DOCSLIB.ORG

Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Annual Market Assessment Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Client Contact Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman Award Number DE-EE0005360 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 Bedford Street Suite 400 Burlington, MA 01803-5154 781.270.8314 www.navigant.com February 22, 2013 U.S. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Annual Market Assessment Document Number DE-EE0005360 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Michael Hahn Patrick Gilman Prepared by: Navigant Consulting, Inc. Lisa Frantzis, Principal Investigator Lindsay Battenberg Mark Bielecki Charlie Bloch Terese Decker Bruce Hamilton Aris Karcanias Birger Madsen Jay Paidipati Andy Wickless Feng Zhao Navigant Consortium Member Organizations Key Contributors American Wind Energy Association Jeff Anthony and Chris Long Great Lakes Wind Collaborative John Hummer and Victoria Pebbles Green Giraffe Energy Bankers Marie DeGraaf, Jérôme Guillet, and Niels Jongste National Renewable Energy Laboratory Eric Lantz Ocean & Coastal Consultants (a COWI company) Brent D. Cooper, P.E., Joe Marrone, P.E., and Stanley M. White, P.E., D.PE, D.CE Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Michael D. Ernst, Esq. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Page ii Document Number DE-EE0005360 Notice and Disclaimer This report was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the exclusive use of the U.S. Department of Energy – who supported this effort under Award Number DE-EE0005360. The work presented in this report represents our best efforts and judgments based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report. NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. Readers of the report are advised that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, or the data, information, findings and opinions contained in the report. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. This report is being disseminated by the Department of Energy. As such, the document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and information quality guidelines issued by the Department of Energy. Though this report does not constitute “influential” information, as that term is defined in DOE’s information quality guidelines or the Office of Management and Budget's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin), the study was reviewed both internally and externally prior to publication. For purposes of external review, the study benefited from the advice and comments of a panel of offshore wind industry stakeholders. That panel included representatives from private corporations, national laboratories, and universities. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Page iii Document Number DE-EE0005360 Acknowledgments For their support of this report, the authors thank the entire U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Wind & Water Power Program team, and in particular Patrick Gilman and Michael Hahn. For reviewing elements of this report or providing key input, we also acknowledge: Mark Bollinger, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; David Loomis, Illinois State University; Markian Melnyk, Atlantic Wind Connection; Walt Musial, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); Aaron Smith, NREL; and Ryan Wiser, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Navigant would also like to thank the following for their contributions to this report: Matt Aldeman, Illinois State University; Tim Axelsson, Fishermen’s Energy; Rick Bergman, Aquilo Wind Development; Jessica Bowling, Baltimore Helicopter Services; David Bradley, Lake Effect Energy; Randy Brown, Metal Trades, Inc.; Kyoo Sung Byun, LS Cable America, Inc.; Guy Chapman, Dominion; Fara Courtney, U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative; Michael Crist, Moffatt & Nichol; Alexander DePillis, Wind Energy Systems Engineering, Inc.; Timothy D. Downey, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation; Heinrich Duden, ep4 offshore GmbH; Dennis Duffy, Energy Management Inc.; Juan Lopez-Doriga Escalante, Rockford Berge; Patrick Fullenkamp, Global Wind Network; Alice Fuchs, Mishilsolarplus; Russ Germick, Vestas Americas; Ryan Greenfield, Schaeffler Group; Parveen Gupta, Bosch Rexroth; Kim Gyr, Green Millennium; Christopher Hardy, US Offshore Wind Collaborative; Christopher Haugen, ITW WindGroup; John F Hill, GE Energy Converteam; Matthias Hofmann, SINTEF; William L. Hurley, Jr., The Glosten Associates, Inc.; Mike Ireland, Larkin Enterprises, Inc.; Philip Jacobs, Alstom Grid Solutions USA; Andrew Jacus, Dillinger Hütte GTS; David L. Jansen P.E., Janseneering, Inc.; George Kendrick, Stantec Consulting; Paul J. Kerman MS; Bradley Kerr, Detyen’s Shipyards, Inc.; Steven Kopits, Douglas- Westwood; Kerman Consulting Services; Kenneth L Kraemer, University of California, Irvine; Doug Lindsey, Lakeshore Technical College; Hao Ling, The University of Texas at Austin; Simon Mahan, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; Todd Main, Illinois Department of Natural Resources; Christian Mertens, Bosch Rexroth; Lawrence H. Mott, SgurrEnergy Inc.; Gary Murphy, Case Western Reserve University; Natalia Nagree, Douglas-Westwood; Dennis L. Nielson, DOSECC Exploration Services, LLC; John Nikoloff, PA Energy Resources Group, LLC; Brian O'Hara, North Carolina Offshore Wind Coalition; Kris Ohleth, Atlantic Wind Connection; Rick Palmer, Weeks Marine, Inc.; Katherine Peretick, Vestas; Raoul Raffagli, Siemens Wind Power A/S; Bonnie Ram, Ram Power LLC; Jay Robison, Arkansas Economic Development Commission; Tim Ryan, Apex Offshore Wind, LLC; Stephane Sanchez, Consulate-General Kingdom of the Netherlands; Hans-Christian Schimmelmann, ABB; Philipp Schmid, SKF; Bob Schubert, Siemens; Stephan Schwab, Siemens Energy, Inc.; Geoff Sharples, CPE; Steve Sheik, Baltimore Helicopter Services; Robert Sherwin, EAPC Wind Energy; Benjamin B. Smith, Stevens Towing, Inc.; Larry Shirley, NC Department of Commerce; Duncan Sokolowski, Global Marine Energy, Inc.; Larry Viterna, Nautica Windpower LLC; Andreas Wagner , German Offshore Wind Energy Foundation; Lorry Wagner, LeedCo; Carl F Wegener, Signal International, Inc.; Dale Williamson, Alstom Power; Chris Wissemann, Freshwater Wind; Thomas Zirngibl, TUV SUD America Inc. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Page iv Document Number DE-EE0005360 Table of Contents Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... xiii Introduction ............................................................................................................................ xiv Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. xv Section 1. Global and U.S. Offshore Wind Development ....................................................................... xv Section 2. Analysis of Technology Developments ................................................................................. xvii Section 3. Analysis of Policy Developments ........................................................................................... xix Section 4. Economic Impacts ..................................................................................................................... xix Section 5. Developments in Relevant Sectors of the Economy .............................................................. xx 1. Global and U.S. Offshore Wind Development ........................................................... 1 1.1 Global Offshore Wind Development ................................................................................................ 2 1.2 U.S. Project Development Overview ................................................................................................ 4 1.2.1 Northern Atlantic Coast ....................................................................................................... 9 1.2.2 Southern Atlantic Coast ....................................................................................................... 9 1.2.3 Great Lakes ............................................................................................................................ 9 1.2.4 Gulf Coast (Gulf of Mexico) ................................................................................................ 9 1.2.5 Pacific Coast ......................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Market Segmentation and Trends ................................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Plant Size .............................................................................................................................. 10 1.3.2 Turbine Capacity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wind Energy Shipping and Logistics Is a Complex SCM Discipline As Each Wind Farm Project Requires Tailor-Made Solutions
    Poulsen, T., Rytter, N.G.M., Chen, G.: Global Wind Turbine Shipping & Logistics – A Research Area of the Future?, conference proceedings International Conference on Logistics and Maritime Systems (LogMS), September 12-14, 2013, Singapore, www.logms2013.org ［中文］全球风电物流——一个新兴的研究领域？作者托马斯.鲍尔森，尼尔斯.吕特， 陈刚，发表于 2013 年世界物流与海运系统大会，2013 年 9 月 12 日至 14 日于新加坡 1 GLOBAL WIND TURBINE SHIPPING & LOGISTICS - A RESEARCH AREA OF THE FUTURE? Thomas Poulsen, Gang Chen, and Niels G. M. Rytter Respectively Research Assistant, Assistant Professor, and Associate Professor at Aalborg University, Copenhagen campus, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark, emails respectively [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper investigates shipping and logistics challenges of the rapidly growing wind turbine industry using an end-to-end supply chain perspective. Wind turbine supply chains execute activities related to inbound logistics, wind turbine production/assembly, outbound logistics, installation, operations/maintenance of active wind farms, and de-commissioning. Such activities are often spread out across countries or regions, and require long-distance transportation of parts, components, or modules. Wind turbines are growing in size and weight, requiring specialized equipment and handling. Each onshore or offshore wind farm project requires tailor-made shipping and logistics solutions as installation sites are unique. Wind turbine manufacturers and/or utility companies owning the wind farms therefore face several practical challenges regarding shipping and logistics activities which also make up significant costs for them while simultaneously posing an increasingly attractive revenue opportunity for shipping and logistics service companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravity-Based Foundations in the Offshore Wind Sector
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Review Gravity-Based Foundations in the Offshore Wind Sector M. Dolores Esteban *, José-Santos López-Gutiérrez and Vicente Negro Research Group on Marine, Coastal and Port Environment and other Sensitive Areas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, E28040 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] (J.-S.L.-G.); [email protected] (V.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 December 2018; Accepted: 24 January 2019; Published: 12 March 2019 Abstract: In recent years, the offshore wind industry has seen an important boost that is expected to continue in the coming years. In order for the offshore wind industry to achieve adequate development, it is essential to solve some existing uncertainties, some of which relate to foundations. These foundations are important for this type of project. As foundations represent approximately 35% of the total cost of an offshore wind project, it is essential that they receive special attention. There are different types of foundations that are used in the offshore wind industry. The most common types are steel monopiles, gravity-based structures (GBS), tripods, and jackets. However, there are some other types, such as suction caissons, tripiles, etc. For high water depths, the alternative to the previously mentioned foundations is the use of floating supports. Some offshore wind installations currently in operation have GBS-type foundations (also known as GBF: Gravity-based foundation). Although this typology has not been widely used until now, there is research that has highlighted its advantages over other types of foundation for both small and large water depth sites. There are no doubts over the importance of GBS.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling and Dynamic Analysis of Offshore Wind Farms in France: Impact on Power System Stability
    04/11/2011 Modeling and dynamic analysis of offshore wind farms in France: Impact on power system stability KTH Master Thesis report number Alexandre Henry Examiner at KTH Dr. Luigi Vanfretti Supervisors at KTH Dr. Luigi Vanfretti and Camille Hamon Supervisor at EDF Dr. Bayram Tounsi Laboratory Electric Power Systems School of Electrical Engineering KTH, Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, November 2011 Accessibility : .. Front page Page I / III ... Modeling and dynamic analysis of offshore wind farms in France: Impact on KTH EPS power system stability - EDF R&D Abstract Alexandre Henry Page 1 / 90 KTH Master Thesis Modeling and dynamic analysis of offshore wind farms in France: Impact on KTH EPS power system stability - EDF R&D Nomenclature EWEA : European Wind Energy Association UK : United Kingdom EU : European union AC : Alternating current DC : Direct current HVAC : High Voltage Alternating Current HVDC : High Voltage Direct Current PCC : Point of Common Coupling TSO : Transmission System Operator RTE : Réseau de transport d’électricité (French TSO) XLPE : cross linked polythylene insulated VSC : Voltage source converter LCC : Line commutated converter FACTS : Flexible AC Transmission System SVC : Static Var Compensator DFIG : Double Fed Induction Generator MVAC : Medium Voltage Alternating Current ENTSO-E : European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity HFF : High Frequency Filter FRT : Fault Ride Through Alexandre Henry Page 2 / 90 KTH Master Thesis Modeling and dynamic analysis of offshore wind farms
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Hawke's Bay Heritage News
    Hawke’s Bay Heritage News Newsletter of Historic Places Hawke’s Bay Inc. - June 2016 - We would like to say a huge thank you to East More from Portland Island Pier in Napier and Spicers in Havelock North. Both businesses allow us to meet on their Those who visited the re-sited Portland Island Lighthouse during our premises every alternate month for our meet- trip to Wairoa in April might be interested to learn that there is also a ings. piece of the lighthouse to be seen in Napier. One of the lenses from the lighthouse is on display at the Old Customhouse Museum in Ahuriri. The Museum is open on the first Sunday of each month during the winter and every Sunday over the summer. There is plenty to look at related to Ahuriri, the Port and surrounding areas and entry is free. The Museum is also seeking expressions of interest from people wishing to become volunteers to help at the museum. Contact the museum by e-mail, [email protected] or write to Private Bag 6006, Napier. 1 Friends of the Mokopeka Power Station The Mokopeka Power Station on the Maraetotara Stream is site which includes the power house, water race and the weir one of our industrial heritage gems in Hawke’s Bay and its across the Maraetotara Stream. The Friends group is in the heritage status is recognised by its inclusion on the Heritage process of formalising access and other necessary New Zealand List as a Category 1 site. The power station arrangements with the owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Meridian Wind Project Hyde County, South Dakota Application to The
    Meridian Wind Project Hyde County, South Dakota Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Facility Permit April 23, 2020 MERIDIAN WIND PROJECT, LLC 3760 State Street, Suite 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Applicant: Meridian Wind Project, LLC Address: 3760 State Street, Suite 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Authorized Representative: Casey Willis, Senior Advisor, Project Development Signature: Phone: 805-569-6185 Email: [email protected] Application for Facility Permit Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Names of Participants (Administrative Rules of South Dakota [ARSD] 20:10:22:06) ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Name of Owner and Manager (ARSD 20:10:22:07) ........................................ 1-2 1.4 Facility Permit Application Content and Organization .................................... 1-2 1.4.1 Completeness ChecK ........................................................................ 1-3 2.0 PURPOSE OF, AND DEMAND FOR, THE WIND ENERGY FACILITY (ARSD 20:10:22:08, 20:10:22:10) ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Renewable Power Demand ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Analysing Changes in Electricity Industries Against Actors and Technologies: Utility to Business Transformations in Denmark, Germany, Finland and Spain
    Received February 28, 2012 / Accepted June 9, 2012 J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2 Analysing Changes in Electricity Industries Against Actors and Technologies: Utility to Business Transformations in Denmark, Germany, Finland and Spain Mari Ratinen1, Peter Lund Abstract Liberalization of electricity markets, governmental policies for renewable electricity and technology development are transforming national electricity industries. However, there are considerable national differences in how these industries have changed and which businesses have been developed. We propose a typology for comparing changes in electricity industry based on the changes in the actors and technologies. Wind power and solar photovoltaic are used here as technology examples. A qualitative analysis of the changes in electricity industries in four EU member states is presented. Based on the preliminary findings, we conclude that if the industry consists of many, small firms with relatively loose ties with the government the industry is more likely to change than if it consists of few large firms with strong relations with the government. Keywords: electricity industry; liberalization; technology development; wind energy; solar photovoltaic 1Aalto University, School of Sciences, P.O. Box 11000, FI-00076 AALTO, Finland. email: [email protected] ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org) Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 87 J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2 1. Introduction fluence energy policies. Citizens influencing by voting green parties, supporting anti-nuclear movements or parties with National electricity industries are undergoing fundamen- environmental programs have brought about changes in en- tal changes, which are brought about by three interlinked ergy policies and technologies (O’Neill, 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Wind Energy
    Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, AICP , Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, AICP , Editors American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 566 Planning for Wind Energy is the result of a collaborative part- search intern at APA; Kirstin Kuenzi is a research intern at nership among the American Planning Association (APA), APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, was program development se- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the nior associate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, is a research American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and Clarion associate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. Associates. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department The authors thank the many other individuals who con- of Energy under award number DE-EE0000717, as part of tributed to or supported this project, particularly the plan- the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges funding ners, elected officials, and other stakeholders from case- opportunity. study communities who participated in interviews, shared The report was developed under the auspices of the Green documents and images, and reviewed drafts of the case Communities Research Center, one of APA’s National studies. Special thanks also goes to the project partners Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful outreach, and education that advance green communities edits and comments, as well as the scoping symposium through planning. For more information, visit www.plan- participants who worked with APA and project partners to ning.org/nationalcenters/green/index.htm. APA’s National develop the outline for the report: James Andrews, utilities Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and specialist at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; education involving community health, natural and man- Jennifer Banks, offshore wind and siting specialist at AWEA; made hazards, and green communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Splendid Prospects
    WIND ENERGY The Iberian Peninsula has many excellent wind power locations. More and more wind farms are springing up in Spain and Portugal. Photos (3): Jan Oelker Splendid prospects The worldwide use of wind power is developing strongly. Unlimited opportunities in North America More and more markets are opening up, so that the boom In the USA the »Production Tax Credit«, PTC, is the driv- is not dependent on just a few countries. North America ing force. Unfortunately, for many years the US govern- ment didn’t feel able to grant the PTC on a long-term and Asia are growing in importance, but Europe will stay basis. Again and again there were interruptions to this support mechanism, so that the market was affected by dominant for the time being. a »yo-yo effect«, which was a problem for manufactur- ers (see diagram). There was a regular up and down on the US market. The manufacturer GE Energy, which is especially dependent on the US market, felt the effects particularly strongly, and the turnover dropped dramat- ll renewable energies are currently being expand- ically in 2004 (see table 2). ed strongly, but wind power is growing the Now, however, the situation seems to be calming fastest. The reasons are clear: The technology is down. In September 2005 the US government extend- mature, the costs per kilowatt hour are relative- ed the PTC until the end of 2007. This provided an ac- ly low and construction takes very little time. ceptable amount of security for investments and the Many governments are trying to reduce their depen- market has grown steadily since then.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment
    U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment Issue Date | March 2020 Prepared By American Wind Energy Association Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Current Status of U.S. Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lessons from Land-based Wind ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Announced Investments in Domestic Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Tool ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Annual Load Factors for 2018/19 Tnuos Tariffs
    Final Annual Load Factors for 2018/19 TNUoS Tariffs October 2017 NGET: Final ALFs for 2018/19 TNUoS Tariffs October 2017 1 Final Annual Load Factors for 2018/19 TNUoS Tariffs This information paper contains the Final Annual Load Factors (ALFs) that National Grid will use in the calculation of Generation TNUoS charges from April 2018. October 2017 October 2017 Contents Executive Summary 4 Annual Load Factors For The 2018/19 Charging Year 5 Table 1: Annual Load Factors By Generating Station 5 Table 2: Generic Annual Load Factors For The 2018/19 Charging Year 10 Changes to the Draft ALFs 11 The Onshore Wind Generic ALF has changed 11 Edinbane 11 Pen Y Cymoedd 11 Inactive Generators 12 How Are ALFs Calculated? 13 Five Years Of Data 13 Four Years Of Data 14 Three Years Of Data 14 Fewer Than Three Years Of Data 14 Calculation Of Partial Year ALFs 15 Generic ALFs 15 Next Steps 15 Appendix A: Generation Charging Principles 16 CMP268 16 The TNUoS Wider Tariff 16 Other Charges 17 Contact Us If you have any comments or questions on the contents or format of this report, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us. Team Email & Phone [email protected] 01926 654633 NGET: Final ALFs for 2018/19 TNUoS Tariffs October 2017 3 Executive Summary This document contains the Final Annual Load Factors (ALFs) to be used in the calculation of generator Transmission Network Use of System (TNUoS) tariffs for 2018/19, effective from 1 April 2018. The ALFs are based on generation data for five years from 2012/13 until 2016/17.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe
    Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe August 2020 Michael C. Allen, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, Matthew Campo, Senior Research Specialist, Environmental Analysis & Communications Group, Rutgers University Prepared for the New Jersey Climate Change Alliance (https://njadapt.rutgers.edu/). Working Group Members: John Cecil, New Jersey Audubon Tim Dillingham, American Littoral Society Patty Doerr, The Nature Conservancy of New Jersey Russell Furnari, PSEG Kevin Hassell, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Anthony MacDonald, Urban Coast Institute at Monmouth University Martha Maxwell-Doyle, Barnegat Bay Partnership David Mizrahi, Ph.D., New Jersey Audubon Technical Reviews and Acknowledgments Joseph Brodie, Ph.D. Jeanne Herb Marjorie Kaplan, Dr.P.H. Josh Kohut, Ph.D. Richard Lathrop, Ph.D. Julie Lockwood, Ph.D. Douglas Zemeckis, Ph.D. https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-wn1p-cz80 1 ABSTRACT Offshore wind energy is poised to expand dramatically along the eastern United States. However, the promise of sustainable energy also brings potential impacts on marine ecosystems from new turbines and transmission infrastructure. This whitepaper informs government officials, scientists, and stakeholders in New Jersey about the current policies and monitoring methods other jurisdictions use to monitor potential ecological impacts from offshore wind installations. We reviewed policy documents in the eastern U.S. and Europe, reviewed the scientific literature, and conducted stakeholder interviews in Spring 2020. We found: 1. Short-term (3-5 year) project-specific efforts dominate coordinated regional and project life duration ecological monitoring efforts at offshore wind farms in North America and Europe.
    [Show full text]