Process for Using
Environmental and Cultural
Information to Compare Electric
Transmission Alternatives at the
Planning (not siting) Level
Version 10 – Approved August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
AUTHOR’S NOTE
The Process for Using Environmental and Cultural Information to Compare Electric Transmission Alternatives at the
Planning (not siting) Level contained in this document was approved by the Scenario Planning Steering Group (SPSG) at
its August 7 and 8, 2012 meeting.
August 8, 2012
Page i
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Comparison Process Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Comparison Process Uses ............................................................................................................................. 3
2
Step 1: Identify Data Sources and Assign Risk Classification Categories ............................................................... 5
2.1 Assist in Filling Geospatial Data Gaps ......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Open Biennial Process to Update Preferred Data Sets and Risk Classifications .......................................... 5
3
Step 2: Identify Alternatives to Compare ............................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Potential Transmission Alternatives to Compare .......................................................................................... 6
3.2 Considering Alternatives in the Comparison Process ................................................................................... 6
4
Step 3: Conduct Analyses ....................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Data-driven Analyses .................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1.1 Environmental and Cultural Risk Score ............................................................................................ 8
4.1.2 Alternative Description...................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Stakeholder Review ...................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Identify the Sub-Set of Transmission Alternatives to Review ........................................................... 9
4.2.2 Review Comparison Process Results, Modify Assigned Risk Classification Categories .................10
5
Step 4: Document and Publicize Findings .............................................................................................................11
5.1 Document .....................................................................................................................................................11
5.2 Publicize.......................................................................................................................................................11
6
Next Steps and Items for Future Consideration ......................................................................................................16
Appendix A: General Background ...................................................................................................................................17
Appendix B: Identifying Geospatial transmission Alternatives .......................................................................................18
Appendix C: Data Driven Analysis Results from the Pilot Test of the Comparison Process ...........................................20
Appendix D: Stakeholder Engagement and Timeline for Implementing Comparison Process ........................................24
Appendix E: Other Foundational EDTF Documents ........................................................................................................31
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1.
Flow Diagram of the Comparison Process for Planning Level Transmission Alternatives and
Associated Stakeholder Review .................................................................................................................... 2
Exhibit 2. Relationship between the Consideration of Environmental and Cultural Information in Planning
(Comparison Process) vs. Siting ................................................................................................................... 4
Exhibit 3. Summary of Sample Output from the Comparison Process Pilot Test ........................................................12
Exhibit 4. Summary of Sample Output from the Stakeholder Review Component of the Comparison Process
(see Section 4.2) ...........................................................................................................................................14
Exhibit 6. Issues for Future Consideration and Potential Next Steps ...........................................................................16
Exhibit B-1. Illustrative Potential Application of Environmental Risk Categories to Create Geospatially Defined
Transmission Alternatives for WECC Paths 8 and 14 .................................................................................19
Exhibit C-1. WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Environmental and Cultural Risk Score .......................................................20
Exhibit C-2. Area Types Crossed by WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP .................................................................................21
Exhibit C-3. Number of Area Types Crossed by WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP ...............................................................23
Exhibit C-4. Transmission Alternative Description ..........................................................................................................23
Exhibit D-1. Example Resource Criteria Matrix ...............................................................................................................28
Exhibit E-1. Other EDTF Foundational Documents and their Locations .........................................................................31
Page ii
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
August 8, 2012
Page iii
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Introduction
1
Recommendation 3 of the Environmental Data Task Force’s (EDTF)
Environmental Recommendations for Transmission Planning Final
Report (May 6, 2011) includes developing a planning level process for
comparing the environmental and cultural risk of future transmission
alternatives (referred to in this document as the comparison process).
The goal of the comparison process is to inform decision-makers,
planners, and stakeholders of the relative environmental and cultural
risks of transmission alternatives being considered during transmission
planning. Appendix A provides additional details related to the
comparison process background and context, as well as the high-level
assumptions for the process.
The EDTF understands that WECC's Long Term Planning Tools (LTPT)
will use EDTF's environmental risk classification and associated
geospatial data in conjunction with capital cost, congestion, and other
appropriate data to develop spatially explicit transmission solutions for
inclusion in WECC's 20-Year Regional Transmission Target Plan,
including solutions that minimize environmental risks.
Commonly used terms:
Transmission Alternative – A potential
wire solution to a transmission challenge
that involves two or more substations, and
may or may not involve defined transmission
corridors or WECC Paths.
Transmission Corridors – Broad areas of
land from which transmission lines may be
sited; may contain multiple transmission
routes.
WECC Paths – All transmission lines used
to transfer electricity reliably from one
defined area of the Western Interconnection
to another.
To facilitate application of the comparison process, this document is organized by the four steps of this process:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.1
Identify data sources and assign risk classification categories
Identify alternatives to compare
Conduct analyses
Document findings
Comparison Process Overview
As shown in Exhibit 1, this process allows for comparison of transmission alternatives related to WECC’s Regional
Transmission Expansion Planning (RTEP) 10- and 20-year plans. It incorporates both data-driven analyses and
opportunities for stakeholder input. The Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) may use these processes to
derive metrics that reflect the relative risk of encountering environmental
or cultural resource sensitivities or constraints for an individual
The EDTF’s comparison process is
transmission alternative. Where spatial data is unavailable or incomplete
intended to be flexible and may be
(e.g., for cultural resources and proposed conservation areas), input
updated following further testing or as
provided by stakeholders may be of particular help in assessing
a result of changing circumstances or
environmental and cultural risk. Stakeholder input may occur both before
improved information. See Section 6the comparison process is run (through data recommendations and
Next Steps and Items for Future
methods to address data gaps) and during reviews of the comparison
Consideration for additional
process results. Methods for stakeholder engagement are discussed where
information.
appropriate in each of the four steps in the comparison process, and
described in detail in Appendix D1.
The comparison process is designed to apply to both specific projects and conceptual transmission alternatives from
WECC’s 10- and 20- year plans. Given this variety of alternatives that could potentially be analyzed, it is important
that the process employ methods and assumptions to ensure that key metrics used in the comparison can be consistently
generated. These consistently available key metrics include the risk classification scores described under the Step 2
Conduct Analyses section of this document. Additional information that is not consistently available for transmission
alternatives will be disclosed and may be described in narrative format instead of being captured in a quantitative
metric.
…………………………………………………………
1
The stakeholder engagement approaches document in Appendix D was approved by the SPSG on August8, 2012.
August 8, 2012
Page 1
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit 1.
Flow Diagram of the Comparison Process for Planning Level Transmission
Alternatives2 and Associated Stakeholder Review
*
* The EDTF will review and confirm stakeholder-recommended data sets update/additions and modifications to Risk Classification Category
assignments.
Please Note: the Enviromental Risk Score and the Transmssion Alternative Description components of the comparison process are discussed in
Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 respectively. The Stakeholder Review component of the comparison process is discussed in Section 2.
…………………………………………………………
2
The comparison process shown in Exhibit 1is intended to apply to planning-level transmission alternatives. It is not, however, intended to apply to
projects in the siting process or under construction.
Page 2
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
1.2
Comparison Process Uses
The primary intent of the comparison process is to provide a method to quickly identify potential environmental and
cultural risks to transmission alternatives early in the regional transmission planning process. While the general approach
and methods used in the comparison process could be applied to a siting level analysis, the comparison process described
in this document is intended to occur at the transmission planning level, well before the transmission siting process begins.
The high level, aggregated nature of the environmental and cultural data employed in the comparison process lacks sitespecific information that would be required for siting level or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) related analyses.
Moreover, the comparison process described in this document is not intended to replace, supplant, or in any way relate to
the transmission siting process and associated analyses (e.g., NEPA), licensing, and/or permitting. To clarify the
differences between the two levels of analysis, Exhibit 2 shows the relationship between the planning and siting levels for
several hypothetical transmission alternatives.
August 8, 2012
Page 3
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit 2.
Relationship between the Consideration of Environmental and Cultural Information in Planning (Comparison Process) vs. Siting
EDTF Comparison Process
CCTA = Common Case Transmission Alternatives
Risk Classification Categories described in the EDTF’s Environmental Recommendations for Transmission Planning Final Report,
Appendix D.
Page 4
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Step 1: Identify Data Sources and Assign Risk
Classification Categories
2
The foundation of the EDTF’s comparison process is environmental and cultural data 3; ensuring this data is 1) up-todate, 2) of a quality and form that is useful for classifying relative environmental and cultural risk, and 3) applied
properly (i.e., appropriate area types and associated risk classification categories) is therefore important to the ultimate
usefulness of the comparison process results. As shown in Exhibit 1, the EDTF comparison process uses two
stakeholder-driven approaches (in conjunction with the Open Biennial Process for receiving updated data sets described
in the Environmental Data Update and Review Protocol) to confirm that the data used in the comparison process meet
these standards. These two approaches for gathering stakeholder data for use in the comparison process appear in
Section 2.1 - Assist in Filling Data Gaps - and Section 2.2 - Open Biennial Process - below.
The two methods for collecting stakeholder input described below are part of WECC/RTEP stakeholder engagement
responsibilities regarding environmental and cultural risk information.
See Appendix D for detail on these data-gathering methods and the
See Appendix D – Stakeholder
other stakeholder-related components of the comparison process,
Engagement – for details on:
including the EDTFs proposed timeline for conducting these activities
during the 2012-2013 WECC planning cycle.
1) The purposes and principles that
2.1
Assist in Filling Geospatial Data Gaps
The EDTF identifies data gaps that need to be filled (e.g., cultural
resources or proposed conservation areas), and then identifies experts
with a broad knowledge base relevant to each topic area who can
identify ways to fill those gaps4. Following initial outreach aimed at
identifying the types of information available to fill data gaps, the
EDTF and these experts will meet. This meeting will be in-person (with
a webinar option) and will focus on the findings from the initial
outreach, as well as any additional data sets or data workarounds the
experts have identified to fill data gaps. The outcomes of the meeting
will include:
guide the EDTF’s stakeholder
involvement activities
2) Opportunities for stakeholders to
engage in the comparison process,
including a draft timeline for the
2012-2103 RTEP planning cycle
3) Tools the EDTF will use to capture
and report stakeholder input and
the results from the comparison
process
1.
Data sets/workarounds and assigned risk classification categories that workshop participants recommend that
the EDTF adopt, including rationale;
2.
Data sets/workarounds considered and not recommended for EDTF adoption, including rationale.
The EDTF will then review these recommendations and adopt them, or seek more information, as required.
2.2
Open Biennial Process to Update Preferred Data Sets and Risk Classifications
The EDTF will publicize an open process to solicit updated or new environmental and cultural data sets, including
proposed risk classification category assignments. To guide this input, the EDTF will develop and post a feedback form,
as well as develop outreach materials to explain the purpose of EDTF data sets and risk classification categories. The
EDTF will then review submissions and adopt the data sets and associated risk classification categories as appropriate.
…………………………………………………………
WECC’s Long-Term Planning Tools (LTPT) also use the EDTF’s environmental and cultural data; data identified using the methods in this section
would also be incorporated into the LTPT.
3
An initial list of data gaps was identified in the EDTF’s Environmental Recommendations for Transmission Planning Final Report. The list of data
gaps may change over time with additional information and input from stakeholder and WECC input.
4
August 8, 2012
Page 5
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
3
Step 2: Identify Alternatives to Compare
3.1
Potential Transmission Alternatives to Compare
The comparison process is intended to be applied to planning level
transmission alternatives from the Common Case Transmission
Assumptions (CCTA) and WECC Transmission Project Information Portal
(herein WECC portal projects), as well as conceptual alternatives developed
for 20-year plans through WECC’s Long-Term Planning Tools (LTPTs).
These components of the 10- and 20-year plans are described below:
Common Case Transmission Assumptions (CCTA)5:
-
Background: Includes a consistent representation of electric
transmission infrastructure, loads, and generation resources
used in transmission planning studies.
-
Alternatives: Include regionally significant projects that
have a high probability of being built by 2022.
Proposed transmission projects from the WECC Portal 6:
-
Background: The portal includes basic information on
potential projects provided to WECC by proponents.
-
Alternatives: Include major transmission projects in the
Western Interconnection known to WECC.
20-Year Plan LTPT Alternatives:
-
Background: Analyzes long-term (i.e., beyond 10 years)
transmission expansion planning scenarios.
-
Alternatives: Include optimized transmission solutions
based on various decision rules and input factors.
The comparison process can be used to examine the relative
environmental and cultural risk of a transmission alternative.
Transmission alternatives may include:
The comparison process described
herein is intended to apply to planninglevel transmission alternatives. It is
not intended to apply to projects in
the siting process or under
construction.
The comparison process does not apply to
“non-wire” alternatives (e.g., demand-side
management or distributed generation,
conservation). Non-wire solutions are
considered:
a) in demand-side management and energy
efficiency information received from load
serving entities and through study case
requests;
b) through select transmission expansion
cases; and,
c) through advanced grid technology study
cases.
Alternatives that serve the same need (i.e., transmission
alternatives moving power from the same resource generation sources to the same load center); and,
Alternatives that serve different needs (i.e., transmission solutions that would not serve the same generation
resources and load centers).
3.2
Considering Alternatives in the Comparison
Process
Methods for considering transmission alternatives in the comparison process
will vary based on whether geospatial information (i.e., a defined route or
corridor) and project description information (e.g., voltage and line capacity)
is available. CCTA and WECC’s portal project alternatives generally
include geospatial and project description information.7 Alternatives from
the LTPT will also likely have locational information that will enable the
identification of the area types potentially crossed by each alternative. Some
Methods for considering transmission
alternatives in the comparison
process will vary based on whether
geospatial information (i.e., a defined
route or corridor) and project
description information (e.g., voltage
and line capacity) is available.
…………………………………………………………
5
CCTAs under construction or in advanced stages of permitting would not be subject to the comparison process. The Subregional Coordination
Group (SCG) 2022 Common Case Transmission Assumptions report provides additional information about the CCTA.
6
The Transmission Expansion Planning Policy Committee’s (TEPPC) Transmission Project Information Portal is available on WECC’s website.
7
CCTA and WECC portal project alternatives encompass a wide range of phases, with some projects in advanced stages of siting or construction and
others in conceptual planning stages. Projects in advanced stages of siting or construction would not be examined as part of the comparison process.
Page 6
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
alternatives (such as conceptual CCTAs and WECC’s portal project alternatives where no potential corridors are
defined) may not have pre-existing geospatial and project description information that would allow for their
consideration in the comparison process. To apply the comparison process to these more conceptual alternatives, it
includes assumptions and a process using environmental and cultural data and other factors to generate or refine
geospatial and project description information. Appendix B describes how differing types of transmission alternatives
are considered in the comparison process, and includes an illustrative example of applying the EDTF’s environmental
and cultural risk classification categories to create geospatially defined transmission alternatives for WECC Paths 8 and
148.
…………………………………………………………
August 8, 2012
Page 7
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Step 3: Conduct Analyses
4
The comparison process employs both Data-Driven Analyses and opportunities for Stakeholder Review to conduct a
planning level assessment of the relative environmental and cultural risks of a given transmission alternative. This
section describes both of these components and Exhibit 3 provides an example of a sample output from a comparison
process pilot test.
4.1
Data-driven Analyses
The data-driven analysis portion of the comparison process is based on two quantitative criteria:
1.
Environmental and Cultural Risk Score
2.
Alternative description (length and other engineering factors)
These criteria describe specific characteristics of transmission alternatives and are linked to one or more specific outputs
(metrics).
4.1.1
Environmental and Cultural Risk Score
The Environmental and Cultural Risk Score is calculated by applying the EDTF’s risk classification categories
(described in the EDTF’s Environmental Recommendations for Transmission Planning Final Report, Appendix D) over
the entire transmission alternative length. The risk classification categories intersected by a given transmission
alternative are determined through use of the geographic information system (GIS)-based preferred environmental data
listed in the EDTF’s data inventory spreadsheet9. The score (or output metric) from this GIS analysis is reported as both
a Proportional Risk Score (based on the proportion of each alternative that crosses through a given risk classification
category) and a Risk-Adjusted Miles Score (based on the total length in miles of the transmission alternative adjusted by
the intersected Risk Classification Categories).10
1.
Proportional Risk Score: The proportion of the transmission alternative intersecting each Risk Classification
Category is determined by dividing the length (in miles) of each Risk Classification Category crossed by the
transmission alternative by the total length of the transmission alternative. This value is then multiplied by the
Risk Classification Category value (i.e., 1, 2, 3, or 4). The resulting score is between one and four, and is
presented as a two decimal place number. Applying this approach would tend to result in higher scores for
transmission alternatives that traverse a higher proportion of higher risk category (i.e., 3 and 4) areas,
regardless of their length. For example, a Proportional Risk Score close to 4 would indicate that a majority of
the transmission alternative is within category 4, while, conversely a score close to 1 indicates the majority of
the transmission alternative is within category 1 areas.
2.
Risk-Adjusted Miles Score: The total length (in miles) the transmission alternative intersects each Risk
Classification Category is calculated by multiplying the miles of the alternative intersecting each Risk
Classification Category by its Risk Classification Category value (i.e., 1, 2, 3, or 4). Applying this approach
tends to result in higher scores for longer transmission alternatives that traverse a greater proportion of higher
risk category (i.e., 3 and 4) areas. Similarly, shorter transmission alternatives that, for example, cross mostly
higher Risk Classification Category areas tend to appear more environmentally preferable than substantially
longer transmission alternatives that mostly avoid those areas.
Appendix C contains an illustrative example of how environmental and cultural risk scoring methods were applied to a
hypothetical set of transmission alternatives along WECC Paths 8 and 14.
…………………………………………………………
9
To facilitate the use of its risk classification system and preferred environmental data layers by utilities, transmission developers, and other
interested stakeholders, the EDTF created a User’s Manual that describes how to acquire and apply these data.
10
This comparison process evaluates the length (or miles) of the transmission alternatives in each Risk Classification Category, instead of the area
(or acreage) of the transmission alternative in each Risk Classification Category. While it is possible to use standard assumptions to develop rough
estimates for unknown right-of-way corridor widths, the EDTF employs a length-based approach in this document to avoid unnecessarily
complicating the comparison process analysis.
Page 8
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
4.1.2
Alternative Description
The Alternative Description metrics reported in the comparison process include transmission alternative length, as well
as other engineering factors. These descriptions are used to illustrate the alternative’s extent in relation to
environmental and cultural risk. Depending on the type of transmission alternative, the level of information available
will vary. To allow for consistent application of the Alternative Description metrics, assumptions and processing
methods may be used as appropriate to estimate unavailable information for length11 and other engineering factors.
Length: This component identifies the alternative extent in miles. When not provided for a particular alternative, this
component may be derived from GIS using the Measure tool. This component is necessary for determining the
Proportional Risk Score described in Section 3.1.1.
Engineering Factors: Where appropriate, the comparison process will report the capacity (megawatts), voltage of
alternative (kilovolts), and type of alternative (e.g., new, reconductoring 12, alternating current [AC], direct current [DC],
single-circuit, double-circuit). This information will be reported in narrative format only (i.e., not reported in any sort
of combined metric).13
4.2
Stakeholder Review
The stakeholder review component of the EDTF’s comparison process (shown in Exhibit 1 and referred to herein as
simply the “Stakeholder Review Component”) involves two steps. These steps will occur following the Data-driven
Analyses and will include:
1.
Identifying a sub-set of the 20-year transmission alternatives from the LTPT and 10-year transmission
alternatives from the CCTA list and WECC Project Portal (Section 4.2.1);
2.
Convening stakeholders to review the results from the Data-driven Analyses component of the comparison
process for this sub-set (Section 4.2.2).
As with the stakeholder engagement activities discussed under Step 1: Identify Data Sources and Assign Risk
Classification Categories, the Stakeholder Review Component is intended to fulfill WECC and RTEP stakeholder
engagement responsibilities regarding environmental and cultural risk information. See Appendix D for detail on the
Stakeholder Review component and the other stakeholder-related components of the comparison process, including the
EDTFs proposed timeline for conducting these activities during the 2012-2013 WECC planning cycle. 14
4.2.1
Identify the Sub-Set of Transmission Alternatives to Review
Following the run of the LTPT and application of the Data-driven Analyses, the EDTF will identify a prioritized list of
20-year and 10-year transmission alternatives around which to engage stakeholders and experts to determine whether
the assigned risk classification categories appropriately capture the environmental and cultural risks. To identify the
prioritized list of 20-year plan alternatives for analysis, the EDTF will plot the transmission alternatives for each of
the scenarios on a graph that includes environmental and cultural risk on the y-axis and capital cost on the x-axis. For
each scenario, the EDTF would create three plots, using the two comparison process metrics for risk (the proportional
risk score and the risk-adjusted miles score), as well as a cost-per-mile score (adapted from the risk-adjusted miles
score). The EDTF will then identify the set of least-environmental/cultural risk and least-cost transmission alternatives
common to the scenarios (or, several of the scenarios) for review by stakeholders15. To identify the prioritized list 10-
…………………………………………………………
11
For conceptual alternatives, Alternative Description information is generally not available. Though rough estimates developed using standard
assumptions may be employed in this comparison process to fill this gap, the alternative descriptions metrics developed for this type of alternative
should be considered rough approximations.
12
Reconductoring means increasing the capacity of an existing transmission line by using thicker conductors.
13
The EDTF considered but dismissed a comparison metric for the anticipated generation sources served by transmission alternatives. The EDTF
decided this issue was addressed elsewhere in WECC’s planning processes and was out of scope for this process. The LTPTs will assume a mix of
generation sources for each transmission alternative; those interested in generation sources are directed to the LTPT’s generation assumptions.
Appendix D includes information on the overall purpose of the EDTF’s stakeholder involvement activities, as well as the principles that both guided
the development of the stakeholder input component and that will be used to guide its implementation.
14
15
The EDTF expects that the LTPT analysis of 20-year transmission alternatives will result in a set of optimized transmission alternatives to meet
each of the scenarios developed by the SPSG, as well as other long-term study cases requested by stakeholders. The description of how the EDTF
would identify transmission alternatives for review under Step 3 is based on this assumption, and may change should the LTPT out take some other
form.
August 8, 2012
Page 9
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
year plan alternatives, the EDTF will apply a set of transparent criteria. The EDTF is currently developing the criteria
that will be used to prioritize 10-year plan alternatives (those on the CCTA list and from the WECC Project Portal) for
analysis, which will be available in a subsequent document.
4.2.2
Review Comparison Process Results, Modify Assigned Risk Classification
Categories
The EDTF will conduct meeting(s) of experts and other stakeholders16 to review outputs from the Data-driven Analysis
component of the comparison; the goal is to identify risk classification category assignments that do not seem to
appropriately capture environmental and cultural risks associated with a specific transmission alternative. Prior to the
meeting(s), the EDTF will prepare and circulate a memo describing the Data-driven Analysis results and will request
initial feedback on these results. At the meeting(s), the experts and other stakeholders will propose modifications to
assigned risk classification categories if appropriate, supplying supporting rationale for any change. Meeting
participants will aim for consensus in their recommendations, but document opposing viewpoints as well. The EDTF
will review the proposed modifications from the meeting(s) and determine whether to adopt them, aiming for consensus
among task force members. Once approved by the EDTF and SPSG, WECC will incorporate the modified risk
classification category assignments into the LTPT and will re-run the comparison process Data-driven Analysis steps.
…………………………………………………………
16
The EDTF anticipates structuring discussions of transmission alternatives geographically. While the stakeholder review process will involve
transmission alternatives located across the Western Interconnection, review of transmission alternatives will be grouped by more-specified
geographies. These geographies could potentially correlate with the FERC Order 1000 regions that will be designated in October 2012.
Page 10
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
5
Step 4: Document and Publicize Findings
5.1
Document
Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 illustrate and explain a sample output from the comparison process based on a pilot test of the
process. This output is intended to focus attention on the type of information the EDTF would capture through the
comparison process and publicize via the EDTF’s and WECC’s websites, as appropriate. The transmission alternative
in Exhibit 3 and 4 is based on a set of hypothetical transmission alternatives created along WECC Paths 8 and 14.
Appendix B describes these hypothetical alternatives.
5.2
Publicize
Following the completion of an iteration of the comparison process, the EDTF will publicize the products and output as
available for use outside of WECC. Specific activities will include:
1.
The EDTF will revise the User’s Manual for Applying the Environmental Data Task Force’s Preferred Data
Sets and Risk Classification Category System (as appropriate pending changes to preferred data sets or
assigned risk classification categories from the comparison process) package the comparison process results
along with a guide to enable stakeholders to understand and access the results, and identify a liaison to answer
stakeholder questions.
2.
WECC and the EDTF will conduct outreach to stakeholders to enable broader awareness and understanding of
EDTF tools and products, assuring targeted outreach to public utility commissions, states/provinces, and the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).17 Outreach could take the form of webinars, panels and relevant
conferences and forums, timelines/flowcharts, fact sheets/frequently asked questions, or other methods.
See Appendix E for a list of other documents that the EDTF will use to capture its process and publicize outputs.
…………………………………………………………
17
The EDTF Comparison Process is currently being used by transmission planners at Xcel Energy for two transmission lines: Rifle-Parachute, and
Lamar Front Range. Results of this work will be provided by the EDTF when available.
August 8, 2012
Page 11
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit 3.
Summary of Sample Output from the Comparison Process Pilot Test
WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Alternative
(Blue in Exhibit B-1, Appendix B)
Components
Brief Explanation of Component
Summary of Environmental and Cultural Risk Comparison Results
Describes specific characteristics of transmission alternatives and
is linked to one or more specific outputs (metrics).
Data-driven Analysis
Environmental and Cultural
Risk Score
Alternative Description
Proportional Risk Score: 1.10
Risk-Adjusted Miles Score: 505
Represents the EDTF’s risk classification categories over the
entire transmission alternative length. Results in two possible
scores based on calculation performed.
Length: 458 miles
Voltage: unknown
Capacity: unknown
Type of alternative: unknown
Identifies the alternative length (miles) and any known
engineering details (voltage, capacity, type of alternative)
Stakeholder Review
Adjustments to Risk
Classifications made during
Stakeholder Review?
1.
Yes:
Tribal burial sites: change from Risk Classification
Category 2 to Risk Classification Category 3
The EDTF conducts stakeholder meetings to review outputs from
the Data-driven Analysis and identify risk classification category
assignments that do not seem to appropriately capture
environmental and cultural risk. Stakeholders propose
modifications to Risk Classification Categories if appropriate,
and supply justification; stakeholder proposed modifications are
reviewed for approval by the EDTF.
Detailed Supporting Results
Represents the EDTF’s risk classification categories over the
entire transmission alternative length. Results in two possible
scores based on calculation performed.
Environmental and Cultural Risk
Score (see Section 4.1.1)
Area type risk classification –
Proportional Risk Score
Page 12
Represents the proportion of the transmission alternative within
each Risk Classification Category.
Category 1
(418/458)*1 = 0.91
((length / total length) * risk classification category value)
Represents proportion of the least risk of environmental or
cultural resource sensitivities or constraints1.
Category 2
(30/458)*2 = 0.13
((length / total length) * risk classification category value)
Represents proportion of low to moderate risk of environmental
or cultural resource sensitivities and constraints1.
Category 3
(9/458)*3 = 0.06
((length / total length) * risk classification category value)
Represents proportion of high risk of environmental or cultural
resource sensitivities and constraints1.
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit 3.
Summary of Sample Output from the Comparison Process Pilot Test
WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Alternative
(Blue in Exhibit B-1, Appendix B)
Brief Explanation of Component
(0/458)*4 = 0
((length / total length) * risk classification category value)
Represents proportion of areas presently precluded by law or
regulation1.
0.91+0.13+.06+0=
1.10
Includes the sum of proportions of the transmission alternative
length across each Risk Classification Category.
Components
Category 4
TOTAL
Represents the total length (in miles) of the transmission
alternative adjusted by the intersected Risk Classification
Categories.
Area type risk classification – RiskAdjusted Miles
Category 1
418*1 = 418
(length (in miles) * risk classification category value)
Represents coverage through the least risk of environmental or
cultural resource sensitivities or constraints1.
Category 1
30*2 = 60
(length (in miles) * risk classification category value)
Represents proportion of the least risk of environmental or
cultural resource sensitivities and constraints1.
Category 3
9*3 = 27
(length (in miles) * risk classification category value)
Represents coverage through high risk of environmental or
cultural resource sensitivities and constraints1.
Category 4
0*4 = 0
(length (in miles) * risk classification category value)
Represents coverage through areas presently precluded by law or
regulation1.
418+60+27+0 =
505
Includes the sum of total lengths a transmission alternative
traverses for each Risk Classification Category.
TOTAL
Component 2: Alternative
Description (see Section 4.1.2)
Length (miles)
1
Identifies the alternative extent in miles based on GIS analysis.
458
Identifies the alternative extent in miles based on GIS analysis.
Capacity (megawatts)
Unknown
NA
Voltage (kilovolts)
Unknown
NA
Appendix B provides additional information and explanation.
EDTF
GIS
LECP
NA
WECC
Environmental Data Task Force
geographic information systems
Least-Environmental Cost Path
not available
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
August 8, 2012
Page 13
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit 4.
Summary of Sample Output from the Stakeholder Review Component of the Comparison Process (see Section
4.2)
Transmission Alternative: WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Alternative
Stakeholder Evaluators: John Doe, Jane Doe, Bill Smith
Segment: 1 of 3
Date: 10/10/2012
Data Gap18
Resource
Present?
Yes
Map Comments
Provided?
No
Yes
Level of risk for transmission
planning?
Qualitative Description
No
Cultural and Historic Resources
- Using Risk Classification
Category system (1- 4)
NRHP listed sites

- Describe resource causing
increased/decreased risk
- Possible mitigation?
- Others?

NRHP Districts
Tribal burial sites


Risk Classification Category 3
Tribal burial sites along 15 miles of the
alternative; could be mitigated by
moving north 5 miles. Propose changing
from Risk Classification Category 2 to
Risk Classification Category 3.
Other cultural/tribal/historic
resources to be added…
…………………………………………………………
18
Other data gap areas discussed by the EDTF include Conservation Easements and Habitat Conservation Plans; areas of existing land disturbance (e.g., brownfields); visual resources; and private
lands issues (e.g., prime and unique farm lands). Many of these data gaps represent area types where the EDTF has determined an appropriate risk classification, but has not acquired data to fill that
need.
Page 14
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit 4.
Summary of Sample Output from the Stakeholder Review Component of the Comparison Process (see Section
4.2)
Transmission Alternative: WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Alternative
Stakeholder Evaluators: John Doe, Jane Doe, Bill Smith
Segment: 1 of 3
Date: 10/10/2012
Data Gap18
Resource
Present?
Yes
Map Comments
Provided?
No
Yes
Level of risk for transmission
planning?
Qualitative Description
No
Proposed Conservation Areas
Citizen’s Proposed
Wilderness Areas

Other proposed
conservation areas to be
added…
NRHP = National Register of Historic Places
August 8, 2012
Page 15
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
6
Next Steps and Items for Future Consideration
During the development of this comparison process, EDTF members raised a number of issues that were not possible to
address in this document. These issues appear in Exhibit 5. The intention is to ensure key issues that have been raised
but not fully addressed due to time, budgetary, or technical constraints, are brought forward for future consideration.
The development of the comparison process is dynamic, and the EDTF envisions that as the process is further tested and
implemented as part of regional transmission expansion planning, refinements will occur. The EDTF envisions that
these refinements would occur concurrent with the EDTF’s review of the comparison process results.
Exhibit 5.
Issues for Future Consideration and Potential Next Steps
Issue for Future Consideration
Potential Next Step
Criteria for 10-year Plan Alternatives. The EDTF identified a need to develop
a prioritized list of 10-year plan alternatives for analysis using the comparison
process. The 10-year plan alternatives included in this prioritized list will be
identified in using a set of transparent criteria.
The EDTF is attempting to develop a draft set of
criteria for use in prioritizing 10-year plan
alternatives for analysis. These criteria should be
available in a subsequent document
Mitigation Costs and Indirect Effects. The EDTF is considering ways to
estimate mitigation costs for cases in which land disturbance can result in indirect
effects beyond the right of way (ROW) footprint. In particular, some
commenters suggested the EDTF could investigate how to include potentially
greater mitigation costs associated with greater sage-grouse, lesser prairie
chicken, and other environmental features for which studies indicate such impacts
are likely to occur. These types of effects may not be fully addressed in the
EDTF data sets and risk classification system, which address direct disturbances
to agency mapped core habitats.
The EDTF may choose to incorporate this concept
into 10- and 20-year plan narratives.
Mitigation Costs and Right-of-Way Footprint. The EDTF discussed
development of a comparison process metric that incorporates the ROW footprint
of transmission alternatives into a mitigation cost analysis conducted during posthoc review of 10-year-planning studies.
The EDTF may consider refining this concept for
potential use in the 10-year and 20-year plan
analyses.
Transmission of Renewable Energy. The EDTF and SPSG have both noted that
it would be useful to have information about the extent to which transmission
alternatives will carry renewable energy. This issue may not directly be within
the scope of the EDTF.
This issue is flagged for future consideration,
potentially by other groups within WECC (not the
EDTF).
EDTF
ROW
Page 16
Environmental Data Task Force
right-of-way
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
APPENDIX A: GENERAL BACKGROUND
A.1 Context
The Guiding Principles for the Environmental and Cultural Risk Comparison of Future Transmission Alternatives (July
28, 2011) (Guiding Principles) and Updated Scope of Work for the Environmental Data Task Force (August 2011)
describe the overall objectives and assumptions that guided the development of this comparison process.
As described in this comparison process and the Guiding Principles, “transmission alternatives” include future transmission
lines and transmission options stemming from the transmission planning process. The term transmission alternative,
which is used frequently, is not intended to imply that the comparison process is developing alternate lines or corridors for
the CCTA and Proposed Transmission Projects from the WECC portal. Additionally, this comparison process is not
intended to apply to non-wire alternatives (e.g., demand-side management19, distributed generation20, and conservation).
A.2 Overall Assumptions for the Comparison Process
The following high level general assumptions were used to inform the types of information recommended for consideration
in the comparison process and the intended uses of the comparison process results.
1.
Spatially Explicit Transmission Alternatives:
Transmission alternatives will be spatially-explicit (i.e., mapped) or as necessary, end points and purpose (as
defined by alternatives) will be used to develop spatially explicit alternatives for comparison.
2.
Existing Information:
Transmission alternatives will be compared using existing, non-proprietary information provided by WECC’s
project portal, stakeholders and experts with information relevant to filling data gaps around non-digital data, or
other sources.
3.
Dismissing transmission alternatives is not part of this process:
The purpose of WECC’s application of this comparison process, as part of the overall regional transmission
planning process, is to provide information to compare transmission alternatives, not result in the removal of
transmission alternatives from the transmission planning process.
…………………………………………………………
19
20
Demand-side management refers to the use of energy efficiency or load management to reduce the use of electricity.
Distributed generation refers to the use of on-site or distributed (non-centralized) generation (e.g., home solar electric systems).
August 8, 2012
Page 17
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
APPENDIX B: IDENTIFYING GEOSPATIAL TRANSMISSION
ALTERNATIVES
B.1 Transmission Alternatives with Geospatial Information
For some of the transmission alternatives found in WECC’s 10-year plan and, potentially, some of the alternatives
resulting from the LTPTs, geospatial and project engineering information will be available in advance of the
comparison process. Projects for which such information is generally available include the CCTA, some WECC portal
projects, and potentially select transmission solutions developed by the LTPTs. For projects at conceptual phases of
development (i.e., transmission alternatives without geospatial information), the process outlined below could be
applied. Transmission alternatives that are in advanced stages of permitting or are under construction would not be
examined as part of the comparison process.
B.2 Transmission Alternatives without Geospatial Information
The environmental and cultural risk classification system applied to the EDTF preferred data sets can be used to form
potential transmission alternative routes where geospatially defined corridors do not already exist. The EDTF
developed an environmental and cultural risk classification system consisting of categories 1 (lowest risk) to 4 (highest
risk) that organizes land areas (area types) by their suitability for transmission development based on their
environmental and cultural sensitivities or constraints. A detailed description of the EDTF’s risk classification system
categories and preferred GIS datasets proposed for use within the Western Interconnection appears in Appendix D of
Environmental Recommendations for Transmission Planning Final Report (May 6, 2011). The development of
potential routes involves the use of this GIS data to identify one or more “least-environmental cost paths” to connect
substation end points. For example, such a process could be used to develop transmission alternatives along one of
WECC’s identified congested paths or where two substation endpoints are all that is known for the transmission
alternative. The EDTF performed a pilot test of this process along one such congested WECC path; the results of that
pilot test are presented in the next section of this appendix.
It should be noted that, because they are based solely on the EDTF’s preferred environmental and cultural data,
potential routes developed through this process would only consider environmental and cultural risk, not cost or other
factors.
Pilot Test Results - Geospatial Information
Exhibit B-1 provides an illustrative example (based on least-environmental cost path modeling) from a pilot test
conducted by the EDTF to create geospatial alternatives between the Anaconda and Burns substations; these substations
are closely associated with WECC Paths 8 and 14. The EDTF selected Path 8 for this example because it is commonly
referenced as a congested path in WECC’s 10-year plan. As shown in the graphic, the GIS analysis started by
developing a least-environmental cost path between the two end point substations (the blue line on the exhibit). To
create several alternatives to this least-environmental cost path route, two substations (one north of the initial route and
one south of the initial route) were selected, and the model was then directed to choose the least-environmental cost
path connecting those three points (i.e., the start/end points and the selected substation).
To make the alternatives more reasonable, whenever they came within 50 miles of an existing substation 21, they were
routed through the substation (effectively resulting in multiple, discrete segments along the two alternatives for the
path). Such an approach allows analysis in the comparison process of alternatives that are not fully geospatially defined
and allows the analysis of WECC paths based on environmental and cultural information.
…………………………………………………………
21
The design of the alternating current (AC) lines and substations will typically ensure that the voltage drop across the line itself is not more than 510% of the nominal voltage level (e.g., 345 kilovolt [kV] or 500 kV). To determine when the potential transmission alternatives shown in Exhibit B-1
would reasonably be required to visit a substation to maintain their nominal voltage level, a 500 kV line was assumed. Such a line would generally
be expected to travel up to 100 miles and still maintain nominal voltage. This assumption was used to choose which substations the potential
transmission alternatives in Exhibit B-1 were routed through.
Page 18
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit B-1. Illustrative Potential Application of Environmental Risk Categories to Create
Geospatially Defined Transmission Alternatives for WECC Paths 8 and 14
August 8, 2012
Page 19
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
APPENDIX C: DATA DRIVEN ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM THE
PILOT TEST OF THE COMPARISON PROCESS
C.1 Pilot Test Results
This appendix describes selected detailed Data Driven analysis results from the pilot test of the EDTF’s comparison
process. During the October 11, 2011 EDTF meeting, the task force agreed to test the application of the comparison
process to three hypothetical transmission alternatives along WECC Paths 8 and 14 (refer to Exhibit B-1). The pilot
test results were presented at the January 11, 2012 meeting of the EDTF; this appendix describes a part of these results
to illustrate the information that could be generated by the data analysis component of the comparison process.
C.1.1. Applying the Environmental and Cultural Risk Scoring System
Exhibit C-1 illustrates how the environmental and cultural risk score was calculated and reported for the hypothetical
WECC Paths 8 and 14 Least-Environmental Cost Path transmission alternative (referred to in this appendix as the
“WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP” alternative; this alternative is the blue line in Exhibit B-1) developed for the EDTF’s
pilot comparison process test.
Exhibit C-1. WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Environmental and Cultural Risk Score
WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Environmental and Cultural Risk Score (Risk-Adjusted Miles)
Risk Classification
Category
Miles Crossed
Environmental and Cultural
Risk Score
(Risk Classification Category × Miles)
Category 1
418
418
Category 2
30
60
Category 3
9
27
Category 4
0
0
458
505
Total
LECP:
Least-Environmental Cost Path
NOTE:
Due to rounding, totals may not be additive.
Page 20
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit C-1. WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Environmental and Cultural Risk Score
WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Environmental and Cultural Risk Score (Proportional Risk Score)
Risk Classification
Category
Proportion of Alternative within each Category
(Miles in Category/Total Miles)
Environmental/Cultural
Risk Score
(Risk Category × Proportion of Alternative within
each Category)
Category 1
418/458 = 0.91
0.91
Category 2
30/458 = 0.065
0.13
Category 3
9/458 = 0.196
0.06
Category 4
0/458 = 0
0
Total
1.10
LECP:
Least-Environmental Cost Path
NOTE:
Due to rounding, totals may not be additive.
Where desired and as identified in Exhibit C-2, the environmental and cultural risk comparative analysis of
transmission alternatives could also be used to document the portion of each transmission alternative that crosses each
of the area types listed in Appendix D-2 of Environmental Recommendations for Transmission Planning Final Report
(May 6, 2011). As shown in Exhibit C-3 this analsysis could also report the total number of area types per Risk
Classification Category crossed by the transmission alternative. Such information may be of interest during the
Stakeholder Review portion of this comparison process Please note, regardless of the areas types crossed, the EDTF’s
Stakeholder Review process will be open to all interested stakeholders, not just those in areas intersected by the
potential transmission alternatives.
Exhibit C-2. Area Types Crossed by WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP
Area Type (organized by Risk Classification Category)
August 8, 2012
Risk Classification
Category
Transmission Alternative
Length (miles)
Page 21
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit C-2. Area Types Crossed by WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP
Risk Classification
Category
Transmission Alternative
Length (miles)
Designated Energy Corridor
1
0.40
Existing Transmission Rights-of-way
1
11.90
Area Following Existing Linear Corridor
1
392.80
Multiple Overlapping Category 1
1
13.30
Other Public Land
2
4.80
Other Land Administered by U.S. Federal Agencies (BLM)
2
3.00
Other State Managed Lands
2
0.80
Private Land - Unknown Restriction
2
1.60
Private Land - Unrestricted for Development
2
0.40
Agricultural Land (excluding Prime Farmland)
2
0.40
Important Bird Area (State-level)
2
1.20
Urban Fringe Area
2
18.30
State Wildlife Area
3
0.10
National Recreation Area (USFS)
3
0.40
Habitat Areas for Candidate or Listed Wildlife Species Mapped
by State, Provincial, or Federal Agencies
3
2.10
State Mapped Crucial Big Game Winter Range/Severe Winter
Range
3
0.90
U.S. Forest Service Roadless Area
3
1.50
Multiple Overlapping Category 3
3
3.90
-
458
Area Type (organized by Risk Classification Category)
TOTAL
NOTE:
In locations where more than one area type overlapped, only the area type with the highest Risk Classification Category would be reported.
BLM
LECP
USFS
Bureau of Land Management
Least-Environmental Cost Path
U.S. Forest Service
Page 22
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Exhibit C-3. Number of Area Types Crossed by WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP
Risk Classification Category
Number of Area Types
1
4
2
8
3
6
4
0
C.1.2. Applying the Alternative Description Metrics
A description of each transmission alternative would be compiled from available information. Exhibit C-4 illustrates how
the description for each transmission alternative would be calculated and reported for the hypothetical WECC Paths 8 and
14 LECP alternative developed for the EDTF’s pilot comparison process.
Where needed, standard assumptions may be applied to develop reasonable approximations of certain alternative
components. Descriptions reported in this comparison process primarily include the alternative length (miles) and may
include other engineering details (e.g., voltage, capacity and type of alternative) when available for a given transmission
alternative.
Exhibit C-4. Transmission Alternative Description1
Transmission Alternative Element
LECP
Northern Alternative
Southern Alternative
458
567
585
Voltage (AC or DC)
unknown
unknown
unknown
Capacity (megawatts)
unknown
unknown
unknown
Type of alternative (e.g., new,
reconductoring, AC, DC, singlecircuit, double-circuit)
unknown
unknown
unknown
Length (miles)
1
For CCTA and Proposed Projects from the WECC portal (10-year plan transmission alternatives), this information would likely be obtained
from information provided by the project proponent; for 20-year plan transmission alternatives from the LTPTs, it is assumed that most
engineering metrics would be available from the LTPT output.
AC
CCTA
DC
LECP
LTPT
WECC
alternating current
Common Case Transmission Assumptions
direct current
Least-Environmental Cost Path
Long Term Planning Tool
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
August 8, 2012
Page 23
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
APPENDIX D: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND TIMELINE
FOR IMPLEMENTING COMPARISON PROCESS
D. 1 Stakeholder Engagement in the EDTF Comparison Process
The proposed approaches in Section D.1 were confirmed by the EDTF on June 22, 2012, for incorporation into the
EDTF Comparison Process. The approved document appears here with revisions made subsequent to the July 19-20,
2012 EDTF meeting.
Overview of EDTF Comparison Process in relation to the steps in the EDTF’s stakeholder
engagement steps– dark green bubbles represent stakeholder activities
*
Step 1
Step 2
* The EDTF will review and confirm stakeholder-recommended data sets updates/additions and modifications to Risk Classification Category assignments.
Once the EDTF confirms proposed timeframes for each process step, we will update the above graphic to include
timeframes.
Purposes Applicable to All Process Steps:
Page 24
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
The stakeholder component of the EDTF Comparison Process is intended to fulfill WECC/Regional Transmission
Expansion Planning (RTEP) stakeholder engagement responsibilities regarding environmental and cultural risk
information and improve the comparison process. The stakeholder component of the EDTF Comparison Process will:
1.
2.
Employ robust stakeholder engagement to continually improve the validity and acceptability of:
a.
The EDTF’s preferred data sets and their assigned risk classification categories
b.
The score for environmental and cultural risk (based on proportional risk score and risk-adjusted
miles score) from the EDTF Comparison Process
Identify and, where possible, fill planning-level data gaps using stakeholder and expert insight
EDTF stakeholder engagement will support WECC’s transmission planning activities by:
 Contributing to 10- and 20-year regional transmission plans to support increased coordination among entities
in the Western Interconnection

Providing environmental and cultural risk information to improve regional transmission planning activities

Identifying environmental and cultural resource related policy decisions that should be further explored in
state, provincial, and federal policy arenas
Principles Applicable to All Process Steps:
1.
The process and information will be publicly transparent and accessible
2.
The process must be open to all stakeholders in accordance with FERC Order 890 principles 22
3.
The process will operate at a planning level across the Western Interconnection. Use of planning-level
information is intended to allow the EDTF to compare environmental and cultural risks of various transmission
alternatives that may occur throughout the Western Interconnection using a consistent set of criteria and data.
To assure that the process operates at a planning level of analysis, it includes, but is not limited to, the
following provisions:
a.
The process will be applied toward transmission alternatives of regional significance as defined by the
TEPPC Planning Protocol (typically multi-state alternatives)
b.
The planning level is a coarse scale, no smaller than the scale used to analyze the EDTF data sets
(0.5km x 0.5km). This scale is generally cross-jurisdictional and is not site-specific. For example, for
biological resources the EDTF is investigating “habitat-level” constraints that occur across broad
areas (a larger scale than a local scale).
c.
The EDTF requests that stakeholders generally engage at a broader-than-local scale
4.
The EDTF will review and consider incorporation of new or additional information that is consistent with
EDTF protocols and processes
5.
The EDTF will assist stakeholders with engaging in the process
Step 1: Assist in Filling Data Gaps
The EDTF will:
1.
October 2012. Identify data gaps that need to be filled, including:
a.
Cultural resource information and levels of risk
b.
Proposed conservation areas
…………………………………………………………
See sections 435-434 of FERC Order 890, requiring “coordinated, open, and transparent transmission planning on both a local and regional
level.”
22
August 8, 2012
Page 25
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
c.
2.
Other gaps TBD
October 2012. Identify experts with a broad knowledge base to identify ways to fill data gaps throughout the
Western Interconnection. These experts may include:
a.
Federal/state/provincial resource agency staff
b.
Tribal/First Nation representatives23
c.
Academicians
d.
NGO topical specialists
e.
Environmental and cultural community representatives
f.
EDTF members
g.
Others as determined appropriate
3.
October 2012. Develop a memo outlining existing and known missing data
4.
November 2012. Invite experts and broadly publicize the data gap workshop; circulate the memo; and request data
sets or ideas for filling gaps prior to meeting. If appropriate, conduct additional pre-meeting outreach.
5.
December 2012. Meet to discuss data sets and ideas for filling data gaps received from experts. Conduct an inperson meeting (with a webinar option) to discuss the information received before the meeting and to identify any
additional known data sets or additional data workarounds to include missing data in the EDTF Comparison
Process and Long-term Planning Tools (LTPT). Identify appropriate risk classification categories for each
recommended data set/workaround. Aim for consensus, but document all viewpoints on potential data
sets/workarounds for EDTF consideration.
6.
December 2012. Outcomes of meetings will include:
7.
a.
Data sets/workarounds and associated risk classifications that workshop participants recommend that the
EDTF adopt, including rationale
b.
Data sets/workarounds considered and not recommended for EDTF adoption, including rationale
Meeting outcomes will be captured using a resource criteria matrix (see page 7).
February 2013. Review recommendations and adopt, or seek more information as required. Once approved by the
EDTF and SPSG, WECC/LTPT developers will incorporate the recommended data sets/workarounds and
associated assigned risk classification categories into the LTPT.
Step 2: Open Biennial Process to Update Preferred Data Sets and Risk Classifications
The EDTF will:
1.
August 2012. Develop and post a feedback form to guide submitted data sets and associated risk classification
categories. Develop outreach materials to explain the purpose of EDTF data sets and risk classification categories,
including information about the Data Quality Protocol and other relevant process and protocol documents. Identify
a liaison to answer questions and guide submissions.
2.
August 2012 – January 2013. Publicize an open process to solicit updated or new environmental and cultural data
sets, including proposed risk classification category assignments. Publicize this process by reaching out through:
a.
Existing WECC committees, task-forces, and subcommittees
b.
Subregional planning groups
c.
Relevant federal agencies
d.
Conferences and forums
…………………………………………………………
23
Experts from tribal governments may include tribal historic preservation officers (THPOs) or other tribal designees. The EDTF understands that
tribes are often protective of sensitive sites and corresponding data.
Page 26
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
e.
WECC correspondence LISTSERV® and LISTSERVs® maintained by WECC stakeholders and
stakeholder representatives
f.
Owners of EDTF data sets
g.
Other forums and interested entities as appropriate
3.
September 1, 2012 - January 31, 2013. Provide a five-month window for submission of data sets and associated
proposed risk classification category assignments.
4.
February – June 2013. Review submissions and adopt the data sets and associated risk classification categories, or
determine that data sets are not relevant and provide supporting rationale. The EDTF may seek more information as
required. The EDTF will use the Data Quality Protocol and Data Update Protocol to determine appropriateness for
inclusion. Once approved by the EDTF and SPSG, WECC/LTPT developers will incorporate the recommended
data sets and associated risk classifications into the LTPT.
Note – this timeline does not enable incorporation of data workaround solutions into the first run of the Comparison
Process in 2012).
Step 3: Review Comparison Process Results, Modify Assigned Risk Classification Categories
The EDTF expects that the LTPT analysis of 20-year transmission alternatives will result in a set of optimized
transmission alternatives to meet each of the four scenarios developed by the Scenario Planning Steering Group (SPSG),
as well as other long-term study cases requested by stakeholders. Provided this expectation is correct, the EDTF would
plot the transmission alternatives for each of the scenarios on a graph that includes environmental and cultural risk on
the y-axis and capital cost on the x-axis. For each scenario, the EDTF would create three plots, using the two
Comparison Process metrics for risk (the proportional risk score and the risk-adjusted miles score), as well as a cost-permile score (adapted from the risk-adjusted miles score). The EDTF would then identify the set of leastenvironmental/cultural risk and least-cost transmission alternatives common to the scenarios (or, several of the
scenarios) and would engage stakeholders and experts to analyze the environmental and cultural risk of those
transmission alternatives. This analysis, further detailed below, would involve looking at the data layers for each
transmission alternative to evaluate whether or not the assigned environmental risk (categories 1-4) appropriately
captured the environmental and cultural risks associated with that transmission alternative.
The EDTF will also prioritize a set of transmission alternatives in the 10-year planning timeframe to review, based on a
set of transparent criteria. The EDTF will then undertake the following steps to review the appropriateness of the
environmental/cultural risk classification category assignments for the prioritized 10- and 20-year transmission
alternatives:
1. November 2012 – January 2013. Prepare a memo outlining the environmental/cultural results of the Comparison
Process; circulate the memo prior to meeting(s); and request initial feedback prior to meeting(s). If appropriate, the
EDTF will conduct additional pre-meeting outreach.
2.
3.
November 2012 – January 2013. Identify experts with a broad knowledge base to identify ways to fill data gaps
throughout the Western Interconnection. These experts may include:
a.
Federal/state/provincial resource agency staff
b.
Tribal/First Nation representatives
c.
Academicians
d.
NGO topical specialists
e.
Environmental and cultural community representatives
f.
EDTF members
g.
Others as determined appropriate
November 2012 – January 2013. Invite experts to the in-person meeting(s)/workshop(s), as well as publicize these
events.
August 8, 2012
Page 27
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
4.
January – February 2013. Conduct meeting(s) to review outputs and identify risk classification category
assignments that do not seem to appropriately capture environmental and cultural risk. Propose modifications to
assigned risk classification categories if appropriate, including rationale. Aim for consensus but document all
viewpoints on potential risk classification category assignment changes for EDTF consideration. (Note – the EDTF
anticipates structuring discussions of transmission alternatives geographically. While the stakeholder review
process will involve transmission alternatives located across the Western Interconnection, review of transmission
alternatives will be grouped by more-specified geographies. These geographies could potentially correlate with the
FERC Order 1000 regions that will be designated in October 2012.)
5.
February 2013. Review the proposed modifications and determine whether to adopt them, aiming for consensus
among task force members. Once approved by the EDTF and SPSG, WECC/LTPT developers will incorporate the
modified risk classification category assignments into the LTPT and will re-run the Comparison Process. (Note –
the proposed modifications may apply to only a portion of a data set rather than the entire data set. For example,
there may be a higher environmental risk to sage grouse in a portion of a state as compared to the risk across the
entire Western Interconnection; in that case, the data set would be revised to reflect a higher Risk Classification
Category only in that area.)
Step 4: Products Available for Use Outside of WECC
1.
June 2013. The EDTF will revise the User’s Manual for Applying the Environmental Data Task Force’s Preferred
Data Sets and Risk Classification Category System, package the Comparison Process results along with a guide to
enable stakeholders to understand and access the results, and identify a liaison to answer stakeholder questions.
2.
June – July 2013. WECC and the EDTF will conduct outreach to stakeholders to enable broader awareness and
understanding of EDTF tools and products. Assure targeted outreach to public utility commissions,
states/provinces, and the DOE.24 Outreach could take the form of webinars, panels and relevant conferences and
forums, timelines/flowcharts, fact sheets/frequently asked questions, or other methods.
Exhibit D-1. Example Resource Criteria Matrix
Transmission
Alternative: xx
Segment: 1 of 3
Data Gap
25
Stakeholder Evaluators: xx
Date: xx
Resource
Present?
Yes
No
Map
Comments
Provided?
Yes
Level of risk for
transmission
planning?
Qualitative Description
- Using Risk
Classification
Category system
(1- 4)
- Describe resource
causing
increased/decreased risk
- Possible mitigation?
No
Cultural and Historic
Resources
NRHP listed sites
…………………………………………………………
24
Note: The EDTF Comparison Process is currently being used by transmission planners at Xcel Energy for two transmission lines: Rifle-Parachute,
and Lamar Front Range. Results of this work will be provided when it becomes available.
25
Other data gap areas discussed by the EDTF include Conservation Easements and Habitat Conservation Plans; areas of existing land disturbance
(e.g., brownfields); visual resources; and private lands issues (e.g., prime and unique farm lands). Many of these data gaps represent area types
where the EDTF has determined an appropriate risk classification but has not acquired data to fill that need.
Page 28
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Transmission
Alternative: xx
Segment: 1 of 3
Data Gap25
Stakeholder Evaluators: xx
Date: xx
Resource
Present?
Map
Comments
Provided?
Level of risk for
transmission
planning?
Qualitative Description
- Others?
NRHP Districts
Tribal burial sites
Other
cultural/tribal/historic
resources to be added…
Proposed
Conservation Areas
Citizen’s Proposed
Wilderness Areas
Other proposed
conservation areas to be
added…
NRHP = National Register of Historic Places
August 8, 2012
Page 29
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
D. 2 Process and Governance for EDTF Stakeholder Engagement
The following text provides additional details regarding stakeholder participation and EDTF decision-making for
Comparison Process stakeholder engagement activities.
Stakeholder Outreach
The EDTF will publicize all information about its webinars/meetings and its work products on the EDTF website.
Information about EDTF activities will be circulated periodically via the EDTF LISTSERV® maintained by WECC and
via the RTEP biweekly newsletter published by WECC. EDTF members may additionally contact colleagues, experts,
and other stakeholders to expand awareness about EDTF activities. More information about EDTF stakeholder
engagement can be found in the EDTF Communications Plan.
Participation in Meetings
All EDTF meetings are open to the public. While the EDTF may seek specific attendance for some meetings (e.g.,
specific resource experts may be invited to participate), all members of the public are welcome to participate in all
EDTF meetings and webinars.
Decision-Making
All stakeholder recommendations will be subject to full EDTF review and approval. The EDTF will operate by
consensus. Consensus means that all members can live with a decision being considered by the EDTF. EDTF members
will vote to indicate positions on issues in order to determine whether the group has reached consensus. If the EDTF is
unable to reach consensus on an issue or recommendation, it shall refer the separate positions to the Scenario Planning
Steering Group (SPSG) for resolution. The EDTF, as a task force of the SPSG, shall make recommendations for
consideration and approval by the SPSG but is not authorized to make decisions for the SPSG.
Page 30
August 8, 2012
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
APPENDIX E: OTHER FOUNDATIONAL EDTF DOCUMENTS
Exhibit E-1. Other EDTF Foundational Documents and their Locations
Document
URL
Change Log
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/EDTF/Shared%20Documents/En
vironmental_Recommendations_for_Transmission_Planning/Final_Recommendations_
Report/Change%20Log%20%20Environmental%20Recommendations%20for%20Transmission%20Planning.pdf
Data Inventory Spreadsheet
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/EDTF/Shared%20Documents/En
vironmental_Recommendations_for_Transmission_Planning/Final_Recommendations_
Report/Data%20Inventory%20Spreadsheet.xlsx
Data Quality Protocol
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/EDTF/Shared%20Documents/En
vironmental_Recommendations_for_Transmission_Planning/Final_Recommendations_
Report/EDTF%20Data%20Quality%20Protocol.pdf
Environmental Recommendations for
Transmission Planning
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/EDTF/Shared%20Documents/En
vironmental_Recommendations_for_Transmission_Planning/Final_Recommendations_
Report/Environmental%20Recommendations%20for%20Transmission%20Planning%2
0-%20Revised%2005-27-2011.pdf
Land Classification System
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/EDTF/Shared%20Documents/En
vironmental_Recommendations_for_Transmission_Planning/Final_Recommendations_
Report/Tables%20D-1%20to%20D-4_Revised_2011_0725.pdf
Data Update and Review Protocol
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/120807/Lists/Minutes/1/EDTF_E
nvironmental_Data_Update_and_Review_Protocol.docx
User’s Manual
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/EDTF/Shared%20Documents/En
vironmental_Recommendations_for_Transmission_Planning/Final_Recommendations_
Report/EDTF_Data_Sets_Users_Manual.pdf
Change Log
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/EDTF/Shared%20Documents/En
vironmental_Recommendations_for_Transmission_Planning/Final_Recommendations_
Report/Change%20Log%20%20Environmental%20Recommendations%20for%20Transmission%20Planning.pdf
August 8, 2012
Page 31
August 8, 2012 – Approved Comparison Process
Page 32
August 8, 2012