Kevin Fink POLS 30595 12 November 2013 Assessment of Chiles Servicio de Evaluacin Ambiental Chiles sustained economic growth

in the last thirty years has brought with it increased energy demands that now present significant challenges for the country moving forward. In 2012, the Chilean government published a national energy strategy for 2012 through 2030, in which they predict an annual 6-7 percent increase in energy demand that requires over 8,000 megawatts of new electricity to be achieved through new power plants by 2020. Currently, three fuel sources, coal, natural gas imported from Argentina, and large hydropower, satisfy 97% of Chiles energy demands (www.gob.cl). As Chiles energy demands continue to grow, it has no choice but to break its current dependence on fossil fuels and large hydropower. Not only do these options present significant costs, especially considering Chiles reliance on foreign natural gas, but they also carry serious environmental risks. Non-conventional renewable energy sources (NCREs), namely wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and micro-hydropower, represent the future of energy generation in Chile. These fuel sources significantly reduce long-term production costs and, if planned and implemented correctly, have very minimal environmental impact. In its 2008, legislation was created in Chile that requires 10% of the countrys energy demand to be satisfied by NCREs by 2024. Chile presents the perfect arena for a large scale push towards NCREs. The countrys northern desert r egions, in particular, possess large potential for wind and solar power generation. This potential, however, has largely remained untapped. Currently in Chile, the capacity of solar plants that are operational or under construction represent only 1.78% of the countrys solar power potential, and the existing wind farms achieve a mere 0.78% of the countries wind power potential (von Hatzfeldt). This failure to utilize Chiles capacity for NCREs is not a result of insufficient project proposals, but rather an inability

to efficiently move projects from conception to reality. According to 2012 energy strategy, more than 90% of proposed NCRE projects have yet to reach the construction stage. One of the primary causes of the significant delays associated with renewable energy projects is the application for permit through Chiles Servicio de Evaluacin Ambiental (SEA), which performs an environmental impact assessment on every proposed energy project. Ensuring environmental sustainability remains at the forefront of Chiles focuses regarding renewable energy projects, and the delays caused by the environmental permit process present quite the dilemma as Chile attempts to balance the pressing need for new energy sources and their commitment to environmentally friendly options. This paper explores the process followed for permit acquisition though SEA and suggests improvements to the process that would not hinder SEA ability to identify environmentally hazardous project concepts. As the first step for companies or organizations applying for environmental permit, the SEA requires the company to provide an environmental impact study that describes, in depth, the predicted environmental impacts of the project in question, the countermeasures the company plans to take to limit the impact, and substantial due diligence meant to demonstrate a complete understanding of the potential effects of the project. In order for an environmental impact study to be accepted for review by the SEA, the company must first prove that the project does not pose any significant health risks, negatively affect the quality or quantity of renewable resources such as soil and water, displace populations, impose on protected lands, or present a potential decrease in tourist activity. If these qualifications are met, the SEA initiates the review process by sending the impact study to all related state and local agencies (Maxwell). The agencies then have 120 days to review the impact study and request changes or additions (Maxwell). After this period has elapsed the agencies involved vote to decide whether the proposal is approved,

denied, or sent back to the company with all of the agencies requested clarificatio ns, corrections, and additions. If the agencies vote to send the assessment back for revision, the company then submits a revised version that is once again circulated to the relevant agencies, and the process continues in this manner until the agencies are satisfied with the impact assessment. Importantly, all impact studies are available to the public, and the SEA accepts comments from any individual or group concerned about the effects of the project. If at any point the agencies vote to approve the project, the SEA issues a Resolucion de Calificacin Ambiental (RCA) that formally allows the company to proceed with construction. The SEA project approval process has been suggested to favor the companies proposing projects by limiting the time government agencies have to review proposals while giving companies unlimited time to make changes to their proposals. Despite these arguments that the SEA is tailored to push development projects through the permit process, many projects have experienced the opposite effect. One such project, Sarco Windfarm, applied for SEA approval in October of 2012 and just received its third round of clarification and correction requests from the involved government agencies. The project would create 95 wind turbines that together would generate 240 megawatts of electricity, more than doubling the countries wind power capacity. Rather, the company has spent more than a year applying and reapplying for permit, submitting a revised version of their proposal and waiting helplessly through four months of review. Admittedly, wind turbines possess the greatest environmental effects among NCREs, largely due to the dangers wind farms present for flying wildlife, and many of the additions requested by the government agencies represent legitimate concerns. If energy projects such as Sacro Windfarm continue to face permit processes that take years to complete, however, Chile seems unlikely to reach its 2024 goal.

Chile has declared its desire to become a worldwide model for renewable energy and has committed itself to developing economically sustainable and environmental conscious energy sources. Half of this battle, therefore, requires a stringent review process that prohibits the implementation of project ideas that could potentially endanger the environment. While environmental protection is an essential component to the future of energy production in Chile, the current methods used to ensure that environmental standards are upheld appear to present speed bumps that directly oppose Chiles efforts to dramatically shift their energy dependence to NCREs in the next decade. The important question, therefore, regards how the SEA review process can be reformed to reduce the length of the process while continuing to serve as an effective identifier of projects with large potential for negative environmental impact. Firstly, it appears that every company uses the same template for their impact study, regardless of the type of power plant being proposed. The SEA needs to developed individual impact study templates for each energy type (ie. wind, solar, etc.) that take into account the unique environmental concerns associated with each NCRE. Additionally, the SEAs freedom to request an unlimited amount of application revisions that each allows four addition months for review seems to significantly reduce the likelihood of efficient permit review. Rather, if the SEA and the relevant government agencies are restricted to one request for revision and are bound to approve the revision if the concerns raised are properly addressed, it would largely eliminate the uncertainties surrounding the timeframe associated with permit acquisition. Large questions still exist regarding how to balance the need for environmental protection with the desire to rapidly increase the amount of operational NCRE sources in Chile. Chile must find ways to improve the efficiency of SEA without sacrificing its ability to identify and eliminate projects that do not support environmental sustainability if it wishes to achieve its 2024 targets.

Work Cited and Consulted Government of Chile. National Energy Strategy 2012 -2030. Energy for the Future. February 2012. Web. 10 November 2013. < http://www.kallman.com/shows/iftenergy_2012/pdfs/ Energy-for-the-Future-Chile's-National-Energy-Strategy-2012-2030-English.pdf> Maxwell, Amanda. We May be Here for a While: Chiles Environmental Review Process. NDRC Switchboard. 14 December 2009. Web. 10 November 2013. < http://switchboard .nrdc.org/blogs/amaxwell/we_may_be_here_for_a_while_chi.html> Servicio de Evaluacin Ambiental. 2013. Web. 10 November 2013. < http://www.sea.gob.cl/> von Hatzfeldt, Sophie. The Rise of Latin America: Renewable Energy in Chile: Barrie rs and the Role of Public Policy. Columbia Journal of International Affairs. 2013. Web. 10 November 2013. < http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/renewable-energy-chile#_edn26>