Summary:

As with Big Solar, California for decades led the world in wind power technology innovation and generation. With world-class wind energy resources and a strong commitment from both the public and private sectors, we are poised for a quantum leap in wind power generation. More than 6,000 megawatts of wind energy planned for Southern California's Tehachapi region alone, and this is just the start. Barriers to development include lack of transmission from remote resource regions, market mechanisms for power procurement, land use and siting issues, and guidelines for minimizing adverse impacts on wildlife. The purpose of this project is to facilitate cooperation and consensus among stakeholders and public interest advocates in removing barriers to wind power development.

Project Update

December 6, 2007

Since the Guidelines document was adopted in September, CEERT has been in constant contact with staff at both CEC and CDFG to make sure steps are taken quickly to train CDFG and county planning staff in the use of the document. We believe this is the best way to avoid conflict and ensure the success of the guidelines. Like many of us, the staff needed a little breather from this work as well, but recently we’ve received some good feed back and things seem to be in motion again. Susan Sanders has contacted CEERT staff and many of our affiliates to discuss specific next steps on wind wildlife issues. Below is a brief overview of the direction we’re heading but at this point no final decisions have been made:

• Commissioner Geesman – While he will be leaving his post at the end of the year he has tried to make sure that things are in motion at the staff level for training activities. In a meeting with CEERT staff he agreed, along with most others we’ve talked to, that being active on this over the next couple of months to ensure the document is used properly will be a key to its long-term success. He was unsure who might be taking over the lead on this from the Commissioner level, but at the staff level he said the Commission is looking to Misa Ward and Susan Sanders to lead the effort in the near-term. He was also appreciative to everyone who worked with CEERT for their constructive participation.
• Training Sessions –For training they plan to follow a two step approach. The first step will be a general CDFG staff training here in Sacramento for regional staff to be briefed on the guidelines. This training will involve an overview as well as case-study project assessments. This session will also be open to any county planning departments that are interested in attending. Following this session we have encouraged CEC to set up one-on-one meetings with county staff in key counties where significant wind development is expected. These sessions would be an opportunity to focus the attention of these staff and ensure their engagement. It will also allow discussion of issues specific to that region.  
• Research Needs – We encouraged the CEC to continue support of research and Habitat Conservation Planning as it pertains to the Altamont settlement. Beyond that I encouraged pursuit of intensive studies across the various wind regions of California to better assess predictive abilities of the studies recommended in the guidelines. I encouraged staff to seek matching funding from companies. The process for creating these research plans will be public, beginning with a research roadmap to be developed at the beginning of next year. We encourage all companies interested in this kind of joint effort to contact the CEC directly to discuss details.
• Science Advisory Committee (SAC)– The commission still intends to form a standing advisory committee for the wind wildlife issues. While its creation will also be public, Susan asked for our input on how it should be structured and directed. CEERT believes the committee should be used sparingly on project specific questions. The larger task of the SAC should be to monitor larger issues with the guidelines and help guide revisions.
• Staffing – CEERT believes that finding adequate staffing for CDFG to oversee use of the guidelines is more important than the immediate formation of an SAC. CDFG’s Scott Flint has been their lead on this and many of the stakeholders trust his judgment on this issue. However, he is understaffed at the moment which is why he has been so difficult to get a hold of. While CDFG has been given the budget to hire new people, they are not yet staffed up. CEERT has continued to make the point that CDFG needs a lead on this issue.
• Revisions – The CEC has asked about a desired schedule for revising the document. CEERT has thus far responded that any steps toward a major overhaul should wait until new research projects have been conducted testing guidelines protocols, probably 3-5 years. In the mean time, docketed responses from agency staff on discreet issues could suffice to govern project assessment and prosecutorial discretion. Attached is a response to concerns CEERT expressed following the adoption of the guidelines (insert hot link here). Baring any major objections we believe this is how the Department and Commission will proceed during the period between document revisions. While the letter does not resolve all the issues we raised, it does offer some guidance.

Project Contact Coordinator:

Paul Vercruyssen

Resources: