DOCSLIB.ORG

10-YEAR TRANSMISSION PLAN for the State of Colorado February 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
10-YEAR TRANSMISSION PLAN for the State of Colorado February 1 10-YEAR TRANSMISSION PLAN For the State of Colorado To comply with Rule 3627 of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission Rules Regulating Electric Utilities Colorado PUC E-Filings System February 1, 2018 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 II. Transmission Planning in Colorado ................................................................................... 11 A. Coordinated Planning .................................................................................................... 11 B. Public Policy Issues ...................................................................................................... 15 III. Company Plan Narratives .................................................................................................. 17 A. Black Hills 10-Year Plan Overview ................................................................................ 17 1. Black Hills Service Territory ................................................................................... 17 2. Black Hills Projects ................................................................................................ 20 B. Tri-State 10-Year Plan Overview ................................................................................... 25 1. Tri-State Planning Process .................................................................................... 25 2. Tri-State Projects ................................................................................................... 28 C. Public Service 10-Year Plan Overview .......................................................................... 34 1. Public Service Planning Process ............................................................................ 34 2. Public Service Projects .......................................................................................... 35 IV. Projects of Other CCPG Transmission Providers .............................................................. 51 V. Senate Bill 07-100 Compliance and Other Public Policy Considerations ........................... 53 A. Black Hills Summary ..................................................................................................... 56 B. Public Service Summary ............................................................................................... 58 1. Projects That Have Been Completed or Planned ................................................... 60 2. Conceptual Plans ................................................................................................... 61 VI. Stakeholder Outreach Efforts ............................................................................................ 64 A. Black Hills Outreach Summary ...................................................................................... 64 B. Tri-State Outreach Summary ........................................................................................ 66 C. Public Service Outreach Summary ................................................................................ 69 D. CCPG Outreach Summary ............................................................................................ 78 CCPG Green Valley Stakeholder Input Process ............................................................ 80 CCPG San Luis Valley Subcommittee Stakeholder Input Process ................................ 80 CCPG Northeast Colorado Subcommittee Stakeholder Input Process .......................... 82 CCPG Rush Creek Task Force Stakeholder Input Process ........................................... 83 VII. 10-Year Transmission Plan Compliance Requirements ..................................................... 89 A. Efficient Utilization on a Best-Cost Basis: Rule 3627(b)(I) ............................................. 89 B. Reliability Criteria: Rule 3627(b)(II)................................................................................ 94 1. Black Hills Reliability Criteria .................................................................................. 95 2. Tri-State Reliability Criteria .................................................................................... 96 3. Public Service Reliability Criteria ............................................................................ 97 C. Legal and Regulatory Requirements: Rule 3627(b)(III) ................................................. 97 1. Black Hills Legal Requirements .............................................................................. 97 2. Tri-State Legal Requirements ................................................................................ 98 3. Public Service Legal Requirements........................................................................ 99 D. Opportunities for Meaningful Participation: FERC Order No. 890 ................................ 100 1. Black Hills Participation Strategy .......................................................................... 100 2. Tri-State Participation Strategy ............................................................................ 100 3. Public Service Participation Strategy.................................................................... 100 E. Coordination Among Transmission Providers: FERC Order No. 1000 ......................... 101 VIII.10-Year Transmission Plan Supporting Documentation ........................................................ 103 A. Methodology, Criteria, & Assumptions ......................................................................... 103 1. Facility Ratings (FAC-008-3) ................................................................................ 103 a. Black Hills Ratings ....................................................................................... 103 b. Tri-State Ratings .......................................................................................... 103 c. Public Service Ratings ................................................................................. 103 i 2. Transmission Base Case Data: Power Flow, Stability, Short Circuit ..................... 104 B. Load Modeling ............................................................................................................ 105 1. Forecasts ............................................................................................................. 105 a. Black Hills Forecasts .................................................................................... 105 b. Tri-State Forecasts ....................................................................................... 106 c. Public Service Forecasts .............................................................................. 107 2. Demand-Side Management ................................................................................. 107 a. Black Hills DSM ............................................................................................ 108 b. Tri-State DSM .............................................................................................. 108 c. Public Service DSM...................................................................................... 108 C. Generation and Dispatch Assumptions ....................................................................... 108 1. Black Hills Assumptions ....................................................................................... 109 2. Tri-State Assumptions .......................................................................................... 109 3. Public Service Assumptions ................................................................................. 110 D. Methodologies ............................................................................................................. 111 1. System Operating Limits (FAC-010)..................................................................... 111 a. Black Hills SOL ............................................................................................ 111 b. Tri-State SOL ............................................................................................... 112 c. Public Service SOL ...................................................................................... 112 2. Transfer Capabilities (MOD-001) ......................................................................... 112 a. Black Hills TTC ............................................................................................. 112 b. Tri-State TTC ............................................................................................... 112 c. Public Service TTC ...................................................................................... 113 3. Capacity Benefit Margin (MOD-004) .................................................................... 114 a. Black Hills CBM ............................................................................................ 114 b. Tri-State CBM .............................................................................................. 114 c. Public Service CBM...................................................................................... 114 4. Transmission Reliability Margin (MOD-008) ......................................................... 114 a. Black Hills TRM ............................................................................................ 115 b. Tri-State TRM............................................................................................... 115 c. Public Service TRM .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kansas Wind Farm Pilot Agreements Per Mw
    Kansas Wind Farm Pilot Agreements Per Mw Askance Nathaniel sometimes paddles any whine misapplies perennially. Lyndon still clangs mother-liquor while eloquent Emile euhemerized that tranquilization. Refined Agustin censors, his leapers stapled revile isometrically. Easements for market value in kansas, energy farm will. Probably choose renewable energy farm is per mw were primarily utilityscale wind farms are agreements being developed a windmill pump installed. Wind-rich states-North Dakota Texas and Kansas-could accomplish this. Nysted offshore farms much is per mw from empirical and kansas to. Installing and Maintaining a secure Wind Electric Energygov. Mw be a pilot agreement between sites that in mw than texas wind farm project uncertainty in efficiency in most per mw. Project various construction is FGE Power's 5004-MW Goodnight Wind Energy farm in Armstrong. Only a pilot? Unfortunately, its prominence often corresponded to its myriad challenges. The supply curves described earlier are based on switch type of transmission and the GIS optimization described here. What is OPC's position transfer the vessel Wind Project 14 A. Power development impacts on electricity market supported by analyzing its name from wind is wind industry would complicate wind. Involving affected remained opposed after random project was communities early is critical to identifying constructed. Mw marena renovables wind turbine setbacks from kathleen sebelius, nyiso system operations will be installed. Be pushed it might have. In AC electricity, the current flows in width direction from zero to a maximum voltage, then back afraid to zero, then sentence a maximum voltage in the plate direction. Kilowatt-hour MW megawatt NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory RPS.
    [Show full text]
  • Document.Pdf
    CONFIDENTIAL OFFERING MEMORANDUM This Investment Memorandum (“Memorandum”) is furnished to prospective purchasers solely to facilitate the purchaser’s consideration of the property known as Smokey Trail Apartments (510 Smokey Trail Drive) located in Limon, CO (“Property”). The Memorandum contains proprietary information and was prepared by Olive Real Estate Group, Inc. using information compiled from sources we consider to be reliable. However, the Seller makes no representations or warranties herein and the building is being sold in an “as is, where-is” condition. By receipt of this Memorandum, you agree that: (a) the Memorandum and its contents are of a confidential nature and that you will hold and treat it in strictest confidence; (b) you will not reproduce, transmit or disseminate the information contained in the Memorandum through any means, or disclose this Memorandum or any of its contents to any other entity without the prior written authorization of Olive Real Estate Group, Inc. nor will you use this Memorandum or any of its contents in any fashion or manner detrimental to the interests of Olive Real Estate Group, Inc. or seller; and (c) upon request you will return the Memorandum without retaining any copy or extracting any portion thereof. This Memorandum does not purport to be all-inclusive or to contain all the information which prospective purchasers may desire. Certain documents, including leases and other materials, are described herein in summary form. The summaries are not complete descriptions of the full agreements. Interested parties are expected to review all such documents independently. Financial projections are provided for reference purposes only and are based on assumptions relating to the general economy, competition and other factors beyond the control of Olive Real Estate Group, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • February 27, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING the Honorable Kimberly D
    1800 Larimer Denver, CO 80202 February 27, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 Re: Public Service Company of Colorado Xcel Energy Operating Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff Docket No. ER18-___-000 Terms, Conditions and Rates for Use of Rush Creek Gen-Tie Dear Secretary Bose: Pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824d, part 35 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” or “Commission”) regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 35.13 (2017), and Order No. 714,1 Xcel Energy Services Inc.,2 on behalf of its utility operating company affiliate Public Service Company of Colorado (“PSCo”),3 submits revisions to the Xcel Energy Operating Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff (“Tariff” or “OATT”).4 PSCo proposes to add new Part VII “Interconnection Service using the PSCo Rush Creek Generator- Tie Line” and Schedule 19 “Rush Creek Gen-Tie Use Charge,” to the Tariff. PSCo proposes these revisions to provide for the rates, terms and conditions for interconnection service over a new radial generation-tie line now being constructed by PSCo, the Rush Creek Generator Tie- Line (“Rush Creek Gen-Tie” or “Gen-Tie”). PSCo respectfully requests that the Commission act 1 Electronic Tariff Filings, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,276 (2008). 2 Xcel Energy Services Inc. (“XES”) is the centralized service company subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. (“Xcel Energy”), a Minnesota corporation and a holding company under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005. XES performs a variety of administrative and general services for the utility operating company affiliates within the Xcel Energy Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth of Wind Generation in the Electric Cooperative Community | 2
    Business & Technology Strategies TechSurveillance Growth of Wind Generation in the Electric Cooperative Community BY LAURA MOOREFIELD, MOOREFIELD RESEARCH & CONSULTING, WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DALE BRADSHAW, TECHNICAL EXPERT FOR NRECA JUNE 2017 subject matter experts for questions on this topic Dan Walsh, Manager of Generation, Environment and Carbon Work Group, [email protected] Dale Bradshaw, Technical Expert and Liaison for the Generation, Environment and Carbon Work Group, [email protected] article snapshot: What has changed in the industry? The wind industry is growing rapidly and is the fastest growing renewable in total megawatts installed. Electric cooperatives are on the front lines of this trend with more than 5,400 MW of wind capacity — about 7 percent of total U.S. wind capacity — and continued growth is expected. But the Production Tax Credit (PTC), a federal tax credit that has been a key driver of U.S. wind developments is being phased-out by 2020. What is the impact on cooperatives? Cooperatives that already own and purchase wind energy may be affected by increasing amounts of wind on the grid, but the PTC phase-out could open new opportunities for co-ops to own more wind farms. In fact, with 100 percent debt financing, low cost-for-capital, and the PTC dropping by 20 percent, 2017 may be the year that it becomes more economical for electric cooperatives to finance their own wind farms. The additional PTC decrease in 2018 will favor cooperative-owned wind farms even more. However, as discussed in a previous TechSurveillance article (Variability and Uncertainty in Renewables’ Generation: Creates Operational, Reliability, and Cost Challenges for G&T Cooperatives), the intermittent and non-dispatchable nature of renewables presents operational, reliability, and economic challenges for generation and transmission (G&T) cooperatives requiring development of fossil generation and other options to integrate this lowest-cost renewable generation option.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado PUC E-Filings System
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO * * * * * IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) COLORADO FOR APPROVAL OF THE 600 ) MW RUSH CREEK WIND PROJECT ) PURSUANT TO RULE 3660(H), A ) CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE ) AND NECESSITY FOR THE RUSH CREEK ) WIND FARM, AND A CERTIFICATE OF ) PROCEEDING NO. 16A-0117E PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ) FOR THE 345 KV RUSH CREEK TO MISSILE ) SITE GENERATION TIE TRANSMISSION ) LINE AND ASSOCIATED FINDINGS OF ) NOISE AND MAGNETIC FIELD ) REASONABLENESS ) VERIFIED APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO FOR APPROVAL OF THE 600 MW RUSH CREEK WIND PROJECT PURSUANT TO RULE 3660(H), A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE RUSH CREEK WIND FARM, AND A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE 345 KV RUSH CREEK TO MISSILE SITE GENERATION TIE TRANSMISSION LINE AND ASSOCIATED FINDINGS OF NOISE AND MAGNETIC FIELD REASONABLENESS. In accordance with § 40-5-101 and § 40-2-124, C.R.S., and Rules 3002(a)(III), 3002(b), 3002(c), 3102, 3206, and 3660(h) of the Commission’s Rules Colorado PUC E-Filings System of Practice and Procedure, Public Service Company of Colorado (“Public Service” or the “Company”) hereby requests that the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) authorize it to develop, own and operate as utility rate-based property a new 600 megawatt (“MW”) nameplate capacity wind facility located in eastern Colorado, which is comprised of the Rush Creek I and Rush Creek II sites. In addition, Public Service requests two Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”): (1) a CPCN to construct and operate the Rush Creek I and II wind generation facilities, and (2) a CPCN to construct and operate a 345 kV generation intertie (the “Rush Creek Gen-Tie” or “Gen-Tie”) the Rush Creek generation facilities and Gen-Tie together will be referenced throughout this Application as the “Rush Creek Wind Project” or “Project”.
    [Show full text]
  • Rush Creek 345 Kv Transmission Line Project Arapahoe County 1041 Permit Application 1041 Permit-REV03
    November 10, 2016 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO Rush Creek 345 kV Transmission Line Project Arapahoe County 1041 Permit Application 1041 Permit-REV03 This page intentionally left blank. Public Service Company of Colorado Rush Creek 345 kV Transmission Line Project Arapahoe County 1041 Application-REV03 Arapahoe County 1041 Permit Application PREPARED FOR: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO PREPARED BY: POWER ENGINEERS INC. LAKEWOOD, CO Public Service Company of Colorado Rush Creek 345 kV Transmission Line Project Arapahoe County 1041 Application-REV03 This page intentionally left blank. Public Service Company of Colorado Rush Creek 345 kV Transmission Line Project Arapahoe County 1041 Application-REV03 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo or “Applicant”) has prepared this Areas and Activities of State Interest (Colorado House Bill 1041; 1041 Regulations) permit application per the requirements outlined in Chapter 5 of the Regulations Governing Areas and Activities of State Interest in Arapahoe County. This application is organized based on the 2012 Eastern Colorado Connect LLC application per the request of the Arapahoe County Public Works and Development, Planning Division. PSCo is providing Project information, exhibits, and materials, which are hereby incorporated into and made part of the Application below in order to comply with Arapahoe County 1041 Permit approval criteria. PROJECT SUMMARY The Rush Creek 345 kV Transmission Line Project is an approximately 80-93 mile long (depending on the preferred alternative) 345 kV transmission line, planned to cross approximately 13.5 miles of eastern Arapahoe County, approximately 41 miles of Elbert County, and 26 miles of Lincoln County as depicted on the map in Figure 2-1 (Arapahoe County – Rush Creek 345 kV Transmission Line Project Map).
    [Show full text]
  • United States Withouth CA Wind Farms with 15 and 20M Agl Wind Speeds (Updated 8.26.20)
    Wind Farms in the United States (excluding California) and Wind Speeds at known locations Data collected from thewindpower.net and UL's Windnavigator and compiled by Wind Harvest Classification: Public Update: 26 August Contact: Kelsey Wolf-Cloud, [email protected] 1. Wind speeds will vary across wind farms. This initial estimate Note used only one lat-long per wind farm. 2. This table has an unknown accuracy level. Total Onshore Total Wind Wind Total Number of Farms in Farms Projected Projected onshore wind farms Country analyzed MW >6.5m/s MW >6.5m/s in country (MWs) (MW) at 15m agl at 20m agl 1,292 104,212 54,627 11,181 22,059 Average Wind Speed Average Average at 20m agl Onshore Wind Farm # of Wind Speed Wind Speed Power (kW) m/s Name Turbines at 80m agl at 15m agl (calculated m/s m/s using wind shear) Foote Creek Rim 82,950 130 12.19 10.93 11.15 Kaheawa II 21,000 14 10.08 8.31 8.58 Rock River 50,000 50 9.7 7.98 8.26 Kaheawa I 30,000 20 9.8 7.97 8.25 Caprock Wind Ranch 80,000 80 9.91 7.7 8.04 Wild Horse 228,600 127 8.9 7.42 7.66 Wild Horse 268,200 149 8.9 7.42 7.66 Wild Horse II 39,600 22 8.9 7.42 7.66 Pioneer 85,100 46 8.89 7.36 7.60 High Plains 99,000 66 9.07 7.35 7.63 Red Canyon 84,000 56 9.47 7.34 7.66 Auwahi Wind Farm 24,000 8 9.68 7.27 7.63 Blue Canyon II 151,200 84 9.1 7.23 7.53 Blue Canyon 74,250 45 9.04 7.11 7.40 Seven Mile Hill 118,500 79 9.19 7.06 7.39 Glenrock II 99,000 66 9.08 7.05 7.36 McFadden Ridge 28,500 19 8.67 7.05 7.30 High Lonesome 100,000 40 8.36 7 7.20 Hawai Renewable 10,560 16 9.01 6.91 7.24 Happy
    [Show full text]
  • RRA Regulatory Focus Corporate Renewables in the United States
    March 31, 2019 spglobal.com/marketintelligence RRA Regulatory Focus Corporate Renewables in the United States One of the most rapidly growing trends in the renewable energy industry and the electricity market as a whole is corporations aiming to go green by increasing the percent of energy they consume that comes from renewable resources. A company can accomplish this in multiple ways. A historically popular option that continues to be highly utilized today is on-site generation, via mostly rooftop solar photovoltaics, or PV, and other renewable sources such as battery storage. Distributed generation remains a foundational aspect of the corporate renewables world, but it is slowly being nudged aside by utility-scale renewables. Large corporations have realized that in order to make a significant dent in their carbon footprint, installing small behind-the-meter, or BTM, single-digit- megawatt solar projects alone will not cut it. As a result, many companies across multiple industries have begun entering into multiyear contracts with large utility-scale wind and solar power plants to offset their energy usage. This has caused a seismic shift in the way renewable developers and utilities approach new generation and funding for projects. Currently, 166 companies have committed to going 100% renewable. This includes 53 Fortune 500 companies as of the end of 2018, which more than doubles the 23 Fortune 500 companies committed just one year earlier. On top of this are many other companies with established goals of renewable energy. These companies are making the largest impact in the renewables market worldwide and are the focus of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of Displayed Operational Power Plants
    Better Data for Better Decisions Order this map online at www.mapsearch.com/electricmap The 2012 US Power Industry Wall Map Displays the Following Operational Power Plants (50 MW and above): 491 E 48th Street Alta Wind V Astoria Benton County 5 AC Altamont Pass Astoria Energy LLC Bergen 500MW CC Altavista Astoria GT Berkshire Power Co LLC A B Brown AMEA Peaking Athens Bethlehem A B Paterson American Falls Attala Bethlehem A L Pierce American Ref-Fuel DE Valley Auburndale Peaker Bethpage Abilene CT American Ref-Fuel of Niagara Auburndale Power Partners Big Bend Acadia Power Partners Ames Electric Services Audrain Big Bend ACE Cogeneration Co Ames GT Aurora Big Brown Adair Amistad Dam & Power Avon Lake Big Cajun 1 AEP Waterford Anadarko Plant Avon Park Big Cajun 2 AES Placerita Inc Anclote B C Cobb Big Creek 1 AES Alamitos LLC Anderson B L England Big Creek 2 AES Beaver Valley Partners Androscoggin Baconton Power LLC Big Creek 2A Beaver Valley Androscoggin Mill Bad Creek Big Creek 3 AES Cayuga LLC Angus Anson Bailly Big Creek 4 AES Huntington Beach LLC Animas Bainbridge Big Creek 8 AES Ironwood LLC ANP Bellingham Energy Com- Balch 2 Big Horn AES Petersburg pany LLC Baldwin Energy Complex Big Horn Wind II AES Red Oak LLC ANP Blackstone Energy Com- Baldwin Wind LLC Big Sandy AES Redondo Beach LLC pany LLC Barkley Big Sandy Peaker Plant LLC AES Shady Point LLC Anson County Barney M Davis Big Stone AES Somerset LLC Antelope Valley Barry Biglow Canyon AES Thames LLC Apache Bartletts Ferry Birchwood Power Partners LP AES Warrior Run Cogen Apalachia
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Ecology of Wind Energy Opposition in Wyoming
    POWER POLITICS: THE POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF WIND ENERGY OPPOSITION IN WYOMING by Shawn Keating Olson B.A. The Evergreen State College, 2003 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment Of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science Program of Environmental Studies 2013 This thesis entitled: Power Politics: The Political Ecology of Wind Energy Opposition in Wyoming Written by Shawn Keating Olson has been approved for the Program of Environmental Studies _______________________________________________________________ Maxwell Boykoff, Ph.D. _______________________________________________________________ Lori Hunter, Ph.D. _______________________________________________________________ Emily Yeh, Ph.D. _______________________________________________________________ Suzanne Tegen, Ph.D. Date______________________ The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we Find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards Of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. IRB protocol# 12-0764 (University of Colorado) ABSTRACT Olson, Shawn Keating (MS, Environmental Studies) Power Politics: The Political Ecology of Wind Energy Opposition in Wyoming Thesis directed by Maxwell Boykoff This study investigates growing opposition to industrial-scale wind farms in the United States (US). Opposition groups are often successful in halting or delaying turbine construction, which significantly impacts the feasibility of meeting the US Department of Energy’s “20 percent wind energy by 2030” goal; the US now generates 3.5 percent of electricity from the wind. Because wind farms require large tracts of open land and are mostly built in rural areas, this research focuses on the US West and examines opposition underway in east-central Wyoming. Wyomingites embody politically conservative and culturally individualistic ideologies that pose unique challenges for wind developers.
    [Show full text]
  • Rush Creek Wind Farm
    Economic Impacts from Wind Energy in Colorado Case Study: Rush Creek Wind Farm Jeremy Stefek,1 Anna Kaelin,1 Suzanne Tegen,2 Owen Roberts,1 and David Keyser1 1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 Colorado State University NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5000-73659 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC September 2019 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Economic Impacts from Wind Energy in Colorado Case Study: Rush Creek Wind Farm Jeremy Stefek,1 Anna Kaelin,1 Suzanne Tegen,2 Owen Roberts,1 and David Keyser1 1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 Colorado State University Suggested Citation Stefek, Jeremy, Anna Kaelin, Suzanne Tegen, Owen Roberts, and David Keyser. 2019. Economic Impacts from Wind Energy in Colorado Case Study: Rush Creek Wind Farm. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5000-73659. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73659.pdf. NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5000-73659 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC September 2019 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 15013 Denver West Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NOTICE This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Turbine Team at Virginia Tech Siting & Project Development Written Report 2020 U.S
    Wind Turbine Team at Virginia Tech Siting & Project Development Written Report 2020 U.S. Department of Energy Collegiate Wind Competition Virginia Tech Blacksburg, Virginia, (540) 231-6611, [email protected] Twitter/Instagram/Facebook: @WindTurbineTeamVT Siting and Business Team Leader: Katie Clatterbuck Team Members: Carly Federman, Parker Reed, Christina Watt, Paul Kell, Jack Speroni, Ana Haines, Zach Hershey, Cameron Barnhill, Piero Morote Advisor Dr. Matthew Kuester (Principal Investigator, Department of Aerospace Engineering) Members: 9 (3 majors), Advisors: 1 Table of Contents Abstract 3 Site Plan and Selection Methods 3 Selection Methods 3 Top Three Sites 3 Final Site Selection 3 Wind Resource 5 Existing Wind Farms 5 Terrain 5 Access to Transmission 5 Access to Transportation 5 Environmental Factors and Vegetation 5 Community Factors 5 Land Ownership 5 Permitting 6 Detailed Design 6 Turbine Selection 6 OpenWind Model 7 Net Annual Energy Production 7 Costs Summary 8 Initial Capital Costs 8 Engineering and Surveying 8 Resource Assessment 8 Roads 8 Staging Area 9 Office Space 9 Land Development Permits 9 Foundations 10 Turbine Costs 10 Turbine Component Transportation 10 Turbine Installation 10 Electrical Infrastructure 10 Control and Electrical Hardware 11 Annual Operating Expenses 11 Land Expenses 11 Maintenance 11 Daily Operations 11 Administrative and Legal Fees 11 Decommissioning Costs and Salvage Value 11 Financing 12 Model Selection 12 Incentives 12 Power Purchase Agreement 12 Terms of Power Purchase Agreement 12 Associated Loans 12 Additional Model Inputs 13 Site Information 13 Tax and Insurance Rates 13 Time-of-Delivery Factors 13 Reserve Accounts 13 Model Outputs 13 Optimization Process 14 Conclusion 15 References i 2 Abstract This report details the design process (and the financial potential) for a proposed wind farm in Eastern Colorado.
    [Show full text]