Transmission Alternative Comparison Methodology

?Process for Using Environmental and Cultural Information to Compare Electric Transmission Alternatives at thePlanning (not siting) LevelVersion 10 – Approved August 8, 2012AUTHOR’S NOTEThe 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. table of contents TOC \o "2-4" \h \z \t "Heading - Report,1" 1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc331437290 \h 11.1Comparison Process Overview PAGEREF _Toc331437291 \h 11.2Comparison Process Uses PAGEREF _Toc331437294 \h 32Step 1: Identify Data Sources and Assign Risk Classification Categories PAGEREF _Toc331437295 \h 52.1Assist in Filling Geospatial Data Gaps PAGEREF _Toc331437296 \h 52.2Open Biennial Process to Update Preferred Data Sets and Risk Classifications PAGEREF _Toc331437297 \h 53Step 2: Identify Alternatives to Compare PAGEREF _Toc331437298 \h 63.1Potential Transmission Alternatives to Compare PAGEREF _Toc331437299 \h 63.2Considering Alternatives in the Comparison Process PAGEREF _Toc331437300 \h 74Step 3: Conduct Analyses PAGEREF _Toc331437301 \h 84.1Data-driven Analyses PAGEREF _Toc331437302 \h 84.1.1Environmental and Cultural Risk Score PAGEREF _Toc331437303 \h 84.1.2Alternative Description PAGEREF _Toc331437304 \h 94.2Stakeholder Review PAGEREF _Toc331437305 \h 94.2.1Identify the Sub-Set of Transmission Alternatives to Review PAGEREF _Toc331437308 \h 94.2.2Review Comparison Process Results, Modify Assigned Risk Classification Categories PAGEREF _Toc331437309 \h 105Step 4: Document and Publicize Findings PAGEREF _Toc331437310 \h 115.1Document PAGEREF _Toc331437311 \h 115.2Publicize PAGEREF _Toc331437312 \h 116Next Steps and Items for Future Consideration PAGEREF _Toc331437313 \h 17Appendix A: General Background PAGEREF _Toc331437314 \h 18Appendix B: Identifying Geospatial transmission Alternatives PAGEREF _Toc331437315 \h 19Appendix C: Data Driven Analysis Results from the Pilot Test of the Comparison Process PAGEREF _Toc331437316 \h 21Appendix D: Stakeholder Engagement and Timeline for Implementing Comparison Process PAGEREF _Toc331437317 \h 25Appendix E: Other Foundational EDTF Documents PAGEREF _Toc331437318 \h 32LIST OF EXHIBITS TOC \h \z \t "Figure - Heading" \c Exhibit 1.Flow Diagram of the Comparison Process for Planning Level Transmission Alternatives and Associated Stakeholder Review PAGEREF _Toc331599291 \h 2Exhibit 2.Relationship between the Consideration of Environmental and Cultural Information in Planning (Comparison Process) vs. Siting PAGEREF _Toc331599292 \h 4Exhibit 3.Summary of Sample Output from the Comparison Process Pilot Test PAGEREF _Toc331599293 \h 12Exhibit 4.Summary of Sample Output from the Stakeholder Review Component of the Comparison Process (see Section 4.2) PAGEREF _Toc331599294 \h 15Exhibit 6.Issues for Future Consideration and Potential Next Steps PAGEREF _Toc331599295 \h 17Exhibit B-1.Illustrative Potential Application of Environmental Risk Categories to Create Geospatially Defined Transmission Alternatives for WECC Paths 8 and 14 PAGEREF _Toc331599296 \h 20Exhibit C-1.WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Environmental and Cultural Risk Score PAGEREF _Toc331599297 \h 21Exhibit C-2.Area Types Crossed by WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP PAGEREF _Toc331599298 \h 23Exhibit C-3.Number of Area Types Crossed by WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP PAGEREF _Toc331599299 \h 24Exhibit C-4.Transmission Alternative Description PAGEREF _Toc331599300 \h 24Exhibit D-1. Example Resource Criteria Matrix PAGEREF _Toc331599301 \h 30Exhibit E-1.Other EDTF Foundational Documents and their Locations PAGEREF _Toc331599302 \h 32this page intentionally left monly 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.IntroductionRecommendation 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.To facilitate application of the comparison process, this document is organized by the four steps of this process:Identify data sources and assign risk classification categoriesIdentify alternatives to compareConduct analysesDocument findingsComparison Process OverviewThe EDTF’s comparison process is intended to be flexible and may be updated following further testing or as a result of changing circumstances or improved information. See Section 6-Next Steps and Items for Future Consideration for additional information. 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 transmission alternative. Where spatial data is unavailable or incomplete (e.g., for cultural resources and proposed conservation areas), input provided by stakeholders may be of particular help in assessing environmental and cultural risk. Stakeholder input may occur both before the comparison process is run (through data recommendations and methods to address data gaps) and during reviews of the comparison process results. Methods for stakeholder engagement are discussed where appropriate in each of the four steps in the comparison process, and described in detail in Appendix D. 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. Exhibit 1.Flow Diagram of the Comparison Process for Planning Level Transmission Alternatives 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 parison Process UsesThe 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 site-specific 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.Exhibit 2.Relationship between the Consideration of Environmental and Cultural Information in Planning (Comparison Process) vs. Siting10610850782320Risk Classification Categories described in the EDTF’s Environmental Recommendations for Transmission Planning Final Report, Appendix TA = Common Case Transmission AlternativesEDTF Comparison Process15527555305174945564692650Step 1: Identify Data Sources and Assign Risk Classification CategoriesSee Appendix D – Stakeholder Engagement – for details on:The purposes and principles that guide the EDTF’s stakeholder involvement activitiesOpportunities for stakeholders to engage in the comparison process, including a draft timeline for the 2012-2103 RTEP planning cycle Tools the EDTF will use to capture and report stakeholder input and the results from the comparison processThe foundation of the EDTF’s comparison process is environmental and cultural data; ensuring this data is 1) up-to-date, 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 other stakeholder-related components of the comparison process, including the EDTFs proposed timeline for conducting these activities during the 2012-2013 WECC planning cycle. Assist in Filling Geospatial Data GapsThe 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 gaps. 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:Data sets/workarounds and assigned risk classification categories that workshop participants recommend that the EDTF adopt, including rationale;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. 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.Step 2: Identify Alternatives to ComparePotential Transmission Alternatives to CompareThe comparison process described herein is intended to apply to planning-level transmission alternatives. It is not intended to apply to projects in the siting process or under construction.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):Background: Includes a consistent representation of electric transmission infrastructure, loads, and generation resources used in transmission planning studies.The comparison process does not apply to “non-wire” alternatives (e.g., demand-side management or distributed generation, conservation). Non-wire solutions are considered:in demand-side management and energy efficiency information received from load serving entities and through study case requests; through select transmission expansion cases; and,through advanced grid technology study cases.Alternatives: Include regionally significant projects that have a high probability of being built by 2022.Proposed transmission projects from the WECC Portal: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: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).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.Considering Alternatives in the Comparison ProcessMethods 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. 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 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 14.Step 3: Conduct AnalysesThe 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. Data-driven AnalysesThe data-driven analysis portion of the comparison process is based on two quantitative criteria:Environmental and Cultural Risk ScoreAlternative description (length and other engineering factors)These criteria describe specific characteristics of transmission alternatives and are linked to one or more specific outputs (metrics).Environmental and Cultural Risk ScoreThe 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 spreadsheet. 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).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.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.Alternative DescriptionThe 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 length 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, 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).Stakeholder ReviewThe 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: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);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. Identify the Sub-Set of Transmission Alternatives to ReviewFollowing 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 stakeholders. To identify the prioritized list 10-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. Review Comparison Process Results, Modify Assigned Risk Classification CategoriesThe EDTF will conduct meeting(s) of experts and other stakeholders 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. Step 4: Document and Publicize FindingsDocumentExhibit 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.PublicizeFollowing 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: 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.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). 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. Exhibit 3.Summary of Sample Output from the Comparison Process Pilot TestComponentsWECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Alternative(Blue in Exhibit B-1, Appendix B)Brief Explanation of ComponentSummary of Environmental and Cultural Risk Comparison ResultsData-driven AnalysisDescribes specific characteristics of transmission alternatives and is linked to one or more specific outputs (metrics).Environmental and Cultural Risk ScoreProportional Risk Score: 1.10Risk-Adjusted Miles Score: 505Represents the EDTF’s risk classification categories over the entire transmission alternative length. Results in two possible scores based on calculation performed.Alternative DescriptionLength: 458 milesVoltage: unknownCapacity: unknownType of alternative: unknownIdentifies the alternative length (miles) and any known engineering details (voltage, capacity, type of alternative)Stakeholder ReviewAdjustments to Risk Classifications made during Stakeholder Review?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 ResultsEnvironmental and Cultural Risk Score (see Section 4.1.1)Represents the EDTF’s risk classification categories over the entire transmission alternative length. Results in two possible scores based on calculation performed.Area type risk classification – Proportional Risk ScoreRepresents 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.Category 4(0/458)*4 = 0((length / total length) * risk classification category value)Represents proportion of areas presently precluded by law or regulation1.TOTAL0.91+0.13+.06+0=1.10Includes the sum of proportions of the transmission alternative length across each Risk Classification Category.Area type risk classification – Risk-Adjusted MilesRepresents the total length (in miles) of the transmission alternative adjusted by the intersected Risk Classification Categories.Category 1418*1 = 418(length (in miles) * risk classification category value)Represents coverage through the least risk of environmental or cultural resource sensitivities or constraints1.Category 130*2 = 60(length (in miles) * risk classification category value)Represents proportion of the least risk of environmental or cultural resource sensitivities and constraints1.Category 39*3 = 27(length (in miles) * risk classification category value)Represents coverage through high risk of environmental or cultural resource sensitivities and constraints1.Category 40*4 = 0(length (in miles) * risk classification category value)Represents coverage through areas presently precluded by law or regulation1.TOTAL418+60+27+0 =505Includes the sum of total lengths a transmission alternative traverses for each Risk Classification ponent 2: Alternative Description (see Section 4.1.2)Identifies the alternative extent in miles based on GIS analysis.Length (miles)458Identifies the alternative extent in miles based on GIS analysis.Capacity (megawatts)UnknownNAVoltage (kilovolts)UnknownNA1 Appendix B provides additional information and explanation.EDTFEnvironmental Data Task ForceGISgeographic information systemsLECPLeast-Environmental Cost PathNAnot availableWECCWestern Electricity Coordinating CouncilExhibit 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 AlternativeSegment: 1 of 3Stakeholder Evaluators: John Doe, Jane Doe, Bill SmithDate: 10/10/2012Data GapResource Present?Map Comments Provided?Level of risk for transmission planning?Qualitative DescriptionYesNoYesNoCultural and Historic ResourcesNRHP listed sitesUsing Risk Classification Category system (1- 4)Describe resource causing increased/decreased risk Possible mitigation?Others?NRHP DistrictsTribal burial sitesRisk Classification Category 3Tribal 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…Proposed Conservation AreasCitizen’s Proposed Wilderness AreasOther proposed conservation areas to be added…NRHP = National Register of Historic PlacesNext Steps and Items for Future ConsiderationDuring 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 StepsIssue for Future ConsiderationPotential Next StepCriteria 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 documentMitigation 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 post-hoc 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).EDTFEnvironmental Data Task ForceROWright-of-wayAppendix A: General BackgroundA.1ContextThe 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 management, distributed generation, and conservation). A.2Overall Assumptions for the Comparison ProcessThe 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. 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.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.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.Appendix B: Identifying Geospatial transmission AlternativesB.1Transmission Alternatives with Geospatial InformationFor 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.2Transmission Alternatives without Geospatial InformationThe 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 InformationExhibit 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, 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.Exhibit B-1.Illustrative Potential Application of Environmental Risk Categories to Create Geospatially Defined Transmission Alternatives for WECC Paths 8 and 14Appendix C: Data Driven Analysis Results from the Pilot Test of the Comparison ProcessC.1Pilot Test ResultsThis 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 SystemExhibit 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 ScoreWECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Environmental and Cultural Risk Score (Risk-Adjusted Miles)Risk Classification CategoryMiles CrossedEnvironmental and CulturalRisk Score(Risk Classification Category × Miles)Category 1418418Category 23060Category 3927Category 400Total458505LECP:Least-Environmental Cost PathNOTE:Due to rounding, totals may not be additive.WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECP Environmental and Cultural Risk Score (Proportional Risk Score)Risk Classification CategoryProportion of Alternative within each Category(Miles in Category/Total Miles)Environmental/CulturalRisk Score (Risk Category × Proportion of Alternative within each Category)Category 1418/458 = 0.910.91Category 230/458 = 0.0650.13Category 39/458 = 0.1960.06Category 40/458 = 00Total1.10LECP:Least-Environmental Cost PathNOTE: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 LECPArea Type (organized by Risk Classification Category)Risk Classification CategoryTransmission Alternative Length (miles)Designated Energy Corridor10.40Existing Transmission Rights-of-way111.90Area Following Existing Linear Corridor1392.80Multiple Overlapping Category 1113.30Other Public Land24.80Other Land Administered by U.S. Federal Agencies (BLM)23.00Other State Managed Lands20.80Private Land - Unknown Restriction21.60Private Land - Unrestricted for Development20.40Agricultural Land (excluding Prime Farmland)20.40Important Bird Area (State-level)21.20Urban Fringe Area218.30State Wildlife Area30.10National Recreation Area (USFS)30.40Habitat Areas for Candidate or Listed Wildlife Species Mapped by State, Provincial, or Federal Agencies32.10State Mapped Crucial Big Game Winter Range/Severe Winter Range30.90U.S. Forest Service Roadless Area31.50Multiple Overlapping Category 333.90TOTAL-458NOTE:In locations where more than one area type overlapped, only the area type with the highest Risk Classification Category would be reported.BLMBureau of Land ManagementLECPLeast-Environmental Cost PathUSFSU.S. Forest ServiceExhibit C-3.Number of Area Types Crossed by WECC Paths 8 and 14 LECPRisk Classification CategoryNumber of Area Types14283640C.1.2.Applying the Alternative Description MetricsA 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 Description1Transmission Alternative ElementLECPNorthern AlternativeSouthern AlternativeLength (miles)458567585Voltage (AC or DC)unknownunknownunknownCapacity (megawatts)unknownunknownunknownType of alternative (e.g., new, reconductoring, AC, DC, single-circuit, double-circuit)unknownunknownunknown1For 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.ACalternating currentCCTACommon Case Transmission AssumptionsDCdirect currentLECPLeast-Environmental Cost PathLTPTLong Term Planning ToolWECCWestern Electricity Coordinating CouncilAppendix D: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTING COMPARISON PROCESS1 Stakeholder Engagement in the EDTF Comparison ProcessThe 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 2Step 1* 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: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:Employ robust stakeholder engagement to continually improve the validity and acceptability of:The EDTF’s preferred data sets and their assigned risk classification categories The score for environmental and cultural risk (based on proportional risk score and risk-adjusted miles score) from the EDTF Comparison ProcessIdentify 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 activitiesIdentifying environmental and cultural resource related policy decisions that should be further explored in state, provincial, and federal policy arenasPrinciples Applicable to All Process Steps:The process and information will be publicly transparent and accessible The process must be open to all stakeholders in accordance with FERC Order 890 principlesThe 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:The process will be applied toward transmission alternatives of regional significance as defined by the TEPPC Planning Protocol (typically multi-state alternatives)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).The EDTF requests that stakeholders generally engage at a broader-than-local scaleThe EDTF will review and consider incorporation of new or additional information that is consistent with EDTF protocols and processesThe EDTF will assist stakeholders with engaging in the processStep 1: Assist in Filling Data GapsThe EDTF will:October 2012. Identify data gaps that need to be filled, including:Cultural resource information and levels of riskProposed conservation areasOther gaps TBDOctober 2012. Identify experts with a broad knowledge base to identify ways to fill data gaps throughout the Western Interconnection. These experts may include:Federal/state/provincial resource agency staffTribal/First Nation representativesAcademiciansNGO topical specialistsEnvironmental and cultural community representativesEDTF membersOthers as determined appropriateOctober 2012. Develop a memo outlining existing and known missing dataNovember 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.December 2012. Meet to discuss data sets and ideas for filling data gaps received from experts. Conduct an in-person 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.December 2012. Outcomes of meetings will include:Data sets/workarounds and associated risk classifications that workshop participants recommend that the EDTF adopt, including rationaleData sets/workarounds considered and not recommended for EDTF adoption, including rationaleMeeting 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: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. 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:Existing WECC committees, task-forces, and subcommitteesSubregional planning groupsRelevant federal agenciesConferences and forumsWECC correspondence LISTSERV? and LISTSERVs? maintained by WECC stakeholders and stakeholder representativesOwners of EDTF data setsOther forums and interested entities as appropriateSeptember 1, 2012 - January 31, 2013. Provide a five-month window for submission of data sets and associated proposed risk classification category assignments. 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 CategoriesThe 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-per-mile score (adapted from the risk-adjusted miles score). The EDTF would then identify the set of least-environmental/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: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.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:Federal/state/provincial resource agency staffTribal/First Nation representativesAcademiciansNGO topical specialistsEnvironmental and cultural community representativesEDTF membersOthers as determined appropriateNovember 2012 – January 2013. Invite experts to the in-person meeting(s)/workshop(s), as well as publicize these events. 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.)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 WECCJune 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.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. 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 MatrixTransmission Alternative: xxSegment: 1 of 3Stakeholder Evaluators: xxDate: xxData GapResource Present?Map Comments Provided?Level of risk for transmission planning?Qualitative DescriptionYesNoYesNoCultural and Historic ResourcesNRHP listed sitesUsing Risk Classification Category system (1- 4)Describe resource causing increased/decreased risk Possible mitigation?Others?NRHP DistrictsTribal burial sitesOther cultural/tribal/historic resources to be added…Proposed Conservation AreasCitizen’s Proposed Wilderness AreasOther proposed conservation areas to be added…NRHP = National Register of Historic Places2 Process and Governance for EDTF Stakeholder EngagementThe following text provides additional details regarding stakeholder participation and EDTF decision-making for Comparison Process stakeholder engagement activities. Stakeholder OutreachThe 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 MeetingsAll 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. Appendix E: Other Foundational EDTF DocumentsExhibit E-1.Other EDTF Foundational Documents and their LocationsDocumentURLChange Log Inventory Spreadsheet Quality Protocol Recommendations for Transmission Planning Classification System Update and Review Protocol’s Manual Log ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download