DOCSLIB.ORG

2007 IRP Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2007 IRP Document 2007 Electric Integrated Resource Plan August 31, 2007 PHOTO CREDITS - Avista’s investment in transmission infrastructure crosses the wheat fi elds of Washington state’s Palouse region. Photo by Hugh Imhof, Avista. - Three key components of Avista’s renewable energy and DSM plans include the Noxon Rapids Hydro Facility on the Clark Fork River in Montana, education about energy effi cient compact fl ourescent bulbs, and including power generated at the Stateline Wind Farm on the Southeast border of Washington and Oregon. SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR TALENTED VENDORS FROM THE SPOKANE AREA WHO PRODUCED THIS IRP: Ross Printing Company Thinking Cap Design Printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary i Introduction and Stakeholder Involvement 1-1 Loads and Resources 2-1 Demand Side Management 3-1 Environmental Issues 4-1 Transmission Planning 5-1 Modeling Approach 6-1 Market Modeling Results 7-1 Preferred Resource Strategy 8-1 Action Items 9-1 SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT This document contains forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors, most of which are beyond the company’s control, and many of which could have a signifi cant impact on the company’s operations, results of operations and fi nancial condition, and could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. For a further discussion of these factors and other important factors, please refer to our reports fi led with the Securities and Exchange Commission which are available on our website at www.avistacorp. com. The company undertakes no obligation to update any forward- looking statement or statements to refl ect events or circumstances that occur after the date on which such statement is made or to refl ect the occurrence of unanticipated events. TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Net Position Forecast ______________________________________________________________ i Table 2: 2007 Preferred Resource Strategy Selections (Nameplate MW) ____________________________ vi Table 3: Net Position Forecast with Lancaster _________________________________________________ ix Table 1.1: TAC Participants _______________________________________________________________ 1-2 Table 1.2: TAC Meeting Dates and Agenda Items ______________________________________________ 1-3 Table 2.1: Global Insights National Forecast Assumptions ________________________________________ 2-4 Table 2.2: Company-Owned Hydro Resources _______________________________________________ 2-14 Table 2.3: Company-Owned Thermal Resources _____________________________________________ 2-14 Table 2.4: Mid-Columbia Contract Summary ________________________________________________ 2-17 Table 2.5: Signifi cant Contractual Rights and Obligations _______________________________________2-17 Table 2.6: Capacity L&R Versus Sustained Capacity ___________________________________________ 2-18 Table 2.7: Loads & Resources Capacity Forecast (MW)_________________________________________ 2-19 Table 2.8: Loads & Resources Energy Forecast (aMW) _________________________________________ 2-20 Table 3.1: Current Energy Effi ciency Programs ________________________________________________ 3-2 Table 3.2: Proposed New Energy Effi ciency Program ___________________________________________ 3-3 Table 3.3: Current Avista Energy Effi ciency Programs (kWh) ____________________________________ 3-10 Table 3.4: Recent Hydro Effi ciency Upgrade Studies __________________________________________ 3-13 Table 5.1: Estimated Integration Costs Inside Avista’s System ($Millions) ____________________________ 5-9 Table 6.1: AURORAxmp Pools and Zones ___________________________________________________ 6-3 Table 6.2: Seasonal Natural Gas Price Factors _________________________________________________ 6-5 Table 6.3: Natural Gas Basin Prices as % of Henry Hub _________________________________________ 6-6 Table 6.4: New RPS Resources Added to Existing System (aMW) _________________________________6-9 Table 6.5: Annual Average Peak Load Growth _________________________________________________ 6-9 Table 6.6: Annual Average Energy Load Growth ______________________________________________ 6-10 Table 6.7: Coeffi cient of Variation of Forward Sumas Natural Gas Prices ___________________________ 6-11 Table 6.8: Selected Zone’s Load Correlations to Eastern Washington (Jan-June) _____________________ 6-14 Table 6.9: Selected Zone’s Load Correlations to Eastern Washington (July-Dec) _____________________ 6-14 Table 6.10: Selected Zone’s Load Coeffi cient of Variation (Jan-Jun %) ______________________________ 6-15 Table 6.11: Selected Zone’s Load Coeffi cient of Variation (July-Dec %) _____________________________ 6-15 Table 6.12: Simulated Average Annual Wind Capacity Factors _____________________________________ 6-17 Table 6.13: Probability Matrix of Carbon “Taxes” ______________________________________________ 6-18 Table 6.14: Real 2007 Levelized Costs for 2013 CCCT (Full Availability) ___________________________ 6-19 Table 6.15: Real 2007 Levelized Costs for 2013 SCCT (Full Availability) ____________________________ 6-20 Table 6.16: Coal Plant Technology Characteristics and Assumed Costs ______________________________ 6-20 Table 6.17: Regional Coal Transmission Capital Costs ___________________________________________6-21 Table 6.18: Real 2007 Levelized Costs for 2013 NW Coal Plants (Full Availability $/MWh) _____________ 6-21 Table 6.19: Wind Location Capacity Factors (excludes losses) _____________________________________ 6-22 Table 6.20: Wind Integration Costs _________________________________________________________ 6-22 TABLE OF TABLES (continued) Table 6.21: Real 2007 Levelized Costs for 2013 Wind Plants (Full Availability)________________________ 6-22 Table 6.22: Real 2007 Levelized Costs for 2013 Alberta Oil Sands Project (Full Availability) _____________ 6-23 Table 6.23: Real 2007 Levelized Costs for 2008 Other Resources (Full Availability) ___________________ 6-24 Table 7.1: Base Case Key Assumptions _______________________________________________________ 7-2 Table 7.2: Cumulative Western Interconnect Resource Additions (nameplate MW) ____________________ 7-2 Table 7.3: Oregon, Washington and Northern Idaho Cumulative Resource Selection (MW) _____________ 7-3 Table 7.4: Unconstrained Carbon Future Cumulative Resource Selection (MW) ______________________7-5 Table 7.5: CSA Carbon Charge Future, Cumulative Resource Selection (MW) _______________________ 7-6 Table 7.6: Comparative Levelized Mid-Columbia Prices and Risk (Real 2007 Dollars) _________________ 7-8 Table 7.7: Comparative Levelized Mid-Columbia Prices and Risk (Nominal 2007 Dollars) ______________7-8 Table 7.8: Multiple Regression Coeffi cient Results _____________________________________________ 7-9 Table 7.9: Constant Gas Growth Scenario, Cumulative Resource Selection (MW) ____________________7-10 Table 7.10: High Natural Gas Price Scenario: Cumulative Resource Selection (MW) __________________ 7-11 Table 7.11: Low Natural Gas Price Scenario: Cumulative Resource Selection (MW) ___________________7-11 Table 7.12: Western Interconnect Average Demand (aGW) _______________________________________7-11 Table 7.13: High Load Escalation Scenario: Cumulative Resource Selection (MW) ____________________ 7-12 Table 7.14: High Load Escalation Scenario: % Change Cumulative Resources (%) _____________________ 7-12 Table 7.15: Low Load Escalation Scenario: Cumulative Resource Selection (MW) ____________________ 7-12 Table 7.16: Low Load Escalation Scenario: % Change Cumulative Resources (%) _____________________ 7-12 Table 7.17: Nuclear Plants Scenario: Cumulative Resource Selection (MW) _________________________ 7-13 Table 7.18: Electric Car Scenario Costs ($Billions) _____________________________________________ 7-17 Table 7.19: Future and Scenario Market Price Comparisons ($/MWh) _____________________________ 7-18 Table 8.1: Resource Options Available to Avista for the 2005 and 2007 IRP, fi rst 10 years _______________ 8-2 Table 8.2: 2007 IRP Preferred Resource Strategy Selection (Nameplate MW)________________________ 8-7 Table 8.3: 2005 IRP Preferred Resource Strategy Selection (Nameplate MW)________________________ 8-7 Table 8.4: Loads & Resources Energy Forecast with PRS (aMW) __________________________________ 8-9 Table 8.5: Loads & Resource Capacity Forecast with PRS (MW) __________________________________ 8-9 Table 8.6: Company Resource Capital Requirements ($Millions) _________________________________ 8-12 Table 8.7: Impacts to Wind & Green Tag Selection (2008-2017) __________________________________ 8-18 Table 8.8: Impact to Wind Selection with Idaho RPS (MW) ____________________________________ 8-18 Table 8.9: 2008-17 Resources for Each Portfolio (Capability MW) _______________________________ 8-19 Table 8.10: Capital Cost Sensitivities ($2007/kW) ______________________________________________ 8-22 Table 8.11: Wind Capacity Selected for 25% Risk Reduction (MW) _______________________________ 8-23 Table 8.12: Resource Selection Comparison (MW) ____________________________________________ 8-23 Table 8.13: Loads & Resources Energy Forecast with PRS (aMW) _________________________________ 8-28 Table 8.14: Loads & Resource Capacity Forecast with PRS (MW) _________________________________ 8-29 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Load Resource Balance—Capacity (MW) ______________________________________________ii Figure 2: Load Resource Balance—Energy (aMW) ______________________________________________ii Figure 3: Effi cient Frontier and Traditional Resource
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation P.O
    Revised CTUIR RENEWABLE ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT June 20, 2005 Rev.October 31, 2005 United States Government Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory DE-FC36-02GO-12106 Compiled under the direction of: Stuart G. Harris, Director Department of Science & Engineering Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation P.O. Box 638 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 2 Table of Contents Page No. I. Acknowledgement 5 II. Summary 6 III. Introduction 12 III-1. CTUIR Energy Uses and Needs 14 III-1-1. Residential Population – UIR 14 III-1-2. Residential Energy Use – UIR 14 III-1-3. Commercial and Industrial Energy Use – UIR 15 III-1-4. Comparison of Energy Cost on UIR with National Average 16 III-1-5. Petroleum and Transportation Energy Usage 16 III-1-6. Electrical Power Needs – UIR 17 III-1-7. State of Oregon Energy Consumption Statistics 17 III-1-8 National Energy Outlook 17 III-2. Energy Infrastructure on Umatilla Indian Reservation 19 III-2-1. Electrical 20 III-2-2. Natural Gas 21 III-2-3. Biomass Fuels 21 III-2-4. Transportation Fuels 21 III-2-5. Other Energy Sources 21 III-3. Renewable Energy Economics 21 III-3-1. Financial Figures of Merit 21 III-3-2. Financial Structures 22 III-3-3. Calculating Levelized Cost of Energy (COE) 23 III-3-4. Financial Model and Results 25 IV. Renewable Energy Resources, Technologies and Economics – In-and-Near the UIR 27 IV-1 Biomass Resources 27 IV-1-1. Resource Availability 27 IV-1-1-1. Forest Residues 27 IV-1-1-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Prefiled Testimony of Michael R Cutter
    STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE ENERGY FACILITY SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE Docket No. SEC 2008-04 Application of Granite Reliable Power, LLC (“GRP”) and Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. for approval of transfer of membership interests in GRP TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. CUTTER ON BEHALF OF GRANITE RELIABLE POWER, LLC AND BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE POWER INC. 2102317.4 1 1 Q. Please state your name, title and business address for the record. 2 A. My name is Michael R. Cutter. I am the Vice President of Engineering and Development 3 for Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. My business address is 200 Donald Lynch Boulevard, 4 Marlborough, MA 01752. 5 Q. In what capacity are you testifying today? 6 A. I am here today to represent the Applicants, Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. referred to 7 herein with its affiliates as “Brookfield”) and Granite Reliable Power, LLC, before the Site 8 Evaluation Committee and to speak generally about its technical capabilities of GRP and 9 Brookfield to build and operate the Granite Reliable Power Windpark, a 99-megawatt wind 10 powered 33 turbine electric power generation facility sited in Coos County, New Hampshire (the 11 “Project”). The structure of the transaction through which BGH proposes to acquire an 12 ownership interest in the Project (the “Transaction”) is described in the Application and the 13 testimony of Jason M. Spreyer on behalf of Brookfield. In essence, Brookfield is entering into a 14 Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire the 75% ownership interest in GRP currently held by 15 Noble Environmental Power, LLC. As permitted by the Purchase and Sale Agreement, a single 16 purpose affiliate of Brookfield that will be called BAIF Granite Holdings LLC (“BGH”) will be 17 created to acquire and hold this interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding Regional Renewable Governance
    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 2011 Expanding Regional Renewable Governance Hannah J. Wiseman Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Hannah J. Wiseman, Expanding Regional Renewable Governance, 35 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 477 (2011), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/352 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLE\35-2\HLE208.txt unknown Seq: 1 2-AUG-11 9:28 EXPANDING REGIONAL RENEWABLE GOVERNANCE Hannah Wiseman* Energy drives economies and quality of life, yet accessible traditional fuels are increasingly scarce. Federal, state, and local governments have thus determined that renewable energy development is essential and have passed substantial require- ments for its use. These lofty goals will fail, however, if policymakers rely upon existing institutions to govern renewable development. Renewable fuels are fugitive resources, and ideal property for renewable technology is defined by the strength of the sunlight or wind that flows over it. When a potential site for a utility-scale development is identified, a new piece of property, which I call a “renewable par- cel,” is superimposed upon existing boundaries and jurisdictional lines. The entities within the parcel all possess rights to exclude, and this creates a tragedy with an- ticommons and regulatory commons elements, which hinder renewable development.
    [Show full text]
  • Maiden Wind Farm, Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement
    Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration 6 West Rose St. Ste. 400 Walla Walla, WA 99362-1870 POWER BUSINESS LINE January 3, 2003 In reply refer to: PTS/Walla Walla To: People Interested in the Maiden Wind Farm Bonneville Power Administration and Benton County have completed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Maiden Wind Farm. If you requested a copy of the Draft EIS or Summary, a copy of the Final EIS is enclosed. The abbreviated Final EIS is made up of three parts: 1) a brief introduction and summary of the project and the EIS process; 2) changes and corrections to be made to the Draft EIS to make it final; and 3) comments received on the Draft EIS and responses to them. Since the changes and corrections to the Draft EIS are relatively minor, we have chosen to just print the changes to the Draft. The Final EIS includes both the abbreviated Final document and a copy of the Draft EIS. Proposal Washington Winds Inc. has proposed development of the Maiden Wind Farm, a new wind energy project to be located near Sunnyside in Benton and Yakima Counties, Washington. Benton and Yakima Counties have received applications from Washington Winds for Conditional Use Permits. In April 2001, BPA entered into a pre-development agreement with Washington Winds Inc. that provided BPA the option to consider purchase of up to 50 average megawatts of the electrical output of the project and to prepare an EIS. The developer also requested interconnection onto BPA's transmission system. Purchase of power and interconnection of the project would be dependent on reaching a mutually acceptable agreement between BPA and the developer.
    [Show full text]
  • WIND ENERGY Renewable Energy and the Environment
    WIND ENERGY Renewable Energy and the Environment © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC WIND ENERGY Renewable Energy and the Environment VaughnVaughn NelsonNelson CRC Press Taylor Si Francis Group BocaBoca RatonRaton LondonLondon NewNewYor Yorkk CRCCRC PressPress isis an an imprintimprint ofof thethe TaylorTaylor && FrancisFrancis Group,Group, anan informa informa businessbusiness © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business No claim to original U.S. Government works Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4200-7568-7 (Hardcover) This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the valid- ity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or uti- lized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopy- ing, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Different Model Depths of a Direct Drive Wind Turbine Regarding the Generator Air Gap Sensitivity
    Master’s thesis Comparison of Different Model Depths of a Direct Drive Wind Turbine Regarding the Generator Air Gap Sensitivity This work was presented at the Chair for Wind Power Drives in Aachen on November 2019 and at the Politecnico di Torino in Turin on April 2020, by: Paolo Andreani Matriculation number: 250456 Faculty Internal Supervisor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ralf Schelenz External Supervisor: Prof. Paolo Maggiore External Supervisor: Dr. Matteo Davide Lorenzo Dalla Vedova Supervising Scientific Assistant: Abdul Baseer, M.Eng. Declaration of Authorship I declare that this thesis and the work presented in it are my own and has been generated by me as the result of my own original research without use of any other than the cited sources and aids. Sentences or parts of sentences quoted literally are marked as such; other references with regard to the statement and scope are indicated by full details of the publications concerned. The thesis in the same or similar form has not been submitted to any examination body and has not been published. This thesis was not yet, even in part, used in another examination or as a course performance. Aachen, 15.11.2019 Signature I Topic Content Nomenclature IV Abbreviations VII List of figures VIII List of tables XI 1. Introduction 1 2. State of the Art and Background 3 2.1 Economic and Political Background ............................................................................................. 3 2.2 How Wind Turbines Generate Electricity ...................................................................................... 5 2.3 Differences between Direct Drive and Gear Box Generators ..................................................... 9 2.4 Main Cause of Air Gap Displacement .......................................................................................... 10 2.4.1 Wind load ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Wind Energy on Cost and Balancing Reserves A
    World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering Vol:9, No:3, 2015 Impact of Wind Energy on Cost and Balancing Reserves A. Khanal, A. Osareh, G. Lebby uncertainty in forecast predictions, and increased maintenance Abstract—Wind energy offers a significant advantage such as no costs for other units. fuel costs and no emissions from generation. However, wind energy The production cost study was evaluated using the Integer sources are variable and non-dispatchable. The utility grid is able to Linear Programming software. The goal of the program is to accommodate the variability of wind in smaller proportion along with the daily load. However, at high penetration levels, the variability can ensure the energy demand is met while minimizing cost. In severely impact the utility reserve requirements and the cost addition to the operating reserve, some system margin in associated with it. In this paper the impact of wind energy is excess of the system peak demand is required and this will be evaluated in detail in formulating the total utility cost. The objective affected by the level of wind penetration. Generally a 20% is to minimize the overall cost of generation while ensuring the surplus energy is required for maintaining the same level of proper management of the load. Overall cost includes the curtailment reliability [1]. cost, reserve cost and the reliability cost, as well as any other penalty imposed by the regulatory authority. Different levels of wind Curtailment is discarding the energy and it results in penetrations are explored and the cost impacts are evaluated.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Goose Collisions at Operating Wind Farms and Estimation of the Goose Avoidance Rate” by Fernley, J., Lowther, S
    BTO Research Report No. 455 An appraisal of “A review of goose collisions at operating wind farms and estimation of the goose avoidance rate” by Fernley, J., Lowther, S. and Whitfield, P. Author Chris Pendlebury BTO Scotland, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA A report by British Trust for Ornithology under contract to Scottish Natural Heritage November 2006 BTO Scotland School of Biological & Environmental Sciences, Room 3A120/125, Cottrell Building, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA Registered Charity No. 216652 British Trust for Ornithology An appraisal of “A review of goose collisions at operating wind farms and estimation of the goose avoidance rate” by Fernley, J., Lowther, S. and Whitfield, P. BTO Research Report No 455 Chris Pendlebury A report by the British Trust for Ornithology under contract to Scottish Natural Heritage Published in November 2006 by the British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU, U.K. (BTO Scotland, School of Biological & Environmental Sciences, Room 3A 120/125 Cottrell Building, University of Stirling, Scotland. FK9 4LA) Copyright © British Trust for Ornithology 2006 ISBN 1-904870-90-2 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. CONTENTS Executive summary..........................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2021 Offshore Wind – East Coast Projects 1
    2021 Offshore Wind – East Coast Projects By John Benson January 2021 1. Introduction This is the first post of a 2-part paper and only covers the subtitle subject. The second post will cover everything else, including west coast activity, a new inter-government organization and new turbine developments. Although these are basically both completed, there will be two weeks between this post and part 2, as these originally started out as a single post (but was way too long), and I have committed to post another paper on 1/26. The last posts with the same subject as this was and last May. This is described and linked below. A Wet & Windy Post: This post focuses on updates for U.S. East Coast off-shore wind projects, and any advancements in products from turbine vendors that supply these to the aforementioned projects. https://energycentral.com/c/cp/wet-windy-post Although there has been some progress on the East Coast, most projects have slowed to a crawl – partially due to the Pandemic, but mostly due to delays by the outgoing administration. The former is being mitigated by the vaccines, and the latter will be toast after tomorrow (on Jan 20 and this paper is scheduled for posting on Jan 19). Also the new administration is likely to quickly accelerate the deployment of these projects due five reasons: the COVID-19 Vaccines, climate change mitigation, jobs, jobs, and jobs. 2. East Coast Each of the subsections below will deal with a single project or a series of stages for a large single project.
    [Show full text]
  • LCIA) of Renewable Electrical Generation Technologies Compared to the WECC Baseline
    FINAL REPORT Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of Renewable Electrical Generation Technologies Compared to the WECC Baseline Conducted in accordance with ISO 14044 LCIA Framework and the Draft SCS-002/ANSI Life Cycle Metrics Standard, “Type III Life-Cycle Impact Profile Declarations for Materials, Products, Services and Systems” Prepared for the Western Area Power Administration and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. March 2009 2200 Powell Street, Suite 725 Emeryville, CA 94608 510-452-8000 PROJECT AUTHORS/CONTRIBUTORS Stanley Rhodes, Ph.D. — Project Manager, Senior LCSEA Practitioner Fjalar Kommonen — Senior LCSEA Practitioner and Modeler Chet Chaffee, Ph.D. — Senior LCA Practitioner Linda Brown — Senior Editor and Project Support Neil Thomas — GIS Specialist S. Clayton Palmer – Environmental Economist Bill Karsell -- Biologist © 2009. Scientific Certification Systems, Inc. Renewable Electrical Generation Technologies Compared to WECC Baseline — Final LCIA Report Main Report Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Renewable Elcctrical Generation Technologies Compared to the WECC Baseline TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................i Terms and Definitions ................................................................................................. vi Section 1. Study Overview 1.1. Study Background...........................................................1-1 . 1.2. Study Goals.....................................................................1-1
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding Regional Renewable Governance
    EXPANDING REGIONAL RENEWABLE GOVERNANCE Hannah Wiseman* Energy drives economies and quality of life, yet accessible traditionalfuels are increasingly scarce. Federal, state, and local governments have thus determined that renewable energy development is essential and have passed substantial require- ments for its use. These lofty goals will fail, however, if policymakers rely upon existing institutions to govern renewable development. Renewable fuels are fugitive resources, and ideal propertyfor renewable technology is defined by the strength of the sunlight or wind that flows over it. When a potential site for a utility-scale development is identified, a new piece of property, which I call a "renewable par- cel," is superimposed upon existing boundariesand jurisdictionallines. The entities within the parcel all possess rights to exclude, and this creates a tragedy with an- ticommons and regulatorycommons elements, which hinder renewable development. In a renewable parcel, numerous rights of exclusion in the form of fee simple ownership, leasing rights, use rights, and regulationmake use of a renewable parcel difficult and create anticommons-type problems. The multiple jurisdictionsthat may underlie the parcel also lead to a regulatory commons, wherein no one government is sufficiently incentivized to create a workable governance regime. This Article argues that the many exclusion rights within renewable parcels must be consolidatedand governed by a regional agency to address these barriersto renewable development, and it analyzes elements of existing regional institutions to begin to suggest the ideal structure of this agency. Once formed, the regionalframe- work should be applied to other areas of energy planning. States and municipalities share oil and gas reservoirs, electricity transmission constraints,and energy genera- tion needs, and collaborative governance in these areas is necessaryfor a secure future.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Power Investments in Wind
    Twelve Case Studies: Public Power Investments in Wind Prepared for American Public Power Association Demonstration of Energy-Efficient Developments Program Sponsored by Western Area Power Administration U.S. DOE Wind Powering America Program Prepared by JK Cliburn and Associates January 2007 Table of Contents Arkansas River Power Authority - Lamar Light and Power 1 Austin Energy 6 Bowling Green Electric Utilities - AMP Ohio 12 Energy Northwest* 17 Forest City - Hull* 22 Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska - City of Aspen Electric Utilities 27 Nebraska Public Power District* 33 Platte River Power Authority - Fort Collins Utilities 38 Sacramento Municipal Utility District 44 Seattle City Light 49 Waverly Light and Power 54 Worthington - Moorhead - Missouri River 59 * The case studies in this collection reflect the leadership and innovation of public power utilities -na tionwide in wind development and wind power purchasing. Each one takes a detailed look at project drivers, technical approaches, financing and marketing aspects. Each also offers lessons learned and prospects for program expansion. Nine of these case studies were completed in spring 2005, while three, indicated above by an asterisk (*), were completed in fall 2006. The more recent case studies introduce attractive new opportunities in project financing and wind power marketing, as well as challenges asso- ciated with higher project construction costs. The local utilities and joint action agencies featured have generously shared their experiences and insights in hopes of advancing
    [Show full text]