September 18th, 2007 Minutes of the Senate Bill 91 Task Force
Minutes of the SB07-091 Task Force
SB07-91 Task Force on Renewable Resource Generation Development Areas
Work Group, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colorado
September 18, 2007, 2:00 p.m.
and Notice of Work Group meeting- October 1, 2007
Attendance:
Task Force Members: Glenn Gibson, Larimer County Commission; Dave Hurlbut, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Morey Wolfson, Governor’s Energy Office; Richard Smart (hydroelectric).
Others: Dave Skiles (GEO GIS contractor); Rick Thompson (Xcel Energy); Joe Taylor (Xcel Energy), Jon Gottsegen (Department of Local Affairs), Donna Heimiller (NREL); Mark Morley, H2OHy.PRO.; Mark McGahey (Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.); Rich Mignona, Staff, Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Matt Sares, Colorado Geological Survey; Diane Kelty, Clear Creek Canyon; Gary Schmitz (Colorado Energy Forum); Justin Carlson (Colorado Energy Forum); Carol Tombari (NREL), and Melinda McGann, US Forest Service.
The meeting was convened at 2:00 p.m.
Welcome and Introductions:
Morey Wolfson, SB91 Task Force (TF) Member, Utilities Program Manager, Governor’s Energy Office. Mr. Wolfson provided a very brief recap of the September 10 TF meeting. He referenced that several of the agenda items of the Work Group agenda were specifically placed there by the TF.
The Work Group then conducted a review of the status of Renewable Energy Generation Development Areas (GDAs). Dave Skiles, GEO’s GIS technical contractor displayed maps that showed a first cut at proposed GDAs for wind and solar. Questions were raised about whether the proposed GDAs were fully considered, and no recommendations for the TF were generated.
The Work Group then discussed those GDAs that are needed soon, namely: GDAs for geothermal, GDAs for biomass, GDAs for ethanol, GDAs for hydroelectric, and GDAs for landfill gas.
With respect to GDAs for geothermal, Matt Sares (Colorado Geological Survey) and Dave Skiles discussed their coordination.
With respect to GDAs for biomass, the question was raised- what do we consider to be biomass? The discussion included agricultural waste, municipal solid waste, wastewater bi-product, forest product, and co-firing with biomass. The Work Group discussed coordination with sources of data that can help with this, such as the Western Governors Association Biomass Study.
With respect to GDAs for ethanol, it was expressed that we need a champion and data.
With respect to GDAs for hydroelectric, we discussed the information that we have received from the Platts data, and the INL data. We discussed investigating sites not identified in Platts, INL, such as existing impoundments.) Richard Smart helped lead this discussion, including opportunities to obtain information about pumped storage.
With respect to GDAs for landfill gas, it was determined that we should find out what is available at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Some discussion focused on how landfill gas is not a reliable source of power.
The Work Group then discussed questions surrounding quantifying Available Transmission Capacity (ATC). Representatives from Xcel Energy and Tri-State Generation and Transmission were active participants in this discussion. We learned more about the on line service OASIS and line of business restrictions. We discussed how ATC can be considered a moving target, and how it is managed by a variety of players including, but not limited to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Western Area Power Administration, etc. There was a consensus that the vast majority of ATC is filled, but with new FERC rules denominated as “conditional firm” policies, there are limited opportunities for wind, for example to use ATC that may have been previously unavailable.
A representative from the Colorado Energy Forum was invited to attend the meeting. Gary Schmitz distributed copies of their new Transmission White Paper. An electronic copy of the White Paper is available by contacting morey.wolfson@state.co.us
The Work Group then opened up a discussion regarding whether the SB91 effort ought to characterize the distribution system, including whether there was a need to characterize substations. We discussed whether local renewable generation requires a substation or can be injected directly into the distribution grid. We discussed whether renewable resources must connect to a transmission system. We then had a brief discussion about the new statewide interconnection rules for net metering. No firm recommendations were generated to send to the Task Force.
The Work Group then opened up a discussion regarding exclusions and areas of potential exclusion. We discussed the distinction between accepted exclusion areas (such as national parks and wilderness areas) and potential exclusion areas (such as environmentally sensitive areas, historically sensitive areas, ownership exclusion areas, and certain terrain. No firm recommendations were generated to send to the Task Force.
The Work Group then opened up a discussion regarding socio-economic overlays to resource data. It was reiterated that the following GIS information will be developed by September 28: population, lodging, schools, employment status, and most enterprise zones. We will obtain GIS information between September 28 and October 15 regarding labor, education/training, access to transportation infrastructure, housing, income, education attainment, and remaining enterprise zones. And we agreed that the following may be evaluated, and are potentially difficult information data sets to obtain in a timely manner: access to water pipelines, property value, and commuting. No firm recommendations were generated to send to the Task Force.
The Work Group then opened up a discussion regarding a Project Check List. We were tasked to raise the question whether the Final Report should include a Project Check List, which would contain elements such as these that make a project happen: technology, siting, transmission, interconnection agreement, financial, economics, policy support, legal, and public relations. There was a certain amount of questioning whether this topical area is akin to “Business 101” and was unnecessary. However it was agreed that it would not detract from the report, and that most of the work on the final deliverables will be focusing on the mapping. It was agreed to recommend that the Project Check List information be included in the Final Report.
The Work Group then reviewed the Draft Agenda for the next Work Group Meeting scheduled for October 1. No further agenda items were suggested.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
