our findings with respect to the generating facility that Clipper has 12 proposed to construct in the Allegheny Heights area of Garrett County, Maryland, near the town of13 Oakland. My testimony discusses our findings with respect to the environmental and 14 socioeconomic impacts of the facility. My testimony also describes PPRP's CPCN application 15 review process for power plants.1617Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ROLE OF PPRP AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES IN THE 18 REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND19 NECESSITY FOR POWER STATION PROJECTS IN MARYLAND.20A. Under Maryland's Power Plant Siting Act of 1971, Chapter 31 of the Laws of Maryland of 1971, 21 as codified in Sections 7-207 and 7-208 of the Public Utility Companies Article of the Annotated 22 Code of Maryland and Sections 3-301 through 3-306 of the Natural Resources Article, and under 23 Maryland's Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 702 of the Laws of 1973, as codified in Section 1-24 303 of the Natural Resources Article, the PSC is required to consider environmental impacts of any 25 proposed electric generating facility as part of the application review and approval process for a 26 CPCN. PPRP is responsible for coordinating the review of projects requiring a CPCN with other 27 units within DNR, as well as the Department of the Environment, the Department of Agriculture, 1 2 1 the Department of Business and Economic Development, the Maryland Energy Administration, the 2 Department of Planning, the Department of Transportation, and the Office of Smart Growth. 34Q. HOW DOES PPRP TYPICALLY REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR NEW POWER 5 STATIONS?6A. The PPRP review process usually begins well before an application is submitted to the PSC. Early7 in the process, PPRP meets with the developer and his or her representatives to identify any major 8 issues and generally outlines what analysis or fieldwork needs to be accomplished as part of the 9 formal application. It is to the benefit of all parties to come to an early agreement regarding 10 various studies that need to be performed.11 Throughout the process, PPRP maintains an information flow through established representatives 12 with the State agencies mentioned earlier. The goal is to insure that any and all concerns are 13 identified early in the process so that they can be addressed, either through studies performed by 14 the applicant or by PPRP. This safeguards both the State and the applicant against serious issues 15 coming to light at the last moment, potentially delaying a needed project.16 This coordination takes the form of field visits to the proposed site, informational and status 17 summaries sent periodically to all the agency representatives, and numerous meetings, both with 18 the applicant and the agency representatives.1920Q. HOW DOES THIS COORDINATION CHANGE ONCE AN APPLICATION IS 21 RECEIVED?22A. The communication with the applicant and the agency representatives described above is 23 continued once a formal application is received by the PSC. The results of all studies and the 24 applicant's testimony are reviewed, and the potential impact of the proposed facility is evaluated. 25 If necessary, ongoing meetings with both the applicant and agency representatives take place to 26 attempt to resolve any remaining issues. At the culmination of this process, initial 1 3 1 recommendations are developed in conjunction with the agency representatives and presented in 2 the direct testimony of PPRP.34Q. HAS THE REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION BEEN DIFFERENT FROM PPRP’S 5 TYPICAL REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION?6A. No. While the mode of generation proposed by the applicant is new to the generation mix in 7 Maryland, the analysis has proceeded as it would for any other applicant.89Q. HAVE PPRP AND OTHER INTERESTED STATE AGENCIES FILED INITIAL 10 RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE PSC AND THE PARTIES OF RECORD FOR THIS 11 PROCEEDING?12A. Yes, PPRP is submitting to the PSC, Hearing Examiner, and all parties of record, initial 13 recommendations with my direct testimony. These recommendations have been coordinated with 14 the Departments of Environment, Natural Resources, Agriculture, Transportation, Business and 15 Economic Development, and Planning, the Energy Administration, and the Office of Smart 16 Growth. These initial recommendations may be amended, added or deleted in the final 17 recommendations submitted by PPRP to the PSC and Hearing Examiner, as necessary, to address 18 any issues and impacts that may arise as a result of the hearings. However, unless additional 19 issues arise, the recommendations submitted with my testimony as DNR Exhibit ___(JS-2) will 20 serve as the State’s final recommendations and should be incorporated into the order issuing the 21 CPCN.2223Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW PPRP HAS CONDUCTED ITS REVIEW OF THE 24 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE 25 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY.26A. PPRP initially met with the applicant for this project to obtain an understanding of the proposed 27 electrical generating system, the system components, and operating parameters anticipated for the 28 system. Visits to the applicant’s proposed site were also conducted to obtain site-specific data 1 4 1 related to the location of the electrical generation system at the site and the site conditions. PPRP 2 and its technical consultants worked closely with the applicant to obtain technical specifications 3 for the system and the maximum and anticipated system operations. In addition, PPRP coordinated4 with State and County regulatory agencies to obtain their input to the proposed project. Our 5 analysis is contained in the draft report entitled Environmental Review of the Proposed 6 Windpower Facility at Allegheny Heights, and is presented with this testimony as DNR Exhibit 7 ___(JS-3). The report addresses a number of major categories: Analyses of terrestrial, ecological, 8 ground water and surface water impacts were assessed by Versar, Inc. in Columbia, Maryland; 9 aesthetic and cultural impacts were addressed by Exeter Associates, in Silver Spring, Maryland; 10 and noise impacts and air quality issues were undertaken by Environmental Resources 11 Management, in Annapolis, Maryland. Copies of this report have been filed with the Commission12 and served on the parties as part of this pre-filed direct testimony, dated December 6, 2002.1314Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE TYPES OF ANALYSES THAT PPRP CONDUCTED AS PART15 OF ITS REVIEW AND PPRP’S CONCLUSIONS.16A. PPRP’s evaluation of the proposed project includes an assessment of potential impacts to 17 terrestrial, ecological, ground water, surface water, socioeconomic, aesthetic, cultural resources, 18 noise and air quality. The environmental assessment conducted for this facility and attached as 19 DNR Exhibit ___(JS-3) details this analysis and shows that the project will comply with all 20 applicable regulatory standards. 21 Given the nature of the type of development being proposed, the potential for terrestrial and 22 ecological impacts were given our highest priority. PPRP and staff from its Biological Sciences 23 contractor, Versar, Inc., worked closely with Maryland DNR’s Natural Heritage Program 24 (Heritage) to ensure that Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species impacts are avoided. The issue25 of greatest concern has been that of avian impacts. Both diurnal and nocturnal migrants are 26 known to traverse the Appalachian ranges during their spring and fall migrations. Details of the 27 use by these birds of the site proposed by Clipper are unknown. PPRP obtained expert opinion 28 from a number of sources including DNR’s Heritage group, Versar, and Dr. Michael Morrison 1 5 1 from the University of California who acts as an avian consultant for the U.S. Department of 2 Energy on windpower issues. The opinion of these experts is that the risk to migrating birds is 3 small, but not zero. The conditions filed with this testimony identify a method that constrains the 4 avian risk to the satisfaction of the Heritage Program and provides adequate surety for the 5 applicant to proceed with financing for the project. In addition to the requirements placed on the 6 applicant by the conditions, PPRP has initiated a study of avian populations in the Appalachian 7 region of western Maryland. These studies are being directed by Dr. Edward Gates of the 8 University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science at the Appalachian Laboratory in 9 Frostburg, Maryland. These studies are intended to improve the understanding of the avian risk 10 associated with windpower and lay down a foundation of knowledge to support future windpower 11 development in the state.12 Again, given the nature of the proposed development, PPRP has concluded that there will be no 13 impacts to surface or groundwater since there are no surface water withdrawals or discharges 14 associated with the proposed project. 15 The socioeconomic, aesthetic, and cultural resource impacts were assessed by PPRP through 16 visual observations made at the site and assessment of the location of the proposed system and its 17 operation. The results of a Phase I Archeological Survey performed at the site are included in the 18 assessment, and the Maryland Historical Trust also provided review and comment for PPRP’s 19 evaluation. Visual impacts were studied in detail, as reported in the environmental review 20 document, as were transportation concerns. The assessments are described in the environmental 21 review document, and no adverse impacts are predicted.22 As is discussed in more detail in the review document, wind turbines do not produce air emissions.23 While there are no emissions associated with the generation technology, a conventional facility of 24 similar capacity would be a source of criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide. Garrett County is in 25 compliance with all ambient quality standards. However, the State as a whole is a part of the 26 Ozone Transport Region and is required to pay special attention to limiting emissions that produce1 6 1 ground-level ozone. Combustion systems, such as fossil-fueled generation systems, emit oxides of2 nitrogen (NOx), a principal precursor associated with ozone formation. A coal-fired generation 3 unit with the same power output as the proposed windpower facility may be expected to emit 4 about 1,850 tons per year of NOx, while a modern, gas-fired generator would produce about 24 5 tons per year. In addition to criteria pollutants, carbon dioxide is also emitted during fossil fuel 6 combustion and is a major contributor to global warming. Using the example above, a coal-fired 7 generator with the same power output as the proposed Clipper facility may be expected to emit 8 about 350,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year and the modern, gas-fired unit would emit about 9 270,000 tons per year. It is for avoidance of these air emissions, and the fact that the energy 10 source for the turbines is renewable, that the project is considered to be a source of “green power”.11 An evaluation of the noise levels generated from the proposed project was conducted utilizing 12 estimated noise data provided by the applicant. PPRP evaluated the applicant’s ability to operate 13 the proposed unit in compliance with State noise requirements and conditions were developed 14 with the Department of Environment to assure compliance. 15 We have concluded that the proposed facility can be constructed and operated in such a way as 16 will not cause any unacceptable environmental impacts and, with the adoption of the proposed 17 conditions, will comply with all applicable environmental regulations.18 19Q. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF PPRP'S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENT?20A. The Environmental Review document, which was filed with the PSC on December 6, 2002, is still21 in draft form. This will allow the State agencies to make any changes to it that may be necessary 22 as a result of this hearing. 2324Q. HAVE THE STATE AGENCIES MADE ANY CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT SINCE 25 IT WAS ORIGINALLY FILED WITH THE COMMISSION?26A. No. 27 1 7 1Q. WHAT HAVE THE STATE AGENCIES CONCLUDED WITH RESPECT TO THE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED 3 FACILITY?4A. We have concluded that the proposed facility can be constructed and operated in such a way as 5 will not cause any unacceptable environmental or socioeconomic impacts and, with the adoption 6 of the proposed conditions, will comply with all applicable environmental regulations. The letter 7 of recommendation, signed by the Secretaries of the affected agencies, is attached to my testimony8 as DNR Exhibit ___(JS-2). We therefore recommend that a CPCN be issued for Clipper’s 9 planned facility subject to the conditions proposed in our letter of recommendation.10 Based on the information gathered by PPRP and submitted by the Applicant and our associated 11 review of the facility, these recommendations include all those conditions that we consider 12 necessary to ensure that the proposed facility does not cause unacceptable impacts to the State and13 should be incorporated into any Order that may be issued for this case by the Commission.1415Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE OF CONDITION NO. 23 CONCERNING 16 TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.17A. The intent of Condition No. 23 is to insure that the conditions incorporated into a CPCN will be 18 accepted by and be enforceable against successive owners and operators of the facility once it is 19 licensed. Since the CPCN is issued to a developer who is not subject to the Commission’s general20 supervisory jurisdiction over public utility companies, there has to be a condition that imposes a 21 duty upon the developer to advise the Commission of any proposed transfer of control over the 22 construction or operation of the facility so that the Commission can insure the transferee accepts 23 and agrees to abide by the conditions being imposed by CPCN. The wording of this condition is 24 an adaptation of the wording recently accepted by the Commission when it issued Order No. 25 77267 on September 27, 2001 granting a CPCN to Free State for Kelson Ridge in PSC Case 8843.26 It is my understanding that the condition is intended to be in effect only when a successor takes 27 “active ownership” of the facility. It is not intended to require a developer to obtain the 1 8 1 Commission’s approval for “passive” transfers of ownership required to secure financing for a 2 project unless a creditor subsequently assumes operational control. 34Q. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME?5A. Yes, it does.1 9 1 APPENDIX A2STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 3 4 Dr. John Sherwell has served as an Administrator with the Maryland Power Plant Research Program 5(PPRP) since September 1993. Dr Sherwell currently manages air quality contracts at PPRP. He is 6responsible for, among other things, the direction of work related to implementation of the Clean Air Act 7and air modeling work done in support of power plant licensing cases. 8Prior to joining PPRP, Dr. Sherwell was employed by Radian LLC in Austin, Texas. Here he provided 9consulting services in pollution control and assessment to government and industry, including the electric 10power generation sector. His particular areas of expertise include air quality modeling, impact assessment 11and pollution control. 12Dr. Sherwell received his B.S. and M.S. in chemistry and chemical engineering from the University of the 13Witwatersrand, South Africa, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of St Andrews, Scotland in 141979. In addition he has spent time in academia at Emory University in Atlanta and University of 15Melbourne in Australia. 16 17 18MEMBERSHIPS: 19 20American Chemical Society 21Royal Society for Chemistry 22American Association for the Advancement of Science 23Air and Waste Management Association 24American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International) 25International Society for Ecological Economics 26 27 28 29SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: 30 31Sustainable Development 32Sherwell, J., R. Drake and K. Schlein, “Sustainable Development: A state of being or of becoming?”, 33United States Ecological Economics Society Meeting, June, 2001, Duluth, Minnesota. 34 35Sherwell, J., “Decision Making Under Conditions of High Complexity and Uncertainty,” Air & Waste 36Management Association’s 92nd Annual Meeting & Exhibition, June 20-24, 1999, St Louis, Missouri. 37 38Sherwell, J., “A “Bottom Up” Approach to Sustainable Development,” Air & Waste Management 39Association’s 91st Annual Meeting & Exhibition, June 14-18, 1998, San Diego, California. 40 41Environmental Impacts 42Sherwell, J., “Accounting for Atmospheric Deposition in a Nutrient Cap Strategy”, National Atmospheric 43Deposition Program Annual Conference, September, 2002, Seattle, Washington 44 45Sherwell, J., “Total Nitrogen in Rain – Initial Results for Maryland”, National Atmospheric Deposition 46Program Annual Conference, August, 2001, Champaign, Illinois. 47 48Sherwell, J., “Nitrate Deposition in Maryland: Effects on Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay,” Acid Rain 49& Electric Utilities II: International Specialty Conference, January 21-22, 1997, Scottsdale, Arizona. 50 51Air Quality 52Walsh, K. and J. Sherwell, “Estimation of Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations in Maryland and Verification by 53Measured Values”, J Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 52, 1161 (2002) 541 10 1Vukovich, F.M. and J. Sherwell, “Comparison of Fine Particles and the Relationship between Particle 2Variations and Meteorology at an Urban Site and Remote Site in the Eastern United States”, J Air & Waste 3Manage. Assoc. 52, 573 (2002) 4 5Sherwell, J. and D. Austin, “Estimating Benefits from Air Pollution Emission Reductions: the Maryland 6Externalities Screening and Valuation Model”, Electric Utilities Environmental Conference, January, 2001, 7Tucson, Arizona 8 9Corio, L.A. and J. Sherwell, “In-stack Condensible Particulate Matter Measurements and Issues,” J. Air & 10Waste Manage. Assoc. 50, 207(2000). 11 12Vukovich, F.M., R. Wayland and J. Sherwell, “Characteristics of Ozone in the Baltimore-Washington Area 13as Established from One-Hour Average Concentrations,” J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 49, 794 (1999). 14 15 16Garrison, M., S. Gill and J. Sherwell, “A Review of the New ISC-PRIME Model and Implications for 17Power Plant Licensing in Maryland,” Air & Waste Management Association’s 92nd Annual Meeting & 18Exhibition, June 20-24, 1999, St Louis, Missouri. 19 20Sherwell, J., K. Walsh and R. Gardner, “Projected Compliance with the PM2.5 National Ambient Air 21Quality Standards,” PPRP Report PPRP-117, February 1999. 22 23Brower, R.P., L.A. Corio and J. Sherwell, “Evaluation of the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) 24Using Maryland Power Plant Data,” Air & Waste Management Association’s 92nd Annual Meeting & 25Exhibition, June 23-28, 1996, Nashville, Tennessee. 26 27Kaufman, M. and J. Sherwell, "Kinetics of Gaseous Hydroperoxyl Radical Reactions," Prog. Reaction 28Kinet.12(1), 1, (1983). 29 30Posey, J., J. Sherwell, and M. Kaufman, "Kinetics of the Reaction of Atomic Bromine with HO2 and 31H2O2," Chem. Phys. Lett. 77(3), 476, (1981). 32 33Sherwell, J., "Long Range Transport and Transformation of Material in the Atmosphere," CSIR Special 34Report. Pretoria, South Africa. January 1979. 35 36Sherwell, J. and J.M. Tedder, "Mechanism of the Reaction of 3SO2 with Alkanes," J. Chem. Soc., Perkin 37Trans. Il, 1076, (1978). 38 391 11

In the Matter of the Application of )

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support