Prepared by: Richard D’Amato ’13 Aislinn McLaughlin ’14 Michael Sanchez ’13 06/07/2013

1. Policy Recommendations for Siting Energy FacilitiesPresented to: The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Prepared by: Richard D’Amato ’13 Aislinn McLaughlin ’14 Michael Sanchez ’13 06/07/2013 The contents of this report were developed under grant P116B100070 from the U.S. Department of Education. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

2. Introduction/Overview • Question: What are best practices for energy facility siting? • NH Siting Board Overview • EPA Best Practices • State-by-State Analysis • Conclusion: Implications for NH

3. New Hampshire Siting Process • In recent years, the NH Site Evaluation Committee has seen a marked increase in cases for review • 15-member board consisting of full-time state employees

4. EPA Best Practices • Six step process: • Pre-screening analysis • Feasibility analysis • Design and development procedures • Construction and installation • Performance monitoring • Decommissioning

5. New York • Centralized Board • 5 Permanent Members, 2 Ad Hoc • Can override state permits and local ordinances but not state regulations or permits from federal permitting programs • Extensive pre-application and application fees

6. New York (Cont.) • Public participation in hearings and environmental review process • 1 year time frame between application filing and decision (expedited 6-month process for certain clean energy initiatives • Administrative and adversarial hearings presided over by 2 Administrative Law Judges; actual board is very isolated from hearing process

7. Rhode Island • Centralized Board • 3 Permanent Members • Can override state permits and local ordinances but not state regulations or permits from federal permitting programs • No official fees, but Board has ability to establish fees for investigations, applications, hearings, and hiring consultants

8. Rhode Island (cont.) • All hearings are open to the public, and board is required to hold one public hearing in every impacted community • Approximately 1 year time frame between initial filing and final ruling (with expedited process for power lines under 1,000 ft or between 1,000 and 6,000 ft) • Includes administrative and adversarial hearings

9. Vermont • Centralized board • Membership Structure • One Chairman, two board members, six-year staggered terms • Increases in siting • Twenty-nine cases from 2000-2010, fifty cases from 2010-2013

10. Vermont Siting Policy Commission • In October 2012 the Governor of Vermont created a seven-member commission • Goal: To research best practices for siting in Vermont • Five main recommendation themes, along with specific policy options

11. Vermont Commission Recommendations • Recommendation One: Increase Emphasis on planning at state, regional and municipal levels • Recommendation Two: Four-Tiered System • Recommendation Three: Create Policies to increase opportunities for public participation

12. Commission Recommendations Cont. • Recommendation Four: Increase transparency, efficiency, and predictability of the siting process • Recommendation Five: Continual updates of guidelines

13. Vermont Funding • Currently relies on application and annual fees • Commission recommendations: • One-time filing fee • Recurrent annual fee • Bill-back authority both to the board and the Regional Planning Commissions

14. Connecticut • Centralized Board • Membership Structure • Between nine and thirty-one full time members • Nine specialists for ash residue and energy and communications issues • Nine specialists for hazardous and low-level radioactive waste, along with three ad-hoc members of the municipality

15. Connecticut Cont. • Highly litigatory process • Includes applicant, Council members, any related parties, and affected members of the public • Rely heavily on precedent • No funding from State general fund • Comes from application fees and annual assessments on utilities, waste generators, and telecommunications providers

16. Oregon • Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) • Governor-appointed members • Various size requirements • Electric power plants generating 35 megawatts • Fee schedule for facilities

17. Oregon Cont. • 3 points of public participation • Notice of Intent • Public hearing • Contested case • New policy on joint public hearings and Council meetings

18. Maine • No committee; applications go to Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) • “Triggers” for applications (i.e. occupying an excess of 20 acres) • General development standards

19. Maine Site Law Application • 3 stages • Pre-application meeting • Public informational meeting • Pre-submission meeting • Timeframe of 185 days • Fees set November 1 every year

20. Maine Wind Energy Act • “Reduce the potential for controversy regarding siting of grid-scale wind energy developments” • Timeframe of 185 days • Public participation • 2 meetings facilitated by DEP staff for comments Source: 35-A. M.R.S. § 3402

21. Possible Reforms for NH • Improve public participation • Public involvement in environmental review process, funded by pre-application fees (New York) • Require meetings to be held in every affected municipality (Rhode Island) • Creation of Regional Planning Commissions consisting of members of affected municipalities (Vermont) • Extend time requirements for public advance disclosure (Vermont, Oregon)

22. Possible Reforms for NH (cont.) • Reform Board Membership and Function • Staff board with part-time/retired workers rather than full-time employees (Vermont) • Create more isolation from the process for objectivity, such as by sequestering staff members and making Administrative Law Judges responsible for overseeing hearings (New York) • Membership based on specialty/expertise rather than position (Connecticut)

23. Possible Reforms for NH (cont.) • Fee Structure • Pre-Application fees used to fund environmental review/public disclosure costs (New York) • Fees to hire on-site consultants (Rhode Island) • Application Fees • Annual Assessment Fees • Bill Back Authority to recuperate incurred costs • Fees (except Bill Back Authority) can be a flat rate (most common) or prorated on size (Vermont)

24. Possible Reforms for NH (cont.) • Improve Efficiency and Transparency • Update Board website (Vermont) • Work with other agencies to create a set of written guidelines for application process (Vermont) • Reform application process to base process on applicant size • Simplify process for smaller applications (Vermont) • Give local jurisdictions authority over small applicants (Oregon)