DOCSLIB.ORG

Bureau of Reclamation Records Regarding Efficiency And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bureau of Reclamation Records Regarding Efficiency And Description of document: Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) records regarding efficiency and optimization projects at Reclamation facilities, 2016 Requested date: March 2016 Released date: 22-March-2016 Posted date: 12-December-2016 Source of document: Bureau of Reclamation DFOIA Officer PO Box 25007, 84-21300 Denver CO 80225-0007 Fax: (303) 445-6575 or (888) 808-5104 The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website. From: "Bishop, Clark" Date: Mar 22, 2016 3:33:07 PM Subject: Reclamation Optimization Cc: Max Spiker, Michael Pulskamp I received your request through my manager, Max Spiker regarding efficiency and optimization projects at Reclamation facilities. In response, I've attached a zip folder containing four files: Optimization Slides: Slides provide background on Reclamation's standardized hydropower optimization system (hydrOS) and deployment schedule. USBR MWH HMI Report: Report assesses capacity gains at Reclamation facilities (e.g. generator uprates). Assessment provides Reclamation and our power customers a tool to identify and act on opportunities for capacity gains at our facilities. FY2016 Q1 Renewable Update: Identifies federal and non-federal renewable energy projects currently online or in development at Reclamation projects. Update also provides information on ongoing turbine replacement and generator rewind projects at Reclamation power facilities. Generation Gains: Spreadsheet identifies turbine replacement projects and generator uprates completed since 1999 - as well as expected generation benefits resulting from those projects. I believe these files will provide the information you requested.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or my colleagues, Michael Pulskamp or Max Spiker (cc'd). Thank you. Clark Bishop Bureau of Reclamation Power Resources Email: [email protected] Office: 303-445-2908 Optimization Systems • Optimization: continuous computer modeling to determined the optimal operation to achieve desired power production using the least amount of water. • Increases Efficiency – Uses Less Water at Same Power Output Level – Or Increase Generation Levels – Use Same Amount of Water • When All Reclamation Plants are Optimized – 1% - 3% Efficiency Gains (410,000 MWh – 1,230,000 MWh) – $10.3M - $30.8M Annually (at $25 per MWh) Past Optimization Efforts • Grand Coulee showed a 2.2% efficiency increase from optimization work (2003-2006) • Hoover showed a 1.85% efficiency increase from optimization work (2011) • Yellowtail showed a 1.68% efficiency increase from partial optimization work (2011) Standardized Optimization System • First installation of standardized system at Black Canyon Control Center (8/2013) – 142,711 MWh – 428,133 MWh • Once all Reclamation plants are optimized – 19 MW – 57 MW of generating capacity – 410,000 MWh – 1,230,000 MWh • Glen Canyon Control Center (ongoing) • Elephant Butte (ongoing) • Casper Control Center (ongoing) • Parker/Davis • Grand Coulee • Central Valley Operations Hydropower Modernization Initiative Assessment of Potential Capacity Increases at Existing Hydropower Plants U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Sacramento, California FINAL - October 2010 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Assessment of Potential Capacity Increases at Existing Hydropower Plants Hydropower Modernization Initiative Prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado FINAL - October 2010 This page left blank intentionally. October 26, 2010 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Federal Center Bldg. 67 (86-61600) P.O. Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225-0007 Attn: Mr. Michael Pulskamp Subject: Final Report on Assessment of Capacity Increases at Existing Hydroelectric Plants Ref: USACE Contract No. W9127N-10-D-0004, MWH Americas, Inc., Task Order 0002 Dear Michael, Enclosed is our final report assessing capacity gains at existing United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) hydroelectric plants. This work was performed under Task 2 of our IDIQ contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the Hydropower Modernization Initiative, Bureau of Reclamation. The report presents the results from creating energy simulation models at Reclamation hydropower plants, and developing a comprehensive valuation of benefits from potential capacity increases at all plants. The primary authors of the report were John Haapala and Jill Gray. MWH appreciates the opportunity to work with Reclamation on this interesting assignment. We hope this document provides useful results regarding potential capacity additions and will help direct future investigation efforts toward the plants that have the most potential. We enjoyed our collaboration with both Reclamation and USACE on this study and look forward to additional opportunities to be of service Thank you. (for) Nancy Walker Project Manager MWH Americas, Inc. encl: Final Report 2353 - 130th Avenue NE TEL +1 425 896 6900 Suite 200 FAX +1 425 602 4020 520 Corporate Center www.mwhglobal.com Bellevue, Washington 98005 United States This page left blank intentionally. Disclaimer Disclaimer The findings, interpretations of data, recommendations, specifications or professional opinions presented in this report are based upon available information at the time the report was prepared. Studies described in this report were conducted in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and geological practice, and in accordance with the requirements of the Client. There is no other warranty, either expressed or implied. The findings of this report are based on the readily available data and information obtained from public and private sources. MWH relied on this information provided by others and did not verify the applicability, accuracy or completeness of the data. Additional studies (at greater cost) may or may not disclose information that may significantly modify the findings of this report. MWH accepts no liability for completeness or accuracy of the information presented and/or provided to us, or for any conclusions and decisions that may be made by the Client or others regarding the subject site or project. The cost estimates developed for the report are prepared in accordance with the cost estimate classes defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering. MWH has no control over costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding environments and procedures, unidentified field conditions, financial and/or market conditions, or other factors likely to affect the cost estimates contained herein, all of which are, and will unavoidably remain, in a state of change, especially in light of the high volatility of the market attributable to market events beyond the control of the parties. These estimates are a “snapshot in time” and the reliability of these cost estimates will inherently degrade over time. MWH cannot and does not make any warranty, promise, guarantee, or representation, either express or implied, that proposals, bids, project construction costs, or cost of operation or maintenance will not vary substantially from MWH’s good faith Class 5 cost estimate. This report was prepared solely for the benefit of the Client. No other entity or person shall use or rely upon this report or any of MWH's work product unless expressly authorized by MWH. Any use of or reliance upon MWH's work product by any party, other than the Client, shall be solely at the risk of such party. FINAL - October 2010 This page left blank intentionally. Executive Summary Executive Summary There has recently been a considerable resurgence of interest in hydropower in the USA. The current interest in hydropower has been primarily directed at developing incremental hydropower where an existing dam, or an existing dam and powerhouse can be utilized. Incremental hydropower can be developed through efficiency increases in existing units and/or by the addition of capacity to utilize flow for generation that would be otherwise spilled at existing dams. One of the driving forces behind the increased interest in electricity generation from hydropower
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003 I
    Contents Introduction ................................................1 Macroeconomic Activity Module .....................................13 International Energy Module .......................................15 Household Expenditures Module .....................................19 Residential Demand Module .......................................21 Commercial Demand Module .......................................29 Industrial Demand Module ........................................39 Transportation Demand Module .....................................53 Electricity Market Module .........................................71 Oil and Gas Supply Module ........................................86 Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Module ...........................96 Petroleum Market Module ........................................100 Coal Market Module ...........................................112 Renewable Fuels Module ........................................120 Energy Information Administration/Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003 i Introduction his report presents the major assumptions of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) used to generate the projections in the Annual Energy Outlook 20031 (AEO2003), including general features of Tthe model structure, assumptions concerning energy markets, and the key input data and parameters that are most significant in formulating the model results. Detailed documentation of the modeling system is available in a series of documentation reports.2 A synopsis of NEMS, the model components,
    [Show full text]
  • Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan
    Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan Adopted August 16, 2004 Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Trail Commission Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Maricopa County Planning and Development Flood Control District of Maricopa County We have an obligation to protect open spaces for future generations. Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan VISION Our vision is to connect the majestic open spaces of the Maricopa County Regional Parks with a nonmotorized trail system. The Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan - page 1 Credits Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Andrew Kunasek, District 3, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Maricopa County Trail Commission Supervisor Max Wilson, District 4 Chairman Supervisor Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Parks Commission Members: Citizen Members: Laurel Arndt, Chair Art Wirtz, District 2 Randy Virden, Vice-Chair Jim Burke, District 3 Felipe Zubia, District 5 Stakeholders: Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Fred Pfeifer, Arizona Public Service (APS) James Duncan, Salt River Project (SRP) Teri Raml, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ex-officio Members: William Scalzo, Chief Community Services Officer Pictured from left to right Laurel Arndt, Supervisor Andy Kunasek, Fred Pfeifer, Carol Erwin, Arizona’s Official State Historian, Marshall Trimble, and Art Wirtz pose with the commemorative branded trail marker Mike Ellegood, Director, Public Works at the Maricopa Trail
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Colorado Regulations 1 H
    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Wildlife CHAPTER W-1 - FISHING 2 CCR 406-1 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] _________________________________________________________________________ ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS #100 – DEFINITIONS See also 33-1-102, C.R.S and Chapter 0 of these regulations for other applicable definitions. A. "Artificial flies and lures" means devices made entirely of, or a combination of, natural or synthetic non-edible, non-scented (regardless if the scent is added in the manufacturing process or applied afterward), materials such as wood, plastic, silicone, rubber, epoxy, glass, hair, metal, feathers, or fiber, designed to attract fish. This definition does not include anything defined as bait in #100.B below. B. "Bait" means any hand-moldable material designed to attract fish by the sense of taste or smell; those devices to which scents or smell attractants have been added or externally applied (regardless if the scent is added in the manufacturing process or applied afterward); scented manufactured fish eggs and traditional organic baits, including but not limited to worms, grubs, crickets, leeches, dough baits or stink baits, insects, crayfish, human food, fish, fish parts or fis h eggs. C. "Chumming" means placing fish, parts of fish, or other material upon which fish might feed in the waters of this state for the purpose of attracting fish to a particular area in order that they might be taken, but such term shall not include fishing with baited hooks or live traps. D. “Game fish” means all species of fish except unregulated species, prohibited nongame, endangered and threatened species, which currently exist or may be introduced into the state and which are classified as game fish by the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects
    REC-ERC-SO-1 January 1990 Denver Office U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamation TECHNICAL REEPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG ~0. 5. REPORT DATE Compilation Report on the Effects January 1990 of Reservoir Releases on 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Downstream Ecosystems D-3742 7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION E. Cheslak REPORT NO. J. Carpenter REC-ERC-90-1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. Ed: RDM 16. ABSTRACT Most of the dams built by the Bureau of Reclamation were completed before environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act existed. The management and operation of dams was instituted under conditions where the ecology of the downstream habitat was unknown and largely ignored. Changing or modifying structures, flow regimes, and land use patterns are some of the efforts being pursued by the Bureau to reconcile or mitigate the effects of impoundment to comply with these environmental policies and to maximize the potential for recreation, fisheries, and water quality in tailwater habitats for the water resource users. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document intended to aid in the management, compliance, and problem solving processes necessary to accomplish these goals in Bureau tailwater habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kimsey Rezoning Project Narrative 10-ZN-2020
    The Kimsey Rezoning Project Narrative 10-ZN-2020 PEG – Indian School 1 Revised December 16, 2020 PREPARED BY Berry Riddell, LLC John Berry, Esq. Michele Hammond, Principal Planner + Gensler Jay Silverberg, AIA + Douglas Sydnor Architect & Associates Douglas Sydnor, FAIA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Development Team 3 Site Information 4 Project Overview (Kimsey History/ Haver History) 8 2001 General Plan 16 Old Town Scottsdale Character Area Plan 28 Planned Block Development (PBD) 50 Old Town Scottsdale – Urban Design & Architectural Guidelines (UDAG) 54 Scottsdale Sensitive Design Principles 66 PEG – Indian School 2 Revised December 16, 2020 DEVELOPMENT TEAM Developer PEG Companies Robert Schmidt / Ryan Barker / Matt Krambule 801-655-1998 [email protected] Zoning Attorney Berry Riddell John V. Berry, Esq. / Michele Hammond, AICP 480-385-2727 [email protected] [email protected] Architect of Record Gensler Jay Silverberg, AIA / Stefan Richter 602-523-4900 [email protected] [email protected] Architectural Design Consultant Douglas Sydnor Architect & Associates Douglas Sydnor, FAIA 480-206-4593 [email protected] Civil Engineer SEG – Sustainability Engineering Group Ali Fakih, PE 480-588-7226 [email protected] Traffic Engineer Lokahi Group Jamie Blakeman, PE PTOE 480-536-7150 x200 [email protected] Outreach Consultant Technical Solutions Susan Bitter Smith / Prescott Smith 602-957-3434 [email protected] [email protected] PEG – Indian School 3 Revised December 16, 2020 SITE INFORMATION
    [Show full text]
  • Mormon Flat Dam Salt River Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona
    Mormon Flat Dam Salt River HAER No. AZ- 14 Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Western Region Department of Interior San Francisco, California 94102 ( ( f ' HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 Location: Mormon Flat Dam is located on the Salt River in eastern Maricopa County, Arizona. It is approximately 50 miles east of Phoenix. UTM coordinates 25 feet northeast of the dam (in feet) are: Easting 1505701.5184; Northing 12180405.3728, Zone 12. USGS 7.5 quad Mormon Flat Dam. Date of Construction: 1923-1925. Engineer: Charles C. Cragin. Present Owner: The Salt River Project. Present Use: Mormon Flat Dam is operated by the Salt River Project for the purposes of generating hydroelectic power and for storing approximately 57,000 acre feet of water for agricultural and urban uses. Significance: Mormon Flat Dam was the first dam constructed under the Salt River Project's 1920's hydroelectic expansion program. Historian: David M. Introcaso, Corporate Information Management, Salt River Project. Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Introduction 3 Chapter II The Need to Expand the Association's Hydroelectric Capacity . • . • • . 20 Chapter III The Construction of Mormon Flat Dam . 37 Chapter IV The Construction of Horse Mesa Dam 60 Chapter V Post-Construction: Additions to the Association's Hydroelectric Program and Modifications to Mormon Flat and Horse Mesa Dams 79 Chapter VI Conclusion . 105 Chapter VII Epilogue: Expansion Backlash, "Water Users Oust Cragin" . 114 Appendixes . 130 Bibliography 145 Mormon Flat Darn HAER No.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclamation Era, Vol. 25 No. 12, December 1935
    THE , RECL ATION ·ERA VOL. 25, NO. 12 0ECEMBER 1935 • COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, WASHINGTON GRAND COULEE WORKINGS ALIGHT, W ITH ELECTRIFIED MASON CITY I N BACKGROUND COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, WASHINGTON-GRAND COULEE DAM 1, Excavation area on east side, including conveyor carrying the spoil across Co.lumbia River to the main line going to the waste pile,in Rattlesnake Canyon. 2, Some of the forty 4-yard concrete buckets. 3, Jackhammers on west bedrock. THE RECLAMATION ERA Issued monthly by the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D. C. Price 75 cents a year HAROLD L. ICKES ELWOOD MEAD Secretary of the Interior Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation Vol. 25, No. 12 December 1935 Land Planning in Relation to Western Reclamation Address Delivered on October 24, 1935, Over Station KDYL, Salt Lake City, Utah, on Farm and Home Hour 1 LANNING for wise use of land in the land is tillable and the farmer thinks provided an insecure water source for the P arid West presents a problem that about his water supply only when rain irrigators, who had found to their sorrow does not exist in any other section of the fails his growing corn. that many of the western streams carried country. It arises from the fact that the All the implications of this problem an overabundance of water in the spring natural rainfall in this region is not were not recognized at once by the west­ but were nearly dry soon after the floods enough to sustain a stable and intensive ern pioneers. Early irrigation develop­ had passed.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Biological Opinion Concerning the Operation of the Missouri River
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Mountain-Prairie Region IN REPLY REFER TO: rWS/R6/ MAILING ADDRESS: STREET LOCATION: Post Office Box 25486 134 Union Boulevard TAILS Ref: Denver Federal Center Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1807 06E00000-2018-F-O Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 APR 1 3 2018 Mr. David J. Ponganis Director of Programs Directorate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Division P.O. Box 2870 Portland, Oregon 97208~2870 Oc~ve,.- Dear.... Mr . ..Ponga ms: Please find enclosed the Final Biological Opinion concerning the Operation of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System, the Operation and Maintenance of the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, the Operation of Kansas River Reservoir System, and the Implementation of the Missouri River Recovery Management Plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) transmitted the draft to the USACE on February 8, 2018 and the USACE subsequently transmitted the draft BiOp to the Independent Science Advisory Panel (ISAP) of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC). The ISAP presented the results of their review to the MRRIC plenary session March 27, 2018 and the USACE formally transmitted the ISAP response along with USACE supporting information to the Service on April 3, 2018. The Service wants to thank the lJSACE for their continued collaborative approach to what is a ground breaking process of evaluating a highly complex adaptive management process through section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Service has taken the ISAP and USACE comments under advisement and have made numerous improvements to the document as a result.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado-Big Thompson Project
    75TH CONGRESS} DOCUMENT 1" Session . SENATE { No. 80 COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT SYNOPSIS OF REPORT ON COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT, PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT AND COST ESTIMATE PRE­ PARED BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMA­ TION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PRESENTED BY MR. ADAMS JUNE 15, 1937-0rdered to be printed without illustrations UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1931 Pare Letter of Northern Colorado Water Users' Association ___________ . ____ _ VII Letter of the Western Slope Protective Association ___________________ _ VII Outline of con.struction and operating conditions·___________ ~ ____ .:. _____ _ 1 Manner of operation of,project facilities ,and auxiliary features_, _______ _ 2 Summa.ry-Colorado-Blg Thompson proJect __________ .. ______________ _ 5 Histo~----------_--------------------_----------------- 5 Irrigation use ________________________ ._______ - _ - __ --- __ - __________ _ 6 Need of sopplemental water __________________________ . ________ _ 6: Supplemental 'water supply ________________________________________ _ 8 Land classification-Colorado River areas _______________________ _ 9 Water supply ___________________________________ ~ ____ ._ - ___ - __ . ___ _ 10 Yield of Granby Reservoir __________ ~ __ - _~ _____ --- _---- _ - ______ _ 11 Effect of the diversion on western slope development. _____________ _ 13 Diversion plan and structures ______________________ - _______________ _ Replacement _________________________________________________ _ 14 14 Granby Reservoir storage ______________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix M. Wilding and Sanderson. a Pictorial Guide to Riparian
    Appendix M A Pictorial Guide to Riparian Changes Following Flow Alteration This page left intentionally blank. A pictorial guide to riparian changes following flow alteration Thomas Wilding, Colorado State University John Sanderson, The Nature Conservancy There are many examples in the scientific literature of how stream and river ecosystems respond to flow modification (for a starting point, see Poff et al. 1997). A pilot study for the Roaring Fork basin presented “flow-ecology” relationships that describe the relationship of flow modification with cottonwood, warmwater fish, trout and invertebrates (Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool Pilot; CDM 2009). After receiving feedback on the pilot study from the basin roundtable, improved flow-ecology relationships were then developed for the upper Colorado River. This included further work on cottonwood and willow plant communities (Wilding and Sanderson 2010), warmwater fish (Wilding et al. 2011b), and invertebrates (Wilding et al. 2011a). Predicting how ecosystems and species respond to flow alteration is key to environmental flow assessments. The predictions from scientific models, including flow- ecology relationships, are represented as numbers. If you cannot picture what these numbers translate to in reality then the models are not particularly informative for understanding the consequences of flow alteration. So we were asked to show how the numbers translate to real-life examples, presenting pictures of how plants and animals respond to flow change. Our objective is to present examples that clearly and succinctly illustrate flow-induced changes for riparian vegetation (plants beside streams). For each example, the information presented includes the source, flow alteration and a picture showing the ecological change.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Hydropower in Electric Utility Industry's
    STATUS OF HYDROPOWER IN ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY’S GREEN PRICING PROGRAMS Jan Konigsberg Hydropower Reform Coalition December 2009 Acronyms APX Automated Power Exchange BPA Bonneville Power Administration CRS Center for Resource Solutions DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPAct Energy Policy Act of 1992 EWG Exempt Wholesale Generator FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission HRC Hydropower Reform Coalition IOU Investor Owned Utilities IPP Independent Power Producer IRP Integrated Resource Planning ISO Independent System Operator ISO Independent System Operators KWh Kilowatt hours LIHI Low Impact Hydropower Institute MWh Megawatt hours NARUC National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners NEPOOL New England Power Pool PUC Public Utilities Commission PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 QF Qualifying Facilities REC Renewable Energy Credit/Certificate RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard SBC System Benefit Charges WAPA Western Area Power Administration Table of Contents I. Hydropower and Green-Pricing Programs- Need for Transparency .......................................... 1 II. Electric Utility Industry: Challenges and Reforms .................................................................... 1 Impetus for Restructuring........................................................................................................... 2 Challenging the Electric-Supply Paradigm................................................................................... 3 Restructuring/Deregulation - Federal
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Colorado River Basin Water Resources Planning Model User's
    Upper Colorado River Basin Water Resources Planning Model User’s Manual July 2016 Table of Contents TABLE OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. IV TABLE OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... VI 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 1‐1 1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER RESOURCES PLANNING MODEL ...................... 1‐1 1.3 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 1‐3 2. WHAT’S IN THIS DOCUMENT .................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 SCOPE OF THIS MANUAL ..................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.2 MANUAL CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.3 WHAT’S IN OTHER CDSS DOCUMENTATION ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]