DOCSLIB.ORG

ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES by FUEL (As Named As of March 4 for the Period Between Feb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES by FUEL (As Named As of March 4 for the Period Between Feb ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name Unit Name Seasonal M.. MW Reduct.. Fuel Type CITY OF AUSTIN DBA COAL FAYETTE PLANT COAL AUSTIN ENERGY (RE) FPP_G1 603 453 ENERGY STORAGE 1 AND 2 LOWER COLORADO RIVE.. HYDRO NATURAL GAS COLETO CREEK POWER LLC COLETO CREEK COLETOG1 655 655 NUCLEAR (RE) SOLAR UNKNOWN CPS ENERGY (RE) CALAVERAS JKS1 560 315 WIND 410 412 424 560 JKS2 785 0 LOWER COLORADO RIVER Sandy Creek UNIT1 933 73 AUTHORITY (RE) Energy Station SANDY CREEK ENERGY ASSOCIATES LP (RE) 933 BRAZOS SANDY CREEK EL.. NRG TEXAS POWER LLC LIMESTONE LEG_G1 824 262 (RE) PLANT 301 LEG_G2 836 194 290 396 836 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name Unit Name Seasonal M.. 3M9W6 Reduct.. Fuel Type COAL NRG TEXAS POWER LLC LIMESTONE LEG_G2 836 COAL (RE) PLANT 836 ENERGY STORAGE HYDRO NATURAL GAS WA PARISH WAP_G5 664 80 NUCLEAR SOLAR UNKNOWN 136 WIND 146 664 WAP_G7 577 22 51 58 61 300 577 OAK GROVE MANAGEMENT OAK GROVE SES UNIT1A 855 855 COMPANY LLC (RE) UNIT2 855 855 BLUE SUMMIT STORAGE ENERGY BLUE SUMMIT BATTERY 30 15 LLC (RE) STORAGE COMMERCE ST CPS ENERGY (RE) SWRI 10 10 ESS KEY CAPTURE ENERGY LLC PORT LAVACA BESS1 10 10 2 (RE) BATT ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) COMMERCE ST Fuel Type CRPeSso EuNrcEeR EGnYt (itRyE) EStSaStion Name SUWniRt NI ame 1Se0asonal M.. 1M0W Reduct.. Fuel Type ENERGY COAL KEY CAPTURE ENERGY LLC PORT LAVACA STORAGE BESS1 10 10 ENERGY STORAGE 2 (RE) BATT HYDRO NATURAL GAS KEY CAPTURE ENERGY LLC FLAT TOP BATT BESS1 10 10 NUCLEAR (RE) SOLAR UNKNOWN WORSHAM BESS1 10 10 WIND BATT NRG TEXAS POWER LLC TOSBATT UNIT1 2 2 (RE) SWOOSE LLC (RE) SWOOSE1 BESS SWOOSEU1 10 10 UPTON COUNTY SOLAR 2 CASTLE GAP BATTERY1 10 2 LLC (RE) VIRIDITY ENERGY RABBIT HILL ESS ESS_1 10 10 SOLUTIONS INC (RE) THE DOW CHEMICAL CO HYDRO DOW DOW_ST95 50 50 (RE) NATURAL AIR LIQUIDE LARGE BAYOU COGEN BYU_G1 90 90 GAS INDUSTRIES US LP (RE) BYU_G2 90 90 BYU_G3 90 90 BYU_G4 90 90 BARNEY DAVIS LLC (RE) BARNEY DAVIS B_DAVIG2 325 0 25 110 162 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name Unit Name Seasonal M.. 1M1W0 Reduct.. Fuel Type NATURAL BARNEY DAVIS LLC (RE) BARNEY DAVIS B_DAVIG2 325 COAL GAS 162 ENERGY STORAGE HYDRO NATURAL GAS 185 NUCLEAR SOLAR UNKNOWN 215 WIND 240 245 325 B_DAVIG3 165 0 15 165 B_DAVIG4 165 0 5 15 165 BASTROP ENERGY BASTROP GTG1100 167 27 PARTNERS LP (RE) ENERGY CENTER 34 142 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name Unit Name Seasonal M.. 3M4W Reduct.. Fuel Type NATURAL BASTROP ENERGY BASTROP GTG1100 167 COAL GAS PARTNERS LP (RE) ENERGY 142 ENERGY STORAGE CENTER HYDRO NATURAL GAS 167 NUCLEAR SOLAR UNKNOWN GTG2100 167 0 WIND 35 167 ST0100 234 0 234 BLUE CUBE OPERATIONS DOW DOW_G37 66 66 LLC (RE) DOW_G61 76 76 DOW_G66 107 107 DOW_G67 107 107 BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWER JACK COUNTY CT1 160 160 CO OP INC (RE) CT2 160 40 160 STG 293 233 293 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name Unit Name Seasonal M.. 2M3W3 Reduct.. Fuel Type NATURAL BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWER JACK COUNTY STG 293 COAL GAS CO OP INC (RE) 293 ENERGY STORAGE HYDRO NATURAL GAS JACK COUNTY 2 CT3 165 65 NUCLEAR PLANT SOLAR UNKNOWN 165 WIND CT4 165 65 165 ST2 310 165 310 MILLER MILLERG2 120 75 120 MILLERG3 208 93 118 208 MILLERG5 115 15 20 115 77 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity MStIaLtLiEoRn Name MUnILitL NERaGm5e 1Se1a5sonal M.. 1M1W5 Reduct.. Fuel Type NATURAL BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWER COAL GAS CO OP INC (RE) TENASKA CT1 177 77 ENERGY STORAGE (BRAZOS) HYDRO NATURAL GAS 177 NUCLEAR SOLAR UNKNOWN STG 106 6 WIND 106 BROWNSVILLE PUBLIC SILAS RAY UTILITIES BOARD SILAS SILAS_10 46 28 POWER PLANT RAY (RE) BRYAN TEXAS UTILITIES ATKINS ATKINSG7 20 15 (RE) BRYN_DANSBY DANSBYG1 110 38 41 DANSBYG2 48 9 CALPINE CORP (RE) BAYTOWN BTE_G1 195 105 ENERGY CENTER 195 BTE_G2 152 152 BTE_G3 153 153 BTE_G4 152 152 BOSQUE BSQSU_3 169 59 SWITCH 149 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name Unit Name Seasonal M.. 5M9W Reduct.. Fuel Type NATURAL CALPINE CORP (RE) BOSQUE BSQSU_3 169 COAL GAS SWITCH 149 ENERGY STORAGE HYDRO NATURAL GAS 169 NUCLEAR SOLAR UNKNOWN BSQSU_4 85 17 WIND 85 BRAZOS VALLEY UNIT1 168 168 ENERGY UNIT2 168 168 UNIT3 270 150 270 Corpus Christi GT1 141 141 Energy Center GT2 141 141 ST1 139 62 139 DEER PARK GT1 203 203 ENERGY CENTER GT3 203 203 GT6 190 190 ST1 290 290 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name GUnT6it Name 1Se9a0sonal M.. 1M9W0 Reduct.. Fuel Type NATURAL CALPINE CORP (RE) DEER PARK COAL GAS ENERGY ST1 290 290 ENERGY STORAGE CENTER HYDRO NATURAL GAS Freestone GT4 161 161 NUCLEAR Energy Center SOLAR UNKNOWN GT5 161 161 WIND ST6 180 105 180 GUADALUPE GAS1 167 167 GEN GAS2 167 167 STM5 203 103 NORTH NEDIN_G1 219 219 EDINBURG NEDIN_G3 258 20 138 PASGEN PSG_GT2 176 176 PSG_GT3 176 176 PSG_ST2 169 84 169 CTB 102 102 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity SPtAaStGioEnN Name PUSnGit_ NSaTm2 e 1Se6a9sonal M.. 1M6W9 Reduct.. Fuel Type NATURAL CALPINE CORP (RE) COAL GAS TEXAS CITY GEN CTB 102 102 ENERGY STORAGE HYDRO NATURAL GAS ST 131 41 NUCLEAR SOLAR UNKNOWN CHAMON POWER LLC (RE) CHAMON CTG_0101 50 11 WIND POWER CTG_0301 50 12 CITY OF AUSTIN DBA DECKER POWER DPG2 428 428 AUSTIN ENERGY (RE) PLANT DPGT_3 54 29 54 SAND HILL SH1 48 7 ENERGY CTR SH3 48 48 SH4 48 48 SH7 48 48 SH_5A 175 175 SH_5C 150 150 CITY OF GARLAND (RE) OLINGER OLING_3 146 12 16 146 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb. 14–Feb. 19, 2021. Source: ERCOT) Note: Circles on the right represent size of MW reduced during outage/derate incidents. Number of circles represents outage/derate incidents indicated for each unit. Copyright: POWER magazine (2021) Fuel Type Resource Entity Station Name Unit Name Seasonal M.. 1M6W Reduct.. Fuel Type NATURAL CITY OF GARLAND (RE) OLINGER OLING_3 146 COAL GAS 146 ENERGY STORAGE HYDRO NATURAL GAS COLORADO BEND I POWER Colorado Bend GT3 87 87 NUCLEAR LLC (RE) Energy Center SOLAR UNKNOWN STG2 110 65 WIND COLORADO BEND II POWER COLORADO CT7 360 360 LLC (RE) BEND II CT8 360 360 STG9 491 33 128 491 CPS ENERGY 1 (RE) RIO NOGALES CT3 183 23 POWER PROJECT 183 ST1 308 0 133 CPS ENERGY (RE) BRAUNIG AVR1_CT1 169 12 68 169 12 ERCOT GENERATOR OUTAGES BY FUEL (As named as of March 4 for the period between Feb.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceived Risk and Response to the Wind Turbine Ice Throw
    PERCEIVED RISK AND RESPONSE TO THE WIND TURBINE ICE THROW HAZARD: COMPARING COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL IN TWO REGIONS OF TEXAS by Greg Klaus, B.S., M.A.G. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a major in Environmental Geography May 2017 Committee Members: Denise Blanchard-Boehm, Chair Richard Dixon Richard Earl Todd Moore COPYRIGHT by Greg Klaus 2017 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Greg Klaus, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. DEDICATION The author would like to dedicate this dissertation to the men and women who work in the wind energy industry who at times put themselves in harm’s way in order to provide for their families and also supply this great nation with a clean, renewable source of electricity. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank his committee chair Dr. Denise Blanchard for all of her support and guidance throughout the dissertation process; as well as thank committee members Dr. Richard Dixon, Dr. Richard Earl, and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Alta East Avian Report
    Appendix D-8 Avian Baseline Studies 2011 Avian Baseline Studies at the Alta East Wind Resource Area Kern County, California Final Report July 10, 2010 – June 1, 2011 Prepared for: CH2M HILL 155 Grand Avenue Oakland, California 94612 Prepared by: Andrea Chatfield, Wallace Erickson, and Kimberly Bay Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 July 13, 2011 NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS Alta East Final Avian Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July of 2010, on behalf of CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. and Alta Windpower, LLC (Alta Windpower), Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) initiated a second year of avian studies in the Alta East Wind Resource Area (AEWRA) in Kern County, California. The results of the first year of avian studies conducted at the proposed wind energy facility in 2009 and 2010 indicated that a facility at the AEWRA, with appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, would not have significant impacts to any avian species. During the 2009 – 2010 surveys, use by golden eagles and two golden eagle nests were documented in areas outside the AEWRA boundary. The use by golden eagles occurred to the north, northeast, and west of the current AEWRA boundary, while the nests were located approximately 3.5 and 11 miles (5.6 and 17.7 kilometers [km]) from the boundary. The project boundary was modified to avoid this area of documented use by eagles and a second year of avian study was initiated. The following document presents results of fixed-point bird use surveys and raptor nest surveys conducted during the second year of baseline avian studies at the AEWRA in 2010 - 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SPATIAL ASPECTS of the WIND FARMS IMPACT on the Environmentboško Josimović SPECIAL ISSUES No
    About the Author 89 ISSUES No. SPECIAL THE SPATIAL ASPECTS Inserts from reviews Boško Josimović was born in 1974 in the Belgrade neighbourhood of Zemun, where he finished elementary and secondary school. He graduated in 2000 OF THE WIND FARMS IMPACT from the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geography, Department of Spatial Planning, completing a BA thesis “The Urban Development of the Town of Novi Bečej”. He obtained an MA degree in 2003, defending a thesis titled ’The monograph “The Spatial Aspects of the Wind Farm Impact on “The Implementation of an Environmental Management System in Spatial ON THE ENVIRONMENT the Environment” by Dr Boško Josimović examines thoroughly a Planning”, and a PhD in 2008, with a dissertation titled “The Spatial Aspect in specific aspect of the environmental impact assessment of wind Managing Communal Waste in the Region of Kolubara”. Both his MA and PhD farms, also applicable in developing strategic environmental theses were defended in the Spatial Research and Planning programme at the assessments. The author underscores the possibility and significance University of Belgrade’s Faculty of Geography. Boško Josimović Boško of applying the concept of preventive environmental protection Between 2002 and 2003 he was attached to the Institute of Architecture and BOŠKO JOSIMOVIĆ as the most efficient principle of protection, which can be applied Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia (IAUS) on a scholarship from the Ministry in the process of assessing the strategic impact of wind farm plans of Science, Technology and Development of the Republic of Serbia. He gained on the environment. The monograph has a firm scientific grounding employment at IAUS in 2003 and is still employed there.
    [Show full text]
  • A BIBLIOGRAPHY of BAT FATALITY, ACTIVITY, and INTERACTIONS with WIND TURBINES
    A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BAT FATALITY, ACTIVITY, and INTERACTIONS WITH WIND TURBINES Prepared by: Gregory D. Johnson Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 2003 Central Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82001 and Edward B. Arnett and Cris D. Hein Bat Conservation International P.O. Box 162603 Austin, TX 78716 1 June 2004 (Updated February 2014) Unpublished Reports on Bat Fatality and Interactions at Wind Facilities in North America Anderson, R. L., D. Strickland, J. Tom, N. Neumann, W. Erickson, J. Cleckler, G. Mayorga, G. Nuhn, A. Leuders, J. Schneider, L. Backus, P. Becker and N. Flagg. 2000. Avian monitoring and risk assessment at Tehachapi Pass and San Gorgonio Pass wind resource areas, California: Phase 1 preliminary results. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 3:31-46. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C. Download File Arnett, E. B., editor. 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, USA. Download File Arnett, E. B., J. P. Hayes, and M. M. P. Huso. 2006. Patterns of pre-construction bat activity at a proposed wind facility in south-central Pennsylvania. An annual report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA. Download File Arnett, E. B., M. D. Strickland, M. L. Morrison. 2007. Renewable energy resources and wildlife: impacts and opportunities. Transactions of the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 72: 65–95.
    [Show full text]
  • Etapy Rozwoju Energetyki Wiatrowej W Województwie Kujawsko-Pomorskim
    Moduł E1 Etapy rozwoju energetyki wiatrowej w województwie kujawsko-pomorskim Koordynator modułu - dr Dariusz Brykała Autorzy: Prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Podgórski Mgr Łukasz Sarnowski 1 5.1.1. Etapy rozwoju energetyki wiatrowej na świecie i w Europie Początki wykorzystania przez człowieka energii wiatru są trudne do jednoznacznego określe- nia. Egipcjanie już 2000 lat przed naszą erą wykorzystywali energię wiatru do napędu swoich łodzi. Z Kodeksu Hammurabiego (ok. 1750 r. p.n.e.) wynika, że energia wiatru była wykorzystywana również w Persji. W Indiach w IV w. p.n.e. powstał pierwszy opis zastosowania wiatraka do pompowania wody, a już w II wieku p.n.e w Chinach stosowano wiatraki w kształcie kołowrotów do nawadniania pól uprawnych. Na początku naszej ery wiatraki pojawiły się w krajach basenu Morza Śródziemnego. Rok 644 n.e. uznany został za datę pierwszej udokumentowanej wzmianki o wiatrakach. Pierwsze wiatraki europejskie pojawiły się w Anglii w IX wieku, we Francji w XI wieku, a od wieku XIII upowszechniły się w Europie Zachodniej. Najstarszy obraz wiatraka w Europie znajduje się na inicjale pierwszej strony rękopisu angielskiego z 1270 r. Pierwotnie wiatrak był drewnianą "bud- ką", którą obracano wokół centralnie usytuowanego słupa, tak aby ustawić skrzydła na wiatr. Rewo- lucji w konstrukcji wiatraków dokonali Holendrzy, którzy wprowadzili konstrukcje czteroskrzydłowe. Miało to miejsce w 1390 r. Rozwój wiatraków typu „holendrów” przypadł w Europie na XVII wiek. W roku 1745 angielski konstruktor Edmund Lee wprowadził w budowie wiatraka pomocnicze koło kie- rujące automatycznie wiatrak w stronę wiatru. Największy rozkwit wiatraków miał miejsce w poło- wie XIX wieku. W Europie pracowało wówczas około 200 tysięcy tego typu obiektów (Lerch, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Costs and Emissions Reductions from the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) Wind Transmission Project in Texas
    Costs and Emissions Reductions from the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) Wind Transmission Project in Texas Gabriel Kwok* and Tyler Greathouse† *Dr. Dalia Patiño-Echeverri, Advisor †Dr. Lori Bennear, Advisor May 2011 Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University 2011 Abstract Wind power has the potential to significantly reduce air emissions from the electric power sector, but the best wind sites are located far from load centers and will require new transmission lines. Texas currently has the largest installed wind power capacity in the U.S., but a lack of transmission capacity between the western part of the state, where most wind farms are located, and the major load centers in the east has led to frequent wind curtailments. State policymakers have addressed this issue by approving a $5 billion transmission project, the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ), which will expand the transmission capacity to 18,456 MW by 2014. In this paper, we examine the impacts of large-scale wind power in ERCOT, the power market that serves 85% of the state’s load, after the completion of the CREZ project. We assess the generation displaced and the resulting emissions reductions. We then examine the public costs of wind to estimate the CO2 abatement cost. We develop an economic dispatch model of ERCOT to quantify the generation displaced by wind power and the emissions reductions in 2014. Since there is uncertainty about the amount of new wind developed between now and 2014, three wind penetration scenarios were assessed that correspond to wind supplying 9%, 14% and 21% of ERCOT’s total generation.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Annual Report on the Texas Renewable Energy Trading Program
    Attachment A 2013 Annual Report on the REC Program This Report complies with the requirements of P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.173(g)(11) and ERCOT Protocol Section 14.13. Exhibits 1-6 contain Protected Information as defined in P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.362 and ERCOT Protocol Section 1.3, and are filed as confidential information. Participants in the Renewable Energy Credit (REC) Program (collectively, the REC Program) may view their information (used in the creation of the confidential exhibits) through their online REC accounts. I. Existing and New Renewable Capacity New renewable generation capacity in the REC Program increased in 2013. There are currently 146 REC generation accounts with a registered capacity of 13,358.5 megawatts (MW). There are a total of five (5) offset generator accounts with a total of 291 MW of capacity. This renewable generation capacity exceeds the 2025 target of 10,000 MW of installed renewable generation capacity in the state that is set forth in Section 39.904 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). Technology Offset Gen New MW Offset MW Total Current REC Gen Accts Type Accts Capacity Capacity MW Capacity Biomass 8 0 231.6 0 231.6 Hydro 2 2 33.1 178.5 211.6 Landfill Gas 15 1 94.8 3.3 98.1 Solar 15 0 174.9 0 174.9 Wind 106 2 12,824.1 109.2 12,933.3 Total 146 5 13,358.5 291 13,649.5 NOTE: The REC Program tracks renewable generation in Texas, including ERCOT and all other regions of Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E Market-Based Rate Application and Notice of Self
    Public Version Appendix E Market-Based Rate Application and Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status Public Version UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) Neosho Ridge Wind, LLC ) Docket No. ER20- -000 ) APPLICATION OF NEOSHO RIDGE WIND, LLC FOR ORDER ACCEPTING INITIAL MARKET-BASED RATE TARIFF AND GRANTING BLANKET APPROVALS, INCLUDING BLANKET APPROVAL UNDER PART 34 FOR ISSUANCES OF SECURITIES AND ASSUMPTIONS OF LIABILITIES AND REQUEST FOR WAIVERS Pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”),1 and Part 35 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (the “Commission”) regulations,2 Neosho Ridge Wind, LLC (“Applicant” or “Neosho Ridge”) hereby requests that the Commission: (i) accept for filing Applicant’s Market-Based Rate Tariff (the “Tariff”);3 (ii) grant Applicant blanket authorization to make wholesale sales of electric energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Tariff; and (iii) grant such other waivers and authorizations granted to other market-based rate sellers, including blanket approval under Part 34 for the future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities4 (“Application”). Applicant is a Category 2 Seller in the Southwest Power Pool region and a Category 1 Seller in all other regions. Applicant seeks waiver of the prior notice filing requirement and an August 28, 2020, effective date for its Tariff. In support hereof, Applicant states as follows: 1 16 U.S.C. § 824d (2019). 2 18 C.F.R. Part 35 (2019). 3 The Tariff is provided as Attachment A. 4 See 18 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Background on FERC Docket No. NP19-4-000
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NERC Full Notice of Penalty regarding ) [Redacted in Public Version of NOP] ) Docket No. NP19‐4‐000 ) MOTION TO INTERVENE Submitted to FERC on February 21, 2019 Michael Mabee, a private citizen, requests the Commission’s leave to intervene in the above captioned docket, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 39.7(e)(4). I request that 1) the Commission review this Notice of Penalty (NOP) to ensure that it is in the public interest, and 2) that the name of the entities(s), the unredacted Notice of Penalty and the unredacted settlement agreement be released in the public docket. NERC has made redactions to the publicly available documents, alleging the identities and other identifying information about Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards violators must be kept from the public. The lack of transparency in this Notice of Penalty raise significant public interest concerns. Background on FERC Docket No. NP19‐4‐000 On January 25, 2019, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) filed a Notice of Penalty with FERC that disclosed 127 cybersecurity standard violations by unidentified “Companies.”1 NERC and its Regional Entities (RE) determined: [T]he 127 violations collectively posed a serious risk to the security and reliability of the BPS (Bulk Power System). The Companies’ violations of the CIP Reliability Standards posed a higher risk to the reliability of the BPS because many of the violations involved long durations, multiple instances of noncompliance,
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549
    Michael Mabee (516) 808‐0883 [email protected] www.MichaelMabee.info October 26, 2019 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549 Subject: Failure of investor owned electric utilities to disclose cybersecurity risk. Dear Commissioners: I am a citizen who conducts public interest research on the security of the electric grid. I have conducted several recent studies which raise significant regulatory red flags, not the least of which is a massive cybersecurity risk coverup in the electric utility industry. I believe that cybersecurity risk is not being disclosed to shareholders (as well as ratepayers, Congress and state regulators). The purveyors of this coverup are the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) aided and abetted by the entire electric utility industry, which consists of many publicly traded companies. Exhibit A is a list of most of the “Investor Owned Utilities” from the industry group Edison Electric Institute’s member list.1 Exhibit B is a list of the NERC Regulated Entities downloaded on October 26, 2019 from NERC’s website.2 This list includes both investor owned and publicly owned utilities. As detailed in the attached report of my research (Exhibit C), which I filed with FERC on October 25, 2019, I have been conducting an investigation since March of 2018 into NERC’s practice of withholding the identities of Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards violators from the public. CIP standards include the standards for cybersecurity as well as physical security of critical facilities. This investigation has revealed that from July of 2010 through September of 2019 there had been 256 FERC dockets involving almost 1,500 “Unidentified Registered Entities.”3 In each of these instances, the identity of the regulatory violator was withheld from 1 See: https://www.eei.org/about/members/uselectriccompanies/Pages/default.aspx (accessed October 26, 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Energy and U.S. National Security
    ADVANCED ENERGY AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY CNA Military Advisory Board | June 2017 UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION Cover images (from left to right): Darrieus vertical axis wind turbines; Biofuel research; The Pearl River Tower, in Guangdong Province, China. Recommended citation: CNA Military Advisory Board, 2017. Advanced Energy and U.S. National Security. CNA. CNA is a not-for-profit research and analysis organization dedicated to developing actionable solutions to complex problems of national importance. Approved for Unlimited Distribution Cheryl B. Rosenblum Executive Director, CNA Military Advisory Board This report was developed with the support of the Tellus Mater Foundation and the Energy Foundation. Copyright© 2017 CNA ADVANCED ENERGY AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY To the reader: It is undeniable that the global energy landscape is changing. Burgeoning populations in South Asia and Africa, together with rising affluence, are shifting major centers of demand away from Europe and the U.S. and increasing the world’s overall demand for energy. At the same time, new technologies are making clean, affordable advanced energy widely available as well as allowing the extraction of fossil fuels from previously inaccessible sources. We see this combination of rising energy demand and the growing number of affordable energy choices as a tectonic shift in the global energy posture, one likely to impact every nation. As new energy options emerge to meet global demand, nations that lead stand to gain; should the U.S. sit on the sidelines, it does so at considerable risk to our national security. U.S. leadership in advanced energy development and deployment can yield domestic and international opportunities across our national security spectrum.
    [Show full text]