DOCSLIB.ORG

COMPARISON of ELECTRICITY PRICES in MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIES Rates in Effect April 1, 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COMPARISON of ELECTRICITY PRICES in MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIES Rates in Effect April 1, 2014 COMPARISON OF ELECTRICITY PRICES IN MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIES Rates in effect April 1, 2014 0,0272 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 METHOD 7 HIGHLIGHTS 9 Residential Customers 9 Small-Power Customers 10 Medium-Power Customers 11 Large-Power Customers 14 DETAILED RESULTS 1 Summary Tables (excluding taxes) 17 2 Summary Tables (including taxes) 23 3 Detailed Tables – Residential 29 4 Detailed Tables – Small-Power 35 5 Detailed Tables – Medium-Power 41 6 Detailed Tables – Large-Power 47 APPENDICES A Rate Adjustments 53 B Time-of-Use Rates Adjustment Clauses 57 C Applicable Taxes 63 D Utilities in the Study 71 1 INTRODUCTION Every year, Hydro-Québec compares the monthly electricity bills of Québec customers in the residential, commercial, institutional and industrial sectors with those of customers of the various utilities serving 21 major North American cities. This report details the principal conclusions of this comparative analysis of prices in effect on April 1, 2014. There are three sections. The first describes the method used to estimate electricity bills. The second examines the highlights of the seven consumption levels analyzed, with the help of charts. Finally, the third section presents the results of the 21 consumption levels for which data were collected and compiled in the form of summary and detailed tables. The most recent rate adjustments, time-of-use rates, adjustment clauses and applicable taxes, as well as a profile of the utilities in the study, appear in separate appendices. 3 MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIES AVERAGE PRICES FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS 1 (IN ¢ /KW H)2 St. John’s, N L: 11.34 Edmonton, A B: 11.88 Vancouver, B C: 9.71 Charlottetown, P E: 15.24 Calgary, A B: 13.41 Moncton, N B: 12.06 Seattle, WA: 10.44 Regina, S K: 13.95 Halifax, N S: 16.03 Winnipeg, M B: 7.89 Montréal, Q C: 7.06 Portland, O R: 11.93 Ottawa, O N: 13.45 Toronto, O N: 13.78 Boston, M A: 20.42 Detroit, M I:16.20 New York, NY: 30.74 Chicago, I L: 11.61 San Francisco, C A: 26.15 Nashville, T N: 12.89 Houston, T X: 12.91 Miami, F L: 10.94 1) For a monthly consumption of 1,000 k W h; rates in effect April 1, 2014. 2) In Canadian dollars. 4 MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIES AVERAGE PRICES FOR LARGE-POWER CUSTOMERS 1 (IN ¢ /KW H)2 St. John’s, N L: 8.42 Edmonton, A B: 8.87 Vancouver, B C: 6.66 Charlottetown, P E: 8.71 Calgary, A B: 7.42 Moncton, N B: 7.34 Seattle, WA: 6.83 Regina, S K: 7.56 Halifax, N S: 9.86 Winnipeg, M B: 4.54 Montréal, Q C: 5.05 Portland, O R: 6.98 Ottawa, O N: 13.31 Toronto, O N: 11.13 Boston, M A: 13.98 Detroit, M I: 8.09 New York, NY: 21.25 Chicago, I L: 9.57 San Francisco, C A: 10.71 Nashville, T N: 10.22 Houston, T X: 8.30 Miami, F L: 7.53 1) For a monthly consumption of 3,060,000 k W h and a power demand of 5,000 kW; rates in effect April 1, 2014. 2) In Canadian dollars. 5 METHOD GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION In addition to Hydro-Québec, this comparative analysis Electricity distributors sometimes offer different rates in of electricity prices across North America includes 22 utilities: the various cities they serve. As well, taxes may vary from 12 serving the principal cities in the nine other Canadian one region to another. This, however, is not the case in provinces, and 10 utilities in American states. The results are Québec, where, with the exception of territories north of based, in part, on a survey to which 14 utilities responded, the 53rd parallel, taxes and rates are applied uniformly. and in part on estimates of bills calculated by Hydro-Québec For the purposes of this study, the bill calculations estimate and confirmed in most cases by the utilities concerned. as closely as possible the actual electricity bills of The results presented here show the total bill for various consumers in each target city, based on rates in effect consumption levels. If the bill is calculated according to on April 1, 2014. an unbundled rate, it includes all components, including supply, transmission and distribution. TIME-OF-USE RATES PERIOD COVERED The rates offered by some utilities vary depending on the season and/or time of day when energy is consumed. Monthly bills have been calculated based on rates in In the United States, for example, a number of utilities set a effect on April 1, 2014. The most recent rate adjustments higher price in summer, when demand for air-conditioning applied by the utilities in the study between April 1, 2013, is stronger. In Québec, on the other hand, demand increases and April 1, 2014, are shown in Appendix A. in winter because of heating requirements. Thus, for some utilities, April 1 may fall within a period in the year when the price is high, whereas for others it falls in a period when the price is low. An annual average price has therefore been CONSUMPTION LEVELS calculated in the case of utilities with time-of-use rates which are listed in Appendix B. Seven consumption levels were selected for analysis. However, data were collected for 21 consumption levels and those results are presented in the Detailed Tables. ADJUSTMENT CLAUSES The rates of some distributors include adjustment clauses TAXES that allow them to adjust their customers’ electricity bills according to changes in different variables. Since these With the exception of the bills presented in Section 2, adjustments may be applied monthly, or over a longer taxes are not included in any of the calculations. period, the electricity bills issued by a given distributor Appendix C lists taxes applicable on April 1, 2014, may have varied between April 1, 2013, and April 1, 2014, by customer category; those which may be partially even though base rates remained the same. Appendix B or fully refundable are also indicated. lists the adjustment clauses taken into account when calculating bills. OPTIONAL PROGRAMS EXCHANGE RATE The bills have been calculated according to base rates. Optional rates or programs offered by some utilities to their The exchange rate used to convert bills in U.S. dollars into residential, commercial, institutional or industrial customers Canadian dollars is $0.9069 (C A $ 1 = U S $ 0.9069), the rate in have not been taken into account since the terms and effect at noon on April 1, 2014. The Canadian dollar had conditions vary considerably from one utility to the next. thus depreciated by 7.8 % relative to the U.S. dollar since April 1, 2013. 7 HIGHLIGHTS The Distribution Tariff–Effective April 1, 2014 sets out RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS Hydro-Québec’s rates, as approved by the Régie de The rate applicable to Hydro-Québec’s residential l’énergie (the Québec energy board) in accordance with customers is among the most advantageous in Decision D-2014-052. Three types of rates are in effect: North America. For customers whose monthly domestic rates for residential customers, industrial rates consumption is 1,000 kW h, Montréal is once again for large-power industrial customers and general rates for in first place. Figure 1 illustrates the results of other customers. General rates are applied according to this comparison. minimum billing demand: small power, medium power and large power. For comparison purposes, the electricity bills of the utilities in the study have been analyzed according to these customer categories. The industrial rate has been used to calculate the bills of large-power customers. FIGURE 1 New York, NY Montréal, QC 100 Comparative Index of Electricity Prices San Francisco, CA Winnipeg, MB 112 Residential Customers Boston, MA Vancouver, BC 138 Detroit, MI Seattle, WA 148 Consumption: 1,000 kWh/month Halifax, NS Miami, FL 155 Charlottetown, PE St. John’s, NL 161 Regina, SK Chicago, IL 165 Toronto, ON Edmonton, AB 168 Ottawa, ON Portland, OR 169 Calgary, AB Moncton, NB 171 Houston, TX Nashville, TN 183 Nashville, TN Houston, TX 183 Moncton, NB Calgary, AB 190 Portland, OR Ottawa, ON 191 Edmonton, AB Toronto, ON 195 Chicago, IL Regina, SK 198 St. John’s, NL Charlottetown, PE 216 Miami, FL Halifax, NS 227 Seattle, WA Detroit, MI 229 Vancouver, BC Boston, MA 289 Winnipeg, MB San Francisco, CA 370 Montréal, Qc New York, NY 435 0 100 200 300 400 500 Hydro-Québec = 100 Monthly bill (excluding tax) Rates in effect April 1, 2014 9 SMALL-POWER CUSTOMERS (LESS THAN 100 KW) The comparison of bills for small-power customers is based on a monthly consumption of 10,000 kW h and a power demand of 40 kW. Montréal is in third place, as was the case last year. Figure 2 shows the comparative index of electricity prices. FIGURE 2 Winnipeg, MB 81 Comparative Index of Electricity Prices Seattle, WA 89 Small-Power Customers Montréal, QC 100 Vancouver, BC 107 Consumption: 10,000 kWh/month Chicago, IL 109 Power demand: 40 kW Calgary, AB 111 Houston, TX 112 Edmonton, AB 117 Portland, OR 118 Miami, FL 118 St. John’s, NL 120 Regina, SK 122 Moncton, NB 134 Toronto, ON 135 Detroit, MI 137 Nashville, TN 138 Ottawa, ON 140 Halifax, NS 162 Charlottetown, PE 167 San Francisco, CA 214 Boston, MA 218 New York, NY 293 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Hydro-Québec = 100 Monthly bill (excluding tax) Rates in effect April 1, 2014 10 MEDIUM-POWER CUSTOMERS (100 TO 5,000 KW) Three consumption levels were analyzed for medium-power customers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Competing to Overcharge Consumers: the Competitive Electric Supplier Market in Massachusetts
    Why Competing to Overcharge Consumers: The Competitive Electric Supplier Market in Massachusetts April 2018 By Jenifer Bosco National Consumer Law Center® © Copyright 2018, National Consumer Law Center, Inc. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jenifer Bosco is a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) with a focus on energy and utility issues that affect low-income consumers. Prior to joining NCLC, she was the first director of the Office of Patient Protection at the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission. Previously, Jen advocated for low-income clients at Health Law Advocates, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and Merrimack Valley Legal Services. She also served as an Assistant Attorney General with the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General and began her legal career as a law clerk for the Massachusetts Superior Court. Jen holds a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. from Boston College. She is a co-author of Access to Utility Services and a contributing author to Collection Actions and Consumer Banking and Payments Law. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks NCLC Senior Attorney Charlie Harak and NCLC Deputy Director Carolyn Carter for their insightful reviews and comments, and Ana Girón-Vives of NCLC for her research and data analysis. Barbara Alexander generously shared her extensive knowledge of competitive supply markets and provided invaluable support and insight. The author also thanks Elizabeth Berube of Citizens for Citizens, Inc., Darlene Gallant of Lynn Economic Opportunity, Richard Berkley of the Public Utility Law Project of New York, and NCLC colleagues Olivia Wein, John Howat, Jan Kruse, Svetlana Ladan, and Cleef Milien for their invaluable assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the True Impacts of Champlain Hudson Power Express
    UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE IMPACTS OF CHAMPLAIN HUDSON POWER EXPRESS Prepared by: Energyzt Advisors, LLC Prepared for: Independent Power Producers of New York January 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... ES-1 1. OVERVIEW OF CHPE ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Evolution of CHPE ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2. 2017 Assessment of Carbon Reductions – Grossly Overstates Benefits ................... 4 1.3. 2019 Climate Mobilization Act – CHPE does not help New York State goals ......... 6 2. SOURCE OF CHPE ENERGY SUPPLY ................................................................................ 11 2.1 Quebec is short capacity and long on energy........................................................... 11 2.2 Hydro-Québec’s excess energy available for exports is limited ............................. 14 2.3 Hydro-Québec firm energy is very expensive ......................................................... 18 3. HYDRO-QUÉBEC WOULD DIVERT ENERGY TO SUPPLY CHPE ................................. 22 3.1. Quebec is interconnected with multiple markets .................................................... 23 3.2. Hydro-Québec has enough transmission capacity to sell its excess energy .......... 26 3.3. Hydro-Québec is motivated to maximize profits ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Imports
    INCREMENTAL HYDROPOWER IMPORTS WHITEPAPER Fall 2013 New England States Committee on Electricity CONSIDERATIONS, OPTIONS, AND MARKET OVERVIEW REGARDING THE POTENTIAL TO INCREASE HYDROPOWER IMPORTS FROM EASTERN CANADIAN PROVINCES TO NEW ENGLAND New England States Committee on Electricity – Incremental Hydropower Imports Whitepaper Fall 2013 This whitepaper is provided solely as a source of information for New England state policymakers. The information provided is largely drawn from publicly available reports and other documents and should be independently verified before it is relied upon. Any views that may be expressed in or inferred from this whitepaper should not be construed as representing those of NESCOE, any NESCOE Manager, or any state agency or official. 2 New England States Committee on Electricity – Incremental Hydropower Imports Whitepaper Fall 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 6 I. NEW ENGLAND’S COMPETITIVE WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY MARKETS, MECHANISMS TO SATISFY POLICY OBJECTIVES, AND CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATING STATE POLICIES IN THE WHOLESALE MARKETS ........................................................................................................................ 7 A. Electric Industry Restructuring and Generation Divestiture.............................. 7 B. Identifying Least-Cost Resources to Serve Customers and Examples of Existing Mechanisms to Achieve Public Policy Objectives......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. EC11-35-000 Northeast Utilities
    136 FERC ¶ 61,016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur. NSTAR Docket No. EC11-35-000 Northeast Utilities ORDER AUTHORIZING MERGER AND DISPOSITION OF JURISDICTIONAL FACILTIES (Issued July 6, 2011) 1. On January 7, 2011, NSTAR and Northeast Utilities (collectively, Applicants) filed pursuant to sections 203(a)(1) and 203(a)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)1 and Part 33 of the Commission’s regulations a joint application for authorization of a proposed transaction by which NSTAR will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northeast Utilities (Proposed Transaction). The Commission has reviewed the application under the Commission’s Merger Policy Statement.2 As discussed below, we will authorize the Proposed Transaction as consistent with the public interest. 1 16 U.S.C. § 824b (2006). 2 See Inquiry Concerning the Commission’s Merger Policy Under the Federal Power Act: Policy Statement, Order No. 592, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 (1996), reconsideration denied, Order No. 592-A, 79 FERC ¶ 61,321 (1997) (Merger Policy Statement). See also FPA Section 203 Supplemental Policy Statement, 72 Fed. Reg. 42,277 (Aug. 2, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,253 (2007) (Supplemental Policy Statement). See also Revised Filing Requirements Under Part 33 of the Commission’s Regulations, Order No. 642, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,111 (2000), order on reh’g, Order No. 642-A, 94 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2001). See also Transactions Subject to FPA Section 203, Order No. 669, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,200 (2005), order on reh’g, Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Retail Competition in Electricity
    33% RETAIL COMPETITION IN ELECTRICITY WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED IN 20 YEARS? July 23, 2019 Authored by: Lisa M. Quilici, Danielle S. Powers, Gregg H. Therrien, Benjamin O. Davis, and Olivia A. Prieto CEADVISORS.COM © 2019 Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc. 1 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Regulation and Restructuring ............................................................................................................................... 1 B. Survey of U.S. States .................................................................................................................................................. 1 C. Retail Rates for Residential Customers ............................................................................................................. 3 D. The Need for a Fully Functioning Wholesale Market .................................................................................. 4 E. Resource Planning and Reliability....................................................................................................................... 4 F. Generation Divestiture and Stranded Costs .................................................................................................... 5 G. Transition in Generation Fleet .............................................................................................................................. 5 H. Innovation in the
    [Show full text]
  • EFSB 02-2 for Approval to Construct Two 115 Kv ) Electric Transmission Lines ) ______)
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Energy Facilities Siting Board ____________________________________ In the Matter of the Petition of Cape Wind ) Associates, LLC and Commonwealth ) Electric Company, d/b/a NSTAR Electric ) EFSB 02-2 for Approval to Construct Two 115 kV ) Electric Transmission Lines ) ____________________________________) FINAL DECISION M. Kathryn Sedor Presiding Officer May 11, 2005 On the Decision: William Febiger Barbara Shapiro John Young APPEARANCES: David S. Rosenzweig, Esq. Keegan, Werlin & Pabian, LLP 265 Franklin Street, 6th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02110-3113 FOR: Cape Wind Associates, LLC Petitioner Mary E. Grover, Esq. Assistant General Counsel NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation 800 Boylston Street, P1700 Boston, Massachusetts 02199 FOR: Commonwealth Electric Company d/b/a NSTAR Electric Petitioner Kenneth L. Kimmell, Esq. Jeffrey M. Bernstein, Esq. Elisabeth C. Goodman, Esq. Bernstein, Cushner & Kimmell, P.C. 585 Boylston Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 FOR: Town of Yarmouth Intervenor Myron Gildesgame, Director Office of Water Resources Department of Environmental Management 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 FOR: Department of Environmental Management Ocean Sanctuaries Act Program Intervenor Christopher H. Kallaher, Esq. Robinson & Cole LLP One Boston Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 FOR: Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound Intervenor -i- Douglas H. Wilkins, Esq. Anderson & Kreiger LLP 43 Thorndike Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141 FOR: Massachusetts Audubon Society Intervenor David P. Dwork, Esq. Roger T. Manwaring, Esq. Barron & Stadfeld, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1310 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 FOR: Save Popponesset Bay, Inc. Intervenor Paige Graening, Esq. National Grid USA Service Company 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01582 FOR: Nantucket Electric Company Limited Participant Margo Fenn, Executive Director Cape Cod Commission 3225 Main Street P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 | Eversource 2019 Sustainability Report
    1 | EVERSOURCE 2019 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS MESSAGE FROM JIM JUDGE ............................................. 4 SUSTAINABILITY AT EVERSOURCE ..................................... 7 REPORT ASSURANCE ..................................................... 9 OUR ENVIRONMENT ...................................................... 10 LOWERING OUR OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................. 11 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................................................... 13 Our Footprint ................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Operations Optimization .................................................................................................................................................. 17 ADDRESSING REGIONAL ENERGY CHALLENGES .................................................................................................... 20 Clean Energy ................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Electric Vehicles .............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Energy Efficiency Programs ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Brief of Nextera Energy Resources, Llc
    COMMON\MEALTH OF' MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Joint Petition of Fitchburg Gas and ) Electric Lieht Company dlbl a U nitil, ) Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company dlbla ) National Grid, and NSTAR Electric ) Company and Western Massachusetts ) D.P.U. 18-64 Electric Company, each dlbla ) D.P.U. l8-65 Eversource Energy, for approval oflong- ) D.P.U. 18-66 term contracts for renewable energy, ) pursuant to Section 83D of An Act ) Relative to Green Communities, St. 2008, c.169, as amended by St. 2016, c. ) 188, $ 12. ) INITIAL BRIEF OF NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC March 22,2018 70995546v.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW..................... 1 III. ARGUMENT....... ..J A. The PPAs do not comply with the statutory definition of CEG ..J B. The Companies have failed to show the proposed tracking of CEG is appropriate 7 C. The Companies' failure to require fully incremental hydroelectric energy renders the evaluation and selection results invalid 9 D. The PPAs and TSAs fail to satisfr certain enumerated criteria...... .....13 E. The material changes from the form PPA to the proposed PPA are inconsistent with the 83D RFP process .22 IV. CONCLUSION.......... .25 I 70995546v.1 I. Introduction On July 23,2018, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company d/olalJnitil, Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company dlbla National Grid, and NSTAR Electric Company and Western Massachusetts Electric Company, each dlbla Eversource Energy ("the Companies") filed a joint petition with the Department seeking approval of long-term contracts for the New England Clean Energy Connect project ("NECEC"), pursuant to Section 83D of An Act Relative to Green Communities, St.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of NSTAR Electric Company D/B/A Eversource Energy Pursuan
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a ) Eversource Energy Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69J ) for Approval to Construct and Operate a New ) 115-kV Electric Transmission Line Between the ) EFSB 19-06 Bourne Switching Station and West Barnstable ) Substation ) ) Petition of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a ) Eversource Energy Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69J ) for Approval to Construct and Operate a New ) 115-kV Electric Transmission Line Through the ) D.P.U. 19-142 Towns of Bourne, Sandwich, and Barnstable ) ) ) Petition of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a ) Eversource Energy Pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 3 ) for Individual and Comprehensive Exemptions ) from the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of ) D.P.U. 19-143 Barnstable ) ) ) MAYFLOWER WIND ENERGY LLC’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Pursuant to 980 CMR § 1.05, 220 CMR § 1.03, and the Notice of Adjudication and Notice of Public Comment Hearing issued by the Energy Facilities Siting Board (the “Siting Board”) on May 7, 2020, Mayflower Wind Energy LLC (“Mayflower Wind” or “Mayflower”) hereby petitions the Siting Board for leave to intervene as a full party in the above-referenced consolidated proceedings. Mayflower Wind states the following in support of this Petition: Eversource’s Proposed Project 1. On November 8, 2019, NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy (“Eversource”) filed a petition seeking approval from the Siting Board pursuant to G.L. c. 1 104515976.8 164, § 69J (the “Section 69J Petition”). In the Section 69J Petition, Eversource proposes to construct and operate an approximately 12.5-mile, overhead 115-kilovolt (“kV”) electric transmission line (the “New Line,” and together with related station improvement, the “Mid Cape Reliability Project”).
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Wind Project Is Drastically Reduced Due to the Minimal Shipping Traffic That Takes Place in the Vicinity of Horseshoe Shoal
    U.S. Department of the Interior Appendix G MM S Minerals Management Service Biological Assessment Appendix G Biological Assessment Cape Wind Energy Project January 2009 Final EIS Cape Wind Energy Project Nantucket Sound Biological Assessment Minerals Management Service for Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries May 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior Appendix G MM S Minerals Management Service Biological Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project History.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Federal Consultation Action History ...........................................................................1-3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AND ACTION AREA......................................2-1 2.1 Wind Turbines .............................................................................................................2-3 2.2 Inner Array Cables.......................................................................................................2-4 2.3 Electrical Service Platform ..........................................................................................2-4 2.4 Staging Areas...............................................................................................................2-5 2.5 Project Activities and Operations ................................................................................2-6
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Primer a Handbook of Energy Market Basics April 2020
    Energy Primer A Handbook of Energy Market Basics April 2020 The Energy Primer is a staff product and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or any Commissioner. Energy Primer A Handbook of Energy Market Basics Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Physical Fundamentals ............................................................................................... 1 Financial Markets and Trading ................................................................................... 2 Market Manipulation ................................................................................................... 3 Additional Information ................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2 Wholesale Natural Gas Markets .............................................................................. 5 Natural Gas .................................................................................................................. 5 Natural Gas Industry ................................................................................................... 5 Natural Gas Demand ................................................................................................... 7 Natural Gas Supply .................................................................................................... 10 Liquefied Natural Gas ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force
    REPORT TO CONGRESS ON COMPETITION IN WHOLESALE AND RETAIL MARKETS FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY Pursuant to Section 1815 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force The Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force Members: J. Bruce McDonald, Department of Justice Michael Bardee, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission John H. Seesel, Federal Trade Commission David Meyer, Department of Energy Karen Larsen, Department of Agriculture Report Contributors: Robin Allen – Department of Justice Kathleen Barrón – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tracey Chambers – Department of Justice Lee-Ken Choo – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Jade Eaton – Department of Justice Patricia Ephraim – Department of Energy Douglas Hale– Department of Energy; Energy Information Administration John Hilke – Federal Trade Commission Douglas Hilleboe – Federal Trade Commission David Kathan – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Robin Meigel – Department of Agriculture Richard O'Neill – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Moon Paul – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Astrid Rapp – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Steven Reich – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Janelle Schmidt – Department of Energy Harry Singh – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Michael Wroblewski – Federal Trade Commission (left the FTC in June 2006) David Zlotlow – Department of Justice This report was prepared by the Task Force with the assistance of the Department of Justice, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Department
    [Show full text]