Minutes TDDWG Meeting

La Quinta Inn

Las Vegas, NV

January 24-25, 2001

Jenifer Williams, Nez Perce Tribe

Virgil Masayesva, Institute of Tribal Environmental Professionals

Roxanne Ellingson, Walker River Paiute Tribe

John Cox, Co-Chair TDDWG, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Bobby Ramirez, Co-Chair TDDWG, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

Rosanne Sanchez, All Indian Pueblo Council

Julie Ramone, Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation

Ondrea Barber, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Sara Kelly, Institute of Tribal Environmental Professionals

Bill Grantham, National Tribal Environmental Council

Meeting was called to order a 1:30 PM.

Invocation given by John Cox

Welcome, opening remarks and introductions.

• Virgil mentioned that a lot of tribes are currently trying to hire air quality professionals.
• Bobby mentioned they are developing air quality monitoring for their non-attainment area; that he was fortunate that his employer encouraged him to participate in external activities at a regional and national level like the TDDWG.
• Roseanne Sanchez said they have now completed their first year of PM monitoring. She has also conducted reviews of Title V permits. There is concern about funding from EPA for Tribal Air Programs in Region VI.
• Ondrea Barber says that it is business as usual at the ALTC.
• Julie Ramon is working to get air monitoring started.
• Jennifer Williams is ordering equipment for doing PM monitoring.
• Virgil Masayevsva has hired a Tribal Environmental Resource Manager, Sara Kelly. Virgil is focusing on planning for FY 2002-3.
• Roxanne Ellingson is beginning 2^nd year of EPA funding for air work. She will be putting up a meteorological station. She continues to work with youth group, which is focusing on environmental education. She is beginning to look into how mining has affected tribal people in her area; and she will become a grandmother before the end of the year.

Agenda (appended) Reviewed. It was suggested that pollution prevention be talked about during the ITEP report.

Review minutes of previous meeting. Since the minutes are posted on the TDDWG on the wrapair.org web site we tabled reading them referring those interested to the wrap web site.

Bill used the WRAP budget (appended) to talk about the various highlights of activities in the other forums, which I have tried to capture below.

The Haze Rule was promulgated in April 1999. Industry contested the Haze Rule. Clinton administration disallowed the industry claim so the rule is still the law and WRAP will continue to move forward on implementation of Haze Rule, assisting states, tribes and others.

WRAP got $2.8 million in 1999 and $ 2.5 million in 2000. WRAP may receive up-to $ 4.0 million in 2001. WRAP is really just getting going on substantive work needed to support implementation of the Haze Rule.

The Market Trading Forum doesn’t feel confident that all the tribal mobile sources have been identified and quantitated. There are still details to be worked out on the 20,000 ton tribal allocation of SO2 - how will it be handled and distributed.

The Fire Emissions Forum is concerned about how to factor contribution from tribal lands into their work including defining natural background. Fire emissions may well be one of the biggest and most complex components of haze rule implementation to deal with.

Jennifer Williams provided a handout (appended) of the Pollution Prevention Forum. The P2 study has been contracted to Northern Arizona University. The states renewable report is already published on the wrapair.org web site. Renewable goals were 10% for 2005 and 20% for 2015. Bill thought these goals were very optimistic. There was some discussion about the adequacy of the renewable definition and comment that the definition should be revisited or at least revisited.

The emissions in and near class I areas are different due to the use, e.g., more motorhomes, campfires, sport utility vehicles, boats, etc.

The air quality modeling center at Westar was nixed for technical reasons and that they may not adequately serve the Tribal community. WGA formed an ad hoc group to reassess what the center should be and how it should be selected. University of California at Riverside was selected for the modeling center. Training will be provided for both state and tribal people at this center. The initial contact with UC Riverside is for two years. Center is presumed to be in operation for a long time.

The TDDWG has obligated all of its $110K 1999 budget to work at ITEP. The $160K TDDWG 2000 budget is ear marked for continuing work at ITEP to develop emissions inventory collection tools and know-how for the tribal community.

The Regional Planning Organization meeting is scheduled to be in Phoenix on Feb. 6-8. All tribal support (that is attendance) is encouraged as this will be a meeting national in scope with representatives from the five different RPOs throughout the US - tribes, fed and state representatives will be there. A good place to make some new contacts and get the big picture. Checkout wrapair.org for details of the meeting. There may be some travel reimbursement for tribal members wishing to attend. Suggest you check with Bill Grantham at ITEP.

Bobby Ramirez talked about the new draft proposal from ITEP, which is attached. The $160K proposed just allow us to get the emissions collection tools development part of the overall work started. The total cost of the effort to develop these software tools and get the tribal community trained on using them is not well defined at this time. The funding level through WRAP is such that they just allow us to get started. But getting started on this effort is in effect a continuation of the work on assessment that was initiated at ITEP about a year ago and is now nearing completion. We need to respond to the ITEP proposal (appended) ASAP. Virgil would like the TDDWG members at this meeting to review the proposal overnight and give him some direction tomorrow. Virgil mention that some funding for the overall effort may be available by EPA's OARP Office. Comments about the ITEP proposal included concern about matching funding/schedule/deliverables, more explicitly, that the most recently available software be used, that the "kiss" principle be used as guidance in the development of the software, that there be close coordination with the modeling group, and the emissions inventory forum should review the proposal. ITEP is going to rework the proposal, which will include work to better scope the magnitude and cost of the overall effort. ITEP will have a revised proposal within a month for the TDDWG.

Sara Kelly of ITEP gave ITEP Project Status Report.

Sara has been employed by ITEP for about 2 months.

The attached viewgraphs were covered in her presentation. Basically the ITEP project at this time is in a second phase of assessing the status of air emissions inventory data on the 247 reservations in the 13-state WRAP area. A copy of the questionnaire can be obtained from her at ITEP. The data gathering is to be completed by the end of March and report completed by the end of April. We are hoping to provide continuity from this work to the next phase, which is developing the tools for emissions inventory gathering. The attached draft proposal from ITEP outlines the next phase of the work. This is the proposal that has been referred to elsewhere in these minutes, which the TDDWG requested ITEP to revise and resubmit.

Communications

Was suggested that members of the TDDWG assume role of lead authority on each of the most "important" forums (e.g., emissions, fire, modeling, research, in and near, measurement, market trading, etc.) and report there status at subsequent TDDWG meetings. No formal assignments were made, but anyone wishing to step-up to the plate on this let Bobby or me know so we can coordinate and eliminate unnecessary duplication. As has always been the case we need to do more on communicating the TDDWG's role and WRAP (what is it) in local regional and other communities. We are planning to work-up a few slides that will be available to all to use in any occasion you may have to provide information about the WRAP and its activities.

Membership

There was general acknowledgement that we need more frequent meetings. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for the 3-4 of May. Please provide input on the suitability of this date, any potential conflicts, suggestions for locations and agenda items.

• Bobby will draft a presentation on the TDDWG that he will give at the RPO meeting Feb. 6-8. Review and input to the presentation will be due to Bobby on Friday Feb. 2.
• ITEP (Paul Mountcastle) and ITCA (Ondrea Barber) are to collaborate to develop a viewgraph for the presentation showing the land area, state boundaries, and tribal reservations, and possibly the Class I areas. This will need to be delivered to Bobby before the meeting and presentation.
• Revised proposal due from ITEP by the end of February.
• John Cox to draft letter to tribal heads that will serve as a solicitation for additional members to the TDDWG.
• John Cox to produce minutes of meeting and posts them on the TDDWG WRAP web site.

• Welcome, opening remarks and introductions

• Review and approve agenda

• Review of minutes of previous meeting

• Report from NTEC on issues of impact on TDDWG. Bill Grantham, NTEC

• Status of Haze Rule
• Status of WRAP

• Status of other WRAP forums and work group.
• Inter-WRAP group coordination.
• Other issues

• TDDWG Status Report: Workplan, Schedule and Budget (FY 1999-FY 2001)

• Status Report of ITEP support to TDDWG

• Communications

• Membership

• Meetings calendar

• Open discussion on new and deferred issues.

• Review assignments and action items.

• Adjourn

1. Tribal Issues Working Group
   1. Julie Simpson, Nez Perce Tribe, Chair
   2. Trisha Frank, Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Indians, CA
   3. Bill Grantham, NTEC
   4. Steve Sargent, DOE
2. Budgeting for overall AP2 Forum Tribal work ($100,000 total FY99 & FY00)
   1. $50,000 for Tribal Renewables Report
   2. $40,000 EE Report and $10,000 to work with ICF on modeling OR
   3. $30,000 EE Report and $20,000 to work with ICF
   4. As with AP2 overall budget, Economic Development Report budget is deferred to FY01 WRAP budget cycle.
3. RFP Highlights
   1. Follow State Report as appropriate: compliment yet be stand alone document
   2. Assess current research
      1. e.g. Energy Information Administration report: "Energy Consumption and Renewable Energy Development Potential on Indian Lands;
      2. Howarth NAREEP article: "American Indian Tribes and Electric Industry Restructuring: Issues and Opportunities
   3. "May or may not" present same recommendations as State Report
   4. Present opportunities for Tribes that have been assessed within the socio-political context of Tribes and tribal governments
   5. Funding opportunities
   6. Discussion of Tribes and WRAP
   7. Discussion of Tribal sovereign authority and policy issues regarding the implementation of renewables policies and programs similar to states (TAR & TIPs, FIPs, & SIPs – NEPA process too)
   8. Additional analysis of issues and considerations unique to Tribes: considerations when working with contractors, energy providers, states, EPA, other federal agencies; ceded lands and usual and accustomed areas (U&A); rural land base vs. urban; cultural issues, sacred sites: e.g. wind power and avian issues
   9. Policy issues and concerns regarding Tribes and deregulation
   10. Reference appropriate and applicable resource materials
   11. Brief discussion of the tribal "set-aside" proposals under the SO2 cap-and-trade program
   12. 13-state WRAP region (211-plus tribes)
   13. 1-3 page fact sheet summarizing report
   14. Peer review of drafts (AP2, NTEC, TDDWG, WRAP region Tribes)
4. RFP Process – Highlights
   1. Originally: award on July 1, 2000 start; Dec. 31. 2000 final report
   2. Reality: Issued to public August 28
   3. Bidders conference call: Sept. 14 – clarification of RFP
   4. Deadline for bidder proposals submitted to WGA: September 28
   5. Four bidders: ICF, ITCA, NAU, Econergy Int’l Corp (EIC)
   6. First round of proposal assessments – October
      1. Completeness of work plan task descriptions: 20%
      2. Viability and soundness of project plan: 10%
      3. Realism of task phasing: 10%
      4. Experience with similar projects: 20%
      5. Experience working effectively with Indian Tribes: 40%
   7. Bidder interview conference call: November 13
   8. Nov. 13 – Award determination made that day – NAU
   9. Three weeks to finalize contract: December 4, 2000
5. NAU, Center for Sustainable Environments – Key Personnel
   1. Tom Acker, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering – Principal Investigator
   2. Bill Auberle, College of Engineering and Technology
   3. Earl Duque, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
   4. Bill Jeffrey, Research Professor, Director of NAU’s Sustainable Tribal Economic Development Initiative
   5. David LaRoche, Project Coordinator, Center for Sustainable Environments
   6. Virgil Masayesva, Director, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals
   7. Dean Smith, Consultant, Tribal community development and governance; pricing and energy policy
6. Timeline
   1. Draft report and draft fact sheet to AP2 Forum: March 4, 2001
   2. Solicitation period for comments (AP2, NTEC, TDDWG, WRAP region Tribes): March 4 – April 4
   3. Final report and final fact sheet to AP2 Forum: June 4, 2001
   4. End project: July 30, 2001
7. Questions
   1. RHR states "vs." non RHR states (WA, SD, ND, MT)
   2. How will Tribes’ renewables projects be counted toward 10/20 goal (i.e. allocating credits)?
   3. Will states be able to take credit for Tribes’ renewables projects and visa versa?
   4. How can states work with Tribes – how can Tribes work with states – Tribes work with Tribes?
   5. How do federal projects work towards 10/20 goals?

Revised Draft - 1/17/01

Funding Available: $50,000

Work Needed:

2) Tribal Energy Efficiency Report:

• Audience: Policy staff in the offices of tribal leaders.
• Determine: Appropriateness as stand-alone document or as separate section with state report.

• Brief description of work to be completed and why it is critical to tribal regional haze planning.

1. Under the Regional Haze Rule, tribes may implement visibility programs, or reasonably severable elements in the same manner as states regardless of whether such tribes have participated as members of the GCVTC. Tribes may directly implement the requirements of section 309 in the same manner as states. The independence of tribes means that a tribal visibility program is not dependent on strategies selected by the State or States in which the tribe is located.
    
2. Report includes:

1. Discussion of tribal sovereign authority, policy issues, and other considerations unique to tribes regarding the implementation of energy efficiency policies and programs similar to states;
2. Development of energy efficiency recommendations for tribes
3. Estimate the costs and benefits of tribal energy efficiency programs
4. See attached "Proposed Outline for AP2 Energy Efficiency Recommendations" (11/21/00).

• Expected deliverables

1. Draft recommendations on energy efficiency policies for tribes, including an economic analysis
2. Solicitation of comments (outside review) from tribes on the draft report
3. Final recommendations on energy efficiency policies

3) Assistance with Modeling Work for Renewables 10/20 Goal and Energy Efficiency

• Work with AP2 Forum and ICF Consulting (the contractor likely to be hired for $50,000 to do the modeling) to ensure tribes are appropriately included in the analysis.
• See attached "Modeling Renewable Portfolio Standards and Demand Response or Energy Efficiency", ICF Consulting.
• A working group has been established in the AP2 Forum (including Julie Simpson and Trisha Frank) to further define the scope of the modeling work.
• Modeling work likely to be conducted during late spring, early summer 2001.

1) Meeting in February

• Review State Energy Efficiency Paper draft (current situation, challenges, energy efficiency as a solution to challenges) and "best practices" writeups.

2) Meeting early April

• Review first draft of complete State Energy Efficiency Report;
• Decide on scope of work for modeling renewables and energy efficiency.

3) Late May

• Peer review of 2^nd draft of State EE Report

4) June

• Final State EE Report
• Will not yet have emissions and visibility estimates from modeling work

5) Late Spring, Early Summer

Modeling work with