Power Technologies Energy Data Book

Fourth Edition

August 2006 • NREL/TP-620-39728

Power Technologies Energy Data Book
Fourth Edition
Compiled by J. Aabakken
Prepared under Task No. WUA3.1000

Technical Report
NREL/TP-620-39728 August 2006

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337

NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone: 800.553.6847 fax: 703.605.6900 email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................1
2.0 Technology Profiles
Biopower..................................................................................................................3
Geothermal.............................................................................................................10
Concentrating Solar Power ....................................................................................18
Photovoltaics..........................................................................................................23
Wind Energy ..........................................................................................................33
Hydrogen................................................................................................................40
Advanced Hydropower ..........................................................................................44
Building Technologies ...........................................................................................49
Reciprocating Engines ...........................................................................................60
Microturbines.........................................................................................................64
Fuel Cells ...............................................................................................................68
Batteries .................................................................................................................73
Advanced Energy Storage......................................................................................79
Superconducting Power Technology .....................................................................81
Thermally Activated Technologies........................................................................86
3.0 Electricity Restructuring 3.1 States with Competitive Electricity Markets .............................................89
3.2 States with System Benefit Charges (SBC) ...............................................90
3.3 States with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) ....................................93
3.4 States with Net Metering Policies..............................................................99
3.5 States with Environmental Disclosure Policies .......................................108
3.6 reen Power Markets ..............................................................................109
G 3.7 States with Utility Green Pricing Programs.............................................112
3.8 Competitive Green Power Offerings and Renewable
Energy Certificates...................................................................................127
3.9 Federa Agency Purchases of Green Power..............................................137
3.10 State Incentive Programs .........................................................................138
4.0 Forecasts/Comparisons 4.1 Projections of Renewable Electricity Net Capacity.................................143
4.2 Projections of Renewable Electricity Net Generation .............................144
4.3 Projections of Renewable Electricity Carbon Dioxide
Emissions Savings ...................................................................................145
5.0 Electricity Supply 5.1 U.S. Total and Delivered Energy (Overview) .........................................147
5.2 lectricity Flow Diagram.........................................................................149 E 5.3 lectricity Overview ................................................................................151 E 5.4 Consumption of Fossil Fuels by Electric Generators ..............................152
5.5 Electric Power Sector Energy Consumption ...........................................153

iii

.............................................160 Utility Mergers and Acquisitions...............................171 7.161 North American Electric Reliability Council Map for the United States .....166 6.................................... and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.2 Electric-Only Plant Net Summer Capability........157 Number of Utilities by Class of Ownership and Nonutilities ...0 Electricity Capability 6..........1 Electric Net Summer Capability ............ Investor-Owned and Publicly Owned Utilities ...........................................159 Top 10 Independent Power Producers Worldwide (2001) ..................13a Fossil Fuel Generation by Age of Generating Units............1 Electricity Net Generation .............10 5..184 Revenue from Sales to Ultimate Consumers by Sector...........6 Production...............................173 7.............................6 Transmission and Distribution Circuit Miles......................................... Publicly Owned Generator and Nongenerator Electric Utilities ............ and State ..................6 5.........155 Nuclear Generation by Age of Generating Units ......................................5 Price of Fuels Delivered to Electric Generators .............................. Revenue.... Operation..............................................................................................................................1 9.............................................0 Electricity Generation 7.......181 Electricity Retail Sales...............13b Census Regions Map..........................................S.....................2 9........................168 R 6...........189 9...........178 8.................................182 Prices of Electricity Sold .............................5 Electric Generator Cumulative Additions and Retirements.....................12 5.......3 Electricity Generation at Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants .......S..4 egional Noncoincident Peak Loads and Capacity Margin ............................162 5.......................6a Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.156 Operational Renewable Energy Generating Capacity .........183 Revenue from Electric Utility Retail Sales by Sector........................................8 5........................163 6................................5 lectricity Trade...................7 Environmental Compliance Equipment Costs ...174 7..6b Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U...................2 Net Generation at Electric-Only Plants ...S......1 Electricity Sales ......................................3 Electric Utility Sales.....188 9..172 7..................................5..........185 9.169 6...........7 5................................................................................2 Demand-Side Management...... Census Division..................11 5.........158 Top 10 U.................................................4 9.........................................3 9....................................9 5.............. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities ........................................179 9................... Investor-Owned Utilities ............................0 Prices 9.....S...................0 Electricity Demand 8.......... and Consumption by Census Division and State .....187 9...165 6......175 E 8.....167 6.......................................177 8.............................................4 Generation and Transmission/Distribution Losses .....190 iv ...170 7...3 Combined-Heat-and-Power Plant Net Summer Capability .................

................ Publicly Owned Generator and Investor-Owned Electric Utilities ........ Sulfur Dioxide...2 Economy-Wide Indicators ..................9 Approximate Heat Rates for Electricity...................3 Coal Displacement Calculation.....................202 12....... Electricity Generators ......................................................................................................S...................0 Geographic Information System (GIS) Maps ..........208 12.....3 EPA-Forecasted Nitrogen Oxide............................................................8 Approximate Heat Content of Selected Fuels for Electric Power Generation...........0 Conversion Factors 12...........................................................6c Uncontrolled Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors....212 12.....................................................10 Heating Degree Days by Month ..206 12.197 11. Electricity Generators ................4 Origin of 2004 Allowable SO2 Emissions Levels............. and Mercury Emissions from Electric Generators ..............214 12.............195 11...............213 12.........192 10......... Nitrogen Oxide................211 12................................................3 Composite Statements of Income for Major U.....................................10.....................................................210 12..........................................193 11........................0 Environmental Indicators 11......5 SO2....................205 12..........1 Price Estimates for Energy Purchases............. and Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors.....0 Economic Indicators 10........1 enewable Energy Impacts Calculation ...7 Global Warming Potentials (GWP) ........................................6a Sulfur Dioxide............... Electricity Generators ......................... CO2 Emission Factors for Coal-Fired and Noncoal-Fired Title IV Affected Units .......................11 Cooling Degree Days by Month ..........1 Emissions from Electricity Generators ..198 11... NOx..............................199 12..................217 v ......................191 10..............................................................................215 13......................................2 Installed Nameplate Capacity of Utility Steam-Electric Generators with Environmental Equipment ...204 12..........4 National SO2 and Heat Input Data .............................201 R 12.......................203 12....................................2 Number of Home Electricity Needs Met Calculation..............................................................6b Nitrogen Oxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors...................................

1 . which features Geographic Information System (GIS) maps.1. The PTEDB is organized into 13 chapters: Chapter 1 . a comprehensive set of data about power technologies from diverse sources. the Energy Analysis Office of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed the first version of the Power Technologies Energy Data Book for the Office of Power Technologies of the U. The other set of maps shows the current installed capacity (biomass. geothermal. Most of the data in this publication is taken directly from the source materials. This edition updates the same type of information provided in the previous edition. geothermal. and wind). and wind) overlaid with the national transmission grid and the major electricity load centers. The main purpose of the data book is to compile. in one central document. although it may be reformatted for presentation.Introduction About the Power Technologies Energy Data Book (PTEDB). In 2002. Fourth Edition. concentrating solar power. as well as a bar chart indicating the historic trend of generating capacity for the state. New for this fourth edition of the PTEDB is Chapter 13. The need for policy makers and analysts to be well-informed about power technologies suggests the need for a publication that includes a diverse. yet focused.S. One set of maps shows the natural resource (biomass.1 . Department of Energy (DOE). The sources used for the Power Technologies Energy Data Book represent the latest available data. solar.Introduction Chapter 2 – Technology profiles Chapter 3 – Electricity restructuring Chapter 4 – Forecasts/comparisons Chapter 5 – Electricity supply Chapter 6 – Electricity capability Chapter 7 – Electricity generation Chapter 8 – Electricity demand Chapter 9 – Prices Chapter 10 – Economic indicators Chapter 11 – Environmental indicators Chapter 12 – Conversion factors Chapter 13 – Geographic Information System (GIS) maps. Neither NREL nor DOE endorses the validity of these data. set of data about power technologies.

nrel.This fourth edition of the Power Technologies Energy Data Book. are available on the Internet at http://www. Readers are encouraged to suggest improvements to the PTEDB through the feedback form on the Web site.gov/analysis/power_databook/. 2 . as well as previous editions. or table PDF files – selected data also is available as Excel spreadsheets. The PTEDB may be downloaded as a single PDF file. The Web site also features energy-conversion calculators and features links to the Transportation Energy Data Book and Buildings Energy Data Book. individual chapters.

• Gasification (via pyrolysis. • Cofiring substitutes biomass for coal or other fossil fuels in existing coal-fired boilers. partial oxidation. biomass-only plants with relatively low electric efficiency (20%). the entire biopower cycle of growing. and forest residues. Landfill gas also is produced anaerobically. which are more efficient than Rankine cycles.g. in the future. • For the near term. Agricultural digester systems use animal or agricultural waste. also called biomass power. biodiesel) also can be burned in combustion turbines (Brayton cycle) or engines (Otto or Diesel cycle) to produce power. Large coal steam plants have electric efficiencies near 33%. biomass-derived fuels can be used by fuels cells to produce electricity System Concepts • CHP applications involve recovery of heat for steam and/or hot water for district energy. is the generation of electric power from biomass resources – now usually urban waste wood. industrial processes. Representative Technologies for Conversion of Feedstock to Fuel for Power and Heat • Homogenization is a process by which feedstock is made physically uniform for further processing or for combustion (includes chopping. Because biomass absorbs CO2 as it grows. • Biomass gasification combined-cycle plants promise comparable or higher electric efficiencies (> 40%) using only biomass. as is true for coal. and pelletizing). • Biofuels production for power and heat provides liquid-based fuels such as methanol. Biopower reduces most emissions (including emissions of greenhouse gasesGHGs) compared with fossil fuel-based electricity. or biodiesel. cubing. which is made up of the steam generator (boiler). or steam reforming) converts biomass to a fuel gas that can be substituted for natural gas in combustion turbines or reformed into H2 for fuel cell applications. and regrowing biomass can result in very low CO2 emissions compared to fossil energy without carbon sequestration. biopower systems can even represent a net sink for GHG emissions by avoiding methane emissions that would result from landfilling of the unused biomass. condenser. hydrogen. and other applications. turbine. crops grown specifically for energy production. 3 . converting to electricity. grinding. Representative Technologies for Conversion of Fuel to Power and Heat • Direct combustion systems burn biomass fuel in a boiler to produce steam that is expanded in a Rankine Cycle prime mover to produce power. ethanol. because they involve gas turbines (Brayton cycle). • When further processed. cofiring is the most costeffective of the power-only technologies. and pump. • Biomass or biomass-derived fuels (e. Other technologies being developed include integrated gasification/fuel cell and biorefinery concepts. such as coal. and. syngas. baling. The highest levels of coal cofiring (15% on a heat-input basis) require separate feed preparation and injection systems. although total system efficiencies for CHP can approach 90%.Biopower Technology Description Biopower. • Anaerobic digestion produces biogas that can be used in standard or combined heat and power (CHP) applications. Most biomass direct-combustion generation facilities utilize the basic Rankine cycle for electric-power generation. Through the use of residues. crop. ethanol. • Nearly all current biopower generation is based on direct combustion in small. oil or natural gas.

Recent studies estimate that on a life-cycle basis. Industry consumes more than 2. other fuels had supplanted wood. Current Status • CHP applications using a waste fuel are generally the most cost-effective biopower option. • There are now nearly 1. Prices generally range from 8¢/kWh to 12¢/kWh. These systems range in size from 3kW to 5MW and completed field verification by 2003. improved economies of scale in combined cycle palns. By the 1950s. It will be an important technology for cogeneration in the forest-products industries (which project a need for biomass and black liquor CHP technologies with a higher electric-thermal ratio). existing biopower plants represent an annual net carbon sink of 4 MMTCe. with an additional small amount of cofiring (six operating plants). • At that point. reliable. • In the latter part of the 19th century.g. about 3. In addition.000 wood-fired plants in the United States. GHG emissions are reduced by a greater percentage (e. In 1973.1 quadrillion Btu of primary biomass energy.000 plants – is mainly comprised of direct-combustion plants. About two-thirds of this energy is derived from wood and wood wastes. as well as for new baseload capacity. Gasification also is important as a potential platform for a biorefinery. Grid-connected electrical capacity has increased from less than 200 MWe in 1978 to more than 9. representing about 75% of nonhydroelectric renewable generation. led to annual installations declining from about 600 MW in 1989. wood was the primary fuel for residential. However. More than 75% of this power is generated in the forest products industry’s CHP applications for process heat. wood use had dropped to 50 million tons per year.700 MWe in 2001.Technology Applications • The existing biopower sector – nearly 1. • The combination of low natural gas prices. Cofiring also reduces sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. to 300-350MW in 1990. Wood-fired systems account for close to 95% of this capacity. and clean. • Approximately 15 million to 21 million gallons of biodiesel are produced annually in the United States. DOE is developing systems for village-power applications and for developed-world distributed generation that are efficient. • Biomass cofiring with coal ($50 . and the biomass-to-electricity conversion efficiency is about 20%. • Biomass gasification for large-scale (20-100MWe) power production is being commercialized. • Utility and industrial biopower generation totaled more than 60 billion kWh in 2001. In addition. Growth is limited by availability of waste fuel and heat demand. Plant size averages 20 MWe.250/kW of biomass capacity) is the most near-term option for large-scale use of biomass for power-only electricity generation. while one-third of the biopower is from municipal solid waste and landfill gas. when cofiring crop and forest-product residues. commercial. • Small biopower and biodiesel systems have been used for many years in the developing world for electricity generation. these systems have not always been reliable and clean. and transportation uses. the forest products and pulp-and-paper industries began to use wood with coal in new plants and switched to wood-fired steam power generation. • The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 stimulated the development of nonutility cogeneration and small-scale plants to in the wood-processing and pulp-and-paper sectors and increased supply of power to the grid. with about two-thirds of those providing power (and heat) for on-site uses only. Technology History 4 .300 MWe of municipal solid waste and landfill gas generating capacity exists. 23% GHG emissions reduction with 15% cofiring). and withdrawal of incentives in the late 1980s.

• R&D directions include: Gasification – This technology requires extensive field verification in order to be adopted by the relatively conservative utility and forest-products industries.8 Gasification 6. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Future technology development will benefit from finding ways to better prepare. Cofiring – The DOE biopower program is moving away from research on cofiring. Systems are expected to include biomass cofiring up to 5% of natural gas combined-cycle capacity.0 5.S. DOE/PI-0002. However. especially to demonstrate integrated operation of biomass gasifier with advanced-power generation (turbines and/or fuel cells).5 7. September 2005). Improved methods for combining coal and biomass fuels will maximize efficiency and minimize emissions. 1997. Small Modular Systems – Small-scale systems for distributed or minigrid (for premium or village power) applications will be increasingly in demand. and control biomass combustion in a coal-fired boiler.7 6.1 5. 5 . inject. U. Climate Change Technology Program. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term.4 Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. EPRI TR-109496. Integration of gasification into a biorefinery platform is a key new research area. continued industry research and field verifications are needed to address specific technical and nontechnical barriers to cofiring.Technology Future The levelized cost of electricity (in constant 1997$/kWh) for biomass direct-fired and gasification configurations are projected to be: 2000 2010 2020 Direct-fired 7. as this technology has reached a mature status. November 2003 (draft update.

tires. total from the world total.827 5.993 1. Number derived from subtracting U.S. 2 3 4 Wood.452 1998 2.845 5. Annual Energy Review 2004. Total Municipal Solid Waste Biomass Total Rest of World Total 4 1 4. Figures may not add due to rounding.655 834 4. 2000. August 2005).495 29.11a and 8.852 964 1995 2. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.061 3.842 1.425 1997 2.046 5.708 Wood and Other Biomass 78 78 World Total 1 Municipal solid waste.924 10.750 10.364 1. agricultural byproducts.C.486 2001 2.141 10.451 1996 2..505 40.062 5.519 6.817 5.311 1. sludge waste.382 1.871 9.405 3.636 1.733 1.25. Data include electric power sector and end-use sector (industrial and commercial) generators.11c. Cogenerators 3 1 Municipal Solid Waste 659 2 786 5.528 1. Table 7.399 961 4.856 1.689 3. Tables 8.269 3.438 1999 2. by Type (MW) Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA).024 3.410 2003 2.549 8.502 Wood and Other Biomass U. Electric Power Sector Municipal Solid Waste 1 2 1985 151 200 1990 1. and other wood waste. and other biomass.454 3.472 1.660 6.883 6.S. 6 .515 3.Biomass Market Data Cumulative Generating Capability.058 5.598 6.389 2004 2.891 9.487 2002 2. EIA.694 6.789 1.484 2000 2.389 N/A 78 Wood and Other Biomass U.394 842 4.808 10. black liquor. World Energy Assessment.674 3. and world data from United Nations Development Program. landfill gas.600 1. 1980 U. D.949 1.S.614 1.298 998 5.709 3.S.802 10.882 9.511 5.590 6.585 NA 2 151 200 351 2.094 4.482 961 4.795 10.803 5.000 3.844 9.

0 13. and 483.445 MW of Bio Gas. due to different coverage ratios in EIA and REPIS databases. 2003.678 2000 373 933 2.037 1996 351 601 2.2 0 38.1 50.4 611.053 3.1 2002 0 30. fruit pits. 2 3 4 5 6 Agricultural residues. wood gas (from wood gasifier) Municipal solid waste (includes industrial and medical).3 299. pulping liquor.S. 1980 40 18 263 3.6 92.000 7.8 450.3 1998 0 87. peat.2 254.7 0 40.343 11.3 78.970 7.5 182. refused-derived fuel Timber and logging residues (includes tree bark.6 1999 0 107.970 7.5 66.5 1996 0 74.6 117.897 1985 92 117 697 4. wood chips. hazardous waste.869 2003 1 373 1.8 69.922 Municipal Solid Waste Wood Residues Total 5 Note: The data in this table does not match data in the previous table.497 11. Annual Installed Generating Capability.7 1990 0 51.5 94.948 7.4 333.970 7. scrap tires. by Type (MW) Agricultural Waste Biogas 3 4 2 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).8 0 0 43.172 6. nut shells Biogas. saw dust. wood or wood waste) There are an additional 65.970 7. nut hulls. alcohol (includes butahol.45 MW of Ag Waste.212 11.800 2002 373 1. tree pitch.935 5.030 2. NREL. 5.8 0 91. and methanol).497 11.S.0 142.1 Municipal Solid Waste Wood Residues Total 5 U.0 17. Cumulative Generating 6 Capability.458 11.8 2001 0 66. 1980 22. Version 7. 2003.0 1995 4.U.948 7. NREL. hydrogen.1 30.3 0 90.447 11.6 166. livestock manure.447 11.8 0 11.840 1990 165 361 2.31 MW of Wood Residues that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date.0 154. cannery wastes.535 1999 373 889 2.303 11. 1 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.358 1998 373 781 2. ethanol.0 1985 20.722 2001 373 999 2. 7 .305 9.0 0 53.6 2000 0 43. wastewater sludge.6 0. landfill gas.6 22.003 1995 351 526 2.948 7.203 1997 373 694 2.434 11.576 3. Version 7. bagasse.948 7.0 260.1 58.3 177. by Type (MW) Agricultural Waste Biogas 3 4 2 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).0 2003 1 0 23.4 1997 21.3 260.

Generation from Cumulative Capacity. by Type (Million kWh) U.6 379. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 158 275 640 743 10.327 16.3 1998 412. and world data from United Nations Development Program.7 902.765 35. Data include electric power sector and end-use sector (industrial and commercial) generators.25. Annual Energy Review 2004.885 16.4 22.6 378.475 Municipal Solid Waste 2. black liquor.4 1990 285.0 1995 388.1 836.112 7.694 5. Tables 8. Annual Energy Consumption for Electricity Generation (Trillion Btu) Electric-Power Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector Total Biomass 1 1 1980 4.926 20.0 32.1 30.5 Data include wood (wood.595 60.820 Wood and Other Biomass U.3 32.383 13.131 37.948 58.5 33.254 17.726 21. black liquor.2 567.964 22.529 61.079 30.963 6.498 31.592 7.809 7. World Energy Assessment. Electric Power Sector 1 Municipal Solid Waste Wood and Other Biomass U.8 1999 415.834 30.004.294 4. Source: EIA. landfill gas.042 Wood and Other Biomass 275 433 World Total 160.9 2001 430.2c. 1 Data includes combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and electricity-only plants.636 4.0 822.493 16.5 378.3 795.7 362.572 37. and other wood waste) and waste (municipal solid waste.266 45.214 22.8 825. Figures may not add due to rounding.402 17.735 4.4 2004 492.415 20.078 6.0 22.521 56. Number derived from subtracting U.736 37.889 29.3 385.400 5.301 17.6 2002 494.938 29.295 60.460 29. 8 .041 59.571 17. Table 7.397 6.939 4.7 26. tires.800 57.480 5.904 26. Annual Energy Review 2003.613 23.S.857 38.405 36. Cogenerators 3 1 2 2 Source: EIA.1 407. landfill gas.359 7.9 16.787 5. and other wood waste. total from the world total.7 351. tires.709 36.5 1.712 21.0 2000 420.000 1 Municipal solid waste.5 1985 14. agricultural byproducts.245 5.0 806.6 1996 397.265 22.S.149 32.5 1997 408.1 2003 493.338 58.5 481.2a and 8. Total Municipal Solid Waste Biomass Total Rest of World Total 4 1 158 2 640 743 1.665 61.312 30.092.3 34.S.644 17.3 380. and other biomass).6 832.4 32.5 373.468 16.522 23.1 28. and other biomass.4b and 8.S.326 5. sludge waste.448 36.540 30. Tables 8. agricultural byproducts.265 18.221 6.200 56. 2 3 4 Wood.307 5.4 653.4 4.5 14. 2000.7 823.543 28.629 5.786 101.911 36.658 22.747 37.141 7.S.8 1.485 29.4c U. sludge waste.

50 2.510 1.004 0.0 13.008 -0.036 0.008 -0.0 27.058 3 Cofired N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Gasification 0.002 Gasification 0.033 Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh) Direct-fired 0. Cost Total Capital Cost ($/kW) 9 .73 -0.104 kJ/kg.070 0.066 10.5 37.0 60.009 Gasification 0.0 13.000 1 1 Efficiency (%) Net Heat Rate (kJ/kWh) 2000 80.5 49. EPRI TR-109496.5 9.3 11.5 41.004 Total Operating Costs ($/kWh) Direct-fired 0.054 1 Data is for 1997.73 -0.036 0.004 0.4 43.004 0. and assume $9.7 43.5 37.009 -0.965 1.039 3 Cofired -0.0 85.006 0.50 Fixed Operating Cost ($/kW-yr) Direct-fired 73. 1980 Direct-fired Cofired Gasification Direct-fired Cofired Gasification Direct-fired Cofired Gasification 1980 1990 1990 1995 80.102 1.09/tonne coal.464 1.008 -0.055 0.0 85.0 60.7 36.006 3 Cofired -0.066 8.0 27.1 9.0 80.007 0. the base year of the Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations analysis.066 9.730 2010 80.4 43.0 80.0 85.4 10.0 3 Cofired 10.50 2.5 36.73 -0.810 11.200 2 2020 80.087 0.007 0.047 0. and that variable O&M includes an SO2 credit valued at $110/tonne SO2.0 85.361 1.346 1.50 2.50 2.620 11.066 9.0 54.50 2. 3 Note that cofired cost characteristics represent only the biomass portion of costs for capital and incremental costs above conventional costs for Operations & Maintenance (O&M).0 80.002 -0.730 2015 80.000 11.0 33.745 1.0 23.002 -0.50 2.7 32.Technology Performance Efficiency Capacity Factor (%) Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.0 80.50 2.000 11.040 0.50 2.002 -0.0 30.075 0.034 0.036 0.066 9.0 85.7 32. 1997.5 39.0 60.007 0.4 43. No cofiring COE is reported in the RETC.073 0.004 0.0 27.004 0.5 10.115 3 Cofired 272 256 241 230 224 217 Gasification 2.000 11. 2 Number derived by interpolation.000 2005 80.002 -0.670 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1995 Direct-fired 1.892 1.047 0.009 0.231 1.73 Gasification 2.015 10.9 32.7 32.50 2.0 15.73 -0.002 -0.14/dry tonne biomass and $39.50 2.0 80.009 -0.0 80.50 3 Cofired -0.650 1.8 32.0 85.061 0.6 9.0 32.4 43.8 9.3 Gasification 68.4 1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1980 1990 1995 Variable Operating Costs ($/kWh) Direct-fired 0.280 11. a heat input from biomass at 19.047 0.067 0.258 Feed Cost ($/GJ) Direct-fired 2.0 13.043 0.73 -0.

• Direct applications use the heat from geothermal fluids without conversion to electricity. Geothermal heat pumps use the shallow earth as a heat source and heat sink for heating and cooling applications. aquaculture. This will increase production and extend the lifetime of The Geysers Geothermal Field in California. back to the earth. and highly pressured hot fluids. • Well fields and distribution systems allow the hot fluids to move to the point of use. which safely contains and cleans vented steam during drilling. Representative Technologies • Exploration technologies identify geothermal reservoirs and their fracture systems. hot impermeable rock masses. greenhouses. the United States has a resource base capable of producing up to 100 GW of electricity at less than 5¢/kWh. shallow warm groundwater. This energy can offset the emission of carbon dioxide from conventional fossil-powered electricity generation. • Coproduction. and other applications. binary conversion systems produce electricity from water not hot enough to flash. and plant start-up. state. which provides a high speed data link between the surface and the drill bit. • A second pipeline to carry replacement water has been completed through the joint efforts of industry and federal. Technology Applications • With improved technology. the recovery of minerals and metals from geothermal brine. Hot water or steam are used to produce electricity or applied directly for space heating and industrial processes. building thermal systems. • Utilization systems may apply the heat directly or convert it to another form of energy such as electricity. • Geothermal heat pumps continue to penetrate markets for heating/cooling (HVAC) services. Current Status • The DOE Geothermal Program sponsored research that won two R&D 100 Awards in 2003: Acoustic Telemetry Technology. and afterward. geochemical. • Direct-use applications are successful throughout the western United States and provide heat for space heating. and modeling optimize production and predict useful lifetime. reservoir testing. is being pursued. and other applications. well testing. The second pipeline adds 85 MW of capacity. 10 . System Concepts • Geophysical. and geological exploration locates resources to drill. Zinc is recovered at the Salton Sea geothermal field in California. industrial processes. drilling. including highly permeable hot reservoirs. and Low Emission Atmospheric Monitoring Separator. spas.Geothermal Energy Technology Description Geothermal energy is heat from within the Earth. advanced energy-conversion technologies are being implemented to improve plant thermal efficiency. • Hydrothermal reservoirs are being used to produce electricity with an online availability of up to 97%. and local agencies. steam turbines use natural steam or hot water flashed to steam to produce electricity.

• By the mid-1980s. the U. as water was piped from hot springs to town buildings. • With approval of the federal production tax credit and with support from state-level renewable portfolio standards. DOE initiated its GeoPowering the West program to encourage development of geothermal resources in the western United States by reducing nontechnical barriers. • In the 1990s. high front-end costs. with major projects in Indonesia and the Philippines. increasing the operating capacity by 70 MW. • In 2000. Ormat International Inc. confirmed resources. This project established the technical feasibility of larger-scale commercial binary power plants.9 2. Today. a pipeline began delivering treated municipal wastewater and lake water to The Geysers steamfield in California. and Nevada.7 Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. lack of new. • In 1997. 1997.S. with a supporting loan from DOE. The first turbine produces 11 megawatts (MW) of net power and operated successfully for more than 30 years.0 2. electricity was being generated by geothermal power in four western states: California. the system was serving 200 homes and 40 downtown businesses. advancing this renewable energy. located at The Geysers. demonstration of new resource concepts.1 Hydrothermal Binary 3. the world's first district heating system was built in Boise. • The DOE Geothermal Program sponsored research that won two R&D awards in 2003. geothermal power is poised to double in capacity within the next couple of years. • Improvements in cost and accuracy of resource exploration and characterization can lower the electricity cost. Within a few years. The plant was 250 kW. UNOCAL built the country's first flash plant. The resource at The Geysers is dry steam. but fell into disuse. EPRI TR-109496. • In 1960. the first electrical development of a water-dominated geothermal resource occurred at the East Mesa field in the Imperial Valley in California.6 2. Pacific Gas and Electric operated the plant.S. the country's first large-scale geothermal electricity-generating plant began operation.Technology History • The use of geothermal energy as a source of hot water for spas dates back thousands of years. • In 1979. use of hydrothermal when economics become favorable. and lag time between investment and return.S. Hawaii. • In 1980.4 2. • Costs at the best sites are competitive at today’s energy prices – and investment is limited by uncertainty in prices. geothermal industry focused its attention on building power plants overseas. there are now 17 district heating systems in the United States and dozens more around the world. 11 . successfully demonstrated binary technology in the Imperial Valley of California. would allow a large expansion of the U. U. the Boise district heating system continues to flourish. California. • The United States’ first geothermal power plant went into operation in 1922 at The Geysers in California. Idaho. The project was so successful that Ormat repaid the loan within a year. such as enhanced geothermal systems. Technology Future The levelized cost of electricity (in constant 1997$/kWh) for the two major future geothermal energy configurations are projected to be: 2000 2010 2020 Hydrothermal Flash 3. • In 1981. • In 1892. Although no one imitated this system for nearly 70 years. generating 10 MW at Brawley. Utah.

and Idaho. Direct-use applications have an installed capacity of about 600 MW thermal in the United States. Nevada.000 MW worldwide.133 MW electric in the United States and about 8.Market Context • Hydrothermal reservoirs have an installed capacity of about 2. an installed electricity capacity of 20. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. 12 . geothermal could provide about 10 GW. September 2005). Direct heat will replace existing systems in markets in 19 western states. by 2020.000 MW from hydrothermal plants and 20.000 MW from enhanced geothermal systems is projected. enough heat and electricity for 7 million homes.1 GW) with future construction potential (100 GW by 2040). • Geothermal will continue production at existing plants (2. • By 2015.S. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. November 2003 (draft update. DOE/PI-0002. Climate Change Technology Program. U. About 300 MW electric are being developed in California.

Rest of World World Total Cumulative Installed Capacity Electricity (MW e) U.974 2.072 8.133 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: International Geothermal Association.666 3.” 1980 Electricity (MW e) U. electricity data from EIA.php 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 13 .239 2.191 2.746 7.184 4.S.igg. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat (MW th) U.100 1.064 8.175 909 1.893 5.382 8.128 8.704 11. world totals from Renewable Energy World/July-August 2000.846 2.021 2. http://iga.974 2.350 2.. Rest of World World Total 1.S. Annual Energy Review 2004.S.905 7.25. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.228 5.950 7.664 1. Table 8.016 6.133 2.C.379 15. page 123.764 2.Geothermal Market Data Cumulative Installed Capacity Source: U. and world direct-use heat data from Stefansson and Fridleifsson 1998.730 8.11a.893 2.cnr.166 5.S.893 5.181 7.799 9. D. August 2005).346 8.604 3. 1997 world electricity and U.793 5.968 3.775 3.it/index.000 17. Table 1.829 6.580 3.145 4.874 6. 1998 world totals from UNDP World Energy Assessment 2000.402 1.766 11.832 2. “Geothermal Energy: European and World-wide Perspective. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat (MW th) U.057 5.817 4.020 6.20 and 7.832 2.216 2.252 2.S.S.833 2. Tables 7.797 2.

NREL.200 12.S.664 16. World-Wide Direct Uses of Geothermal Energy 2000.9 1990 48.974 4.720 1997 2. 1980 802 1985 1.stanford.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 59. 2003.764 5.228 5. Version 7.S. and G. 1980 251.S. Geothermal Electric from Installed Capacity Power Production in the United States: A Survey and Update for 1995-1999.175 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 3.072 8.de/europaundweltweit/Lund/wsoge_index. Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS). J.540 1995 2.Annual Installed Electric Capacity (MW e) U.edu/wgc2000/SessionList.720 1998 2.293 2. 2003.314 2. Installed Capacity and Power Source: Lund and Freeston.698 1990 2.209 14 . Huttrer.950 7. Sifford and Blommquist.0 1985 352.284 2.779 2002 2. Lund. Geothermal DirectGeneration/Energy Production Use in the United States Update: 1995-1999.S.064 8. World Status of Geothermal Energy Use Overview 1995-1999 http://www.779 2003* 2.887 4.779 * 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.720 1999 2. Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2000 http://geothermal.720 2000 2.369 4. Version 7.6 1995 1996 36.832 1.9 2001 2002 2003* Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS). Kyushu-Tohoku.833 2.684 1996 2. Rest of World World Total 2. Cumulative Installed Electric Capacity (MW e) U. Cumulative Installed Capacity 1980 Electricity (MW e) U.343 2. May 28-June10.htm.779 2001 2. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat* (MW th) U.geothermie. 2000. The Status of World Geothermal Power Generation 1995-2000.htm. Japan.464 6. Lund and Boyd.746 7. NREL.975 17.

5 14.S.4 15.4 31.3 53.441 162. 2000.25. 1997 world electricity and U.139 * Direct-use heat includes geothermal heat pumps as well as traditional uses.6 20 3. D.4 3.8 49. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. and world direct-use heat data from Stefansson and Fridleifsson 1998.551 141. Cumulative Installed Capacity August 2005). Geothermal heat pumps account for 1854 MW th (14.8 49 14.707 163.2 31.3 7.1 14.2 46 14.S.php. page 126.S. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat (billion kWhth) U. Conversion of GWh to TJ is done at 1TJ = 0.5 33.” 1998 world totals from UNDP World Energy Assessment 2000.9 14 9.009 185.6 14.4 6. Table 8.. “Geothermal Energy: European and World-wide Perspective. electricity data from EIA. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Electricity (Billion kWhe) U.4 15 .7 29.3 5.2a.1 35.2 13. Annual Energy Review 2004.9 14. Table 7.7 14.0 43.3 14.6 6.214 TJ) in 1999 of the world totals and 3600 MW th (8.1 8.S.700 U.617 TJ) in 1995 and 6849 MW th (23. Rest of World World Total 27.S.3 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 13.7 15. world electricity totals from Renewable Energy World/July-August 2000.2778 GWh.800 TJ) in 2000 of the U.890 20.0 5.S.302 21.6 19 13.S.1 40 47.C.1 35. http://iga.0 14.cnr. Rest of World 98. 1995. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat* (TJ) 14.249 112. Annual Generation from Source: U.Annual Generation/Energy Production from Cumulative Installed Capacity 1980 Electricity (Billion kWhe) U.8 31.0 15.4 14. and 2003 direct-use heat and 1999 electricity world total from International Geothermal Association. total.2 49.8 4.7 17 15. Table 2.igg.439 World Total 86.it/index.

Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments by Customer Type and Model Type (units) Exporter Wholesale Distributor Retail Distributor Installer Source: EIA.444 29.4a.510 7. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.306 26.167 23.696 4.434 38.266 41.562 16 .172 784 N/A 1.186 6..334 31. June 2006).238 89. Capacity of U.276 226 109 6.821 43. Table 61.762 25.999 10. Table 58.438 2004 23.554 N/A 3.145 355 18.130 31. Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2.819 5.429 24. REA 2003 Table 40.647 8.541 12.439 2004 9.S.335 26.C. DOE/EIA-0603(2003) (Washington. REA 2000 Table 38.385 37.735 191. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.138 1.191 2001* N/A N/A N/A N/A 2002 16.800 25.491 N/A 10.042 31. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. June 2006).302 18.714 2.776 98.556 1998 35.000 Btu's.581 N/A 37.555 2. 2 No survey was conducted for 2001. Table 8.165 945 1.327 1.772 10.947 9.804 N/A 20.910 7.469 130.060 92. DOE/EIA-0603(2004) (Washington.662 141.220 144. August 2005). Rest of World World Total Annual U.446 1999 27.631 26. REA 2001 Table 40..211 838 991 1.317 20.. DOE/EIA-0603(2004) (Washington.784 13.C.697 28. D. D.445 10.912 6.708 110.139 36.S. D.980 1 One Rated Ton of Capacity equals 12.297 2003 29. REA 1999 Table 38.000 125..120 ARI-325/330 113.697 7.802 25.301 ARI-320 13.193 9. D. June 2006).Annual Geothermal Energy Consumption for Electric Generation (Trillion Btu) U. Annual U.181 14.970 1997 24.092 21.892 922 1995 32.132 7.764 100.C.806 Source: EIA. Annual Energy Review 2004.935 1995 Totals 130.091 112.222 2.219 N/A 26.469 124. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 2003 4.272 N/A 552 1.808 N/A 6.C. by type (units) ARI-320 ARI-325/330 Other non-ARI Rated Totals * No survey was conducted for 2001. Table 59.758 141.917 20. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.925 Other non-ARI Rated 3. REA 2002 Table 40.888 16.652 2000 26. 1996 15.S.590 164. Heat Pump Shipments (Rated Tons) Source: EIA.336 829 3.679 35.731 5.970 153. 1980 110 1985 198 1990 326 1995 280 1996 300 199 7 309 1998 311 1999 312 2000 296 2001 289 2002 305 2003 303 2004 302 Source: EIA.S.855 2.756 96. and REA 1998 Table 40.377 9.

EPRI TR-109496.764 2.S.162 35.875 4.427 481 6.788 16.4 87.302 26.090 2.250 1.444 2.520 57.1 78.984 11.794 62.135 38.4 163 17 .650 6.543 14.240 13.025 3.417 9. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 2003 2004 4.922 994 1.903 5. Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments by Export & Census Region (units) Export Midwest Northeast South West Total 689 13 51. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.402 12.5 179 2015 96 96 84 2015 1. June 2006). REA 2003 Table 39.323 3.103 6.806 Technology Performance Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.100 1.176 87.749 N/A 12.312 66.060 25.754 4.837 6.220 N/A 3.403 6.727 57. Efficiency Capacity Factor (%) Flashed Steam Binary Hot Dry Rock Cost Capital Cost ($/kW) Flashed Steam Binary Hot Dry Rock Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr) Flashed Steam Binary Hot Dry Rock 1980 1990 1980 1990 1995 89 89 80 1995 1.637 3.439 43.End User Others Total Annual U.660 12.696 3.271 2.8 66.195 20.266 49.276 58. REA 1999 Table 37.295 36. DOE/EIA-0603(2003) (Washington.167 35.4 219 2000 92 92 81 2000 1.581 N/A 37.874 13.259 49.C.95 171 2020 96 96 85 2020 1.438 51.581 N/A N/A N/A 207 3.924 8.071 N/A 3.303 1.439 397 4.768 2.147 1.372 1.25 55.982 12. REA 2001 Table 39. REA 2002 Table 39.3 59.922 38. REA 2000 Table 37.756 74.5 207 2005 93 93 82 2005 1.753 43.166 3.674 3.162 63 2.112 10.8 191 2010 95 95 83 2010 1.112 5.280 5.947 2.194 1.139 1. and REA 1998 Table 39.806 Source: EIA.042 14. D. Table 60.403 N/A 13..328 37.138 N/A 3.520 657 1.994 5. 1997.044 4.139 36.266 66 6.2 52.519 96.935 17.

Concentrating Solar Power Technology Description Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems concentrate solar energy 50 to 10. or village power. Dishes are 2-25 kW in size and can be used individually or in small groups for distributed. with a rated capacity of 354 MWe. the technologies could some day be used for direct conversion (rather than indirect conversion through electrochemical reactions) of natural gas or water into hydrogen for future hydrogen-based economies. • CSP technologies provide firm. steam can be generated with a fossil fuel to meet utility needs. nonintermittent electricity generation (peaking or intermediate load capacity) when coupled with storage. including end-of-line support. Some of the new trough plants include thermal storage. 18 . have been operating in California since the 1980s. which is used to produce electricity for distributed or bulk generation process applications. • Solar Two. and Spain. • A number of prototype dish/Stirling systems are currently operating in Nevada. Colorado. a 10-MWe pilot power tower with three hours of storage. High levels of performance have been established. Arizona. System Concepts • In CSP systems. the first of which is now being planned in Spain. remote. or in clusters (1-10 MWe) for utility-scale applications.000 hours. The hot salt can be stored extremely efficiently to allow power production to match utility demand. durability remains to be proven. highly reflective suntracking mirrors produce temperatures of 400°C to 800°C in the working fluid of a receiver. Plant sizes can range from 1. Trough system electricity costs of about 12¢-14¢/kWh have been demonstrated commercially. Plant size can range from 30 to 200 MWe. this heat is used in conventional heat engines (steam or gas turbines or Stirling engines) to produce electricity at solar-to­ electric efficiencies for the system of up to 30%. • A power tower system uses many large heliostats to focus the solar energy onto a tower-mounted central receiver filled with a molten-salt working fluid that produces steam. When the sun is not shining. • A dish/engine system uses a dish-shaped reflector to power a small Stirling or Brayton engine/generator or a high-concentrator PV module mounted at the focus of the dish. Representative Technologies • A parabolic trough system focuses solar energy on a linear oil-filled receiver to collect heat to generate steam to power a steam turbine. • Because solar-thermal technologies can yield extremely high temperatures. Technology Applications • Nine parabolic trough plants. even when the sun is not shining.0 to 100 MWe.000 times to produce hightemperature thermal energy. although some systems have operated for more than 10. They are easily hybridized with fossil fuel. provided all the information needed to scale up to a 30-100 MW commercial plant.

19 . • U. California. • In 1982. the plants were limited by PURPA to 30 MW in size. • The U. dubbed “Solar Tres. Japan. Initially. of Munich. Acurex. • The 10-MW Solar Two pilot power tower plant operated successfully near Barstow. Technology History Organized. New Mexico. Italy. large-scale development of solar collectors began in the United States in the mid-1970s under the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and continued with the establishment of the U.S. dating back to the 1800s when a number of companies demonstrated solar-powered steam Rankine and Stirling-based systems. Experience gained through their operation will allow the next generation of trough technology to be installed and operated much more cost-effectively.-sponsored Solar Two was designed to demonstrate the dispatchability provided by molten-salt storage and to provide the experience necessary to lessen the perception of risk from these large systems. This facility consisted of two parabolic trough solar fields – one using a single-axis tracking Acurex collector and one the double-axis tracking parabolic trough collectors developed by M. in 1981. saving plant operators $50 million. and Solar Kinetics were the key parabolic trough manufacturers in the United States during this period. Luz filed for bankruptcy when it was unable to secure construction financing for its 10th plant (SEGS X). Dish/Engine Systems: • Dish/engine technology is the oldest of the solar technologies. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1978. In 1991. demonstrating the engineering feasibility and economic potential of the technology. industry is currently pursuing a subsidized power tower project opportunity in Spain. the thermal energy collected at the receiver was used to generate steam directly to drive a turbine generator. power towers have been fielded in Russia. • Southern California Edison (SCE) signed a power purchase agreement with Luz for the Solar Electric Generating System (SEGS) I and II plants. Nevada. • Since the early 1980s. Luz later signed a number of Standard Offer (SO) power purchase contracts under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).Current Status • New commercial plants are being considered for California. A 1MW power plant began operation in Arizona in 2005. leading to the first commercial plant being planned in Spain.” represents a 4x scale-up of the Solar 2 design. • Operations and maintenance costs have been reduced through technology improvements at the commercial parabolic trough plants in California by 40%. Power Towers: • A number of experimental power tower systems and components have been field-tested around the world in the past 15 years. Spain. • In early power towers. Germany. later this limit was raised to 80 MW. Spain. • Parabolic trough development also was taking place in Europe and culminated with the construction of the IEA Small Solar Power Systems (SSPS) Project/Distributed Collector System in Tabernas. and the United States. Luz International Limited (Luz) developed a parabolic trough collector for IPH applications that was based largely on the experience that had been gained by DOE/Sandia and the SSPS projects. Colorado. SunTec. leading to the development of the SEGS III through SEGS IX projects. and Arizona. • The 354 MWe of SEGS trough systems are still being operated today.S. which came online in 1985.S.N.A. Troughs: • Parabolic trough collectors capable of generating temperatures greater than 500ºC (932 F) were initially developed for industrial process heat (IPH) applications. This project.

.S. • A 64-MW parabolic trough plant is under construction near Boulder City. • Current dish/engine efforts are being continued by three U. Cummins Engine Company attempted to commercialize dish/Stirling systems based on free-piston Stirling engine technology. DOE is actively engaged with the Western Governors’ Association to map a strategy to deploy 1-4 GW of CSP in the Southwest by 2015. U.3 6. and a 25 kWe dish/engine system for utility applications. • According to a recent study commissioned by the Department of Energy. largely because of a corporate decision to focus on its core diesel-engine business. WGA has two 10kW systems under test in New Mexico. Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific Power will purchase the power to comply with the solar portion of Nevada’s renewable portfolio standard. NREL Report No.4 5. DOE/GO-102004-1775. SAIC and Boeing together have five 25kW systems under test and evaluation at utility. However.0 5.• Development of modern technology began in the late 1970s and early 1980s. industry teams – Science Applications International Corp. Cummins canceled their solar development in 1996. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. all of it in Southern California's Mojave Desert.0 N/A Dish/Engine 40. Market Context • There is currently 350 MW of CSP generation in the United States. a kinematic Stirling engine developed for automotive applications. with a third off-grid system being developed in 2002 on an Indian reservation for water-pumping applications. The plants are anticipated to come on-line within the next several years. CSP technologies can achieve significantly lower costs (below 6¢/kWh) at modest production volumes. Efforts included a 5 to 10 kWe dish/Stirling system for remote power applications.S. September 2005). tubular solar receivers. Significant domestic and international interest will likely result in additional projects. and Nevada. and silver/glass mirror dishes. and university sites in Arizona. • The World Bank’s Solar Initiative is pursuing CSP technologies for less-developed countries. Eight prototype systems were deployed and operated on a daily basis from 1986 through 1988. 20 . industry. and WG Associates with Sunfire Corporation. DOE scoped out what would be required to deploy 1. • A near-term to midterm opportunity exists to build production capacity in the United States for both domestic use and international exports. Technical difficulties with Cummins' free-piston Stirling engines were never resolved. Technology Future The levelized cost of electricity (in constant 2003$/kWh) for three CSP configurations are projected at: 2003 2007 2012 2025 Trough 11. This technology used directly illuminated. • Parabolic troughs have been commercialized and nine plants (354 MW total) have operated in California since the 1980s.000MW of CSP in the Southwest United States. The World Bank considers CSP to be a primary candidate for Global Environment Facility funding. Nevada. California. DOE/PI-0002.0 20. MP-520­ 33875. • In the early 1990s. November 2003 (draft update. • At Congress’ request. Systems.7 4. nominally rated at 25 kWe. achieved solar-to­ electric conversion efficiencies of around 30%. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. • Power purchase agreements have been signed for 800 MW of new dish/engine capacity in California.4 N/A Power Tower 12. Climate Change Technology Program. (SAIC) teamed with STM Corp. Boeing with Stirling Energy Systems.0 N/A 6 Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan.

82 0. EPRI TR-109496. 1993.125 2002 354 0 354 0. Table A16.616 8.189 11.409 7.57 2004 0.125 2001 354 0 354 0.S.49 0. Power Tower Trough Dish/Engine Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS). 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 0. Annual U.986 2004 P 14.S. 1* 0.102 2.89 0.502 3.54 * Includes both solar thermal and less than 0.90 0. Source: EIA .89 0.756 8.723 235 NA 1.583 8. Installations (electric only) Cumulative (MW) U.Concentrating Solar Power Market Data U. and Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. Table 10.115 NA 245 530 454 379 360 537 496 840 659 518 813 Total shipments as reported by respondents include all domestic and export shipments and may include imports that subsequently were shipped to domestic or to foreign customers. Version 7.58 U.02 billion kilowatthours grid-connected photovoltaic generation.930 2.54 0.125 2000 354 0 354 0.S.125 Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity (Billion kWh) Source: EIA.352 2. Solar Thermal Shipments (Thousand Square Feet) 1980 198 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5 1 Total 19.S.114 3. 1980 0 0 0 0 1985 24 10 14 0 1990 274 0 274 0 1995 354 0 354 0 1996 364 10 354 0 1997 364 10 354 0 1998 364 10 354 0. Renewable Resources in the Electric Supply. = Preliminary 21 .444 2.666 7. 2003.398 NA 11. Annual Energy Outlook 1998-2006.201 3.206 2.87 0. Table 4.663 Imports Exports 1 2003 11. P No data are available for 1985.068 1.125 1999 364 10 354 0.138 7.562 2.3 and Renewable Energy Annual 2004 Table 30.037 1. NREL.Annual Energy Review 2004.354 11.

01 .10 NA 2007 3500 3422 NA .01 NA .06 .007 NA NA .05 NA 2018 2500 NA NA .04 .11 .06 .06 .06 22 .12 .04 NA NA 2025 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA . 2003 78 28 24 14 13 20 2005 75 39 NA 16 13 NA 2007 73 56 24 17 16 23 2012 NA 56 NA NA 17 NA 2018 72 NA NA 18 NA NA 2025 NA NA 50 NA NA 26 Capacity Factor (%) Solar to Electric Eff.01 .02 NA . MP-520-33875. DOE/GO-102004-1775.20 2012 NA 2920 NA NA . (%) Power Tower Trough Dish Power Tower Trough Dish Cost* Total ($/kWe) O&M ($/kWh) Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh) Power Tower Trough Dish Power Tower Trough Dish Power Tower Trough Dish 2003 6800 2805 NA .01 NA . NREL Report No.01 NA NA .Technology Performance Efficiency Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan.40 2005 4100 3556 NA .

precommercial modules: 15%-24%. amorphous silicon.or dual-axis sun trackers. PV modules would typically be installed in large array fields ranging in total peak output from a few megawatts on up. Technology Applications • PV systems can be installed as either grid-supply technologies or as customer-sited alternatives to retail electricity. Modules are mounted on a stationary array or on single. For example. A new generation of thin-film PV modules is going through the high-risk transition to first-time and large-scale manufacturing.5 × 106 GWh/year. concentrators use direct sunlight. copper indium diselenide. and intermediate daytime load. and land. Representative Technologies • Wafers of single-crystal or polycrystalline silicon – best cells: 25% efficiency. As suppliers of bulk grid power. or DC can be used to charge batteries or to split water to produce hydrogen (electrolysis of water). The DC output from PV can be conditioned into grid-quality AC electricity. or greenhouse gases. commercial modules: 12%-17%. cadmium telluride. Arrays can be ground-mounted or on all types of buildings and structures (e. by producing hydrogen from water – will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Land area is not a problem for PV. assuming a system efficiency of 10% and an area packing factor of 50% to avoid self-shading). With energy storage.. prototype systems are being tested in high solar areas in the southwest United States. System Concepts • Flat-plate PV arrays use global sunlight. • Grid-connected PV systems currently sell for about $6-$7/Wp (17¢-22¢/kWh). power conditioning. and dye-sensitized cells) – best cells: 12%-19%. air pollution. U. • PV systems are expected to be used in the United States for residential and commercial buildings. If successful. single-crystal silicon and multijunction gallium-arsenide-alloy cells for concentrators – best cells: 27%-39% efficient. on roofs or above parking lots).g. PV can provide dispatchable electricity and/or produce hydrogen. market share could increase rapidly.. commercial modules: 6%-11%. Silicon modules dominate the PV market and currently cost about $2/Wp to manufacture. a PV-generating station 140 km by 140 km sited at a high solar insolation location in the United States (such as the desert Southwest) could generate all of the electricity needed in the country (2. • Almost all locations in the United States and worldwide have enough sunlight for cost-effective PV. Not only can PV be more easily sited in a distributed fashion than almost all alternatives (for example.Photovoltaics Technology Description Solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays use semiconductor devices called solar cells to convert sunlight to electricity without moving parts and without producing fuel wastes. including support structures.S. • Thin-film semiconductors (e.g. sunlight in the contiguous states varies by only about 25% from an average in Kansas. semitransparent solar canopy). Using solar PV for electricity – and eventually using solar PV to produce hydrogen for fuel cells for electric vehicles. Very few of these systems have 23 . • High-efficiency. peak-power shaving.

Becquerel found that certain materials would produce small amounts of electric current when exposed to light. as an insertion candidate for high efficiency terrestrial PV concentrator systems. A greater focus of the recent marketplace is on customer-sited systems. but it remained a curiosity of science for the next three quarters of a century. A 30-megawatt amorphous silicon thin-film plant by United Solar reached full production in 2005. or industry in copper indium gallium diselenide (19%-efficient cells and 13%-efficient modules) and cadmium telluride (16%-efficient cells and 11%­ efficient modules). In either case.been installed to-date. As a result. reliable power. This device configuration is expected to dominate future space power for commercial and military satellites. Typically. U. or commercial-size systems of several hundred kilowatts. with electric storage and improved transmission for dispatchable electricity. • Land area is not a problem for PV. Soon afterward..S. Cell and module efficiencies for these technologies have increased more than 50% in the past decade. • A new generation of potentially lower-cost technologies (thin films) is entering the marketplace. which may be installed to meet a variety of customer needs. 24 . The effect was first studied in solids.g. • During the past two years. such as selenium. has resulted in industry cost reductions of more than 60% and facilitated a sixteen-fold increase of manufacturing capacity during the past 12 years. selenium was quickly adopted in the emerging field of photography for use in light-measuring devices. U. leading to a record cell efficiency (35%) and an R&D 100 Award in 2001. desire for green power.S. or other common building elements. This area (0. etc. assuming a system efficiency of 10% and an area packing factor of 50% (to avoid self-shading). Interest is growing in the use of PV systems as part of the building structure or façade (“building integrated”). Such systems use PV modules designed to look like shingles. these applications will be in hybrid minigrid or battery-charging configurations. Thin-film PV has been a focus of the federal R&D efforts of the past decade. windows. Not only can PV be more easily sited in a distributed fashion than almost all alternatives (e. selenium PV cells were converting light to electricity at more than 1% efficiency. Two plants (First Solar and Shell Solar) using even newer thin films (cadmium telluride and copper indium diselenide alloys) are in first-time manufacturing at the MW-scale. peak power shaving. and intermediate daytime load following. national labs. • Other applications for PV systems include electricity for remote locations. and H2 production for portable fuel. At only 19. • Almost all locations in the United States and worldwide have enough sunlight for PV (e. • A unique multijunction (III-V materials alloy) cell was spun off to the space power industry. distributed utility systems for grid support. PV technology leads the world in measurable results such as record efficiencies for cells and modules. record sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiencies for solar cells were set by federally funded universities.3% of U. DOE is interested in this technology (III-V multijunctions).) is less than one-third of the area used for military purposes in the United States. because it holds promise for module cost reductions. Recent champion cell efficiency has reached 39% under concentrated sunlight.5 × 106 GWh/year). Technology History • French physicist Edmond Becquerel first described the photovoltaic (PV) effect in 1839. on roofs or above parking lots). a PV-generating station 140 km-by­ 140 km sited at an average solar location in the United States could generate all of the electricity needed in the country (2. PV systems meet customer needs for alternatives to purchased power. sunlight varies by only about 25% from an average in Kansas).. protection from price escalation.g. by Heinrich Hertz in the 1870s. • PV systems are expected to be used in the United States for residential and commercial buildings. These installations may be residential-size systems of just 1 kilowatt.S. the PV Advanced Manufacturing R&D program. such as the Thin-Film Partnership with its national research teams. especially for billions of people worldwide who do not have electricity. Current Status • Because of public/private partnerships. Another partnership.

and production. and other daytime uses (e. distributed utility systems for grid support. electric car-charging stations. Since then.20 NA 0. however. PV devices in 1970 were still too expensive for most “down-to-Earth” uses.8-0. MP-520­ 33875. as advances in PV research and development are sometimes adopted by the integrated circuit industry. approximately 1. • Even today. such as roof-mounted arrays on homes and commercial buildings in the United States. increasing energy costs. grid-connected PV.22 0. • Future electricity and hydrogen storage for dispatchable electricity. Although a few attempts were made in the 1950s to use silicon cells in commercial products. markets include retail electricity for residential and commercial buildings. (Today. when the Czochralski process was developed for producing highly pure crystalline silicon.10 NA (crystalline Si) Concentrator 0. Technology Future The levelized cost of electricity (in constant 2003$/kWh) for PV are projected to be: 2007 2020 2025 2003 Utility-owned Residential 0. U. peak-shaving. with systems valued at more than $7 billion. 25 . • Hundreds of applications are cost-effective for off-grid needs.S. industry. Worldwide sales grew 36% in 2001. the U.. and 60% in 2004.S. which had an efficiency of 4%. • U. 33% in 2003. total installed PV is more than 2 GW. 44% in 2002. September 2005). Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. However. But.200 MW of PV were sold in 2004. such as airconditioning.S. Climate Change Technology Program.40 0. and research organizations have invested billions of dollars in research. and hydrogen production for portable fuel. PV plays an important role in space.06 Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan. November 2003 (draft update.g.• Major steps toward commercializing PV were taken in the 1940s and early 1950s. California is subsidizing PV systems to reduce their dependence on natural gas. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. As a result.25-0. The U.) • Despite these advances. • Worldwide. sparked by a world oil crisis. NREL Report No. the fastest-growing segment of the market is battery-free.40 0. A thriving industry now exists to meet the rapidly growing demand for photovoltaic products. renewed interest in making PV technology more affordable. market growth for PV has averaged more than 20%/year for the past decade as a result of reduced prices and successful global marketing. Transistors and PV cells are made from similar materials and operate on similar physical mechanisms.04-0. DOE/GO-102004-1775. world market share fell to about 12% in 2004. development. DOE/PI-0002. supplying nearly all power for satellites. this technology transfer process often works in reverse. scientists at Bell Laboratories depended on the Czochralski process to develop the first crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. advances in transistor research provided a steady flow of new information about PV cell technology. The cells worked so well that PV technology has been part of the space program ever since. In 1958. • Worldwide.S. Vanguard space satellite carried a small array of PV cells to power its radio. it was the new space program that gave the technology its first major application. Market Context • Electricity for remote locations. the federal government. especially for peak daytime loads that match PV output. The commercial integrated circuit technology also contributed to the development of PV cells. in the mid-1970s. especially for billions of people worldwide who do not have electricity. remote water pumping). In 1954.

Feb.4 170 2000 21. April 2004. Feb.6 131 1999 18.5 110 1998 13. and Volume 23. 4.S. Japan Europe Rest of World World Total Cumulative (MW) U. www.pvenergy. 1996.1 39 1995 8.2 15 1990 5. 2001. Vol.com 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 3 8 15 35 39 51 54 61 75 100 121 103 1 10 17 16 21 35 49 80 129 171 251 364 0 3 10 20 19 30 34 40 61 87 135 193 0 1 5 6 10 9 19 21 23 33 54 84 4 23 47 78 89 126 155 201 288 391 560 744 1980 5 1 1 0 7 1980 71% 75% 1985 45 26 13 3 87 1985 34% 52% 1990 101 95 47 20 263 1990 32% 39% 1995 219 185 136 45 585 1995 44% 37% 1996 258 206 155 55 674 1996 44% 38% 1997 309 241 185 65 800 1997 41% 39% 1998 363 290 219 83 954 1998 35% 38% 1999 424 370 259 104 1.156 1999 30% 37% 2000 499 499 320 127 1.444 2000 26% 35% 2001 599 670 407 160 1. No. Vol. % of World Sales Annual Cumulative Source: PV News. Source: Strategies Unlimited 1980 1.Photovoltaics Market Data PV Cell/Module Production (Shipments) Annual (MW) U.285 735 298 3. 16.139 2003 14% 26% Annual Capacity (Shipments retained. Vol. 2. May 2003. No.S.4 68 1996 9. Paul Maycock. 20. No. 2. Feb. 5.S. No. Japan Europe Rest of World World Total U.2 79 1997 10. 15.3 246 26 . Vol.S. No. 2.395 2002 22% 30% 2003 823 1. Total World *Excludes indoor consumer (watches/calculators). 1997. MW)* U.835 2001 26% 33% 2002 720 921 542 214 2.4 3 1985 4. 22.

Renewable Energy Annual 2003.5 55.6 230.6 103.9 1.3 52. and original equipment manufacturers. D.9 14. December 2004) Table 26.5 127.8 88.5 611.2 38.8 16.9 51.5 51. excludes water pumping.0 5.8 18.0 73.4 181. U. Number 4. Shipments (MW) Total Imports Exports Source: Renewable Energy World.7 19.7 1.9 22.1 92.C.8 10.2 1996 228. September 2004).7 8.7 0.8 31.0 25.8 75. health.2 18 160. Vol.8 Domestic Total On-Grid* 2.2 10. Shipments (MW) Annual Shipments Total Imports Exports Domestic Total On-Grid* Domestic Total Off-Grid* Cumulative Shipments (since 1982) Total Imports Exports Source: EIA.3 37.7 7.9 1.4 33.S.3 9.7 9.7 33.9 4.S.5 and 10.210 *Excludes indoor consumer (watches/calculators).8 11.8 0.0 200. Volume 6. and PV News.8 55.8 13.1 0.1 109.6 47.4 66.9 142.5 46.7 5.7 47.3 14.8 508.4 * Domestic Totals include imports and exclude exports.7 10.S.3 126.. Electricity generation only.1 1990 84.2 54.3 1. Total World Source: Strategies Unlimited 1980 3 6 1985 23 61 1990 43 199 1995 76 474 1996 85 552 1997 96 663 1998 109 794 1999 128 964 2000 149 1.9 252.0 53. MW)* U.3 28.4 43.7 251.6. 23.0 70.6 76.3 4.3 4. consumer goods.8 169.0 100.4 2004 991. No.5 19.0 447.0 2.3 102.3 1997 275.5 319.7 113.1 35.2 7.4 50. transportation.0 12. D.2 10.Cumulative Capacity (Shipments retained. Annual Energy Review 2004.0 2000 490.5 24.0 24. Tables 10.6 32.2 16.1 26.3 120.2 6. U. 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 5.8 35.8 60.2 10.7 1985 35.2 2001 588.9 15.9 22.8 60. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.0 4. communications. and EIA.3 1.5 2.2 1.4 1999 402.7 381. DOE/EIA-0603(2003) (Washington.9 4.6 68.4 61.7 102. 5.8 8.1 36.2 81.0 18.5 1995 193.5 23.C.9 39.8 2003 809.7 60.9 29.5 55.7 31.3 104 1.0 9.2 126.7 112. May 2004 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 34.0 27 .6 2002 700.8 1998 325.0 108.4 1. July-August 2003.4 3.9 Domestic Total Off-Grid* 26.9 1.8 38..2 97.0 13.3 81.9 195.0 5.8 6.

5 2.5 2.8 2. Annual World Installations (MW) Consumer Products U.0 16.8 76.5 2.7 5.0 67.ojaservices.3 138.1 28.5 6.1 40.9 21. prepared by Paul D.8 2.7 55.7 2. Maycock and Ward Bower. and PV News.2 64.8 167. Installations* (MW) Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States. May 31.0 4.5 32.3 23.0 9.4 32.2 35.5 43.0 12.5 0 20.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/download/usa.5 3.4 2.8 3.0 13. Commercial Grid-Conn.0 0 11.5 0 24.8 30.0 5.4 1.0 1.2 0 13.0 2.1 117.0 12.0 4.5 50. Off-Grid Residential World Off-Grid Rural Communications/ Signal PV/Diesel.0 12.5 0.pdf.0 8. Installations (MW) Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States. http://www.htm.S.0 13. Table 1 http://www. Vol.6 On-grid Centralized 12.5 6.S.0 22.0 12.S.2 4. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Off-grid Residential 19. Central Station (>100kW) Total Source: Renewable Energy World. Maycock and Ward Bower.5 5. 1980 1985 1990 16 3 6 14 7 1 1 48 1995 1996 22 8 15 23 12 7 2 89 1997 26 9 19 28 16 27 2 127 1998 30 10 24 31 20 36 2 153 2 1999 35 13 31 35 25 60 201 2000 40 15 38 40 30 120 5 288 2001 45 19 45 46 36 199 5 395 2002 60 25 60 60 45 270 5 525 N/A N/A N/A 28 . July-August 2003. 5.2 46. 23 No.0 4.0 37.2 100. Comm.8 2.5 4.5 Off-grid Nonresidential 25. 2003.4 0 15. 2003.7 On-grid Distributed 9.oja-services.0 0 48.0 12.0 Total 66. Res.Annual U. Number 4.5 88.5 1.0 2.7 15.0 Grid-Connected Distributed Off-Grid Consumer Government Off-Grid Industrial/Commercial Consumer (<40 w) Central Station Total Cumulative U.5 7. May 31.2 0 14. Volume 6.7 5. prepared for the IEA. prepared by Paul D. Table 1.0 9.0 3.0 1.0 40.0 1.0 12.0 0 32.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/usa2.8 * Excludes installations less than 40kW.2 2.2 4. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1.2 1.0 4. prepared for the IEA.0 7.8 4..0 12.3 27.7 11.

17.Annual U.7 3. 5.5 1998 30.5 4.01 32.7 0 100.41 162.3 0.2 4.6 3. Vol. No.3 89. 16. Vol.2 1.8 1996 24. No.5 14. Shipments by Cell Type (MW) Source: PV News.9 306.9 27 28.3 39. March 2001.2 4 1. 1999.7 0.7 30 561. Vol.0 64.5 4. Vol. Vol.5 0.7 1. 2. 17. No. No. Vol.7 29 . March 2001. Vol.9 24 11 0. 3. 2. 19.3 1.3 0. 3. Feb.9 4.0 1.7 48.0 5. 3.3 0.0 0. July-August 2003.51 0.1 34. 1997.1 1.6 0.8 0.1 0. Feb. 1996.2 1 151. Feb.2 0 2.2 2 12 287.7 0. No. Number 4. Vol.5 16.3 N/A N/A 2. 22.5 126.2 2 8.7 120. No.5 62. 22.7 0. 2. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 46.0 0 75 2001 63. Vol.6 1. 2.6 278.1 79.6 16. 2.8 73 89.S. No.6 7.7 30 512.2 4 1.77 3.1 24 43 66. 3. No. Feb. 1980 1985 1990 1995 22.7 3.8 59. Feb.0 2.5 6. No.0 20.7 3 1. No. 3.8 0. Feb. March 2002.55 9. Vol.4 0. No.9 0.9 1.0 0 2. 21.6 1. March 2002.0 17.4 140.2 0.1 0. No. 2. 21. Vol.0 0. May 2003. 1999.1 10. Vol. Volume 6. 18.1 11.1 201.5 53.3 88.6 2000 44.7 4. 20. and Renewable Energy World.0 53.7 1999 36.6 2002 71. No.5 5.0 14.9 1997 31. Feb. 19. Vol. 2. 2.5 0.0 6. No.5 16.9 2.3 N/A N/A N/A 2 1. 16. Feb.22 0.6 Single Crystal Flat-Plate Polycrystal (other than ribbon) Amorphous Silicon Crystal Silicon Concentrators Ribbon Silicon N/A Cadmium Telluride Microcrystal SI/Single SI SI on Low-Cost-Sub A-SI on Cz Slice Total Annual World Shipments by Cell Type (MW) Single Crystal Flat-Plate Polycrystal Amorphous Silicon Crystal Silicon Concentrators Ribbon Silicon Cadmium Telluride Microcrystal SI/Single SI SI on Low-Cost-Sub A-SI on Cz Slice Total Source: PV News. July-August 2003.7 1. March 2000. Vol. Number 4.7 150.5 0. 5.31 20. No. 15. 20. 15. March 2000. 1996. 1998. 1997. 1998. No. Vol.0 0 0. Volume 6. and Renewable Energy World.2 23. 3. 18.7 15 19.8 14.3 0. May 2003. Vol.0 9.3 0.0 0 1.5 6.

htm Table 1.4 38.8 119.3 0.0 9.3 114. Table 28.1 7.7 104.8 13.8 1. January 2004. 1.7 12. prepared for the IEA.0 0 181. prepared for the IEA.9 0. http://www.0 435.8 U.5 1.0 155. 2003.3 16.2 46.1 31.7 27. Maycock and Ward Bower.1 22.oja-services.2 9.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/usa2.0 11.9 54. Renewable Energy Annual 1997.S.1 57.9 33.2 33.8 56.3 178. Japan data from PV News.0 Note: Japan data not necessarily grid-connected Cumulative GridConnected Capacity (MW) Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States.2 34 1.0 564.0 25.5 97.7 151.7 386. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 21.9 114.2 35.9 266. prepared by Paul D. 23.2 51. January 2004.9 64.4 26.6 189.7 22.2 5.0 U.6 34.7 30 30.5 0. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 6. Table 27. Shipments by Cell Type (MW) Single-Crystal Silicon Cast and Ribbon Crystalline Silicon Crystalline Silicon Total Thin-Film Silicon Concentrator Silicon Other Total Annual Grid-Connected Capacity (MW) Source: EIA. 23. Solar Collector Manufacturing Activity annual reports.9 29.6 5.6 5. Vol.oja-services.0 603.7 59.1 5.7 23.9 12.3 29.5 24.htm.0 0. 1982-1992.6 73. National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in Japan 2002.9 7.oja-services.2 29.3 47. Japan Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States.8 13.6 112.7 0. derived from Table 1 http://www. REA 2000. derived from Table 1 http://www.5 19.3 0.1 98.7 74.3 12. Table 28.2 84. 2003. Vol.3 32.1 50.5 109.7 71.5 0.9 21.4 91. Japan data from PV News.1 40. REA 2002.4 0. May 31.Annual U.8 47. Maycock and Ward Bower. 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 19.7 2.htm.3 88.0 12.S. REA 2003. prepared by Paul D.4 46.3 0.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/jpn2.2 7.4 94. Table 26.7 23. No. 1.3 2.5 3.2 30 . May 31.0 80. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1.3 14.4 0.1 52.8 85.5 159.2 2.2 13.7 74. No.0 168.6 44.0 280.S.1 76. Japan Japan Grid-Connected Capacity (MW) Annual Cumulative Source: IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Program.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/usa2. and EIA.5 3.3 1.2 3.

104 1990 2.592 0.008 0.001 0.029 14.986 0.334 2.691 12.078 0.278 0.008 0.015 0.190 0.S.579 0.412 2.135 0.246 0.405 1.627 0.140 0.592 0.002 1.527 0.495 7.833 0.248 0.344 0.560 10. NREL.965 0.764 1.713 48.352 0.275 0.366 0.002 0.S.790 5.609 0.250 0.029 2.018 0.044 10. 2003.900 0.004 1.005 1.917 0.645 2001 2002 2003 24.378 0.097 0.033 0.558 0.006 0 0 0.401 27.002 0.072 2.577 0. 2003.598 38.221 0.033 0.036 0.759 0.008 0.010 0.572 17.009 0.049 8.019 0.828 0.031 0.759 0.301 0.006 0.491 0.457 5.171 0.724 0.720 0.021 0.579 1.087 0.170 1995 1996 1997 6.606 0.008 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.010 0 0.554 0.106 0.021 0.609 0.671 0 0 0.012 0.334 0.028 0.026 0.004 1990 0.079 0.078 0.155 0.013 0 0.352 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.362 1998 8.015 0.703 67.016 1.020 0.145 1.135 0.089 0.446 0.025 1985 1. 1980 0.100 0.516 1. 1980 1985 0.159 2.008 0.236 16.226 0.048 0.437 0.008 0 0 0 0.001 0.759 0.144 0.218 0.670 1998 0.371 0. Cumulative U.164 0.140 2000 5.598 0. 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.-Installed Capacity (MW) Top 10 States California Arizona New York Ohio Hawaii Texas Colorado Georgia Florida Illinois Total U.041 0.016 1.021 4.449 0.132 0.261 1999 2000 11.369 0.945 0.021 0.113 0.958 1. 31 .050 0.965 0.622 0.133 0.352 1997 0.013 1995 0.034 5.798 1.009 0 0.595 0.741 0.650 0.018 1.047 0.-Installed Capacity (MW) Top 10 States California Arizona New York Ohio Hawaii Texas Colorado Georgia Florida Illinois 1 Total U.021 0 0 0.177 0.014 0. Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).396 8.251 2003 7. NREL. 1 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).352 0.002 0.023 8.888 0.000 0.291 0.452 0.202 0.574 0.046 0.016 0. Version 7.117 0.641 40.145 2.333 1.032 0.899 1999 2.710 There are an additional 3.244 2001 2002 7.016 0.437 0.425 0.Annual U.067 0.S.452 59.412 0.917 0.993 0.164 4.803 0.032 0 0 0.040 0.146 0 0.131 1996 0.093 0 2.759 0.377 0. Version 7.325 0.006 0.105 19.941 0.043 8.067 0.4 MW of photovoltaic capacity that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date.003 0.137 0.807 21.062 0.034 0.S.

MP-520-33875. DOE/GO-102004-1775.30 5.Technology Performance Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan.20 NA .00-1.20-9.50 NA 0.005 Total Installed System ($/Wp) O&M ($/kWh) 32 . Efficiency Cell (%) Crystalline Silicon Concentrator Crystalline Silicon Concentrator Crystalline Silicon Concentrator 2003 NA 25 14 NA 11.80 160 0.08 0.5 15 2007 NA 33 15 NA 14 22 2020 NA NA 15-20 NA 16 NA 2025 NA 40 NA NA NA 33 Module (%) System (%) Cost Module ($/Wp) 2 ) ($/m BOS ($/Wp) Crystalline Silicon Concentrator Crystalline Silicon Concentrator Crystalline Silicon * Concentrator Crystalline Silicon Concentrator 2003 4.80 NA 0.0.60 0.85 0.15 NA NA NA 0.60 6.30-2.02 2007 2.50 NA 0.01 2020 1.50 90 0.02 0. NREL Report No.40 NA 2.005 NA 2025 NA 80 NA 0.

Lifting forces spin the blades. the global wind energy capacity has increased tenfold from 3. DOE sponsored (and NASA managed) large-scale turbine development – starting with hundred-kilowatt machines and culminating in the late 1980s with the 3.300/kW. Colorado) is recognized as a world-class center for wind energy R&D and has many facilities – such as blade structural test stands and a large gearbox test stand – not otherwise available to the domestic industry.Wind Energy Technology Description Wind turbine technology converts the kinetic energy in wind to electricity. Current Status • In 1989.2-MW. nearly 8. Utility-scale turbines for wind plants range in size up to several megawatts. • Domestic public interest in environmentally responsible electric generation technology is reflected by new state energy policies and in the success of “green marketing” of wind power throughout the country. site-tailored designs. the wind program set a goal of 5¢/kWh by 1995 and 4¢/kWh by 2000 for sites with average wind speeds of 16 mph. Grid-connected wind power reduces greenhouse gas emissions by displacing the need for natural gas and coal-fired generation. or at variable speed for better performance. the wind energy capacity exploded from 1. driving a generator that produces electric power in proportion to wind speed. with the blades facing into the wind. using a power electronics system for grid connection. Technology Applications • In the United States. Numerous designs were available commercially for residential and farm uses.600 MW in 1994 to more than 9. To improve the cost-effectiveness of wind turbines. In the past decade. Representative Technologies • The most common machine configuration is a three-bladed wind turbine. System Concepts • Most modern wind turbines operate using aerodynamic lift generated by airfoil-type blades. DOE-supported Mod-5 machine built by Boeing. • The National Wind Technology Center (operated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. technology advances are being made for rotors and controls.5 million households. During 2004.200 MW by the end of 2005 – enough to serve more than 2. • Current performance is characterized by levelized costs of 3¢-5¢/kWh (depending on resource quality and financing terms). Village and off-grid applications are important for displacing diesel generation and for improving quality of life.500 MW in 1994 to almost 50. 33 . drive trains. and efficiencies of 65%-75% of theoretical (Betz limit) maximum. Technology History • Prior to 1980. • Wind power is the world’s fastest-growing energy source. Turbines either rotate at constant speed and directly link to the grid.000 MW of new capacity was added worldwide. • Small-scale (2-20 kW) turbine development efforts also were supported by DOE at the Rocky Flats test site. yielding much higher efficiency than traditional windmills that relied on wind “pushing” the blades. and stand­ alone power applications. availability of 95-98%.000 MW by the end of 2004. and smaller turbines (under 100 kilowatts) serve a range of distributed. and offshore and onshore foundations. which operates “upwind” of the tower. total installed costs of approximately $1. remote.000-$1. towers. capacity factors of 30%-50%. especially in developing countries. The program and the wind industry met the goals as part of dramatic cost reductions from 25¢-50¢/kWh in the early 1980s to 4¢-6¢/kWh today (2005). manufacturing methods.

0 3.5 MW Liberty prototype wind turbine.9 2.9 2. • In 1992. which provided a 1. General Electric Co.S.4 2. • In FY2001.5 2. Oregon. installing U.K. irrigation. Its competitiveness is negatively affected by policies regarding ancillary services and transmission and distribution regulations. and hydrogen production. cost-competitive resource base. A number of new companies emerged in the U. wind energy industry had a record-breaking year for new installations. • Continued cost reductions from low wind-speed technologies will increase the resource areas available for wind development by 20-fold and move wind generation five times closer to major load centers. the first wind farms were installed in California by a small group of entrepreneurial companies. companies became proficient in operating the 1. Department of Energy signed a $27 million contract with General Electric to develop a multimegawatt offshore wind power system. At the same time. purchased Enron Wind Corporation. 2.• In 1981. many U. • Installed wind capacity in the United States expanded from 2. In 2002. Coupled with several state programs and mandates. Clipper Windpower began testing on its highly innovative.400 MW of new capacity to the nation’s electric grid. Washington. Technology Future The levelized cost of electricity (2002 $/MWh) for wind energy technology is projected to be: 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2005 Class 4 5.3 Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request. Iowa. • In 1997. Congress passed the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPI). the U.5 4. • In 1989.1 2. Emerging markets for wind energy include providing energy for water purification. European market exceeded the United States for the first time.S.6 2. federal tax credits were abruptly ended. spurred by ambitious national programs. They launched into value engineering and incremental increases in turbine size. Enron purchased Zond Energy Systems. • California has the greatest installed wind capacity. • In 2006. • By 1985. Colorado. DOE initiated a low wind-speed turbine development program to broaden the U. • In 2005. • In 1988. New Mexico. • During the next five years. with support from the production tax credit – and in high-value niche applications or markets that recognize non-cost attributes. • DOE program supported value-engineering efforts and other advanced turbine-development efforts. multiple-drive 2. • In 2004. one of the value-engineered turbine manufacturers. • Wind energy is often the least variable cost source of generation in grid supplied electricity and due to its less predictable (variable resource) supply.0 2. and Germany. NREL/TP-620-37931.1 3.554 MW to 4. and California incentives weakened the following year.600 MW of installed capacity in California.S.5 cent/kWh tax credit for wind-produced electricity. 34 . PURPA provided substantial regulatory support for this initial surge. annual market growth had peaked at 400 MW.5 MW turbine. DOE’s focus changed to supporting industry-driven research on components and systems. Following that. and Clipper Windpower begins manufacturing its multiple-drive. followed by Texas. wind usually displaces natural gas and coal generated electricity as these sources adjust to hourly changes in demand and supply. and Oklahoma.S. Minnesota.150 MW during the period of 2000 to 2005.8 Class 6 4. adding more than 2. but still make up less than 1% of total U. Danish. • Wind technology is competitive today in bulk power markets at Class 5 and 6 wind sites. installations in the United States began to increase. and Dutch turbines. generation.S. the U.. May 2005. the market boomed.S. Wyoming.

which recently acquired wind technology and manufacturing assets in April 2002. • Initial lower levels of wind deployment (up to 15%-20% of the total U. 35 . electric system capacity) are not expected to introduce significant grid reliability issues. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. and demand for community-owned wind applications. industry. intensive use of this technology at larger penetrations may require modification to system operations or ancillary services. Key market drivers include state renewable portfolio standards. market. low-capital-cost alternatives – and lacks public policy to support deployment of sustainable technologies such as wind energy. Climate Change Technology Program. Transmission infrastructure upgrades and expansion will be required for large penetrations of onshore wind turbines. • In the United States.S. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. there are about 10 turbine manufacturers and about 20 to 30 project developers. Because the wind resource is variable.S. DOE/PI-0002. About six manufacturers and six to 10 developers characterize the U. • In Europe. However. U. except for General Electric Wind Energy. November 2003 (draft update.S.S. • Small wind turbines (100 kW and smaller) for distributed and residential grid-connected applications are being used to harness the nation’s abundant wind resources and defer impacts to the long-distance transmission market. offshore resources are located close to major load centers. incentive programs. September 2005).• Utility restructuring is a critical challenge to increased deployment in the near term because it emphasizes short-term. leaving wind power at a disadvantage. European manufacturers have established North American manufacturing facilities and are actively participating in the U. the wind industry is thinly capitalized.

002 1995 1. 1988-94.598 2000 2. Source: US DOE.095 2.334 2.S.741 2.Wind Market Data Grid-Connected Wind Capacity (MW) Cumulative U.118 1997 1.338 447 427 391 12. Wind Capacity (MW) Annual Cumulative 1 2 1 Source: Reference IEA (data supplemented by Windpower Monthly.095 75 574 13.097 1990 1. 2002 data from AWEA "Global Wind Energy Market Report 2004".780 2001 1.685 6.773 1996 8 1.270 2002 2003 4.843 4. NREL.576 216 785 305 70 264 3.078 2003 12 2 5.781 1997 8 1.994 14.294 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).770 1.890 2.175 2.308 28. Version 7.445 1. April 2001).961 1.961 1999 695 2.399 1.374 11.270 1.825 6.S.889 3.702 2110 415 686 1.082 421 1. January 2002.220 121 797 17.788 1998 173 1.752 416 282 344 9.539 1. 1996-2000 American Wind Energy Association 1980 98% 65% 1985 44% 42% 1990 36% 20% 1995 67% 5% 1996 NA 2% 1997 38% 4% 1998 78% 13% 1999 44% 9% 2000 0% 6% Annual Market Shares U. DOE Wind Program Data Sheets.426 250 992 23.1982-87 wind turbine shipment database.625 1999 2.417 483 682 477 16.S.874 834 1. 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002. 1980 0.656 2000 124 2.623 2002 454 5.S.554 6.494 550 10 63 4.455 4.090 There are an additional 48 MW of wind capacity that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date. 1980 10 2 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 15 1985 1.362 1.579 1998 1.023 0.420 968 32 315 9.240 8. Market U.569 1995 37 1.202 2.110 693 912 788 904 552 649 23. Mfg Share of U.609 4.706 1.039 3 0 50 0 0 58 0 0 0 1.794 1.100 325 103 324 4. 2001 data from Windpower Monthly.384 820 14 106 6.525 60 9 310 49 3 6 450 20 1 6 2. Germany Spain Denmark Netherlands Italy UK Europe India Japan Rest of World World Total Installed U.060 1985 337 674 1990 154 1.644 933 7 254 7.653 2001 4.128 39.100 3.S.137 126 630 255 22 193 2.887 1996 1. Mfg Share of World Market 36 . 2003.400 364 180 331 6.418 31.

193.6 1.0 48.6 61. but rather a range of years (1072.6 237.0 0.2 180.6 1.0 0.2 Colorado 21.1 310.8 41.State-Installed Capacity Annual State-Installed Capacity (MW) 1980 1985 Top 10 States California* N/A Texas 0 Minnesota 0 Iowa 0 Wyoming 0 Oregon 0 Washington 0 0 Colorado 0 New Mexico 0 Oklahoma Total of 10 States N/A Total U.763.0 109.0 0.3 337.0 41.5 17.7 0.0 149.0 144.0 1.3 72.0 0.0 0.7 Total U.3 1.2 0.454.353.1 0.5 1.5 2.1 1.0 60.0 6.0 0.3 142.0 64.5 884.0 67.0 21.0 0.0 9.497.0 1.3 206.0 41.714.142.1 272.0 1.293.9 9.1 0.325.0 0.0 0.0 162.3 0.0 0.3 Oklahoma 474.686.7 1694. but has been added to the cumulative totals for 1995 and later.0 528.4 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Top 10 States California* N/A N/A 1.387.5 319.9 8.387.9 0.3 3.8 393.8 5.9 2005 61.0 0.2 223.0 180.454.5 1.6 0.8 75.3 202.9 1491.4 259.698.095.3 0.095.0 206.6 284.396.5 49.991.7 614.6 0 0.0 1.0 67.4 334.0 1.0 41.0 1.5 324.8 760.0 81.0 0.2 1.0 0.1 25.8 145.0 0.275.697. and 33.2 228.0 0.7 25.5 71.3 1.0 176.5 90.4 0.0 0.1 335.8 16.3 1.603.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 28.9 562.19 MW in "mid-1980's").2 422. 37 .3 2. N/A Source: American Wind Energy Association and Global Energy Concepts.0 205.0 0.2 0 0 0.0 1.0 139.98 in 1982-1987.822. 87.0 1525.9 984.6 229.344.0 4.5 2004 99.4 259.6 0. 1990 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 1995 3.0 15.0 35.1 44.0 0.8 2.0 0.3 176.7 290.848.0 0.0 0.0 2000 2001 0.2 1.S.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 781.2 137.7 0.0 5.0 52.0 2.7 471.3 1.0 1996 0.0 1.0 39.0 0.0 0.461.53 MW of wind in California that is not given a specific installation year.0 1.2 0.0 2.2 25.777.2 3.9 2.0 858.1 140. and this data is not listed in the annual installations.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 218.0 0.6 New Mexico 406.578.0 0.0 1039.396.069.0 1694.7 0.8 243.8 3.1 1.0 25.6 0.0 0.0 44.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 Washington 0 0 0.6 284.8 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.465.6 17.8 50.646.912.8 0.0 0.204.3 0 * The data set includes 1.2 229.0 1997 8.0 242.0 0.0 0.2 61.4 6.9 239. this has led to the "Not Available" values for 1985 and 1990 for California and the totals.0 1998 0.0 139.3 0 0 0.0 0.S.291.0 0.3 0.7 25.8 98.1 157.0 1999 250.2 1443.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 203.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 4.6 4.1 Iowa 0 0 0.0 298.1 0.0 0.4 1.0 178.2 Wyoming 0 0 140.0 0.0 0.9 135.0 0.0 0.6 140.293.5 559.9 701.0 1.994.0 41.0 0. 10.0 0.0 131.0 0.1 25.5 242.0 915.0 18.0 0.0 449.0 1.7 0.2 Texas 0 0 41.2 243.6 288.1 1.511.0 0.0 0.4 Oregon 0 0 0.0 176.0 2002 2003 108.646.0 1.0 0.431.36 MW in 1981-1995.0 6.8 Minnesota 0 0 25.6 266.6 Total of 10 states N/A N/A 1.706.042.0 0.0 176.

Annual Wind Energy Consumption for Electric Generation (Trillion Btu) U.0 2004 14.9 2.3 8.377 15.2 2002 10.2 8..235 5.3 10.417 27.275 6.006 1990 2.935 5.440 3. 2002.EIA.252 10.7 14. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington. Data for IEA R&D Wind Countries through 2001 included 16 IEA countries. Annual Energy Review 2004. 1980 N/A 1985 0.4 1997 3. Ireland and Switzerland were added in 2002 and Portugal was added in 2003."Renewables Information 2002.S.103 1.0 2003 11.S. September 2004).6 26.0 2000 5.5 22. D.995 35.4 49. IEA Total .2a.5 trillion Btu.124 6.2 69.4 19. Ireland and Switzerland were added in 2002 and Portugal was added in 2003. Annual Energy Review 2004.1 28.8 1995 3.731 1.4 10.11a. August 2005).C.553 4. 2.678 1. IEA R&D Wind Countries IEA Total N/A 17. 2 IEA R&D Wind Countries IEA Total Source: U.190 2. .6 1996 33.040 2. IEA R&D Wind Countries .390 16.2 3.001 11.7 37.228 8. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. Total (s)=Less than 0.C. D.4a 1980 N/A 1985 (s) 1990 29.4 million kilowatts.4 2002 104. 1 2003 2004 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2 U. August 2005). D.720 2. 1995-2003. . 2002.9 1998 3. Wind capacity in 2002 will be revised upward to at least 4. Table 8.8 7.IEA Wind Energy Annual Reports.S.799 1." IEA.6 1998 30. Data for International Energy Agency R&D Wind Countries through 2001 included 16 IEA countries. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.6 2004 143. IEA Total ..9 1999 45.5 1.8 2003 114. as the Energy Information Administration continues to identify new wind facilities.EIA. Table 8.3 1999 4.1 1996 3.. Annual Energy Review 2004.Cumulative Installed Capacity (MW) Source: U.386 4.IEA Wind Energy Annual Reports. IEA.Table 8.610 1. 1995-2003.0 38 .9 2000 57.2 7.C.S.4 2001 6.0 11.S. Source: EIA. Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity (Billion kWh) U.1 2001 68.0 1995 32. IEA R&D Wind Countries .864 21."Renewables Information 2002".4 1997 33.

2 13.6 29.8 Class 6 40.8 23. May 2005.4 51.0 48.2 48.2 48.7 24.3 46.1 39 .3 23.2 48.2 27.8 O&M ($/kW) Levelized Cost of Energy* ($/kWh) (2002 dollars) Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request.3 Class 6 43.9 30.5 50. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Class 4 55.0 20.3 30. NREL/TP-620-37931.0 28. NREL/TP-620-37931.2 12.1 40.9 52.0 15.3 52.1 52.0 14.8 40. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Capacity Factor (%) Class 4 33.Technology Performance Energy Production Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request.2 26.1 25.2 48.8 13.0 16.5 Cost (2002 dollars) Capital Cost ($/kW) Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request. NREL/TP-620-37931.2 52.7 51.5 28.3 27. May 2005.7 28.8 12.4 23.8 29.3 32.6 24.9 47.6 49.4 46.5 13.7 51. May 2005. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Class 4 1103 982 919 893 866 866 861 856 851 840 Class 6 1050 893 840 819 814 788 777 767 756 746 Onshore 25.

Hydrogen is a clean energy storage medium. biomass. When hydrogen produced from renewable resources is used in fuel cell vehicles or power devices. clean use of fossil fuels during the transition to a carbon-free Hydrogen Economy. there are very few emissions – the major byproduct is water. It also can be used as a feedstock in chemical processes. The protons migrate through the electrolyte to the cathode. and use. • A hydrogen system is comprised of production. where hydrogen and oxygen (from air) recombine to produce electrical energy. hydrogen from fossil resources can be used efficiently with few emissions. and water to complete the cycle. renewable resources. hydrogen atoms separate into protons and electrons. • Hydrogen produced by decarbonization of fossil fuels followed by sequestration of the carbon can enable the continued. Hydrogen storage • Pressurized gas and cryogenic liquid (commercial today) 40 . distribution. and oxygen is fed to the cathode. Representative Technologies Hydrogen production • Thermochemical conversion of fossil fuels. Activated by a catalyst. and wastes to produce hydrogen and CO2 with the CO2 available for sequestration (large-scale steam methane reforming is widely commercialized) • Renewable (wind. System Concepts • Hydrogen can be used as a sustainable transportation fuel or stored to meet peak-power demand. This process produces no particulate matter. no carbon dioxide. Fuel cells can be used to power vehicles. geothermal. storage. and no pollution. It will produce electricity and heat as long as fuel (hydrogen) is supplied. With improved conventional energy conversion and carbon-capture technologies. • A fuel cell works like a battery but does not run down or need recharging. particularly for distributed generation.Hydrogen Technology Description Similar to electricity. solar. or turbine. heat. Hydrogen is fed to the anode. The Hydrogen Economy vision is based on this cycle: separate water into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable or nuclear energy. Use the hydrogen to power a fuel cell. hydrogen can be produced from many sources. internal combustion engine. A fuel cell consists of two electrodes—a negative electrode (or anode) and a positive electrode (or cathode)—sandwiched around an electrolyte. and nuclear energy. The electrons go through an external circuit. or to provide electricity and heat to buildings. which take different paths to the cathode. Hydrogen and electricity can be converted from one to the other using electrolyzers (electricity to hydrogen) and fuel cells (hydrogen to electricity). where they reunite with oxygen and the electrons to produce water and heat. hydro) and nuclear electricity converted to hydrogen by electrolysis of water (commercially available electrolyzers supply a small but important part of the super-high-purity hydrogen market) • Photoelectrochemical and photobiological processes for direct production of hydrogen from sunlight and water. creating a flow of electricity. including fossil fuels. or fossil resources with carbon sequestration.

The polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell uses a fluorocarbon ion exchange with a polymeric membrane as the electrolyte. generators for distributed power generation Technology Applications • In the United States. These cells are the best candidates for light-duty vehicles. It has the potential to be fueled with coal-derived fuel gases or natural gas. it is now finding applications in hydrogen-powered vehicles. This is a promising option for high-powered applications. • Buildings sector: combined heat. reductant in metal production.A phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) consists of an anode and a cathode made of a finely dispersed platinum catalyst on carbon paper. The current main use of hydrogen as a fuel is by NASA to propel rockets. The primary fuel cell technologies under development are: Phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) . ammonia production) is produced from natural gas. These cells operate at relatively low temperatures and can vary their output to meet shifting power demands.The molten carbonate fuel cell uses a molten carbonate salt as the electrolyte. and include a lanthanum manganate cathode and a nickel-zirconia anode. but can be reversed and powered with electricity to produce hydrogen and oxygen. • Hydrogen's potential use in fuel and energy applications includes powering vehicles. More than 250 commercial units exist in 19 countries on five continents. reducing agent in electronics industry. such as buses. eliminating the need for a fuel reformer. hospitals. running turbines or fuel cells to produce electricity. Potential long-term use as an aviation fuel and in marine applications • Industrial sector: ammonia production. Originally used by NASA on missions. This fuel cell also can be used in large vehicles.e. a catalyst on the DMFC anode draws hydrogen from liquid methanol.A relatively new member of the fuel cell family. for petroleum refining and upgrading.• Higher pressure (10. and office buildings. and much smaller applications. hydrotreating of crude oils. and fuel applications using fuel cells • Power sector: fuel cells. This is the most commercially developed type of fuel cell and is being used in hotels.This special class of fuel cells produces electricity from hydrogen and oxygen. gas turbines. the directmethanol fuel cell (DMFC) is similar to the PEM cell in that it uses a polymer membrane as an electrolyte. The PEM cell appears to be more adaptable to automobile use than the PAFC type of cell. Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) .000 psi). hydrogenation of oils in the food industry. Direct-methanol fuel cell (DMFC) . 41 . nearly all of the hydrogen used as a chemical (i. The current focus is on hydrogen's use in fuel cells. for buildings. such as industrial uses or central electricity generating stations. and generating heat and electricity for buildings. and near Chicago) • By decentralized or point-of-use production using natural gas or electricity • By truck (liquid and compressed hydrogen delivery is practiced commercially) Hydrogen use • Transportation sector: internal combustion engines or fuel cells to power vehicles with electric power trains. However. Regenerative or Reversible Fuel Cells . Alkaline fuel cell . carbon-wrapped conformable gas cylinders • Cryogenic gas • Chemically bound as metal or chemical hydrides or physically adsorbed on carbon nanostructures Hydrogen distribution • By pipeline (relatively significant pipeline networks exist in industrial areas of the Gulf Coast region.Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) currently under development use a thin layer of zirconium oxide as a solid ceramic electrolyte.The alkaline fuel cell uses an alkaline electrolyte such as potassium hydroxide. and a silicon carbide matrix that holds the phosphoric acid electrolyte. power. Polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell . Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) .

the dynamic progress in Germany. and other hydrogen products. refined metals. to Iceland’s commitment to be the first hydrogen economy by 2030. a gaseous product called town gas (manufactured from coal) supplied lighting and heating for America and Europe. • During the 20th century.A fully functional integrated renewable hydrogen utility system for the generation of hydrogen using concentrated solar power was demonstrated by cooperative project between industry and an Arizona utility company. (in the late 20th century/dawn of 21st century) many industries worldwide have begun producing hydrogen.. to Ballard’s fuel cell transit buses in Chicago and Vancouver.C. we safely use about 90 billion cubic meters (3. From Japan’s hydrogen delivery trucks to BMW’s liquid-hydrogen passenger cars. Lightweight. Direct conversion of sunlight to hydrogen using a semiconductor-based photoelectrochemical cell was recently demonstrated at 12. and heating oil. fiber-wrapped tanks have been developed and tested for higher-pressure hydrogen storage. methanol.Hydrogen production from conventional fossil-fuel feedstocks is commercial. • Hydrogen technologies are in various stages of development across the system: Production . • Major industrial companies are pursuing R&D in fuel cells and hydrogen production technologies with a mid-term time frame for deployment for both stationary and vehicular applications. Specific U. Today. Town gas is 50% hydrogen. Canada. The United States is conducting a major five-year learning demonstration of fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure. and peanut butter. and results in significant CO2 emissions. margarine. Large-scale CO2 sequestration options have not been proved and require R&D. semiconductor circuits. Use . Alternative solid-state storage systems using alanates and carbon nanotubes are under development. with a number of engineering scale-up projects underway.2 trillion cubic feet) of hydrogen yearly. Small fuel cells for battery replacement applications have been developed.-based examples of hydrogen production and uses are as follows: . the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has continued work on using hydrogen as a rocket fuel and electricity source via fuel cells.Current Status • Currently. Experimental metal hydride tanks have been used in automobile demonstrations. It was – and still is – also used to make fertilizers.Small demonstrations by domestic and foreign bus and energy companies have been undertaken.S. 48% of the worldwide production of hydrogen is via large-scale steam reforming of natural gas. but subsidies are required to be economically competitive. Iceland. cleaners. Production processes using wastes and biomass are under development. Storage . Europe. but the cost of hydrogen is strongly dependent on the cost of electricity. Current commercial electrolyzer systems are 55-75% efficient. the United States. B. Japan. vitamins. to Hydrogen Now!’s public education work. and several other countries launch hydrogen onto the main stage of the world’s energy scene. cosmetics. and networks of natural gas pipelines displaced town gas. Australia. large natural gas fields were discovered. to Palm Desert’s Renewable Transportation Project. gasoline. soaps. Technology History • From the early 1800s to the mid-1900s. glass. hydrogen fuel cells.Liquid and compressed gas tanks are available and have been demonstrated in a small number of bus and automobile demonstration projects. • Recently. hydrogen-powered vehicles. hydrogen was used extensively as a key component in the manufacture of ammonia.4% efficiency. (Town gas is still found in limited use today in Europe and Asia. Then. NASA became the worldwide largest user of liquid hydrogen and is renowned for its safe handling of hydrogen. with the rest comprised of mostly methane and carbon dioxide. Small-scale power systems using fuel cells fuel cells have been introduced to the power generation market. to the forward-thinking work of many hydrogen organizations worldwide. 42 . lubricants.) • From 1958 to present. Four teams comprised of automobile manufacturers and energy companies are conducting the study. with 3% to 6% carbon monoxide.

43 . The electricity grid and the natural gas pipeline system will serve to supply primary energy to hydrogen producers. and as an electrical power source for electric vehicles. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.S. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. Although these applications would ideally run off pure hydrogen. and metal hydrides. • To enable the transition to a hydrogen economy. Reforming these fuels to create hydrogen will allow the use of much of our current energy infrastructure—gas stations. efficiencies of fuel cells for electric power generation will increase. such as the sun or wind. DOE/PI-0002. replacing today's natural gas. or even gasoline. hydrogen also could join electricity as an important energy carrier. although that vision probably won't happen until far in the future. produced hydrogen via electrolysis using intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar energy. Renewable energy sources. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations. The RD&D target for 2010 is $45/kW for internal combustion engines operating on hydrogen. coal. An energy carrier stores. • In the future. and advances will be made in fuel cell systems based on carbon structures. • By 2010. advances will be made in photobiological and photoelectrochemical processes for hydrogen production.A renewable energy fuel cell system in Reno. Furthermore. . and delivers energy in a usable form to consumers. September 2005). The sun doesn't always shine nor the wind blow. future fuel cell technology will be characterized by reduced costs and increased reliability for transportation and stationary (power) applications. the longterm potential is for us to make a transition to a hydrogen-based economy in which hydrogen will join electricity as a major energy carrier.An industry-led project has developed fueling systems for small fleets and home refueling of passenger vehicles. the cost of hydrogen energy is targeted to be equivalent to gasoline market prices ($2-3/gallon in 2001 dollars). making the Hydrogen Economy synonymous with sustainable development and energy security. generating hydrogen for buses and other vehicles. Climate Change Technology Program.000 psi to the vehicle. Nevada. • Some experts think that hydrogen will form the basic energy infrastructure that will power future societies. oil. They see a new hydrogen economy to replace our current energy economies.. November 2003. • For a fully developed hydrogen energy system. a new hydrogen infrastructure/delivery system will be required. NREL/TP-620/34783. The refueling systems deliver gaseous hydrogen up to 5. This facility also operates a PV-powered electrolysis system to provide renewable hydrogen to their fleet. • Although comparatively little hydrogen is currently used as fuel or as an energy carrier. But hydrogen can store this energy until it is needed and it can be transported to where it is needed. November 2003 (draft update. and National Renewable Energy Laboratory. the cost goal is $30/kW by 2015. much of the hydrogen will be derived from domestically plentiful renewable energy or fossil resources. moves. • In summary. can't produce energy all the time. alanates. A transit agency in California installed an autothermal reformer. methanol. U. Technology Future • Fuel cells are a promising technology for use as a source of heat and electricity for buildings. and electricity infrastructures. natural gas pipelines—while fuel cells are phased in. in the near-term they are likely to be fueled with natural gas.

). streams. • Adjustable-speed generators producing hydroelectricity over a wider range of heads and providing more uniform instream-flow releases without sacrificing generation opportunities. competing uses of water. aerating turbines at the Osage Dam. To the extent that existing hydropower can be maintained or expanded through advances in technology.. such as fish mortality and changes to downstream water quality and quantity. • DOE's Advanced Hydropower Turbine System (AHTS) program will be completing public-private partnerships with industry to demonstrate the feasibility of new turbine designs (e.Advanced Hydropower Technology Description Hydroelectric power generates no greenhouse gas. • New assessment methods to balance instream-flow needs of fish with water for energy production and to optimize operation of reservoir systems. Technology Applications • Hydropower provides about 78. • Existing hydropower generation faces a combination of real and perceived environmental effects. 44 . This is about 80 percent of the electricity generated from renewable energy sources. • Re-regulating and aerating weirs used to stabilize tailwater discharges and improve water quality. • Autoventing turbines to increase dissolved oxygen in discharges downstream of dams. • New environmental and biological criteria for turbine design and operation are being developed to help sustain hydropower’s role as a clean. renewable energy source – and to enable upgrades of existing facilities and retrofits at existing dams. Representative Technologies • New turbine designs that improve survivability of fish that pass through the power plant. • Advanced instrumentation and control systems that modify turbine operation to maximize environmental benefits and energy production.000 MW of the nation’s electrical-generating capability.g. Advanced hydropower is technology that produces hydroelectricity both efficiently and with improved environmental performance. or water released from upstream storage reservoirs. regulatory pressures. it can continue to be an important part of a greenhouse gas emissions-free energy portfolio. The goal of advanced hydropower is to maximize the use of water for generation while improving environmental performance. and changes in energy economics (deregulation. etc. • Some new environmentally friendly technologies such as low head and low impact hydroelectric are being implemented in part stimulated by green power programs. and a Minimum Gap Runner turbine at the Wanapum Dam). or canals. Traditional hydropower may have environmental effects. Source water may be from free-flowing rivers. System Concepts • Conventional hydropower projects use either impulse or reaction turbines to convert kinetic energy in flowing or falling water into turbine torque and power. potential hydropower resources are not being developed for similar reasons.

600 GWh of new. Climate Change Technology Program. although not as many as government agencies. Market Context • Advanced hydropower products can be applied at more than 80% of existing hydropower projects (installed conventional capacity is now 94 GW). Hydropower played a major role in making the wonders of electricity a part of everyday life and helped spur industrial development.Current Status • TVA has demonstrated that improved turbine designs. dams and reservoirs provide flood control. • Field-testing of the Kaplan turbine Minimum Gap Runner design indicates that fish survival can be significantly increased. U. September 2005). • Flash Technology is developing strobe lighting systems to force fish away from hydropower intakes and to avoid entrainment mortality in turbines. DOE/PI-0002. water supply. and systems optimization can lead to significant economic and environmental benefits – energy production was increased approximately 12% while downstream fish resources were significantly improved. transportation.S. equipment upgrades.5 kilowatts to light two paper mills and a home. people have used the energy in flowing water to operate machinery and grind grain and corn. Technology Future • Voith Siemens Hydro Power and the TVA have established a partnership to market environmentally friendly technology at hydropower facilities. DOE accepted proposals for advanced turbine designs from Voith Siemens. 45 . irrigation. • Most hydropower plants are built through federal or local agencies as part of a multipurpose project. as well as private sources. The full complement of Minimum Gap Runner design features will be tested at the Wanapum Dam in FY 2005. recreation. Field verification and testing is underway with some of these designs to demonstrate improved environmental performance. • The first hydroelectric power plant was built in 1882 in Appleton. Wisconsin. Today's hydropower plants generally range in size from several hundred kilowatts to several hundred megawatts. the potential market also includes 15-20 GW at existing dams (i. but a few mammoth plants have capacities up to 10. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. • In a competitive solicitation. by 1940. Technology History • Since the time of ancient Egypt. clean energy production. Their products were developed partly by funding provided by DOE and the Corps of Engineers. and General Electric Co. this would equate to 5 GW and 18. American Hydro. Implementation at more sites may allow improved environmental performance with reduced spillage. 25% of electrical generation in the United States was from hydropower. if conventional turbines are modified. • By 1920. In addition to generating electricity. it increased to 40%. • Retrofitting advanced technology and optimizing system operations at existing facilities would lead to at least a 6% increase in energy output – if fully implemented.e. and.000 megawatts and supply electricity to millions of people. However. hydropower had a greater influence on people's lives during the 20th century than at any other time in history. November 2003 (draft update. Private utilities also build hydropower plants. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. and refuges for fish and birds. no new dams required for development) and more than 30 GW of undeveloped hydropower. to provide 12. Hydropower continues to produce 24% of the world's electricity and supply more than 1 billion people with power. Alstom.

948 97.136 94.081 352.564 339. IEA included 26 countries as of 2003.562 76.939 4 IEA Europe 123.900 93.477 342.315 21.277 21. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2. International data from International Energy Agency.980 20. International Energy Annual.797 1. Version 7.900 73.580 141.745 300.11a.342 IEA Total 286.335 94.068 330.130 324.385 99.694 20.002 2003 21.251 135.093 22. Electricity Information 2004.110 19.038 135.Hydroelectric Power Market Data U.673 331.880 723.666 134.S.052 1996 19.703 20. World Total from EIA. 4.354 20.505 316.727 147.580 144. Hydro Total 88. 1996-2003.690 338.913 138. data from EIA. Pumped storage values for 1980-1985 are included in "Conventional and other Hydro" 3.522 99.700 3 OECD Europe 124.415 other Hydro 2 Pumped Storage N/A 19. 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.893 134. South Korea.359 19.096 98.356 * There are an additional 21 MW of hydroelectric capacity that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date.054 94.387 21. NREL.610 79.395 World Total 470.700 88.222 21. Updated international data not available at time of publication 46 .703 331.074 Japan 19.912 22.019 351.923 78.734 600. pumped storage capacity listed. Countries' data are included only after the year they joined.184 124. Mexico. Installed Capacity (MW)* Annual Cumulative Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).930 680. Czech Republic.669 133.373 99.393 19.577 130.310 N/A U.9 94.010 21. AER 2004.151 19.237 87.072 1997 64.291 340.969 300. NA = Not Available.225 NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: U.839 1990 862 90.446 335.259 342. 1980 1.825 21.S.S.518 98.749 79.893 346. 2003. Cumulative GridConnected Hydro 1 Capacity (MW) U.958 136.377 OECD Total 286.S.462 21.335 94. 79.548 98.357 130.565 98.960 124.779 138.0 1998 7.6 1999 179.689 79.437 79.920 NA 78.0 94.491 1985 3.143 94.947 335.391 80. Excludes pumped storage.206 650. Slovak Republic joined after 1980.307 132. Conventional and 81.768 697. Hungary.881 140.4. Countries' data are included only after the year they joined the OECD. Table 8.581 79.216 NA NA NA NA NA NA 78.254 21.725 81.484 19.555 346.237 673.663 132.513 339.S.522 98.522 99.886 132. Table 6.669 537.324 2001 11 2002 0. Poland.171 21.936 661.1 94. OECD included 24 countries as of 1980.323 2000 1.955 1995 1. except for specific U.3 94.725 316.902 135.145 712.

1980 279 251 17 1985 284 301 26 177 453 205 26 91 82 328 1.S.885 2.844 96.879 95.948 2.eia.627 128 432 184 27 58 88 273 1.818 3.264 8.S.659 5.475 13.899 2.372 * Values are nameplate capacity for total electric industry 47 .012 21.082 3.093 3.475 13.959 3.455 3.006 21.804 5.466 1996 344 352 31 263 491 215 34 185 80 515 2.149 3.313 3.313 3.459 3.235 8.314 3.904 2.511 1997 352 347 26 276 506 216 36 193 89 522 2.685 2.687 13.609 2000 270 355 33 302 555 228 31 241 86 558 2.018 20.353 96.345 5.668 5.523 13.699 U.948 3.890 2. Eastern Europe China Japan Rest of World World Total State Generating Capability* (MW) Top 10 States Washington California Oregon New York Tennessee Georgia South Carolina Virginia Alabama Arizona Source: EIA.159 3.011 21.287 3. Total 89.088 2.950 3.240 8.016 21.167 1995 308 332 27 251 506 238 34 184 81 504 2.Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity (Billion kWh) United States Canada Mexico Brazil Western Europe Former U.xls 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 19. Electric Power Annual 2004 – Spreadsheets. International Energy Annual 2003.557 5.249 8.468 3.885 2.343 96.903 95.090 3.868 2.306 13.R.487 20.564 1998 319 329 24 289 523 225 35 203 92 533 2.011 21.221 8.261 8.S.236 5.499 3.565 5.658 2001 208 330 28 265 553 239 30 258 83 571 2.571 1999 313 342 32 290 531 227 35 211 86 541 2.712 5.088 3.923 21.500 13.662 5.323 8.453 3.941 12.5.857 2.305 3.445 13.961 2.864 2.126 3.566 2.265 8.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/existing_capacity_state.973 1990 289 294 23 205 453 231 23 125 88 435 2.948 3.890 2.828 94.961 2.453 3.2002 Existing Nameplate and Net Summer Capacity by Energy Source and Producer Type (EIA-860)” http://www.893 2.442 3.442 3.948 3.383 13.842 5.005 3.513 94.367 3.496 95.doe.961 2.468 3.802 95.072 3.891 3.314 3.893 2.950 3.453 3.950 3.414 3.893 2.267 8.565 2002 255 315 25 282 503 243 32 309 81 581 2. “1990 .613 3.088 3.091 3.222 95.959 2.935 20.452 3. DOE/EIA-0219(02).268 8.937 3.519 13. Table 1.818 3.545 5.471 13.088 3.890 2.431 20.261 2.717 3.211 8.736 Source: EIA.

0 1996 98.8 39.8 8.0 8.2 5. D.7 8.2 3.268 2.1 2002 78.3 38.7 12.6 5.2 46.6 2003 71.4 10.9 27.725 U.8 7.900 2.S.0 4..gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state. “1990 .4 318.1 7.0 8.3 36.4 7.8 28.9 24.3 275. independent power producers.7 10.0 6.7 42.2 24.6 7.3 4.State Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity* (Billion kWh) Top 10 States Washington Oregon California New York Montana Alabama Idaho Arizona Tennessee South Dakota Source: EIA.5 40.0 1998 79.6 8.1 344.4a 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2.8 13.0 2001 54.8 10. for all sectors.7 12.3 8.4 24.7 2000 80.8 50.6 268.5 10.0 1997 104.8 7.7 9.2 22.2 11.1 10.6 12.5 24.5 41.eia.970 3.8 11.7 28.4 9.8 27.4 208.6 25.8 11.1 29.7 9.201 2.9 50.C.4 11.5 44.1 39.1 13.1 34.7 270.5 11. Total 2.5 14.doe.6 33.9 11.9 313.590 3. Electric Power Annual 2002 – Spreadsheets.825 Note: Conventional hydroelectric power only.9 9.6 13. Annual Hydroelectric Consumption for Electric Generation (Trillion Btu) Source: EIA.5 7.3 9.7 5.4 308.8 2004 71.0 45. 48 .6 40. Hydroelectric data through 1988 include industrial plants as well as electric utilities. Years before 1998 do not include nonutility generation.2002 Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source (EIA-906)” http://www. commercial plants.4 30.8 13.1 12.4 3.6 8.5 3.S. Total 289.689 2.5 9.1 7.5 10. Beginning in 1989.9 1995 82.2 34.640 3.2 6.6 8.1 24.3 23.9 46.4 * Values are for total electric industry.1 10.2 6. data are for electric utilities.046 3.6 5. August 2005) Table 8.2 7.9 10.205 3.8 33.4 23.4 9.5 13.811 2.4 255.9 6.4 U.xls 1990 87.0 10.8 1999 97. Annual Energy Review 2004.4 7.297 3.8 8.1 352.1 9. and industrial plants.2 10. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.0 8.

Building envelope The building envelope is the interface between the interior of a building and the outdoor environment. A more energy-efficient envelope means lower energy use in a building and lower greenhouse gas emissions. and light into the building. miscellaneous (process equipment and consumer products). cogeneration based on modular fuel cells and microturbines. and safety were met at the lowest possible cost.. and much more abundant sensors. Whole building integration Whole building integration uses data from design (together with sensed data) to automatically configure controls and commission (i. reduced distribution and standby losses. efficient low-emissions combustion and heat transfer. Whole building integration systems optimize operation across building systems. reduction of thermal and electrical standby losses. and optimal control. There are energy-saving opportunities within individual pieces of equipment – as well as at the system level – through proper sizing. ceilings. advanced refrigerants and cycles. and ventilate. The envelope concept can be extended to that of the “building fabric.” which includes the interior partitions. thereby further increasing the overall efficiency of the buildings.Building Technologies Technology Description Building equipment Energy use in buildings depends on equipment to transform fuel or electricity into end-use services such as delivered heat or cooling. but some crosscutting opportunities for efficiency include improved materials. light. inform and implement energy purchasing. cleaning of clothes or dishes. and floors. variable-capacity systems. In most buildings. cool. smart sensors and controls. air. release. and information processing. These flows and the interior energy and environmental loads determine the size and energy use of HVAC and distribution systems. lighting. heat recovery and storage. electrodeless and solid-state lighting. robust techniques and are based on smaller. start-up and check out) and operate buildings. home appliances. and on-site energy and power. vertical transport. System Concepts Building equipment • Major categories of end-use equipment include heating. health. and utilization of waste heat from fuel cells and microturbines. cooling.e. and optimally coordinate on-site energy generation with building energy demand and the electric power grid. 49 . • Key components vary by type of equipment. These data ensure optimal building performance by enabling control of building systems in an integrated manner and continuously recommissioning them using automated tools that detect and diagnose performance anomalies and degradation. control. document and report building performance. guide maintenance activities. improved small-power supplies. fresh air. and hot water. ventilation and thermal distribution. Interior elements and surfaces can be used to store. while ensuring that occupant needs for comfort. the envelope – along with the outdoor weather – is the primary determinant of the amount of energy used to heat. Control systems use advanced. moisture. Building envelope • Control of envelope characteristics provides control over the flow of heat. and distribute energy. less expensive.

heating. Whole building integration would ensure that essential information – especially the design intent and construction implementation data – would be preserved and shared across many applications throughout the lifetime of the building. centrifugal chillers. 50 . and other buildings housing high-technology processes. monitor operations. interior partition walls. • Specialized HVAC (heating. and wireless sensor and control systems for buildings. and vacuum fiber-filled panels.• Materials for exterior walls. doors. abundant wireless sensors and controls. and thermal storage materials. proton exchange membrane fuel cells. • These components would work together to collect data. It is also investing in the next generation of buildingsimulation programs that could be integrated into design tools. server/data systems. • Equipment and system performance records would be stored as part of a networked building performance knowledge base. More durable high-reflectance coatings should allow better control of solar heat on building surfaces. roofs. heat pump water heaters. and hybrid electrochromic/photovoltaic films and coatings should provide improved lighting and thermal control of fenestration systems. triple-glazed. and correct out-of-range conditions that contribute to poor building performance. Whole building integration • DOE is developing computer-based building commissioning and operation tools to improve the energy efficiency of “existing” buildings. configure controls. and power. and switchable evacuated panels with insulating values more than four times those of the best currently available materials should soon be available for niche markets. automated diagnostics. which would grow over time and provide feedback to designers. low-E windows. including lightweight heat-storage systems. windows. ventilating. in collaboration with industry. Representative Technologies Building equipment • Residential gas-fired absorption heat pumps. and floors that can impact future energy use include insulation with innovative formula foams and vacuum panels. interoperable control-system components. solid-state lighting. desiccant preconditioners for treating ventilation air. and highly integrated operation of energy-using and producing systems. • Optimally integrate on-site power production with building energy needs and the electric-power grid by applying intelligent control to building cooling. control. optimize control. and distribution of daylight should significantly reduce the need for electric lighting in buildings. Building envelope • Superinsulation: Vacuum powder-filled. ceilings. also is developing and testing technologies for combined cooling. Advanced techniques for integration. • Advanced window systems: Krypton-filled. foundations. gas-filled. Whole building integration • The system consists of design tools. • Advanced thermal storage materials: Dry phase-change materials and encapsulated materials should allow significant load distribution over the full diurnal cycle and significant load reduction when used with passive solar systems. Self-drying wall and roof designs should allow for improved insulation levels and increase the lifetimes for these components. High-thermal-resistant foam insulations with acceptable ozone depletion and global warming characteristics should allow for continued use of this highly desirable thermal insulation. and building operators and owners. electrochromic glazing. • DOE. heat-pump water heaters. and lighting controls. and power. equipment manufacturers. structurally reinforced beaded vacuum panels. heating. and air-conditioning) systems for research laboratories. optical control coatings for windows and roofs.

and lighting loads. ozone-safe refrigerants. This effort enabled the buildings industry to transition from CFC-11 to HCFC-141b by the deadline required by the Montreal protocol. new windows have thermal resistance of up to 6 ºF ft2/Btu (whole window performance). even in many of those buildings thought to be working properly by their owners/operators. fibrous materials available before 1970 to foams reaching 7 hr ºF ft2/Btu/in. window thermal resistance was 1 to 2 ºF ft2/Btu. Building envelope • A DOE-sponsored RD&D partnership with the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association. often with industry participation. 51 . last longer. Superinsulations of more than 25 ºF ft2/Btu/in. the National Roofing Contractors Association. Now. Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Simulation Programs. Windows are now widely available with selective coatings that reduce infrared transmittance without reducing visible transmittance. heating and power. In the 1970s. and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) helped the industry find a replacement for chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) in polyisocyanurate foam insulation. These technologies would have very short paybacks. and. using integration of building systems. Current Status Building equipment • Recent DOE-sponsored R&D.Technology Applications Building equipment • Technology improvements during the past 20 years – through quality engineering. refrigerator energy use has been reduced by more than three-quarters during the past 20 years. Whole building integration • Energy 10 models passive solar systems in buildings. • DOE-BESTEST is the basis for ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140. a replacement for inefficient. for a fraction of the cost of the installed technology. Electronic equipment has achieved order-of-magnitude efficiency gains. and better controls – have improved efficiencies in lighting and equipment by 15% to 75%. buildings could become net electricity producers and distributed suppliers to the electric power grid. because they would ensure that technologies were performing as promised. Improvements in window performance have been even more spectacular. new standard for building energy simulation and DOE-2 successor. includes an improved airconditioning cycle to reduce oversizing and improve efficiency. where supported R&D was directed toward lubrication materials problems associated with novel refrigerants and ground-source heat pumps. at the microchip level. Building envelope • Building insulations have progressed from the 2-4 hr ºF ft2/Btu/in. • Spectrally selective window glazings – which reduce solar heat gain and lower cooling loads – and high-performance insulating materials for demanding thermal applications are available. new materials. and eliminate potential fire hazards. which use only 25% of the power. cooling. hightemperature halogen up-lights (torchieres). • The International Alliance for Interoperability is setting international standards for interoperability of computer tools and components for buildings. • DOE-2: international standard for whole building energy performance simulation has thousands of users. In addition. DOE released Energy Plus. the Society of the Plastics Industry. variable-transmittance windows under development will allow optimal control to minimize heating. Efficiencies of compact fluorescent lamps are 70% better than incandescent lamps. every two to three years. with combined cooling. depending on the type of equipment. • Savings for new buildings could exceed 70%. H-axis clothes washers are 50% more efficient than current minimum standards. Whole building integration • Savings from improved operation and maintenance procedures could save more than 30% of the annual energy costs of existing commercial buildings. will be available for niche markets soon.

• 1940s – Bailey sold 4. • 1900s – Solar water-heating technology advanced to roughly its present design in 1908 when William J. • 1970s – The modern solar industry began in response to the OPEC oil embargo in 1973-74.ft. • 1980s – In 1980. most using active systems with antifreeze capabilities. In Israel./yr) in 1989 and 1990. Reference: American Solar Energy Society and Solar Energy Industry Association 52 . commercial markets and manufacturing had developed with fairly widespread use.000 solar-heated swimming pools exist. the industry declined significantly. FAFCO. and Australia. When the tax credits expired in 1985. more than 11.000 units by the end of WWI.2 million buildings in the United States have solar water-heating systems. became the first national solar manufacturers in the United States. invented a collector with an insulated box and copper coils. the Solar Rating and Certification Corp (SRCC) was established for testing and certification of solar equipment to meet set standards. President Jimmy Carter put solar water-heating panels on the White House. During the Gulf War.000 sq. Unglazed. Initial designs were roof-mounted tanks and later glazed tubular solar collectors in thermosiphon configuration.000 systems. low-temperature solar water heaters for swimming pools have been a real success story. the year before solar tax credits expired. Today's industry represents the few strong survivors: More than 1. In 1974. Several thousand systems were sold to homeowners. but has hovered around 6. more than 20 companies started production of flat-plate solar collectors.ft./yr. • 1950s – Industry virtually expires due to inability to compete against cheap and available natural gas and electric service.000 square feet per year (sq. Japan. and Solaron. a California company specializing in solar pool heating. sales again increased by about 10% to 20% to its peak level. • 1990s – Solar water-heating collector manufacturing activity declined slightly. Bailey of the Carnegie Steel Company.Technology History • 1890s – First commercially available solar water heaters produced in southern California.000 to 8. and a Florida businessperson who bought the patent rights sold nearly 60. with a number of federal and state incentives established to promote solar energy. and 250. with more than a doubling of growth in square footage of collectors shipped from 1995 to 2001. an estimated 100.000-plus solar hot-water systems were sold.000 units by 1941. In 1984. Incentives from the 1970s helped create the 150-business manufacturing industry for solar systems with more than $800 million in annual sales by 1985. a Colorado company that specialized in solar space and water heating. Sales in 1979 were estimated at 50.

and new technologies will become so on an ongoing basis. and each has a diverse distribution system. This efficiency range is narrower where cost-effective appliance standards have previously eliminated the least-efficient models. A number of companies produce them. institutional. compete in global markets with little or no change in performance specifications. communications. provided that they offer other customervalued features (e. including direct sales. reliability. 40% are adequately insulated. Building envelope • A critical challenge is to ensure that new homes and buildings are constructed with good thermal envelopes and windows when the technologies are most cost-effective to implement. • The market success of most new equipment and appliance technologies is virtually ensured if the efficiency improvement has a 3-year payback or better and amenities are maintained. • Building products are mostly commodity products. as manufacturers introduce – and consumers and businesses eagerly accept – new types of equipment. and corporate buyers represent a special target group for voluntary early deployment of the best new technologies. and lighting systems currently on the market vary from 20% to 100% efficient (heat pumps can exceed this level by using “free” energy drawn from the environment).g. Exporting is not an important factor in the sales of most building structure products. efficient technologies and quickly propagate them throughout the stock. 40% of residences are well insulated. A larger fraction of commercial buildings have central building-control systems. diverse distribution system that plays a crucial role in product marketing. Another critical challenge is improving the efficiency of retrofits of existing buildings. and increased levels of end-use services. technologies with payback of 4 to 8-plus years also can succeed in the market. alone. • The stock and energy intensity of homes are growing faster than the building stock itself. and operation of commercial buildings in the United States. involving thousands of large and small companies. Whole building integration • The future vision of buildings technologies is one of “net zero energy” buildings which use a combination of integrated electricity generation--such as photovoltaics--paired with energy efficiency and power controls. somewhat fewer have insulated walls. • Many advanced envelope products are cost-competitive now. appliances. More than 40% of new window sales are of advanced types (low-E and gas-filled). More than 70% of commercial buildings have roof insulation. Trane Intellipack 53 . quiet operation. control. smaller size. • Design tools for energy efficiency are used by fewer than 2% of the professionals involved in the design. lower pollution levels). of more than $200B. retailers.Technology Future Building equipment • Building equipment.. • Applications extend to every segment of the residential and nonresidential sectors. Few diagnostic tools are available commercially beyond those used for air-balancing or integrated into equipment (e. • The market potential is significant for building owners taking some actions to improve building envelopes. Currently. Major government. and entertainment – represent important opportunities to rapidly introduce new. Retrofitting is seldom cost-effective on a stand-alone basis. to create a building that on average during a year produces enough energy for all the energy demands within the building. improved comfort or convenience. and 20% are poorly insulated. New materials and techniques are required. more sophisticated and automated technologies. contractors. Certain technologies. • The rapid turnover and growth of many types of building equipment – especially electronics for computing. and discount stores. • Building structures represent an annual market in the United States of more than $70B/year and involve thousands of large and small product manufacturers and a large..g. In commercial buildings. longer life. such as office and home electronics. construction. more than 17% of all windows are advanced types. There will be modest cost reductions over time as manufacturers compete. • Building equipment and appliances represent an annual market in the United States.

eren.e. DOE/PI-0002. ____________________________________________________________________________________ For more data on the Buildings sector. and service providers in an effort to promote commercial use. and a focus on conveying benefits that are desired in the marketplace (not only energy efficiency). Honeywell HVAC Service Assistant). and maintain energy design tools. The Buildings Energy Data Book is available online at http://buildingsdatabook. support. November 2003 (draft update.gov/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 54 . new technologies would be integrated into the building design and operation processes. and Siemens. Another 15 to 20 building automation and control vendors exist in the marketplace – the major players include Johnson Controls. September 2005). • Deployment involves four major aspects: seamless integration into existing building design and operation practices and platforms. U. lowering the cost of intelligent-building and enabling technologies. About 12 software vendors develop. Climate Change Technology Program. transforming markets to rapidly introduce new energy-efficient technologies. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Honeywell. most are small businesses. but especially to existing commercial buildings and all new buildings.System) and the recently announced air-conditioning diagnostic hand-held service tool by Honeywell (i.and energy-related data. In addition.doe. operators.S. • The Department of Energy – in concert with the California Energy Commission – is testing a number of automated diagnostic tools and techniques with commercial building owners. please refer to the “Buildings Energy Data Book” which is a comprehensive collection of buildings. • These technologies would apply to all buildings.

REA 1996.398 1985 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1990 3.926 452 13.526 76.396 373 8.756 2.004 511 10.283 271.318 44. Table 16. Installations (Thousands of Sq.528 7.386 Total Solar Thermal 1 1. and REA 1999.759 463 7. Table 11.080 281.524 606 7 8.115 1985 N/A N/A N/A 1990 11.444 2004 13.S.078 248.606 3.444 2.877 560 7 11.164 755 7.354 2.165 N/A 19.292 443 21 7.550 240.) Annual Hot Water Pool Heaters Total Solar Thermal 1 Cumulative Hot Water 755 1. Annual Shipments (Thousand Sq. REA 2003 Table 18 and Table 10.616 1.978 90. Table 18.352 537 2000 8.527 5.955 4.073 11. Table 10.608 506 0 14.666 2.2000.763 765 6.114 3.948 400 5 8. Domestic shipments .015 66.046 367 7.797 10.863 7. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.587 317.800 10.986 518 2004 14.821 785 10 7. Ft.578 28.037 530 1996 7.233 7.409 1.787 7. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: EIA.583 2. Table 11.959 4.666 18. Ft.152 427 4 8.409 1995 6.756 1999 8.999 6. REA 2002. REA 1997.592 55.162 595 7.548 2.919 268 2 11. Table 38.885 4.661 2003 10.114 Source: EIA.930 454 1997 8.616 1997 7. Table 12.153 292.813 840 13 7.520 13.189 3.398 1.141 8.829 153.S.S.459 233.166 11.114 55 .137 1998 7.307 2.) Low-Temperature Collectors Medium-Temperature Collectors High-Temperature Collectors Total 1980 12.502 840 2002 11.951 36.763 Pool Heaters 62.068 659 2003 11.279 255.749 3.201 7.136 6.138 2.189 2002 11.583 2000 7. Renewable Energy Annual 2003.420 263.645 2.206 360 1999 8.3.201 496 2001 11. ft.857 274 10.663 3.total shipments minus export shipments U.115 21.237 11.349 423 11.562 245 1995 7.126 535 2 11.723 813 Source: EIA Annual Energy Review 2004. 1996 6.) Total Imports Exports U. and Renewable Energy Annual 2003.Solar Buildings Market Data U.353 2001 10.102 379 1998 7.953 303. 1980 19.703 2.283 19. Shipments by Cell Type (Thousand sq.035 199. Table 18.634 14.

and End Use (Thousands of Sq. Table 18. Table 16. Table F9. Ft. REA 1997.S. Table 19. REA 1996. 1999-2000. 1995 0 1 0 9 3 13 1996 0 7 2 0 0 10 1997 0 7 0 0 0 7 1998 0 18 0 2 1 21 1999 0 0 0 4 0 4 2000 2001 0 1 0 1 0 2 2002 0 2 0 0 0 2 2003 0 7 0 0 0 7 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 2 13 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 2 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 . and REA 1998. REA 2002. Renewable Energy Annual 2003. Table 18.U.) Market Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Utility Other Total End Use Pool Heating Hot Water Space Heating Space Cooling Combined Space and Water Heating Process Heating Electricity Generation Other Total 2000 data not published by EIA Source: EIA. Shipments of High-Temperature Collectors by Market Sector.

1996 728 50 1 0 7 786 1997 569 35 0 0 2 606 1998 355 70 18 0 0 443 0 2 21 754 6 0 2 1 0 0 784 11 588 2 0 3 0 0 1 605 36 384 13 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 442 0 2 427 16 12 373 24 16 231 9 0 12 0 0 0 268 28 421 145 0 15 4 0 0 614 22 510 4 0 16 0 0 0 553 33 452 6 0 16 0 0 0 507 426 1999 366 59 0 2000 2001 238 23 5 0 1 268 2002 481 69 60 4 1 614 2003 507 44 0 0 2 553 2004 478 0 26 0 3 507 57 . 1999-2000. Table F9. Table 18. REA 1997. REA 1996.S. Ft. Table 16. Table 18.) 1995 Market Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Utility Other Total End Use Pool Heating Hot Water Space Heating Space Cooling Combined Space and Water Heating Process Heating Electricity Generation Other Total 2000 data not published by EIA 32 743 62 0 2 0 0 0 839 774 51 12 0 3 839 Source: EIA.U. REA 2002. Table 19. Renewable Energy Annual 2003. and REA 1998. Shipments of Medium.Temperature Collectors by Market Sector. and End Use (Thousands of Sq.

Table 19.Temperature Collectors by Market Sector. Shipments of Low.791 726 7 0 0 7.919 11.) 1995 Market Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Utility Other Total End Use Pool Heating Hot Water Space Heating Space Cooling Combined Space and Water Heating Process Heating Electricity Generation Other Total 2000 data not published by EIA 0 0 0 6.178 44 0 0 13.164 60 53 0 0 0 0 7.524 7. and REA 1998.731 11 70 0 6. Table 18. and End Use (Thousands of Sq.046 10.285 8.608 58 .524 1998 6.778 0 65 0 34 0 0 10.152 10.045 1 0 0 0 0 0 11.810 429 44 0 2 7.766 4 51 0 0 0 0 6. REA 1996. REA 1997.408 726 18 0 0 8.877 2004 12.517 0 7 0 0 0 0 7.813 Source: EIA. 1996 6.822 1997 6.600 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 13.519 524 2 0 0 11.S.608 6.U.285 1999 7.877 13. Table F9.152 2000 2001 9. Renewable Energy Annual 2003.813 6. Table 18.821 7.129 0 18 0 5 0 0 8. 1999-2000.885 987 12 0 34 10. REA 2002. Ft.919 2002 10.386 1.993 813 71 0 0 10.046 2003 9.782 42 61 0 34 0 0 10. Table 16.192 552 69 0 0 6.146 625 51 0 0 6.

4. For more data on the Buildings sector. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1.gov/ 59 . The Buildings Energy Data Book is available online at http://buildingsdatabook. such as a low-cost polymer integral collector for domestic hot-water heaters. Water-Heating Situation Analysis. please refer to the “Buildings Energy Data Book” which is a comprehensive collection of buildings.500 3. Little.eren. with the lower bounds representing advanced technologies.Technology Performance Energy Production Energy Savings DHW (kWh/yr) Pool Heater (therms/yr) Source: Arthur D.300 .30 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 * Costs represent a range of technologies. December 1999.600 2005 2010 2015 2020 Cost Capital Cost* ($/System) Domestic Hot-Water Heater Pool Heater O&M ($/System-yr) Domestic Hot-Water Heater Pool Heater Source: Hot-Water Heater data from Arthur D.doe. Review of FY 2001 Office of Power Technology's Solar Buildings Program Planning Unit Summary. Little. and Pool-Heater data from Ken Sheinkopf. Solar Today. which are expected to become commercially available after 2010. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2. page 53. November 1996.900 . pp.000 25 .750 1. Nov/Dec 1997. 22-25.and energy-related data.2.

except diesel fuel and air ignite when the piston compresses the mixture to a critical pressure. typically fueled by gasoline or natural gas. the intake valve opens and the upper portion of the cylinder fills with fuel and air. or compression ignition (CI). • Reciprocating engines also are categorized by the number of revolutions it takes to complete a combustion cycle. • By using the recuperators that capture and return waste exhaust heat. and institutional facilities. the spark plug fires. • The two-stroke engine.0 g/bhp-hr for conventional dual-fuel engines. igniting the fuel/air mixture. • The four-stroke CI engine operates in a similar manner. two-stroke engines are prone to let more fuel pass through.Reciprocating Engines Technology Description Reciprocating engines. and a fourstroke engine completes the combustion process in two revolutions. • When properly treated. the engines can run on fuel generated by waste treatment (methane) and other biofuels. Technology Applications • Reciprocating engines can be installed to accommodate baseload. resulting in higher hydrocarbon emissions in the form of unburned fuel. turning the crankshaft and producing useful shaft power.0 grams per horsepower hour (hp-hr) for lean-burn natural gas engines and 3. the piston moves up again. making them suitable for many distributed-power applications. providing the energy to push the piston down in the power stroke. compression. System Concepts • Reciprocating engines fall into one of two categories depending on the ignition source: spark ignition (SI). reciprocating engines can play integral backup roles in many building energy systems. With fast start-up time. Finally. A two-stroke engine completes its combustion cycle in one revolution. require fuel. In the intake stroke. However. In fact. peaking. Utility substations and small municipalities can install engines to provide baseload or peak shaving power. also known as internal combustion engines. This controlled combustion forces the piston down in the power stroke. and exhaust cycle. They make up the largest share of the small power generation market and can be used in a variety of applications due to their small size. air. reciprocating engines make up a large portion of the CHP or cogeneration market. typically fueled by diesel oil. At this pressure. emergency or standby power applications. When the piston returns upward in the compression cycle. has a higher power density. compression. no spark or ignition system is needed because the mixture ignites spontaneously. whether SI or CI. and a combustion source to function. On-site reciprocating engines become even more attractive in regions with high electric rates (energy/demand charges). because it requires half as many crankshaft revolutions to produce power. reciprocating engines can be used in combined heat and power (CHP) systems to achieve energy efficiency levels approaching 80%. low unit costs. Commercially available engines range in size from 10 kW to more than 7 MW. Representative Technologies • The four-stroke SI engine has an intake. industrial. and useful thermal output.5-6. CHP engines achieve efficiencies (LHV) of 70-80%.5-2. as the piston moves downward in its cylinder. Current Status • Commercially available engines have efficiencies (LHV) between 28% and 50% and yield NOx emissions of 0. power. However. exhausting the burnt fuel and air in the exhaust stroke. 60 . the most promising markets for reciprocating engines are on-site at commercial.

Gas-fired engine sales in 1990 were 4% compared to 14% in 1998. and in combination with lower in-cylinder fire temperatures. Spark plugs and carburetors replaced fuel injectors. Operating and maintenance costs range 0. and equipment manufacturers – joined the Advanced Reciprocating Engines Systems (ARES) consortium. prime mover (engine). the Southwest Research Institute. emission controls.350/ kW depending on size and whether the unit is for a straight generation or cogeneration application. lawn care and a diverse range of power-generation applications. The earliest engines were derived from diesel blocks and incorporated the same components of the diesel engine.7 to 2.200° F in non-CHP mode and 350­ 500°F in a CHP system after heat recovery. Technology Future In 1998. • The cost of full maintenance contracts range from 0. construction and mining equipment.S. in 2000 146 GW 52 GW 1. • In the mid-1980s.8 ¢/kWh. • Exhaust temperature for most reciprocating engines is 700-1. Production costs are generally lowest for high-speed engines. Leaner air-fuel mixtures were developed using turbochargers and charge air coolers.8 -1.5 GW).Target fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency (LHV) is 50 % by 2010. 2001. The trend is likely to continue for gas-fired reciprocating engines due to strict air-emission regulations and because performance has been steadily improving for the past 15 years. manufacturers were facing pressure to lower NOx emissions and increase fuel economy. and conditioning.0 cents/kWh. and electrical switchgear. These engines were designed to run without regard to fuel efficiency or emission levels. Key indicators for stationary reciprocating engines: Installed Worldwide Installed US Number of CHP sites using Capacity Capacity Recips in the U. Performance targets include: High Efficiency. • Annual shipments of reciprocating engines (sized 10MW or less) have almost doubled to 18 GW between 1997 and 2000. • Noise levels with sound enclosures are typically between 70-80 dB.” Technology History • Natural gas-reciprocating engines have been used for power generation since the 1940s.055 Sources: Distributed Generation: The Power Paradigm for the New Millenium. the engines reduced NOx from 20 to 5 g/bhp-hr. waste recovery (CHP systems) and rejections (radiators). and lower compression-ratio pistons were substituted to run the engine on gaseous fuels. Remote monitoring is now available as a part of service contracts. The U. trucks. • More than 35 million reciprocating engine units are produced in North America annually for automobiles. handling. Department of Energy – in partnership with the Gas Technology Institute. The lower in-cylinder fire temperatures also meant that the BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure) could increase without damaging the valves and manifolds. The growth is overwhelming in the diesel market. • Reciprocating-engine sales have grown more then fivefold from 1988 (2 GW) to 1998 (11.S. 61 . aimed at further advancing the performance of the engine.• Installed cost for reciprocating engines range between $695 and $1. marine propulsion. They were used mainly to produce power at local utilities and to drive pumps and compressors. (Source: Diesel and Gas Turbine Worldwide. “Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations (2003). 2003). which represented 16 GW shipments compared with 2 GW of natural gas reciprocating engine shipments in 2000. • The reciprocating-engine systems typically include several major parts: fuel storage.

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. is 10% less than current state-of-the-art engine systems. Other R&D directions include: new turbocharger methods. Fuel Flexibility – Natural gas-fired engines are to be adapted to handle biogas.1 g/hp-hr. renewables.Environment – Engine improvements in efficiency. controls/sensors. and dedicated natural-gas cylinder heads. and Maintainability – The goal is to maintain levels equivalent to current stateof-the-art systems. Reliability. a 90% decrease from today’s NOx emissions rate. frequency inverters. alternate ignition system. combustion strategy. including operating and maintenance costs. The NOx target for the ARES program is 0. Availability. propane and hydrogen. emission-control technologies. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations. heat recovery equipment specific to the reciprocating engine. NREL/TP-620-34783. Cost of Power – The target for energy costs. and emissions reductions will substantially reduce overall emissions to the environments. higher compression ratio. improved generator technology. November 2003. as well as dual fuel capabilities. 62 .

02 1.46 2.19 1999 10.800 1.Reciprocating Engines Technology Performance Power Ranges (kW) of Selected Manufacturers Source: Manufacturer Specs Low Caterpillar Waukesha Cummins Jenbacher Wartsila 150 200 5 200 500 High 3.000 Market Data Market Shipments (GW of units under 10 MW in size) Source: Debbie Haught.from Diesel and Gas Turbine Worldwide. DOE.35 1998 8.96 0.750 2.51 1.600 5.07 63 .350 2. Diesel Recips Gas Recips 1996 7. communication 2/26/02 .63 2000 16.23 1.73 1997 7.

less fuel is necessary to raise its temperature to the required level at the turbine inlet. System Concepts • Microturbines consist of a compressor. propane. 64 . and generator. including CHP.000 rpm. or unrecuperated. Microturbine efficiencies are 25-29% (LHV). industrial. continuous power generation. and use of wastes and biofuels. remote off-grid locations. • Microturbines can be paired with other distributed energy resources such as energy-storage devices and thermally activated technologies. low emissions. cooling and heating power. • Microturbines can be used for backup power. low electricity costs. The resulting hot gas is allowed to expand through a turbine to perform work. Representative Technologies • Microturbines in a simple-cycle. heated. and institutional sectors. and yield 30%-40% fuel savings from preheating. Simple-cycle microturbines have a lower cost. alternator. Waste heat recovery can be used in combined heat and power (CHP) systems to achieve energy efficiency levels greater than 80%. • Recuperated units use a sheet-metal heat exchanger that recovers some of the heat from an exhaust stream and transfers it to the incoming air stream. • The most popular microturbine installed to date is the 30-kW system manufactured by Capstone. high efficiency. peak shaving. compressed air is mixed with fuel and burned under constant pressure conditions. diesel. which do not require an inverter to change the frequency of the AC power.Microturbines Technology Description Microturbines are small combustion turbines of a size comparable to a refrigerator and with outputs of 30 kW to 400 kW. microgrid power parks. mechanical drive. • Microturbines are classified by the physical arrangement of the component parts: single shaft or two-shaft. and more heat available for CHP applications than recuperated units. butane.000 rpm. and are lightweight and compact in size. while some machines operate at more than 100. biogas. combustor. higher reliability. Conversely. The machines generally operate at more than 40. and kerosene. They are fuel-flexible machines that can run on natural gas. Microturbines have few moving parts. grid support. baseload power. • Efficiency gains can be achieved with greater use of materials like ceramics. simple cycle or recuperated. • A single shaft is the more common design. The preheated air is then used in the combustion process. turbine. remote power. Current Status • Microturbine systems have recently entered the market. because it is simpler and less expensive to build. backup power. Technology Applications • Microturbines can be used in a wide range of applications in the commercial. and waste heat utilization opportunities. which perform well at higher engine-operating temperatures. recuperator. and reheat. They are used for stationary energy generation applications at sites with space limitations for power production. the split shaft is necessary for machine-drive applications. premium power. Recuperated units have a higher efficiency and thermal-to-electric ratio than unrecuperated units. inter-cooled. and peak shaving. and the manufacturers are targeting both traditional and nontraditional applications in the industrial and buildings sectors. turbine. and premium power markets. If the air is preheated.

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. and biofuels. Service contracts are available at 1 to 2 cents/kWh Technology History • Microturbines represent a relatively new technology. and automotive designs. which entered the commercial market in 1999-2000. November 2003. • "Ultra-clean.• The typical 30 kW unit package cost averages $1. 65 . high-efficiency" microturbine product designs focus on the following DOE performance targets: − High Efficiency — Fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency of at least 40%. − Environment — NOx < 7 ppm (natural gas).000 hours. in 1998. NREL/TP-620-34783.05/kWh. the present installation cost (site preparation and natural gas hookup) for a typical 30 kW commercial unit averages $2. − Durability — 1. costs of electricity that are competitive with alternatives (including grid) for market applications by 2005 (for units in the 30-60 kW range) − Fuel Flexibility — Options for using multiple fuels including diesel. − Cost of Power — System costs < $500/kW.100/kW. which would present a cost advantage over most nonbaseload utility power. landfill gas.263/kW for power only systems and $2.636 for CHP systems.000 hours of reliable operations between major overhauls and a service life of at least 45. For gas-fired microturbines. Capstone Turbine Corporation began developing the microturbine concept. and. Capstone was the first manufacturer to offer commercial power products using microturbine technology. • In 1988. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations. Technology Future • The acceptable cost target for microturbine energy is $0. diesel-engine turbochargers. The technology used in microturbines is derived from aircraft auxiliary power systems. ethanol.

depending on duty cycle Current 670 .000 hr before major overhaul (rotor replacement) 0. LHV: 17-20% unrecuperated.1 10. Little (ADL) estimates. 1998 1999 2000 2 211 790 2001 1. Capstone sales reported in Quarterly SEC filings.Microturbines Market Data Microturbine Shipments No. of units Capstone Other Manufacturers MW Capstone Other Manufacturers Source: Debbie Haught. Arthur D. communications 2/26/02.1.033 120 6 23.2 Technology Performance Current System Efficiency (%) Lifetime (years) Emissions (natural gas fuel) CO SO NO CO PM 2 2 x Source: Manufacturer Surveys.180 g/kWh (17-30% efficiency) Negligible (natural gas) 9-25 ppm 25-50 ppm Negligible Current Products: 25-100 kW Future (2010 Negligible <9 ppm <9 ppm Negligible Future Products: up to 1 MW Typical System Size Maintenance Requirements (Expected) Footprint [ft /kW] 2 Units can be bundled or "ganged" to produce power in larger increments 10.000-12. others estimated. 25-30%+ recuperated 5-10 years.7 38.2-0.4 66 .

000 DTE Energy Technologies ENT 400 recuperated 300 kW 480/277 VAC natural gas (diesel. diesel 11. kerosene 13. CO O2 NG <85ppm 2000: 2 precommercial units.2%) 70-90% CHP 70-90% CHP Elliot Energy Systems TA-80 80 kW natural gas Ingersoll-Rand Energy Services PowerWorks 70 kW natural gas Turbec 100 kW 400 VAC natural gas. DOE. 7 min normal www. biogas.2%) 74% CHP NOx <9ppmV @15% O2 28% 80% CHP 30-33% Emissions NOx <9ppmV @15% O2 1999: 211 units 2000: 790 units 2001: 1.dtetech. expected commercial in 2001 Units Sold Unit Cost Cold Start-Up Time Web site Available late 2001 2001: 100 units $1000/kW 3 min www.irco.turbec.com/new/produ systems/powerworks.elliottwww. diesel.com/ener gynow/portfolio/2_1_4.capstone. communication 2/26/02 and Energetics Inc. cts_microtubines. CO <9ppmV @15% diesel <400ppm. asp 67 .html html 3 min emergency. Distributed Energy Technology Simulator: Microturbine Validation.com/energy turbo. July 12 2001.com www.23 26% (+/-2%) 28% (+/.033 units NOx diesel <60ppm. propane future) 28% (+/. UHC <10ppm 2000: 20 units in the European market $75.Technology Performance Sources: Debbie Haught. CO O2. NOx <9ppmV @15% NOx NG <25ppm.com www. ethanol.2 30% 80% CHP NOx <15ppmV @15% O2.73 14. CO <15ppm. medium Btu gas. Model Name Size Voltage Fuel Flexibility Fuel Efficiency (cf/kWh) Efficiency Capstone Turbine Corporation Model 330 Capstone 60 30 kW 60 kW 400-480 VAC natural gas.

the need for the reformer will disappear as pure hydrogen will be available near point of use. The membrane is coated on both sides with highly dispersed metal alloy particles (mostly platinum) that are active catalysts.800°F). Ions are conducted through the electrolyte while the electrons flow through the anode and the cathode via an external circuit. The fuel cell stack is where the hydrogen and oxygen electrochemically combine to produce electricity. propane. landfill gas. marine diesel. AFCs contain a potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution as the electrolyte and operate at temperatures between 60 and 260°C (140 to 500°F). Commercially-validated reliabilities are 90-95%. and are suited for applications where quick start-up is required (e. converts hydrocarbon fuels to a mixture of hydrogen-rich gases and. and has no moving parts. can remove contaminants to provide pure hydrogen. The fuel processor. natural gas. Representative Technologies Fuel cells are categorized by the kind of electrolyte they use: • Alkaline Fuel Cells (AFCs) were the first type of fuel cell to be used in space applications. As a hydrogen infrastructure emerges. which further enhances combined-cycle performance.g. • Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC) technology has the potential to reach fuel-to-electricity efficiencies of 45% to 60% on a higher heating value basis (HHV). or reformer. The ions and electrons then recombine. depending on the type of fuel cell. carbon monoxide. A solid oxide system usually uses a hard ceramic material instead 68 . fuel cells have an anode and a cathode separated by an electrolyte. for which most of the end-use technologies are designed. and simulated coal gasification products. This unique process is practically silent. • Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells (PAFCs) were the first fuel cells to be commercialized. transportation and power generation)..Fuel Cells Technology Description A fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device that converts hydrogen and oxygen into electricity and water.200°F). Carbon monoxide poisons an AFC. • Fuel cell systems today typically consist of a fuel processor. • Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) operate at temperatures up to 1. The hydrogen and oxygen are separated into ions and electrons.000°C (1. and power conditioner. fuel cell stack. can vary their output quickly to meet shifts in power demand. in the presence of a catalyst. These fuel cells operate at 190-210°C (374-410°F) and achieve 35 to 45% fuel-to-electricity efficiencies LHV. • Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFCs) operate at relatively low temperatures of 70-100°C (150-180°F). The PEM is a thin fluorinated plastic sheet that allows hydrogen ions (protons) to pass through it. which allows total system thermal efficiencies up to 50% HHV in combinedcycle applications. The current produced can be utilized for electricity. • Hydrogen enters the anode and air (oxygen) enters the cathode. have high-power density. System Concepts • Similar to a battery. nearly eliminates emissions. MCFCs have been operated on hydrogen. The fuel supplied to an AFC must be pure hydrogen. with water and heat as the only byproducts. and carbon dioxide (even the small amount in the air) reacts with the electrolyte to form potassium carbonate. The electricity produced is direct current (DC) and the power conditioner converts the DC electricity to alternating current (AC) electricity. Operating temperatures for MCFCs are around 650° C (1.

• Data centers and sensitive manufacturing processes are ideal settings for fuel cells. Commercial offerings are in the 250 kW-2 MW range. Multiple fuel cells can be used to provide extremely high (more then six-nines) reliability and high-quality power for critical loads. and contributes to stability and reliability. Distributed Energy Technology Simulator: Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Validation. Depending on the type of fuel cell (most likely SOFC and MCFC).000/yr $320.000 $40.000 $5. PEMFCs are a leading candidate for powering the next generation of vehicles. • Fuel cells also can provide power for vehicles and portable power. • MCFC – 50 kW and 2 MW systems have been field-tested. Both 5 kW and 250 kW models are in demonstration.of a liquid electrolyte. allows more flexibility in fuel choice. • PAFC – More than 250 PAFC systems are in service worldwide. As with MCFCs. 25 kW natural gas tubular SOFC systems has accumulated more than 70. commercial. Current Status • The cost of fuel cells hinders competition in widespread domestic and international markets without significant subsidies. • PEMFC – Ballard’s first 250 kW commercial unit is under test. small-footprint portable power. The military is interested in the high-efficiency.000 hours of operations. PEM systems up to 200 kW are also operating in several hydrogen-powered buses. Technology Applications • Fuel cell systems can be sized for grid-connected applications or customer-sited applications in residential. semiannual and annual maintenance Major Overhaul Replacement of the cell stack Cost $850. The solid-state ceramic construction enables the high temperatures.35/MMcf $20. low-noise. and industrial facilities.000/5 yrs Source: Energetics. Fuel Cell Type AFC PEMFC PAFC Electrolyte KOH Nafion Phosphoric Acid Operating Electrical Commercial Temp Efficiency Availability (% HHV) (°C) 260 32-40 1960s 65-85 30-40 2000-2001 190-210 35-45 1992 Typical Unit Size Range 5-250 kW 200 kW Startup time (hours) < 0. Most units are small (<10 kW). SOFCs are capable of fuel-to-electricity efficiencies of 45% to 55% LHV and total system thermal efficiencies up to 85% LHV in combined-cycle applications. • SOFC – A small. • Premium power applications are an important niche market for fuel cells. and foundation Operation Natural gas costs Minor Maintenance Service events. Economic Specifications of the PAFC (200 kW) Expense Description Capital Cost 1 complete PAFC power plant Installation Electrical. with those installed by ONSI having surpassed 2 million total operating hours with excellent operational characteristics and high availability. displaying all the essential systems parameters needed to proceed to commercial configurations. useful heat can be captured and used in combined heat and power systems (CHP).1 1-4 69 . PEMFCs currently cost several thousand dollars per kW. plumbing. May 2001.

S. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. which has traditionally become the electrolyte for PEMFC. Little. Distributed Generation: The Power Paradigm for the New Millennium. and Arthur D. and National Renewable Energy Laboratory. MCFC) in the past decade can lead to technology applications where high temperature heat recovery has value.S DOE and the private sector. September 2005). including natural gas. NREL/TP-620/34783. Climate Change Technology Program. DOE/PI-0002. cooling. Distributed Generation Primer: Building the Factual Foundation (multiclient study). propane. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations. first discovered the principle of the fuel cell. a British jurist and amateur physicist. and power applications and improve reformer technologies to extract hydrogen from a variety of fuels. 70 . potassium. • In the 1960s. November 2003 (draft update. the market for fuel cells was about $218 million in 2000 and will reach $7 billion by 2009. • Industry will introduce high-temperature natural gas-fueled MCFC and SOFC at $1. alkaline fuel cells were developed for space applications that required strict environmental and efficiency performance. Kreider. November 2003. and 40. ONSI introduced the first commercially available PAFC. February 2000 Technology History • In 1839.S. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. • The emergence of new fuel cell types (SOFC. Its collaborative agreement with the U. Grove utilized four large cells.000 hour stack life. to produce electric power which was then used to split the water in the smaller upper cell into hydrogen and oxygen. U.500 per kW that are capable of 60% efficiency. ultra-low emissions. and methanol. • DOE is also working with industry to test and validate the PEM technology at the 1–kW level and to transfer technology to the Department of Defense. Other efforts include raising the operating temperature of the PEM fuel cell for building. Technology Future • According to the Business Communications Company. The successful demonstration of the fuel cells in space led to their serious consideration for terrestrial applications in the 1970s. William Grove.MCFC SOFC Lithium. each containing hydrogen and oxygen. 2001. heating. • In 1993. carbonate salt Yttrium & zirconium oxides 650-700 750-1000 40-50 45-55 Post 2003 Post 2003 250 kW-2 MW 5-250 kW 5-10 5-10 Sources: Anne Marie Borbely and Jan F.000 -$1. • In the early 1970s. DuPont introduced the Nafion® membrane. • Fuel cells are being developed for stationary power generation through a partnership of the U. CRC Press. Department of Defense enabled more than 100 PAFCs to be installed and operated at military installations.

000 15.000 71 . Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Multiyear Research.000 40.000 16.Fuel Cells Technology Performance Source: Hydrogen. February 2005 Small (3-25 kW) Large (50-250kW) Characteristic Electrical Energy Efficiency @ rated power CHP Energy Efficiency @ rated power Cost Transient Response Time (from 10% to 90% power) Cold Start-up Time (to rated power @ -20 degrees C ambient) Continuous-use application Survivability (min and max ambient temperature) Units % 2004 Status 30 2005 32 2010 35 2004 Status 30 2005 32 2010 40 % $/kW msec 3000 min 75 75 1500 80 1000 <3 75 2500 <3 75 1500 <3 80 750 <3 <3 <3 <90 <60 <30 <90 <60 <30 C degrees -25 +40 -30 +40 -35 +40 -25 +40 -30 +40 -35 +40 Durability @ <10% rated power degradation hour >8.000 20. Development and Demonstration Plan.000 40.

Hydrocarbon. SOX. battery and power regulator necessary for black start. efficiencies are 1. 72 . b Ratio of DC output energy to the LHV of the input fuel (natural gas or LPG) average value at rated power over life of power plant.Noise dB(A) <70 @ 1m <65 @ 1m <60 @ 1m <65 @ 1m <60 @ 1m <55 @ 1m Emissions (Combined NOX.000 units/year). Particulates) g/ 1. Current cost does not include integrated auxiliaries.5 a Includes fuel processor. stack. CO. d Ratio of DC output energy plus recovered thermal energy to the LHV of the input fuel (natural gas or LPG) average value at rated power over life of power plant e Includes projected cost advantage of high-volume production (2.5 percentage points lower than natural gas because the reforming process is more complex.000 kW <15 <10 <9 <8 <2 <1. and all ancillaries. c For LPG. f Not applicable to backup power because this application does not use a fuel processor.

spinning reserve. They can be stacked horizontally as well as vertically. Obviously. which facilitates the transfer of ions in the battery. This process is reversed during charging. They have been called lowmaintenance batteries. typically consisting of chemically reactive materials. reduced maintenance. utility switchgear and control. and nuclear power plants. Representative Technologies • The most mature battery systems are based on lead-acid technology. nickel metal hydride. a variety of battery types are necessary. footprint. zinc-air. photovoltaic. resulting in a smaller footprint than flooded lead-acid batteries. The zinc-bromine battery consists of a zinc positive electrode and a bromine negative electrode separated by a microporous separator. sodium sulfur. and other ancillary services.Batteries Technology Description Batteries are likely the most widely known type of energy storage. An aqueous solution of zinc/bromide is circulated through the two compartments of the cell from two separate reservoirs. with microturbines and diesel generators. for such a diversity of uses. • Installations can be any size. advanced batteries under development for stationary and mobile applications. Disadvantages include higher cost and increased sensitivity to the charging cycle used. Sodium bromide/sodium bromine batteries are similar to zinc­ 73 . Technology Applications • Lead-acid batteries are the most common energy storage technology for stationary and mobile applications. lifetime. and improved performance. System Concepts Battery electrode plates. Zinc-bromine batteries are currently being demonstrated in a number of hybrid installations. They provide instantaneous discharge for a few seconds or a few hours. powerconversion equipment is required to connect a battery to the alternating current (AC) electric grid. High temperature results in reduced battery life and performance. while others are large enough to power a submarine. Batteries store and deliver direct current (DC) electricity. reliability. This flow of electrons creates electricity that is supplied to any load connected to the battery. and the need for adequate ventilation because the batteries can give off hydrogen gas when charging. energy density. The disadvantages of the flooded lead-acid battery include the need for periodic addition of water. The largest system to date is 20 MW. The negative electrode gives up electrons during the discharge cycle. The electrons are then transported to the positive electrode. are placed in an electrolyte. including lithium-ion. and sodium bromide. Lead-acid batteries provide power quality. lithium polymer. • These advanced batteries offer potential advantages over lead acid batteries in terms of cost. But all of them work from the same basic principles. uninterruptible power supplies (UPS). • There are several rechargeable. Some batteries are used several times a day while others may sit idle for 10 or 20 years before they are ever used. • Several advanced “flow batteries” are being developed. zinc-bromine. They all store and release electricity through electrochemical processes and come in a variety of shapes and sizes. There are two major kinds of lead acid batteries: flooded lead acid batteries and valve-regulated-lead-acid (VRLA) batteries. • VRLA batteries are sealed batteries fitted with pressure-release valves. Some are small enough to fit on a computer circuit board. They offer maximum efficiency and reliability for the widest variety of stationary applications: telecommunications. peak shaving. operating characteristics. because they do not require periodic adding of water. Thus.

• Utility-grade batteries are sized 17-40 MWh and range in efficiency from 70% to 80%. with sales from one manufacturer doubling from 2000 to 2001. • In 2003. when experiments by Alessandro Volta resulted in the generation of electrical current from chemical reactions between dissimilar metals.4 kW/kg and 30-50 Wh/kg in energy density. there has been a continuing stream of improvements in the materials of construction and the manufacturing and formation processes.2 to 0. • Secondary batteries date back to 1860. which represents the state of the art today. sodium sulfur. and the other in the United States.K. Such batteries have power densities ranging from 0. flexible operation – and all components are easily recyclable. This allowed much quicker formation and better plate efficiency than the solid Planté plate. Although the rudiments of the flooded lead-acid battery date back to the 1880s. Sodium sulfur batteries operate at high temperature and are being tested for utility load-leveling applications.71 million. scalability. many attempts have been made to eliminate free acid in the battery. His cell used two thin lead plates separated by rubber sheets. lithium polymer. • Because many of the problems with flooded lead-acid batteries involved electrolyte leakage.34 million and $1. and invested in production and marketing in anticipation of further growth. • Lead-acid battery manufacturers saw sales drop with the collapse of the telecommunications bubble in 2001. • Others developed batteries using a paste of lead oxides for the positive plate active materials. construction began on two 10-MW flow battery systems – one in the U. 74 . • Many manufacturers have been subject to mergers and acquisitions. The advantages of lithium batteries include their high specific energy (four times that of lead-acid batteries) and charge retention. nickel metal hydride. • Government and private industry are currently developing a variety of advanced batteries for transportation and defense applications: lithium-ion. The relative importance of battery sales for switchgear and UPS applications shrunk during this period from 45% to 26% of annual sales by 2000. A few dozen manufacturers in the United States and abroad still make batteries. and sodium-sulfur batteries. when Raymond Gaston Planté invented the lead-acid battery. The advantages of flow-battery technologies are low cost. Technology History • Most historians date the invention of batteries to about 1800. • Rechargeable lithium batteries already have been introduced in the market for consumer electronics and other portable equipment. • Lead-acid battery annual sales tripled between 1993 and 2000. They saw significant growth in sales in 2000. VRLA and flooded battery sales were $5. Gates Energy Products developed a spiral-wound VRLA cell. transportability. sodium metal chloride. utility applications. in 2000. Current Status • Energy storage systems for large-scale power quality applications (~10 MW) are economically viable now. lithium-polymer. Working from a different approach. The major disadvantage is a relatively low cycle efficiency. • Batteries are the most common energy storage device. • There are two demonstration sites of ZBB’s Zinc Bromine batteries in Michigan and two additional ones in Australia. respectively. modularity. German researchers developed the gelledelectrolyte lead-acid battery (a type of VRLA) in the early 1960s.bromine batteries in function and are under development for large-scale. He rolled the combination up and immersed it in a dilute sulfuric acid solution. low weight. due to the demand from communications firms. • About 150 MW of utility peak-shaving batteries were in use in Japan in 2003. • Other advanced batteries include the lithium-ion. and zinc bromine. Initial capacity was extremely limited because the positive plate had little active material available for reaction.

• Energy storage and battery systems. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. in particular. Gains in development of batteries for mobile applications will likely crossover to the stationary market. Climate Change Technology Program. • The growing market for hybrid vehicles and the potential for “plug-in hybrid” vehicles--that could supply power to the grid as well as draw power from the grid—may increase future demand for batteries. 75 .Technology Future • Lead-acid batteries provide the best long-term power in terms of cycles and float life. The battery industry is trying to improve manufacturing practices and build more batteries at lower costs to stay competitive. • A 10 MW-120 MWh sodium bromide system is under construction by the Tennessee Valley Authority. will play a significant role in the Distributed Energy Resource environment of the future.S. A 40 MW nickel cadmium system is being built for transmission-line support and stabilization in Alaska. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. Military demand for batteries may drastically alter the forecast for battery sales. DOE/PI-0002. • A contraction in sales of lead-acid batteries that began in 2001 was expected to continue over the next few years until “9/11” occurred. September 2005). as a result. will likely remain a strong technology in the future. November 2003 (draft update. U. and. • Battery manufacturers are working on incremental improvements in energy and power density. Local energy management and reliability are emerging as important economic incentives for companies.

MW 496 805 965 ($ Million) 372 443 434 2000 533. Annual Sales Summary. Battery Energy Storage Market Feasibility Study. October 2001.Batteries Market Data Recent Battery Sales Source: Battery Council International.1 69% 26% Growth 340% 214% 298% Year 2000 2005 2010 76 .6 704.9 79. September 1997.5 58% 45% Source: Sandia National Laboratories.6 236.5 170. 1993 Flooded Batteries (Million $) VRLA Batteries (Million $) Total Lead-Acid Batteries (Million $) Percent Communications Percent Switchgear/UPS Market Predictions 156.

600 100 < 400 5 to 24 hrs 84.5 5 to 72 hrs 47 Million > 50 24 Million Developing Community: No Industry Developing Community: Light Industry 40 240 10 < 40 5 to 24 hrs 40.000 Developing Community: Moderate Industry 400 3. Short-Term Energy Storage.85 0.85 0. Energy Storage Systems Program Report for FY99.70 Source: Sandia National Laboratories.5 MWh 100 < 1000 0.Technology Performance Grid-Connected Energy Storage Technologies Costs and Efficiencies Energy-Storage System Lead-acid Batteries low average high Power-Quality Batteries Advanced Batteries 175 225 250 100 245 200 250 300 250 300 50 50 50 40 40 0.85 0.5 to 1 hr 131. March 2001.5 3 0. Their Requirements. Energy Related Power Related Cost ($/kW) Balance of Plant Cost ($/kWh) ($/kWh) Discharge Efficiency Technology Performance Off-Grid Storage Applications.vs. Single Home: Developing Community 0.000 ~ 10 8.000 ~ 30 12.000 <5 < 7.85 0. Characteristics and Technologies for Long.000 > 50 69.000 8 45 77 .000 Advanced Community or Military Base 1 MW 1. and Potential Markets to 2010 According to Boeing Application Source: Sandia National Laboratories. June 2000.000 Storage-System Attributes Power (kW) Energy (kWh) Power Base (kW) Peak (kW) Discharge Duration Total Projected Number of Systems Fraction of Market Captured by Storage Total Number of Storage Systems to Capture Market Share 5 <8 5 to 72 hrs 137.

Largest 1. 50 kW to 250 kW.5 MWh/yr 10 to 20 yrs 65 to 70% $30 to $150k/yr Energy Storage System Field Experience Production Capacity Actual Production Life Efficiency O&M Costs 78 . 25 kW power). November 2001.Technology Performance Advanced Batteries Characteristics Source: DOE Energy Storage Systems Program Annual Peer Review FY01.5k/yr Zinc Bromine Several Projects. Sodium Sulfur Vanadium Redox Over 30 Several Projects 100kW to 3 MW (pulse Projects. Largest 48 MW 160 MWh/yr 30 MWh/yr 50 MWh/yr 10 MWh/yr 15 yrs 7 to 15 yrs 70to 80 % 72% $50k/yr $32. Boulder City Battery Energy Storage.15 MWh to 6 MW. Largest 400 kWh 40 to 70 MWh/yr 4.

Compressed-air energy storage uses off-peak electricity to force air into underground caverns or dedicated tanks. Energy storage devices are added to the utility grid to improve productivity. The storage system would be placed downstream from the heavily loaded component. so it’s only practical in certain locations. The system provides power-quality protection for the plant’s pollution-control equipment. California. area. electronic retailers. The system carries the critical plant loads while an orderly shutdown occurs. Many energy-storage systems offer multiple benefits. stock brokerages. is location-specific. transformers. energy storage does not directly decrease CO2 production. preventing an environmental release in the event of a loss of power. Technology Applications • For utilities. providing an opportunity for the most cost effective electric generators to produce low cost power at night for storage. This would reduce electrical losses of overloaded systems. less efficient power normally produced at the peak during the day. CO2 emissions would be reduced if the efficiency of the energy storage were greater than 85%. The exception to this rule is the use of advanced energy storage in conjunction with intermittent renewable energy sources (such as photovoltaics and wind) that produce no direct CO2.5 B/year in the United States alone. maximizing industrial productivity. • Power quality and reliability: The operation of modern. plastics and paper manufacturing. For intermittent renewables. Batteries. advanced energy storage technology would improve their applicability. New battery technologies. computerized manufacturing depends directly on the quality of power the plant receives. Because the storage efficiency (output compared to input energy) is less than 100%. both 79 . etc. thereby increasing the amount of CO2 production required for each unit of output.Advanced Energy Storage Technology Description Advanced storage technologies under active development include processes that are mechanical (flywheels. including sodium sulfur and flow batteries. on a kilowatt-per-kilowatt basis. The battery system also in discharged daily during the afternoon peak (and recharged nightly).5-MWh valve-regulated lead-acid battery system is installed at a lead recycling plant in the Los Angeles. 3. it requires topography with significant differences in elevation. Energy-storage value is usually measured economically with the cost of power-quality losses. and purely electrical (superconducting magnetic storage). The stored energy could displace high cost. This use dovetails very nicely with the utilities’ interest in minimizing the load on highly loaded sections of the electric grid. Energy storage devices must be charged and recharged with electricity generated elsewhere. Energy storage allows these intermittent resources to be dispatchable. which is estimated in excess of $1. reducing the plant’s energy costs. allowing the most efficient use of capital by utility companies. or defer equipment upgrades. reversible fuel cells. increase reliability. Any voltage sag or momentary interruption can trip off a manufacturing line and electronic equipment. this. however. and credit card-processing centers. and releases the air to drive turbines to generate on-peak electricity. plant cleanup can be required. the most mature storage technology is pumped hydro. Industries that are particularly sensitive are semiconductor manufacturing. If an interruption occurs that disrupts these processes. hydrogen. System Concepts • Stationary applications: Electric demand falls at night. equipment can be damaged. too. Any loss must be made up decreasing the overall efficiency of the operation. Energy-storage devices do positively affect CO2 production on an industrial output basis by providing high-quality power. significantly improve the energy and power densities for stationary battery storage as compared to traditional flooded lead-acid batteries. Equipment upgrades also would be postponed.) These components are typically only loaded heavily for a small portion of the day. ultracapacitors). Industry is also installing energy-storage systems to purchase relatively cheap off-peak power for use during on-peak times. and financial services such as banking. Energy storage also can be used to alleviate the pressure on highly loaded components in the grid (transmission lines. This 5-MVA. pneumatic). electrochemical (advanced batteries. and transactions can be lost. product is often lost.

• Two 10-MW flow battery systems are under construction – one in the United Kingdom and the other in the United States. multi-MW systems. short-duration applications.S.000 250-2. • Each energy-storage system consists of four major components: the storage device (battery. All common energy-storage devices are DC devices (battery) or produce a varying output (flywheels) requiring a power conversion system to connect it to the AC grid.5 kWh Technology Future • For utilities. and interconnection hardware connecting the storage system to the grid. only pumped hydro has made a significant penetration with approximately 21 GW. a power-conversion system. are commonly used for energy-storage systems. monitor the state of health of the various components.27/100 m 0 0 30-50 15-30 low low high 0.000-20. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. 80 . 1 German high-power apps most common US & foreign dev. Flywheels are now commercially viable in power quality and UPS applications. etc. but currently have relatively low total energy capacity and are also applicable for high-power.200 20 MW 17-40 0. • Approximately 150 MW of utility peak-shaving batteries are in service in Japan. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.1-20 kWh 37 existing in U.conventional and advanced. and interface with the local environment at a minimum to receive on/off signals. DOE/PI-0002.4 1-3 5. and emerging for high power.S.1-0. shortduration applications such as power quality and transmission system stability. Efficiency [%] Energy density [W-h/kg] Power density [kW/kg] Sizes Comments [MW-h]____________________ Ultracapacitors high-power dens 90+ 2-10 high 0. September 2005). flywheel. Interconnection hardware allows for the safe connection between the storage system and the local grid. Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) is largely focused on high-power. Ultracapacitors have very high power density. a control system for the storage system.. U. 1 U. Current Status Utilities Technology m Pumped hydro Compressed gas SMES Batteries Flywheels 75 70 90+ 70–84 90+ 0. high-energy applications. Advanced flowing electrolyte batteries offer the promise of longer lifetimes and easier scalability to large. The control system must manage the charging and discharging of the system.). • Megawatt-scale power quality systems are cost effective and entering the marketplace today.S. possibly tied in with a utility SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system or industrial facility control system.2-0. November 2003 (draft update. Climate Change Technology Program.

as well. Superconducting technologies make possible electric power equipment that is half the size of conventional alternatives. reliable. 81 . motors.8% per year for the next 20 years. Affordability of capacity expansion is also enhanced. and deferred generation expansion. can be 50% smaller and lighter than conventional units. HTS materials were first discovered in the mid-1980s and are brittle oxide. are nonflammable. HTS also will reduce the impact of power delivery on the environment and is helping create a new high-tech industry to help meet industry challenges due to delays in electric utility restructuring. that can carry electricity with virtually no resistance losses. or ceramic-like materials. a majority of the new gasfired generation is not optimally sited where existing transmission assets are located.Superconducting Power Technology Technology Description The United States’ ongoing appetite for clean. issued a wake-up call for Source: American Superconductor modernizing and expanding grid capacity. etc. When HTS equipment becomes pervasive. require minimal maintenance. generators. providing the flexibility to fashion these ceramics into wires for use in transmission cables and for coils for power transformers. and do not need replacement after being activated. power quality. The motors are 50% smaller and lighter than conventional motors. • HTS Fault Current Limiters can provide power companies with surge protection within the transmission and distribution system. technology has developed to bond these HTS materials to various metals. They are reusable. Through years of federal research in partnership with companies throughout the nation. • HTS power transformers have about 30% reduction in total losses. • HTS motors rated at more than 750 kW would save enough energy over their lifetime to pay for the motor. and affordable electricity has increased at a rate that seriously threatens to exceed current capacity. up to 50% of the energy now lost in transmission and distribution will become available for customer use. and do not contain oil or any other potential pollutant. and because HTS cables may be installed in conventional underground ducts without extensive street excavation. Witnessing the regional outages being experienced throughout the country – and those most recently highlighted in the northeast blackout of August 2003 – the inadequacies of the investment in infrastructure have. Furthermore. Replacement of all U. in effect. there are electrical performance benefits associated with current limiting capacity and reduced impedance that will yield cost savings to power companies.S. Demand is estimated to increase by an average rate of 1. yet investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure have not kept pace with those in generation. System Concepts • HTS cables have almost no resistance losses and can transport three-five times as much power as a conventional cable in the same size conduit. may have a total ownership cost that is about 20% lower. because underground superconducting cables require only 10% of the rights-of-way of conventional overhead transmission. Other benefits of superconducting electric power systems include improved grid stability. motors greater than 750-kW with HTS motors would save consumers $2 billion per year in electricity costs. In addition. with half the energy losses. reliability. Hightemperature superconducting (HTS) wires can carry many more times the amount of electricity of ordinary aluminum or copper wires.

compact. A 600-m cable to be operated at 138-kV will be installed on Long Island.• HTS generators with more than 100 MVA output will be more energy efficient. and is now designing a motor that would use second-generation coated conductors with enhanced performance-to-cost ratio for the industrial marketplace. New York. The 100-m tapes carry approximately 100 amperes of current in nitrogen. • Rockwell Automation demonstrated a prototype 1000-HP synchronous motor that exceeded design specifications by 60%. New York. • HTS motors: Rockwell Automation successfully demonstrated a prototype 750-kW motor in 2000 and is researching motor components with improved performance characteristics. formed into coils and mounted on conventional transformer cores. Current Status • The development at the national laboratories of ion-beam assisted deposition and rolling-assisted. and lighter than the conventional generator. demonstrated a 1-MVA single-phase prototype transformer in 1999 and is leading a team developing technology needed for electrical insulation that would be used for a pre-commercial. a team led by Southwire Company has installed and successfully tested a 30-m prototype cable that has been powering three manufacturing plants in Carrollton. second-generation “coated conductors” have been made in 100 m lengths by industry and are to be scaled up in 2006-2008 to 1.000 amperes is installed at a suburban substation in Columbus.” cooled below the transition temperature of the HTS materials. Technology Applications • HTS wires: First generation “BSCCO” wires are available today in kilometer lengths at about $200/kA-m. Georgia. and current limiters use HTS wires and tapes in a coil form. Rotating cryogenic seals provide cooling for the rotating machines. and is the world’s longestrunning superconducting cable. Georgia. generators. three-phase prototype transformer. regardless of the load on the cable. Electrical insulation is accomplished by means other than conventional oil-and-paper. Short lengths of coated conductors made under stringent laboratory conditions exceeded the DOE goal of 1. • HTS motors.000 hours of trouble-free operation in Carrollton. The generator has characteristics that may help stabilize the transmission grid. Ohio. with partial DOE funding. magnetic separators. (Southwire Company) in early 2005. • HTS cables: Under the DOE Superconductivity Partnership with Industry (SPI).000 A/cm width. and typically involves a combination of solid materials. • SuperPower verified greater than 80% current limiting performance of proof-of-concept Fault Current Limiter at up to 8. Three new HTS cable demonstration projects are underway with partial DOE funding from the SPI for 2006. and vacuum. • HTS transformers: Waukesha Electric Systems.” A 200-m HTS distribution cable carrying 3. biaxially textured substrate (RABiTSTM) technologies for producing high-performance HTS film conductors suitable for cables and transformers. insulated thermally and electrically from the environment. • HTS flywheel systems use nearly frictionless bearings made from superconducting “discs. HTS transformers may be overloaded for periods of time without loss of transformer life. • The world’s first HTS cable to power industrial plants exceeded 28. liquid cryogens. The 30-m cable system has been operating unattended since June 2001. and a 350-m distribution cable is installed in downtown Albany. was a major success story for FY 1997. System Components • HTS cables consist of large numbers of wires containing HTS materials operating at 65-77 K.660 volts. A section of the 350-m cable will also be manufactured using second-generation “coated conductors. A cryogenic refrigerating system maintains the temperature of the cable at the desired operating temperature. and the involvement of four unique industry-led teams to capitalize on it. pre-commercial. Prototype. • HTS transformers use the same types of HTS materials as cables. since February 2000. 82 .000-m lengths.

Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. Japan. These wires are now under development under a government-industry partnership but are still years from wide-scale use.4­ kV/4. • By 1996. Numerous companies in Europe. George Bednorz and Karl Müller achieved superconductivity on lanthanum copper oxides doped with barium or strontium at temperatures as high as 38 K. Southwire’s 30m prototype cable has been powering three manufacturing plants in Carrollton. a 200-horsepower HTS motor was tested and exceeded its design goals by 60%. • In 1992. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. but the Superconductivity Partnerships with Industry and the Second-Generation Wire Initiative could be expanded to include additional U. would help enable broad utility involvement in the technology. which resulted in costs higher than the benefits of using the new technology. • A 750 kW HTS motor was demonstrated by Rockwell Automation. In addition. authorized in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. companies. November 2003 (draft update. The Power Delivery Research Initiative. This marked the first discovery of superconducting materials. as Waukesha Electric Systems demonstrated a 1­ MVA prototype transformer in 1999. In 1986. 83 .2-kV three-phase prototype. • Until 1986. superconductivity applications were highly limited due to the high cost of cooling to such low temperatures. • In 1987. In the following years. such as bismuth lead strontium calcium copper oxide (110 K).2 K.S. Technology Future High-temperature superconducting cables and equipment: Commercialization and market introduction requires development of inexpensive wires for transmission and distribution. 26. This team is now (in 2006) researching motor components. Climate Change Technology Program. and end uses such as electric motors. This team is also leading the development of a 5/10-MVA. Georgia. • In 1990. after technology allowed liquid helium to be produced. Korea and China are pursuing the technologies first demonstrated by the national labs. J. Since February 2000. Dutch physicist Heike Kammerlingh Onnes found that at 4. other copper oxide variations were found. September 2005). Some pre-commercial demonstrations using commercial BSCCO wires are underway. A Pirelli Cable team installed a 120m HTS cable in Detroit. two IBM scientists. as it possessed the highest critical temperature at that time. U. the compound Y1Ba2Cu3O7 (YBCO) was given considerable attention. the first (dc) HTS motor was demonstrated. a 1-meter-long HTS cable was demonstrated. Using hightemperature superconductivity wires to replace existing electric wires and cables may be analogous to the market penetration that occurred when the United States moved from copper wire to fiber optics in communications. Michigan under the DOE Superconductivity Partnership Initiative.S.Technology History • In 1911. • HTS transformers have seen increased interest. and thallium barium calcium copper oxide (125 K). at 93 K. there is an international race underway to develop and deploy the new second-generation coated conductors. DOE/PI-0002. the electrical resistance of mercury decreased to almost zero.

816.32 The report assumes electrical generation and equipment market growth averaging 2.22 37. DOE.025 243 83.405 40.03 1554.926 4.353 56.710 14.26 426.904 656.61 Cables 0 0.071 2015 4.117 11.081 222.857 1.001 379.1 7201.High Temperature Superconductivity: The Products and Their Benefits.634 48.270 2013 956 0 24.499 675.29 169.81 4.56 41.37 6360.386 2019 2021 2023 2025 50.535 135.Superconducting Power Technology Market Data Projected Market for HTS devices (Thousands of Dollars) Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory . Total Market Benefits.236 2017 15.872 1.597.01 12642.770 164.86 7.5% per year through 2020.73 371.964 445.87 605.17 Total 0 3.284 824.968 108.399 1.83 Transformers 0 3.31 11322.63 197.783 570.2 3584.17 0.451 227.656 318.196 1.246.429 148.24 636.335 136.16 224. Projected Market for HTS devices (Thousands of Dollars) 2011 Motors Transformers Generators Cables Total 225 0 6.23 877.326 586.072 9.59 1.7 11.03 1310. Source: Analysis of Future Prices and Markets for High-Temperature Superconductors. p 40.24 527. This number was chosen based on historic figures (the past fifteen years) and the assumption that electric demand will drive electric supply.09 15. 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Motors 0 0 27.71 Generators 0 0 0 4. 2002 Edition.21 15.44 2.693 592.844 488.975 84 .49 3103.47 90. September 2001.97 42.277 390.8 14.12 101.1 212.

785 3.326 10. DOE.428 HTS Energy Savings (GWh) Source: Analysis of Future Prices and Markets for High-Temperature Superconductors.336 4.699 1. Tables M-2. 2009 Motors Transformers Generators Cables Total 0 0 2 1 3 2011 0 0 11 3 14 2013 1 0 44 13 58 2015 4 0 171 55 231 2017 15 2 556 196 769 2019 57 15 1.1 56 60 2012 8 1 0.289 7. T-1.2 0 18 19 2010 3 1 0.086 2021 154 94 2.236 1.194 5.417 598 2.1 0 3 4 2008 0.283 2023 300 449 4.2 133 143 2014 21 3 1 270 294 2016 48 6 2 488 544 2018 98 9 3 806 916 2020 172 14 6 1. September 2001. C-2 2004 Motors Transformers Generators Cables Total 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0.235 2025 468 1.Technology Performance HTS Energy Savings (GWh) Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory – High-Temperature Superconductivity: The Products and Their Benefits.4 0. G-1.774 85 . 2002 Edition.196 2.

Thermally Activated Technologies

Technology Description
Thermally Activated Technologies (TATs), such as heat pumps, absorption chillers, and desiccant units, provide on-site space conditioning and water heating, which greatly reduce the electric load of a residential or commercial facility. These technologies can greatly contribute to system reliability. System Concepts • TATs may be powered by natural gas, fuel oil, propane, or biogas, avoiding substantial energy conversion losses associated with electric power transmission, distribution, and generation. • These technologies may use the waste heat from onsite power generation and provide total energy solutions for onsite cooling, heating, and power. Representative Technologies • Thermally activated heat pumps can revolutionize the way residential and commercial buildings are heated and cooled. This technology enables highly efficient heat pump cycles to replace the best natural gas furnaces, reducing energy use as much as 50%. Heat pumps take in heat at a lower temperature and release it a higher one, with a reversing valve that allows the heat pump to provide space heating or cooling as necessary. In the heating mode, heat is taken from outside air when the refrigerant evaporates and is delivered to the building interior when it condenses. In the cooling mode, the function of the two heat-exchanger coils is reversed, so heat moves inside to outside. • Absorption chillers provide cooling to buildings by using heat. Unlike conventional electric chillers, which use mechanical energy in a vapor-compression process to provide refrigeration, absorption chillers primarily use heat energy with limited mechanical energy for pumping. The chiller transfers thermal energy from the heat source to the heat sink through an absorbent fluid and a refrigerant. The chiller achieves its refrigerative effect by absorbing and then releasing water vapor into and out of a lithium bromide solution. In the process, heat is applied at the generator and water vapor is driven off to a condenser. The cooled water vapor then passes through an expansion valve, reducing the pressure. The low-pressure water vapor then enters an evaporator, where ambient heat is added from a load and the actual cooling takes place. The heated, low-pressure vapor returns to the absorber, where it recombines with lithium bromide and becomes a low-pressure liquid. This low-pressure solution is pumped to a higher pressure and into the generator to repeat the process. • Desiccant equipment is useful for mitigation of indoor air-quality problems and for improved humidity control in buildings. The desiccant is usually formed in a wheel made up of lightweight honeycomb or corrugated material (see figure). Commercially available desiccants include silica gel, activated alumina, natural and synthetic zeolites, lithium chloride, and synthetic polymers. The wheel is rotated through supply air, usually from the outside, and the material naturally attracts the moisture from the air before it is routed to the building. The desiccant is then regenerated using thermal energy from natural gas, the sun, or waste heat.

Technology Applications
• Thermally activated heat pumps are a new generation of advanced absorption cycle heat pumps that can efficiently condition residential and commercial space. Different heat pumps will be best suited for different applications. For example, the GAX heat pump is targeted for northern states because of its superior heating performance; and the Hi-Cool heat pump targets the South, where cooling is a priority. • Absorption chillers can change a building’s thermal and electric profile by shifting the cooling from an electric load to a thermal load. This shift can be very important for facilities with time-of-day

86

electrical rates, high cooling-season rates, and high demand charges. Facilities with high thermal loads, such as data centers, grocery stores, and casinos, are promising markets for absorption chillers. • Desiccant technology can either supplement a conventional air-conditioning system or act as a standalone operation. A desiccant can remove moisture, odors, and pollutants for a healthier and more comfortable indoor environment. Facilities with stringent indoor air-quality needs (schools, hospitals, grocery stores, hotels) have adapted desiccant technology. • CHP applications are well suited for TATs. They offer a source of “free” fuel in the form of waste heat that can power heat pumps and absorption chillers, and regenerate desiccant units.

Current Status
• Thermally activated heat pump technology can replace the best natural gas furnace and reduce energy use by as much as 50%, while also providing gas-fired technology. • Desiccant technology may be used in pharmaceutical manufacturing to extend the shelf life of products; refrigerated warehouses to prevent water vapor from forming on the walls, floors, and ceilings; operating rooms to remove moisture form the air, keeping duct work and sterile surfaces dry; and hotels, to prevent buildup of mold and mildew.

Technology History
• In the 1930s, the concept of dehumidifying air by scrubbing it with lithium chloride was introduced, paving the way for development of the first desiccant unit. • In 1970, Trane introduced a mass-produced, steam-fired, double-effect LiBr/H2O absorption chiller. • In 1987, the National Appliance Energy Conversion Act instituted minimum efficiency standards for central air-conditioners and heat pumps.

Technology Future
• Expand the residential market of the second-generation Hi-Cool residential absorption heat pump technology to include markets in southern states; the targeted 30% improvement in cooling performance can only be achieved with major new advancements in absorption technology or with an engine-driven system. • Work in parallel with the first-generation GAX effort to determine the most attractive secondgeneration Hi-Cool technology. • Fabricate and test the 8-ton advanced cycle VX GAX ammonia/water heat pump. • Fabricate and test the 3-ton complex compound heat pump and chiller. • Develop, test, and market an advanced Double Condenser Coupled commercial chiller, which is expected to be 50% more efficient than conventional chillers. • Assess new equipment designs and concepts for desiccants using diagnostic techniques, such as infrared thermal performance mapping and advanced tracer gas-leak detection.

87

88

3.1 – States with Competitive Electricity Markets
Purple-colored states (Figure 3.1.1) are active in the restructuring process, and these states have either enacted enabling legislation or issued a regulatory order to implement retail access. Retail access is either currently available to all or some customers. Those states are Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia. In Oregon, the law allows nonresidential customers retail access. A green-colored state signifies a delay in the restructuring process or the implementation of retail access. Those states are Arkansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. California is the only blue-colored state, because direct retail access has been suspended.

Source: U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration, last updated February 2003.

Figure 3.1.1: Status of Restructuring of State Electricity Markets

89

Together.2 – States with System Benefit Charges (SBC) A System Benefit Charge (SBC) is a small fee added to a customer’s electricity bill used to fund programs that benefit the public. June 2004 http://www. • 15 state funds = $4 billion by 2017 Source: Union of Concerned Scientists. such as low-income energy assistance.html Figure 3.1: State System Benefit Funds 90 . NJ: $286 mil. $89 mil $2.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/state-clean-energy-maps-and-graphs. Cumulative 1998-2017 $14 mil $95 mil. these states will collect about $4 billion (Figure 3. There are 15 states with SBCs (Table 3. CT: $248 mil $114 $25 mil.2.2.048 mil $234 mil. and renewable energy.ucsusa. mil DE: $18 mil. energy efficiency.1) in funds to support renewable resources between 1998 and 2017. $200 mil $21 mil MA: $494 mil RI: $30 mil $67 mil.2.3.1) through which a portion of the money will be used to support renewable resources.

Source: Bolinger et al.2.3 0.6 0.indefinite 1997 ..58 CT 15 Æ 30 4.548 MW of new capacity is still pending for a total of 163 different projects. Milford. 91 .3 0.2). Stoddard.17 PA 10.2 0. Figure 3.22 NY 6 Æ 14 0.0 0. A further 1.08 RI 2 1. Wiser.2008 2007 .59 MN 9 N/A N/A MT 2 2.0 Source: Bolinger. R.2.7 0.11 OH 15 Æ 5 (portion of) 1.43 NM 4 2. so far.4 0.9 0.indefinite 1998 .0 1.8 0.2.1: Renewable Energy Funding Levels and Program Duration Approximate Annual $ Per-Capita $ Per-MWh Funding Annual Funding ($ Million) Funding CA 135 4.07 Note: Annual and per-MWh funding are based on funds expected in 2001. April 2001.indefinite 7/1998 .09 IL 5 0.2012 2000 . L. 2001 State Funding Duration 1998 .indefinite 1999 .6/2006 2001 .7 0.2003 4/1999 .indefinite 10/1999 .20 NJ 30 3.6 2. and K.. Porter. has supported the development of 707 MW of generating capacity that is online.5 0.0 3.5 0. Clean Energy Funds: An Overview of State Support for Renewable Energy.9 0.2 0.indefinite SBC funding.8 (portion of) 0.5 2.28 WI 1 Æ 4.09 OR 8.04 MA 30Æ20 4.0 Billion US$ 2.7/2003 2001 . M.400 350 300 Million US$ 250 200 150 100 50 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Annual.50 DE 1 (maximum) 1. Nationwide.0 0.2: Aggregation Annual and Cumulative State Funding Table 3.2007 1998 .9/2010 1999 .4 0. there is currently about $345 million in funding obligated through the respective SBC programs (Table 3. M.2010 10/2001 . Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. all states (left scale) Cumulative (right scale) 4.5 3.5 1.9 0.indefinite 2000 .

305.988 45. Fitzgerald. M.108.5 31.548.000 325.cleanenergystates..770 $4. hydropower.000 41. Prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Clean Energy States Alliance.8 35.8 Waste Tire 1 $7. biomass.0 0.3 2.pdf 92 .993 2.618 $80.6 830.210 Capacity Obligated (MW) 85.118. and G.0 0. The single project located in New Hampshire is receiving support from Massachusetts’ clean energy fund.5 NH* 1 $2.108. M.378.7 0.000 101.288.2 6. the vast majority – both in terms of number of projects and generating capacity – are wind power projects (Table 3.873.4 MA 4 $19.org/CaseStudies/LBNL56422_Utility-Scale_Renewables.3: Support for Utility-Scale Renewable Projects by Resource Type (as of September 2004) Resource Type # of Projects Original Dollars Obligated ($) $15.6 41.600.098.993 2.285.0 97.977 124.5 0.0 1.2: State SBC Funding for Utility-Scale Renewable Projects (as of September 2004) Project Location Original Current Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Dollars Dollars Obligated Cancelled Pending On-Line Obligated ($) Obligated ($) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) CA 60 $243.305.953.6 0.000 269.000.3).6 568.093 $19.2 50.0 0.4 707.0 283. waste tire.787.4 0.560.0 Capacity Pending (MW) 64.1 0.1 32.417 1.573.548.5 IL 4 $9.Table 3.000 41.7 19.618 156. and G. landfill gas.0 MN 68 $61.7 91.1 Biomass 8 Digester 3 Gas Geothermal 4 $80.0 41. Source: Bolinger.118.9 1.0 Wind 112 $240.org/CaseStudies/LBNL56422_Utility-Scale_Renewables.800.376 $344.376 $193.2.884.406. http://www.331.0 50.019. 2004. Fitzgerald.000 $26.2.993 1.000 $14.0 Hydro 7 $12.469.000 $3.1 32.3 1.258 $11.0 51.4 707.0 0.841.4 *New Hampshire does not currently have a clean energy fund.0 PA 8 $17. Table 3.800.210 Current Dollars Obligated ($) $11.413 $3.287.6 OR 1 $3.1 118.3 Landfill Gas 28 $38.0 41.555 $202. Wiser.930 50.288.6 0. In descending order of capacity are geothermal. http://www.0 0.0 Total 163 $399.2 0.cleanenergystates.6 0.0 14.7 31..9 Capacity On-Line (MW) 11.000 $14.pdf # of Projects Of the 163 projects announced. and digester gas.331.466.0 Capacity Cancelled (MW) 9.4 Source: Bolinger. October.000 $9.560.977.977 $61.0 30.1 424.832 $4.461 30. 2004.108.0 NJ 5 $14. Wiser.0 151.590.60 3.469.9 0.378.2. Prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Clean Energy States Alliance.0 0.5 Total 163 $399. The Impact of State Clean Energy Fund Support for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Projects.093 49.0 NY 12 $26.0 49.552 $31.964.469 90.6 0.376 $344.930 $2. R. R.4 3.302.3 1.9 59.1 35. October.590.232.841. The Impact of State Clean Energy Fund Support for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Projects.3 30.964.

Source: NREL/Union of Concerned Scientists.3.3.3 – States with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) A Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is a policy that obligates a retail electricity supplier to include renewable resources in its electricity-generation portfolio..000 MW of new renewable energy capacity by 2017 (Figure 3.5% by 2008 DE: 10% by 2019 MD: 7.3. To date. RPS policies are expected to lead to the development of more than 29. 20 states plus Washington. while several other states have adopted nonbonding renewable energy goals (Table 3.1) or renewable purchase obligations (Figure 3.3.5% by 2019 DC: 11% by 2022 PA: 8% by 2020 California: 20% by 2017 Arizona: 1.1: Renewable Portfolio Standards and Renewables Purchase Obligations by State 93 .2).2% by 2011 New York: 25% by 2013 Maine: 30% by 2000 MA: 4% by 2009 RI: 16% by 2019 CT: 10% by 2010 NJ: 6. Montana: 15% by 2015 Nevada: 20% by 2015 Minnesota: 19% by 2015* Iowa: 2% by 1999 Wisconsin: 2.1% by 2007 New Mexico: 10% by 2011 Texas: 5% by 2015 Colorado: 10% by 2015 Hawaii: 20% by 2020 *Includes requirements adopted in 1994 and 2003 for one utility. October 2005 Figure 3.3.1). have adopted RPS policies (Table 3. D. a number of states have increased their renewable energy standards in recent years. Retail suppliers can meet the obligation by constructing or owning eligible renewable resources or purchasing the power from eligible generators. Xcel Energy. In addition. In conjunction with system benefits funds.2).C.3.

photovoltaic. Using NEPOOL Generation Information System. and MSW (< 100MW). Resource supply under this definition exceeds RPS requirement.1: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Purchase Requirements State AZ Purchase Requirements 15% by 2015 (of this 30% must be customer sited) Investor-owned utilities must add minimum 1% annually to 20% by 2017. Wave Energy. fuel cells using renewable fuels. ocean energy. geothermal. landfill gas. advanced renewable energy conversion technologies. Class II: licensed hydro.5¢/kWh for tier 1 resources. No Yes. Anaerobic Digestion.5% by 2005. Solar Thermal Electric. NEPOOL Generation Information System. and 30¢/kWh for PV Unspecified. and other biomass. GATS DC 11% by 2022 (0. fuel cells. Anaerobic Digestion.Table 3. methane recovery. and 7% by Jan 1.5¢/kWh (increases to 5¢/kWh for multi-year noncomplian ce) Penalty of 2. and biomass.5¢/kWh paid to the Renewable Energy Investment Fund for the development of Class I renewables Penalty of 2. solar hot water. Landfill Gas. geothermal. Cofiring. Landfill Gas. Hydroelectric. biomass. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Class I: solar. Hydroelectric. Self-generation is not eligible. new sustainable biomass. new run of river hydro (<5 MW). Landfill Gas. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Solar Thermal Electric. 1¢/kWh for tier II. 3. 10% by 2010. Wind. Tidal Energy. Biomass. tidal. 15% by 2015 and 20% by 2020 No IA ME Investor-owned utilities to purchase 105 MW (~2% of 1999 sales) 30% of retail sales in 2000 and thereafter. wind. wind. 2004 Class I 1% Jan 1. Biomass. and fuels derived from organic sources. Tidal Energy. 6% by 2009. solar. 2010 10% by 2019 Yes. ocean thermal. wave. solar thermal. Biomass. Geothermal Electric.3. Photovoltaics. fuel cells using hydrogen from renewables Solar. Geothermal Electric. Ocean Thermal Wind. landfill gas. Municipal Solid Waste. Biomass. Wind.386% solar) Yes. GATS. Photovoltaics. Wave Energy. 2004 increasing to 1. Electric delivery requirement to PJM HI 8% by end of 2005. hydropower. high efficiency cogeneration. wind. geothermal. DE Yes. tidal. PUC will revisit within 5 years. waste to energy. MSW. 5% by 2008. existing hydro < 30MW. Penalty of 5.5% by 2007. wind. Geothermal Electric. 10% by 2015 Eligible Resources PV and solar thermal electric. Small Hydroelectric. and biomass Fuel cells. Wind. digester gas. standard to be revisited if utilities can not meet it in costeffective manner Unspecified Possible sanctions at discretion of PUC 94 . biomass including landfill gas. Photovoltaics. ocean energy. R&D. hydro. wind. solar. Ocean Thermal. and instate landfill gas. 2% by 2006. Credit Trading No central credit trading system WREGIS system under development Penalties Under consideratio n At discretion of CPUC CA CO WREGIS system under development To be determined CT 3% Class I or II Technologies by Jan 1.

Revocation or suspension of license is possible. landfill gas.5% total by 2019 and in subsequent years 1% of sales to end-use customers from new renewables in 2003. At discretion of PUC. geothermal. Class I or II: 2. and sustainable biomass. NM Yes. existing waste to energy Credit Trading Yes Penalties Alternative Compliance fee of 2¢/kWh for Tier 1 and 1. 30¢/kWh for solar. NV 6% in 2005. Photovoltaics.: Solar. wind.15). Using NEPOOL Generation Information System.5% by 2006 with 1% from Tier 1 sources.5%/yr to 4% in 2009 1%/yr increase thereafter until determined by Division of Energy Resources Eligible Resources Tier 1: solar. Financial penalties may be applied for noncomplian ce. Additional 400 MW wind by 2006 and 300 MW by 2010 5% in 2008. landfill methane. Geothermal Electric. Excess production from existing generators over historical baseline eligible. Yes.State MD Purchase Requirements 3. fuel cells using renewable fuels. No MA New renewables placed into commercial operation after 1997. Noncomplying retailers must submit a compliance plan. MN MT (Not true RPS) Applies to Xcel Energy only: 425 MW wind by 2002 and 110 MW biomass. 10% in 2010. geothermal. Wind. ocean thermal. geothermal. and low-emission advanced biomass. 5% of retail sales by 2006. Tier 1 increasing by 1% every other year from 2007 to 2018.5%. 95 . biomass. Tier II remains at 2. 1 kWh solar = 3kWh. other than standard regulatory oversight.5¢/kWh for Tier 2 paid to Maryland Renewable Energy Fund Entities may comply by paying 5¢/kWh. 7. biomass.5% by 2008 Class I: 4% by 2008. MSW. with solar requirement of 0. poultry litter incineration. No. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Solar. wood. PV. wave. Distributed resources receives extra credit (1. small hydropower (<30MW). wind. Increase by 1%/yr to 10% by January 1. Solar. hydro (<=5 MW). qualifying biomass. Hydroelectric. Biomass. Electricity must be delivered to MT. and fuel cells. 1 Yes. Anaerobic Digestion. NJ Yes. animal waste and aquatic plants). Yes. wave. wind. wind. Class I. Penalty of 1¢/kWh goes to universal low-income energy assistance fund.16% retail sales (90MW) Goal of 20% by 2020. Alternative Compliance Payment of 5¢/kWh. and landfill methane Tier II: existing large hydropower. fuel cells. wind. geothermal. Class II: hydro <30 MW and MSW facilities that meet air pollution requirements. Landfill Gas. Minimum 5% must come from solar. tidal. & biomass (includes agricultural waste. 15% in 2015 Wind. RECs valid for 4 years from date of issuance. including solar. Solar Thermal Electric. GATS. tidal. +0. rising to 20% by 2015.

5% annually 20152019 5880 MW by 2015 (5000 MW new) Yes. & hydro trade or bank them.. Liquid Biofuel. Solar Thermal Process Heat. hydro. R. RI 16% by 2020. 5¢/kWh or landfill gas. Landfill Gas. Biomass.State Purchase Requirements 2011 and thereafter. Hydroelectric. 2003. fuel cells using hydrogen derived from renewables Credit Trading Penalties NY PA 25% by 2013. increasing 0. Yes.5% by 2001 Wind. ocean. Hydroelectric. Grace. Wave Energy. geothermal. increasing 1.000 is from facilities installed under 60 MW. Municipal Solid Waste. eligible biomass. 1% voluntary standard. Kappel. Eligible Resources kWh biomass. tidal.5¢/kWh. C. Waste Coal. 2% of total incremental RPS requirement (7. including co-firing. March 2006. 1. Biomass. or fuel cells =2 kWh toward compliance Photovoltaics. report prepared for the National Geothermal Collaborative. Yes. landfill gas. NEPOOL Generation Information System. Anaerobic Digestion. Fuel Cells. geothermal.6% can come use renewable fuel. Biogas.71%) is set-aside for customersited 18% by 2020. Yes. R. ERCOT REC Lesser of wave. 1999) or small average MW from renewables (<2MW) facilities eligible. 96 . $500. wind. Coal Mine Methane. Creating Geothermal Markets: Evaluating Experience with State Renewables Portfolio Standards. fuel cells that excess RECs can $5. solar.2% by geothermal. Porter. Photovoltaics. including Trading System. for solar penalty is 200% of PV REC value.5% annually 2008-2010. Penalty of 5¢/kWh can be made to Renewable Energy Developmen t Fund TX Solar. legislation. Solar Thermal Electric. CHP/Cogeneration. tidal. Derived from table in Wiser. increasing 1% annually 2011-2014. Solar Space Heat. K. Other Distributed Generation Technologies Solar. wind. Landfill Gas. 8% Tier 1 and 10% Tier II Solar set-aside of 0.5% by 2020 Possibly. geothermal. extended by PUC. New (operational 200% of Target of at least 500 after Sept. Tidal Energy. Fuel Cells. Eligibility may be allowed in prior to 1998).0002011 (0.. GATS Penalty of 4. WI 0. Wind. Utilities with Penalty of increasing to 2. Ocean Thermal Solar Water Heat. Wind. 3% by 2003. small hydropower. biomass. Anaerobic Digestion. biomass. Unspecified. Geothermal Electric. CHP/Cogeneration. Electricity must be delivered to NY. Source: Table updated by NREL. Coal Gasification. market value other than wind of renewable energy credits.

3 Estimated Renewable Energy Capacity Satisfying RPS Requirements Through 2003 (Megawatts.eia. Minnesota Nationwide the RPS requirements for renewable energy are estimated to total 2. solar.4%).335 MW of generating capacity. 2004. Biomass. March 2006. U. and biomass Solar Thermal Electric. followed by biomass (2. Table 3. Hydroelectric.3%).2 1. and other (0. Photovoltaics. "Other Such Alternative Sources of Environmentally Preferable Energy" Wind. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) 1% by 2005 increasing by at least 1%/year to 10% by 2015 Vermont Meet growth in electricity demand from 2005-2013 with renewable energy sources (becomes mandatory in 2013 if not met).3%).3% 1. The vast majority (93. Landfill Gas.3% 2. solar energy (0.3% 100. DOE Energy Information Administration. and Wisconsin.335 Share of Total 2. Biomass. Photovoltaics.html State Biomass Hydro Landfill Gas 97 .S. CHP/Cogeneration. State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals: Status Through 2003.3.0% Source: Petersick.2: State Renewable Energy Goals (Nonbinding) State Illinois Purchase Requirements 8% by 2013 (75% wind) Eligible Resources Solar Water Heat.3%).4% 93.3% 0. Solar Thermal Electric. Landfill Gas.140 0 1. Iowa. July http://www. Nameplate Capacity) Solar Wind Other/ Total Photovoltaic Unknown s Arizona 0 0 5 9 0 0 14 California 0 20 6 0 175 0 201 Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Massachusetts 0 0 8 0 1 0 9 Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin 0 0 3 0 94 0 97 Iowa 16 0 0 0 237 7 260 Minnesota 25 0 0 0 476 0 501 Texas 5 10 31 0. Source: NREL.3%). T. Wind.2 2.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/rps/index.5%) is wind power. Minnesota. The five largest states in terms of capacity are Texas.3. Hydroelectric.183 7 2.doe. California. hydro (<60 MW).Table 3.5% 0. hydropower (1. Wind.186 Wisconsin 7 0 0 0 50 0 57 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Illinois 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minnesota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Total 53 30 53 9. Anaerobic Digestion. landfill gas (2.

29. and MN goals would support an additional 5.000 5.000 10. New renewable energy supported: .000 MW by 2017** Hawaii California Nevada AZ & NM CO & MT Texas Minnesota IA & WI Maryland Pennsylvania DC & DE New Jersey New York CT & RI MA Maine Source: Union of Concerned Scientists.000 35.000 30.2: The Future Impact of State Purchase Mandates and Renewable Energy Funds 98 . **If achieved.3.40.300 MW by 2017.000 Megawatts 25.000 20. Figure 3.000 15.000 0 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 *Projected development assuming states achieve annual RES targets. IL. IA. November 2005.

4.3.4. In this way. with the provider purchasing the power at a rate much lower than the retail rate. Without net metering. IOUs only) Net metering offered by one or more individual utilities #s indicate system size limit (kW).1).4. Some states only require certain types of utilities to offer net metering.000 kW. a second meter is usually installed to measure the electricity that flows back to the provider.. in some cases limits are different for residential and commercial as shown Source: DSIRE database.g. Most states have some type of net metering policy (Figure 3.4 – States with Net Metering Policies Net metering allows customers with generating facilities to turn their electric meters backward when their systems are producing energy in excess of their on-site demand. exempting others.000 * 10 NH: 25 MA: 60 RI: 25 * * CT: 100 * * varies NJ: 2. January 2006 http://www.1: Net Metering Policies by State 99 .dsireusa.000* 10* 100 * 40 500 * 20 * 150 * 1.1) the policies vary significantly in terms of the maximum amount of capacity a consumer is permitted to net meter varies from 10 kW to 2. net metering enables customers to use their own generation to offset their consumption over a billing period.cfm?TopicCategoryID=6&CurrentPageID=10 Figure 3.000 no limit 40 * DE: 25 * 10 * MD: 80 * VA: 10 /500 15 20/100 DC: 100 30 10/400 VT: 15/150 100 100 50 25/100 10/100 25/100 * * 50 10 State-wide net metering for all utility types * State-wide net metering for certain utility types (e.org/library/includes/topic. This offset means that customers receive retail prices for the excess electricity they generate. 25 kW 25 25 50 kW 50 25/100 25* 100 kW * 25 2. Of the states that do have net metering policies (Table 3.

Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Colorado – Fort Collins Utilities 10 kW / Residential Credited at retail Yes rate to customer’s next bill. Hydro.) In addition.5% of a utility's peak demand (separate limit of 50 MW for SDG&E) Credited at retail Yes rate to customer's next bill. Biomass. Fuel Cells. Industrial. customer reimbursed for NEG at utility’s average hourly incremental cost for the prior 12month period Photovoltaics. Wind.000 or more customers Fort Collins Utilities 1 In California. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle All utilities 1 Solar. Residential Solar. Geothermal. Fuel Cells None Yes All utilities 0.4. granted to utility at end of Colorado utilities serving 40. all utilities – with the exception of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) -must offer net metering to customers with PV and wind-energy systems. investor-owned utilities must offer net metering to customers with fuel cells and biomass-energy systems. Residential 2 MW / Commercial. Anaerobic Digestion. at end of each calendar year. 25 customers Credited at retail Yes Wind rate to customer's next bill.00017/kWh Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill.1: Summary of State Net Metering Policies Program System Size Limit/ Limit on Eligible Customer Total Technologies Classes Capacity Eligible 10 kW / Photovoltaics None Residential Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) Purchased monthly by utility at average monthly market price minus a price adjustment of $0.Table 3. Microturbines Photovoltaics. (LADWP offers net metering voluntarily. Wind peak Electric Power Residential aggregate (Utility guidelines) Tucson Electric Power Arkansas California Colorado 25 kW for residential systems. Wind. 500 kW Tucson Commercial. Anaerobic Digestion. Wind. Biomass. Small Hydro. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle Granted to utility monthly Interconnection Standards for Net Metering (Utility guidelines) Utilities Involved Salt River Project Arizona – Salt River Project Arizona – 10 kW / Photovoltaics. Landfill None Gas. 100 . 100 kW for commercial systems 1 MW (three biogas digesters up to 10 MW per unit may net meter) / Commercial. Landfill Gas. Industrial.

customer's next Residential bill Georgia 100 kW for Photovoltaics. Hydro. None Wind Credited at retail Yes (under rate to development) customer's next bill (Utility guidelines) All utilities JEA (Utility guidelines) New Smyrna Beach Utilities All utilities Yes 101 . Wind utility at Residential wholesale rate None / Commercial. rate to Beach Utilities Industrial. Industrial. purchased by utility at wholesale rate at end of 12month billing cycle Purchased by Yes utility at spotmarket energy rate Gunnison County Electric Holy Cross Energy Connecticut 100 kW for renewables. Landfill None Gas.Program System Size Limit/ Eligible Customer Technologies Classes Eligible Limit on Total Capacity Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) Interconnection Standards for Net Metering Utilities Involved Colorado – Gunnison County Electric Colorado – Holy Cross Energy 12-month billing cycle 10 kW / Photovoltaics. Industrial. Municipal Solid Waste.2% of a Credited at retail commercial Wind. Fuel Cells. Microturbines. Tidal Energy. Fuel Cells annual peak customer's next 10 kW for demand bill. Residential 10 kW / Residential Florida – JEA Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill Florida – 10 kW / Photovoltaics None Credited at retail New Smyrna Commercial. Fuel Cells. Ocean Thermal 25 kW / Solar. Wind. 12-month billing Renewables None (unspecified). 50 customers Purchased by Yes Commercial. Geothermal Credited at retail Yes rate to customer's next bill. Geothermal Investorowned utilities only Varies by utility Yes All utilities (applies to municipal utilities if they opt to compete outside their limits) District of Columbia 100 kW / Commercial. 50 kW for fossil fuels / Residential. Biomass. Wave Energy. Residential Photovoltaics. Biomass. Biomass. Wind. 25 kW Wind. granted to residential utility at end of systems. utility’s rate to systems. Residential Hydro. None Commercial. CHP Photovoltaics. Commercial Delaware Solar. 0. Small Hydro.

Government Photovoltaics. purchased at 85% of Dow Jones index price for nonfirm energy for large commercial and agricultural customers Purchased monthly by utility at retail rate for residential and small commercial customers.1% of Wind utility’s annual peak demand (Utility guidelines) ComEd 102 . purchased at 85% of Dow Jones index price for nonfirm energy for large commercial and agricultural customers Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill.52 MW (0. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle Purchased monthly by utility at retail rate for residential and small commercial customers.9 MW (0. Agricultural Solar. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle Purchased monthly by utility at avoided-cost rate.5% of a utility's annual peak demand Yes All utilities Idaho – Idaho Power 100 kW for large commercial and agricultural. Wind. Biomass.1% of utility’s Idaho retail peak demand in 2002) (Utility guidelines) Utah Power & Light Idaho – 25 kW / Avista Utilities Commercial. Wind.Program System Size Limit/ Eligible Customer Technologies Classes Eligible 50 kW / Commercial. customer receives an annual incentive payment for production Interconnection Standards for Net Metering Utilities Involved Hawaii 0. Wind. Hydro Limit on Total Capacity Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) cycle Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill. Hydro.1% of utility’s 2000 peak demand) (Utility guidelines) Idaho Power Idaho – 100 kW for Solar.1% of utility's 1996 peak demand) (Utility guidelines) Avista Utilities Illinois – ComEd Wind and PV Generation Program 40 kW / All retail customers Photovoltaics. Biomass. Residential. Biomass. Residential. Hydro. Utah Power & large Biomass. Fuel Cells 1. Light commercial Hydro and irrigation. Wind. 0. 25 kW for residential and small commercial Photovoltaics. Fuel Cells 2. 25 kW for residential and small commercial 714 kW (0.

previous year Institutional. bill indefinitely systems. 25 Geothermal. Biomass.1% of a Credit at retail Yes Commercial. 1998) Schools. Hydro. bill Municipal Solid Waste Kentucky 15 kW Photovoltaics 0. customer's next Residential Geothermal. Biomass. utility at end of Municipal 12-month billing Solid Waste. None Credited at retail No Commercial. Hydro. customer's next Residential Hydro. cooperatives All utilities All utilities All utilities All utilities Various utilities (voluntary participation) 103 . Municipal (whichever is utility at end of Schools. Microturbines Maine 100 kW / Solar. during the (no expiration) Agricultural. utility’s most rate to Small Hydro recent peak customer's next summer load bill Iowa 500 kW / Photovoltaics. kW bill.1% of a Credited at retail Yes Wind. granted to Fuel Cells. Schools Eligible Technologies Limit on Total Capacity Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) Interconnection Standards for Net Metering Utilities Involved Investorowned utilities Investorowned utilities Investorowned utilities. rate to and Biomass. Wind. None Credited at retail No Commercial. single-hour customer's next Nonprofit. Biomass. load or 100 customer's next Residential.2% of determined by MD PSC Biomass state's MD Public permission) / adjusted Service Commercial. cycle CHP. None Credited at Yes Commercial. rate to Industrial. Solid Waste greater) 12-month billing System Size Limit/ Customer Classes Eligible 10 kW / Residential. (0. CHP. customer's next agricultural Hydro. 34. 0. peak load in Commission Residential. utility's peak rate to Industrial. utility’s rate to Residential. kW for Fuel Cells residential (Renewable systems Fuels). granted to Nonprofit. rate to Industrial. bill. Cells market rate to Residential customer’s next bill Michigan 30 kW / Solar. Wind.Program Indiana Photovoltaics. Fuel average monthly Industrial. peak load bill Schools. Government Massachusetts 60 kW / Renewables. Tidal Energy Maryland 200 kW (500 Photovoltaics. 0. Government Louisiana 100 kW for Photovoltaics.1% of a Credited at retail Yes Commercial. Geothermal.7 MW To be Yes kW with Wind. Wind. None Credited at retail Yes commercial Wind.

customer's next Industrial. utility’s peak rate to Industrial. customer's next Geothermal. cooperatives 2 In Nevada. Wind. Wave 12-month billing Energy cycle 10 kW / Solar. by utility at Fuel Cells.Program Minnesota System Size Limit/ Customer Classes Eligible Government. Yes Investorowned utilities Yes Most of MEC’s 26 member cooperatives Yes Investorowned utilities Yes All utilities Yes All utilities Yes Investorowned utilities. Hydro utility's peak rate to Industrial. bill. capacity customer’s next Residential Geothermal bill. Institutional 40 kW / Commercial. Residential Purchased at average retail utility energy rate Yes All utilities Montana – Montana Electric Cooperatives Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill. Wind. Wind. bill or purchased Residential Geothermal. None Credited at retail Commercial. Biomass. None Wind. customer's next Fuel Cells. Municipal Solid Waste. None Commercial. Biomass. 0. purchased Fuel Cells by utility at (Renewable avoided-cost Fuels). avoided-cost Municipal rate Solid Waste. Hydro. None Credited to Commercial. Biomass. 3 no expiration 25 kW / Photovoltaics. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle 10 kW / Photovoltaics. 104 . rate to Residential Geothermal. Wind. 3 In Nevada. Hydro. Industrial. it is unclear how NEG is treated for systems of more than 30 kW in capacity. 1% of a Credited at retail Commercial. Residential Eligible Technologies Limit on Total Capacity Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) cycle Interconnection Standards for Net Metering Utilities Involved Montana Photovoltaics. bill. Tidal rate at end of Energy. None Credited at retail Commercial. Biomass. demand customer's next Residential bill 2 MW / Solar. Wind. granted to Small Hydro utility at end of 12-month billing cycle 2 150 kW / Solar. utilities are permitted to require customers with systems of more than 30 kW in capacity to install a second meter at the customer’s expense.05% of a Credited at retail Commercial. Wind. CHP 50 kW / Photovoltaics. rate to Residential Hydro. Agricultural. Hydro. Hydro Industrial.

25 kW biogas: 0. Wind. wind: 0.1% farm waste. credited to (whichever is Geothermal. avoided-cost Industrial. Wind. CHP Ohio 100 kW for Solar. None Purchased by No Commercial.Biomass Carolina customer's next residential retail peak monthly bill.000 Biomass. 1% of a Credited at Yes microturbines. Biomass. Residential Ohio – 25 kW / Photovoltaics. All NEG purchased by utility at avoidedcost rate at end of 12-month billing cycle.5% of a Credited at retail Yes Commercial. Wind. utility guidelines) Green Residential Fuel Cells Municipal Utilities Oklahoma 100 kW or Solar. North Carolina 20 kW Photovoltaics.2% of a Credited at retail Yes residential.4% for residential of a utility’s wind. utility’s peak utility’s no limit for Hydro. next monthly bill Industrial. monthly or kWh/year Hydro. 10 kW demand in for solar 1996. 0. farm wind. generation rate / Microturbines to customer’s Commercial. Fuel utility's rate to System Size Limit/ Limit on Eligible Customer Total Technologies Capacity Classes Eligible CHP. load for the granted to utility previous year every June 1 and October 1 North Dakota 100 kW / Solar. utility at avoidedIndustrial. 0. Solar: 0.2% of a utility’s 2003 demand Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) Interconnection Standards for Net Metering Utilities Involved All utilities Investorowned utilities Investorowned utilities All competitive utilities Bowling Green Municipal Utilities All utilities All utilities 105 . cost rate Residential Geothermal. Biomass. None Negotiated with (Utility Bowling Commercial. None Granted to utility No 25. Hydro. which is credited to customer’s next bill at the utility’s avoided-cost rate.Program New York Credited to Yes customer's next bill – except NEG from wind systems over 10 kW. customer's next less) / Municipal bill at utility’s Commercial. demand unbundledother systems Fuel Cells. CHP rate (varies by Residential utility) Oregon 25 kW / Solar. Hydro. utility’s North rate to 100 kW non. Municipal Solid Waste. Wind. Biomass. Microturbines 400 kW for Photovoltaics. Hydro. of a utility’s 125 kW for Wind demand in farm-based 1996. Solid Waste. Wind. Wind.

Industrial. Hydro. Hydro. Residential Texas – San Antonio City Public Service 25 kW / Commercial. CHP Solar. Microturbines Photovoltaics. Wind. Industrial. Wind. Biomass. Industrial. Industrial. Fuel Cells. 1% of a Credited at retail Yes farm systems.Program System Size Limit/ Limit on Eligible Customer Total Technologies Capacity Classes Eligible Industrial. Residential Vermont 0. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle 150 kW for Photovoltaics. Hydro Varies by utility customer's next bill or purchased by utility at avoided-cost rate Purchased by (Utility utility monthly at guidelines) retail rate (1.1% of a Credited at retail Yes utility's 2001 rate to peak demand customer's next bill. Geothermal. Biomass. Biomass. Tidal Energy. Wind Residential Pennsylvania (new rules under development) Rhode Island Varies by utility / Commercial. Tidal Energy. Cells historic Residential single-hour peak load Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) Interconnection Standards for Net Metering Utilities Involved Oregon – Ashland Electric None / Photovoltaics. Biomass. Wind. None Commercial. Municipal Solid Waste. Fuel peak demand customer's next Solar. Fuel Cells 1 MW Credited at retail No (Narragansett rate to territory) customer's next bill. Residential 25 kW / Commercial. cooperatives All utilities 106 . Municipal Solid Waste Solar. Wave Energy. Wind. Wind. Residential Texas – 20 kW / Austin Energy Commercial. Residential Solar. utility’s 1996 rate to 15 kW for Biomass. Geothermal. Residential Utah 25 kW / Commercial. Biomass. Geothermal. Wind. Wind. Hydro. Hydro. Hydro. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle None Purchased by Yes utility monthly at avoided-cost rate Narragansett Electric Most nonmunicipal utilities and noncooperatives None Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill at utility's seasonal avoided-cost rate 1% of utility’s Credited to load customer's next bill (Utility guidelines) San Antonio City Public Service (Utility guidelines) Austin Energy Investorowned utilities. Geothermal. Wave Energy Solar. Fuel Cells.000 kWh/month maximum) Varies by utility Varies by utility (granted to utility in most cases) Ashland Electric All utilities Texas 50 kW / Commercial.

1% of a nonHydro utility’s residential. Biomass. Additional information. March 2006. Biomass. Nonprofit. Geothermal. Municipal Solid Waste. Wind.irecusa. Fuel Cells Wyoming Solar. annual peak 10 kW for demand residential / Commercial. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle All utilities Washington – 25 kW / Grays Harbor Commercial.org. Fuel Cells peak load Residential Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) bill. Government. Solar Center (NCSC). Hydro. Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE). Institutional 25 kW / Solar. Wind. Schools. Industrial.1% of a Commercial. Industrial. purchased by utility at avoided-cost rate at end of 12-month billing cycle Yes All utilities Yes Grays Harbor PUD Yes Investorowned utilities Yes All utilities Sources: The Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) and the N. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle 0. recent Residential. "Connecting to the Grid" Project Web site.C. 107 . Residential Wisconsin 20 kW / Commercial. including most legislative and regulatory source citations. Wind. CHP 25 kW / Solar. Hydro Residential Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill. http://www. is available via DSIRE. PUD Industrial. Commercial.1% of Purchased by utility’s 1996 utility annually at peak load 50% of retail rate None Purchased by utility at retail rate (renewables) or avoided-cost rate (nonrenewables) None Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill. utility’s 1996 Industrial. Hydro. Residential. Wind.Program Virginia Washington System Size Limit/ Limit on Eligible Customer Total Technologies Capacity Classes Eligible commercial Cells or peak and demand residential / during most Commercial. 0. calendar year Agricultural (whichever is less) 500 kW for Solar. 0.org/connect. http://www. Residential Solar.dsireusa. Hydro. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle Interconnection Standards for Net Metering Utilities Involved Credited at retail Yes rate to customer's next bill. Wind.

25 states and the District of Columbia have environmental disclosure policies in place (Figure 3.3. For green power marketers.org/index. retail consumers are increasingly gaining the ability to choose their electricity suppliers.5 – States with Environmental Disclosure Policies As electricity markets open to competition. in particular.1: Environmental Disclosure Requirements by State 108 .dsireusa. a handful of states with no plans to implement restructuring have required environmental disclosure. it is important that consumers understand the environmental implications of their energy consumption decisions. in some cases. http://www. With this choice comes the need for consumers to have access to information about the price. January 2006.5. D.C. To date.cfm?&CurrentPageID=10 Figure 3. State has a Disclosure Rule Source: DSIRE database.1). and environmental characteristics of their electricity. emissions associated with electricity generation. requiring electricity suppliers to provide information on fuel sources and.5. source. Although most of these policies have been adopted in states with retail competition.

And business and other nonresidential customers. while others are phasing in competition. Customers At the end of 2004. more than 500. although the top performing utility green pricing programs have achieved rates ranging from 4% to 15%. and government entities are increasingly interested in green power. In aggregate.1). More than 600 utilities in 34 states offer green pricing. While REC customers represent a small fraction of the total customer base. Competitive markets have experienced penetration rates of from 1% to 2% in states where the market has been conducive to retail competition. utility green pricing programs have shown steady growth in customers over time as the number of utility programs has increased and as existing programs have grown. including colleges and universities. competitive markets have been less consistent. from green power marketers in a competitive market setting.” These certificates represent the environmental attributes of renewable energy generation and can be sold to customers in either type of market. retail electricity customers can choose from among multiple electricity suppliers.6 – Green Power Markets There are three distinct markets for green power in the United States. In regulated markets. or are in the process of preparing programs. These utilities include investor-owned utilities. other markets have failed altogether—most notably in California and Connecticut. While green power sales have grown in Texas and some Northeast states.” which is an optional service or tariff offered to customers. some of which may offer green power. Average participation rates among utility green pricing programs have remained steady at just more than 1%.6. a single utility may provide a green power option to its customers through “green pricing. On the other hand. Finally.3. whether or not they already have access to a green power product from their existing retail power provider. REC sales have increased dramatically because of a number of very large purchases. and other publicly owned utilities.000 electricity customers nationally were purchasing green power products through regulated utility companies. 109 . Electricity markets are now open to full competition in a number of states. rural electric cooperatives. In restructured (or competitive) electricity markets. consumers can purchase green power through “renewable energy certificates. Utility market research shows that majorities of customer respondents are likely to state that they would pay at least $5 more per month for renewable energy. or in the form of RECs (Table 3.

110 . respectively. increasing more than 60% to 6.1: Estimated Green Power Customers by Market Segment 2000 Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets REC Markets Retail Total 130.000 * Annual program participant numbers have been adjusted downward from those originally reported in Bird and Swezey (2003).000 < 10. Since 2000.000 >150.210 Increase 43% 40% 162% 62% *Includes sales of new and existing renewable energy.000 ~430. At the end of 2004.Table 3.000* >110.000* ~150.000 ~520.6.000 2001 170.720 6.000 ~390.900 660 3. while sales through utility green pricing programs and competitive marketers also exhibited strong annual growth of about 40%.000 >180.2: Estimated Green Power Sales by Market Segment (million kWh) 2003 Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets REC Markets Retail Total 1. REC sales nearly tripled. the amount of renewable energy capacity serving green power markets has increased more than tenfold. and nearly all REC sales. This includes sales of renewable energy derived from both new and preexisting renewable energy sources.000 < 10. Table 3.000 2003 270. nonresidential customers accounted for 30% and 20% of total renewable energy sales in green pricing programs and competitive markets. ** Includes only customers purchasing Green-e certified green power products. as reported by the Center for Resource Solutions (2001. more than 2. Sales Retail sales of renewable energy in voluntary purchase markets experienced strong growth in 2004.280 1. In 2004.000 2004 330.000 < 10. because of program participation revisions made by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.000 2002 230.840 2004 1.840 2.200 MW of new renewable energy generation capacity was being used to supply green power markets.2 billion kWh annually.6.000** ->280. Purchases by residential customers represent slightly more than half of total renewable energy sales in voluntary markets. 2002).650 1. with another 450 MW planned.000** ->290.000* >160.

6. 2000 77 90 167 2001 221 542 764 2002 279 695 974 2003 510 1.1 58.S.6 91.5 0.0 100.eere.6 6. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.140 510 2.6 364.9 Total 2.6.0 0.1 0.233 Table 3. September 2005.0 Source: L.1 Biomass 135.4 0. Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving U.1 Geothermal 35.Bird and B.4 0.3 100.528 2.650 REC Markets 40 1. Green Power Markets (2004).5 1.740 6.shtml 111 . 2004 Source MW in Place % MW Planned % Wind 2.5 80.0 Small Hydro 8. http://www.0 455.126 1. Swezey.300 540 1.9 Solar 8.4: Estimated New Renewables Capacity Supplying Green Power Markets.045.6.Table 3.690 1.840 Competitive Markets 2.210 Share 56% 44% 100% Totals may not add due to rounding. Source: Bird and Swezey (2005).6 0. Table 3.5: New Renewables Capacity Supplying Green Power Markets.480 2.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/new_gp_cap.233. 2000-2004 (megawatts) Market Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets/RECs Total Totals may not add due to rounding.3 6. 2004 (million kWh) Green Pricing Residential Nonresidential Total 1.8 12.3: Estimated Green Power Sales by Customer Segment.720 Total 3.4 31.636 2004 706 1.energy.

7 – States with Utility Green Pricing Programs Green pricing is an optional utility service that allows customers an opportunity to support a greater level of utility company investment in renewable energy technologies. Many utilities are offering green pricing to build customer loyalty and expand business lines and expertise prior to electric market competition. Updated May 2005. Participating customers pay a premium on their electric bill to cover the extra cost of the renewable energy. Swezey.energy. http://www.7.7. and cooperative utilities in 34 states have either implemented or announced plans to offer a green pricing option (Figure 3. municipal.gov/greenpower/markets/pricing. Source: L.1: Number of Utilities Offering Green Pricing Programs by State 112 .eere. To date. Bird and B. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. more than 600 investor-owned.shtml?page=4 Figure 3.1).3.

400 35% 1. and the utility has not attempted to expand it.3% 2002 1.1% 0.8% 0.900 228.2 0.800 25% 2.7% 228.7 100.500 3.0%–7.0% Source: Bird and Brown (2005) Table 3.0 76.Table 3.3% 3.7 61.2% 2001 1.0% Top 10 programs 3.7.9% 4.8% 0.8% 0.1 30.100 331.7. because the utility with the highest participation rate (Moorhead Public Service) experienced an increase in its overall customer base.0% 31.8% 3.500 168.000 1.700 132.5 8. Source: Bird and Brown (2005) Table 3.0% Planned 139.2: Estimated Cumulative Number of Customers Participating in Utility Green Pricing Programs Customer Segment Residential Nonresidential Total % Annual Growth % Nonresidential 1999 na* na* 66.7% 2003 258.5 Installed 82.2% 2003 1.900 na na 2000 131.8% 10.1: New Renewable Energy Capacity Supplying Green Pricing Programs in 2004 (megawatts) Source Wind Biomass Solar Geothermal Small Hydro Total 584.5 705.3% Median 0.5% *Information on residential and nonresidential participants is not available for 1999. The program was fully subscribed in 2000.700 6.3 6.7. while the number of participants in its green pricing program remained steady.700 98% 1.3% 2001 166.8%– 2.1%–4.2% 100.800 27% 1.500 265.7%# 2.4% 2004 323.1% for 4. #Data for April 2000 source: Bird and Brown (2005) 113 .3% 1.9%–1.000 16% 2.0 0.0%–5.9% 2000 1.2% 2004 1.3: Customer Participation Rates in Utility Green Pricing Programs by Year 1999 Average 0.700 8.5% participation * *The high end of the range declined from 2000 to 2002.5 25.7% 0.300 2.1% 0.1% 57.0% 3.3 13.6%–7.7% 0.9% 1.5% 2002 224.

2 1.1 410.5 26% 30% 2002 661.5 0.7–17.50 (0.0 2000 3.5: Price Premiums Charged for Utility Green Pricing Products (¢/kWh) 1999 Average Median Range 2.295. In 2001.284.2 43% 30% *Sales information for customer segments not available for 2000.6 2004 2.3 233.6–1.6–17. Source: Bird and Brown (2005) 114 .5 1.33– 1.8 572.3 Premiums* Number of Programs 24 50 60 80 91 101 Represented *Represents the 10 utility programs with the lowest price premiums for new customer-driven renewable energy. This includes only programs that have installed – or announced firm plans to install or purchase power from – new renewable energy sources.839.4: Annual Sales of Green Energy through Utility Green Pricing Programs (million kWh) 2000 Residential customers Nonresidential customers Total All customers % Annual Growth % Nonresidential Customers ------453.48 2.6 2003 2.7 2001 399.Table 3.50 0. Source: Bird and Brown (2005) Table 3.5** (0.0 56% 26% 2003 874.5 0.0 10 Programs with Lowest 0.7–1.7 172.0–1.9–17.33– 17. because it was either selling existing renewables or had not installed any new renewable capacity for its program. **Data for April 2000.00 0.4 44% 32% 2004 1.7.0 544.15 2.62 2.6 2002 2.6 0.50 0.45 2.93 2.82 2.3 1.0 2001 2.4–5.00 0.9¢/kWh) was not eligible for the Top 10.5)–2.7.00 0.7 895.5)–20.4–2. the discrepancy between the low end of the range for all programs and the Top 10 programs was because the program with the lowest premium (0.

0¢/kWh AZ AZ CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CO CO CO CO Tucson Electric UniSource Energy Services Anaheim Public Utilities Anaheim Public Utilities Burbank Water and Power Los Angeles Department of Water and Power PacifiCorp: Pacific Power Palo Alto Utilities/3 Phases Energy Services Pasadena Water & Power Roseville Electric GreenWatts central PV. October 2005 State Utility Name AK Golden Valley Electric Association AL AL Alabama Power Company Program Name Sustainable Natural Alternative Power (SNAP) Renewable Energy Rate AZ AZ TVA: City of Athens Electric Green Power Switch Department. Hartselle Utilities. Fort Collins Utilities.0¢/kWh 2.6¢/kWh 3.0¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh 3. Longmont Power & Communications. Sheffield Utilities. PV wind Sacramento Municipal Utility District Greenergy Silicon Valley Power / 3 Phases Energy Services Colorado Springs Utilities Holy Cross Energy Holy Cross Energy Platte River Power Authority: Estes Park. geothermal landfill gas.95¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 2. landfill gas Blue Sky Block wind Palo Alto Green Green Power RE Green Energy wind.Table 3. Loveland Water & Light Santa Clara Green Power Green Power Wind Power Pioneers Local Renewable Energy Pool Wind Energy Premium geothermal. Huntsville. PV.5¢/kWh 1. small hydro. Cullman Power Board.3¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh 3. Muscle Shoals Electric Board.0¢/kWh 1. PV 2004 wind wind small hydro.5¢/kWh GreenWatts PV Green Power for the Schools PV Green Power for the Grid wind. 1998/ wind.0¢/kWh or $6/month 1. landfill gas Clean Green Support various Green Power for a Green LA wind.7. Florence Utilities. PV 2000 2004 2002 2002 2001 1999 2000 2003 2003 10¢/kWh 10¢/kWh Contribution 1. landfill 2001 gas.5¢/kWh 1. wind Start Date Premium 2005 Contribution 2003 2000 6. hydro. landfill 1997 gas. Joe Wheeler EMC.5¢/kWh 3.5¢/kWh 2. PV wind 1999 1998 2002 1999 115 . Decator Utilities. Tuscumbia Electric Department Arizona Public Service APS Solar Partners Program central PV Salt River Project EarthWise Energy Type various local projects biomass cofiring landfill gas.6: Utility Green Pricing Programs by State. PV wind.67¢/kWh 1997 17. Scottsboro Electric Power Board. 2000 PV wind. Cullman Electric Coop.

Jefferson Energy. Sangre. Chimney Rock.60¢/kWh 5.0¢/kWh3. White River (18 of 44 coops offer program) CO Xcel Energy Renewable Energy Trust PV CO CO FL FL FL FL FL FL FL Xcel Energy Yampa Valley Electric Association City of Tallahassee/Sterling Planet City of Tallahassee/Sterling Planet Florida Power & Light / Green Mountain Energy Gainesville Regional Utilities Keys Energy Services / Sterling Planet Keys Energy Services / Sterling Planet Tampa Electric Company (TECO) WindSource Wind Energy Program Green for You Green for You Sunshine Energy wind wind biomass. wind 2005 2000 5. New Mexico. Coastal Electric. Flint Energies. biomass co-firing local PV projects landfill gas 1999 2001 FL GA GA GA Utilities Commission City of New Green Fund Smyrna Beach Georgia Electric Membership Green Power EMC Corporation (16 of 42 coops offer program): Carroll EMC. Springer Electric. San Miguel Power. Public Power District. Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association. Ocmulgee EMC. United Power. Service Gunnison County Electric. Snapping Shoals EMC.6¢/kWh 0.5¢/ kWh 2.5¢/kWh 1993 1997 1999 2002 Contribution 0.67¢/ kWh HI ID ID ID Sun Power for Schools Buck-A-Block Green Power Program Blue Sky PV in schools 1997 wind various wind 2002 2001 2003 Contribution 0. PV GO GREEN: Florida Ever solar hot water. GreyStone Power. PV. La Plata Electric. Habersham EMC. wind. landfill 2000 Energy Program gas. PV Start Date Premium 1998 2.3¢/kWh landfill gas landfill gas. Coweta-Fayette EMC. Tri-County EMC. San Isabel Electric. Irwin EMC.0¢/kWh PV only 2002 biomass. Mountain View Electric. San Luis Valley Rural Electric Coop. 2003 wind.Program State Utility Name Type Name CO Tri-State Generation & Transmission: Renewable Resource Power wind. Lamar EMC. Walton EMC of Monroe Georgia Power Green Energy TVA: Blue Ridge Mountain Electric Membership Corporation.PV Tampa Electric's Renewable PV. hydro Carbon Power. North Georgia Electric Membership Corporation Hawaiian Electric Avista Utilities Idaho Power PacifiCorp: Utah Power Green Power Switch Contribution 2. 2004 biomass. Northwest Rural.0¢/kWh 2.95¢/kWh 116 . 2004 Green PV. biomass GO GREEN: USA Green wind. Sawnee EMC. Kit Carson Electric.6¢/kWh 11. 2004 PV GRUgreen Energy landfill gas.97¢/kWh 3. Jackson EMC.75¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 1. Mountain Parks Electric.975¢/kWh 2.33¢/kWh Contribution 1. Cobb EMC.

5¢/kWh Contribution 1. PV wind. Sac County REC Dairyland Power Cooperative: Evergreen Renewable Allamakee-Clayton/Postville. Inc (8 of 11 coops offer program): Adams Electric Co-op. Eastern Illini Electric.State Utility Name ID Vigilante Electric Cooperative IL IL IL IL IN IN IN IN CCS/Soyland and Community Energy. small hydro.5¢/kWh 2. Ansgar Farmers Electric Cooperative Green Power Project Program Name Alternative Renewable Energy Program EcoEnergy Type wind. Northwest Rural Electric Cooperative. Tipmont REMC. White County REMC. Grundy County REC.9¢/kWh1. Nishnabotna Valley Cooperative. Northeastern REMC Alliant Energy Second Nature Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Prairie Winds Lyon Rural. Charles/ComEd and TBD Community Energy Dairyland Power Cooperative: JoEvergreen Renewable Carroll Energy/Elizabeth Energy Program Hoosier Energy (5 of 17 coops offer EnviroWatts program): Southeastern Indiana REMC. Kankakee Valley REMC. Shelby Electric. wind wind 2001 2000 2. Humboldt County REC. wind 2004 Contribution 117 . Coles-Moultrie Electric. Menard.0¢/kWh IA IA landfill gas.0¢/kWh2. PV.5¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh IA IA wind wind 2000 2003 2. Daviess-Martin County REMC Indianapolis Power & Light Elect Plan Green Power Program PSI Energy/Cinergy Green Power Rider Wabash Valley Power Association (7 EnviroWatts of 27 coops offer program): Boone REMC. Spoon River Electric Co-op City of Naperville / Community Renewable Energy Option Energy City of St. Decatur County REMC. Miami-Cass REMC. PV.0¢/kWh geothermal wind. Rural Electric Convenience Co-op.0¢/kWh IA biodiesel.1¢/kWh 2005 3.0¢/kWh 1. digester gas landfill gas 1998 2001 2000 0.0¢/kWh wind. Energy Program Hawkeye Tri-County/Cresco. hydro wind Start Date Premium 2003 1. Harrison County. Franklin REC.0¢/kWh4. landfill gas. Heartland Power/Thompson & St. McDonough Power.9¢/kWh Contribution 0. South Central Indiana REMC. Hendricks Power Cooperative. landfill gas wind landfill gas 2005 2003 1997 2001 2. Utilities District of Western Indiana REMC.5¢/kWh IA wind 1997 3. Western Iowa Cedar Falls Utilities Harvest the Wind Corn Belt Power Cooperatives (5 of Energy Wise Renewables 11 co-ops): Butler County REC.

Livermore. Nolin.0¢/kWh 2. Pocahontas. Pella. Manilla. Corwith. Fontanelle. Ellsworth. Coggon. Marathon. Preston. Grayson. Osage. landfill 2004 gas and animal waste methane 118 . Auburn. Franklin Electric Plant Board MA Concord Municipal Light Plant Green Power (CMLP) MI Consumers Energy Green Generation MI MI MI Lansing Board of Water and Light Traverse City Light and Power Upper Peninsula Power Company GreenWise Electric Power Green Rate NatureWise Start Date Type Premium wind. Callender. La Porte City. Hudson.0¢/kWh 1. Jackson. Sanborn. Remsen. Hopkinton. Denison. Durant. Alta Vista. Orange City. Maquoketa. Farnhamville. McGregor. Shelby. Hartley. Lake Mills. 2001 small hydro wind 1996 wind. Earlville.67¢/kWh 3. Milford. Primghar. Bellevue. West Bend.0¢/kWh 1. Villisca. Corning. State Center. Coon Rapids.0¢/kWh2. Readlyn. Lake View.75¢/kWh landfill gas. 2003 Varies by PV utility wind wind 2004 2003 Contribution 1. Fontanelle. Shelby. Algona. Rock Rapids. Sabula. Breda. Whittemore. Stuart. Estherville. Hawarden. Sibley. Danville. Dayton. Fairbank. Vinton. Montezuma. Independence. Westfield.5¢/kWh 4.67¢/kWh 3. Rockford. Panora. Kimballton. landfill 2005 gas landfill gas. Atlantic. Owen Electric. Keosauqua. South Kentucky KY TVA: Bowling Green Municipal Green Power Switch Utilities. Greenfield. Gowrie. Fleming. New Hampton. Aplington. Brooklyn. Webster City. Cumberland. wind hydro 2000 2004 2. Winterset IA MidAmerican Energy Renewable Advantage IA Missouri River Energy Services RiverWinds (MRES): Alton. PV. Burt. Grand Junction.Program State Utility Name Name IA Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities Green City Energy (80 of 137 participating) Afton. Stratford. Wilton. Sergeant Bluff. Orient. Cascade. Grundy Center. Lake Park. Bancroft. Clark. Buffalo. Guttenberg. Mason. Stanhope. Laurens. Dysart. West Point. Spencer. Neola. Forest City. Bloomfield. Sioux Center. Eldridge. biomass.0¢/kWh wind. Inter-county Energy. Salt River.5¢/kWh PV wind wind landfill gas 2004 2003 2001 2002 Contribution Contribution 2. Paullina. Strawberry Point. Woodbine IA Muscatine Power and Water Solar Muscatine IA Waverly Light & Power Green Power Choice IA Waverly Light & Power Iowa Energy Tags KY East Kentucky Power Cooperative: EnviroWatts Blue Grass Energy. Mount Pleasant. Ogden. Lenox. Tipton. Grafton. Carlisle. West Liberty. Licking.

Redwood Electric Cooperative. Red Lake. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power.5¢/kWh wind wind 1998 2002 1. PKM. Staples. Steele-Waseca. Sioux Valley Southwestern Central Minnesota Municipal Power Green Energy Program Agency Dairyland Power Cooperative: Evergreen Renewable Freeborn-Mower Cooperative / Albert Energy Program Lea. Clearwater Polk. Sauk Centre. Todd-Wadena . Red River. Moorhead. Minnesota Valley. Crow Wing Power. Arrowhead. wind wind wind. Lake Park. Itasca Mantrap Cooperative. Elbow Lake. Energy Program BENCO Electric.5¢/kWh 1. Mille Lacs Electric Cooperative. Wadena. Thief River Falls Missouri River Energy Services (39 RiverWinds of 55 munis offer program): Adrian. Lakefield.5¢/kWh2. Wild Rice. Benson.0¢/kWh2. Westbrook. landfill gas wind Start Date Premium 2000 2. Madison. Alexandria. Goodhue County. Lake Country Power. James.0¢/kWh 2002 2002 n/a 1997 2. Brown County Rural Electric. Stearns Electric.5¢/kWh wind 1998 1. Breckenridge. Jackson. hydro landfill gas. Detroit Lakes. Luverne. McLeod Cooperative Power. Connexus Energy. Henning. Barnesville. East Central Electric Association. North Star. Ortonville. South Central Electric Association .6¢/kWh 119 .5¢/kWh wind 2002 1. Worthington Moorhead Public Service Capture the Wind Otter Tail Power Company TailWinds Type wind. St.0¢/kWh 1. landfill gas. Tri-County / Rushford Great River Energy (all 28 coops Wellspring Renewable Wind offer program): Agralite. Federated Rural Electric.State Utility Name MI We Energies MN MN MN MN Alliant Energy Program Name Energy for Tomorrow Second Nature MN MN MN MN MN MN Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Prairie Winds Minnesota Valley Electric Coop.0¢/kWh wind wind 2002 1999 2.0¢/kWh2.45¢/kWh2. Co-op Light & Power. Nobles Cooperative Electric.5¢/kWh 2. North Itasca. Runestone Electric. Kandiyohi Power Cooperative. Dakota Electric Association. People's / Rochester. Roseau.5¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh 1. Lake Region Electric Cooperative. Wright-Hennepin Electric Minnesota Power WindSense Minnkota Power Cooperative: Infinity Wind Energy Beltrami.

Preston Public Utilities. Austin Utilities.0¢/kWh 1. wind Renewable Resource Power wind. Starkville Electric System MO Boone Electric Cooperative Renewable Choice MO City Utilities of Springfield WindCurrent MT Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Prairie Winds Lower Yellowstone MT Northwestern Energy E+ Green MT Park Electric Cooperative Green Power Program MT Southern Montana Electric Environmentally Preferred Generation and Transmission Power Cooperative (5 co-ops): Fergus Electric.0¢/kWh2. Rochester Public Utilities.19¢/kWh 1.3¢/kWh 3. New Prague Utilities Commission.5¢/kWh 3. PV. hydro 2003 2000 2.0¢/kWh wind landfill gas. landfill Service gas WindSource wind NC GreenPower NC GreenPower biomass. wind.0¢/kWh landfill gas. Spring Valley Utilities. Litchfield Public Utilities. Mora Municipal Utilities.0¢/kWh 4. Princeton Public Utilities. wind wind wind wind wind.67¢/kWh 2003 2000 2000 2003 2002 2002 2.05¢/kWh wind. Owatonna Public Utilities. hydro wind. PV wind. Peter Municipal Utilities. Blooming Prairie Public Utilities. Yellowstone Valley. North Branch Water and Light. Mid Yellowstone. Redwood Falls Public Utilities. Bear Tooth Electric. PV wind 2003 1998 2002 2001 2003 2005 2003 2001 1999 1.0¢/kWh 2.8¢/kWh 2. North East Green Power Switch Mississippi Electric Power Asssociation.0¢/kWh 2. wind. hydro.1¢/kWh 4.0¢/kWh 5. landfill Service gas Renewable Energy Tariff Green Power PNM Sky Blue wind wind wind Renewable Resource Power wind. Northwest Rural Public Power District El Paso Electric Los Alamos Department of Public Utilities Public Service of New Mexico Tri-State: Kit Carson Electric Cooperative Xcel Energy Dominion North Carolina Power Duke Power Type wind Start Date Premium 2000 1. and Tongue River MT Vigilante Electric Cooperative Alternative Renewable Energy Program NE Lincoln Electric System LES Renewable Energy Program NE Omaha Public Power District Green Power Program NE NM NM NM NM NM NC NC Tri-State: Chimney Rock Public Power District.0¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 4.Program State Utility Name Name MN Southern Minnesota Municipal Power SMMPA Wind Power Agency (all 18 offer program): Fairmont Public Utilities. Grand Marais Public Utilities MN Xcel Energy WindSource MS TVA: City of Oxford.2¢/kWh 1. Waseca Utilities. 2003 solar biomass.5¢/kWh 2. Wells Public Utilities. 2003 solar 120 .5¢/kWh 3. Lake City Utilities. St.8¢/kWh 1.

JonesOnslow Electric Membership Corp. wind wind 2000 4.5¢/kWh wind 1999 1.0¢/kWh solar biomass. Wake Electric Membership Corp.0¢/kWh Green Power Switch ND ND OH OK OK Basin Electric Power Cooperative (49 PrairieWinds coops offer program in 5 states): Oliver Mercer Electric Coop. 2003 PV 4. Tri-County Electric Membership Corp.0¢/kWh2.0¢/kWh 2. Morgran-sou Electric Coop.. Okeene.. 2000 PV. landfill gas. Altus. wind.State Utility Name NC ElectriCities: City of High Point. Burke Divide. Verendrye.. Randolph Electric Membership Corp. Capital . 2003 solar landfill gas.8¢/kWh 2003 2004 121 . EdgecombeMartin County Electric Membership Corp.0¢/kWh 1. Cavalier Rural Electric. Haywood Electric Membership Corp. Carteret Craven Electric Coop. McKenzie Electric Coop. Four County Electric Membership Corp. West Plains. Pee Dee Electric Membership Corp. wind.. Wyandotte OG&E Electric Services OG&E Wind Power Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority: Pure & Simple Tonkawa. City of Shelby. North Central Electric Coop. Town of Granite Falls NC NC Electric Cooperatives (15 of 27 NC GreenPower cooperatives offer the program): Albemarle EMC. Slope Electric Coop Minnkota Power Cooperative: Cass Infinity Wind Energy County Electric. NC Progress Energy / CP&L NC GreenPower NC ND TVA: Mountain Electric Cooperative Program Name NC GreenPower Start Date Type Premium biomass. town of Apex.. City of Laurinburg.. Montrail Williams.. Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp. wind.0¢/kWh2. EnergyUnited.. Piedmont Electric Membership Corp. Cuyahoga Falls.5¢/kWh 2. Dakota Valley. Frederick. Brunswick Electric Membership Corp..67¢/kWh 1. Nodak Electric. City of Newton. City of Statesville. wind wind wind 2002 2003 1. Prague Municipal Utilities and Edmond Electric biomass.5¢/kWh wind small hydro. Roanoke Electric Membership Corp.3¢/kWh1. Northern Plains. KEM Electric Coop... 2003 4.5¢/kWh 1. Northern Municipal Power Agency (12 municipals) Missouri River Energy Services: City RiverWinds of Lakota American Municipal Power-Ohio / Nature's Energy Green Mountain Energy: City of Bowling Green..

Red River Valley Rural Electric Cooperative.35¢/kWh1. wind wind wind. wind wind 2002 2002 0. Douglas Electric Cooperative. Southwest Rural Electric Cooperative OR City of Ashland/Bonneville Renewable Pioneers Environmental Foundation OR Columbia River PUD Choice Energy OR Emerald People's Utility Choose Renewable District/Green Mountain Energy Electricity OR Eugene Water & Electric Board EWEB Wind Power OR Midstate Electric Cooperative Environmentally-Preferred Power OR Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative Green Power OR PacifiCorp: Pacific Power Blue Sky QS (Commercial Only) OR OR OR PacifiCorp: Pacific Power Blue Sky Block PacifiCorp: Pacific Power / 3 Phases Blue Sky Usage Energy Services PacifiCorp: Pacific Power / 3 Phases Blue Sky Habitat Energy Services Pacific Northwest Generating Green Power Cooperative: Central Electric Cooperative. Oklahoma Electric Cooperative.78¢/kWh 0. Cotton Electric Cooperative.7¢/kWh OR Clean Wind for Medium to Large Commercial & Industrial Accounts 2003 122 . Caddo Electric Cooperative. donation 1. 2002 PV landfill gas 1998 OR OR OR existing geothermal. Choctaw Electri Cooperative.71¢/kWh 2. donation 1. Consumers Power.8¢/kWh 0.50/mo. biomass. Umatilla Electric Cooperative (5 of 16 coops offer program) Portland General Electric / Green Green Source Mountain Energy Portland General Electric / Green Mountain Energy Portland General Electric Company Healthy Habitat Program Name WindWorks Type wind Start Date Premium 2004 0. East Central Oklahoma Electric Cooperative.0¢/kWh 1.78¢/kWh + $2. Rural Electric Cooperative. wind existing geothermal. small hydro wind wind 2003 2005 2003 1999 1999 2002 2004 2. 2002 PV wind. People's Electric Cooperative. geothermal wind wind. Northfork Electric Cooperative. Canadian Valley Electric Cooperative. Clearwater Power.5¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh PV. Kiwash Electric Cooperative.8¢/kWh4.95¢/kWh 0. Cimmaron Electric Cooperative.State Utility Name OK Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (19 of 19): Alfalfa Electric Cooperative.0¢/kWh wind 2000 wind. Kay Electric Cooperative. Southeastern Electric Cooperative. biomass. Northwestern Electric Cooperative. Harmon Electric Cooperative.50/mo.8¢/kWh + $2.5¢/kWh Sliding scale depending on size 1.0¢/kWh 2.2¢/kWh 0. Kiamichi Electric Cooperative.

H-D Electric Cooperative. Green Power Switch Appalachian Electric Cooperative. Sioux Valley Southwestern Electric Coop. Codington-Clark Electric Cooperative. Dakota Energy Cooperative. Northern Electric Cooperative. ClayUnion Electric Corporation. Caney Fork Electric Cooperative. Aiken Electric Cooperative. Pee Dee Electric Cooperative. Palmetto Electric Cooperative. West River Power Association. Power Assn.State Utility Name OR Portland General Electric Company SC Santee Cooper. York Electric Cooperative SD Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Prairie Winds Bon Homme-Yankton Electric Assn. Santee Electric Cooperative. Moreau Grand. Oahe Electric Cooperative. City of Elk Point. Dickson Electric Department. wind 2002 2000 1. Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative. FEM Electric Association. Clinton Utilities Board.5¢/kWh wind landfill gas.0¢/kWh2.0¢/kWh wind 2000 1. Lynches River Electric Cooperative. Douglas Electric Cooperative.. McCook Electric Cooperative. Horry Electric Cooperative. Cleveland Utilities. Athens Utility Board. Charles Mix Electric Association. Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation. PV. Laurens Electric Cooperative. Southeastern Electric Coop. Duck River Electric Membership Corporation. Berkeley Electric Cooperative.75¢/kWh 2001 3. Black Hills Electric Coop. Kingsbury Electric Cooperative. City of Maryville Electric Department.67¢/kWh 123 . Union County Electric Cooperative. Tri-County Electric Cooperative. Program Name Clean Wind Power Green Power Program Type wind landfill gas Start Date Premium 2002 1. Whetstone Valley Electric Cooperative. Fairfield Electric Cooperative. LaCreek Electric Coop. Central Electric Cooperative Association. Rosebud SD Missouri River Energy Services: City RiverWinds of Vermillion TN TVA: Alcoa Electric Department. Marlboro Electric Cooperative. Bristol Tennessee Electric System. Cherry Todd Electric Coop. Cookeville Electric Department. Edisto Electric Cooperative. Lyon-Lincoln Electric Cooperative.0¢/kWh2.5¢/kWh 2. Renville-Sibley Coop. Clarksville Department of Electricity.. Grand Electric Cooperative. Butte Electric Coop.

State TX TX TX UT UT UT VT VT WA WA WA Utility Name Elizabethton Electric System. Powell Valley Electric Cooperative.5¢/kWh 2. PV Energy 2001 2002 2002 0. Greeneville Light and Power System. Gas & Water. Sweetwater Utilities Board.95¢/kWh 4.33¢/kWh Contribution Contribution biogas 2004 wind. Loudon Utilities. Memphis Light. Lawrenceburg Power System. McMinnville Electric System. Johnson City Power Board. Plateau Electric Cooperative. Gibson Electric Membership Corporation. Morristown Power System. Knoxville Utilities Board. small hydro various wind 2000/19 0. Tullahoma Utilities Board.0¢/kWh Contribution 0. Newport Utilities. Mountain Electric Cooperative. Upper Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation.7¢/kWh 1. wind PV. Paris Board of Public Utilities. Springfield Department of Electricity. hydro wind wind wind. Sevier County Electric System. Sequachee Valley Electric Cooperative. wind. Erwin Utilities.0¢/kWh 124 . Jackson Energy Authority. landfill gas. EPB (Chattanooga). Meriwhether Lewis Electric Cooperative. Harriman Utility Board. Lafollette Utilities Board. Nashville Electric Service. wind Renewable Resource wind. biomass 2002 wind landfill gas.5¢/kWh 97 2000 3. Volunteer Energy Austin Energy (City of Austin) GreenChoice City Public Service of San Antonio El Paso Electric Company City of St.95¢/kWh 1. George Deseret Power Pacificorp: Utah Power Central Vermont Public Service Green Mountain Power Avista Utilities Benton County Public Utility District Chelan County PUD Program Name Type Start Date Premium Windtricity Renewable Energy Tariff Clean Green Power GreenWay Blue Sky CVPS Cow Power CoolHome / CoolBusiness Buck-A-Block Green Power Program Sustainable Natural Alternative Power (SNAP) wind. Fayetteville Public Utilities. micro hydro 2002 1999 2001 WA WA WA Clallam County PUD Clark Public Utilities Cowlitz PUD Clallam County PUD Green landfill gas Power Program Green Lights PV. Oak Ridge Electric Department.95¢/kWh 1.92¢/kWh 2005 2004 2000 2. Murfreesboro Electric Department. Pulaski Electric System.0¢/kWh 2001 1. Middle Tennessee Electric Membership Corporation. Lenoir City Utilities Board.

05¢/kWh 1. Oconomowoc. hydro. Dunn / Menomonie. Boscobel. wind Renewable Energy Program small hydro. Price / Phillips. landfill 2002 gas.04¢/kWh 2.5¢/kWh 1.State Utility Name WA Grant County PUD WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WI WI Grays Harbor PUD Lewis County PUD Mason County PUD No. Pierce-Pepin / Ellsworth. biogas wind PV. Slinger. Kaukauna. PV. Richland. Eau Claire / Fall Creek.3¢/kWh 2. Richland Center. Reedsburg.0¢/kWh Solar Wise for Schools wind. Plymouth. Westby Wisconsin Public Service NatureWise Wisconsin Public Service Wellspring Renewable Wind wind Energy Program Wind Power Program wind Energy for Tomorrow landfill gas. Clark / Greenwood. Lake Mills. Waupun. Muscoda.5¢/kWh Contribution 2. Jump River / Ladysmith. Lodi.5¢/kWh WI WI WI WI WI WI Wisconsin Public Power Inc. biogas wind small hydro. 3 Orcas Power & Light Pacific County PUD Pacificorp: Pacific Power Peninsula Light Puget Sound Energy Seattle City Light Seattle City Light Snohomish County Public Utility District Tacoma Power Alliant Energy Dairyland Power Cooperative: Barron Electric.0¢/kWh 2002 2003 2003 1999 2002 2000 2002 2002 2005 2002 2002 2000 2000 1998 3. Bayfield/ Iron River.45¢/kWh2.8¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh 2. wind. Cuba City. Prairie du Sac.5¢/kWh 2.86¢/kWh Contribution 125 .0¢/kWh 1. New Holstein. Croix / Baldwin. Jefferson. Chippewa / Cornell Valley. Jackson / Black River Falls. Menasha. Oakdale. wind wind. Hartford. Waunakee. Sturgeon Bay. Scenic Rivers / Lancaster. hydro landfill gas wind wind. New Richmond. landfill gas wind Start Date Premium 2002 2. Riverland / Arcadia.0¢/kWh 2. Waterloo. hydro wind.0¢/kWh 1. New London.0¢/kWh 3. St. Columbus.0¢/kWh 3.0¢/kWh 1. Stoughton. Hustisford.95¢/kWh 2. biogas PV in schools 1996 1. (34 of 37 munis offer program): Algoma. Taylor / Medford. Polk-Burnett / Centuria. Sun Prairie. Cedarburg. Eagle River. Two Rivers. Whitehall. biogas 1997 1999 1996 2001 1. Florence. River Falls. Vernon / Westby Great River Energy: Head of the Lakes Madison Gas & Electric We Energies Program Name Alternative Energy Resources Program Green Power Green Power Energy Rate Mason Evergreen Power Go Green Green Power Blue Sky Green by Choice Green Power Plan Green UP (C&I only) Seattle Green Power Planet Power EverGreen Options Second Nature Evergreen Renewable Energy Program Type wind wind wind wind wind.

95¢/kWh 2001 2. landfill gas wind Start Date Premium 2003 1.5¢/kWh 1999 3.17¢/kWh 2000 1.0¢/kWh 126 .State Utility Name WY Lower Valley Energy WY Pacificorp: Pacific Power WY Tri-State: Carbon Power & Light WY Yampa Valley Electric Association Program Name Green Power Blue Sky Renewable Resource Power Service Wind Energy Program Type wind wind wind.

A number of organizations offer green energy certificates separate from electricity service (i.3. and the District of Columbia (Figure 3. or tradeable renewable certificates – present the environmental attributes of power generated from renewable electric plants. New Jersey. Source: L. renewable energy credits.e.8. See our list below of organizations that offer green certificate products. customers do not need to switch from their current electricity supplier to purchase these certificates). Rhode Island. Updated July 2005. in which multiple suppliers and service offerings exist. http://www. Massachusetts.shtml?page=4 Figure 3. Swezey. Pennsylvania. New York. Renewable energy certificates (RECs) – also known as green tags.energy. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Texas. Virginia. competitive marketers offer green power to retail or wholesale customers in Maine.eere.8. Bird and B. As of mid-2004.1). Electricity markets are now open to full competition in a number of states.1: Green Power Marketing Activity in Competitive Electricity Markets 127 . Maryland. allowing some customers to choose their electricity supplier.8 – Competitive Green Power Offerings and Renewable Energy Certificates Green power marketing refers to selling green power in the competitive marketplace.gov/greenpower/markets/marketing. while others are phasing-in competition.

wind energy is the predominant resource type.000 <10.000 2004 >180. primarily in the Northeast and Texas.000 <160.720 4.8. In competitive markets.000 2003 >150.8. or is being sold as RECs in both retail and wholesale markets. It also includes sales of renewable energy through default utility/supplier programs or utility/marketer partnership in states with retail competition. Table 3. including about 30.1).000 participants in utility/marketer programs.690 1. again dominated by wind. More than 225 MW of additional renewables capacity is planned. An estimated 4.8. Most of these customers are purchasing green power from competitive suppliers in states with retail competition.650 2004 na = not available An estimated 1. as well as that sold to customers in products that contain only a small percentage of renewable energy.4 billion kWh of renewable energy was sold to retail customers by competitive and REC marketers.000 <10.900 2. About 2.000 ~160.2: Retail Sales of Renewable Energy in Competitive Markets and RECs (million kWh) 2003 Competitive Markets Residential Nonresidential Subtotal RECs Residential Nonresidential Subtotal Total Sales na na 660 2. with most customers concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states where REC marketers tend to be most active. 128 .000 Table 3.370 na na 1. fewer than 10. while the fraction of nonresidential customers purchasing RECs is higher – on the order of one-fifth.000 <10.530 MW of new renewables capacity is used to supply competitive green power markets. Of the total.000 retail customers purchase REC products (Table 3. the vast majority of customers purchasing green power are residential customers.560 40 1.000 retail customers were purchasing green power from competitive suppliers – or in the form of RECs – at the end of 2004.Based on data received from green power marketers. This figure includes renewable energy from both existing and new sources.000 ~190. 2002-2004 2002 Competitive Markets RECs Total ~150.7 billion kWh of this total was sold to retail customers bundled with electricity in competitive electricity markets – a 40% increase from 2003.1: Estimated Number of Customers Purchasing RECs or Green Power from Competitive Marketers. an estimated 200.140 510 2.

9 Estimated RECs Sales Millions of MWh 0.eere. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NEPOOL GIS 129 .0 0.6 95. Bird. http://www.7 billion kWh in 2004.0 Small Hydro 0.4 1.3 100.905 2001 2002 2003 Sources: ERCOT 2004.3 0. reaching 1.3 3.1 0.3: New Renewables Capacity Supplying Competitive Markets and Renewable Energy Certificates.0 Table 3.shtml Table 3.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/new_gp_cap. 2004 1.461.1 Geothermal 5.which totaled 136 million kWh. Swezey.9 100.0 Total 1.0 0.0 0. September 2005.8.527. 2004 Source MW in Place % MW Planned % Wind 1.energy.000 NEPOOL Voluntary REC Retirements (MWh)* 0 112.3 Biomass 59. 2003 Retail Sales Millions of MWh Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets Unbundled RECs Total Green Power Market Source: L.0 0.9 0.7 3.8.3 1.0 0.8 99. which are sold separate from electricity and largely derived from new renewable energy sources.0 0.7 3.4: Estimated Wholesale RECs Supplying Voluntary Markets. NREL.2 0.3 0.Bird and B. Retail sales of RECs.8.S.000 797. Green Power Markets (2004).7 224.5: Voluntary Market REC Retirements in Texas and NEPOOL Year Texas Voluntary REC Retirements (MWh) N/a 241.9 0. Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving U. Table 3.0 Source: L. grew nearly threefold.0 226.973 56.6 Solar 2.9 1.

00-3.00-4.8.00 45.00 1.00-150.25-7.50 Sources: Evolution Markets (data for July 2003 through October 2004) and GT Energy.8.00-16.50 1.7: Voluntary Market Wholesale REC Prices for Existing Sources by Type and Region ($/MWh) Biomass Geothermal Hydro Small Hydro WECC 0.50-3.50 Central 2.00 5. LIHI Hydro 6.50 Central PJM New York 2.00 NEPOOL 35.00-17.00 130 .00 2.00 Southeast Source: Evolution Markets.00 1.50 1.6: Voluntary Market Wholesale REC Prices for New Sources by Type and Region ($/MWh) Wind Solar Biomass Small Hydro CA 1.50 NEPOOL 2.00 New York 15.25-2.00-3.00 4:00-5.00-5.50 WECC 1.00 6.00 SPP 2.50 PJM 15.00 1.00-5.00-200.Table 3.50-5.00 Southeast 3. Data for July 2003 through October 2004. Table 3.00 80.75-2.00-3.50 30.

fuel cells. 2% new solar.05¢kWh (for 51% or 100% of 100% usage) usage New Wind Energy (5%. 20% wind landfill gas — — — — — MD — new wind — MD MD — 50% to 100% eligible renewables — new wind (5%. 50%.8. 50%. wind.87¢/kWh Energy/Maine Plus Interfaith Power & Light (4) PEPCO Energy Green Electricity 2. and landfill gas — 33% new wind. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage PEPCO Energy Services (5) PEPCO Energy Services (5) Washington Gas Energy Services / Community Energy NewWind Energy 3.5¢/kWh — DC — new wind — DC — new wind — ME ME MD Maine Renewable Maine Clean Power 2. 10%. 24% new wind or landfill gas. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage PEPCO Energy Services (3) Washington Gas Energy Services / Community Energy NewWind Energy 2.15¢/kWh — DC PEPCO Energy Green Electricity 1. 33% existing small low impact hydro.768¢/kWh (for 100% usage) 2.5¢/kWh — 100% low impact hydro 80% low impact hydro. October 2005 State CT Company Community Energy (CT Clean Energy Options Program) Levco Product Name Residential Price Premium1 CT Clean Energy 1. 1% new solar 50% small hydro. 50% new wind Green-e — MA Cape Light Compact Cape Light Compact (6) Green 50% or 100% 1.35¢/kWh (for 51% or 100% of 100% usage) usage Non-residential product New Wind Energy NA 2. or 100% of usage) or 100 kWh blocks — 75% small hydro.75¢/kWh (for Services (5) 10%.37¢/kWh Energy/Maine Interfaith Power & Light (4) Maine Renewable Maine Clean Power 2.Table 3.4¢/kWh — MA Massachusetts Electric/Nantucket Electric/Community Energy New Wind Energy 50% or 100% of usage — Green-e 131 .1¢/kWh Options 50% or 100% of usage 0. 10%. or 100% of usage) 2. 25%.0¢/kWh Fee Resource Mix2 — 50% new wind. 25%.35¢/kWh (for Services (3) 10%. 50% landfill gas 98% waste-toenergy and hydro (Class II).8: Retail Green Power Product Offerings in Competitive Electricity Markets. 34% new landfill gas — landfill gas — Certification — CT 100% Renewable Electricity Program — CT Sterling Planet (CT Sterling Select 50% Clean Energy Options or 100% of usage Program) 1.

35% bioenergy.3¢/kWh Program Clean Power Choice 0. 30% small hydro.5¢/kWh $. 75% small hydro 100% new wind Environmental Resources Trust Green-e — ConEdison Solutions GREEN Power (8) / Community Energy ECONnergy Keet It Clean NY NY Energy Cooperative of Renewable New York (9) Electricity Long Island Power New Wind Energy Authority / Community Energy Long Island Power New Wind Energy Authority / Community and Water Energy Long Island Power Green Power Authority / EnviroGen Program Long Island Power New York Clean Authority / Sterling Planet Long Island Power Authority / Sterling Planet NYSEG/Community Energy Sterling Green — — 25% new wind. — 75% existing landfill gas new wind — NY 1.95/mo.9¢/kWh Program Clean Power Choice 5. 30% bioenergy.4¢/kWh (for — 100% usage) Resource Mix2 75% small hydro.5¢/kWh — — NY Catch the Wind/New 2.3¢/kWh — 60% new wind.2¢/kWh Program 0. 50% large hydro — — — — — — — — Environmental Resources Trust — NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NY NY PSE&G/JCP&L/ Community Energy PSE&G/JCP&L/ Green Mountain Energy PSE&G/JCP&L/ Jersey-Atlantic Wind PSE&G/JCP&L/ Jersey-Atlantic Wind PSE&G/JCP&L/ Sterling Planet Clean Power Choice 1. 33% small hydro. 1% solar 50% wind.4% solar.5¢/kWh to 0.35¢/kWh NJ 1. 25% small hydro 55% small hydro. 40% small hydro 75% landfill gas. 50% low — impact hydro 50% wind.State MA Company Product Name Massachusetts New England Electric/Nantucket GreenStart 50% or Electric/Mass Energy 100% of usage Consumers Alliance Massachusetts Electric/Nantucket Electric/Sterling Planet Green Mountain Energy Company (7) Sterling Premium 50% or 100% of usage Enviro Blend Residential Fee Price Premium1 2.6% captured methane.5¢/kWh Program: New Jersey Wind Energy Clean Power Choice 1.0¢/kWh — — — — NY 1. 5% new wind.0¢/kWh 50% small hydro.0¢/kWh 1. 30% bioenergy — NY NY 1.20/day for 200kWh 0. 44. 5% new solar $3. 5% wind. 15% wind. 49% low — impact hydro. 0.75¢/kWh 2. 50% low — impact hydro 100-kWh new wind — 33% wind. 19% biomass. 1% solar (≥25% of total is new) Certification — MA 1.5¢/kWh Wind Energy — 100-kWh blocks of — new wind 132 .10/day for 100kWh $. 10% wind 40% wind.9¢/kWh Program Clean Power Choice 2.5¢/kWh 50% wind. 34% bioenergy 25% new wind.

5¢/kWh — — 100-kWh blocks of — new wind 40% new wind. usage Narragansett Electric / New England People's Power & GreenStart RI 50% Light or 100% of usage Narragansett Electric / Sterling Supreme Sterling Planet 100% 50% small hydro. 1% solar wind — 100-kWh blocks of — new wind 100% renewable — PA Green Electricity 3. 40% hydro new wind 75% landfill gas.5¢/kWh 2.5¢/kWh — 69% small hydro.0¢/kWh 1. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage 133 . 50% wind Certification — NY NY NY 2.98¢/kWh — TX TX Gexa Energy (11) Gexa Green Green Mountain 100% Wind Power: Energy Company (11) Reliable Rate or Month-to-Month Green Mountain Pollution Free: Energy Company (11) Reliable Rate or Month-to-Month Reliant Energy (11) PEPCO Energy Services (12) Renewable Plan -1. 50% new wind Green-e RI 1.34/mo. 30% bioenergy 50% small hydro.1¢/kWh 1.34/mo.0¢/kWh — PA 100% new wind — RI Narragansett Electric / NewWind Energy Community Energy.3¢/kWh 2. 10% Trust wind — — RI 1. 50% or 100% of Inc. Environmental 25% biomass. 30% small hydro.53¢/kWh (for — 10%. 1% new solar 40% small hydro. 30% bioenergy — NY 1.5¢/kWh — — — — — Environmental Resources Trust Green-e NY NY Green Mountain Energy Electricity Catch the Wind/NewWind Energy Sterling Green Renewable Electricity 1.46¢/kWh — 100% renewable $5.78¢/kWh 2.48¢/kWh (for — 100% usage) 2. 30% small hydro. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage NewWind Energy 51% or 100% of usage 4.54¢/kWh — — — 89% landfill gas. 25% Resources new solar. Green-e 10% wind. wind TX -0.1¢/kWh — wind landfill gas — — Green Electricity 4. wind and hydro — TX VA -1.03¢/kWh $5. 25% hydro 40% wind.State NY Company Niagara Mohawk / Community Energy Niagara Mohawk / Community Energy Niagara Mohawk / EnviroGen Niagara Mohawk / Sterling Planet Niagara Mohawk/Green Mountain Energy Rochester Gas & Electric/Community Energy Suburban Energy Services /Sterling Planet Product Name 60% New Wind Energy and 40% Small Hydro NewWind Energy Think Green! Sterling Green Residential Fee Price Premium1 1.0¢/kWh 1. Green-e 30% new wind.5¢/kWh — PA PA PA Energy Cooperative of EcoChoice 100 Pennsylvania (10) Energy Cooperative of Wind Energy Pennsylvania (10) PECO PECO Wind Energy/Community Energy (10) PEPCO Energy Services (10) PEPCO Energy Services (10) 2.7¢/kWh (for — 10%.0¢/kWh — Resource Mix2 60% new wind.

21¢/kWh). 10 Product prices are for PECO service territory (price to compare of 6.State VA Company PEPCO Energy Services (12) Washington Gas Energy Services / Community Energy Product Name NewWind Energy 51% or 100% of usage New Wind Energy Certificates Residential Fee Price Premium1 5.1¢/kWh for TXU service territory (specifically Dallas. Texas) (Except where noted).5¢/kWh — Resource Mix2 new wind Certification — VA 100 kWh blocks of — new wind 1 Prices updated as of July 2005 and may also apply to small commercial customers.503¢/kWh). Premium varies depending on energy taxes and usage. Product prices are for PSE&G (price to compare of 6. 8 Price premium is based on a comparison to ConEdison Solutions' standard electricity product in the ConEdison service territory. JCPL. Price is for PEPCO service territory based on price to compare of 6. 5 Product offered in Baltimore Gas and Electric and PEPCO service territories. 3 Offered in PEPCO service territory.8¢/kWh). Program only available in Niagara Mohawk service territory.13¢/kWh. 11 Product prices are based on price to beat of 12. 1999 based on the Green-e TRC certification standards. 7 Green Mountain Energy offers products in Conectiv. 2 New is defined as operating or repowered after January 1. 12 Products are available in Dominion Virginia Power service territory 134 . prices based on 1000 kwh of usage monthly. and include monthly fees. 6 Price premium is based on a comparison to the Cape Light Compact's standard electricity product. 4 Price premium is for Central Maine Power service territory based on standard offer of 7. Except for Gexa Green. Product prices are for renewal customers based on annual average costs for customers in PEPCO's service territory (6. which is listed in price per kWh.33¢/kWh (for — 100% usage) 2. and PSE&G service territories. 9 Price premium is for Niagara Mohawk service territory. Prices may differ for large commercial/industrial customers and may vary by service territory.55¢/kWh.

8. 1.0¢/kWh Oregon. $12 per ton of CO2 avoided ** Renewable Choice Energy American Wind 100% new wind Nationwide 2. Alberta National 3. ≤1% new biomass New England 100% new wind Wind CoolHome National Washington. Kansas (wind).9: Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Retail Products.6¢/kWh Environmental Resources Trust Environmental Resources Trust Green-e National 1. 2. ≤1% new solar.0¢/kWh New York. 1% solar National and 100% new wind Regional New Wind New Wind 100% new wind Energy National 0.95¢/kWh — Green-e Clean and Green Clean Energy Partnership/Community Energy Clean Energy Partnership/Sterling Planet Clean Energy Partnership/Sterling Planet Community Energy Washington.65¢/kWh 5% new solar New York (solar) 1.0¢/kWh Green-e 1. 2.75¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh (biomass).0¢/kWh Conservation Services Group EAD Environmental EAD Environmental Green Mountain Energy Maine Interfaith Power & Light/BEF Mass Energy Consumers Alliance NativeEnergy ClimateSAVE Colorado.7¢/kWh2. West Virginia 95% new wind.0¢/kWh Green-e 135 .0¢/kWh Oregon. Montana. 50% landfill gas.0¢/kWh Green-e Green-e Mid Atlantic Wind 100% new wind Mid Atlantic National New 24% wind. South Dakota (wind) 100% new wind South Dakota ~1. 2. Wyoming.Table 3. Wyoming. Illinois. ≤1% new biomass Clean and Green 100% new wind Membership Utah Certificate Marketer 3 Phases Energy Services Blue Sky Energy Corp Bonneville Environmental Foundation Residential Price Certification Premiums* 2. ≤1% new solar.2¢/kWh.0¢/kWh — ** NativeEnergy WindBuilders New biogas and Vermont and 0.0¢/kWh Green-e — — — — 100% Wind 100% new wind Not specified Energy Certificates Home Grown 100% small New England Hydro Certificates hydro (<5MW) TBD 100% wind (Pennsylvania REC product) Green Tags ≥98% new (supplied by BEF) wind.2¢/kWh 1. October 2005 Location of Renewable Renewable Product Name Resources Resources Green 100% new wind Nationwide Certificates Greener Landfill Gas Choice™ Green Tags Green Tags ≥98% new wind.8¢/kWh new wind Pennsylvania 1. Montana. 2.0¢/kWh 2.5¢/kWh Pennsylvania. Alberta Massachusetts 5. 25% Clean Energy MIx biomass.

6¢/kWh Green-e Green-e TerraPass Inc.Certificate Marketer Renewable Ventures SKY energy. Most product prices are as of July 2005. ~$11/ton CO2 — Waverly Light & Power WindCurrent Iowa Energy Tags Chesapeake Windcurrent Iowa 2.0¢/kWh 2. Nationwide 50% new biomass.4¢/kWh 1. NA = Not applicable.3¢/kWh Green-e 2. ** The Climate Neutral Network certifies the methodology used to calculate the CO2 emissions offset.5¢/kWh — Green-e 100% new wind Mid-Atlantic States Premium may also apply to small commercial customers. 136 . Large users may be able to negotiate price premiums. Sterling Planet Location of Renewable Renewable Product Name Resources Resources PVUSA Solar 100% solar California Green Certificates Wind-e 100% new wind Nationwide Renewable Energy Green America 45% new wind. 5% new solar TerraPass Various (including efficiency and CO2 offsets) 100% wind Nationwide Residential Price Premiums* Certification 3. Inc.

establishes a new set of federal renewable energy goals. The Energy Policy Act of 2005. signed into law by President Bush on August 8. which is the nation's largest energy consumer. 137 . The federal renewable energy goal was established under Executive Order 13123.5% of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by September 30. increasing to 5% in fiscal years 2010 through 2012. issued by President Clinton in 1999. The federal government. purchases 2.3.375 billion kWh of renewable energy annually. 2005. 2005.5% by 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter. and 7.9 – Federal Agency Purchases of Green Power The federal government exceeded its goal of obtaining 2. calling for agencies to derive 3% of their electric energy from renewable sources in fiscal years 2007 through 2009.

Grid-Tied Micro Hydro Production Incentive Residential Solar PV Rebate Program.3. Anaheim Public Utilities – PV Buydown Program.JEA . Technology and Demonstration Grants District of Columbia Renewable Demonstration Project Florida . SRP – Earthwise Solar Energy. SMUD – Solar Water Heater Loan Program. LADWP – Solar Incentive Program. California Property Tax Exemption for Solar Systems Grants. or rebate programs. such as tax incentives.Solar Hot Water Rebate. SMUD Commercial/Industrial PV Rebate.10 – State Incentive Programs Many states have policies or programs in place to support renewable energy resources. Table 3. SMUD – Solar Water Heater Program Rebate. SELFGEN – SELFGeneration Program. Redding Electric – Earth Vantage Renewable Energy Rebate Program.Zero-Interest Loan CT Local Option for Property Tax DE DC FL GA Solar Energy Equipment Exemption Colorado .Commercial.1 Financial Incentives for Renewable Energy Resources by State State AL AK AZ Tax Incentives Wood-Burning Heating System Deduction (Personal) Qualifying Wood Stove Deduction.Renewable Energy Resource Loan. Energy Conservation Loan.Aspen . TEP – SunShare PV Buydown. Solar and Wind Energy Systems Credit (Personal). Operational Demonstration Program. Institutional PV Grant Program. Riverside Public Utilities – Energy Efficiency Construction Incentive. loan. Riverside Public Utilities – Residential Photovoltaic Incentive Program. Gunnison County Electric . Burbank Water & Power – Residential & Commercial Solar Support. Connecticut . Ukiah Utilities – PV Buy-Down Program Marin County – Solar Rebate Program. Rebates and Other Incentives Renewable Fuels Development Program (Biomass.Solar Rebate Program. City of Palo Alto Utilities – PV Partners. SMUD – PV Pioneers Residential Buy-Down.1). Supplemental Energy Payments (SEPs) CO Utility PV Rebate. Aspen Solar Pioneer Program . Renewable Energy Projects in Pre-Development Program Green Energy Program Rebates.10. Glendale Water & Power – Solar Solutions Program. Connecticut . San Diego – Residential Solar Electric Incentive for Homes Destroyed in Wildfires Santa Monica – Green Building Grant Program. Loans. Holy Cross Energy WE CARE Rebates Aspen Solar Pioneer Program . Research and Development Grants. The following table lists the incentives currently available by state (Table 3. Solar or Wind Energy System Credit – Corporate. UES – SunShare PV Buydown AR CA Emerging Renewable (Rebate) Program. Industrial. Roseville Electric – PV Buy Down Program. or grant. Pasadena Water and Power – Solar Power Installation Rebate. industry recruitment incentives. Solar and Wind Equipment Sales Tax Exemption (Personal) Solar or Wind Energy System Credit – Personal. Municipal Solid Waste) Power Project Loan Fund APS – EPS Credit Purchase Program. Tax Deduction for Interest on Loans for Energy Efficiency.10.New Energy Technology Program.Gainesville Regional Utilities . IID Energy – PV Solutions Rebate Program. Florida .Solar Incentive Program 138 .

Renewable Development Fund 139 . Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (Corporate). BEF – Solar 4R Schools. Special Property Assessment Alternative Energy and Energy Conservation Patent Exemption (Personal). Oahu . Corporate Income Tax Credit for Green Buildings. Small Business P2 Loan Program State of Minnesota Solar-Electric (PV) Rebate Program. LargeScale PV Demonstration Project Grants. BEF . Montgomery County – Clean Energy Rewards Program MA Commercial. Wind. Iowa Building Energy Management Program (Iowa Energy Bank) IA KS KY LA ME MD State Energy Program Grants Solar Water Heater Loan Program Solar Rebate Program. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Set-Aside Grants for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research.Solar Water Heating Loan Program. Local Property Tax Exemption Alternative – Energy Personal Property Tax Exemption.Commercial Solar Water Heating Program.State HI Tax Incentives Residential Solar and Wind Energy Credit. Michigan Biomass Energy Program Grants. Renewable Resources Matching Fund Program Solar Energy Grant Program. Methane Gas Conversion Property Tax Exemption. Maui County . Wind Sales Tax Exemption.Renewable Energy Grant. Property Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Systems Renewable Energy Property Tax Exemption Solar Energy System Exemption Personal Income Tax Credit for Green Buildings. Loans. State Agency Loan Program. Solar-Electric (PV) Sales Tax Exemption. Minnesota Power Solar-Electric (PV) Rebate Program. Corporate Solar and Wind Energy Credit ID IL IN Solar. Industrial. Solar and Wind Energy System Deduction. Wood Heating Fuel Exemption. Wind Energy Equipment Exemption. Renewable Energy State Income Tax Credit.Energy $olutions Solar Water Heater Rebate. Renewable Energy Equipment Sales Tax Exemption. Solar and Wind Power Systems Excise Tax Exemption. Wind and Solar- Grants. Local Option Special Assessment of Wind Energy Devices. Matching Grants for Communities MI MN Community Energy Project Grants. Local Option Corporate Property Tax Credit. Community Energy Loan Program. Distributed Generation Grant Program (DGGP). Solar Domestic Hot Water System Rebate Program. Kauai County . Energy Education and Demonstration Grant Program.Energy $olutions Honolulu Solar Roofs Initiative Loan Program. Rebates and Other Incentives HECO. Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Program. Alternative Energy and Energy Conservation Patent Exemption (Corporate). & Institutional Initiative Grants. Great River Energy .Solar-Electric (PV) Rebate Program. and Geothermal Deduction (Personal) Special Assessment for Renewable Energy Systems Renewable Energy Systems Exemption Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (Personal).Maui Solar Roofs Initiative Loan Program for Solar Water Heating Renewable Energy Equipment Sales Tax Refund. Kaua'i Island Utility Cooperative . Small Renewables Initiative Rebate. HELCO . Energy Efficiency Grants. MECO. Low-Interest Loans for Renewable Energy Resource Program Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation Grants Alternative Power & Energy Grant Program.

Residential Geothermal Systems Credit. Biomass Equipment and Materials Deduction. Solar Cells Tax Exemption. Renewable Energy Tax Credit – Corporate. LIPA . Corporate Property Tax Reduction for New/Expanded Generating Facilities.USB Renewable Energy Fund. Clean Energy Financing for Local Schools and Governments Clean Energy Grants Program. Renewables R&D Grant Program. Solar. Renewable Energy Systems Exemption Renewable Energy/Solar Sales Tax Exemption. Energy Investment Loan Program. Solar and Wind Personal Credit. Value-Added Stock Loan Participation Program Renewable Energy Production Incentives Energy Investment Loan Program MS MO MT Wood Energy Production Credit Residential Alternative Energy System Tax Credit.Solar Pioneer Program. Energy Loan Program NorthWestern Energy . Alternative Energy Investment Corporate Tax Credit. Renewable Energy Systems Property Tax Exemption Local Option Property Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Solar and Wind Energy Systems Exemption Missouri Schools Going Solar. Conversion Facilities Sales Tax Exemption. Energy $mart Loan Fund Energy Improvement Loan Program (EILP) Residential Renewable Energy Grants. Renewable Energy Producers Property Tax Abatement. BEF Renewable Energy Grant. Schools with Sol Energy $mart New Construction Program. Generation Facility Corporate Tax Exemption. Property Tax Abatement for Green Buildings. Geothermal.State Tax Incentives Electric (PV) Systems Exemption Grants. Wind Incentive Program. Solar. Geothermal. and Wind Property Exemption. Solar. Active Solar Heating and Cooling Systems Exemption Geothermal. Renewable Energy Business Venture Assistance Program (REBVAP). Rebates and Other Incentives Grants. BEF – Solar 4R Schools. Loans. Agricultural Improvement Loan Program for Wind Energy. Hydrogen and Large Wind Sales Tax Exemption. and Wind Corporate Credit. PV Incentive Program. Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program NE NV Dollar and Energy Savings Loans Solar Generations PV Rebate Program NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit. Solar and Fuel Cell Tax Credit. Renewable Energy Advanced Power Program. Wind and Biomass Energy Systems Exemption Renewable Energy Tax Credit – Personal. Large Wind Property Tax Reduction Conversion Facilities Corporate Tax Exemption. Conversion Facilities Property Tax Exemption New Jersey Clean Energy Rebate Program. Renewable Energy Economic Development Program (REED). Renewable Energy Loans 140 .

The Bright Way to Heat Water Rebate. EWEB . Ashland Electric Utility .Home Energy Air Conditioning and Appliance Rebates. WV Tax Exemption for Wind Energy Generation. Orcas Power & Light .Solar Rebate Program.Solar Water Heater Program Loan.The Bright Way To Heat Water Loan Sustainable Development Fund Solar PV Grant Program (PECO Territory). EWEB . Small Scale Energy Loan Program (SELP).Energy Management Services Loan. Special Assessment for Wind Energy Systems 141 . Sustainable Development Fund Commercial Financing Program (PECO Territory).Photovoltaic Rebate. Austin Energy . EWEB . Penelec SEF of the Community Foundation for the Alleghenies Loan Program (FirstEnergy Territory). BEF . Renewable Energy Sales Tax Exemption Sales Tax Exemption Local Option Property Tax Exemption for Solar Sales and Use Tax Exemption SC SD TN TX Small Business Energy Loan Program Austin Energy . Wind Energy Property Tax Exemption Wind Energy Systems Exemption Solar Energy Device Franchise Tax Deduction.Solar Water Heating Rebate. RFP for Purchase/Sale of Renewable Electricity to Large Customers Renewable Generation Supply Incentive Residential Solar Initiative for EarthCraft Homes Rebate PA RI Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit. Metropolitan Edison Company SEF Loans (FirstEnergy Territory). Renewable Energy Systems Exemption Grants. Renewable Energy Systems Property Tax Exemption Renewable Energy Systems Tax Credit – Personal. SEF of Central Eastern Pennsylvania Grant Program (PP&L Territory). Solar Property Tax Exemption Renewable Energy Systems Exemption. Business Energy Tax Credit.Solar Rebate Program UT VT VA WA Solar & Small Wind Incentive Program. EPUD . Rebates and Other Incentives Energy Trust Solar Electric Buy-Down Program. West Penn Power SEF Grant Program. Ashland Electric Utility . Puget Sound Energy . Renewable Energy Systems Tax Credit – Corporate. Energy Trust Open Solicitation Program. Franklin PUD – Photovoltaic and Solar Water Heating Rebate.The Bright Way to Heat Water Loan. SEF of Central Eastern Pennsylvania Loan Program (PP&L Territory). Clark Public Utilities – Solar Water Heater Rebate Program. Grays Harbor PUD . Klickitat PUD – Solar Rebate. Loans.State OK OR Tax Incentives Zero-Emission Facilities Production Tax Credit Residential Energy Tax Credit.Solar Electric Program. OTEC . West Penn Power SEF Commercial Loan Program PV & Wind Rebate Program. CVPS Biomass Grants Virginia Small Wind Incentives Program (VSWIP) Clallam County PUD . EWEB Energy Management Services Rebate. Renewable Energy Sales Tax Exemption. Small Customer Incentive Program for Green Power Marketers.The Bright Way To Heat Water Rebate.Photovoltaic Rebate Program. Metropolitan Edison Company SEF Grants (FirstEnergy Territory).Renewable Energy Grant.Solar Water Heater Program Rebate. Ashland . EPUD . Penelec SEF of the Community Foundation for the Alleghenies Grant Program (FirstEnergy Territory). Pennsylvania Energy Harvest Grant Program. Sustainable Development Fund Grant Program (PECO Territory).Solar PV System Rebate. BEF – Solar 4R Schools. Energy Trust Solar Water Heating Buy-Down Program.

November 2005. Rebates and Other Incentives Focus on Energy . Inc. – Residential Renewable Energy Loan Renewable Energy Sales Tax Photovoltaic Incentive Program Exemption Source: North Carolina Solar Center.org/summarytables/financial. Inc.Cash-Back Reward. Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy. – Residential Renewable Energy Rebate.State WI Tax Incentives Solar and Wind Energy Equipment Exemption Grants. WY 142 . Focus on Energy – Zero-Interest Loans. http://www.cfm?&CurrentPageID=7. Wisconsin Public Power.dsireusa. Loans. Focus on Energy Grant Programs. Wisconsin Public Power.

February 2006).31 78. while individual program values represent each program case.27 16.76 1.01 3.1 – Projections of Renewable Electricity Net Capacity (Gigawatts) Data Sources Renewable Energy Geothermal AEO2006 . “Total” represents portfolio case values.27 8.61 17.61 6.93 120.10 22.Reference Case AEO2006 .Reference Case AEO2006 . DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.14 4. Notes: OnLocation GPRA07 benefits estimates do not estimate any programmatic influence on biomass power.78 3.26 112.25 225.41 79.09 2. MSW.97 78.11 3.56 2.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Biomass/Wood (excludes cogen) AEO2006 .20 1.92 3.45 4.95 109. 1 2 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy.21 11.66 135.53 18.67 1. Total includes biomass combined heat and power and on-site electricity-only plants for industrial and commercial sectors not detailed above.80 2.53 196.17 1. Tables A16 and D7.80 20. The GPRA FY07 modeling effort uses the NEMS model.79 3.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2.32 78.09 98.Table 4.86 78.64 9.87 77.C.33 79.47 31.14 AEO2006 .87 4.56 16. LFG/MSW. and LFG are not included in the portfolio value.15 2.23 2010 2.Reference Case AEO2006 .96 2.14 Total Renewable Energy AEO2006 .98 1.83 4.21 79. Total Renewable Capacity GPRA projections provided by OnLocation.92 3.83 2.81 18.37 18. 143 .Reference Case AEO2006 .62 4.84 2.63 2025 6.71 2015 3. EERE does not have an R&D program for biomass. February 2006.88 19. The portfolio case accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects. D.46 3..02 2030 6.19 2020 4.21 6.17 1.02 4.82 119.47 1. Biomass.55 MSW and LFG AEO2006 .12 115.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2 3.71 2.53 78.91 0.53 78. The portfolio values do not equal the summed values of the individual programs.55 3. as the portfolio analysis accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.21 79.31 2.62 2.15 2.19 3.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Wind AEO2006 .High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Solar 1 Projections 2006 2.85 1.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Hydroelectric AEO2006 .03 3.Reference Case AEO2006 .High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 3 102.54 115.93 4.21 68.92 109. which uses the EIA AEO 2005 as the baseline for its analysis.81 137.27 78.16 78.38 Sources: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006.57 4. because the Biomass Program has been redirected away from biomass power to integrated biorefinery technologies.Reference Case AEO2006 .53 78.63 10. so they are not included in GPRA projections.Reference Case AEO2006 .21 123.

30 151.80 1. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington. The portfolio values do not equal the summed values of the individual programs.Reference Case AEO2006 .00 63.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Wind AEO2006 .20 27.90 2025 46.46 558.Reference Case AEO2006 . which uses the EIA AEO 2005 as the baseline for its analysis.30 39.29 27.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2 25.Table 4.06 927.94 32.60 28.60 539. and LFG are not included in the portfolio value.74 2030 52.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Biomass/Wood (without cogeneration) AEO2006 .83 95.25 50. so they are not included in GPRA projections. Notes: OnLocation GPRA07 benefits estimates do not estimate any programmatic influence on biomass power.Reference Case AEO2006 . February 2006).45 475.06 29. Tables A16 and D7.15 544.50 59..70 559.80 301.82 64.91 23.98 2015 22.14 638.15 304.65 400.Reference Case AEO2006 .High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Solar 1 Projections 2006 14. because the Biomass Program has been redirected away from biomass power to integrated biorefinery technologies.75 479.30 35.87 50.19 2.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Hydroelectric AEO2006 .10 29.75 28.60 51.51 19.16 12. Renewable generation GPRA projections provided by OnLocation.60 2.60 3.30 29.60 55.27 304.C. while individual program values represent each program case. D.40 3.01 47.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 18.91 2010 17.96 MSW and LFG AEO2006 .67 Sources: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006.10 3.51 73.35 2.36 3.25 35.40 303. The GPRA FY07 modeling effort uses the NEMS model.80 490.10 303.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 3 417. The portfolio case accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.91 742. February 2006. EERE does not have an R&D program for biomass.70 48.2 – Projections of Renewable Electricity Net Generation (Billion Kilowatthours) Data Sources Renewable Energy Geothermal AEO2006 . MSW.97 309.06 303.80 29.13 27.60 303.03 30.50 515.82 59.Reference Case AEO2006 .48 64.13 301.87 302.00 304. Biomass.69 15.86 454.10 63.70 30.71 6. as the portfolio analysis accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.10 302. 1 2 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy. 144 .01 AEO2006 .59 59.08 28.90 293.45 27.67 45.87 44.84 2020 34.Reference Case AEO2006 .87 25.68 5.20 44.04 Total Renewable Energy AEO2006 .Reference Case AEO2006 .13 27.70 12. LFG/MSW.90 57. “Total” represents portfolio case values.40 301.70 73.

593 5.891 6.65 2025 7.872 4.36 94.96 7.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Wind AEO2006 . Tables A16 and F8.Reference Case AEO2006 . 2030 values are NREL estimates based on trend.39 5.65 89.03 5.Reference Case AEO2006 .37 49.99 122.67 5.27 79.53 23. pages B-13 and B-16.84 0.78 4.93 0.39 6.01900 Sources: Generation data: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006.48 3.23 0. (September 14.82 5.77 49.12 0.63 8.10 8.40 4.98 9.34 9..02048 0.86 60.Reference Case AEO2006 .81 2. February 2006. Department of Energy.87 7. DOE/EIA-0383 (06) (Washington.18 46.21 56.49 95.54 83. 145 .68 84.78 4.75 11.22 2020 5.Reference Case AEO2006 .S.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Heat Rate Carbon Coefficient Btu/kWh MMTCE/Tbtu 3 0.75 0.50 2.85 50.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 MSW and LFG AEO2006 .92 3.69 73.59 10.68 7.87 3. GPRA2003 Data Call.796 10.55 12.10 5.27 4. Appendix B.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2 Total Renewable Energy AEO2006 .39 5.01875 0.88 10.17 2030 6. Renewable generation GPRA projections provided by OnLocation.27 2.01783 0.56 3.79 10.01988 0.39 82.37 9. D.34 2015 4.51 10.51 0. Heat Rate and Carbon Coefficienct data based on GPRA 2003 Data Call.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Biomass/Wood AEO2006 .85 5.59 7. Carbon emission coefficients and heat rates for 2006-2025: U.266 7.13 90.019 8.74 8.86 59.30 3.47 0.88 9.Reference Case AEO2006 .60 39.42 9.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Hydroelectric AEO2006 .83 9.87 9.Table 4.3 – Projections of Renewable Electricity Carbon Dioxide Emissions Savings (Million Metric Tons Carbon Equivalent per Year) Data Sources Renewable Energy Geothermal AEO2006 .77 56.92 46.43 59. 2001).47 5.49 39.00 83.Reference Case AEO2006 .Reference Case AEO2006 .36 55.47 0.44 6.C.53 AEO2006 .01944 0. February 2006).87 5.86 9.03 142.69 0.75 85.50 80.56 0.65 49.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Solar 1 Projections 2006 2.87 2010 3.03 4.10 10.

as the portfolio analysis accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects. The portfolio values do not equal the summed values of the individual programs. MSW. and LFG are not included in the portfolio value. 146 . so they are not included in GPRA projections Biomass.Notes: Carbon emissions savings based on calculation: (10^9 kWh) * (Btu/kWh) * (TBtu/10^12 Btu) * (MMTCE/TBtu) 1 2 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy. EERE does not have an R&D program for LFG/MSW.

Table 5.1 – U.S. Total and Delivered Energy (Overview)
(Quadrillion Btu per year) 1980 Total Consumption by Source Petroleum Natural Gas 3 Coal Nuclear 4 Renewable 5 Other Total Primary
2 1

1990 33.55 19.74 19.58 6.10 6.13 -0.03 84.71 17.06 13.32 31.90 22.42 84.71 6.60 3.85 21.21 22.37 54.03

2000 38.26 23.91 23.54 7.86 6.16 0.06 98.96 20.53 17.18 34.70 26.55 98.96 7.20 4.22 22.80 26.49 60.72

2001 38.19 22.90 22.91 8.03 5.33 -0.02 96.47 20.29 17.37 32.53 26.28 96.47 6.91 4.04 21.80 26.22 58.96

2002 38.23 23.62 23.10 8.14 5.84 -0.01 97.87 20.91 17.58 32.53 26.85 97.87 6.89 4.10 21.77 26.79 59.54

2003 38.81 23.07 23.48 7.96 6.08 -0.07 98.31 21.20 17.45 32.56 27.10 98.31 7.19 4.26 21.48 27.03 59.95

2004

7

2010 43.14 24.04 25.09 8.44 7.08 0.07 107.87 22.99 19.51 34.46 30.90 107.87 12.25 9.00 26.67 30.70 78.62

2015 45.69 26.67 25.66 8.66 7.43 0.08 114.18 24.07 21.23 35.60 33.29 114.18 12.81 9.85 27.72 33.09 83.46

2020 48.14 27.70 27.65 9.09 8.00 0.05 120.63 25.17 23.02 36.95 35.50 120.63 13.31 10.66 28.91 35.30 88.19

2025 50.57 27.78 30.89 9.09 8.61 0.05 126.99 25.88 24.82 38.77 37.52 126.99 13.64 11.50 30.58 37.31 93.04

2030 53.58 27.66 34.49 9.09 9.02 0.05 133.88 26.64 26.73 40.58 39.93 133.88 14.04 12.44 32.19 39.72 98.40

34.20 20.39 15.39 2.74 5.49 0.07 78.29

39.83 22.98 23.66 8.23 6.12 0.04 99.73 21.18 17.51 33.25 27.79 99.73 7.02 4.07 22.08 27.71 60.88

Total Consumption by Sector Residential 15.85 Commercial 10.59 Industrial 32.15 Transportation 19.70 6 Total Primary 78.29 Delivered Consumption by Sector Residential 7.50 Commercial 4.10 Industrial 22.67 Transportation 19.66 6 Total Delivered 53.93

Sources: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington, D.C., February 2006), Tables A1 and A2; EIA, Annual Energy Review 2004, DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington, D.C., August 2005), Tables 2.1a-f. Notes: 1 For historical figures, these values include the electric-power sector's consumption. 2 Includes natural gas plant liquids, crude oil consumed as a fuel, and nonpetroleum-based liquids for blending, such as ethanol.
3 Includes coal in all sectors, as well as net imports of coal coke in the industrial sector.
4 Includes grid-connected electricity from conventional hydroelectric; wood and wood waste; landfill gas; municipal solid waste; other biomass; wind;
photovoltaic and solar-thermal sources; nonelectric energy from renewable sources, such as active and passive solar systems, and wood for
residential heating; and both the ethanol and gasoline components of E85 (which, due to seasonal adjustments in mix, is E74, on average), but not
lower percentage blends of ethanol (e.g. E10). Excludes electricity imports using renewable sources and nonmarketed renewable energy.

For historical figures, this value includes hydroelectric pumped storage and electricity net imports – except in 2004, where it only shows electricity
net imports (AER 2004 no longer includes hydroelectric pumped storage). For forecasted figures, this value includes net electricity imports, methanol,
and liquid hydrogen.
6 For historical figures, this value does not include the electric-power sector's consumption.
7 All 2004 figures are preliminary.

5

Table 5.2 – Electricity Flow Diagram (Quadrillion Btu)

Source: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2004, DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington, D.C., August 2005), Diagram 5. Notes: a Blast furnace gas, propane gas, and other manufactured e Electric energy used in the operation of power plants, estimated as 5% of gross and waste gases derived from fossil fuels. generation. b Batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, f Transmission and distribution losses (electricity losses that occur between the sulfur and miscellaneous technologies. point of generation and delivery to the customer) are estimated as 9% of gross generation.

c Estimated as net generation divided by 0.95.

g Use of electricity that is 1) self-generated, 2) produced by either the same entity that consumes the power or an affiliate, and 3) used in direct support of a service or industrial process located within the same facility or group of facilities that house the generating equipment. Direct use is exclusive of station use.

d Data collection frame differences and sampling error.
Totals may not equal sum of components, due to independent rounding.

DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.196 192 4.629 919 30 949 30 24 233 3. A9. and A10. Tables 8. Annual Energy Review 2004.098 56 1. D. and 8.370 163 3. 8.901 137 3. August 2005).. and electricity sales among adjacent or colocated facilities for which revenue information is not available.592 819 29 848 39 16 226 3.491 5. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. commercial.713 125 2.. data also include net summer capacity at independent power producers. data are for electric utilities only.953 4.388 4.978 177 4.11b.C. Notes: 1 Electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants within the NAICS 22 category whose primary business is to sell electricity – or electricity and heat – to the public.027 44 1. unless otherwise noted) 1980 1990 Electric-Power Sector 1 Generation End-Use Sector Generation Total Generation Capability (gigawatts) 2 Electric-Power Sector 3 End-Use Sector Total Capability Imports from Canada/Mexico Exports to Canada/Mexico 4 Loss and Unaccounted for Retail Sales 6 Direct Use Total Use 5 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 7 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2.488 168 3. and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.3 – Electricity Overview (Billion Kilowatthours.1. 2 Through 1988.717 988 32 1. EIA.883 3. 4 Electricity losses that occur between the point of generation and delivery to the customer.844 1.C.629 214 4. NA = not available .827 280 5.11d.956 252 5.638 164 3.300 192 4.656 938 30 968 34 22 248 3. 3 Commercial and industrial combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and electricity-only plants. 8.551 166 3.108 5.491 1.290 2.619 Sources: EIA.154 28 13 NA 4.727 4.121 370 5. Tables A8. data are for net summer capacity at electric utilities only.286 3 2.794 160 3.Through 1988.341 278 5.497 429 5. data are for electric utilities and independent power producers. February 2005).858 3. but which may also sell some power to the grid.838 782 30 812 49 15 243 3.186 64 1.926 579 NA 579 25 4 216 2.094 710 24 734 18 16 203 2.038 3.721 162 3.021 42 21 NA 3.802 3. 5 Electricity retail sales to ultimate customers reported by electric utilities and other energy-service providers.11a. All data after 1989 include electric-sector combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants. 6 Commercial and industrial facility use of on-site net electricity generation.501 226 4. Data begins in 1989.208 1.072 29 15 NA 4. and data collection frame differences and nonsampling error. Beginning in 1989. D.698 160 3.094 NA 2.002 41 18 NA 4.250 27 13 NA 5. and small on-site generating systems in the residential.533 876 29 905 36 14 253 3.155 965 37 1.463 166 3.421 171 3.737 3.Table 5. beginning in 1989.580 157 3.

lignite. EIA.2 NA 5 1. Forecast values calculated from quadrillion Btu using conversion factor 6. other petroleum liquids. 1 2 Anthracite. In forecasted values.013 18 141 6. For 1980-2000. kerosene.287 MMBtu/barrel.052 NA 2030 1.8 2. waste coal.142 NA 2020 1. Through 1998.0 195 5. Beginning in 1989.381 NA 569 29 391 0. Beginning in 1999. and waste oil. and petroleum coke. 5 Petroleum coke is converted from short tons to barrels by multiplying by 5. other liquids. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. 4 Jet fuel. 2.2 0. For 1949-1979.003 27 137 5.217 107 Distillate Fuel Oil (million barrels) Residual Fuel Oil (million barrels) Other Liquids (million barrels) 4 Petroleum Coke (million short tons) Total Petroleum (million barrels) Natural Gas (billion cubic feet) Coal (million short tons) 7 421 3. Annual Energy Review 2004. 1. data are for electric utilities and independent power producers. Light fuel oil (Nos. D.7 1.Table 5.0 0.5b and 8.4 – Consumption of Fossil Fuels by Electric Generators 1980 Coal (million short tons) 1 2 3 1990 781 16 183 1. Forecast values calculated from quadrillion Btu using conversion factor 5.4 184 5. bituminous coal. February 2006). 5 and 6).014 102 2001 962 29 159 3. residual fuel oil.140 40 117 NA NA 157 5..459 NA 2025 1.825 MMBtu/barrel. subbituminous coal. For 1980 2000. A13. data are for steam plant use of petroleum. and A15.354 44 118 NA NA 162 7. data are for gas turbine and internal combustion plant use of petroleum.3 0. 4. consumption data also include independent power producers. 8 All 2004 figures are preliminary NA = not available 7 6 .909 122 2004 8 2010 1.142 138 2002 975 22 105 5. Tables A2.7 1.509 NA 2015 1.8.C. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.235 41 117 NA NA 158 7. total petroleum is calculated sum.02 205 3. consumption data are for electric utilities only. Data include fuel consumption to produce electricity by combined-heat-and-power plants.9 195 4.161 40 116 NA NA 156 7.2 156 5. 3 Heavy fuel oil (Nos.408 142 2003 1. Notes: Data is for electric-power sector consumption only.. Through 1988. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. and 4). electric utility data also include small amounts of kerosene and jet fuel. electric utility data also include a small amount of fuel oil No. data are for electric utilities only.502 46 128 NA NA 173 6. August 2005).4 205 5. Includes distillate fuel oil.147 6 2000 983 30 138 3.C. D. For 1949-1979. Table 8.682 183 Stocks of Coal and Petroleum (end of year) 156 Petroleum (million barrels) 136 84 41 57 52 53 50 NA NA NA NA NA Sources: EIA. and synthetic coal.

033 -90 2. chemicals.003 75 0.567 2. propane gas. and miscellaneous technologies.068 NA 38.C.351 1.633 8.185 5. sulfur.470 7.982 71 NA 2.089 NA 2.235 8.635 9.143 -88 2. 4 Batteries.227 5.28 2001 19.154 38. pitch. hydrogen.270 9 26. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. 2 Pumped storage facility production minus energy used for pumping. D. Annual Energy Review 2004.383 48.4b.781 156 337 303 5 115 3.224 1.271 1.804 8.862 -57 2. February 2006).542 7. data are for consumption at electric utilities only.537 8. purchased steam. Tables A2 and A17.199 30 26.541 1.647 971 NA 29.018 7.96 2003 20. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.522 955 25 26.209 116 314 289 6 70 3.768 126 294 296 5 57 3.196 30 26.Table 5.860 53.983 518 335 393 10 524 4..817 45. and EIA.560 78 6.333 18 654 5.470 49 NA 2025 27.746 6.953 50 NA 2030 30. Table 8. Beginning in 1989. Notes: Data are for fuels consumed to produce electricity at both electricity-only and at combined-heat-and-power plants.320 960 NA 31.985 522 349 567 13 577 5.351 9.494 5.733 5.768 9.044 8.867 3 2 110 NA NA 2.995 37.145 19 26.104 -36 3.994 633 372 1.009 1.014 106 180 326 4 29 3.742 6. data also include consumption at independent power producers.919 5.235 3.123 3.022 38. 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy.994 566 360 918 15 616 5.634 NA 18. 5 All 2004 figures are preliminary .517 37.697 22 15.068 38.658 8 0. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.00 2002 19.659 NA 2.5 – Electric-Power Sector Energy Consumption (Trillion Btu) 1980 Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Other Gas 1 1990 16.08 2000 20. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels. 1 Blast furnace gas.994 584 369 1. 1980 data included in Conventional Hydroelectric.232 -6 Total Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Conventional Hydroelectric Wood Waste Geothermal Solar Wind Total Renewable Energy Electricity Imports Other 4 3 --2.810 2.650 141 353 305 6 105 3.710 Sources: EIA. Through 1988.088 NA 2.763 74 NA 2015 23.692 42.09 Total Primary Consumption 24.374 7.57 2004 5 2010 22.538 21 665 6.616 39 0.359 30.281 6 20.120 1. D.137 5.442 NA 2.244 50.C.223 48 NA 12.547 115 1.089 NA 2.959 -88 2.739 2 20.228 998 NA 35.673 158 334 302 6 143 3..645 972 NA 33. August 2005).352 7.013 79 NA 2020 25.

The data book has kept historical record of pumped storage hydroelectric pumped storage plants. NA = not available 6 . the change was made because most of the electricity used to pump water into elevated storage reservoirs is generated by plants other than pumpedstorage plants. According to EIA. and natural gas). because the information is useful to some analysts. thus. the associated energy is already accounted for in other data columns in the tables (such as conventional hydroelectric power. energy consumed by hydroelectric pumped storage plants is no longer included.Starting with AER 2004 (August 2005). coal.

119 33.023 4.223 21.877 42.967 822.1.977 196.057 210.427 Source: PowerDat.042 4.128 2005 233. .582 11.694 205.465 156.001 136.085 156.121 83.560 24.270 224.603 1999 34.504 33.236 145.259 692.204 18.982 155.566 573.466 42.161 757.136 93.534 37.214 2003 204.731 31.854 33.232 501.164 87.129 2001 90.870 54.465 2000 54. Notes: Total MW does not equal fossil-fuel generation capacity cited in Table 6.166 128.546 2004 218.321 15.879 143.376 1990 39.859 8. Capacity reported in this table is nameplate capacity.274 95.156 33.078 204.735 82. © 2005.234 81. a division of the McGraw-Hill companies.976 81.291 623.292 91.Table 5.855 226.868 93.701 2.215 102.487 804.042 92.055 86. Platts.450 14.274 44.139 94.140 175.461 188.854 221.382 89.634 652.464 172.618 99.613 80.676 830.952 2002 155.6 – Fossil-Fuel Generation by Age of Generating Units (Megawatts) 1980 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50 Total: 91.690 141.

929 6.039 1999 1.558 2.859 6.533 32.215 56.000 1990 30.628 48.289 33.435 40.105 12.270 47.270 40.332 107.432 44.810 54.095 107.143 107. .270 4. © 2005. Capacity reported in this table is nameplate capacity.435 107.413 309 0 57.214 2004 0 1.214 2005 0 1.270 31.214 2002 0 2.036 44. Platts.189 43.Table 5.351 107.7 – Nuclear Generation by Age of Generating Units (Megawatts) 1980 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 16.597 4.214 2003 0 1.408 25.315 26.200 41.537 46.324 107.485 51.420 17.270 1.214 2000 1.989 6.278 39. a division of the McGraw-Hill companies.1.214 2001 0 2.177 Source: PowerDat.485 49. Notes: Total MW does not equal nuclear-generation capacity cited in Table 6.940 106.073 0 111.

alcohol (includes butahol.710 354 94.970 7.497 11. wood or wood waste) There are an additional 65.869 2. livestock manure.703 354 94. cannery wastes. Notes: Totals do not equal renewable generation capacity cited in Table 6.458 11. 5.090 114. refused-derived fuel Timber and logging residues (Includes tree bark.955 1. because they have no specific online date.576 3. bagasse.335 5.645 354 94. 8 There are an additional 24 MW of hydroelectric capacity that are not accounted for here.003 2.31 MW of wood residues that are not accounted for here.030 2. saw dust. wastewater sludge.078 114.000 7.06 85.475 2003 1 40 18 263 3.335 4. it is not verified at time of data book release 2 Agricultural residues.8 – Operational Renewable Energy Generating Capacity (Megawatts) 1980 Agricultural Residues 3 BioGas 4 Municipal Solid Waste 5 Timber Residues 6 Bioenergy Total Geothermal 7 Photovoltaic Solar Thermal 8 Hydro Wind Total 2 1990 165 361 2. ethanol.nrel.445 MW of bio gas. and methanol).540 4.779 59.172 6.780 111.4 MW of photovoltaic capacity that are not accounted for here. 2003.gov/analysis/repis/. peat.491 0.025 0 80.45 MW of ag waste.190 373 1.922 2.970 7.Table 5.930 2002 373 1. Version 7.344 2000 373 933 2. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. nut hulls.170 274 90. and 483.053 3. wood chips.324 2. scrap tires.305 9. fruit pits. because they have no specific online date.800 2.722 2. landfill gas.569 104.356 5. tree pitch. nut shells 3 Biogas. hydrogen. 1 2003 data is preliminary.569 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS Database).1.452 354 94. http://www.897 802 0.623 113.779 27. hazardous waste. because they have no specific online date.447 11.987 2001 373 999 2. wood gas (from wood gasifier) 4 5 6 Municipal solid waste (includes industrial and medical).497 11. pulping liquor. . 7 There are an additional 3.779 38.970 7.779 67.

and the District of Columbia NA = not available 1999 and 2000 for nonutilities exclude commercial and industrial generators.500 136 2003 223 9 885 2.015 3.015 3.753 2.237 NA NA 1999 238 9 901 2. Hawaii.970 NA NA Other Publicly Owned Utilities Sources: EIA.eia.380 127 2002 230 9 882 2. and Form EIA-906 and EIA-920 databases (2001+ for IPPs) .015 3.http://www. The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry 2000: An Update (historical).145 1. while 2001-2004 include commercial and industrial generators.http://www.html. EIA 861 report (1999+ for utilities) .150 153 240 41 936 1.012 3.160 381 155 2000 240 9 894 2.doe.120 1.doe.Table 5. Rhode Island.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.9 – Number of Utilities by Class of Ownership and Nonutilities 1980 Investor-Owned Utilities Federally Owned Utilities Cooperatively Owned Utilities Total Number of Utilities Nonutilities Power Marketers 1 1990 266 10 951 2.156 446 134 2001 232 9 889 2. .538 147 2004 220 9 884 2.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.013 3.eia.012 3.010 3.html 1 Notes: Co-ops operate in all states except Connecticut.154 1.150 1.

S.. electric industry restructuring commenced in Texas and both TXU and Reliant became Power Marketers Source: EIA.988 6. 1 2000 Rank Million kWh 2 4 9 8 1 3 10 7 6 43 88.680 52.288 4.830 54.176 52.703 4.122 78.665 4.426 3. Alabama Power Co. Table 10 (2005) and Table 17 (previous years) .738 6.775 75. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.200 6.743 Rank 3 4 2 1 6 5 7 8 9 10 4.369 6.229 48.416 5. 1 Million $ 4 2 6 1 5 3 10 9 7 8 Southern California Edison Co.159 5.433 7. Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc Commonwealth Edison Co.763 72.544 66. electric industry restructuring commenced in Texas and both TXU and Reliant became Power Marketers Utility by Revenue (Million $) Rank Florida Power & Light Co.362 71.611 4.495 72.288 1990 Commonwealth Edison Co.305 4.339 75.748 7.208 47.845 5.708 2001 Rank 7.777 4.904 75.437 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2004 Rank Million kWh 99.144 77.881 52.128 74.10 – Top 10 U.522 73.299 3.545 72.340 4. TXU Electric Co.022 4.391 47.283 3.028 6.526 76.803 6.380 5.294 100.151 4.063 40.457 4.726 65.874 5.050 68.437 6.065 6.C.015 4.171 7.028 5.123 48.859 2000 Rank 4 2 3 1 6 5 9 8 12 7 Million $ 6.648 5.338 46.681 3.068 72. Southern California Edison Co.918 49.197 79. Georgia Power Co.723 4.432 75.081 70. DOE/EIA -0540 (00) (Washington. Electric Sales and Revenue . Investor-Owned Utilities & Power Marketers 1990 Utility by Sales (Million kWh) Rank Million kWh Florida Power & Light Co.385 5.782 5.436 2 5 4 7 1 3 9 12 8 11 2001 Rank Million kWh 90.123 4. Georgia Power Co.767 4.835 52.622 2 3 4 1 6 5 7 9 8 14 1 3 4 6 2 5 8 9 7 11 2002 Rank Million kWh 95.384 52.434 53.434 5.335 3.848 4.345 2.Table 5.977 67.858 102.342 6.034 47.154 5.339 2003 Million $ 7.520 7.952 6.897 49. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.141 71.340 70.359 52.953 58.543 75.898 Rank 1 4 3 2 5 6 7 9 8 11 1 3 4 5 2 6 8 10 7 9 2003 Rank Million kWh 99.244 53.821 6. Duke Energy Corp Reliant Energy HL&P1 1 In 2002.852 38.915 5 8 7 9 1 2 12 3 4 10 65. D.622 5.513 4.302 7.030 2002 Million $ 7.286 5. December 2005).816 2004 Million $ 8.597 70. TXU Electric Co.686 18.310 4.073 49.121 73.222 53.477 90.419 54. PacifiCorp 1 In 2002.502 3.885 77.668 3.018 73. Duke Energy Corp Virginia Electric & Power Co. Virginia Electric & Power Co.

744 29.149 28. Edison Mission Energy sold most of its international power-generating assets.408 30.254 21.954 18.323 22.11 – Top 10 Independent Power Producers Worldwide (Megawatts) Company SUEZ Energy International (formerly Tractebel Electricity & Gas Int'l) AES ENEL SpA. Source: Company 10K SEC filings at http://www.000 19.319 23.146 27.000 42.sec.917 45.200 18.733 46.442 23.349 22.889 15.841 44.Table 5.688 48.737 17.317 44.000 55.100 20.000 32.400 8.456 19.891 24. Calpine Dominion Generation Entergy Wholesale Operations Reliant Mirant NRG Energy Edison Mission Energy 1 1 2002 Capacity (MW) 2003 Capacity (MW) 2004 Capacity (MW) 50.660 46.834 In 2004.gov/ accessed 2/06 .086 18.830 21.

or developer 2 Excludes Canadian mergers and acquisitions. Includes foreign acquisition of U. pipeline. Directory of Electric Power Producers.Table 5.12 – Utility Mergers and Acquisitions 1988 Mergers/Acquisitions IOU-IOU Co-op-Co-op IOU-Co-op IOU-Gas 1 1989 1 3 1990 2 2 1991 1 2 1 1992 7 7 2 1993 4 2 1994 1 1 1995 3 4 1 1996 1 2 1 1997 5 13 1 5 1 1998 10 15 4 1999 4 15 3 2 2000 10 3 6 1 2001 3 3 2002 7 1 2003 2 2 2004 3 4 4 3 1 1 Muni-Muni Muni-Co-op Power Authority-IOU Nonutility-IOU Nonutility-Muni TransCo-IOU T assets Foreign-IOU Total Related Activities Name Changes New Holding Company Moved Headquarters Ceased Operations 1 2 1 1 6 1 3 1 1 2 2 8 4 4 4 16 6 2 9 4 25 30 26 1 27 3 11 1 9 9 6 5 2 1 7 5 1 11 4 1 2 4 3 6 3 4 1 2 3 Source: Calculated from Electrical World.S. The McGraw-Hill Companies Notes: 1 Gas local distribution company. companies 3 Includes pending mergers and acquisitions .

com .Table 5. www.13a – North American Electric Reliability Council Map for the United States ECAR ERCOT FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP ECAR East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement Electric Reliability Council of Texas Florida Reliability Coordinating Council Mid-Atlantic Area Council Mid-Atlantic Interconnected Network Mid-Continent Area Power Pool NPCC SERC SPP WECC ASCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council Southeastern Electric Reliability Council Southwest Power Pool Western Electricity Coordinating Council Alaskan Systems Coordinating Council Source: North American Electric Reliability Council.nerc.

www.census.13b – Census Regions Source: U.Table 5. Department of Commerce.S. Bureau of the Census.gov .

.

and other biomass.5 4.1 4.6 8.1 5.0 509.7 1245.C.9 0.6 2015 325.4 79.5 78. D. data are for net summer capacity at electric utilities only. A16. Table 8.4 848.8 NA 81.5 4.8 990. subbituminous coal. tires.1 0.9 3.5 78.9 0.9 100.8 20.0 20.7 20.5 0. purchased steam. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. 4 Wood.6 19.9 763. kerosene.1 0.5 734.9 0.9 19.5 437.8 86.8 0. Tables A9.2 19.5 811.1 3.0 96.6 11.5 2. residual fuel oil.9 0. propane gas. August 2005).8 6.4 374. agricultural byproducts.7 1001. chemicals.7 2.1 – Electric Net Summer Capability (All Sectors) (Gigawatts) 1980 Coal 2 Petroleum/Natural Gas Total Fossil Energy Nuclear 3 Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Conventional Hydroelectric Geothermal 4 Wood 5 Waste Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Wind Total Renewable Energy 6 Other Total Electric Capability 1 1990 307.8 78.6 3. February 2006).8 120.9 3.1 108. sulfur.9 98.9 95.1 123.5 18.7 2001 314.3 1.3 436. Annual Energy Review 2004. black liquor. Includes natural gas-fired distributed generation..8 0.4 6.9 4. and miscellaneous technologies.8 598. 3 Pumped storage included in Conventional Hydro prior to 1989.1 2010 322.7 0. Petroleum.9 20.4 2.1 51.7 634.2 99.2 689. other petroleum. Notes: Data include electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants whose primary business is to sell electricity – or electricity and heat – to the public.3 2003 313. NA = not available .5 98.0 418.6 905.2 7.2 2025 409.4 3. data also include net summer capacity at independent power producers and the commercial and industrial (end-use) sectors. waste oil. D.6 20. lignite.1 NA NA NA 82.3 491.5 79. jet fuel.7 19.8 20..1 5.Table 6.4 468.8 0. and other wood waste.7 112.11a.8 78. waste coal.2 97.8 1.4 94.5 2.3 2.8 3.1 788.9 2.4 3. pitch.2 3. Includes other biomass in projections. and synthetic coal.6 948. supplemental gaseous fuels. sludge waste. blast furnace gas.6 20.4 6.9 0.C.6 824.2 320.7 2. hydrogen.3 2002 315. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.7 1070.4 104.9 97.9 1. Through 1988. 1 2 Anthracite. distillate fuel oil.5 6.7 1151.6 Sources: EIA.8 466.8 115.4 2.9 0.7 1020.0 10.9 750.0 NA NA 444.4 96.3 5.8 78.4 2004 313.8 99. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.5 6.3 17. 6 Includes batteries.5 73.7 0.2 20.8 108.2 99.8 78.0 108. Includes projections for energy crops after 2010. Beginning in 1989.1 2. fuel cells.2 0.2 731.6 968.9 3. landfill gas.3 109.3 0.4 527.2 16.1 2020 355.1 2000 315.8 901.6 2030 481.1 79. natural gas.7 NA 578. bituminous coal.4 220. 5 Municipal solid waste.4 4.8 0.7 5.6 7. petroleum coke.1 283.4 2.1 0.8 20.8 0. EIA.1 1.2 5.8 78. Waste included in Wood prior to 1985.0 1.

data are for net summer capacity at electric utilities only.0 2020 340.9 2.2 243. Includes natural gas-fired distributed generation. propane gas. blast furnace gas.2 3.2 108. 1 Anthracite.1 0.0 947.8 108. 3 4 5 6 Includes batteries.1 813.0 924. Beginning in 1989. Annual Energy Review 2003.4 3.0 0.1 1. sludge waste. and synthetic coal.0 0.C.9 665.4 4.9 0.6 3.1 694. residual fuel oil.8 20.C. September 2004).0 1055. fuel cells. waste oil.9 0.4 2.7 20.4 584.6 20.7 0.9 19. NA = not available .9 407.0 986.7 0. pitch.1 0.2 20. Wood.4 723. hydrogen.9 20. A16.0 1.9 99.0 362.3 2. lignite.7 105. Includes projections for energy crops after 2010.5 77.0 2025 385.2 – Electricity-Only Plant Net Summer Capability (Gigawatts) 1980 Coal 3 Petroleum/Natural Gas Total Fossil Energy Nuclear 4 Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Conventional Hydroelectric Geothermal 5 Wood 6 Waste Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Wind Total Renewable Energy Other 7 Total Electric Capability 2 1990 299.5 3. landfill gas.8 77. 2 Petroleum.5 3.1 1.0 3.4 6.5 78.0 1140. data also include net summer capacity at independent power producers.9 20.0 698.1 0.8 77.8 3.7 2.2 99.1 630.0 790. chemicals.4 6.6 0.5 77. natural gas.5 0.4 78.5 98. Includes other biomass in projections.5 3.8 77.3 1.6 4. bituminous coal.2 279. and miscellaneous technologies.6 17.7 498. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.2 2003 303.Table 6.7 409. and other wood waste.5 16. other petroleum. purchased steam. black liquor.7 1.0 90. subbituminous coal. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.8 77. Municipal solid waste. Notes: Data are for electricity-only plants in the electric-power sector. February 2006).6 2000 305.7 428.9 6.9 2.8 0. Through 1988.11c.8 0.8 108.4 378.6 19. sulfur.5 73.7 0.4 2.8 325.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sources: EIA.8 0.3 748.1 100.9 0.9 682. jet fuel.0 108.2 2.7 0.0 90.1 0.8 19.2 2030 453.2 0.9 4.4 2.0 754.5 2001 305.8 1.9 98.3 1.8 111.5 2.3 2.4 88. Waste included in Wood prior to 1985.8 20. EIA.0 893.8 2002 305.0 20. and other biomass.3 102.9 198.0 876. agricultural byproducts.4 3.1 104.1 443.1 78.8 20. D.9 6. supplemental gaseous fuels.6 2.2 2. Table 8. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.8 77. whose primary business is to sell electricity to the public.0 379.9 897.6 99.8 0. distillate fuel oil.2 3.4 2. kerosene. D. petroleum coke.3 2004 303.5 2015 315.6 2.9 549.4 89. waste coal.1 114.9 0.2 1.2 19.6 89.1 2010 313.8 80. Pumped storage included in Conventional Hydro prior to 1989.0 839.7 18..8 0.. tires. Tables A9.0 97.

0 0.5 0. petroleum coke.0 0.0 1.0 6.8 0. purchased steam. lignite.6 65. EIA.7 73.0 6.7 96.5 21.9 58.3 0. bituminous coal.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.C. jet fuel. propane gas.0 39.0 7. and miscellaneous technologies. and other wood waste.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. D.7 84.1 0.1 0.6 75. Municipal solid waste.0 0. Waste included in Wood prior to 1985.11c.6 0. hydrogen.7 0. Tables A9. Pumped storage included in Conventional Hydro prior to 1989. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington. D.7 0.7 77.8 0.9 93.8 0. Includes natural gas fired distributed generation.1 58.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.8 0. black liquor.6 0.0 0.0 55.3 – Combined-Heat-and-Power Plant Net Summer Capability (Gigawatts) 1980 Coal 3 Petroleum/Natural Gas Total Fossil Energy Nuclear Hydroelectric Pumped Storage Conventional Hydroelectric Geothermal 4 Wood 5 Waste Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Wind Total Renewable Energy Other 6 Total Electric Capability 2 1990 7.6 2003 10.7 0. supplemental gaseous fuels.4 0.0 0.1 2004 9.6 0.3 0..4 0.1 56.5 0. fuel cells. A16. Includes projections for energy crops after 2010.0 0.0 8.8 2030 27. blast furnace gas.0 4.0 0.3 0.9 0. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.2 0. tires.0 0.1 41. and synthetic coal.6 63.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.5 2020 14. Includes other biomass in projections..0 0.4 57.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. kerosene.7 0.9 0.6 0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sources: EIA. landfill gas.5 0.0 5.5 61.6 72. agricultural byproducts.0 8.5 57. chemicals.9 49.3 0.0 4.5 35.4 2015 10. pitch. residual fuel oil.7 29.2 2001 9. 1 2 Anthracite.0 67.5 0.0 1.7 104.0 4. Annual Energy Review 2004.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 69.1 0. and other biomass.4 2002 9.5 49.0 0.8 0. waste oil.0 5. Petroleum. sulfur. February 2006). August 2005).C.5 2000 10.4 75. 3 4 5 Wood. distillate fuel oil.3 0. Also includes commercial and industrial CHP and a small number of commercial electricity-only plants. waste coal. Includes electric utility CHP plants.6 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 10.0 0. sludge waste.5 0. subbituminous coal.1 0.5 0.0 5.7 65.7 2025 23. natural gas.Table 6.3 0. Table 8.3 65.9 65.3 0.9 0.8 0.3 5.0 0.6 0.0 7.8 0.9 0. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.3 50.0 0.3 0. 6 Includes batteries.0 4. NA = not available .0 4.0 2010 9. other petroleum.7 0.8 0.5 58.7 87.7 0.3 1. Notes: Includes combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants whose primary business is to sell electricity and heat to the public.

4 2003 98.062 40.412 21.552 56.949 94.013 NF NF 729.537 709.469 104.S.097 35.852 139.4 Source: EIA.013 19.344 56.812 714.943 24.312 604.546 44.815 NA 36.566 56.331 678.614 30.536 43.426 29.461 21.012 SERC 121.478 NF NF 611.994 28.812 714.119 119.) 97.545 117.074 Contiguous U.951 576.235 102.Table 6.426 NF NF 588.696 MAAC 42.602 109.487 59.688 2 WECC (U.551 32.949 56.737 57.) 24.293 158.628 47. 546.478 33. Table 8.535 157. Notes: NF = data not filed.996 40.088 149.986 NF NF NF NF 576.S.670 46.S.622 95.729 33.S.986 141.4 2003 86.874 NF NF 608.767 SPP 52.844 NA 2000 84.471 42.5 2001 2002 Winter Peak 85.972 43.794 678.244 57.831 55. except as noted) North American Electric Reliability Council Regions 1990 2000 2001 2002 Summer Peak ECAR 79.705 56.312 604.187 96.201 56.393 611. D.988 28.) 44.6 2004 102.565 ASCC (Alaska) 463 NF NF NF Hawaii NF NF NF NF U.432 42.870 729.576 97.485 87.556 45.396 MAPP (U. Annual Energy Review 2003.414 40.635 39.606 43.375 NF NF 717.961 40.882 29.321 29.248 FRCC NA 37.841 45.300 44.551 40.740 52.448 38.815 23.113 40.886 57.273 39.256 41.986 28.009 135.389 114.079 137.529 42. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.7 14.645 42.613 49.033 100.413 687.423 61.12. 1 Noncoincident peak load is the sum of two or more peak loads on individual systems that do not occur at the same time interval.S.641 38.458 46.719 24. Net internal demand does not include estimated demand for direct control load management and customers with interruptible service agreements.324 588.6 15..413 687.652 18.134 48.015 45.199 40.252 484.409 24.194 39.868 29. .943 156.450 102.182 141.702 36.996 ERCOT 42.2 1990 67.110 40.146 30.018 153.176 28.258 92.972 28.5 2004 87.477 54.020 593. NA = not available 2003 data are forecast estimates.119 NPCC (U.5 16.4 – Regional Noncoincident 1 Peak Loads and Capacity Margin (Megawatts.367 122.418 45. September 2004).9 29. Total 546.565 3 Capacity Margin (%) 21.541 40.475 53.922 45.625 41.569 MAIN 40.605 28.231 613 NF 484.606 55.116 50.057 55.C.332 42.089 122.015 55. 2 Renamed from WSCC in 2002 3 The percent by which planned generating capacity resources are expected to be greater (or less) than estimated net internal demand at the time of expected peak summer (or winter) demand.

5 6.Table 6.5 9.0 0.4 0.7 0.6 6.6 1.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 41.3 0.7 5.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 11.7 9.0 0.0 0.8 49.9 21.1 0.6 2.2 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 77.8 6. wood.7 5.0 0.6 32.6 8.1 25.0 0.2 6. February 2006). other biomass.0 0.0 0.5 11.0 0.4 9.0 11.. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.8 7.1 53.0 51. D.0 0.8 46. geothermal.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 – Electric-Generator Cumulative Additions and Retirements (Gigawatts) 1 2010 Cumulative Planned Additions Coal Steam 2 Other Fossil Steam Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine/Diesel Nuclear Pumped Storage Fuel Cells 3 Renewable Sources 4 Distributed Generation Total Planned Additions Cumulative Unplanned Additions Coal Steam 2 Other Fossil Steam Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine/Diesel Nuclear Pumped Storage Fuel Cells 3 Renewable Sources 4 Distributed Generation Total Unplanned Additions Cumulative Retirements Coal Steam 2 Other Fossil Steam Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine/Diesel Nuclear Pumped Storage Fuel Cells 3 Renewable Sources Total Retirements 2015 2020 2025 2030 8. Table A9.1 64.7 0.0 51.7 5.4 5.3 0.0 51.2 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 3.0 0.3 6. 2001.2 0.0 0.0 0. . gas-.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 8.7 5.6 8.3 0.9 0.0 0.1 25.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 4. municipal solid waste.4 0.6 8.6 9. wood waste.0 0. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.5 260.0 0.9 31.0 0. 4 Primarily peak load capacity fueled by natural gas. 3 Includes conventional hydroelectric.1 60.0 0.0 0.1 0. 2 Includes oil-.2 0.0 10.4 96.C.1 59.0 11.0 0.3 2. solar.8 6.1 7.3 0.9 0. and dual-fired capability.0 5.4 167.3 0.1 6.2 0.6 28.0 0.7 5.0 11.0 0.0 0.1 25.8 44. Notes: 1 Additions and retirements since December 31.0 51. landfill gas.0 10.7 145.0 49.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 29.1 25.1 25.3 0.0 0.8 45.0 0.3 0.0 46.0 0.8 37.7 Sources: EIA. and wind power.3 0.

437 51. http://www.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/transmission.html.845 1999 76.250 26.560 167.428 144.nerc.515 53.992 55.958 2.518 164.252 54.025 25.com/~esd/Brochure.407 2.6 – Transmission and Distribution Circuit Miles (Miles) 1 Voltage (kilovolts) 230 345 500 765 Total 1980 NA NA NA NA NA 1990 70.827 27.231 81.560 166.948 23.226 82.400 81.pdf Notes: 1 2 Circuit miles of AC lines 230 kV and above. Electricity Transmission Fact Sheets.000 2.855 27.195 27.238 54.888 80. Data includes both existing and planned transmission lines . NERC.eia.429 28.343 2. http://www.011 2.511 47.453 154.560 166.762 49.038 2.503 2000 2 2001 2 2002 2 2003 2 2004 2 76.992 Sources: EIA.426 154.doe. 2005.Table 6. Electricity Supply and Demand Database.587 2.

D. residual fuel oil. waste coal.692 754 -6 276 14 38 23 0 6 356 NA 5 3.277 104 1.730 780 -9 264 14 39 23 1 10 351 NA 6 3. 2 Distillate fuel oil.966 111 601 14 2. data are for generation at electric utilities only. chemicals. Annual Energy Review 2004.381 115 990 12 4. whose primary business is to sell electricity – or electricity and heat – to the public.976 118 700 15 2. sludge waste. black liquor.2a. sulfur.038 2000 1. 4 Blast furnace gas. lignite.809 789 -8 270 14 37 23 1 14 359 NA 6 3. other petroleum. NA = not available . landfill gas. including a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels.974 119 650 16 2. purchased steam. Table 8.677 769 -9 217 14 35 22 1 7 295 NA 5 3.754 251 NA 279 5 0 0 NA NA 285 NA NA 2..933 95 691 11 2. Forecast data include electricity generation from fuel cells.104 577 -4 293 15 33 13 0 3 357 NA 4 3.759 764 -9 276 14 38 24 1 11 363 NA 6 3. and miscellaneous technologies. agricultural byproducts. August 2005).162 246 346 NA 1. 7 Wood.069 12 4.102 12 3.725 871 -9 303 34 86 29 3 60 515 -214 12 5.802 2001 1. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. D.290 Sources: EIA. kerosene. 3 Natural gas. subbituminous coal. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels (including refinery and still gas). Tables A8 and A16.896 108 1. and other biomass. hydrogen.727 2020 2. 1 Anthracite. 8 Municipal solid waste. Data for 1980 included in conventional hydroelectric power. and other wood waste. bituminous coal. 5 Pumped-storage facility production. 10 Batteries.085 871 -9 303 47 103 30 4 63 549 -252 12 5.108 2025 2. propane gas. tires.594 127 373 10 2.883 2004 1. Through 1988. 6 Hydroelectric data through 1988 are for generation at electric utilities and industrial plants only.018 12 3. Notes: Data include electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.388 2015 2. and waste oil.C.411 829 -9 302 23 79 28 3 56 491 -192 12 4.C. data also include generation at independent power producers and the commercial and industrial (end-use) sectors. pitch. petroleum coke.737 2002 1.218 105 774 12 3. minus energy used for pumping.Table 7.491 2030 3.108 809 -9 301 18 76 27 2 51 476 -177 12 4.858 2003 1. Beginning in 1989.926 1.904 125 639 9 2. February 2006). jet fuel. data also include generation at independent power producers and commercial plants. beginning in 1989. and EIA. 9 Includes nonutility and end-use sector generation for own use.953 2010 2.1 – Electricity Net Generation (Billion Kilowatthours) 1980 Coal 2 Petroleum 3 Natural Gas 4 Other Gases Total Fossil Energy Nuclear 5 Hydroelectric Pumped Storage 6 Conventional Hydroelectric Geothermal 7 Wood 8 Waste Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Wind Total Renewable Energy 9 Generation for Own Use 10 Other Total Electricity Generation 1 1990 1.505 107 1.. and synthetic coal. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.497 871 -9 303 53 103 30 6 65 559 -278 12 5.

NA = not available . purchased steam.041 829 -9 297 23 45 26 1 56 448 NA 4. landfill gas. 7 Wood.638 2025 2. lignite. bituminous coal. data are for generation at electric utilities only. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. and miscellaneous technologies.852 113 427 0 2.5 6 316 0 3.911 98 399 0 2.881 83 457 0 2. 1 Anthracite. February 2006). Forecast data include electricity generation from fuel cells.560 118 265 0 1.2c. subbituminous coal.596 871 -9 299 47 51 28 2 63 489 NA 4. 6 Hydroelectric data through 1988 are for generation at electric utilities and industrial plants only. D. jet fuel.945 2030 3.840 2000 1.392 769 -9 214 14 7 17 0. petroleum coke. other petroleum.209 89 743 NA 3.446 764 -9 272 14 7 18 0. data also include generation at independent power producers and commercial plants.2 – Net Generation at Electricity-Only Plants (Billion Kilowatthours) 1980 Coal 2 Petroleum 3 Natural Gas 4 Other Gases Total Fossil Energy Nuclear 5 Hydroelectric Pumped Storage 6 Conventional Hydroelectric Geothermal 7 Wood 8 Waste Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Wind Total Renewable Energy 10 Other Total Electricity Generation 1 1990 1. pitch. D.C.Table 8. agricultural byproducts. Annual Energy Review 2004. Beginning in 1989. chemicals. and EIA.332 1. and other biomass. waste coal. hydrogen.306 2020 2. 5 Pumped-storage facility production.4 3 324 0 2. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.3 0.310 871 -9 298 34 49 27 1 60 469 NA 4.510 789 -8 264 14 7 18 0.2 NA NA 282 0 2. data also include generation at independent power producers. tires. August 2005).505 2003 1. residual fuel oil.Table 7.754 251 NA 276 5 0.411 2002 1. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. and other wood waste.968 871 -9 299 53 58 28 2 65 504 NA 5.473 2001 1.6 10 311 1 3. kerosene.408 754 -6 271 14 7 18 0.5 11 323 1 3.286 Sources: EIA. 8 Municipal solid waste. Data for 1980 included in conventional hydroelectric power. minus energy used for pumping.916 109 421 0 2. 3 Natural gas. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels (including refinery and still gas). sulfur. 10 Batteries. Tables A8 and A16. 2 Distillate fuel oil.728 93 775 NA 3. Notes: Data are for electricity-only plants in the electric-power sector whose primary business is to sell electricity to the public.611 2010 2..422 780 -9 260 14 7 17 0.787 809 -9 297 18 45 25 1 51 436 NA 4.942 577 -4 290 15 6 10 0.162 246 346 NA 1.405 90 814 NA 3. and waste oil. 9 Includes nonutility and end-use sector generation for own use.916 108 486 0 2.020 2015 2.525 2004 1.164 90 533 NA 2.C.5 7 259 0 3.. propane gas. 4 Blast furnace gas. Through 1988. beginning in 1989. black liquor.178 99 691 NA 3. including a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels.6 14 319 3 3. sludge waste. and synthetic coal.

and miscellaneous technologies. and other wood waste. propane gas. Batteries. Also includes commercial and industrial CHP and a small number of commercial and industrial (end-use sectors) electricity-only plants. whose primary business is to sell electricity and heat to the public. Notes: Includes combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants. Includes CHP plants that use multiple sources of energy. pitch. minus energy used for pumping. D. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington..2d.. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. bituminous coal. plus a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels that cannot be identified separately. sulfur. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. other petroleum. jet fuel. and waste oil. NA = not available .C. including hydropower. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels (including refinery and still gas). Tables A8 and A16. tires. black liquor. and other biomass. landfill gas. purchased steam. petroleum coke. waste coal. Municipal solid waste. kerosene. 1 2 3 Anthracite.2c and 8.C.3 – Electricity Generation at Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants (Billion Kilowatthours) 1980 Coal 2 Petroleum 3 Natural Gas 4 Other Gases Total Fossil Energy Nuclear 5 Hydroelectric Pumped Storage 6 Conventional Hydroelectric Geothermal 7 Wood 8 Waste Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Wind Total Renewable Energy 9 Other Total Electricity Generation 1 1990 34 9 108 10 161 0 0 3 0 27 3 0 0 33 4 198 2000 56 13 202 14 284 0 0 4 0 30 6 0 0 40 5 329 2001 52 12 212 9 285 0 0 3 0 29 5 0 0 36 5 326 2002 52 11 234 11 309 0 0 4 0 31 5 0 0 41 4 354 2003 58 11 229 15 313 0 0 4 0 30 6 0 0 40 5 358 2004 61 10 213 15 299 0 0 5 0 30 5 0 0 40 3 342 2010 53 15 241 4 313 0 0 4 0 32 2 1 0 40 12 364 2015 68 15 275 4 363 0 0 4 0 35 2 1 0 43 12 417 2020 99 17 288 5 408 0 0 4 0 38 2 2 0 46 12 466 2025 168 15 294 5 482 0 0 4 0 51 2 2 0 50 12 543 2030 203 16 299 5 522 0 0 4 0 45 2 4 0 55 12 589 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sources: EIA. Distillate fuel oil. Annual Energy Review 2004. hydrogen. lignite. sludge waste. D. and EIA.Table 7. Natural gas. subbituminous coal. 5 6 7 8 9 Pumped-storage facility production. residual fuel oil. chemicals. and synthetic coal. Forecast data include electricity generation from fuel cells. 4 Blast furnace gas. February 2006). Includes electric utility CHP plants. Wood. agricultural byproducts. August 2005).Table 8.

DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.893 9.2a.764 254 2020 4. and data collection frame differences and nonsampling error.809 258 2001 3. 8.737 7.802 7. Represents energy losses that occur between the point of generation and delivery to the customer.4a.859 NA Transmission and Distribution Losses Sources: Calculated from EIA.211 8. and EIA. Tables 8.Generation for Own Use. Tables A2 and A8.C. Annual Energy Review 2004. D.953 8. 2 Transmission and Distribution Losses= Electricity Needed to be Transmitted.648 10.339 251 2015 4.094 317 2.4 – Generation and Transmission/Distribution Losses (Billion kWh) 1980 Net Generation Delivered Generation Losses 1 2 1990 3.038 6.858 7.316 219 2000 3. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. February 2006).1.756 257 2004 3. where Electricity Needed to be Transmitted = Total Generation from Electric Generators + Cogenerators + Net Imports . Notes: 1 Generation Losses for all years are calculated by calculating a Gross Generation value in billion kWh by multiplying the energy input in trillion Btu by (1000/3412) and subtracting the Net Generation in billion kWh from the Gross Generation estimate.232 274 2025 5.652 294 2030 5.Table 7. D.798 266 2003 3..006 271 2010 4.883 7.536 8.617 243 2002 3. August 2005). and 8.290 4.C.240 9.. NA = not available .Electricity Sales.

Table 7.5 – Electricity Trade
(Billion Kilowatthours) 1980 Interregional Electricity Trade Gross Domestic Firm Power Trade Gross Domestic Economy Trade Gross Domestic Trade International Electricity Trade Firm Power Imports from Mexico and Canada Economy Imports from Mexico and Canada Gross Imports from Mexico and Canada Firm Power Exports to Mexico and Canada Economy Exports to Mexico and Canada Gross Exports to Canada and Mexico 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

143 182 325

139 174 313

137 215 352

142 233 376

105 231 337

82 200 283

51 168 219

38 165 203

38 158 196

NA NA 25 NA NA 4

NA NA 18 NA NA 16

NA NA 49 NA NA 15

12 26 39 7 10 16

10 27 36 6 9 14

11 19 30 5 19 24

12 22 34 7 16 23

3 40 42 1 20 21

2 39 41 1 17 18

1 29 29 0 15 15

0 27 28 0 13 13

0 26 27 0 13 13

Sources: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2004, DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington, D.C., August 2005), Table 8.1; and EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington, D.C., February 2006), Table A10. Notes: All data are from EIA AEO except Gross Imports and Exports for 1980-2004. NA = not available

Table 8.1 – Electricity Sales
(Billion Kilowatthours) 1980 Electricity Sales by Sector Residential Commercial Industrial 2 Transportation/Other Total Sales 3 Direct Use Total
1

1990 924 838 946 5 2,713 125 2,837

2000 1,192 1,159 1,064 5 3,421 171 3,592

2001 1,203 1,197 964 5 3,370 163 3,532

2002 1,267 1,218 972 6 3,463 166 3,629

2003 1,273 1,200 1,008 7 3,488 168 3,656

2004 1,293 1,229 1,021 8 3,551 166 3,717

2010 1,461 1,430 1,060 26 3,978 177 4,155

2015 1,576 1,592 1,103 28 4,300 192 4,491

2020 1,691 1,762 1,147 29 4,629 214 4,844

2025 1,787 1,944 1,195 30 4,956 252 5,208

2030 1,897 2,151 1,262 31 5,341 278 5,619

717 559 815 3 2,094 NA 2,094

Sources: 2010-2030 - EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington, D.C., February 2006), Table A8; 1980-2004 - EIA, Annual Energy Review 2004, DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington, D.C., August 2005), Table 8.9. Notes: Electricity retail sales to ultimate customers reported by electric utilities and other energy-service providers. “Other” includes public street and highway lighting, other sales to public authorities, sales to railroads and railways, and interdepartmental sales through 2002. Transportation-sector sales reported starting in 2010. 3 Commercial and industrial facility use of on-site net electricity generation; and electricity sales among adjacent or colocated facilities for which revenue information is not available.
2 1

Table 8.2 – Demand-Side Management
1980 Load Management Peak Load Reductions (MW) Energy Efficiency Peak Load Reductions (MW) Total Peak Load Reductions (MW) Energy Savings (Million kWh) 3 Costs (Million 2004$)
2 1

1990 NA NA 13,704 20,458 1,562

2000 10,027 12,873 22,901 53,701 1,694

2001 11,928 13,027 24,955 54,762 1,723

2002 9,516 13,420 22,936 54,075 1,690

2003 9,323 13,581 22,904 50,265 1,325

2004 9,260 14,272 23,532 54,710 1,557

NA NA NA NA NA

Sources: 1980-2003 - EIA, Annual Energy Review 2004, DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington, D.C., August 2005), Table 8.13; 2004 - EIA, Electric Power Annual 2004 Tables, (Washington, D.C., December 2005), Table 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, 9.6, and 9.7 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat9p1.html Notes: The actual reduction in peak load reflects the change in demand for electricity that results from a utility demand-side management program that is in effect at the time that the utility experiences its actual peak load, as opposed to the potential installed peak load reduction capability. Differences between actual and potential peak reduction result from changes in weather, economic activity, and other variable conditions. 1 Load management includes programs such as direct load control and interruptible load control; and, beginning in 1997, "other types" of demand-side management programs. "Other types" are programs that limit or shift peak loads from on-peak to off-peak time periods, such as space heating and water heating storage systems. 2 Energy efficiency refers to programs that are aimed at reducing the energy used by specific end-use devices and systems, typically without affecting the services provided. From 1989 to 1996, energy efficiency includes "other types" of demand-side management programs. Beginning in 1997, these programs are included under load management. 3 Historical data converted to 2004 dollars using EIA Annual Energy Review 2004, Appendix D.

Table 8.3 – Electricity Sales, Revenue, and Consumption by Census Division and State, 2004

Census Division and State New England Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Middle Atlantic New Jersey New York Pennsylvania East North Central Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin West North Central Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Electricity Average Revenue Revenue Consumption Sales (MWh) (million $) (¢/kWh) (kWh/person) 125,249 32,215 12,368 56,142 10,973 7,888 5,664 366,176 77,593 145,082 143,501 571,151 139,254 103,094 106,606 154,221 67,976 261,030 40,903 37,127 63,340 74,054 25,876 10,516 9,214 13,284 3,305 1,198 6,045 1,248 865 624 37,679 7,984 18,209 11,486 37,920 9,465 5,749 7,401 10,629 4,677 16,095 2,619 2,364 3,950 4,494 1,475 599 594 10.6 10.3 9.7 10.8 11.4 11.0 11.0 10.3 10.3 12.6 8.0 6.6 6.8 5.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.2 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.1 5.7 5.7 6.4 8,796 9,177 9,359 8,774 8,377 7,329 9,090 9,063 8,900 7,535 11,545 12,374 10,910 16,437 10,533 13,453 12,278 13,173 13,789 13,527 12,340 12,767 14,712 16,518 11,875 Census Division and State East South Central Alabama Kentucky Mississippi Tennessee West South Central Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas Mountain Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming Pacific Contiguous California Oregon Washington Pacific Noncontiguous Alaska Sales (MWh) 319,085 86,871 86,521 46,033 99,661 494,966 43,672 79,737 50,942 320,615 237,632 66,933 46,724 21,809 12,957 31,312 19,846 24,512 13,540 378,382 252,764 45,636 79,982 16,520 5,788 Revenue (million $) 18,618 5,278 4,004 3,221 6,115 36,952 2,475 5,682 3,313 25,482 16,306 4,985 3,247 1,085 830 2,681 1,409 1,395 674 36,407 28,935 2,833 4,638 2,321 636 Average Electricity Revenue Consumption (¢/kWh) (kWh/person) 5.8 6.1 4.6 7.0 6.1 7.5 5.7 7.1 6.5 7.9 6.9 7.4 6.9 5.0 6.4 8.6 7.1 5.7 5.0 9.6 11.4 6.2 5.8 14.0 11.0 18,114 19,060 20,732 15,759 16,713 14,683 15,714 17,627 14,358 14,025 11,711 11,270 10,015 15,260 13,848 12,967 10,291 9,925 26,585 8,215 6,996 12,534 12,720 2,832 1,270

685 270.657 79.525 4.270 11.5 8.6 7. Includes bundled and unbundled consumers . Electric Sales and Revenue 2004 Spreadsheets.218 1.780 13. 1c.466 66.584 129.5 7.026 11. Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States.892 125.2 6.2 7.1 7.doe. and for Puerto Rico: April 1.756 4.931 15.943 12. Census Bureau.2 6. 2005 (NSTEST2004-01) .835 8.908 105. Data Tables. 2000 to July 1. 1d.South Atlantic Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Maryland North Carolina South Carolina Virginia West Virginia 778.973 13.0 6. http://www.732 3.456 15.785 8.eia.971 Sources: EIA.972 6.html Tables 1b.944 14.471 18.xls Notes: Revenue in 2004 dollars.7 7. http://www. Total 10.6 8.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_sum.424 28.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-01.917 Hawaii U.S.780 1.415 218.State Population Estimates 2005.761 11.919 54.943 225.S.census.1 13.874 885 852 17.548.287 14.4 5. and U.483 7.416 11.

62 6.49 NA NA NA NA NA Fossil Fuel Average Sources: EIA. kerosene. bituminous coal.04 5.29 1. Appendix D.02 5. Table 4. 5 Weighted average price.5. 5 and No.46 1.88 3. February 2006).Table 9. and waste oil.29 5. petroleum coke (converted to liquid petroleum).44 2. jet fuel.40 2. Electric Power Annual 2004. data from the Form EIA-423. No.81 2002 NA 3. these data were not collected. Beginning in 2002.56 2003 6. Data are for steam-electric plants with a generator nameplate capacity of 50 or more megawatts.C. Anthracite.44 3.46 2025 10.48 4. 4 fuel oils).40 5. 2 1990-2003 data are for distillate fuel oil (all diesel and No.23 4.29 1.02 5.96 1. residual fuel oil (No.70 1. including a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels that cannot be identified separately.87 4. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. and synthetic coal. 6 fuel oils and bunker C fuel oil).26 1. and No.08 1.C. NA = not available . waste coal.43 5. Notes: Includes electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity .50 2030 10. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. 1 Historical data converted to 2003$/MMBtu using EIA Annual Energy Review 2003. Table A3.11 1.40 1.93 2000 NA 4. D. lignite. D.73 6.05 6. 3 4 Natural gas.41 2015 9. 2.29 1. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) (Washington.57 2010 9. November 2005).87 1. the data for 2001 and previous years include only data collected from electric utilities via the FERC Form 423.46 1.or electricity and heat . Prior to 2002.36 2. "Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Report" for independent power producers and combined-heat-and-power producers are included in this data dissemination.69 1.51 2.70 5.31 2004 9.28 6. and EIA.29 2.1 – Price of Fuels Delivered to Electric Generators (2004 Dollars per Million Btu) 1 1980 Distillate Fuel Residual Fuel Natural Gas Steam Coal 3 4 5 2 1993 NA 2. subbituminous coal.to the public.48 2.86 2001 NA 3..72 5. 1..41 2020 9.39 2.67 1.65 4.61 1.

064 5 3.491 2020 1.2 – Electricity Retail Sales (Billion Kilowatthours) 1980 Retail Sales Residential Commercial Industrial Total 5 3 4 2 1 1990 924 838 946 5 2.713 2000 1. including sales to railroads and railways." "Industrial. including public street and highway lighting. Annual Energy Review 2004.C.576 1.218 972 6 3.267 1.103 28 4.C.844 2025 1. interdepartmental sales. The sum of "Residential.421 2001 1.008 7 3. and EIA.9.370 2002 1.461 1. September 2005). beginning in 1996. D.Table 9.197 964 5 3.. beginning in 2003.208 2030 1. February 2006).592 1. and other sales to public authorities.619 717 559 815 3 2.463 2003 1.551 2010 1." "Commercial.229 1.060 26 4.192 1.488 2004 1.787 1.195 30 5. 2 3 4 5 Commercial sector.897 2. Table 8.430 1. Transportation sector. Through 2002.094 Transportation Sources: EIA..262 31 5.155 2015 1.147 29 4. includes agriculture and irrigation. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. Notes: 1 Electricity retail sales to ultimate customers reported by electric utilities and.200 1.203 1. (Washington.762 1." and "Transportation. other energy-service providers.293 1." .159 1.273 1.691 1. D. Table A8. Industrial sector.021 8 3.944 1. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006). excludes agriculture and irrigation.151 1.

For 2000 onward.1 7.0 4.3 7. For 1990.3 8. Annual Energy Review 2004. (Washington.4 7. NA = not available .4 5.2 7.1 7.4 2001 9.9 8.2 7. and EIA.7 7.5 2003 8.0 0.9 4.8 5.0 7. Notes: For 1980.1 8. data also include energy-service providers selling to retail customers 1 Historical data real prices expressed in chained (2004) dollars.2 5.7 1.0 4.C. D.1 6.. August 2005). data are for selected Class A utilities whose electric operating revenues were $100 million or more during the previous year.9 8.3 7.0 7.3 2015 8.3 – Prices of Electricity Sold (2003 cents per Kilowatthour) 1 1980 Price by End-Use Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation / Other 3 2 1990 10.7 2002 8.5 7. February 2006).7 1. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).2 2025 8.8 0.6 1.2 7.10.1 7..6 5.5 2.0 0.4 9.7 2000 8.1 6. 2 Prices represent average revenue per kilowatthour.9 7. sales to railroads and railways and interdepartmental sales.4 7. Table 8.6 2. Table A8.0 7.6 9.3 7.4 7.5 7. calculated by using gross domestic product implicit price deflators using EIA Annual Energy Review 2004 Appendix D.9 5.4 5.5 2.3 7.8 11.4 2030 8.7 5.7 6.5 5.C.8 0. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.2 5.4 7.8 5.6 2004 8.Table 9.1 0.4 2 End-Use Sector Average Price by Service Category Generation Transmission Distribution NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.1 2020 8.7 0.5 8.6 2010 8. D.5 7.6 0.1 7.8 8.5 10.0 5.1 5.9 8. other sales to public authorities. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.4 9.7 1.1 5.0 7. data are for a census of electric utilities. 3 Public street and highway lighting.8 Sources: EIA.

data are for a census of electric utilities.537 81.9 and 8.. data are for selected Class A utilities whose electric operating revenues were $100 million or more during the previous year.185 130.680 117.. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).760 100. Tables 8.351 109.353 150.259 1.731 259.980 106.448 424 51.808 132.291 268. Annual Energy Review 2004.392 421. sales to railroads and railways.846 59. and interdepartmental sales through 2003.533 1. Table A8.331 372 97.030 68.598 95.368 355 99.315 318.932 2. February 2006).C.865 348.688 167. DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington.165 2.C.369 108.108 161.235 100.190 260.Table 9.455 289 93. August 2005).453 113. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.10.245 61.180 519 56. For 1990.Transportation-sector revenue reported starting in 2010.536 49.150 149.369 53.778 52.153 236. data also include energy-service providers selling to retail customers .624 60.594 124.803 420 52.579 111.658 64.173 542 56. other sales to public authorities.130 197.589 264. D.419 252. EIA.4 – Revenue from Electric-Utility Retail Sales by Sector (Millions of 2004 Dollars) 1980 Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation/Other All Sectors 2 1 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 77. Notes: 1“ Other” includes public street and highway lighting. D.425 Sources: Calculated from EIA.808 140.399 59. For 2000 onward.741 385. 2 For 1980.090 115.811 303. (Washington.

984 18.232 2.833 4.307 13.307 446 319 1.248 865 624 37.520 11.774 12.278 4.799 10.150 2.185 610 5.677 16.022 1.628 1.247 1. Census Division.505 731 893 1.305 1.085 830 2.045 1.465 5.432 759 1.5 – Revenue from Sales to Ultimate Consumers by Sector.069 5.554 1.681 1.506 1.010 1. 2004 (Millions of 2004 Dollars) Census Division/ State New England Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Middle Atlantic New Jersey New York Pennsylvania East North Central Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin West North Central Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska Residen.902 3.749 7.925 3.034 488 528 163 13.935 2.551 1.Commer1 2 Industrial Other All Sectors tial cial 5.890 4.475 5.847 3.221 6.945 720 1.934 2.538 1.115 36.277 2.447 1.855 3.221 3.707 6.619 2.890 3.095 2.975 1.867 5.950 4.407 28.324 1.116 7.132 962 1.952 2.012 1.486 37.570 1.266 1.560 1.148 6.293 2.038 661 369 33 14 19 302 32 210 60 32 25 1 0 5 1 1 0 13.306 4.323 535 366 273 14.618 5.710 1.134 1. and State.995 423 244 844 233 126 126 5.284 3.544 756 510 1.019 1.759 4.209 11.455 2.710 529 825 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 46 43 1 3 All Sectors 2 18.448 2.864 1.401 5.701 1.510 1.717 2.494 1.793 9.992 11.409 1.482 16.Commer1 Industrial Other tial cial 7.395 674 36.853 14.034 1.313 25.044 1.187 2.287 1.901 1.475 Census Division/ State East South Central Alabama Kentucky Mississippi Tennessee West South Central Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas Mountain Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming Pacific Contiguous California Oregon Washington Residen.466 8.596 637 596 344 190 895 312 314 308 6.364 3.198 6.251 1.638 .629 4.353 3.742 5.299 605 1.648 497 1.985 3.Table 9.401 10.990 10.646 677 5.920 9.295 1.343 294 321 752 609 551 203 16.696 1.332 428 2.657 16.004 3.858 480 373 226 17.679 7.624 2.537 527 2.682 3.063 4.638 2.444 2.732 2.922 7.654 3.477 1.

835 8.874 885 852 17.269 1.321 636 1.912 1.037 100.390 2. Notes: 1 2 Includes sales for public street and highway lighting.369 2.483 Pacific Noncontiguous Alaska Hawaii U.140 1. .310 207 13 1. Table 1c.255 Source: EIA. Total 828 256 571 874 286 588 619 94 526 53.181 4.510 378 147 10. Data Tables.601 2.456 116.756 4. railroads and railways.587 1.516 1.S.685 270.871 1.661 0 0 0 504 2. Includes bundled and unbundled consumers.267 3.086 4.780 1. and interdepartmental sales.eia.972 6.315 843 419 80 22 7 9 31 10 0 599 594 54.785 8.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_tabs. to public authorities.973 300 670 6.525 4.397 670 225 224 18.530 394 124 87 8. Electric Sales and Revenue 2004 Spreadsheets.html.304 2.016 2.doe.North Dakota South Dakota South Atlantic Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Maryland North Carolina South Carolina Virginia West Virginia 249 283 27. http://www.

DOE/EIA-0348(2004) (Washington.. November 2005).828 7. December 2002).446 1. DOE/EIA-0437(94)/2 (Washington.772 951 1. Table 10 and Table 21.897 2.555 61. EIA. DOE/EIA-0437(99)/2 (Washington.922 348 13.683 977 1..Table 9. Table 8.983 107.4.185 4. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1999.181 104.444 3. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 2000.028 22.585 3.988 212 17.398 9.466 26.132 58.532 2004 28.378 26. DOE/EIA-0437(00)/2 (Washington. Operation.969 12.256 Publicly Owned Utilities 1990 1995 2000 2002 5. data for 2004 not available. EIA.311 3.3.000 700 354 84 2.526 62.C.C.676 604 950 375 75 29 1.688 90.247 1.821 261 12.288 Operation and Maintenance Expenses Transmission Expenses Distribution Expenses Customer Accounts Expenses Customer Service and Information Expenses Sales Expenses Administrative and General Expenses Total Electric Operation and Maintenance Expenses 1.246 1. Public Electric Utility Database (Form EIA-412) 2002 and 2003.619 3.181 212 10.494 3. Investor-Owned and Publicly Owned Utilities (Million of Nominal Dollars) 1990 Production Expenses Cost of Fuel Purchased Power Other Production Expenses Total Production Expenses 2 Investor-Owned Utilities 1995 2000 2002 2003 29.653 663 630 448 120 30 2. Totals may not equal sum of components.130 2. Electric Power Annual 2004.594 5.371 18. EIA.C. Table 10 and Table 21. D.113 4. and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.012 238 13.044 754 311 95 2. November 2000).839 403 13.542 155 15.526 32.6 – Production.. because of independent rounding. D.352 96. Table 8 and Table 17. 3 Collection of Form EIA-412 has been suspended.127 4.348 24.301 4.863 7.872 25.165 1.425 2. D..C.726 3.543 4. D.702 16.1.973 5. .078 1.. December 1995).476 62.009 25.173 7.018 845 854 662 233 82 2.3 2003 10.097 4.742 5.481 225 24.649 26.115 4.S. D. 8.613 1.981 9.C. EIA.635 20.502 68.880 32.188 1..285 38.122 29.664 11.180 1.519 3.087 2. and EIA. Electric Power Annual 2001.341 9. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1994.1.519 27.561 3.699 3.678 67.276 10.354 8.828 24.923 Source: EIA. November 2001).893 234 13. Tables 8.647 36.585 1. Notes: 1 2 Publicly Owned Utilities include generator and nongenerator electric utilities. and 8. DOE/EIA-0348(2001) (Washington.

.

065 14.146 14.532 3.54 5.745 171.86 2.50 4.181 26.58 2. unless otherwise indicated) 1990 1995 Utility Operating Expenses Electric Utility Operation Production Cost of Fuel Purchased Power Other Transmission Distribution Customer Accounts Customer Service Sales Administrative and General Maintenance Depreciation Taxes and Other Other Utility Operation (Mills per 1 Kilowatthour) Nuclear Fossil Steam Hydroelectric and Pumped Storage 2 Gas Turbine and Small Scale 142.76 9.767 19.54 2.761 23.26 Gas Turbine and Small Scale Source: EIA.983 29.41 2.828 7.68 5.S.246 1.43 2.459 175.962 104.161 182.99 3.58 3.21 4.2.337 131.05 2.555 61.31 4.04 5.180 1.373 22.476 62.012 238 13.181 212 10.821 261 12.16 .969 12.01 Storage 2 12. and EIA. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) (Washington.839 403 13.872 10.466 11.880 1.893 234 13.38 2.113 4. Notes: 1 Operation and maintenance expenses are averages.648 21.1 and 8.662 107.425 2. internal combustion.321 150.526 1.329 132.50 2.995 2002 188.93 5.173 7.6a – Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.96 3. weighed by net generation.185 22.585 3.132 58.57 8.371 11.828 2. and wind plants.885 27.324 191.74 4.341 9.72 8.38 3.122 29.247 1.97 2.301 4.73 Maintenance (Mills per 1 Kilowatthour) Nuclear 5.722 2000 210.291 116.519 11.922 348 13..981 9. D.901 81.45 2.471 127.256 4.599 91.721 18.561 3.678 67.21 3.185 4.228 24.354 8.454 2003 197.57 8. Electric Power Annual 2004.287 28.613 1.374 90.028 11.519 3.843 17.Table 9.65 2.009 12.73 Hydroelectric and Pumped 2.115 4.823 10.755 17.723 96.23 4.28 3. November 2005). Investor-Owned Electric Utilities (Million of Nominal Dollars.473 122. photovoltaic.986 2004 207.2.889 20.699 3.688 3.319 26.50 2.38 2.141 16.64 2.779 14. Electric Power Annual 2001.04 2.352 32. Tables 8.130 2.571 165. 2 Includes gas turbine.774 16.3 2.444 3. 5.165 1.19 2.087 2.C.23 Fossil Steam 2.07 2. Tables 8.881 68.68 2.501 32.649 24.962 24.76 8.635 20.494 3.68 5.35 8.69 3.1 and 8.086 62.

742 1.526 3.Table 9. Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1999.624 398 771 92.127 4.420 1.6b – Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.S.044 754 311 95 2. D.818 433 754 93.133 205 196 10. November 2001). Tables 8.594 5.895 1.150 316 373 71. November 2000).353 4.626 663 630 448 120 30 2.C.446 1.172 4. D. EIA. Electric Power Annual 2003..C.772 30.651 845 854 662 233 82 2. D. DOE/EIA-0348(2003) (Washington.S.188 2003 7.646 746 1.813 977 1.683 44. December 2004). EIA.619 3.520 5.739 785 1.C. DOE/EIA-0437(99)/2 (Washington.973 Operation and Maintenance Expenses Transmission Expenses Distribution Expenses Customer Accounts Expenses Customer Service and Information Expenses Sales Expenses Administrative and General Expenses Total Electric Operation and Maintenance Expenses Total Production and Operation and Maintenance Expenses Fuel Expenses in Operation Steam Power Generation Nuclear Power Generation Other Power Generation Total Electric Department Employees 2 604 950 375 75 29 1.100 951 1.163 222 101 73. D.3 and 8.C.398 2002 6. Table 8 and Table 17.018 22.395 242 113 N/A 2..078 1. Public Electric Utility Database (Form EIA-412) 2002 and 2003.144 24.742 5.277 261 231 11.653 19.. DOE/EIA-0437(94)/2 (Washington. Financial Statistics of Major U.863 2000 5. Table 10 and Table 21.S.285 38.481 225 24. EIA.100 26. December 1995). Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 2000. Financial Statistics of Major U.. except employees) 1990 Production Expenses Steam Power Generation Nuclear Power Generation Hydraulic Power Generation Other Power Generation Purchased Power Other Production Expenses Total Production Expenses 1 1995 3. Publicly Owned Generator and Nongenerator Electric Utilities (Million of Nominal Dollars.000 700 354 84 2. because the number of electric utility employees could not be separated from the other municipal employees.347 332 603 16.165 2.558 1.923 47. DOE/EIA-0437(00)/2 (Washington. Table 10 and Table 21. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1994.4 Notes: EIA suspended collection of this dataset in 2004. or the electric utility outsourced much of the work. 2 Number of employees was not submitted by some publicly owned electric utilities.097 4. EIA. because of independent rounding.647 36.752 Source: EIA. NA = not available .542 155 15.988 212 17. 1 Totals may not equal sum of components.539 1.

27 131 1.Table 9. EIA.11 124 1. steam-electric capacity of 100 megawatts or more. Notes: Includes plants under the Clean Air Act that were monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency.96 124 1.35 118 1. . Electric Power Annual 2001. Table 5.38 145 Source: Electric Power Annual 2004.3. even if sold to an unregulated entity. These data are for plants with a fossil-fueled. Table 5.16 126 0.23 124 1. DOE/EIA-0348(04) (November 2005).. DOE/EIA-0348(01) (March 2003).3.7 – Environmental Compliance Equipment Costs (Nominal Dollars) 1990 Average Flue Gas Desulfurization Costs at Utilities Average Operation & Maintenance Costs (mills/kWh) Average Installed Costs ($/kW) 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1.

89 NA 21.32 2015 1. August 2005). (Washington.52 6.21 7.18 2005 1.34 6.86 NA 22.86 4. NA = not available .82 0. and miscellaneous petroleum products.23 13.71 7.61 NA 24.90 17. Table D.32 4.77 14. Table 3. aviation gasoline.04 11. special naphthas.00 14.57 2010 1.03 NA 13.56 2.52 1.64 1.60 6. 3 The "Primary Energy Total" and "Total Energy" prices include consumption-weighted average prices for coal coke imports and coal coke exports that are not shown in the other columns.87 13.50 1.53 Sources: EIA.89 1.64 10.30 19.10 14. waxes.98 1.49 1.43 1.07 NA 13. D.18 1.78 21.72 9.28 N/A N/A 13.87 5.69 14.C.98 15.04 N/A N/A 12.49 6.91 0.68 7.49 2.04 18.47 14.08 10.60 13.10 4. Annual Energy Review 2004.40 NA 20..79 NA 15.74 11.52 10.46 7.67 7.14 11. Table A3.39 16.66 17.49 2.72 5.34 6.92 5.26 19..87 13.30 9.38 17. Notes: 1 Historical data converted to 2004$/MMBtu using GDP deflators from EIA.90 1.72 9. kerosene. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.52 9.42 6.46 1. petrochemical feedstocks.43 6.Table 10.43 13.80 1990 1.93 14. and EIA.19 13..03 13. petroleum coke.49 14.73 6.34 1.53 16.14 2030 1.07 10.07 N/A N/A 11.98 5. D.75 NA 14.73 0.20 1.1.07 10.92 15.76 0.95 25.52 27.74 11.65 5.69 11.53 9. Annual Energy Review 2004.72 N/A N/A 11.94 2000 1.66 2025 1. 2 Consumption-weighted average price for asphalt and road oil.C.30 N/A N/A 11.97 12.12 NA 15.54 8.54 10.C.42 6.31 NA 14.28 12. per Million Btu) 1 1970 Coal Natural Gas Distillate Fuel Jet Fuel Liquified Petroleum Gases Motor Gasoline Residual Fuel 2 Other Petroleum Total Nuclear Fuel Wood and Waste 3 Primary Energy Total Electric Utility Fuel Electricity Purchased by End Users Total Energy 3 1980 2.35 NA 21.15 3.44 15.07 4.16 2020 1.71 5.64 18.02 6.51 1.52 NA 21.1 – Consumer Price Estimates for Energy Purchases (2004 Dollars.94 13.53 7.19 7. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).67 13. DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington. D.73 13.19 16.52 N/A N/A 12.51 7. lubricants.00 4.92 7.42 1.60 15.92 1. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.25 1.42 12. February 2006). September 2005).3.58 6.

1. unless otherwise noted) 1980 GDP Chain Type Price Index (2000 = 1.0 1.562 3.528 337.659 13.2 8.nahb.Table 10. Bureau of Labor Statistics.C.doc. October 2004).985 2.6 2004 1.398 15.194 1.324 1.722 1.997 323.6 281.778 1.153 4.439 4.6 7. Department of Labor.833 6.4 134. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.pdf.3 1990 0.156 17.347 1.296 2.8 Employment Manufacturing (millions) 20.gov/cps/cpsa2003.916 3.org/generic.776 3.9 248. Annual Energy Review 2003.118 1.069 7.5 2.6 2.808 5.671 2.162 3.889 5.123 13.756 7.4 19.5 13. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.1 7.058 2.9 2025 1.6 164. 2.1 2010 1.572 4.5 147.0 156.824 7. National Income and Products Accounts Tables (NIPA).6. Current Population Survey.2 17.858 0. http://www. and 6.810 1.057 2.000 9.530 553 607 5.128 2. D. .bea.8 115. National Association of Home Builders.2 – Economy-Wide Indicators (Billions of 2000 Chain Weighted Dollars.115 324 311 3.857 11.627 5.643 1.952 1.373 2.831 2.518 310.713 2.8 2030 2.8 173.asp..161 3.8 1. Current Population Survey.597 17.631 5.509 1.082 10.2 2000 1.259 2. millions) Employment Non-Agriculture (millions) 226.310 4.7 2.862 4.818 20.4 B-D.926 6.464 3.1 1.2 9.622 2. Household Data Annual Averages.4.048 23.293 2.350 3.589 1.235 13.096 1.9 1.150 1.036 1. Table A19.182 3.0 2015 1..783 4.044 294.1 131.882 364.135 350.5 14. http://www.0 13.6 0.664 1. 1.6 Sources: EIA.441 4.541 11. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.112 15.578 2.043 9.bls.464 4.6 1.025 2.091 10. February 2006). Tables 1.1.aspx?sectionID=130&genericContentID=554.736 1.783 1.816 7.555 4. D.204 1.529 5.004 1.541 5.C.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/NIPATableIndex. Bureau Of Economic Analysis.589 1.5 95.734 15.770 895 1.9 12. EIA.113 4.083 4.4 6. http://www.817 6.838 6.0 2020 1.1.719 8.265 3.000) Unemployment Rate (percent) Housing Starts (millions) Gross Output Total Industrial Non-Manufacturing Manufacturing Energy-Intensive Manufacturing Non-Energy-Intensive Manufacturing Population (all ages.476 7.722 4.000) Real Gross Domestic Product Real Consumption Real Investment Real Government Spending Real Exports Real Imports Real Disposable Personal Income Consumer Price Index (2002 = 1.689 5.4 5.3 12.3 14.352 4.4 1. Table D1.307 5.969 1.739 1.295 9.1 142.374 645 1.355 1.

8.373 22.962 104.742 2.228 33.650 27.327 NA 2. (Washington. In 2004.S. 8.519 3.737 26.3 – Composite Statements of Income for Major U.044 754 311 95 2. Includes utilities with and without generating facilities.323 5.519 11.774 16..555 1. 2004 (Million 2004 Dollars) Investor-Owned Electric Utilities Operating Revenue .C.539 182.182 226 2. 2 Cooperative Borrower Owned Electric Utilities 30.118 32.Electric Operation Including Fuel Production Transmission Distribution Customer Accounts Customer Service Sales Administrative and General Maintenance Depreciation and Amortization Taxes and Tax Equivalents Net Electric Operating Income 213.504 4.813 977 1. Tables 8.420 20. DOE/EIA-0348(2003).3. Electric Power Annual 2004.4. 2 Values for 2003. NA= not available .301 4. November 2005).828 25.242 Source: EIA.6. D.337 131.158 Publicly Owned Generator Electric Utilities 1.Electric Operating Expenses . Form EIA-412 has been suspended until further notice.180 2.287 4.012 238 13. Publicly Owned Generator and Investor-Owned Electric Utilities.860 595 141 80 1. Note: 1 The data represent those utilities meeting a threshold of 150 million kilowatthours of customer sales or resale for the two previous years.360 41.Table 10.1. and 8.752 665 1.822 46.

515 5.843.153 NA NA NA NA 444.674.521 2.987.667 2.478.732 4.563 13 31 100.367.583.365 NA NA 1 1 326.220 5.396 10.014 2.043.480.800 3.363.174 NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA 82.866 8 270 1 1 NA 210 206 NA 1 NA NA 13 31 107.498 2.223 639 221 1 1 194.200 482 166 1 1 310.034 NA NA 1 1 306.270 2.862 2.933.293 10.535 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 90.125.290 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81.909 11.642 11 25 111.453 4.004 4.947 2.189 4.999 1 565 0 0 NA 49 235 NA 1 10.644 2.511.310 2.447 15.269 3.512.002 NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA 1 NA NA 13 32 107.091 NA NA NA NA 327.795 2.001 NA NA NA NA 15.216 2.867 2.208 13 31 111.888 6.087.101 4.773 2.Table 11.1 – Emissions from Electricity Generators (Thousand short tons of gas) 1990 Coal Fired Carbon Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Petroleum Fired Carbon Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Gas Fired Carbon Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Other 1 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 1.834 NA NA NA NA Carbon Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide 2 Nitrogen Oxide 2 Methane Nitrous Oxide 3 Total Carbon Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide 1.086.791.870 343 130 1 1 336.621 3.657.190 232 422 1 1 NA 59 180 NA 1 10.553 NA NA NA NA 16.819 2.596 10.658 NA NA NA NA 16.142 NA NA NA NA 425.533.094 13 31 85.857 NA NA NA NA 14.885 529 170 1 1 319.850 10.875 15.024 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82.580 2.355 3.806 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84.623 4.578 2.185 NA NA NA NA 15.412.185 NA NA NA NA 379.251 NA NA NA NA 419.090.119 262 359 1 1 NA 55 180 NA 0 9.103 .170.034.

312 26.306 14 33 1 2. Tables A8 and A18.695 14 33 1 3. 1 Emissions total less than 500 tons.390 16..699 50.345 20.330 NA 14 33 1 4. National Emission Inventory Air Pollutant Emission Trends. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. 29.081 14 33 1 4.917 NA 14 33 1 4.” August 2004.872 NA NA NA Sources: EIA. SF6 has a 100-year global warming potential that is 22. “Average Annual Emissions. EIA. and EPA.. 3 Emissions from wood-burning plants. includes internal-combustion generators. D.585 41. Notes: Emissions from electric-power sector only.Nitrogen Oxide Mercury Methane Nitrous Oxide 4 Sulfur Hexafluoride 6. DOE/EIA-0573(2003) (Washington. D.C.595 NA NA NA 2.503 NA NA NA 2.200 times that of carbon dioxide and has an atmospheric lifetime of 3.663 NA 12 26 2 5.742 53.119 50. 4 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless. odorless.653 NA NA NA 2. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004. 25.379 18. and nonflammable gas used as an insulator in electric T&D equipment. nontoxic. February 2006). November 2005) Tables 10. DOE/EIA-0383 (2005) (Washington.283 NA NA NA 2.html. http://www.200 years.epa. 17. All Criteria Pollutants. NA = not available . 2 Emissions from plants fired by other fuels.C.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.

359 65 59. Table 5.673 401.587 155. commercial plants.804 329.199 69.493 NA NA NA NA 349.8.187 154.009 210. D.187 2002 329. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.422 55. Through 2000.727 175.363 329.741 2001 329.396 97. data are for electric utilities with fossil-fueled.675 386.770 310 81.168 358. NA = not available .769 Source: EIA.2.520 89.459 2003 328. steam-electric capacity of 100 megawatts or greater.122 376.doe. data are for electric utilities and unregulated generating plants (independent power producers. because some generators are included in more than one category. Table 12. http://www.747 310 71.988 390.Table 11. Notes: 1 Components are not additive.319 162.372 31.522 Petroleum and Gas Fired Particulate Collectors Cooling Towers Scrubbers Total Total Particulate Collectors Cooling Towers Scrubbers Total 1 1 33.567 409.2 – Installed Nameplate Capacity of Utility Steam-Electric Generators With Environmental Equipment (Megawatts) 1990 Coal Fired Particulate Collectors Cooling Towers Scrubbers Total 1 2000 321.954 355. Annual Energy Review 2004. and industrial plants) with fossil-fueled or combustible renewable steam-electric capacity of 100 megawatts or greater.681 134.158 99.587 2004 NA NA NA NA 315.257 328.C.747 97.eia.697 31.492 409. 2004 Total Data: EIA Electric Power Annual.093 89.928 99.894 352.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p2.639 28.879 45.438 360.057 317.989 101.575 34.338 200.649 184 61.750 98.497 98.html.709 29.821 359.782 214. DOE/EIA-0348(2004).634 29..675 328. September 2005).762 189.557 69.636 146. Beginning in 2001.459 154.090 29.427 0 57.

dynamic. IPM can be used to evaluate the cost and emissions impacts of proposed policies to limit emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2). Runs Table for EPA Modeling Applications 2004. and mercury (Hg) from the electric-power sector . and Mercury Emissions from Electric Generators EPA Base Case 2004 2007 SO2 (Thousand Tons) NOx (Thousand Tons) CO2 (Thousand Tons) 10. and emission-control strategies for meeting energy demand and environmental.S. Sulfur Dioxide.html.374 3. • The model provides forecasts of least-cost capacity expansion.3 – EPA-Forecasted Nitrogen Oxide.876 3.gov/airmarkets/epaipm/iaqr.zip Notes: Analytical Framework of IPM • EPA uses the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to analyze the projected impact of environmental policies on the electric-power sector in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.776 Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA Base Case for 2004 Analyses http://www.452 2015 5. and 2004 CAIR Case Final 2004 http://www. deterministic linear programming model of the U.679 2.470 2015 9. nitrogen oxides (NOx).758 2.571 2020 4.733 3.665 2. electric-power sector.zip.227 2. transmission. and used to support public and private-sector clients. IPM is a multiregional.599 2020 8. electricity dispatch. dispatch. and reliability constraints.391 2010 9.453 2.365 EPA CAIR Case 2004 2010 6.231 2.epa.796 2007 7.212 2.721 2.480 2.epa.908 3.600 2.351 2.epa. Developed by ICF Resources Incorporated. carbon dioxide (CO2).Table 11.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/iaqr/cair2004_final. using IPM http://www.084 3.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/iaqr/basecase2004.

which can be used for compliance in 2004 or any future year. Opt-in Allowances are provided to units entering the program voluntarily. Source: EPA.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp04/2004report. TOTAL 2004 ALLOCATION Banked Allowances TOTAL 2004 ALLOWABLE 9.191. based on the product of their historic utilization and emissions rates specified in the Clean Air Act.897 250.000 99. Figure 4.Table 11. There were 11 optin units in 2004. November 2005. The allowance auction provides allowances to the market that were set aside in a Special Allowance Reserve when the initial allowance allocation was made. Document EPA-430-R-05-011.4 – Origin of 2004 Allowable SO2 Emissions Levels Number of SO2 Allowances Type of Allowance Allocation Initial Allocation Allowance Auctions Opt-in Allowances 9. Acid Rain Program 2004 Progress Report.903 Banked Allowances are those allowances accrued in a unit's account from previous years.pdf .187.818 18.epa.085 8.541.188 Explanation of Allowance Allocation Type Initial allocation is the number of allowances granted to units. http://www.646.

1 – Renewable Energy Impacts Calculation Conversion Formula: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Technology (A) Capacity (kW) (B) Capacity Factor (%) (C) Annual Hours (D) Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) (E) Competing Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) (F) Annual Output (Trillion Btu) (G) Carbon Coefficient (MMTCB/Trillion Btu) (H) Annual Carbon Displaced (MMTC) Wind 11.0% 8.760 46. August 2005). D. Table A6.107 178 0.C. February 2005).495 90. Carbon Coefficient: DOE.01783 0.C.107 368 0.5% 8.01783 3.472 10.176.314 10.760 36. D. and program data.525 10.312. DOE/EIA-0383 (2005) (Washington.727 10.569 Capacity (A) x Capacity Factor (B) x Annual Hours (C) = Annual Electricity Generation (D) Annual Electricity Generation (D) x Competing Heat Rate (E) = Annual Output (F) Annual Output (F) x Emissions Coefficient (G) = Annual Emissions Displaced (H) Geothermal 2. 2005.0% 8.172 Biomass 6.107 467 0.4% 8. Table A16. Capacity values exclude combined-heat-and-power (CHP) data.579. All others based on DOE. Annual Energy Outlook 2005.01783 6.328 Hydropower 78.096 80.355 22. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. but include end-use sector (industrial and commercial) non-CHP data. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.893 24. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. Notes: For illustrative purposes only.235.232. page B-16.991.427.01783 8. Table A16.128 Sources: Capacity: Projected values for the year 2006 from EIA.2% 8.107 8 0. D...760 303.594.760 17. EPRI TR-109496. Capacity factors: Hydropower calculated from EIA.01783 0.0% 8. Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.Table 12.455.760 831.064 0.205 36. GPRA2003 Data Call.107 6 0. Appendix B. 1997..211.760 552. Annual Energy Review 2004.01783 54.558.100 Solar Thermal 388.600. 201 .583 44. 2003. Competing heat rate from Fossil-Fueled Steam-Electric Plants heat rate. Heat Rate: EIA.635 PV 280.128 10. displacement of fossil generation depends on power system generation portfolio and dispatch order.954.449. February 2006).187 10.C.107 3.

Table 12.2 – Number of Home Electricity Needs Met Calculation
Conversion Formula: Step 1 Step 2 Wind 11,558,205 36.0% 8,760 36,449,954,187 11,586 3,148,804 Capacity (A) x Capacity Factor (B) x Annual Hours (C) = Annual Electricity Generation (D) Annual Electricity Generation (D) / Average Consumption (E) = Number of Households (F) Geothermal 2,232,495 90.0% 8,760 17,600,991,128 11,586 1,520,497 Biomass 6,594,096 80.0% 8,760 46,211,427,727 11,586 3,992,068 Hydropower 78,312,583 44.2% 8,760 303,176,455,525 11,586 26,190,515 PV 280,355 22.5% 8,760 552,579,314 11,586 47,736 Solar Thermal 388,893 24.4% 8,760 831,235,472 11,586 71,808

Technology (A) Capacity (kW) (B) Capacity Factor (%) (C) Annual Hours (D) Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) (E) Average Annual Household Electricity Consumption (kWh) (F) Number of Households

Sources: Capacity: Projected values for the year 2006 from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington, D.C., February 2006), Table A16, 2006. Capacity factors: Hydropower calculated from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2005, DOE/EIA-0383 (2005) (Washington, D.C., February 2005), Table A16. All others based on DOE, Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, EPRI TR-109496, 1997, and program data. Household electricity consumption: Calculated from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington, D.C., February), Tables A4 and A8, 2006. Notes: For illustrative purposes only. Capacity values exclude combined-heat-and-power (CHP) data, but include end-use sector (industrial and commercial) non-CHP data.

202

Table 12.3 – Coal-Displacement Calculation
Conversion Formula: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Technology (A) Capacity (kW) (B) Capacity Factor (%) (C) Annual Hours (D) Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) (E) Competing Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) (F) Total Output (Million Btu) (G) Coal Heat Rate (Btu per short ton) (H) Coal (short tons) Wind 11,558,205 36.0% 8,760 36,449,954,187 10,107 368,399,686 20,411,000 18,049,076 Capacity (A) x Capacity Factor (B) x Annual Hours (C) = Annual Electricity Generation (D) Annual Electricity Generation (D) x Conversion Efficiency (E) = Total Output (F) Total Output (F) / Fuel Heat Rate (G) = Quantity Fuel (H) Geothermal 2,232,495 90.0% 8,760 17,600,991,128 10,107 177,893,217 20,411,000 8,715,556 Biomass 6,594,096 80.0% 8,760 46,211,427,727 10,107 467,058,900 20,411,000 22,882,705 Hydropower 78,312,583 44.2% 8,760 303,176,455,525 10,107 3,064,204,435 20,411,000 150,125,150 PV 280,355 22.5% 8,760 552,579,314 10,107 5,584,919 20,411,000 273,623 Solar Thermal 388,893 24.4%
8,760

831,235,472 10,107 8,401,296 20,411,000 411,606

Sources: Capacity: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington, D.C., February 2006), Table A16, 2006. Capacity factors: Hydropower calculated from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2005, DOE/EIA-0383 (2005) (Washington, D.C., February 2005), Table A16. All others based on DOE, Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, EPRI TR-109496, 1997 and Program data. Conversion Efficiency: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2004, DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington, D.C., August 2005), Table A6. Heat Rate: Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington, D.C., February 2006), Table H1. Notes: For illustrative purposes only, displacement of fossil generation depends on power system generation portfolio and dispatch order. Capacity values exclude combined-heat-and-power (CHP) data, but include end-use sector (industrial and commercial) non-CHP data.

203

Table 12.4 – National SO2 and Heat Input Data
1980 SO2 (lbs) SO2 Heat Factor (lb/MMBtu) NOx (lbs) NOx Heat Factor (lb/MMBtu) Heat (MMBtu) 34,523,334,000 1.935 17,838,745,941 1985 32,184,330,000 1.748 18,414,433,865 1990 31,466,566,000 1.599 19,684,094,492 1995 23,671,357,600 1.081 11,682,226,600 0.534 21,889,662,875 2000 22,404,150,534 0.875 12,024,262,800 0.470 25,606,076,726 2004 20,518,221,256 0.778 10,209,031,650 0.387 26,358,516,161

Source: EPA, Clean Air Markets Web site - Data and Maps, Emissions section, http://cfpub.epa.gov/gdm/ accessed February 2006.

204

Table 12.5 – SO2, NOx, CO2 Emission Factors for Coal-Fired and Noncoal-Fired Title IV Affected Units
1996 SO2 (lbs/mmBtu) Coal Noncoal Total NOx (lbs/mmBtu) Coal Noncoal Total CO2 (lbs/mmBtu) Coal Noncoal Total 206.377 132.731 195.682 205.537 130.804 194.056 205.677 131.685 192.256 205.586 132.001 191.956 205.646 133.110 191.672 205.627 130.159 189.809 205.672 126.858 188.813 201.741 201.513 0.568 0.221 0.518 0.559 0.234 0.509 0.532 0.251 0.481 0.487 0.244 0.442 0.444 0.210 0.399 0.425 0.176 0.373 0.408 0.128 0.348 0.375 0.340 1.241 0.246 1.096 1.245 0.256 1.093 1.222 0.318 1.058 1.166 0.267 0.999 1.036 0.200 0.875 1.008 0.220 0.843 0.976 0.126 0.794 0.968 0.941 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: EPA, Acid Rain Program Compliance Report 2001, Emission Scorecard, updated April 2004, Table 1, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/score01/index.html, and EPA, Clean Air Markets Web site - Data and Maps, Emissions section, http://cfpub.epa.gov/gdm/ accessed March 2006.

205

42 0.08 147 Spreader Stoker 0.08 3.35 3.6 3.6 157 38 2.08 147 206 .7 3.6 39 0.08 3.5 30 1.5 30 1.5 0.6 3.42 0.08 147 Tangential 0.42 0.06 0.08 147 All Other 0.8 35 38 38 1.42 0.7 0.6a – Sulfur Dioxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors.5 0.6 157 38 2.35 0.7 0.6 3.28 3.08 3.2 14.42 0.7 0.5 1.42 0.08 3.5 0.7 14. Electricity Generators Boiler Type/Firing Configuration Fuel Agricultural Byproducts Blast Furnace Gas Bituminous Coal* Black Liquor Distillate Fuel Oil* Jet Fuel* Kerosene* Landfill Gas Lignite Coal* Municipal Solid Waste Natural Gas Other Biomass Gas Other Biomass Liquids Other Biomass Solids Other Gases Other Petroleum Coke* Propane Gas Residual Fuel Oil* Synthetic Coal* Sludge Waste Subbituminous Coal* Tire Derived Fuel* Waste Coal* Wood Waste Liquids Wood Waste Solids Waste Oil* Emissions Units Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per ton *** Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per ton *** Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MG 1 Cyclone 0.6 3.5 0.06 15.08 3.2 0.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.35 1 0.01 0.08 3.01 14.8 35 38 38 1.6 157 38 2.35 1.5 30 1.08 3.6 157 38 2.1 0.08 3.6 39 0.42 0.42 0.06 3.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.9 0.5 1.6 157 38 2.5 0.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.42 0.1 1.5 1.8 3.8 38 38 38 1.42 0.5 30 1.6 39 0.7 0.5 1.1 3.08 147 Fluidized Bed 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.Table 12.6 39 0.01 0.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.8 35 38 38 1.7 Opposed Firing 0.5 30 1.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.2 14.08 3.6 39 0.7 0.1 0.8 35 38 38 1.5 1.08 3.6 3.

gov/ttn/chief/software/fire/index. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) November 2005. Electric Power Annual 2004. emissions are estimated by multiplying the emissions factor by the physical volume of fuel and the sulfur percentage of the fuel (other fuels do not require the sulfur percentage in the calculation). * For these fuels.pdf.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ and http://www. *** Although SLW and BLQ consist substantially of liquids. Note that EIA data do not provide a sulfur content for TDF. Table A-11. 207 .Source: EIA. Table A1.epa. Notes: 1 Lbs = pounds.epa. MG = thousand gallons.56 percent) is from http://www. ** Source is EPA emission factors reported in http://www.epa. these fuels are measured and reported to EIA in tons. The value used (1.gov/appcdwww/aptb/EPA-600-R-01-109A. MMCF = million cubic feet.html.

00 72.00 19.00 24.20 15.00 11.00 72.20 14.90 1.00 Fluidized Bed 1.90 1.00 72.00 1.00 24.20 14.20 14.20 15.90 1.40 7.00 24.00 24.20 15.00 24.90 280.90 1.80 5.00 5.0] 208 .00 5.00 24.00 12.50 21.00 19.00 24.40 1.90 280.00 5.00 72.00 24.00 24.00 17.20 15.00 5.90 170.40 22.00 22.00 72.Table 12.00 1.40 1.00 5.00 8.1 [13.00 72.00 19.40 5.00 15.00 1.00 33.50 24.00 Spreader Stoker 1.40 1.40 11.50 24.40 All Other 1.40 1.20 15.20 14.90 280.00 47.50 24.40 15.00 72.40 1.50 24.00 72.00 5.0 [24.0 [31.00 8.90 280.00 5.00 12.00 24.00 1.40 15.50 24.00 47.00 32.0] 5.00 5.40 5.90 1.0] 1.00 5.00 5.6b – Nitrogen Oxide Uncontrolled Emissions Factors.66 1.66 1.50 21.50 21.90 1.00 24.66 1.00 72.00 47.10 5.50 24.60 5.40 1.66 1.0] 1.00 Opposed Firing 1.40 7.00 72.40 33.0 [14.00 72.20 15.50 21.00 19.20 14.66 1.00 47.50 21.20 14.00 24.40 13.00 47. Electricity Generators Boiler Type/Firing Configuration Fuel Agricultural Byproducts Blast Furnace Gas Bituminous Coal Black Liquor Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel Kerosene Landfill Gas Lignite Coal Municipal Solid Waste Natural Gas Other Biomass Gas Other Biomass Liquids Other Biomass Solids Other Gases Other Petroleum Coke Propane Gas Residual Fuel Oil Synthetic Coal Sludge Waste Subbituminous Coal Emissions Units Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per ton *** Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per ton *** 2 1 Cyclone 1.00 72.00 22.66 1.40 3.80 Tangential 1.90 280.40 22.00 19.00 19.50 21.

Except Wet-Bottom as indicated by values in brackets Lbs = pounds.70 1. Table A1.00 21.50 19.00 22.epa.epa.66 1.00 21. ** Source is EPA emission factors reported in http://www.70 1.00 11. 209 . MMCF = million cubic feet.00 21.66 1.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ and http://www.70 1.70 1.00 21. MG = thousand gallons.66 1.66 1. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) November 2005.gov/ttn/chief/software/fire/index.66 1.70 1.66 1.00 Source: EIA.70 1.00 15.00 21.00 5.Tire Derived Fuel Waste Coal Wood Waste Liquids Wood Waste Solids Waste Oil Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MG 33. *** Although Sludge Waste and Black Liquor consist substantially of liquids.50 19. Notes: 1 2 All Dry-Bottom Boilers.50 19.html.50 19.00 21. these fuels are measured and reported to EIA in tons. Electric Power Annual 2004.00 22.50 19.50 19.

41 159.34 159.97 115.45 161.61 Source: EIA.41 115.27 0.12 215.16 163.Table 12.04 173.53 14.6c – Uncontrolled Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factors. 210 .54 225. Electricity Generators Fuel Blast Furnace Gas Bituminous Coal Distillate Fuel Oil Geothermal Jet Fuel Kerosene Landfill Gas Lignite Coal Municipal Solid Waste Natural Gas Other Biomass Gas Other Gases Petroleum Coke Propane Gas Residual Fuel Oil Synthetic Coal Subbituminous Coal Waste Coal Waste Oil Factor (lbs of CO2 per MMBtu)* 116.63 116.72 205. * CO2 factors do not vary by boiler type or firing configuration. Table A1.11 141.45 212. DOE/EIA-0348(2004).13 139. November 2005. Electric Power Annual 2004.97 205.58 205.

211 .700 650 2.800 140 2.800 1.900 6.7 – Global Warming Potentials (GWP) (100-year time horizon) Gas GWP SAR 1 21 310 11. to comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC. EPA 430-R-05-003 (Final Version: April 2005). The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.400 Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 Methane (CH4) Nitrous oxide (N2O) HFC-23 HFC-32 HFC-125 HFC-134a HFC-143a HFC-152a HFC-227ea HFC-236fa HFC-4310mee CF4 C2F6 C4F10 C6F14 SF6 23.900 Source: EPA. official emission estimates are reported by the United States using SAR GWP values. estimates of emissions presented in this report use the GWPs from the Second Assessment Report.S.200 7.300 1. The UNFCCC reporting guidelines for national inventories were updated in 2002. GWP from Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (SAR) and Third Assessment Report (TAR). Therefore. Table ES-1.500 9.300 6. but continue to require the use of GWPs from the SAR so that current estimates of aggregated greenhouse gas emissions for 1990 through 2001 are consistent with estimates developed prior to the publication of the TAR. Notes: The GWP of a greenhouse gas is the ratio of global warming.Table 12. 1 The methane GWP includes direct effects and those indirect effects.000 7. due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2003. or radiative forcing – both direct and indirect – from one unit mass of a greenhouse gas to that of one unit mass of carbon dioxide over a period of time. Inventory of U. Although the GWPs have been updated by the IPCC.300 3.

212 .Table 12. Arlington. EIA. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.411 Biomass Materials 2 Switchgrass Btu per pound Bagasse. Btu per pound 7..000 Sources: 1. VA. Table G1. Btu per pound Poultry Litter.799 1. Btu per pound Rice Hulls. Electrotek Concepts Inc.341 6. Animal Waste Screening Study. Btu per pound Solid wood waste.287 5.C..575 6. 2. June 2001.027 20. D.065 6.000-8.187 6.8 – Approximate Heat Content of Selected Fuels for Electric-Power Generation Fossil Fuels 1 Residual Oil (million Btu per barrel) Distillate Oil (million Btu per barrel) Natural Gas (Btu per million cubic ft) Coal (million Btu per Short Ton) 6. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. February 2006).

and wind electricity net generation.107 10. For all years.017 2004 10. solar.Table 12.908 21.C.017 10. 2 Through 2000. 2 1990 10.582 21. DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington. D. heat rates are for fossil-fueled steam-electric plants at electric utilities.439 21. used as the thermal conversion factor for hydro.201 10.017 2002 10.9 – Approximate Heat Rates for Electricity (Btu per Kilowatthour) 1980 Fossil-Fueled Steam-Electric Plants Nuclear Steam-Electric Plants Geothermal Energy Plants 4 3 1.448 21. used as the thermal conversion factor for wood and waste electricity net generation at electric utilities.096 2000 10..429 21.146 10. 3 Used as the thermal-conversion factor for nuclear electricity net generation. 1 213 . 4 Used as the thermal-conversion factor for geothermal electricity net generation. Beginning in 2001.639 Source: EIA. Annual Energy Review 2004.439 21.107 10. August 2005).402 10.119 10.017 2001 10.017 2003 10. Table A6 Notes: Through 2000.388 10. heat rates are for all fossil-fueled plants at electric utilities and independent power producers.439 21.

data are weighted by the estimated 2000 population. 1 214 . National Climatic Data Center. see http://www.016 2000 886 643 494 341 115 29 12 12 69 244 610 1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Table 1. Heating degree-days are deviations below the mean daily temperature of 65° F. Monthly Energy Review. Maryland. • Degree-days are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature. • 2004—Energy Information Administration. Camp Springs. For example. North Carolina. a weather station recording a mean daily temperature of 40° F would report 25 heating degree-days.. Asheville.707 1990 728 655 535 321 184 29 6 10 56 246 457 789 4.eia.460 2004 957 769 487 302 105 28 5 16 42 241 484 788 4.223 2002 778 670 624 282 185 23 3 8 38 299 561 813 4.doe. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.html. • Temperature information recorded by weather stations is used to calculate statewide degree-day averages based on resident state population. February 2004-January 2005 issues. which reports data from NOAA.224 Normal 917 732 593 345 159 39 9 15 77 282 539 817 4.gov/emeu/aer/overview.460 2001 935 725 669 302 115 29 8 6 71 267 400 696 4.gov/emeu/mer/overview. Table 1. Annual Energy Review 2004.7 Notes: Based on calculations of data from 1971-2000 • This table excludes Alaska and Hawaii.S.284 2003 944 801 572 344 165 41 4 5 62 261 477 784 4.• For current data. Web Pages: • For data not shown for 1951-1969. Historical Climatology Series 5-1. Sources: • 19492003 and Normals—U.524 Source: EIA.C. Department of Commerce.10 – Heating Degree-Days by Month 1 1980 January February March April May June July August September October November December Total 887 831 680 338 142 49 5 10 54 316 564 831 4. see http://www. The population-weighted state figures are aggregated into Census divisions and the national average. D.html.Table 12. August 2005).005 4.eia. Beginning in 2002.10. National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center.doe.

• Degree-days are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature. Monthly Energy Review. Cooling degree-days are deviations above the mean daily temperature of 65° F.. which reports data from NOAA.281 2004 5 5 26 41 140 208 310 254 178 69 17 6 1.245 2002 8 6 17 53 92 242 369 331 202 57 11 5 1.Table 12.229 2001 3 12 11 37 114 220 302 333 138 46 18 11 1. see http://www. August 2005).260 Normal 1 9 8 18 30 97 213 321 290 155 53 15 8 1. Beginning in 2002. National Climatic Data Center. see http://www.C. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.313 1990 15 14 21 29 86 234 316 291 172 57 16 9 1. February 2004-January 2005 issues.S.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview. For example. Department of Commerce. The population-weighted state figures are aggregated into Census divisions and the national average. Historical Climatology Series 5-2.8 Notes: Based on calculations of data from 1971-2000 • This table excludes Alaska and Hawaii. 1 215 .gov/emeu/aer/overview.eia. National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center. a weather station recording a mean daily temperature of 78° F would report 13 cooling degree-days.215 Source: EIA.260 2000 10 10 25 28 131 221 284 302 156 50 8 4 1.doe.html.11 – Cooling Degree-Days by Month 1980 January February March April May June July August September October November December Total 9 4 13 23 95 199 374 347 192 42 10 5 1. Annual Energy Review 2004. Asheville. D. Maryland. • For current data. Web Pages: • For data not shown for 1951-1969. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).11.html. • 2004—Energy Information Administration. • Temperature information recorded by weather stations is used to calculate statewide degree-day averages based on resident state population. North Carolina.393 2003 5 7 24 30 110 187 336 345 156 65 21 4 1. Sources: • 1949-2003 and Normals—U. Table 1. Table 1. data are weighted by the estimated 2000 population. Camp Springs.

Alaska has limited biomass resources. and yard waste through combustion. the biomass resource in the Western states is generally poor. 13. areas with excellent renewable energy resources have little demand for electricity – while many major load centers are far from areas with good renewable resources. Biomass Biomass power utilizes biomass such as wood.7) illustrates the natural renewable resource for the United States by quality of the resource. in many cases. The GIS system is composed of hardware.2. A GIS system allows the user to perform several tasks. GIS data layers can be recombined or manipulated. data management.4. The Eastern states have much higher-quality resources. The biomass fuel is either directly combusted in a boiler. and presentation of results in graphic or report forms. The maps featured here are simplified to make them easier to read. data manipulation.6. or turned into a liquid fuel that can be combusted (see the Biomass section of Chapter 2 for more detail on biomass technologies). and many major load centers in Eastern states are near areas with excellent biomass resources. data. One set of maps (Figures 13. The GIS allows identification of relationships between features. Because the western part of the United States has sparse vegetation. The other set of maps (Figures 13. manage. Natural Resource The majority of biomass resources exist east of the Continental Divide (Figure 13.5. data analysis. 13. within a common layer or across layers – and data can be queried or manipulated based on the tabular and/or the spatial characteristics. 13. while Hawaii has excellent biomass resources on some of the islands.1. A number in the state shows generating capacity in MW. Higher-resolution resource maps are available online (see Online Resources later in this chapter.1). The transmission grid and the major load centers are overlaid on the resource maps. including data capture. The major load centers represent the areas in the United States where the vast majority of electricity demand exists (large metropolitan areas).13. agricultural waste. or gasified and then combusted. and analyze multidisciplinary geographic and related attribute data. and analyzed with other layers of information. and expertise. and 13. . Biomass resources are derived from the vegetation. All information in GIS is linked to a spatial reference used to store and access data. software.1 – Geographic Information System (GIS) Maps A Geographical Information System (GIS) is a computer-based system used to manipulate. and 13.3.8) shows the installed generating capacity from 1996 through 2005 by state. and a bar chart in the state shows the generating capacity over time. 13. One of the challenges facing renewable energy is that.

Most of the major load areas in the Eastern states are not near any high-quality geothermal resources. and Pennsylvania (0. Total CSP-generating capacity is virtually unchanged over the past decade. Solar resources generally decline in quality. and Maine (788 MW). and especially the southwest.802 MW).5 MW). while Hawaii has good – to very good – solar resources. the Southwest (Figure 13. A good supply of high-quality geothermal resources exists in sparsely populated areas in the West. Solar The two most commonly deployed solar power technologies are photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) (see the Solar section of Chapter 2 for more information on solar technologies). generally has moderate-quality solar resources. Alaska has moderate solar resources. California is by far the largest (2. New York (0. in particular. The Western states are more promising.Installed Capacity Biomass-generating capacity was nearly level during the past decade. Alaska and Hawaii both have some areas with excellent geothermal resources. followed by Arizona (10 MW).051 MW). as several of the major load centers are in – or close to – high-quality geothermal resources. Installed Capacity Geothermal generation is currently located in three Western states (Figure 13. Installed Capacity This map features concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) generating capacity (Figure 13. Plants are currently operating in the Western United States (see the Geothermal section of Chapter 2 for more details on geothermal technologies). by far (418 MW).5). moving east and north from the Southwest. Nevada (0. Natural Resource The majority of high-quality geothermal resources exist in the western part of the United States – and. Natural Resource The southern parts of the United States.3 MW).3). California has the most CSP generating capacity. The Northeast. in terms of generating capacity.4). have the greatest potential for solar energy (Figure 13. . This is determined largely by latitude and weather patterns. are Florida (1. followed by Nevada (272 MW) and Utah (38MW). Geothermal Geothermal technologies for power generation utilize heat from underground sources to generate electricity.3 MW). The largest states. with a slight decline in the past few years (Figure 13. as a whole.2).6). California (799 MW).

Natural Resource The wind resources of the United States fall into two major categories: 1) onshore.150 MW). including dynamic maps.gov/gis . So far. Installed Capacity Wind power is the most consistently growing renewable energy technology among those featured in this chapter (Figure 13. Wind-generating capacity is growing rapidly in many states. GIS data. Many of the major load centers in the Eastern states are not located near good wind resources. Most of the best onshore wind resource is in the Midwestern states (Figure 13. California is the largest state. has less than half the capacity of the largest states. Iowa. most of the wind resource assessments focused on onshore wind.8). with Texas close behind (1. while some Western load centers are located close to high-quality wind resources.995 MW).Wind Wind power utilizes naturally occurring wind patterns to drive turbines that generate electricity (see the Wind section of Chapter 2 for more information on wind power technologies).nrel. the third-largest state (836 MW). in terms of capacity (2.7). and 2) offshore. Online Resources For more GIS information. and analysis tools – as well as downloadable high-resolution maps – please see the NREL GIS Web site at http://www.

Transmission. and Load Centers . Figure 13. Biomass Resources.1..

Figure 13. Installed Biomass Generating Capacity .2.

3. Transmission. and Load Centers . Geothermal Resources.Figure 13.

Figure 13. Installed Geothermal Generating Capacity .4.

Direct Normal Solar Resources.Figure 13.5. and Load Centers . Transmission.

Figure 13.6. Installed CSP Generating Capacity .

7.Figure 13. Transmission. Wind Resources. and Load Centers .

Figure 13. Installed Wind Generating Capacity .8.

prepared by NREL’s Strategic Energy Analysis Center. environmental indicators. DATES COVERED (From . includes up-to-date information on power technologies. including complete technology profiles. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law. CONTRACT NUMBER Power Technologies Energy Data Book—Fourth Edition DE-AC36-99-GO10337 5b. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. electricity generation. and completing and reviewing the collection of information. CO 80401-3393 9. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Technical Report 5a. electricity demand. GRANT NUMBER 5c. electricity generation. 1.S. Jørn Aabakken 16. electricity demand. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield. to Department of Defense. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. PROJECT NUMBER Compiled by Jørn Aabakken NREL/TP-620-39728 5e. and conversion factors. economic indicators. electricity supply.To) August 2006 4. electricity restructuring. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. NUMBER OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES 19a. no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Golden. economic indicators. electricity capability. power technology forecasts and comparisons. SUBJECT TERMS data book. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 12.REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information. The data book also contains charts on electricity restructuring. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. power technologies. electricity capability. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) Standard Form 298 (Rev. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) This report. LIMITATION 18. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) NREL 11. including the time for reviewing instructions. Z39.1000 5f. THIS PAGE 17. prices. searching existing data sources. including suggestions for reducing the burden. gathering and maintaining the data needed. REPORT b. electricity supply. conversion factors. National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd. AUTHOR(S) 5d. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER NREL/TP-620-39728 10. power technology forecasts. environmental indicators. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL 19b. VA 22161 13. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT National Technical Information Service U. Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188).18 F1147-E(12/2004) . prices. REPORT TYPE 3. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. 15. TASK NUMBER WUA3. ABSTRACT c.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful