DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix F Generation Cost and Performance Appendix Fbi Biomass

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix F Generation Cost and Performance Appendix Fbi Biomass APPENDIX F GENERATION COST AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................................................2 ANALYTICAL APPROACH............................................................................................................................................3 REPRESENTATIVE RESOURCE CHARACTERIZATIONS .............................................................................................................3 APPENDIX FBI BIOMASS APPENDIX FNU NUCLEAR POWER APPENDIX FCO COAL APPENDIX FOE OCEAN ENERGY APPENDIX FGT GEOTHERMAL APPENDIX FSO SOLAR APPENDIX FHY HYDROPOWER APPENDIX FWN WIND APPENDIX FNG NATURAL GAS F-1 Draft Fourth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, Appendix F GENERATION COST AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Appendix F provides the analysis used to characterize the generating resource alternatives described in this draft plan. Table F-1 lists the types of resources analyzed and summarizes the resulting cost and resource potential. Following this overview are detailed descriptions of each resource. A brief description of the process used to analyze each resource follows. Table F-1 Generating Resource Costs and Potential Block Code Resource Base-Year Technology Ref. Lev. Energy CostsBlock Firm Energy (m/kWh, real): (MWa) GEO 1 Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 49.7 576 GEO 103 Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 49.7 576 GEO 2 Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 59.6 414 GEO 3 Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 72.8 86 GEO 1R Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 49.7 576 GEO 1DR Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 49.7 576 GEO 2R Geothermal 1995 Flash or Binary 59.6 414 BIO 1 Black Liquor 1995 20MW Recovery 22.5 195 BIO 2 Mixed Wood 1995 25 MW Stoker 40.0 300 BIO 3 Landfill Gas 1995 Engine-Generator 31.1 126 BIO 4 Forest Residue 1995 10MW Stoker 68.9 28 BIO 5 Forest Residue 1995 25 MW Stoker 79.4 664 HYD 1 Hydropower Conventional 19.9 64 HYD 2 Hydropower Conventional 46.9 89 HYD 3 Hydropower Conventional 78.2 45 SOL 1 Solar 1995 Fixed Flat Plate 210.0 30 WIN 1 Wind 350kW VS HAWT 40.9 46 WIN 2 Wind 350kW VS HAWT 40.2 75 WIN 3R Wind 350kW VS HAWT 56.1 227 WIN 3DR Wind 350kW VS HAWT 56.1 227 WIN 4 Wind 350kW VS HAWT 63.5 152 WIN 1A Wind 1995 350kW VS HAWT 40.6 46 WIN 2A Wind 1995 350kW VS HAWT 46.7 32 WIN 3A Wind 1995 350kW VS HAWT 41.0 117 WIN 4A Wind 1995 350kW VS HAWT 49.4 116 WIN 5 Wind 1995 350kW VS HAWT 63.5 79 WIN 6R Wind 1995 350kW VS HAWT 55.8 358 WIN 6DR Wind 1995 350kW VS HAWT 55.8 358 CC 1 Natural Gas 1995 7FA CCCT 29.3 3,356 CC 2 Natural Gas 1995 7FA CCCT 29.9 3,356 CC 3 Natural Gas 1995 7FA CCCT 30.8 4,140 1 All resource levelized costs were developed assuming 100 percent investor-owned utility financing except wind resources WN1 and WN1A, which are assumed to be financed with 27 percent public utility, 53 percent investor-owned utility and 20 percent independent capital resources. F-2 Draft Fourth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, Appendix F ANALYTICAL APPROACH The analysis of alternative generating resources required a four-step process. The first step in the process was to characterize the existing generating plants that are part of the Northwest power system. The second step was to analyze the potential for further development of the particular resource. The third step was to analyze the currently available technologies for converting the resource to electric power. The fourth step was to match the potential for further development with the technologies most appropriate for the Northwest. This last step includes calculation of the cost of energy and capacity, as well as an estimate of the environmental impacts of resource development. To analyze each of these resources in a way that provides a fair comparison, a common set of financial assumptions was used in the last step of the characterization process. Table F-2 summarizes these assumptions. For purposes of developing representative resource costs, financing was assumed to be 100 percent investor-owned utility, except for currently committed wind resources WN1 and WN1A, which are assumed to be financed with 27 percent public utility, 53 percent investor-owned utility and 20 percent independent capital resources. Table F-2 Financial Assumptions for Generating Resource Cost Analysis Public Utility Investor-Owned Unregulated Utility Independent Base Renew- Base Renew- Base Renew- Financial Parameter Resource ables Resource ables Resource ables Federal Income Tax Rate (%) n/a n/a 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% Federal Investment Tax Credit (%) n/a n/a 10.0% 10% G,S 10.0% 10% G,S Accelerated Depreciation Recovery (Years) n/a n/a 20 20 20 20 Renewable Production Incentive/Tax Credit n/a B,G,S,W n/a W n/a W State Income Tax Rate (%) n/a n/a 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% State Investment Credit (%) n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gross Revenue Tax (%) 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% Property Tax Rate (%) 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Insurance Rate (%/yr) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Municipal Bond Term (years) 15 30 n/a n/a n/a n/a Financial Life (years) 15 30 15 30 15 15 Debt Ratio (%) 100% 100% 50% 50% 80% 80% Debt Interest Rate (nominal. %/yr) 7.5% 7.5% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% Return on Equity (nominal. %/yr) n/a n/a 11.3% 11.3% 18.3% 18.3% Debt Financing Fee (%) 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Discount Rate (real, %/yr) 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% Inflation Rate (%/yr) 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% CODING: B-Biomass, G-Geothermal, S-Solar, W-Wind. n/a-not applicable. Representative Resource Characterizations Because the computational time required by the integrated-system acquisition analysis model is a function of the number of resource choices available to it, it is desirable to limit the total number of resource characterizations to the minimum amount that still accurately represents available resources. To satisfy this need for simplification, individual resources selected from the last step of the resource analysis have been chosen to represent discrete “blocks” of resource potential in the system model. Table F-3 summarizes the key physical and economic characteristics of the resources included in these blocks. Table F-4 summarizes the impacts of resource development on air, water and land use. Impacts on fish and wildlife are not quantified here, but are discussed in more detail in each resource section. F-3 Draft Fourth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, Appendix F Table F-3 Generating Resources Plant Cost and Capacities Used in the Integrated System Analysis Block Resource Description Block Block Equivalent Dis Mini No. Unit Avg. Forced Siting & S&L Con Variable Fixed Variable 2 Code Rated Peak Availability patch mum of Rated Heat Outage Licen Hold struction Fuel O&M O&M Capacity Capacity (%) Load Units Capac. Rate Rate sing Cost Cost (m/kWh) ($/kW/yr) (m/kWh) (MW) (MW) (%) (MW) (Btu/ (%) ($/kW) ($/kW/yr) ($/kW) kWh) GEO 1 Shield Complexes @ Main Grid 640 630 90.0% D 25% 21 30 9,300 6.0% $80 $2.60 $2,724 0.0 $80 7.8 GEO Shield Complexes @ Main Grid - 2003 640 630 90.0% D 25% 21 30 9,300 6.0% $80 $2.60 $2,724 0.0 $80 7.8 GEO 2 Basin & Range Areas @ Main Grid 458 458 90.3% D 25% 15 31 9,300 6.0% $85 $2.90 $3,283 0.0 $108 7.9 GEO 3 B&R Areas & Composite Centers @ 95 95 90.2% D 25% 3 32 9,300 6.0% $102 $4.00 $4,054 0.0 $140 7.9 GEO Shield Complexes @ Main Grid - 640 630 90.0% D 25% 21 30 9,300 6.0% $80 $2.60 $2,724 0.0 $80 7.8 GEO Shield Complexes @ Main Grid - Pilots 640 630 90.0% D 25% 21 30 9,300 6.0% $80 $2.60 $2,724 0.0 $80 7.8 GEO Basin & Range Areas @ Main Grid - 458 458 90.3% D 25% 15 31 9,300 6.0% $85 $2.90 $3,283 0.0 $108 7.9 BIO 1 Chemical Recovery Boiler Upgrades 260 260 75.0% MR n/a 13 20 4,500 10.0% $31 $3.00 $588 0.0 $0 14.4 BIO 2 Clean wood residues from MSW stream 375 375 80.0% D 66% 15 25 14,400 10.0% $130 $13.00 $2,470 -11.1 $99 2.3 BIO 3 Landfill Gas Recovery 140 140 90.0% MR n/a 28 5 11,000 5.0% $62 $6.00 $1,176 0.0 $0 15.5 BIO 4 Eastside forest restoration residues - 35 35 80.0% D 66% 5 7 14,420 10.0% $43 $13.00 $817 28.8 $180 2.3 BIO 5 Eastside forest restoration residues - 830 830 80.0% D 66% 33 25 14,400 10.0% $130 $13.00 $2,470 28.8 $99 2.3 HYD 1 New Small Hydropower 195 195 33.0% MR n/a 20 10 0 1.1% $59 $2.10 $789 0.0 $17 0.0 HYD 2 New Small Hydropower 223 223 40.0% MR n/a 22 10 0 1.1% $105 $3.80 $1,400 0.0 $30 0.0 HYD 3 New Small Hydropower 107 107 42.2% MR n/a 11 10 0 1.1% $185 $6.60 $2,463 0.0 $53 0.0 SOL 1 Rooftop Photovoltaics 145 145 21.0% MR n/a 145 1 0 1.0% $250 $94.00 $4,250 0.0 $10 0.0 WIN 1 Scheduled, @ Main Grid (to be 129 65 35.9% MR n/a 4 32 0 0.0% $0 $2.50 $984 0.0 $54 -4.9 WIN 2 New, Low Cost @ Main Grid (to be 230 108 32.5% MR n/a 8 29 0 0.0% $28 $2.90 $946 0.0 $27 3.0 WIN New, Med Cost @ Main Grid - 797 362 28.5% MR n/a 16 30 0 0.0% $21 $2.60 $988 0.0 $47 3.1 WIN New, Med Cost @ Main Grid - Pilots @ 797 362 28.5% MR n/a 16 30 0 0.0% $21 $2.60 $988 0.0 $47 3.1 WIN 4 Blackfeet 500 @ Main Grid 465 101 32.6% MR n/a 9 52 0 0.0% $23 $2.50 $1,554 0.0 $31 3.1 WIN 1A Scheduled, @ Main Grid 129 65 38.3% MR n/a 4 32 0 0.0% $17 $2.50 $985 0.0 $54 -4.9 WIN 2A New, Low Cost Spring - Summer Peak 120 34 26.3% MR n/a 4 30 0 0.0% $3 $2.50 $923 0.0 $26 3.0 WIN 3A New, Low Cost Winter Peak @ Main 365 161 32.0% MR n/a 12 30 0 0.0% $22 $2.80 $950 0.0 $28 3.0 WIN 4A New, Med Cost Winter Peak @ Main 307 217 37.7% MR n/a 10 31 0 0.0% $17 $2.80 $1,029 0.0 $69 3.1 WIN 5 New, High Cost Spring - Summer Peak 350 68 22.5% MR n/a 12 29 0 0.0% $36 $3.00 $1,046 0.0 $32 3.0 WIN 6R New, High Cost Winter Peak @ Main 1,318 558 27.2% MR n/a 26 51 0 0.0% $37 $1.80 $983 0.0 $40 3.4 WIN New, High Cost Winter Peak @ Main 1,318 558 27.2% MR n/a 26 51 0 0.0% $37 $1.80 $983 0.0 $40 3.4 CC 1 New CC, Permitted Sites @ Main Grid 3,648 3,854 92.0% D 70% 16 228 7,215 5.0% $0 $0.80 $665 8.13 $19 1.0 CC 2 New CC, Unpermitted Sites @ Main 3,648 3,921 92.0% D 70% 16 228 7,346 5.0% $14 $0.80 $670 8.22 $20 1.0 CC 3 High-cost Placeholder 4,500 4,753 92.0% D 70% 20 225 7,436 5.0% $18 $0.90 $774 8.32 $20 1.0 2 Coding: D-Dispatchable, MR-Must Run.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report
    l 122 EARTHQUAKES AND SEISMOLOGY - LEGAL ASPECTS OPEN FILE REPORT 92-2 EARTHQUAKES AND Ludwin, R. S.; Malone, S. D.; Crosson, R. EARTHQUAKES AND SEISMOLOGY - LEGAL S.; Qamar, A. I., 1991, Washington SEISMOLOGY - 1946 EVENT ASPECTS eanhquak:es, 1985. Clague, J. J., 1989, Research on eanh- Ludwin, R. S.; Qamar, A. I., 1991, Reeval­ Perkins, J. B.; Moy, Kenneth, 1989, Llabil­ quak:e-induced ground failures in south­ uation of the 19th century Washington ity of local government for earthquake western British Columbia [abstract). and Oregon eanhquake catalog using hazards and losses-A guide to the law Evans, S. G., 1989, The 1946 Mount Colo­ original accounts-The moderate sized and its impacts in the States of Califor­ nel Foster rock avalanches and auoci­ earthquake of May l, 1882 [abstract). nia, Alaska, Utah, and Washington; ated displacement wave, Vancouver Is­ Final repon. Maley, Richard, 1986, Strong motion accel­ land, British Columbia. erograph stations in Oregon and Wash­ Hasegawa, H. S.; Rogers, G. C., 1978, EARTHQUAKES AND ington (April 1986). Appendix C Quantification of the magnitude 7.3, SEISMOLOGY - NETWORKS Malone, S. D., 1991, The HAWK seismic British Columbia earthquake of June 23, AND CATALOGS data acquisition and analysis system 1946. [abstract). Berg, J. W., Jr.; Baker, C. D., 1963, Oregon Hodgson, E. A., 1946, British Columbia eanhquak:es, 1841 through 1958 [ab­ Milne, W. G., 1953, Seismological investi­ earthquake, June 23, 1946. gations in British Columbia (abstract). stract). Hodgson, J. H.; Milne, W. G., 1951, Direc­ Chan, W.W., 1988, Network and array anal­ Munro, P. S.; Halliday, R. J.; Shannon, W.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Geologic Investigations Series I-1963, Pamphlet
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP I-1963 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SKYKOMISH RIVER 30- BY 60 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, WASHINGTON By R.W. Tabor, V.A. Frizzell, Jr., D.B. Booth, R.B. Waitt, J.T. Whetten, and R.E. Zartman INTRODUCTION From the eastern-most edges of suburban Seattle, the Skykomish River quadrangle stretches east across the low rolling hills and broad river valleys of the Puget Lowland, across the forested foothills of the North Cascades, and across high meadowlands to the bare rock peaks of the Cascade crest. The quadrangle straddles parts of two major river systems, the Skykomish and the Snoqualmie Rivers, which drain westward from the mountains to the lowlands (figs. 1 and 2). In the late 19th Century mineral deposits were discovered in the Monte Cristo, Silver Creek and the Index mining districts within the Skykomish River quadrangle. Soon after came the geologists: Spurr (1901) studied base- and precious- metal deposits in the Monte Cristo district and Weaver (1912a) and Smith (1915, 1916, 1917) in the Index district. General geologic mapping was begun by Oles (1956), Galster (1956), and Yeats (1958a) who mapped many of the essential features recognized today. Areas in which additional studies have been undertaken are shown on figure 3. Our work in the Skykomish River quadrangle, the northwest quadrant of the Wenatchee 1° by 2° quadrangle, began in 1975 and is part of a larger mapping project covering the Wenatchee quadrangle (fig. 1). Tabor, Frizzell, Whetten, and Booth have primary responsibility for bedrock mapping and compilation.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States
    +44 20 8123 2220 [email protected] Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States https://marketpublishers.com/r/AC4983D1366EN.html Date: June 2012 Pages: 700 Price: US$ 450.00 (Single User License) ID: AC4983D1366EN Abstracts The global energy industry has explored many options to meet the growing energy needs of industrialized economies wherein production demands are to be met with supply of power from varied energy resources worldwide. There has been a clearer realization of the finite nature of oil resources and the ever higher pushing demand for energy. The world has yet to stabilize on the complex geopolitical undercurrents which influence the oil and gas production as well as supply strategies globally. Aruvian's R'search’s report – Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States - analyzes the scope of American energy production from varied traditional sources as well as the developing renewable energy sources. In view of understanding energy transactions, the report also studies the revenue returns for investors in various energy channels which manifest themselves in American energy demand and supply dynamics. In depth view has been provided in this report of US oil, electricity, natural gas, nuclear power, coal, wind, and hydroelectric sectors. The various geopolitical interests and intentions governing the exploitation, production, trade and supply of these resources for energy production has also been analyzed by this report in a non-partisan manner. The report starts with a descriptive base analysis of the characteristics of the global energy industry in terms of economic quantity of demand. The drivers of demand and the traditional resources which are used to fulfill this demand are explained along with the emerging mandate of nuclear energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Microgrid Market Analysis: Alaskan Expertise, Global Demand
    Microgrid Market Analysis: Alaskan Expertise, Global Demand A study for the Alaska Center for Microgrid Technology Commercialization Prepared by the University of Alaska Center for Economic Development 2 3 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Market Trends ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Major Microgrid Segments ....................................................................................................................... 5 Global demand of microgrids ................................................................................................................... 5 Where does Alaska fit into the picture? Which segments are relevant? ................................................. 7 Remote/Wind-Diesel Microgrids .......................................................................................................... 8 Military Microgrid ................................................................................................................................. 8 Microgrid Resources with Examples in Alaska .............................................................................................. 8 Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Kotzebue ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Agecroft Power Stations Generated Together the Original Boiler Plant Had Reached 30 Years for 10 Years
    AGECROl?T POWER STATIONS 1924-1993 - About the author PETER HOOTON joined the electricity supply industry in 1950 at Agecroft A as a trainee. He stayed there until his retirement as maintenance service manager in 1991. Peter approached the brochure project in the same way that he approached work - with dedication and enthusiasm. The publication reflects his efforts. Acknowledgements MA1'/Y. members and ex members of staff have contributed to this history by providing technical information and their memories of past events In the long life of the station. Many of the tales provided much laughter but could not possibly be printed. To everyone who has provided informati.on and stories, my thanks. Thanks also to:. Tony Frankland, Salford Local History Library; Andrew Cross, Archivist; Alan Davies, Salford Mining Museum; Tony Glynn, journalist with Swinton & Pendlebury Journal; Bob Brooks, former station manager at Bold Power Station; Joan Jolly, secretary, Agecroft Power Station; Dick Coleman from WordPOWER; and - by no means least! - my wife Margaret for secretarial help and personal encouragement. Finally can I thank Mike Stanton for giving me lhe opportunity to spend many interesting hours talkin11 to coUcagues about a place that gave us years of employment. Peter Hooton 1 September 1993 References Brochure of the Official Opening of Agecroft Power Station, 25 September 1925; Salford Local History Library. Brochure for Agecroft B and C Stations, published by Central Electricity Generating Board; Salford Local Published by NationaJ Power, History Library. I September, 1993. Photographic albums of the construction of B and (' Edited and designed by WordPOWER, Stations; Salford Local Histo1y Libraty.
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Web 05-04
    the Centers for Disease Control, only 15 percent of the Healthy Hiking U.S. adult population is getting enough physical activity. “Our goal,” says Julie CHIEFELBEIN Gerberding, Director of the S AVE CDC, “is to help people D understand that even modest activity such as walking or gardening is a step in the right direction.” According to the American Hiking Society, the benefits of hiking or walking just 30 minutes a day are impressive: ⌧Decreased cholesterol ⌧Lowering of blood pressure ⌧Releasing of calming endorphins ⌧Preventing osteoporosis ⌧Relieving back pain ⌧Reducing insulin needed by diabetics Detailed info on these Getting fit on studies are available at www.americanhiking.org. the trail is For those of us who already hike, none of this is terribly surprising. easy, fun, and “It’s a great break from the routine,” says Debra Gore, a good for you. family practice doctor with Group Health in Spokane. “It’s a great stress relief from the hassles of sitting in front of a computer all day.” And for those who want to get out more and enjoy these benefits, there’s good news: you don’t have to be a buff mountain By Andrew Engelson years later, he’s still getting up into the climber to get started. It’s easy. backcountry. He and other hikers his As with any exercise program, if Julian Ansell is evidence that hiking age are as good a case as any for the you’re just beginning, consult your is good for you. physical and emotional benefits of doctor or medical provider first to The retired physician and Washing- hiking.
    [Show full text]
  • Franklinwesleyearlynne1975
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF WESLEY EARLYNNE FRANKLIN for the degree Master of Science (Name of student) (Degree) in Geology presented on November 22, 1974 (Major department) (Date) Title: STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF META-IGNEOUS FRAGMENTS IN THE PRAIRIE MOUNTAIN AREA, NORTH CASCADE RANGE, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON Abstract approved by: Redacted for privacy Dr. Robert ID. Lawrence The interrelationship of rock assemblages in the Prairie Mountain area suggests that a Permo-Triassic subduction zone existed in the western North Cascades.The2fsquare mile rneta- igneous complex in the thesis area correlates with other tectonic bodies which occur west of the Straight Creek Fault.The rocks are uniquely associated with thrust faulting, a blueschist terrane and a possible melange of deformed Late Paleozoic sediments and meta- sediments.In the Prairie Mountain area the meta.- igneous rocks were emplaced by thrust and high-angle reversefaults into the Late Paleozoic Chilliwack Group.The meta-igneous rocks are metadio- rites, meta- quartz diorites, metatrondlijemites, mylonite gneis ses, rare greenstone metavoLcanic s and metamorphosed ultramafi.c s. Though the rocks were metamorphosed to the greenschist facies, only locally do they display a strong metamorphic fabric. A weak secondary cataclastic overprint resulting from ucoldtt intrusion is superimposed on the meta-igneous rocks. The meta-igneous rocks possibly represent fragments of island arc crust and/or oceanic crust that were incorporated into a Permo- Triassic subductj.on zone from a position
    [Show full text]
  • One Thread That Weaves Throughout Our 125-Year History Is That of Innovation
    ON THE COVER Summer storms hitting 10 days apart caused extensive damage throughout Avista’s Washington/Idaho service area in 2014, knocking out power to nearly 100,000 customers. Crews and office staff worked around the clock, restoring power quickly and safely, keeping customers informed through traditional and social media channels. 1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE | SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99202 | 509.489.0500 | AVISTACORP.COM One thread that weaves throughout our 125-year history is that of innovation. A LANDMARK Dear Fellow Shareholder: It’s been a landmark year at Avista for many reasons — we celebrated our milestone 125th anniversary; we sold Ecova, our home-grown energy and sustainability management business; we acquired Alaska Energy and Resources Company (AERC) and its primary subsidiary Alaska Electric Light and Power Company (AEL&P) in Juneau, Alaska; and we continued to make significant progress in achieving our goals of investing in our infrastructure, upgrading our technology and preparing our utility to effectively and efficiently implement 21st century energy delivery. For the first time in a generation, we can consider ourselves close to being a “pure play” utility. None of this would have been possible without our cadre operations were $1.93 per diluted share, with net income of dedicated and knowledgeable employees. There’s a from continuing operations attributable to Avista Corp. confidence that comes with competence, a steadiness that shareholders of $119.8 million for 2014. builds on itself and makes things happen. It’s not flashy, but Our balance sheet and credit ratings remain healthy. the effects speak for themselves. Avista’s employees embody At year-end, Avista Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • A Site Assessment Study on Potential Land Use Options at the Salem Harbor Power Station Site
    A SITE ASSESSMENT STUDY ON POTENTIAL LAND USE OPTIONS AT THE SALEM HARBOR POWER STATION SITE JANUARY 2012 PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SALEM BY: Jacobs 343 Congress Street Boston, Massachusetts 02210 617.242.9222 Sasaki Associates 64 Pleasant Street Watertown, Massachusetts 02472 617.926.3300 LaCapra Associates One Washington Mall 9th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 617.778.5515 Robert Charles Lesser Co. 7200 Wisconsin Avenue 7th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 214.644.1300 JANUARY 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The consultant team would like to recognize the following participants for their contributions during this study which was funded by a grant from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. City of Salem Kimberley Driscoll, Mayor Jason Silva, Chief Administrative Aide Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning & Community Development (DPCD) Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Harbor Coordinator, DPCD Kathleen Winn, Deputy Director, DPCD Captain Bill McHugh, Harbormaster Stakeholders State Senator Fred Berry State Representative John Keenan Charles Payson, District Director for US Congressman John Tierney Joanne McBrien, Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources Richard Chalpin, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection James Bowen, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center Robert McCarthy, City Councilor Ward 1 Lamont Beaudette, Dominion Energy at Salem Harbor Station Malia Griffin, Dominion Energy at Salem Harbor Station James Smith, Dominion Energy at Salem Harbor Station Cynthia Carr, Derby Street Neighborhood Association Fred Atkins, Harbor Plan Implementation Committee (HPIC) Barbara Warren, Salem Sound Coastwatch & HPIC Patricia Gozemba, Salem Alliance for the Environment (SAFE) Marjorie Kelly, SAFE Jeffrey Barz-Snell, Renewable Energy Task Force & SAFE William Luster, North Shore Alliance for Economic Development Additionally, the consultant team would like to thank the citizens of Salem and other attendees who participated at the public meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Summits
    EVERETT MOUNTAINEERS Recommended Winter Summits Snow and weather conditions greatly influence the difficulty of winter scrambles. Because conditions change very quickly, things like road access, avalanche hazard, strenuousness, and summit success can vary a tremendous amount. So these ratings are only a rough comparison of the peaks. Winter scrambling can be a dangerous activity. Be a smart scrambler -- be willing to turn back if conditions are unsafe. Even a slight deviation from the surveyed routes may affect exposure and avalanche hazard considerably. The fact that a peak is listed here does not represent that it will be safe. Exposure Rating Avalanche Rating A: Falling will only get snow on your face. B: Falling may require self arrest, but usually good A: Usually safe in high, considerable, moderate, and low run-out. avalanche conditions. C: Falling requires self arrest, unchecked falls could B: Often safe in moderate and low conditions. be serious. C: Only recommended in low conditions. Note that B-rated slopes could become C-rated when icy. Table of contents by region (peaks within each region listed from West to East): Highway 542 (Mt Baker Highway): Church, Excelsior, Barometer, Herman, Table Highway 20 (North Cascades Highway): Goat, Welker, Sauk, Lookout, Hidden Lake, Oakes, Damnation, Trappers, Sourdough, Ruby Highway 530 (Darrington area): Higgins, Round, Prairie Mountain Loop Highway: Pilchuck, Gordon (Anaconda), Long, Marble, Dickerman Highway 2 (west & east of Stevens Pass): Stickney, Persis, Philadelphia, Frog, Mineral Butte, Iron, Conglomerate Point, Baring, Palmer, Cleveland, Eagle Rock, Evergreen, Captain Point, Windy, Tunnel Vision, Big Chief, Cowboy, McCausland, Union, Jove, Lichtenberg, Jim Hill, Rock, Arrowhead, Natapoc, Tumwater I-90 (west & east of Snoqualmie Pass): Teneriffe, Green, Mailbox, Washington, Web, Kent, Bandera, Defiance, Pratt, Granite, Humpback, Silver, Snoqualmie, Kendall, Guye, Catherine, Margaret, Baldy, Thomas, Amabalis, Hex, Jolly, Yellow Hill, Teanaway Butte Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacobson and Delucchi (2009) Electricity Transport Heat/Cool 100% WWS All New Energy: 2030
    Energy Policy 39 (2011) 1154–1169 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials Mark Z. Jacobson a,n, Mark A. Delucchi b,1 a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA b Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA article info abstract Article history: Climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of our time. Addressing Received 3 September 2010 them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure. Here, we analyze the feasibility of providing Accepted 22 November 2010 worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, Available online 30 December 2010 water, and sunlight (WWS). In Part I, we discuss WWS energy system characteristics, current and future Keywords: energy demand, availability of WWS resources, numbers of WWS devices, and area and material Wind power requirements. In Part II, we address variability, economics, and policy of WWS energy. We estimate that Solar power 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines, 49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants, 40,000 300 MW solar Water power PV power plants, 1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems, 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants, 270 new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants, 720,000 0.75 MW wave devices, and 490,000 1 MW tidal turbines can power a 2030 WWS world that uses electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Energy in Alaska WH Pacific, Inc
    Renewable Energy in Alaska WH Pacific, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska NREL Technical Monitor: Brian Hirsch NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Subcontract Report NREL/SR-7A40-47176 March 2013 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Renewable Energy in Alaska WH Pacific, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska NREL Technical Monitor: Brian Hirsch Prepared under Subcontract No. AEU-9-99278-01 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Subcontract Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/SR-7A40-47176 Golden, Colorado 80401 March 2013 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 This publication was reproduced from the best available copy submitted by the subcontractor and received minimal editorial review at NREL. NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 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. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]