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

............7 Environmental Compliance Equipment Costs ...................S..183 Revenue from Electric Utility Retail Sales by Sector.....................................190 iv ....................................................179 9...........................187 9...................2 Demand-Side Management...................... Revenue.....163 6....S.............1 Electricity Sales .............. and Maintenance Expenses for Major U..........184 Revenue from Sales to Ultimate Consumers by Sector...................................2 9.......................161 North American Electric Reliability Council Map for the United States ...162 5.....160 Utility Mergers and Acquisitions................156 Operational Renewable Energy Generating Capacity ...5 Electric Generator Cumulative Additions and Retirements..............0 Prices 9...1 Electric Net Summer Capability ...4 9...............................185 9....6a Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U...................13b Census Regions Map..........................171 7...................6 Production........................................................165 6................................4 Generation and Transmission/Distribution Losses ......................1 9........................................157 Number of Utilities by Class of Ownership and Nonutilities .........................................................S.....................12 5..................................................3 Electric Utility Sales........1 Electricity Net Generation .....11 5........................................ Census Division.............168 R 6.......188 9.5 Price of Fuels Delivered to Electric Generators .............167 6...................S.............................................8 5................................................................159 Top 10 Independent Power Producers Worldwide (2001) .................10 5...............175 E 8.....5................................166 6........174 7.........................182 Prices of Electricity Sold ......................4 egional Noncoincident Peak Loads and Capacity Margin ...................................................................................169 6...158 Top 10 U....170 7.......................................0 Electricity Generation 7.....177 8.........................3 Combined-Heat-and-Power Plant Net Summer Capability ...................189 9...................................13a Fossil Fuel Generation by Age of Generating Units..0 Electricity Demand 8..............6 5.....5 lectricity Trade................6b Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U........178 8.................................6 Transmission and Distribution Circuit Miles......... Investor-Owned Utilities .181 Electricity Retail Sales.....................3 Electricity Generation at Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants .......173 7............................ Investor-Owned Electric Utilities ..... and State ...............155 Nuclear Generation by Age of Generating Units ..0 Electricity Capability 6.................................... Investor-Owned and Publicly Owned Utilities ......................2 Net Generation at Electric-Only Plants . Publicly Owned Generator and Nongenerator Electric Utilities .............................. Operation......2 Electric-Only Plant Net Summer Capability..7 5. and Consumption by Census Division and State .....................3 9.................................................................9 5....................................172 7.......................

............................................203 12...........205 12................. NOx.199 12..............6a Sulfur Dioxide.S...................... Nitrogen Oxide......3 Composite Statements of Income for Major U.............................................204 12............................................................................ Publicly Owned Generator and Investor-Owned Electric Utilities ................212 12...............4 National SO2 and Heat Input Data ........................... Electricity Generators .211 12...........................................8 Approximate Heat Content of Selected Fuels for Electric Power Generation.215 13...........1 Price Estimates for Energy Purchases.............217 v .....................................................2 Installed Nameplate Capacity of Utility Steam-Electric Generators with Environmental Equipment ......197 11........................2 Economy-Wide Indicators .11 Cooling Degree Days by Month .................................................. Sulfur Dioxide........5 SO2..................213 12.................................................191 10...........................................214 12............................................. and Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors...........3 EPA-Forecasted Nitrogen Oxide........2 Number of Home Electricity Needs Met Calculation...............................0 Geographic Information System (GIS) Maps ..................206 12..195 11..................10..........0 Conversion Factors 12.............210 12..............198 11............................................................193 11............................ Electricity Generators ................201 R 12..................10 Heating Degree Days by Month ..............................................................................202 12........................... and Mercury Emissions from Electric Generators ............................................1 Emissions from Electricity Generators ................................0 Economic Indicators 10............7 Global Warming Potentials (GWP) .....................9 Approximate Heat Rates for Electricity..............208 12.......6c Uncontrolled Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors.............0 Environmental Indicators 11.6b Nitrogen Oxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors...... Electricity Generators .192 10.....1 enewable Energy Impacts Calculation ....................... CO2 Emission Factors for Coal-Fired and Noncoal-Fired Title IV Affected Units ........4 Origin of 2004 Allowable SO2 Emissions Levels........................................................................3 Coal Displacement Calculation.......................

The other set of maps shows the current installed capacity (biomass. in one central document. The sources used for the Power Technologies Energy Data Book represent the latest available data. One set of maps shows the natural resource (biomass. Fourth Edition. This edition updates the same type of information provided in the previous edition. 1 . 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.Introduction About the Power Technologies Energy Data Book (PTEDB).S.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. which features Geographic Information System (GIS) maps. In 2002. geothermal. Department of Energy (DOE).1 . although it may be reformatted for presentation. and wind) overlaid with the national transmission grid and the major electricity load centers. Most of the data in this publication is taken directly from the source materials. as well as a bar chart indicating the historic trend of generating capacity for the state. The need for policy makers and analysts to be well-informed about power technologies suggests the need for a publication that includes a diverse. New for this fourth edition of the PTEDB is Chapter 13. The main purpose of the data book is to compile. and wind). solar. Neither NREL nor DOE endorses the validity of these data. concentrating solar power. a comprehensive set of data about power technologies from diverse sources. The PTEDB is organized into 13 chapters: Chapter 1 . geothermal. set of data about power technologies.1. yet focused.

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

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

and clean. • In the latter part of the 19th century. • Approximately 15 million to 21 million gallons of biodiesel are produced annually in the United States. More than 75% of this power is generated in the forest products industry’s CHP applications for process heat. Technology History 4 . • Biomass gasification for large-scale (20-100MWe) power production is being commercialized. By the 1950s. representing about 75% of nonhydroelectric renewable generation.700 MWe in 2001. These systems range in size from 3kW to 5MW and completed field verification by 2003. GHG emissions are reduced by a greater percentage (e. reliable. as well as for new baseload capacity.000 plants – is mainly comprised of direct-combustion plants. and transportation uses. and withdrawal of incentives in the late 1980s. commercial. improved economies of scale in combined cycle palns. Cofiring also reduces sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. other fuels had supplanted wood. • 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.1 quadrillion Btu of primary biomass energy. these systems have not always been reliable and clean. led to annual installations declining from about 600 MW in 1989. In addition. while one-third of the biopower is from municipal solid waste and landfill gas. In addition. 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). • There are now nearly 1.000 wood-fired plants in the United States. 23% GHG emissions reduction with 15% cofiring). Prices generally range from 8¢/kWh to 12¢/kWh. Plant size averages 20 MWe. About two-thirds of this energy is derived from wood and wood wastes. • Biomass cofiring with coal ($50 . • At that point. Current Status • CHP applications using a waste fuel are generally the most cost-effective biopower option. Industry consumes more than 2.Technology Applications • The existing biopower sector – nearly 1. Recent studies estimate that on a life-cycle basis. with about two-thirds of those providing power (and heat) for on-site uses only. Grid-connected electrical capacity has increased from less than 200 MWe in 1978 to more than 9. Gasification also is important as a potential platform for a biorefinery. about 3. • Utility and industrial biopower generation totaled more than 60 billion kWh in 2001.300 MWe of municipal solid waste and landfill gas generating capacity exists. wood use had dropped to 50 million tons per year. However. existing biopower plants represent an annual net carbon sink of 4 MMTCe. • The combination of low natural gas prices. when cofiring crop and forest-product residues. and the biomass-to-electricity conversion efficiency is about 20%. with an additional small amount of cofiring (six operating plants). In 1973. 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. • Small biopower and biodiesel systems have been used for many years in the developing world for electricity generation. DOE is developing systems for village-power applications and for developed-world distributed generation that are efficient. Growth is limited by availability of waste fuel and heat demand. wood was the primary fuel for residential. Wood-fired systems account for close to 95% of this capacity.g. to 300-350MW in 1990.250/kW of biomass capacity) is the most near-term option for large-scale use of biomass for power-only electricity generation.

inject. especially to demonstrate integrated operation of biomass gasifier with advanced-power generation (turbines and/or fuel cells).8 Gasification 6.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 7.0 5. Climate Change Technology Program. November 2003 (draft update. as this technology has reached a mature status.5 7. DOE/PI-0002. Integration of gasification into a biorefinery platform is a key new research area. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 5 . continued industry research and field verifications are needed to address specific technical and nontechnical barriers to cofiring.7 6. September 2005). Future technology development will benefit from finding ways to better prepare. However. U. • 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. EPRI TR-109496.S. Improved methods for combining coal and biomass fuels will maximize efficiency and minimize emissions. Cofiring – The DOE biopower program is moving away from research on cofiring. and control biomass combustion in a coal-fired boiler. Small Modular Systems – Small-scale systems for distributed or minigrid (for premium or village power) applications will be increasingly in demand. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. Systems are expected to include biomass cofiring up to 5% of natural gas combined-cycle capacity.1 5. 1997.4 Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.

454 3. 2 3 4 Wood.511 5.733 1..062 5.311 1.803 5. Table 7.410 2003 2.405 3.484 2000 2. D.924 10. black liquor.871 9. Total Municipal Solid Waste Biomass Total Rest of World Total 4 1 4. World Energy Assessment.694 6.452 1998 2.689 3.389 N/A 78 Wood and Other Biomass U.808 10.389 2004 2.842 1.795 10.549 8.S.636 1.598 6.660 6.655 834 4. and other biomass.425 1997 2.364 1. August 2005).11c. tires.058 5. Cogenerators 3 1 Municipal Solid Waste 659 2 786 5.S.382 1. sludge waste.817 5.709 3.25. and world data from United Nations Development Program. Data include electric power sector and end-use sector (industrial and commercial) generators.789 1.S. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.949 1.000 3. Figures may not add due to rounding.708 Wood and Other Biomass 78 78 World Total 1 Municipal solid waste.845 5.891 9.505 40. landfill gas.394 842 4.487 2002 2.S.486 2001 2.802 10. EIA.856 1.883 6.Biomass Market Data Cumulative Generating Capability.061 3. 6 .472 1.046 5. Tables 8.993 1.528 1.298 998 5.614 1. by Type (MW) Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA). and other wood waste. agricultural byproducts.852 964 1995 2.674 3. Annual Energy Review 2004. 1980 U.C.482 961 4.024 3.585 NA 2 151 200 351 2.844 9. Number derived from subtracting U.269 3.600 1.141 10. total from the world total.451 1996 2.094 4.11a and 8.882 9. Electric Power Sector Municipal Solid Waste 1 2 1985 151 200 1990 1.438 1999 2.590 6.827 5.399 961 4.515 3. 2000.502 Wood and Other Biomass U.750 10.519 6.495 29.

000 7.8 0 91. wood chips.172 6. fruit pits.8 2001 0 66.4 611.212 11.S.305 9.7 0 40. wastewater sludge.3 177. refused-derived fuel Timber and logging residues (includes tree bark.6 22.0 142. hydrogen.1 Municipal Solid Waste Wood Residues Total 5 U.970 7.8 0 0 43.6 1999 0 107.948 7.3 299.458 11.869 2003 1 373 1.6 2000 0 43. Cumulative Generating 6 Capability.4 1997 21.840 1990 165 361 2.722 2001 373 999 2. landfill gas.948 7. 7 .970 7.U.447 11. Version 7.0 13. 2003. by Type (MW) Agricultural Waste Biogas 3 4 2 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).535 1999 373 889 2. hazardous waste.447 11.2 0 38.1 50.0 260.497 11.445 MW of Bio Gas. and methanol). ethanol.0 2003 1 0 23.31 MW of Wood Residues that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date.203 1997 373 694 2.0 1995 4. 1 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.922 Municipal Solid Waste Wood Residues Total 5 Note: The data in this table does not match data in the previous table.303 11. scrap tires.1 58. cannery wastes. 5. livestock manure. NREL. NREL. due to different coverage ratios in EIA and REPIS databases.358 1998 373 781 2.970 7.2 254.45 MW of Ag Waste.678 2000 373 933 2.8 69. wood or wood waste) There are an additional 65. Annual Installed Generating Capability.6 0. nut hulls.1 2002 0 30.030 2.935 5. tree pitch.3 78.8 450.6 92. by Type (MW) Agricultural Waste Biogas 3 4 2 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).970 7.434 11.343 11.5 66.6 166.3 260. 1980 22.497 11.053 3.3 0 90. Version 7.800 2002 373 1. pulping liquor.8 0 11. alcohol (includes butahol.5 182.948 7.897 1985 92 117 697 4.003 1995 351 526 2. saw dust.5 1996 0 74. 2003.948 7. and 483.4 333.3 1998 0 87.7 1990 0 51.0 17.S. bagasse.0 154.037 1996 351 601 2.6 117. 1980 40 18 263 3. 2 3 4 5 6 Agricultural residues. nut shells Biogas.0 0 53.576 3.5 94.1 30. peat.0 1985 20. wood gas (from wood gasifier) Municipal solid waste (includes industrial and medical).

736 37.397 6. Annual Energy Review 2003.042 Wood and Other Biomass 275 433 World Total 160.1 407.294 4.141 7. Electric Power Sector 1 Municipal Solid Waste Wood and Other Biomass U. and other biomass.214 22. agricultural byproducts.963 6.3 385. and other biomass).327 16.S.735 4. tires.747 37.6 378.543 28. 1 Data includes combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and electricity-only plants.857 38.131 37.383 13.4 32.0 2000 420.4 653.7 26.004.460 29.5 378.0 32.820 Wood and Other Biomass U.629 5.572 37. Source: EIA.8 825.475 Municipal Solid Waste 2.359 7. 8 . total from the world total.Generation from Cumulative Capacity.S.7 362.402 17.834 30. sludge waste.8 1.5 33.3 34.4 4.8 1999 415.5 1997 408. Annual Energy Consumption for Electricity Generation (Trillion Btu) Electric-Power Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector Total Biomass 1 1 1980 4.448 36.644 17. Total Municipal Solid Waste Biomass Total Rest of World Total 4 1 158 2 640 743 1.5 14. sludge waste.571 17.221 6.709 36.493 16.613 23.6 1996 397.405 36.1 2003 493. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 158 275 640 743 10. agricultural byproducts.338 58.1 836.1 30.938 29.S.2 567.5 373.301 17.041 59. 2000. World Energy Assessment.787 5.1 28. and other wood waste) and waste (municipal solid waste. black liquor.5 1.885 16.200 56.092.726 21.468 16.4c U. black liquor.809 7.112 7.636 4.948 58.312 30.S.964 22.0 822.712 21.0 22.800 57.786 101.4b and 8.149 32. Tables 8. by Type (Million kWh) U.326 5.0 1995 388.5 481. Number derived from subtracting U.665 61. Table 7. and other wood waste.911 36.6 379.694 5.25.926 20.7 351.480 5.245 5.000 1 Municipal solid waste. Figures may not add due to rounding.521 56.529 61.4 22.2c.9 2001 430. 2 3 4 Wood. landfill gas.595 60.4 1990 285.7 823. Annual Energy Review 2004.3 32.3 1998 412.307 5.5 Data include wood (wood.939 4.079 30.415 20.498 31.3 380. landfill gas.540 30.889 29.904 26. and world data from United Nations Development Program.400 5. Data include electric power sector and end-use sector (industrial and commercial) generators.4 2004 492.9 16.522 23.658 22.592 7.266 45.485 29.3 795.5 1985 14.265 18.765 35.295 60.0 806. tires. Cogenerators 3 1 2 2 Source: EIA.265 22.7 902. Tables 8.6 2002 494.2a and 8.254 17.078 6.6 832.S.

9 32.73 -0.730 2015 80.066 9.006 0.0 85.50 2. 2 Number derived by interpolation.002 -0.346 1.007 0.066 9.50 2.000 1 1 Efficiency (%) Net Heat Rate (kJ/kWh) 2000 80.200 2 2020 80.055 0.004 0.070 0.5 49.004 0.033 Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh) Direct-fired 0.50 2.4 43.73 Gasification 2. EPRI TR-109496.061 0.4 43. No cofiring COE is reported in the RETC.0 80.047 0.0 85.892 1.0 27.0 60.043 0.066 10.0 13.036 0.0 85.000 11.006 3 Cofired -0.0 3 Cofired 10.0 27.810 11.231 1. the base year of the Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations analysis.087 0.0 80.4 10.047 0.009 -0.0 27.115 3 Cofired 272 256 241 230 224 217 Gasification 2. and assume $9.5 10.004 0.067 0.008 -0.50 2.4 43.0 33.058 3 Cofired N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Gasification 0.258 Feed Cost ($/GJ) Direct-fired 2.50 2.039 3 Cofired -0.50 2.036 0.50 Fixed Operating Cost ($/kW-yr) Direct-fired 73.14/dry tonne biomass and $39.000 11.102 1.047 0.040 0.730 2010 80.5 39.73 -0.036 0.50 2.5 37.50 2.0 80.0 85.745 1.0 30. a heat input from biomass at 19.002 Gasification 0.3 Gasification 68.0 80.002 -0.3 11.7 32.004 Total Operating Costs ($/kWh) Direct-fired 0.009 -0.50 2.002 -0.620 11.073 0.066 8.075 0.034 0.8 9.4 43.5 9.09/tonne coal.007 0.002 -0.5 41.Technology Performance Efficiency Capacity Factor (%) Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.004 0.0 85.0 80.104 kJ/kg.066 9.008 -0.0 85.0 60.7 32.73 -0.000 11.6 9.670 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1995 Direct-fired 1.0 23.50 3 Cofired -0.0 80.5 37. Cost Total Capital Cost ($/kW) 9 .8 32.50 2.0 15.73 -0.007 0.510 1. and that variable O&M includes an SO2 credit valued at $110/tonne SO2.0 32.361 1.4 1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1980 1990 1995 Variable Operating Costs ($/kWh) Direct-fired 0.009 Gasification 0.0 13.004 0.7 32.008 -0.464 1.009 0. 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).5 36.73 -0.280 11.054 1 Data is for 1997.000 2005 80.7 43.0 60.002 -0.0 13. 1997.7 36.1 9.0 54.015 10.650 1. 1980 Direct-fired Cofired Gasification Direct-fired Cofired Gasification Direct-fired Cofired Gasification 1980 1990 1990 1995 80.965 1.

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

as water was piped from hot springs to town buildings.7 Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.S. the U. with a supporting loan from DOE. The plant was 250 kW. California.S.1 Hydrothermal Binary 3. a pipeline began delivering treated municipal wastewater and lake water to The Geysers steamfield in California. located at The Geysers. the Boise district heating system continues to flourish. • In 1997. • In the 1990s. This project established the technical feasibility of larger-scale commercial binary power plants. Hawaii. and Nevada. DOE initiated its GeoPowering the West program to encourage development of geothermal resources in the western United States by reducing nontechnical barriers. Although no one imitated this system for nearly 70 years. • Improvements in cost and accuracy of resource exploration and characterization can lower the electricity cost.Technology History • The use of geothermal energy as a source of hot water for spas dates back thousands of years. UNOCAL built the country's first flash plant. high front-end costs. • In 1960. Pacific Gas and Electric operated the plant. the system was serving 200 homes and 40 downtown businesses. Within a few years. The project was so successful that Ormat repaid the loan within a year. • Costs at the best sites are competitive at today’s energy prices – and investment is limited by uncertainty in prices. Utah. Ormat International Inc. and lag time between investment and return. confirmed resources. • The United States’ first geothermal power plant went into operation in 1922 at The Geysers in California.S.9 2. the world's first district heating system was built in Boise. geothermal industry focused its attention on building power plants overseas. 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. 11 . the first electrical development of a water-dominated geothermal resource occurred at the East Mesa field in the Imperial Valley in California. • With approval of the federal production tax credit and with support from state-level renewable portfolio standards. • In 1980. geothermal power is poised to double in capacity within the next couple of years. such as enhanced geothermal systems. would allow a large expansion of the U. EPRI TR-109496. the country's first large-scale geothermal electricity-generating plant began operation. • In 1979. with major projects in Indonesia and the Philippines. demonstration of new resource concepts. there are now 17 district heating systems in the United States and dozens more around the world. successfully demonstrated binary technology in the Imperial Valley of California. The resource at The Geysers is dry steam. Idaho. • By the mid-1980s. • The DOE Geothermal Program sponsored research that won two R&D awards in 2003.4 2. advancing this renewable energy. • In 1892. The first turbine produces 11 megawatts (MW) of net power and operated successfully for more than 30 years. but fell into disuse.6 2. 1997. use of hydrothermal when economics become favorable. lack of new. • In 1981. U.0 2. increasing the operating capacity by 70 MW. generating 10 MW at Brawley. electricity was being generated by geothermal power in four western states: California. Today. • In 2000.

Climate Change Technology Program. 12 . an installed electricity capacity of 20. • By 2015. enough heat and electricity for 7 million homes.000 MW from hydrothermal plants and 20. Direct heat will replace existing systems in markets in 19 western states. Nevada.000 MW worldwide. geothermal could provide about 10 GW.133 MW electric in the United States and about 8. September 2005). and Idaho. • Geothermal will continue production at existing plants (2. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.1 GW) with future construction potential (100 GW by 2040). Direct-use applications have an installed capacity of about 600 MW thermal in the United States.S.000 MW from enhanced geothermal systems is projected. DOE/PI-0002. About 300 MW electric are being developed in California. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. by 2020. U. November 2003 (draft update.Market Context • Hydrothermal reservoirs have an installed capacity of about 2.

133 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: International Geothermal Association.128 8.846 2.664 1.C..” 1980 Electricity (MW e) U.228 5. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.239 2.764 2.057 5. Annual Energy Review 2004. world totals from Renewable Energy World/July-August 2000.20 and 7.775 3.968 3.666 3.175 909 1. 1997 world electricity and U. Table 1.S.402 1.072 8.974 2. Rest of World World Total Cumulative Installed Capacity Electricity (MW e) U. 1998 world totals from UNDP World Energy Assessment 2000.020 6. August 2005).746 7.133 2.604 3.064 8.893 5.893 5.021 2.100 1.016 6.382 8.704 11.S.797 2. D.S.874 6. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat (MW th) U.817 4.905 7.S.829 6.it/index.893 2. “Geothermal Energy: European and World-wide Perspective. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat (MW th) U.832 2.166 5. Tables 7.974 2.216 2.php 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 13 .832 2.25.191 2. Table 8.145 4. Rest of World World Total 1.950 7. page 123.793 5.11a.346 8.379 15. electricity data from EIA.766 11.Geothermal Market Data Cumulative Installed Capacity Source: U.cnr. and world direct-use heat data from Stefansson and Fridleifsson 1998.252 2.S.833 2.580 3.igg.730 8.350 2.181 7.S. http://iga.184 4.799 9.000 17.

Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2000 http://geothermal. Kyushu-Tohoku.9 1990 48. NREL.064 8.S. 2003.720 1997 2. Cumulative Installed Capacity 1980 Electricity (MW e) U. Sifford and Blommquist.072 8. Huttrer.464 6. World-Wide Direct Uses of Geothermal Energy 2000. 1980 802 1985 1.htm. Lund.de/europaundweltweit/Lund/wsoge_index. J.779 2001 2. NREL.779 2003* 2.343 2.200 12.684 1996 2. Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).htm. Geothermal Electric from Installed Capacity Power Production in the United States: A Survey and Update for 1995-1999.S.284 2.geothermie.764 5. Lund and Boyd.175 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 3.720 1998 2.975 17.228 5. 1980 251.779 * 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002. World Status of Geothermal Energy Use Overview 1995-1999 http://www. Version 7.0 1985 352.887 4. Geothermal DirectGeneration/Energy Production Use in the United States Update: 1995-1999.974 4. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat* (MW th) U. Rest of World World Total 2. and G. Japan. Cumulative Installed Electric Capacity (MW e) U. 2003. Version 7.779 2002 2.833 2.314 2.9 2001 2002 2003* Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS). May 28-June10. The Status of World Geothermal Power Generation 1995-2000.209 14 .293 2.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 59.S.S.540 1995 2.369 4.Annual Installed Electric Capacity (MW e) U.stanford.720 1999 2.746 7.6 1995 1996 36.950 7.832 1.edu/wgc2000/SessionList.664 16.698 1990 2. 2000. Installed Capacity and Power Source: Lund and Freeston.720 2000 2.

1 40 47.php..1 35.S.S.igg.C. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat (billion kWhth) U. http://iga.3 53. page 126.214 TJ) in 1999 of the world totals and 3600 MW th (8.5 14.it/index. “Geothermal Energy: European and World-wide Perspective.800 TJ) in 2000 of the U.3 14.8 49.” 1998 world totals from UNDP World Energy Assessment 2000.S.8 31. Geothermal heat pumps account for 1854 MW th (14.Annual Generation/Energy Production from Cumulative Installed Capacity 1980 Electricity (Billion kWhe) U.4 15.cnr.3 7.7 17 15. Rest of World World Total 27.7 15.2 49.2 31. Cumulative Installed Capacity August 2005). and world direct-use heat data from Stefansson and Fridleifsson 1998.S.6 14. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat* (TJ) 14. 1995.441 162.0 14.3 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 13.0 5.4 31.700 U. Rest of World 98. D.5 33.7 29.6 19 13.9 14.707 163.4 6.617 TJ) in 1995 and 6849 MW th (23.3 5. Annual Generation from Source: U.1 14.1 35. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Electricity (Billion kWhe) U.8 4.S.4 14.8 49 14.6 6.2a.2 13. total. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. 2000. Annual Energy Review 2004.009 185.139 * Direct-use heat includes geothermal heat pumps as well as traditional uses.890 20.0 43. Conversion of GWh to TJ is done at 1TJ = 0. 1997 world electricity and U.4 3.6 20 3.S.2778 GWh. Table 7. and 2003 direct-use heat and 1999 electricity world total from International Geothermal Association.1 8.551 141. Table 8.9 14 9.25.7 14.439 World Total 86.2 46 14. electricity data from EIA.0 15.4 15 . Table 2.302 21. world electricity totals from Renewable Energy World/July-August 2000.S.249 112.

662 141.. by type (units) ARI-320 ARI-325/330 Other non-ARI Rated Totals * No survey was conducted for 2001.554 N/A 3.439 2004 9. D.776 98.C.130 31. 2 No survey was conducted for 2001.C.758 141.C.222 2.335 26.731 5.888 16. REA 2001 Table 40.238 89. Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments..C.145 355 18.301 ARI-320 13. DOE/EIA-0603(2004) (Washington. Annual Energy Review 2004.764 100. D.317 20.772 10. Rest of World World Total Annual U.808 N/A 6.784 13.821 43. DOE/EIA-0603(2003) (Washington.193 9.139 36.714 2.970 1997 24.469 130.Annual Geothermal Energy Consumption for Electric Generation (Trillion Btu) U. Table 58.806 Source: EIA.334 31.800 25.S.266 41.S.708 110.910 7.444 29.181 14.556 1998 35. Heat Pump Shipments (Rated Tons) Source: EIA.696 4.756 96.446 1999 27.120 ARI-325/330 113.802 25. June 2006).165 945 1. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2. Table 59.445 10.211 838 991 1.220 144. REA 1999 Table 38.679 35.469 124.S.819 5.735 191.092 21.172 784 N/A 1.762 25.980 1 One Rated Ton of Capacity equals 12.000 Btu's.429 24.. Renewable Energy Annual 2004. June 2006).491 N/A 10.276 226 109 6.925 Other non-ARI Rated 3. REA 2000 Table 38.4a. DOE/EIA-0603(2004) (Washington.912 6.892 922 1995 32.935 1995 Totals 130.000 125. D.855 2.947 9.581 N/A 37.438 2004 23.132 7. June 2006).297 2003 29.590 164.697 28. and REA 1998 Table 40..S.647 8.999 10.385 37.917 20. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.697 7.167 23.138 1.186 6.377 9. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 2003 4.541 12.191 2001* N/A N/A N/A N/A 2002 16. August 2005).970 153.336 829 3. Annual U.042 31. Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments by Customer Type and Model Type (units) Exporter Wholesale Distributor Retail Distributor Installer Source: EIA.302 18.652 2000 26. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. D.060 92. REA 2002 Table 40.631 26. 1996 15.434 38.804 N/A 20. REA 2003 Table 40.272 N/A 552 1.219 N/A 26.306 26.562 16 .555 2. Table 8. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.091 112.327 1. Capacity of U. Table 61.510 7. 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.

788 16.982 12.060 25. 1997.1 78. Table 60.637 3.S.295 36.95 171 2020 96 96 85 2020 1.8 191 2010 95 95 83 2010 1.417 9.240 13.090 2.276 58.922 38.543 14.947 2.100 1.112 5. June 2006).271 2.2 52.C.794 62. 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 1.312 66.4 163 17 .25 55.935 17.875 4. EPRI TR-109496. Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments by Export & Census Region (units) Export Midwest Northeast South West Total 689 13 51.403 6.End User Others Total Annual U.5 207 2005 93 93 82 2005 1.984 11. REA 2000 Table 37.581 N/A N/A N/A 207 3.837 6.303 1.071 N/A 3.581 N/A 37.924 8.8 66.4 87.147 1.167 35.650 6.520 657 1.372 1.138 N/A 3.280 5. REA 2003 Table 39.042 14. and REA 1998 Table 39.444 2.302 26.5 179 2015 96 96 84 2015 1.025 3.176 87.402 12.903 5.438 51.162 35.403 N/A 13.3 59.162 63 2. D. REA 1999 Table 37.674 3.112 10.756 74.768 2.994 5..139 1.439 43. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 2003 2004 4.427 481 6.696 3.727 57.044 4.166 3.259 49.135 38.922 994 1. REA 2002 Table 39.103 6.323 3.754 4.220 N/A 3.439 397 4.266 66 6.806 Technology Performance Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.139 36.520 57.806 Source: EIA. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.764 2.4 219 2000 92 92 81 2000 1.250 1.194 1.266 49.874 13.519 96. DOE/EIA-0603(2003) (Washington.749 N/A 12. REA 2001 Table 39.195 20.660 12.328 37.753 43.

or in clusters (1-10 MWe) for utility-scale applications. provided all the information needed to scale up to a 30-100 MW commercial plant. • 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. a 10-MWe pilot power tower with three hours of storage. Plant sizes can range from 1. the first of which is now being planned in Spain. 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. with a rated capacity of 354 MWe. and Spain.Concentrating Solar Power Technology Description Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems concentrate solar energy 50 to 10. although some systems have operated for more than 10. Colorado. which is used to produce electricity for distributed or bulk generation process applications. remote. System Concepts • In CSP systems. Arizona. • CSP technologies provide firm.000 times to produce hightemperature thermal energy. The hot salt can be stored extremely efficiently to allow power production to match utility demand. • A number of prototype dish/Stirling systems are currently operating in Nevada. 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. durability remains to be proven. even when the sun is not shining. have been operating in California since the 1980s. • Solar Two. Trough system electricity costs of about 12¢-14¢/kWh have been demonstrated commercially. Some of the new trough plants include thermal storage. highly reflective suntracking mirrors produce temperatures of 400°C to 800°C in the working fluid of a receiver. steam can be generated with a fossil fuel to meet utility needs. including end-of-line support.000 hours. Plant size can range from 30 to 200 MWe. High levels of performance have been established. 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%. 18 . Dishes are 2-25 kW in size and can be used individually or in small groups for distributed. • Because solar-thermal technologies can yield extremely high temperatures. They are easily hybridized with fossil fuel.0 to 100 MWe. or village power. When the sun is not shining. • 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. Technology Applications • Nine parabolic trough plants. nonintermittent electricity generation (peaking or intermediate load capacity) when coupled with storage.

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

SAIC and Boeing together have five 25kW systems under test and evaluation at utility. • A 64-MW parabolic trough plant is under construction near Boulder City. • A near-term to midterm opportunity exists to build production capacity in the United States for both domestic use and international exports. Climate Change Technology Program.7 4. • According to a recent study commissioned by the Department of Energy. The World Bank considers CSP to be a primary candidate for Global Environment Facility funding.000MW of CSP in the Southwest United States. industry teams – Science Applications International Corp. Cummins Engine Company attempted to commercialize dish/Stirling systems based on free-piston Stirling engine technology. MP-520­ 33875. • At Congress’ request. However. Market Context • There is currently 350 MW of CSP generation in the United States. 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. The plants are anticipated to come on-line within the next several years. • Parabolic troughs have been commercialized and nine plants (354 MW total) have operated in California since the 1980s. DOE scoped out what would be required to deploy 1. NREL Report No. and a 25 kWe dish/engine system for utility applications. Systems. DOE/GO-102004-1775. with a third off-grid system being developed in 2002 on an Indian reservation for water-pumping applications.S. • Current dish/engine efforts are being continued by three U. and university sites in Arizona. DOE/PI-0002. WGA has two 10kW systems under test in New Mexico. industry. all of it in Southern California's Mojave Desert. largely because of a corporate decision to focus on its core diesel-engine business.. 20 . nominally rated at 25 kWe.0 N/A Dish/Engine 40. achieved solar-to­ electric conversion efficiencies of around 30%. and Nevada. November 2003 (draft update. Eight prototype systems were deployed and operated on a daily basis from 1986 through 1988.0 N/A 6 Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan. and silver/glass mirror dishes. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Efforts included a 5 to 10 kWe dish/Stirling system for remote power applications. • In the early 1990s. This technology used directly illuminated. • The World Bank’s Solar Initiative is pursuing CSP technologies for less-developed countries. • Power purchase agreements have been signed for 800 MW of new dish/engine capacity in California. U.S.3 6. (SAIC) teamed with STM Corp. a kinematic Stirling engine developed for automotive applications. Nevada. Cummins canceled their solar development in 1996. and WG Associates with Sunfire Corporation. Technical difficulties with Cummins' free-piston Stirling engines were never resolved.0 20. CSP technologies can achieve significantly lower costs (below 6¢/kWh) at modest production volumes. September 2005). Boeing with Stirling Energy Systems.4 5.0 5.4 N/A Power Tower 12. California. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific Power will purchase the power to comply with the solar portion of Nevada’s renewable portfolio standard. Significant domestic and international interest will likely result in additional projects. tubular solar receivers.• Development of modern technology began in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Technology Future The levelized cost of electricity (in constant 2003$/kWh) for three CSP configurations are projected at: 2003 2007 2012 2025 Trough 11.

125 1999 364 10 354 0. P No data are available for 1985. Table 4.89 0.S.Concentrating Solar Power Market Data U. 1* 0.616 8.037 1. 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. Solar Thermal Shipments (Thousand Square Feet) 1980 198 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5 1 Total 19.068 1.115 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.89 0.409 7. Source: EIA .189 11.125 Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity (Billion kWh) Source: EIA.444 2.583 8. 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 0.663 Imports Exports 1 2003 11.3 and Renewable Energy Annual 2004 Table 30. Version 7.102 2.125 2002 354 0 354 0.723 235 NA 1.S.930 2.352 2.49 0.206 2.986 2004 P 14.756 8. Renewable Resources in the Electric Supply.02 billion kilowatthours grid-connected photovoltaic generation.57 2004 0.666 7. Table 10.398 NA 11.138 7.125 2000 354 0 354 0.90 0.58 U.S.502 3. Power Tower Trough Dish/Engine Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).87 0. Installations (electric only) Cumulative (MW) U. Table A16. 2003.S.Annual Energy Review 2004.354 11.114 3. and Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. EPRI TR-109496.54 * Includes both solar thermal and less than 0.82 0. Annual Energy Outlook 1998-2006. Annual U.54 0. NREL. = Preliminary 21 .125 2001 354 0 354 0.562 2. 1993.201 3.

01 .06 22 .11 .01 NA . NREL Report No.01 .007 NA NA .04 NA NA 2025 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA .04 .06 .10 NA 2007 3500 3422 NA .20 2012 NA 2920 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.12 .06 . DOE/GO-102004-1775.40 2005 4100 3556 NA .06 . MP-520-33875. (%) 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 .Technology Performance Efficiency Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan.01 NA NA .02 NA .05 NA 2018 2500 NA NA .

or DC can be used to charge batteries or to split water to produce hydrogen (electrolysis of water). and intermediate daytime load. market share could increase rapidly. power conditioning. Representative Technologies • Wafers of single-crystal or polycrystalline silicon – best cells: 25% efficiency.S. Land area is not a problem for PV. commercial modules: 12%-17%. assuming a system efficiency of 10% and an area packing factor of 50% to avoid self-shading). Very few of these systems have 23 . on roofs or above parking lots). U. Not only can PV be more easily sited in a distributed fashion than almost all alternatives (for example. • PV systems are expected to be used in the United States for residential and commercial buildings. System Concepts • Flat-plate PV arrays use global sunlight. or greenhouse gases.g. • High-efficiency. PV can provide dispatchable electricity and/or produce hydrogen. single-crystal silicon and multijunction gallium-arsenide-alloy cells for concentrators – best cells: 27%-39% efficient.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. sunlight in the contiguous states varies by only about 25% from an average in Kansas.g. If successful. Technology Applications • PV systems can be installed as either grid-supply technologies or as customer-sited alternatives to retail electricity.5 × 106 GWh/year. concentrators use direct sunlight. Silicon modules dominate the PV market and currently cost about $2/Wp to manufacture. For example. by producing hydrogen from water – will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. precommercial modules: 15%-24%. The DC output from PV can be conditioned into grid-quality AC electricity. 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. peak-power shaving. As suppliers of bulk grid power. • Grid-connected PV systems currently sell for about $6-$7/Wp (17¢-22¢/kWh). Modules are mounted on a stationary array or on single. • Almost all locations in the United States and worldwide have enough sunlight for cost-effective PV. commercial modules: 6%-11%. including support structures. and dye-sensitized cells) – best cells: 12%-19%..or dual-axis sun trackers. prototype systems are being tested in high solar areas in the southwest United States. A new generation of thin-film PV modules is going through the high-risk transition to first-time and large-scale manufacturing. With energy storage. semitransparent solar canopy).. copper indium diselenide. Arrays can be ground-mounted or on all types of buildings and structures (e. amorphous silicon. air pollution. Using solar PV for electricity – and eventually using solar PV to produce hydrogen for fuel cells for electric vehicles. and land. • Thin-film semiconductors (e. PV modules would typically be installed in large array fields ranging in total peak output from a few megawatts on up. cadmium telluride.

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

when the Czochralski process was developed for producing highly pure crystalline silicon. such as roof-mounted arrays on homes and commercial buildings in the United States. markets include retail electricity for residential and commercial buildings. and research organizations have invested billions of dollars in research. As a result. DOE/GO-102004-1775.g.. • Worldwide. with systems valued at more than $7 billion. renewed interest in making PV technology more affordable. the federal government.20 NA 0. market growth for PV has averaged more than 20%/year for the past decade as a result of reduced prices and successful global marketing. in the mid-1970s. sparked by a world oil crisis. Technology Future The levelized cost of electricity (in constant 2003$/kWh) for PV are projected to be: 2007 2020 2025 2003 Utility-owned Residential 0. Since then. (Today. DOE/PI-0002. 33% in 2003. world market share fell to about 12% in 2004. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. 44% in 2002. Transistors and PV cells are made from similar materials and operate on similar physical mechanisms. 25 . The U. • Worldwide. But.S. California is subsidizing PV systems to reduce their dependence on natural gas.40 0.10 NA (crystalline Si) Concentrator 0. electric car-charging stations. The commercial integrated circuit technology also contributed to the development of PV cells.06 Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan. Market Context • Electricity for remote locations. such as airconditioning. September 2005). grid-connected PV.22 0. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.04-0. the fastest-growing segment of the market is battery-free. MP-520­ 33875.S. the U. U.S. this technology transfer process often works in reverse. especially for peak daytime loads that match PV output.) • Despite these advances. advances in transistor research provided a steady flow of new information about PV cell technology. peak-shaving. as advances in PV research and development are sometimes adopted by the integrated circuit industry. NREL Report No.S.40 0. however. However. PV devices in 1970 were still too expensive for most “down-to-Earth” uses. A thriving industry now exists to meet the rapidly growing demand for photovoltaic products. development. especially for billions of people worldwide who do not have electricity. total installed PV is more than 2 GW. • Future electricity and hydrogen storage for dispatchable electricity. • Hundreds of applications are cost-effective for off-grid needs. it was the new space program that gave the technology its first major application.25-0. industry. Although a few attempts were made in the 1950s to use silicon cells in commercial products. November 2003 (draft update. approximately 1. Vanguard space satellite carried a small array of PV cells to power its radio. In 1954. Climate Change Technology Program. supplying nearly all power for satellites. scientists at Bell Laboratories depended on the Czochralski process to develop the first crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Worldwide sales grew 36% in 2001.• Major steps toward commercializing PV were taken in the 1940s and early 1950s. increasing energy costs.8-0.200 MW of PV were sold in 2004. remote water pumping). distributed utility systems for grid support. • Even today. In 1958. • U. and other daytime uses (e. and hydrogen production for portable fuel. and production. The cells worked so well that PV technology has been part of the space program ever since. and 60% in 2004. PV plays an important role in space. which had an efficiency of 4%.

4 3 1985 4. Japan Europe Rest of World World Total Cumulative (MW) U.pvenergy. 1997. May 2003. 2. Vol.1 39 1995 8. No.S. 1996. No.835 2001 26% 33% 2002 720 921 542 214 2. 2001.3 246 26 . 5.285 735 298 3.5 110 1998 13. Feb. MW)* U. Source: Strategies Unlimited 1980 1. 16. No.S. Feb.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.S. Vol.Photovoltaics Market Data PV Cell/Module Production (Shipments) Annual (MW) U. and Volume 23. 2. No. 20. Paul Maycock.444 2000 26% 35% 2001 599 670 407 160 1.2 79 1997 10. % of World Sales Annual Cumulative Source: PV News. www. No. April 2004. Japan Europe Rest of World World Total U.395 2002 22% 30% 2003 823 1.156 1999 30% 37% 2000 499 499 320 127 1.4 68 1996 9. Vol.4 170 2000 21. Vol.139 2003 14% 26% Annual Capacity (Shipments retained. Total World *Excludes indoor consumer (watches/calculators). 22. 2. 4. 15.S.2 15 1990 5.6 131 1999 18. Feb.

S.4 33.2 38.6 76.8 13. transportation.Cumulative Capacity (Shipments retained.9 29. Shipments (MW) Annual Shipments Total Imports Exports Domestic Total On-Grid* Domestic Total Off-Grid* Cumulative Shipments (since 1982) Total Imports Exports Source: EIA.6. and EIA.3 81.6 47.4 3.2 7.5 55. Renewable Energy Annual 2003.5 23.6 32.9 195. and original equipment manufacturers.8 10.8 60.5 55. December 2004) Table 26.9 4.0 447.4 2004 991.2 10.3 4.3 4.0 2000 490.1 109.5 46.9 15.8 88.5 and 10.2 2001 588.0 12.C.0 70.1 92. Tables 10.1 26.9 22.C.8 508.3 102.1 0.3 1.9 51.2 97.3 126.4 43.9 252.9 4.4 66.8 169.7 31. Annual Energy Review 2004.1 1990 84.7 1.8 6. July-August 2003.5 24.4 61.3 28.3 14..8 2003 809.4 181.5 319.9 Domestic Total Off-Grid* 26.7 60.9 22.2 126.S.8 11. 23.9 142.8 31. September 2004). No. health.8 0. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. communications.0 25. excludes water pumping.0 5.9 1. MW)* U.5 611.1 36.0 200.8 18.8 8. Shipments (MW) Total Imports Exports Source: Renewable Energy World.210 *Excludes indoor consumer (watches/calculators).6 103.7 19.3 120.6 230. Number 4. 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 1.5 1995 193.3 104 1.2 54.2 1996 228.7 251.7 113. D.0 18.5 127.2 10.6 2002 700. 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 5.9 1.0 24.S.8 55. and PV News..9 14.8 75.3 1.4 50. Electricity generation only.3 9.4 1999 402. Vol.7 112.9 39.8 60.6 68.0 13.7 0. 5.2 6.7 1985 35.8 Domestic Total On-Grid* 2. consumer goods.7 9.7 5.2 10.2 81.8 16. DOE/EIA-0603(2003) (Washington.3 37.3 52.7 10.7 8.0 4.0 53.0 73.5 2.7 7.8 1998 325. May 2004 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 34.0 9.0 5.7 33.5 51.0 2. U.0 27 .7 47.0 108.0 100.8 35.9 1.7 381.2 18 160.1 35. D.5 19.4 1.3 1997 275.2 16. U.7 102.4 * Domestic Totals include imports and exclude exports. Volume 6.8 38.2 1.

1 28.S.0 13. Comm.5 4. Off-Grid Residential World Off-Grid Rural Communications/ Signal PV/Diesel.8 2.4 0 15.5 50. May 31.5 1.7 15. 23 No.S.3 23.0 2.8 2.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/download/usa. Installations* (MW) Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States.0 1.4 32. Volume 6.2 100.htm. prepared by Paul D. prepared by Paul D.2 4.5 0 20.4 2.0 12.0 4.5 6. Res.0 4.7 5.5 2.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/usa2.0 12.0 40. Installations (MW) Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States.0 5.0 37.5 32. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Off-grid Residential 19. Maycock and Ward Bower. July-August 2003.. and PV News. May 31. Central Station (>100kW) Total Source: Renewable Energy World.9 21.5 Off-grid Nonresidential 25. Maycock and Ward Bower.S. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1.0 12.pdf.7 On-grid Distributed 9.0 22.5 2.0 1.2 0 13.5 0 24.2 64.0 16.0 12.6 On-grid Centralized 12. Annual World Installations (MW) Consumer Products U.0 12.2 2.1 117. Vol.0 Total 66. Table 1 http://www.0 0 48.7 11.5 5.7 55.7 5.2 35.2 1. 2003. http://www.8 4.0 9.0 9.2 0 14.3 138.5 43.5 3.8 167.5 2.5 7.ojaservices.0 Grid-Connected Distributed Off-Grid Consumer Government Off-Grid Industrial/Commercial Consumer (<40 w) Central Station Total Cumulative U.0 7.5 88.0 4.0 12.8 30.0 12.2 46.0 2.0 8.0 1.7 2.Annual U. prepared for the IEA.0 67. 2003.8 76.2 4.1 40. Number 4. Table 1.0 4. Commercial Grid-Conn.3 27.0 3.8 2.0 0 11. 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 .5 0.0 0 32.oja-services.0 13.5 6. prepared for the IEA. 5.4 1.8 3.8 * Excludes installations less than 40kW.

0 0 0. 3. Vol. Vol. 15. No.3 N/A N/A 2.5 16.2 0 2. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 46. 3. 1999. Vol. Volume 6.8 0. No. No. 17.51 0. and Renewable Energy World. Feb.6 2002 71. No.5 16.7 0.1 11. 2.3 0.8 59. 1999.2 2 12 287.0 17.5 53.9 1997 31. 1996.0 0 2.2 23.Annual U.9 4.3 0. Number 4.7 1.3 0. May 2003. 3.7 1.7 48.6 1.5 126. March 2001.8 1996 24. March 2000.S. March 2002.0 6.0 2.6 16. 1998. Vol. 22.6 1.5 1998 30. Vol.7 120.2 4 1. 16. 1980 1985 1990 1995 22. 20. 19. No.0 5.5 6. No.6 278. No. Vol.6 0. 17. Vol.9 2.0 20. 2. and Renewable Energy World.3 0.5 5. 15. 3.3 39.7 1999 36.5 0.7 30 512. May 2003. Vol.7 30 561. Vol. Vol.3 88.4 0. 3. Vol. Feb.1 0. Vol.7 0. March 2001.3 N/A N/A N/A 2 1. 2.3 0. Volume 6. No. Feb. Feb.1 1.5 0.0 53. No.7 3 1. Feb.2 1.7 3.3 1.2 4 1. No.9 1.2 0. Vol. Feb. No.1 24 43 66. March 2002.6 3.6 7. Feb.0 0 1. 1998.0 9.1 10. 21.0 14.7 0 100. 3.0 0. No.7 3. Shipments by Cell Type (MW) Source: PV News.0 1.6 2000 44.9 27 28. 19. Feb.1 0.7 150. No.0 0 75 2001 63.5 62. 1996.5 4.7 0. No. 2.1 201. 5.2 1 151.5 0. Number 4.0 0. 5. 2. 20. 21. July-August 2003.1 79. 2. No.5 4.6 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. No.7 15 19. 2.7 4. Vol. Vol.5 14. 22. July-August 2003.8 14.77 3. 18.7 29 . 16. 1997.31 20. 18.8 73 89.2 2 8.8 0.01 32. 2.9 306.9 0. March 2000.22 0. Vol.5 6.0 64.3 89.2 4.1 34.55 9. 1997.41 162.9 24 11 0.4 140.

9 7.5 0. Vol. Maycock and Ward Bower.oja-services.3 1.8 47. Solar Collector Manufacturing Activity annual reports.7 104.6 5. 1.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/usa2. No.0 25.7 59.7 151.Annual U.2 3. January 2004.3 47. prepared by Paul D. 2003.7 71.5 24.3 114.0 80. May 31.9 21.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/jpn2.1 31. Japan data from PV News.8 13. 1.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/usa2.0 U.7 30 30.oja-services.3 12. National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in Japan 2002. 2003.9 64.3 14.0 0.4 46.0 603.3 16.4 0.4 38. Japan Japan Grid-Connected Capacity (MW) Annual Cumulative Source: IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Program.S.1 40.5 19.0 564.7 0.0 280. January 2004.2 9.4 91.6 5.9 12.5 159. May 31.3 0.8 U. http://www.5 0.9 114.0 11.3 29.0 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. Table 27.5 97.3 2.2 51.2 2.9 33. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 6.8 85.6 34.0 168. Japan data from PV News. REA 2003.1 52.htm Table 1.8 13.7 386.0 435. Renewable Energy Annual 1997.1 22.S. No.8 119.5 1.2 5. derived from Table 1 http://www.7 2. 23.7 27.6 189.3 0. Table 28.3 32.0 9.2 33.6 44.2 13.4 94. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1.7 74.2 30 .1 50. REA 2000.7 12.1 7. Maycock and Ward Bower. Table 28. prepared by Paul D. REA 2002. Table 26.0 155.7 23.1 57.1 5.7 22.2 46.S.4 0. 1982-1992. and EIA.2 35.htm.1 76.9 29.0 12. 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.2 7.3 178. 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 19.oja-services. 23.0 0 181.2 29. derived from Table 1 http://www.9 266.7 74.8 56.7 23.5 3.5 3.4 26.6 112.6 73.3 88.5 109.2 34 1.9 0. prepared for the IEA.htm.8 1. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 21.3 0. Japan Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States. prepared for the IEA.9 54.2 84. Vol.1 98.

171 0.278 0.089 0.218 0.592 0.609 0.598 38.437 0.031 0.008 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.622 0.246 0.670 1998 0.010 0.888 0.236 16. Version 7.100 0.002 0.759 0.078 0.041 0. 1980 0.006 0. 2003.087 0.033 0.020 0.177 0.062 0.145 1.093 0 2.105 19.703 67.047 0.650 0.032 0.034 0.250 0.606 0.009 0 0.117 0.527 0.079 0. Cumulative U.4 MW of photovoltaic capacity that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date.377 0.352 0.164 4.261 1999 2000 11. NREL.412 2.164 0.009 0.040 0.301 0.333 1.437 0.021 0. NREL.133 0.352 1997 0.000 0.029 2.449 0.993 0.170 1995 1996 1997 6.917 0.572 17.574 0.275 0.401 27.516 1.003 0.113 0.325 0.032 0 0 0.005 1.140 2000 5.226 0.724 0.008 0.986 0.013 0 0.072 2.900 0.001 0.S.001 0.006 0 0 0.412 0.609 0.558 0.043 8.002 0.945 0.941 0.291 0.026 0.425 0.446 0.016 0.491 0.828 0.917 0.036 0.-Installed Capacity (MW) Top 10 States California Arizona New York Ohio Hawaii Texas Colorado Georgia Florida Illinois 1 Total U.244 2001 2002 7.334 2.396 8.012 0.002 0.405 1.010 0 0.577 0.371 0.759 0.010 0.452 59. Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).691 12.221 0.741 0.720 0.140 0.016 1.202 0.251 2003 7.046 0.021 0.-Installed Capacity (MW) Top 10 States California Arizona New York Ohio Hawaii Texas Colorado Georgia Florida Illinois Total U.248 0.145 2.033 0.Annual U.560 10.135 0.155 0.008 0.645 2001 2002 2003 24.579 0.965 0.366 0.592 0.048 0.S.641 40.798 1.021 4.015 0.713 48.495 7.146 0 0.004 1990 0.023 8.190 0.021 0.008 0.803 0.106 0.159 2.759 0.352 0.016 1.554 0.044 10.759 0.958 1.050 0. 31 . 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.S.362 1998 8.452 0.598 0.104 1990 2.015 0.018 0.049 8.137 0.008 0.001 0.025 1985 1.021 0 0 0.965 0.579 1.131 1996 0.019 0.014 0.135 0.595 0.002 1.790 5.097 0.067 0.132 0.004 1.S.018 1.833 0.369 0.457 5. 2003.034 5. 1 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).067 0.344 0.028 0.671 0 0 0.016 0.008 0 0 0 0. Version 7.899 1999 2.710 There are an additional 3.334 0.144 0.378 0.807 21.764 1.006 0.013 1995 0.029 14.078 0.002 0.627 0.352 0. 1980 1985 0.

50 NA 0.01 2020 1.005 Total Installed System ($/Wp) O&M ($/kWh) 32 .30 5.30-2.40 NA 2.80 160 0.Technology Performance Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan.20 NA .08 0.15 NA NA NA 0. NREL Report No.02 2007 2.50 NA 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. Efficiency Cell (%) Crystalline Silicon Concentrator Crystalline Silicon Concentrator Crystalline Silicon Concentrator 2003 NA 25 14 NA 11.60 6.80 NA 0. MP-520-33875.005 NA 2025 NA 80 NA 0.50 90 0.20-9.0.02 0. DOE/GO-102004-1775.00-1.60 0.85 0.

and smaller turbines (under 100 kilowatts) serve a range of distributed. Technology History • Prior to 1980. • 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.600 MW in 1994 to more than 9. DOE sponsored (and NASA managed) large-scale turbine development – starting with hundred-kilowatt machines and culminating in the late 1980s with the 3. towers. capacity factors of 30%-50%. the wind energy capacity exploded from 1. which operates “upwind” of the tower. Turbines either rotate at constant speed and directly link to the grid. Technology Applications • In the United States. and stand­ alone power applications. drive trains. • Wind power is the world’s fastest-growing energy source. using a power electronics system for grid connection. with the blades facing into the wind. and efficiencies of 65%-75% of theoretical (Betz limit) maximum. Utility-scale turbines for wind plants range in size up to several megawatts. driving a generator that produces electric power in proportion to wind speed. To improve the cost-effectiveness of wind turbines. DOE-supported Mod-5 machine built by Boeing. or at variable speed for better performance. site-tailored designs. remote. and offshore and onshore foundations.000 MW by the end of 2004. 33 . Village and off-grid applications are important for displacing diesel generation and for improving quality of life.300/kW. • Small-scale (2-20 kW) turbine development efforts also were supported by DOE at the Rocky Flats test site. 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). Lifting forces spin the blades. total installed costs of approximately $1. • The National Wind Technology Center (operated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. especially in developing countries. Current Status • In 1989.500 MW in 1994 to almost 50.200 MW by the end of 2005 – enough to serve more than 2.Wind Energy Technology Description Wind turbine technology converts the kinetic energy in wind to electricity.5 million households.000-$1. nearly 8. 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. System Concepts • Most modern wind turbines operate using aerodynamic lift generated by airfoil-type blades. availability of 95-98%. During 2004. the global wind energy capacity has increased tenfold from 3. Grid-connected wind power reduces greenhouse gas emissions by displacing the need for natural gas and coal-fired generation. 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. In the past decade. Numerous designs were available commercially for residential and farm uses. Representative Technologies • The most common machine configuration is a three-bladed wind turbine. technology advances are being made for rotors and controls.2-MW. yielding much higher efficiency than traditional windmills that relied on wind “pushing” the blades.000 MW of new capacity was added worldwide. • Current performance is characterized by levelized costs of 3¢-5¢/kWh (depending on resource quality and financing terms). manufacturing methods.

DOE’s focus changed to supporting industry-driven research on components and systems.S. Minnesota.0 3. with support from the production tax credit – and in high-value niche applications or markets that recognize non-cost attributes. • 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. irrigation. • Wind energy is often the least variable cost source of generation in grid supplied electricity and due to its less predictable (variable resource) supply.K.3 Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request. • Wind technology is competitive today in bulk power markets at Class 5 and 6 wind sites.150 MW during the period of 2000 to 2005. • In 1988. companies became proficient in operating the 1. Clipper Windpower began testing on its highly innovative. and Germany. cost-competitive resource base. the U. generation. the first wind farms were installed in California by a small group of entrepreneurial companies. followed by Texas. wind energy industry had a record-breaking year for new installations. federal tax credits were abruptly ended.5 cent/kWh tax credit for wind-produced electricity.S.0 2. In 2002. the market boomed. Enron purchased Zond Energy Systems. • In 2005. but still make up less than 1% of total U.9 2. installations in the United States began to increase. Wyoming. May 2005. Washington. and Oklahoma. Iowa. the U. • DOE program supported value-engineering efforts and other advanced turbine-development efforts.554 MW to 4.5 MW Liberty prototype wind turbine. PURPA provided substantial regulatory support for this initial surge. Coupled with several state programs and mandates.400 MW of new capacity to the nation’s electric grid. which provided a 1. and Clipper Windpower begins manufacturing its multiple-drive. A number of new companies emerged in the U. At the same time.9 2. Colorado. • In 2004. one of the value-engineered turbine manufacturers. • In 1992. wind usually displaces natural gas and coal generated electricity as these sources adjust to hourly changes in demand and supply. European market exceeded the United States for the first time. Following that. Department of Energy signed a $27 million contract with General Electric to develop a multimegawatt offshore wind power system. annual market growth had peaked at 400 MW. many U.1 3. Congress passed the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPI). • In 1997. 34 . • In 2006.. multiple-drive 2.4 2. and California incentives weakened the following year. installing U.5 2. 2. Its competitiveness is negatively affected by policies regarding ancillary services and transmission and distribution regulations. purchased Enron Wind Corporation.S. • Installed wind capacity in the United States expanded from 2.S. • California has the greatest installed wind capacity. General Electric Co. and hydrogen production. DOE initiated a low wind-speed turbine development program to broaden the U.600 MW of installed capacity in California. New Mexico. Oregon.S. • By 1985. Danish.• In 1981. NREL/TP-620-37931. adding more than 2. spurred by ambitious national programs.5 MW turbine.S.8 Class 6 4.5 4.6 2. and Dutch turbines. 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 5.1 2. • In 1989. They launched into value engineering and incremental increases in turbine size. • In FY2001. • During the next five years. Emerging markets for wind energy include providing energy for water purification.

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

773 1996 8 1.644 933 7 254 7.653 2001 4.090 There are an additional 48 MW of wind capacity that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date.625 1999 2.S. Mfg Share of U.334 2.825 6.294 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).781 1997 8 1.420 968 32 315 9.097 1990 1.1982-87 wind turbine shipment database. Market U.598 2000 2.780 2001 1.685 6.202 2. Version 7.417 483 682 477 16.100 325 103 324 4.455 4. Source: US DOE.240 8.579 1998 1.539 1. 1980 10 2 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 15 1985 1.525 60 9 310 49 3 6 450 20 1 6 2.554 6.220 121 797 17.770 1.175 2.426 250 992 23.400 364 180 331 6.118 1997 1.794 1. April 2001).270 2002 2003 4.Wind Market Data Grid-Connected Wind Capacity (MW) Cumulative U.961 1. Wind Capacity (MW) Annual Cumulative 1 2 1 Source: Reference IEA (data supplemented by Windpower Monthly.656 2000 124 2. DOE Wind Program Data Sheets.110 693 912 788 904 552 649 23.609 4. 2002 data from AWEA "Global Wind Energy Market Report 2004".S.874 834 1.399 1.362 1. 2003.078 2003 12 2 5.338 447 427 391 12.082 421 1. 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.270 1. 1988-94.095 75 574 13.843 4.994 14.494 550 10 63 4.890 2.374 11.623 2002 454 5.S.706 1.445 1.702 2110 415 686 1.887 1996 1. Mfg Share of World Market 36 .741 2.S.961 1999 695 2.S.060 1985 337 674 1990 154 1. 2001 data from Windpower Monthly.002 1995 1.023 0.384 820 14 106 6.788 1998 173 1.889 3. 1980 0.095 2.137 126 630 255 22 193 2.752 416 282 344 9. NREL. Germany Spain Denmark Netherlands Italy UK Europe India Japan Rest of World World Total Installed U.418 31. 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.128 39. January 2002.100 3.576 216 785 305 70 264 3.308 28.569 1995 37 1.039 3 0 50 0 0 58 0 0 0 1.

0 0.0 64.53 MW of wind in California that is not given a specific installation year.3 72.8 98.0 298.8 2.0 242.3 Oklahoma 474.9 2.6 1.603.465.0 0.7 25.4 334.697.991.0 1694.0 6.2 1443.5 1.0 1.8 Minnesota 0 0 25.0 81.6 2. 87.0 0.0 1.0 0.461.454.9 701.4 6.0 0.0 21.0 0.396.6 237.6 0 0.5 319.1 25.3 142.777.19 MW in "mid-1980's").0 21.2 Colorado 21.6 229. but has been added to the cumulative totals for 1995 and later.0 0.0 2.293.0 1.0 178.6 0.0 0.0 144. 37 .291.142.0 0. 10.497.3 176.4 Oregon 0 0 0.0 1.0 0.2 137.0 41.0 0.8 2.8 0.5 2004 99.0 0.0 139.3 0.848.3 206.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.454.0 0.2 28.0 0.0 139.0 0.706.5 1.0 0.9 8.1 0.8 41.396.2 229.2 223.0 0.0 858.6 17.353.0 67.9 135.0 1039.0 915.2 243.5 884.714.3 1.0 0.0 0. this has led to the "Not Available" values for 1985 and 1990 for California and the totals.6 1.2 25.5 218.0 0.7 1694. but rather a range of years (1072.0 0.387.1 140.0 449.6 New Mexico 406.2 3.0 1.0 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.36 MW in 1981-1995.511.0 1.7 0.0 0.8 145.0 52.9 984.0 4.0 176.0 149.0 1996 0.0 1525.7 Total U.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 1.0 1.7 0.0 180.1 1.0 0.6 Total of 10 states N/A N/A 1.686.5 49.2 0.0 1.8 50.0 109.0 176.1 0.0 1.4 1.6 284.0 0.0 1.0 206.095.98 in 1982-1987.5 559.4 0.0 0.5 90.0 0. 1990 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 1995 3.0 2000 2001 0.8 0.0 2002 2003 108.0 0.0 528.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2005 61.7 614.0 203.387.8 16.2 Wyoming 0 0 140.431.0 0.8 760.3 3.2 1.095.9 239.0 1.1 335.0 1.8 393.3 0 0 0.6 266.293.6 4.2 180.0 18.1 157.4 Washington 0 0 0.0 1999 250.0 0.1 44.3 202.2 61.0 0.1 0.193.6 288.9 9.0 0.2 781.7 0.6 0.069.9 562.0 0.5 2.5 242.0 60.0 176.0 5.0 39.0 0.3 2.3 1.6 140.0 15. and this data is not listed in the annual installations.0 0.9 1491.344.994.0 162.0 0.2 0 0 0.1 Iowa 0 0 0.1 1.1 25.0 9.8 75.2 228.2 Texas 0 0 41.1 310.0 1998 0.6 284.4 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Top 10 States California* N/A N/A 1.0 0.S.5 17.578.4 259.0 48.5 71.0 6.0 25.042.7 471.0 41.0 0.3 0 * The data set includes 1.0 41.0 0.912.0 0.2 0.5 324.763.9 0.204.4 259.4 0.3 337.3 0.0 41.1 0.0 131.8 243.646.7 290.0 205.0 0.0 1.2 422.0 0.3 1.0 6.0 0.822.7 25.3 1.0 2.646.3 0.S.1 272.0 35.0 0.2 1.275. N/A Source: American Wind Energy Association and Global Energy Concepts.0 67.0 0.0 2.0 1997 8.0 44.0 0.325.0 0.0 0.6 61.8 5.6 0.698.1 0. and 33.

. IEA.553 4.6 1996 33. 2002.3 1999 4.417 27.IEA Wind Energy Annual Reports. D.S. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.S.5 trillion Btu.8 1995 3.6 2004 143.731 1.8 2003 114. Source: EIA.390 16. Ireland and Switzerland were added in 2002 and Portugal was added in 2003. 1 2003 2004 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2 U.4 million kilowatts. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.0 2000 5. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. Annual Energy Review 2004. Wind capacity in 2002 will be revised upward to at least 4.S.006 1990 2.. IEA R&D Wind Countries . Total (s)=Less than 0.S.440 3.0 2004 14.678 1.6 1998 30.386 4.IEA Wind Energy Annual Reports.995 35.0 1995 32. September 2004).2 3.4 2002 104.2a.3 8. IEA Total ..4 10.252 10.EIA.610 1.040 2.124 6.190 2.103 1.0 2003 11.4 2001 6.C.EIA. D. 1995-2003.1 28.2 8.1 1996 3. August 2005).7 37.9 1999 45. August 2005). .377 15.4 19. IEA R&D Wind Countries .720 2.001 11. IEA R&D Wind Countries IEA Total N/A 17." IEA. Data for IEA R&D Wind Countries through 2001 included 16 IEA countries.935 5. 2002."Renewables Information 2002".9 1998 3.864 21. 1995-2003. as the Energy Information Administration continues to identify new wind facilities. 1980 N/A 1985 0.8 7. IEA Total . Annual Wind Energy Consumption for Electric Generation (Trillion Btu) U.C.C.228 8."Renewables Information 2002. Annual Energy Review 2004.Table 8.235 5.2 7.4 49.Cumulative Installed Capacity (MW) Source: U. Annual Energy Review 2004. 2 IEA R&D Wind Countries IEA Total Source: U.275 6. .7 14.2 2002 10.9 2.4 1997 3. Table 8.799 1. Table 8.5 1. D.1 2001 68.2 69.5 22. Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity (Billion kWh) U. Data for International Energy Agency R&D Wind Countries through 2001 included 16 IEA countries. 2.4 1997 33.4a 1980 N/A 1985 (s) 1990 29.3 10.6 26.S.11a.9 2000 57.0 38 .0 11. Ireland and Switzerland were added in 2002 and Portugal was added in 2003.

7 51. NREL/TP-620-37931.6 24.3 52. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Capacity Factor (%) Class 4 33.0 16.3 30.3 27.2 12. NREL/TP-620-37931.2 13.4 46. NREL/TP-620-37931.3 32.2 48. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Class 4 55.0 28.6 49.7 28.8 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.8 12.Technology Performance Energy Production Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request.2 52.3 Class 6 43.5 50.8 Class 6 40.8 23.7 24. May 2005.3 46.7 51.2 48.9 52.3 23.1 40.2 26.2 48.0 20. 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 25.2 48.5 Cost (2002 dollars) Capital Cost ($/kW) Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request.2 27.0 14.0 48.5 13.8 13.1 25.6 29.8 29.0 15.9 30. May 2005. May 2005.5 28.4 51.4 23.1 52.9 47.8 40.1 39 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

477 342.359 19.342 IEA Total 286. Table 6.237 87.562 76.446 335.936 661.251 135.522 98.307 132.4.565 98.880 723.955 1995 1.145 712. OECD included 24 countries as of 1980.580 141.377 OECD Total 286.694 20.839 1990 862 90.Hydroelectric Power Market Data U.S.9 94.886 132.580 144. Countries' data are included only after the year they joined.610 79. Updated international data not available at time of publication 46 .703 331.768 697. Hydro Total 88. NA = Not Available. Conventional and 81.387 21.900 93.725 316.143 94.373 99.518 98. South Korea.920 NA 78. Mexico.415 other Hydro 2 Pumped Storage N/A 19.749 79. NREL.700 3 OECD Europe 124.969 300.054 94. Version 7.6 1999 179. Cumulative GridConnected Hydro 1 Capacity (MW) U. Slovak Republic joined after 1980.068 330.797 1.315 21. Excludes pumped storage.171 21.323 2000 1.393 19.893 134.259 342. Poland. 2003.902 135.690 338. IEA included 26 countries as of 2003.700 88.548 98. 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.0 1998 7.663 132.S. International Energy Annual. 4.335 94.825 21.577 130.923 78.930 680.291 340.980 20.913 138. 79. 1996-2003.354 20.130 324.357 130.310 N/A U. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2.581 79.S.072 1997 64.093 22.673 331.513 339.703 20.391 80.437 79.1 94.912 22.947 335.356 * There are an additional 21 MW of hydroelectric capacity that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date. Pumped storage values for 1980-1985 are included in "Conventional and other Hydro" 3.206 650.939 4 IEA Europe 123.136 94.484 19.462 21.522 99.3 94. pumped storage capacity listed. Table 8.225 NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: U.074 Japan 19.505 316.893 346.S.184 124.0 94.779 138.151 19.038 135.745 300.669 133. World Total from EIA.491 1985 3.725 81.052 1996 19.948 97. Hungary. Countries' data are included only after the year they joined the OECD.277 21.254 21.385 99.881 140.096 98.010 21. Czech Republic.335 94.081 352.395 World Total 470. data from EIA.324 2001 11 2002 0. Installed Capacity (MW)* Annual Cumulative Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).216 NA NA NA NA NA NA 78.734 600.S.110 19.222 21. AER 2004.522 99.564 339.555 346.960 124.958 136.019 351.689 79.669 537.900 73. except for specific U. Electricity Information 2004. 1980 1.237 673.727 147.002 2003 21.666 134.11a. International data from International Energy Agency.

923 21.167 1995 308 332 27 251 506 238 34 184 81 504 2.662 5.345 5.442 3.455 3.893 2.868 2.890 2.950 3.511 1997 352 347 26 276 506 216 36 193 89 522 2.564 1998 319 329 24 289 523 225 35 203 92 533 2.471 13.265 8.268 8.948 3. 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.891 3.249 8.545 5.R.613 3.082 3.267 8.500 13.072 3. Table 1.717 3.899 2.088 3.893 2.305 3.091 3.818 3.Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity (Billion kWh) United States Canada Mexico Brazil Western Europe Former U.685 2.961 2.959 3.468 3.011 21.948 3.802 95. 1980 279 251 17 1985 284 301 26 177 453 205 26 91 82 328 1.844 96.006 21.571 1999 313 342 32 290 531 227 35 211 86 541 2.2002 Existing Nameplate and Net Summer Capacity by Energy Source and Producer Type (EIA-860)” http://www.012 21.261 2.668 5.828 94.240 8.S.736 Source: EIA.950 3.088 2.016 21.487 20.961 2.941 12.159 3.126 3.885 2.499 3.459 3.818 3.018 20.442 3.314 3.961 2.890 2.903 95.313 3.519 13.149 3. “1990 .011 21.343 96.565 2002 255 315 25 282 503 243 32 309 81 581 2.eia.557 5.5.959 2.842 5.885 2.864 2.088 3.211 8.445 13.475 13.453 3. DOE/EIA-0219(02).566 2. Total 89.323 8.314 3.879 95.452 3.699 U.712 5.659 5.090 3.367 3.306 13.687 13.523 13.235 8.doe.937 3.948 2.414 3.609 2000 270 355 33 302 555 228 31 241 86 558 2.287 3.431 20.372 * Values are nameplate capacity for total electric industry 47 .221 8.496 95.093 3.513 94.383 13.950 3.466 1996 344 352 31 263 491 215 34 185 80 515 2.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/existing_capacity_state.264 8.565 5.088 3.222 95. International Energy Annual 2003.658 2001 208 330 28 265 553 239 30 258 83 571 2.973 1990 289 294 23 205 453 231 23 125 88 435 2.935 20.627 128 432 184 27 58 88 273 1.S.261 8.904 2.804 5.948 3.313 3.857 2.005 3.353 96.S.236 5.468 3.453 3.893 2.890 2.xls 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 19.453 3. Electric Power Annual 2004 – Spreadsheets.475 13.

1 7. Years before 1998 do not include nonutility generation.4 3.8 27.8 11.1 12.7 12. independent power producers.doe.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 9.4 23. Total 289.7 12.0 8.2002 Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source (EIA-906)” http://www.9 313. D. data are for electric utilities.5 7. Electric Power Annual 2002 – Spreadsheets. Annual Hydroelectric Consumption for Electric Generation (Trillion Btu) Source: EIA.4 9.6 8. for all sectors.1 24.1 7.6 40.2 3.0 1998 79.2 22.0 4.9 9..7 9.xls 1990 87.2 34.4 30.4 7.6 8.046 3.6 5.S.3 36.eia.0 1996 98.5 11.7 2000 80.5 24.590 3.5 10.4 11.1 13.9 1995 82.640 3.5 10. “1990 .268 2.9 24.2 5.7 10.8 8.4 318.5 44.8 10.5 41.1 39.4 7.297 3.689 2.2 10.6 8.900 2.8 39.0 2001 54.825 Note: Conventional hydroelectric power only.4 * Values are for total electric industry.8 13.8 28. August 2005) Table 8.4 24.3 275.8 2004 71.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state.811 2.5 3.4 9.205 3.0 6.201 2.9 6.6 33.8 8.1 352.8 1999 97.6 2003 71.4 255. 48 .6 13.1 2002 78.2 24.2 6.1 10.3 4.725 U.7 5.0 45.2 46.0 8.8 33.4 308.1 29.1 34.S.9 46.970 3.3 23.6 5.1 9.C.9 50.2 11. Total 2.6 25.7 42.3 8. commercial plants.2 6.5 40.4 10.4 208.1 10.0 8.0 1997 104.7 8.8 7.9 11.9 27.8 11.7 9.8 13.2 7.8 50.6 12.6 7.4a 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.3 38.7 270.8 7.0 10.3 9.9 10.6 268. Beginning in 1989.5 14.4 U.7 28. Hydroelectric data through 1988 include industrial plants as well as electric utilities. Annual Energy Review 2004.5 13. and industrial plants.1 344.

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

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

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

• 1970s – The modern solar industry began in response to the OPEC oil embargo in 1973-74. Incentives from the 1970s helped create the 150-business manufacturing industry for solar systems with more than $800 million in annual sales by 1985.ft. but has hovered around 6./yr. Japan. In 1984. • 1900s – Solar water-heating technology advanced to roughly its present design in 1908 when William J. Today's industry represents the few strong survivors: More than 1. • 1990s – Solar water-heating collector manufacturing activity declined slightly.ft. FAFCO. with more than a doubling of growth in square footage of collectors shipped from 1995 to 2001.Technology History • 1890s – First commercially available solar water heaters produced in southern California. invented a collector with an insulated box and copper coils. • 1950s – Industry virtually expires due to inability to compete against cheap and available natural gas and electric service. more than 20 companies started production of flat-plate solar collectors. a California company specializing in solar pool heating. • 1940s – Bailey sold 4. most using active systems with antifreeze capabilities. Bailey of the Carnegie Steel Company.000-plus solar hot-water systems were sold. the year before solar tax credits expired. Several thousand systems were sold to homeowners.000 units by the end of WWI. Initial designs were roof-mounted tanks and later glazed tubular solar collectors in thermosiphon configuration.000 sq. and a Florida businessperson who bought the patent rights sold nearly 60. sales again increased by about 10% to 20% to its peak level. In 1974. an estimated 100. Sales in 1979 were estimated at 50. with a number of federal and state incentives established to promote solar energy. When the tax credits expired in 1985. the Solar Rating and Certification Corp (SRCC) was established for testing and certification of solar equipment to meet set standards. Unglazed. During the Gulf War.000 solar-heated swimming pools exist. became the first national solar manufacturers in the United States. and Australia. low-temperature solar water heaters for swimming pools have been a real success story.000 square feet per year (sq.000 to 8.2 million buildings in the United States have solar water-heating systems. and 250. President Jimmy Carter put solar water-heating panels on the White House.000 units by 1941. In Israel. more than 11. the industry declined significantly./yr) in 1989 and 1990. Reference: American Solar Energy Society and Solar Energy Industry Association 52 .000 systems. • 1980s – In 1980. commercial markets and manufacturing had developed with fairly widespread use. and Solaron. a Colorado company that specialized in solar space and water heating.

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

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

283 19.015 66. Table 38. Domestic shipments .583 2.136 6.233 7.137 1998 7.787 7.283 271.396 373 8.877 560 7 11.616 1997 7.608 506 0 14.201 7.959 4.763 Pool Heaters 62.978 90.189 3. ft.078 248.349 423 11.068 659 2003 11.548 2. 1980 19.237 11.616 1.114 3. REA 1996.114 Source: EIA.201 496 2001 11.035 199. 1996 6. Annual Shipments (Thousand Sq.578 28.863 7.763 765 6.353 2001 10. Table 11.115 1985 N/A N/A N/A 1990 11.666 18.409 1. Table 16.352 537 2000 8. REA 2002.550 240.926 452 13.165 N/A 19. Table 11.162 595 7.398 1985 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1990 3.2000.948 400 5 8.986 518 2004 14.634 14.354 2.164 755 7.138 2.459 233.528 7.409 1995 6.703 2.S.073 11.102 379 1998 7.398 1. Table 18. Installations (Thousands of Sq.723 813 Source: EIA Annual Energy Review 2004.total shipments minus export shipments U.885 4.S.114 55 .951 36.502 840 2002 11.420 263.821 785 10 7. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.126 535 2 11.) Low-Temperature Collectors Medium-Temperature Collectors High-Temperature Collectors Total 1980 12.583 2000 7.444 2. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: EIA.800 10.919 268 2 11.592 55. and Renewable Energy Annual 2003.037 530 1996 7.) Annual Hot Water Pool Heaters Total Solar Thermal 1 Cumulative Hot Water 755 1. Ft.756 2.206 360 1999 8.189 2002 11. Renewable Energy Annual 2003.386 Total Solar Thermal 1 1.797 10.153 292.857 274 10.080 281.749 3.562 245 1995 7.829 153.046 367 7.999 6.756 1999 8.152 427 4 8.953 303.292 443 21 7.813 840 13 7.666 2. REA 2003 Table 18 and Table 10. REA 1997. Table 10.318 44.524 606 7 8.3.Solar Buildings Market Data U.663 3.166 11. Table 12. and REA 1999.004 511 10.520 13.) Total Imports Exports U. Shipments by Cell Type (Thousand sq.526 76.759 463 7.661 2003 10.279 255.141 8.955 4.S.587 317.606 3.444 2004 13.930 454 1997 8.527 5. Table 18. Ft.115 21.645 2.307 2.

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 .S. Table 18. Table F9.) 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. Table 19. and End Use (Thousands of Sq. REA 1997. Table 16. 1999-2000. REA 2002. Renewable Energy Annual 2003. and REA 1998. Shipments of High-Temperature Collectors by Market Sector.U. REA 1996. Ft. Table 18.

Table F9.U. Renewable Energy Annual 2003. REA 1996.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 .) 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. REA 2002. Table 18. and REA 1998.S. Table 18. Shipments of Medium. and End Use (Thousands of Sq. REA 1997. Ft. Table 19. 1999-2000. Table 16.

Temperature Collectors by Market Sector.524 1998 6.766 4 51 0 0 0 0 6.386 1.600 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 13.813 Source: EIA.877 13.813 6.778 0 65 0 34 0 0 10.810 429 44 0 2 7.877 2004 12. Table 18.408 726 18 0 0 8. REA 1996. REA 2002.046 10.608 58 .129 0 18 0 5 0 0 8. REA 1997.822 1997 6.517 0 7 0 0 0 0 7. Renewable Energy Annual 2003.993 813 71 0 0 10.608 6. 1999-2000.524 7. 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 0 0 0 6. Table F9.164 60 53 0 0 0 0 7.519 524 2 0 0 11.731 11 70 0 6.045 1 0 0 0 0 0 11.152 10. 1996 6.791 726 7 0 0 7. and End Use (Thousands of Sq.U.152 2000 2001 9.885 987 12 0 34 10.046 2003 9. Ft. and REA 1998.285 1999 7.782 42 61 0 34 0 0 10. Table 16.285 8.821 7.S.178 44 0 0 13. Table 19.919 2002 10.919 11. Shipments of Low.192 552 69 0 0 6.146 625 51 0 0 6.

Solar Today.Technology Performance Energy Production Energy Savings DHW (kWh/yr) Pool Heater (therms/yr) Source: Arthur D.000 25 . please refer to the “Buildings Energy Data Book” which is a comprehensive collection of buildings. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1.900 . such as a low-cost polymer integral collector for domestic hot-water heaters.gov/ 59 . Little. For more data on the Buildings sector. and Pool-Heater data from Ken Sheinkopf. 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.30 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 * Costs represent a range of technologies. which are expected to become commercially available after 2010. Nov/Dec 1997.500 3. page 53.doe.300 . 22-25. The Buildings Energy Data Book is available online at http://buildingsdatabook. Review of FY 2001 Office of Power Technology's Solar Buildings Program Planning Unit Summary. Little.2.4. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2.750 1.eren. with the lower bounds representing advanced technologies. Water-Heating Situation Analysis. pp.and energy-related data. November 1996.

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

Gas-fired engine sales in 1990 were 4% compared to 14% in 1998. marine propulsion. trucks.200° F in non-CHP mode and 350­ 500°F in a CHP system after heat recovery.Target fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency (LHV) is 50 % by 2010. Production costs are generally lowest for high-speed engines. the Southwest Research Institute. The U. aimed at further advancing the performance of the engine. “Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations (2003). the engines reduced NOx from 20 to 5 g/bhp-hr. and in combination with lower in-cylinder fire temperatures.• Installed cost for reciprocating engines range between $695 and $1. Technology Future In 1998. These engines were designed to run without regard to fuel efficiency or emission levels. Performance targets include: High Efficiency. (Source: Diesel and Gas Turbine Worldwide.S.7 to 2. handling. prime mover (engine). construction and mining equipment. • Noise levels with sound enclosures are typically between 70-80 dB. and electrical switchgear.8 -1. Spark plugs and carburetors replaced fuel injectors. in 2000 146 GW 52 GW 1. Operating and maintenance costs range 0. They were used mainly to produce power at local utilities and to drive pumps and compressors.S.5 GW). The earliest engines were derived from diesel blocks and incorporated the same components of the diesel engine. Key indicators for stationary reciprocating engines: Installed Worldwide Installed US Number of CHP sites using Capacity Capacity Recips in the U. • Annual shipments of reciprocating engines (sized 10MW or less) have almost doubled to 18 GW between 1997 and 2000. which represented 16 GW shipments compared with 2 GW of natural gas reciprocating engine shipments in 2000.055 Sources: Distributed Generation: The Power Paradigm for the New Millenium. 2001. emission controls. manufacturers were facing pressure to lower NOx emissions and increase fuel economy. 61 . 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. • The cost of full maintenance contracts range from 0.0 cents/kWh. 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. and lower compression-ratio pistons were substituted to run the engine on gaseous fuels. • The reciprocating-engine systems typically include several major parts: fuel storage. and equipment manufacturers – joined the Advanced Reciprocating Engines Systems (ARES) consortium. • More than 35 million reciprocating engine units are produced in North America annually for automobiles.8 ¢/kWh. • Exhaust temperature for most reciprocating engines is 700-1.” Technology History • Natural gas-reciprocating engines have been used for power generation since the 1940s. • In the mid-1980s. Department of Energy – in partnership with the Gas Technology Institute.350/ kW depending on size and whether the unit is for a straight generation or cogeneration application. 2003). Remote monitoring is now available as a part of service contracts. and conditioning. lawn care and a diverse range of power-generation applications. waste recovery (CHP systems) and rejections (radiators). • Reciprocating-engine sales have grown more then fivefold from 1988 (2 GW) to 1998 (11. Leaner air-fuel mixtures were developed using turbochargers and charge air coolers.

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

96 0. communication 2/26/02 .51 1. Diesel Recips Gas Recips 1996 7.800 1. DOE.600 5.07 63 .73 1997 7.02 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 3.19 1999 10.23 1.63 2000 16.35 1998 8.750 2.350 2.46 2.000 Market Data Market Shipments (GW of units under 10 MW in size) Source: Debbie Haught.from Diesel and Gas Turbine Worldwide.

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

05/kWh. − Cost of Power — System costs < $500/kW. which would present a cost advantage over most nonbaseload utility power.• The typical 30 kW unit package cost averages $1. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. • "Ultra-clean. the present installation cost (site preparation and natural gas hookup) for a typical 30 kW commercial unit averages $2.100/kW. − Environment — NOx < 7 ppm (natural gas). 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. and biofuels. landfill gas. and automotive designs.000 hours.263/kW for power only systems and $2. NREL/TP-620-34783. • In 1988. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations. Capstone was the first manufacturer to offer commercial power products using microturbine technology. and. Capstone Turbine Corporation began developing the microturbine concept. The technology used in microturbines is derived from aircraft auxiliary power systems. ethanol. Technology Future • The acceptable cost target for microturbine energy is $0.000 hours of reliable operations between major overhauls and a service life of at least 45. November 2003. high-efficiency" microturbine product designs focus on the following DOE performance targets: − High Efficiency — Fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency of at least 40%. which entered the commercial market in 1999-2000. diesel-engine turbochargers. Service contracts are available at 1 to 2 cents/kWh Technology History • Microturbines represent a relatively new technology. in 1998. For gas-fired microturbines. 65 . − Durability — 1.636 for CHP systems.

25-30%+ recuperated 5-10 years. Arthur D. Little (ADL) estimates. communications 2/26/02. of units Capstone Other Manufacturers MW Capstone Other Manufacturers Source: Debbie Haught.2 Technology Performance Current System Efficiency (%) Lifetime (years) Emissions (natural gas fuel) CO SO NO CO PM 2 2 x Source: Manufacturer Surveys.1 10. depending on duty cycle Current 670 .7 38.000-12. LHV: 17-20% unrecuperated. others estimated.4 66 . Capstone sales reported in Quarterly SEC filings.000 hr before major overhaul (rotor replacement) 0.Microturbines Market Data Microturbine Shipments No. 1998 1999 2000 2 211 790 2001 1.033 120 6 23.2-0.180 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 10.1.

Technology Performance Sources: Debbie Haught.capstone.dtetech. July 12 2001.000 DTE Energy Technologies ENT 400 recuperated 300 kW 480/277 VAC natural gas (diesel. kerosene 13.com www. asp 67 .com/ener gynow/portfolio/2_1_4. 7 min normal www. CO <15ppm. DOE. communication 2/26/02 and Energetics Inc.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. diesel 11.turbec. UHC <10ppm 2000: 20 units in the European market $75. CO O2.irco.com/energy turbo. ethanol. propane future) 28% (+/. CO O2 NG <85ppm 2000: 2 precommercial units. CO <9ppmV @15% diesel <400ppm.73 14.html html 3 min emergency.2 30% 80% CHP NOx <15ppmV @15% O2.23 26% (+/-2%) 28% (+/. NOx <9ppmV @15% NOx NG <25ppm. diesel.elliottwww.033 units NOx diesel <60ppm. biogas.com www.com/new/produ systems/powerworks. medium Btu gas. Distributed Energy Technology Simulator: Microturbine Validation. 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. cts_microtubines. 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.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.

The current produced can be utilized for electricity. The PEM is a thin fluorinated plastic sheet that allows hydrogen ions (protons) to pass through it. This unique process is practically silent. The hydrogen and oxygen are separated into ions and electrons. 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. and has no moving parts. The ions and electrons then recombine.200°F). have high-power density. fuel cell stack. These fuel cells operate at 190-210°C (374-410°F) and achieve 35 to 45% fuel-to-electricity efficiencies LHV. propane. MCFCs have been operated on hydrogen. depending on the type of fuel cell.g. transportation and power generation). fuel cells have an anode and a cathode separated by an electrolyte. Commercially-validated reliabilities are 90-95%.Fuel Cells Technology Description A fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device that converts hydrogen and oxygen into electricity and water. landfill gas. The fuel supplied to an AFC must be pure hydrogen. • Hydrogen enters the anode and air (oxygen) enters the cathode. converts hydrocarbon fuels to a mixture of hydrogen-rich gases and. The fuel processor. and power conditioner. natural gas. • Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells (PAFCs) were the first fuel cells to be commercialized. • Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) operate at temperatures up to 1. which further enhances combined-cycle performance. Ions are conducted through the electrolyte while the electrons flow through the anode and the cathode via an external circuit. • 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). which allows total system thermal efficiencies up to 50% HHV in combinedcycle applications. Carbon monoxide poisons an AFC. carbon monoxide. the need for the reformer will disappear as pure hydrogen will be available near point of use. in the presence of a catalyst. with water and heat as the only byproducts. • Fuel cell systems today typically consist of a fuel processor.000°C (1. AFCs contain a potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution as the electrolyte and operate at temperatures between 60 and 260°C (140 to 500°F). The fuel cell stack is where the hydrogen and oxygen electrochemically combine to produce electricity. and carbon dioxide (even the small amount in the air) reacts with the electrolyte to form potassium carbonate. can vary their output quickly to meet shifts in power demand. The membrane is coated on both sides with highly dispersed metal alloy particles (mostly platinum) that are active catalysts. and simulated coal gasification products.. for which most of the end-use technologies are designed. System Concepts • Similar to a battery. • Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFCs) operate at relatively low temperatures of 70-100°C (150-180°F). Operating temperatures for MCFCs are around 650° C (1.800°F). or reformer. and are suited for applications where quick start-up is required (e. As a hydrogen infrastructure emerges. marine diesel. A solid oxide system usually uses a hard ceramic material instead 68 . The electricity produced is direct current (DC) and the power conditioner converts the DC electricity to alternating current (AC) electricity. nearly eliminates emissions. can remove contaminants to provide pure hydrogen.

semiannual and annual maintenance Major Overhaul Replacement of the cell stack Cost $850. and industrial facilities. May 2001. small-footprint portable power.000 $5. with those installed by ONSI having surpassed 2 million total operating hours with excellent operational characteristics and high availability. Commercial offerings are in the 250 kW-2 MW range. useful heat can be captured and used in combined heat and power systems (CHP). • SOFC – A small. • Data centers and sensitive manufacturing processes are ideal settings for fuel cells. PEM systems up to 200 kW are also operating in several hydrogen-powered buses. PEMFCs currently cost several thousand dollars per 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. Most units are small (<10 kW). Economic Specifications of the PAFC (200 kW) Expense Description Capital Cost 1 complete PAFC power plant Installation Electrical. The military is interested in the high-efficiency. 25 kW natural gas tubular SOFC systems has accumulated more than 70.000 $40. Multiple fuel cells can be used to provide extremely high (more then six-nines) reliability and high-quality power for critical loads. As with MCFCs. commercial. and foundation Operation Natural gas costs Minor Maintenance Service events. Distributed Energy Technology Simulator: Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Validation. Current Status • The cost of fuel cells hinders competition in widespread domestic and international markets without significant subsidies. displaying all the essential systems parameters needed to proceed to commercial configurations.35/MMcf $20. and contributes to stability and reliability.000/yr $320. low-noise. • PEMFC – Ballard’s first 250 kW commercial unit is under test. The solid-state ceramic construction enables the high temperatures. • MCFC – 50 kW and 2 MW systems have been field-tested.000 hours of operations. 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. plumbing. • Premium power applications are an important niche market for fuel cells. allows more flexibility in fuel choice. Both 5 kW and 250 kW models are in demonstration.1 1-4 69 . Depending on the type of fuel cell (most likely SOFC and MCFC). • Fuel cells also can provide power for vehicles and portable power. • PAFC – More than 250 PAFC systems are in service worldwide. Technology Applications • Fuel cell systems can be sized for grid-connected applications or customer-sited applications in residential.000/5 yrs Source: Energetics.of a liquid electrolyte. PEMFCs are a leading candidate for powering the next generation of vehicles.

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.S. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. and National Renewable Energy Laboratory. and 40. Its collaborative agreement with the U. to produce electric power which was then used to split the water in the smaller upper cell into hydrogen and oxygen. a British jurist and amateur physicist. potassium. Other efforts include raising the operating temperature of the PEM fuel cell for building. Grove utilized four large cells.S DOE and the private sector. 70 . each containing hydrogen and oxygen. U. MCFC) in the past decade can lead to technology applications where high temperature heat recovery has value. Distributed Generation Primer: Building the Factual Foundation (multiclient study). NREL/TP-620/34783. DuPont introduced the Nafion® membrane. 2001.500 per kW that are capable of 60% efficiency. and Arthur D. and power applications and improve reformer technologies to extract hydrogen from a variety of fuels. CRC Press. heating.000 hour stack life. September 2005). Distributed Generation: The Power Paradigm for the New Millennium. including natural gas. and methanol. • In the 1960s.S. • In 1993. • 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. Kreider. alkaline fuel cells were developed for space applications that required strict environmental and efficiency performance. • Industry will introduce high-temperature natural gas-fueled MCFC and SOFC at $1. Department of Defense enabled more than 100 PAFCs to be installed and operated at military installations. Little. first discovered the principle of the fuel cell. • Fuel cells are being developed for stationary power generation through a partnership of the U. ultra-low emissions.000 -$1. November 2003. the market for fuel cells was about $218 million in 2000 and will reach $7 billion by 2009. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. ONSI introduced the first commercially available PAFC. February 2000 Technology History • In 1839. cooling. William Grove. which has traditionally become the electrolyte for PEMFC. propane. November 2003 (draft update. The successful demonstration of the fuel cells in space led to their serious consideration for terrestrial applications in the 1970s. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations. • The emergence of new fuel cell types (SOFC. Climate Change Technology Program. Technology Future • According to the Business Communications Company.MCFC SOFC Lithium. DOE/PI-0002. • In the early 1970s.

000 40. Development and Demonstration Plan. 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.Fuel Cells Technology Performance Source: Hydrogen.000 40.000 20.000 16.000 71 . Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Multiyear Research.000 15.

72 . Current cost does not include integrated auxiliaries.000 units/year). f Not applicable to backup power because this application does not use a fuel processor.Noise dB(A) <70 @ 1m <65 @ 1m <60 @ 1m <65 @ 1m <60 @ 1m <55 @ 1m Emissions (Combined NOX.000 kW <15 <10 <9 <8 <2 <1.5 percentage points lower than natural gas because the reforming process is more complex. 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. and all ancillaries. Hydrocarbon. Particulates) g/ 1. battery and power regulator necessary for black start.5 a Includes fuel processor. CO. c For LPG. efficiencies are 1. SOX. stack. 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.

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

They saw significant growth in sales in 2000.K. when Raymond Gaston Planté invented the lead-acid battery. The advantages of lithium batteries include their high specific energy (four times that of lead-acid batteries) and charge retention. scalability. Although the rudiments of the flooded lead-acid battery date back to the 1880s. nickel metal hydride. Gates Energy Products developed a spiral-wound VRLA cell. • Lead-acid battery annual sales tripled between 1993 and 2000.71 million.2 to 0. He rolled the combination up and immersed it in a dilute sulfuric acid solution. Working from a different approach. The major disadvantage is a relatively low cycle efficiency. with sales from one manufacturer doubling from 2000 to 2001. Technology History • Most historians date the invention of batteries to about 1800. • Many manufacturers have been subject to mergers and acquisitions. flexible operation – and all components are easily recyclable. • Batteries are the most common energy storage device. and the other in the United States. • There are two demonstration sites of ZBB’s Zinc Bromine batteries in Michigan and two additional ones in Australia.34 million and $1. A few dozen manufacturers in the United States and abroad still make batteries. Sodium sulfur batteries operate at high temperature and are being tested for utility load-leveling applications. there has been a continuing stream of improvements in the materials of construction and the manufacturing and formation processes. • In 2003. German researchers developed the gelledelectrolyte lead-acid battery (a type of VRLA) in the early 1960s. Initial capacity was extremely limited because the positive plate had little active material available for reaction. when experiments by Alessandro Volta resulted in the generation of electrical current from chemical reactions between dissimilar metals. • Secondary batteries date back to 1860. lithium polymer. • Rechargeable lithium batteries already have been introduced in the market for consumer electronics and other portable equipment.4 kW/kg and 30-50 Wh/kg in energy density. in 2000. and sodium-sulfur batteries. due to the demand from communications firms. His cell used two thin lead plates separated by rubber sheets. lithium-polymer. • Lead-acid battery manufacturers saw sales drop with the collapse of the telecommunications bubble in 2001. many attempts have been made to eliminate free acid in the battery. and invested in production and marketing in anticipation of further growth. The advantages of flow-battery technologies are low cost. The relative importance of battery sales for switchgear and UPS applications shrunk during this period from 45% to 26% of annual sales by 2000. • Utility-grade batteries are sized 17-40 MWh and range in efficiency from 70% to 80%. and zinc bromine. • About 150 MW of utility peak-shaving batteries were in use in Japan in 2003. low weight. modularity.bromine batteries in function and are under development for large-scale. sodium metal chloride. VRLA and flooded battery sales were $5. 74 . Current Status • Energy storage systems for large-scale power quality applications (~10 MW) are economically viable now. sodium sulfur. transportability. • Government and private industry are currently developing a variety of advanced batteries for transportation and defense applications: lithium-ion. respectively. • Others developed batteries using a paste of lead oxides for the positive plate active materials. which represents the state of the art today. Such batteries have power densities ranging from 0. utility applications. This allowed much quicker formation and better plate efficiency than the solid Planté plate. • Because many of the problems with flooded lead-acid batteries involved electrolyte leakage. • Other advanced batteries include the lithium-ion. construction began on two 10-MW flow battery systems – one in the U.

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

Annual Sales Summary. September 1997.6 704.5 58% 45% Source: Sandia National Laboratories. MW 496 805 965 ($ Million) 372 443 434 2000 533.1 69% 26% Growth 340% 214% 298% Year 2000 2005 2010 76 .Batteries Market Data Recent Battery Sales Source: Battery Council International.6 236.5 170.9 79. October 2001. Battery Energy Storage Market Feasibility Study. 1993 Flooded Batteries (Million $) VRLA Batteries (Million $) Total Lead-Acid Batteries (Million $) Percent Communications Percent Switchgear/UPS Market Predictions 156.

000 ~ 30 12.70 Source: Sandia National Laboratories.85 0.5 MWh 100 < 1000 0.600 100 < 400 5 to 24 hrs 84. and Potential Markets to 2010 According to Boeing Application Source: Sandia National Laboratories.85 0.5 3 0.000 ~ 10 8. June 2000.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 0.000 > 50 69. Characteristics and Technologies for Long.85 0.vs. Their Requirements.000 <5 < 7. Short-Term Energy Storage. March 2001.5 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. Energy Related Power Related Cost ($/kW) Balance of Plant Cost ($/kWh) ($/kWh) Discharge Efficiency Technology Performance Off-Grid Storage Applications.000 8 45 77 .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. Energy Storage Systems Program Report for FY99. Single Home: Developing Community 0.85 0.5 to 1 hr 131.000 Advanced Community or Military Base 1 MW 1.000 Developing Community: Moderate Industry 400 3.

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. 50 kW to 250 kW. Largest 1.5 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 . Largest 400 kWh 40 to 70 MWh/yr 4. Sodium Sulfur Vanadium Redox Over 30 Several Projects 100kW to 3 MW (pulse Projects. 25 kW power). November 2001.5k/yr Zinc Bromine Several Projects. Boulder City Battery Energy Storage.15 MWh to 6 MW.Technology Performance Advanced Batteries Characteristics Source: DOE Energy Storage Systems Program Annual Peer Review FY01.

Any loss must be made up decreasing the overall efficiency of the operation. etc. Equipment upgrades also would be postponed. however. Industries that are particularly sensitive are semiconductor manufacturing. plastics and paper manufacturing. and releases the air to drive turbines to generate on-peak electricity. plant cleanup can be required. this. and transactions can be lost. both 79 . reducing the plant’s energy costs. significantly improve the energy and power densities for stationary battery storage as compared to traditional flooded lead-acid batteries. advanced energy storage technology would improve their applicability. is location-specific. This 5-MVA. Energy storage allows these intermittent resources to be dispatchable. 3. reversible fuel cells. If an interruption occurs that disrupts these processes. Energy storage devices must be charged and recharged with electricity generated elsewhere. The battery system also in discharged daily during the afternoon peak (and recharged nightly). Compressed-air energy storage uses off-peak electricity to force air into underground caverns or dedicated tanks. CO2 emissions would be reduced if the efficiency of the energy storage were greater than 85%. • Power quality and reliability: The operation of modern. allowing the most efficient use of capital by utility companies. The stored energy could displace high cost. Many energy-storage systems offer multiple benefits. Batteries. the most mature storage technology is pumped hydro. computerized manufacturing depends directly on the quality of power the plant receives. hydrogen. and credit card-processing centers. California. Industry is also installing energy-storage systems to purchase relatively cheap off-peak power for use during on-peak times. The system carries the critical plant loads while an orderly shutdown occurs. area. Energy storage devices are added to the utility grid to improve productivity. and financial services such as banking. pneumatic). preventing an environmental release in the event of a loss of power. too. Energy-storage value is usually measured economically with the cost of power-quality losses. Technology Applications • For utilities. This use dovetails very nicely with the utilities’ interest in minimizing the load on highly loaded sections of the electric grid. Energy storage also can be used to alleviate the pressure on highly loaded components in the grid (transmission lines. 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. providing an opportunity for the most cost effective electric generators to produce low cost power at night for storage. transformers. electronic retailers.5 B/year in the United States alone. increase reliability. which is estimated in excess of $1. The system provides power-quality protection for the plant’s pollution-control equipment. equipment can be damaged. it requires topography with significant differences in elevation.) These components are typically only loaded heavily for a small portion of the day.5-MWh valve-regulated lead-acid battery system is installed at a lead recycling plant in the Los Angeles. Energy-storage devices do positively affect CO2 production on an industrial output basis by providing high-quality power. so it’s only practical in certain locations. product is often lost. maximizing industrial productivity. and purely electrical (superconducting magnetic storage). This would reduce electrical losses of overloaded systems. Because the storage efficiency (output compared to input energy) is less than 100%. New battery technologies. The storage system would be placed downstream from the heavily loaded component. less efficient power normally produced at the peak during the day.Advanced Energy Storage Technology Description Advanced storage technologies under active development include processes that are mechanical (flywheels. ultracapacitors). thereby increasing the amount of CO2 production required for each unit of output. including sodium sulfur and flow batteries. Any voltage sag or momentary interruption can trip off a manufacturing line and electronic equipment. or defer equipment upgrades. System Concepts • Stationary applications: Electric demand falls at night. electrochemical (advanced batteries. stock brokerages. For intermittent renewables. energy storage does not directly decrease CO2 production. on a kilowatt-per-kilowatt basis.

and interface with the local environment at a minimum to receive on/off signals. and emerging for high power. etc.2-0. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. November 2003 (draft update. 1 German high-power apps most common US & foreign dev. and interconnection hardware connecting the storage system to the grid. monitor the state of health of the various components. a control system for the storage system.S. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. but currently have relatively low total energy capacity and are also applicable for high-power. Current Status Utilities Technology m Pumped hydro Compressed gas SMES Batteries Flywheels 75 70 90+ 70–84 90+ 0. Ultracapacitors have very high power density. Flywheels are now commercially viable in power quality and UPS applications. Climate Change Technology Program.5 kWh Technology Future • For utilities.4 1-3 5. only pumped hydro has made a significant penetration with approximately 21 GW.1-20 kWh 37 existing in U. • Approximately 150 MW of utility peak-shaving batteries are in service in Japan. multi-MW systems..000-20. short-duration applications. • Two 10-MW flow battery systems are under construction – one in the United Kingdom and the other in the United States.27/100 m 0 0 30-50 15-30 low low high 0. high-energy applications.S. Interconnection hardware allows for the safe connection between the storage system and the local grid. are commonly used for energy-storage systems. Advanced flowing electrolyte batteries offer the promise of longer lifetimes and easier scalability to large. 80 . shortduration applications such as power quality and transmission system stability. The control system must manage the charging and discharging of the system. 1 U. • Each energy-storage system consists of four major components: the storage device (battery. Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) is largely focused on high-power. DOE/PI-0002.200 20 MW 17-40 0. 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.conventional and advanced. U.S. • Megawatt-scale power quality systems are cost effective and entering the marketplace today. Efficiency [%] Energy density [W-h/kg] Power density [kW/kg] Sizes Comments [MW-h]____________________ Ultracapacitors high-power dens 90+ 2-10 high 0.000 250-2. September 2005).). flywheel.1-0. possibly tied in with a utility SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system or industrial facility control system. a power-conversion system.

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

and a 350-m distribution cable is installed in downtown Albany. • HTS transformers use the same types of HTS materials as cables. Three new HTS cable demonstration projects are underway with partial DOE funding from the SPI for 2006. insulated thermally and electrically from the environment.000 A/cm width. generators. Ohio. New York. A cryogenic refrigerating system maintains the temperature of the cable at the desired operating temperature. since February 2000. The 100-m tapes carry approximately 100 amperes of current in nitrogen. • HTS cables: Under the DOE Superconductivity Partnership with Industry (SPI).• HTS generators with more than 100 MVA output will be more energy efficient. Georgia. three-phase prototype transformer. and the involvement of four unique industry-led teams to capitalize on it. • HTS motors. formed into coils and mounted on conventional transformer cores. HTS transformers may be overloaded for periods of time without loss of transformer life. biaxially textured substrate (RABiTSTM) technologies for producing high-performance HTS film conductors suitable for cables and transformers.000 amperes is installed at a suburban substation in Columbus. liquid cryogens. 82 . • HTS transformers: Waukesha Electric Systems.660 volts. and is now designing a motor that would use second-generation coated conductors with enhanced performance-to-cost ratio for the industrial marketplace. second-generation “coated conductors” have been made in 100 m lengths by industry and are to be scaled up in 2006-2008 to 1. with partial DOE funding. Technology Applications • HTS wires: First generation “BSCCO” wires are available today in kilometer lengths at about $200/kA-m.” cooled below the transition temperature of the HTS materials. pre-commercial. Short lengths of coated conductors made under stringent laboratory conditions exceeded the DOE goal of 1. A 600-m cable to be operated at 138-kV will be installed on Long Island. • The world’s first HTS cable to power industrial plants exceeded 28. and vacuum. A section of the 350-m cable will also be manufactured using second-generation “coated conductors. • HTS flywheel systems use nearly frictionless bearings made from superconducting “discs. regardless of the load on the cable.” A 200-m HTS distribution cable carrying 3. • SuperPower verified greater than 80% current limiting performance of proof-of-concept Fault Current Limiter at up to 8. and is the world’s longestrunning superconducting cable. • Rockwell Automation demonstrated a prototype 1000-HP synchronous motor that exceeded design specifications by 60%. (Southwire Company) in early 2005.000 hours of trouble-free operation in Carrollton. and typically involves a combination of solid materials. • HTS motors: Rockwell Automation successfully demonstrated a prototype 750-kW motor in 2000 and is researching motor components with improved performance characteristics. Current Status • The development at the national laboratories of ion-beam assisted deposition and rolling-assisted. Electrical insulation is accomplished by means other than conventional oil-and-paper. was a major success story for FY 1997. Prototype. 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. magnetic separators. The generator has characteristics that may help stabilize the transmission grid. New York.000-m lengths. and current limiters use HTS wires and tapes in a coil form. 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. The 30-m cable system has been operating unattended since June 2001. System Components • HTS cables consist of large numbers of wires containing HTS materials operating at 65-77 K. Rotating cryogenic seals provide cooling for the rotating machines. Georgia. compact.

the electrical resistance of mercury decreased to almost zero. 83 . such as bismuth lead strontium calcium copper oxide (110 K). but the Superconductivity Partnerships with Industry and the Second-Generation Wire Initiative could be expanded to include additional U. These wires are now under development under a government-industry partnership but are still years from wide-scale use. In addition. Michigan under the DOE Superconductivity Partnership Initiative. which resulted in costs higher than the benefits of using the new technology. • A 750 kW HTS motor was demonstrated by Rockwell Automation. the compound Y1Ba2Cu3O7 (YBCO) was given considerable attention. In the following years. September 2005). Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. as it possessed the highest critical temperature at that time.4­ kV/4. 26. as Waukesha Electric Systems demonstrated a 1­ MVA prototype transformer in 1999. • Until 1986. would help enable broad utility involvement in the technology. In 1986.2 K. This team is also leading the development of a 5/10-MVA. the first (dc) HTS motor was demonstrated. Japan. November 2003 (draft update. after technology allowed liquid helium to be produced. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Since February 2000. a 1-meter-long HTS cable was demonstrated. a 200-horsepower HTS motor was tested and exceeded its design goals by 60%. A Pirelli Cable team installed a 120m HTS cable in Detroit. • HTS transformers have seen increased interest. • In 1990. Southwire’s 30m prototype cable has been powering three manufacturing plants in Carrollton. and end uses such as electric motors. This team is now (in 2006) researching motor components. DOE/PI-0002.S. • In 1987. at 93 K. companies. Dutch physicist Heike Kammerlingh Onnes found that at 4. This marked the first discovery of superconducting materials. • By 1996. and thallium barium calcium copper oxide (125 K). Numerous companies in Europe. J.S. The Power Delivery Research Initiative. Climate Change Technology Program. U. two IBM scientists.Technology History • In 1911. there is an international race underway to develop and deploy the new second-generation coated conductors. Some pre-commercial demonstrations using commercial BSCCO wires are underway.2-kV three-phase prototype. superconductivity applications were highly limited due to the high cost of cooling to such low temperatures. authorized in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. George Bednorz and Karl Müller achieved superconductivity on lanthanum copper oxides doped with barium or strontium at temperatures as high as 38 K. Korea and China are pursuing the technologies first demonstrated by the national labs. Georgia. 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. other copper oxide variations were found. • In 1992. Technology Future High-temperature superconducting cables and equipment: Commercialization and market introduction requires development of inexpensive wires for transmission and distribution.

23 877.37 6360.24 636. DOE.926 4. This number was chosen based on historic figures (the past fifteen years) and the assumption that electric demand will drive electric supply.236 2017 15. p 40.270 2013 956 0 24.386 2019 2021 2023 2025 50.5% per year through 2020.904 656.857 1.21 15.656 318.87 605.634 48.783 570.246.32 The report assumes electrical generation and equipment market growth averaging 2.975 84 .03 1310.353 56.1 7201.83 Transformers 0 3.8 14.Superconducting Power Technology Market Data Projected Market for HTS devices (Thousands of Dollars) Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory .24 527.816.97 42.44 2.7 11.001 379.071 2015 4.71 Generators 0 0 0 4.968 108.47 90. Projected Market for HTS devices (Thousands of Dollars) 2011 Motors Transformers Generators Cables Total 225 0 6. 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Motors 0 0 27. September 2001.12 101.429 148.1 212.326 586.31 11322.072 9.61 Cables 0 0.26 426.01 12642.09 15.872 1.710 14.844 488.399 1.2 3584. Total Market Benefits.56 41.693 592.277 390.770 164.29 169.964 445.081 222.196 1.High Temperature Superconductivity: The Products and Their Benefits.451 227. 2002 Edition. Source: Analysis of Future Prices and Markets for High-Temperature Superconductors.49 3103.025 243 83.597.16 224.335 136.284 824.405 40.17 Total 0 3.63 197.59 1.535 135.17 0.73 371.81 4.117 11.03 1554.22 37.499 675.86 7.

September 2001.326 10.289 7.196 2.194 5. 2002 Edition.1 56 60 2012 8 1 0.2 0 18 19 2010 3 1 0.417 598 2.086 2021 154 94 2. G-1.428 HTS Energy Savings (GWh) Source: Analysis of Future Prices and Markets for High-Temperature Superconductors. C-2 2004 Motors Transformers Generators Cables Total 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0.2 133 143 2014 21 3 1 270 294 2016 48 6 2 488 544 2018 98 9 3 806 916 2020 172 14 6 1.336 4.235 2025 468 1.774 85 .236 1. DOE.Technology Performance HTS Energy Savings (GWh) Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory – High-Temperature Superconductivity: The Products and Their Benefits.4 0. Tables M-2. T-1. 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 0 3 4 2008 0.283 2023 300 449 4.699 1.785 3.

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

2. June 2004 http://www.1) through which a portion of the money will be used to support renewable resources.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.2. such as low-income energy assistance. energy efficiency.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/state-clean-energy-maps-and-graphs. $89 mil $2. There are 15 states with SBCs (Table 3.048 mil $234 mil. Cumulative 1998-2017 $14 mil $95 mil. mil DE: $18 mil. CT: $248 mil $114 $25 mil. • 15 state funds = $4 billion by 2017 Source: Union of Concerned Scientists. $200 mil $21 mil MA: $494 mil RI: $30 mil $67 mil.html Figure 3.1: State System Benefit Funds 90 . these states will collect about $4 billion (Figure 3.3. NJ: $286 mil.2. Together.1) in funds to support renewable resources between 1998 and 2017. and renewable energy.

Wiser.5 2.2 0.7 0.indefinite 1997 .5 0.2007 1998 .50 DE 1 (maximum) 1.17 PA 10..3 0.7 0.9/2010 1999 .9 0.8 0.0 Billion US$ 2.11 OH 15 Æ 5 (portion of) 1.9 0. and K.8 (portion of) 0.58 CT 15 Æ 30 4. Figure 3.2003 4/1999 .indefinite 1999 .2 0.2012 2000 .3 0. 91 .20 NJ 30 3.04 MA 30Æ20 4.4 0. Stoddard. 2001 State Funding Duration 1998 . April 2001..59 MN 9 N/A N/A MT 2 2.07 Note: Annual and per-MWh funding are based on funds expected in 2001.400 350 300 Million US$ 250 200 150 100 50 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Annual. there is currently about $345 million in funding obligated through the respective SBC programs (Table 3.2010 10/2001 .9 0.5 1.0 1.6/2006 2001 . Source: Bolinger et al.7/2003 2001 .indefinite 7/1998 . L. Nationwide.2.6 0.5 3.4 0.2. A further 1.indefinite 2000 .1: Renewable Energy Funding Levels and Program Duration Approximate Annual $ Per-Capita $ Per-MWh Funding Annual Funding ($ Million) Funding CA 135 4.09 OR 8.indefinite 10/1999 .0 0. M.43 NM 4 2.2008 2007 .08 RI 2 1.28 WI 1 Æ 4.2: Aggregation Annual and Cumulative State Funding Table 3.indefinite 1998 .0 Source: Bolinger.6 2. Clean Energy Funds: An Overview of State Support for Renewable Energy.indefinite SBC funding. Milford. Porter.0 0. all states (left scale) Cumulative (right scale) 4.5 0.0 3.22 NY 6 Æ 14 0. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. M.2.09 IL 5 0. so far. R. has supported the development of 707 MW of generating capacity that is online.2).548 MW of new capacity is still pending for a total of 163 different projects.

2.org/CaseStudies/LBNL56422_Utility-Scale_Renewables.0 0.3 30.930 50.5 NH* 1 $2.988 45.953.0 Capacity Cancelled (MW) 9. R.618 $80.800.118.2. 2004.6 0.466.331.6 0.118.000 $14. Fitzgerald.6 OR 1 $3.0 0.413 $3.600. and digester gas.305. M.000 $3.4 707. Table 3.cleanenergystates.108.469 90.8 Waste Tire 1 $7.0 NJ 5 $14.930 $2. biomass. 2004.000 41.376 $344.302.098.3).993 1.548.590.0 49.6 41.884.019.469. Fitzgerald. The Impact of State Clean Energy Fund Support for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Projects. R..3: Support for Utility-Scale Renewable Projects by Resource Type (as of September 2004) Resource Type # of Projects Original Dollars Obligated ($) $15.000.1 32.873. October. hydropower.331.7 31.108.469.1 0.548.9 59.2: State SBC Funding for Utility-Scale Renewable Projects (as of September 2004) Project Location Original Current Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Dollars Dollars Obligated Cancelled Pending On-Line Obligated ($) Obligated ($) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) CA 60 $243.5 0.4 MA 4 $19.0 41. waste tire.0 97.9 0. In descending order of capacity are geothermal.2.000 $26.573.9 1.4 3.305. Source: Bolinger.832 $4.8 35.4 Source: Bolinger.2 6.0 0.0 1.0 Capacity Pending (MW) 64.288.108.560.3 1.093 49.5 31.977 $61.964.0 51.000 $14. Wiser.287.5 IL 4 $9. M..417 1.618 156.977.3 1.800.0 Wind 112 $240.770 $4.0 Total 163 $399.7 91.406. the vast majority – both in terms of number of projects and generating capacity – are wind power projects (Table 3.000 41.0 50.0 151.6 0.0 283.6 0.993 2.4 707.7 19.7 0. http://www.1 424.3 2.288.000 269.0 41. and G. landfill gas. and G.232.org/CaseStudies/LBNL56422_Utility-Scale_Renewables.590.993 2.0 0.0 NY 12 $26.0 0.3 Landfill Gas 28 $38.555 $202.376 $344.5 Total 163 $399. http://www.60 3.0 Hydro 7 $12.cleanenergystates.6 830. Wiser.210 Current Dollars Obligated ($) $11.9 Capacity On-Line (MW) 11.560.977 124.1 35.461 30.0 MN 68 $61. The Impact of State Clean Energy Fund Support for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Projects.pdf 92 . October.000 $9.pdf # of Projects Of the 163 projects announced.093 $19.378.258 $11.964.0 0.0 14.1 32.841.0 PA 8 $17. Prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Clean Energy States Alliance.285.4 *New Hampshire does not currently have a clean energy fund.787.4 0.841. Prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Clean Energy States Alliance.1 118.2 0.000 325.000 101.376 $193.1 Biomass 8 Digester 3 Gas Geothermal 4 $80.378.0 30.552 $31.210 Capacity Obligated (MW) 85. The single project located in New Hampshire is receiving support from Massachusetts’ clean energy fund.Table 3.6 568.2 50.

October 2005 Figure 3. Source: NREL/Union of Concerned Scientists.1) or renewable purchase obligations (Figure 3. a number of states have increased their renewable energy standards in recent years.2).3.2).1: Renewable Portfolio Standards and Renewables Purchase Obligations by State 93 . D. In addition.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: 6.5% by 2008 DE: 10% by 2019 MD: 7. Montana: 15% by 2015 Nevada: 20% by 2015 Minnesota: 19% by 2015* Iowa: 2% by 1999 Wisconsin: 2.3.C.3.1% 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.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. Xcel Energy.1). In conjunction with system benefits funds. have adopted RPS policies (Table 3.3. 20 states plus Washington. To date.5% by 2019 DC: 11% by 2022 PA: 8% by 2020 California: 20% by 2017 Arizona: 1.3..000 MW of new renewable energy capacity by 2017 (Figure 3. Retail suppliers can meet the obligation by constructing or owning eligible renewable resources or purchasing the power from eligible generators. while several other states have adopted nonbonding renewable energy goals (Table 3.3. RPS policies are expected to lead to the development of more than 29.

Geothermal Electric. Geothermal Electric. 6% by 2009. Cofiring. and biomass Fuel cells. high efficiency cogeneration. new run of river hydro (<5 MW). 3.5% by 2005.5% by 2007. No Yes. Anaerobic Digestion. digester gas. Wind. Electric delivery requirement to PJM HI 8% by end of 2005. landfill gas. solar thermal. Anaerobic Digestion. Wind. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Class I: solar. 2004 increasing to 1. 10% by 2010.1: 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. wind. fuel cells. Self-generation is not eligible. and fuels derived from organic sources. wind. NEPOOL Generation Information System.3. 5% by 2008. Landfill Gas. and instate landfill gas.Table 3. tidal. and 7% by Jan 1. Using NEPOOL Generation Information System. Photovoltaics. new sustainable biomass. 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. Tidal Energy. wind. GATS. wind. Ocean Thermal Wind.5¢/kWh for tier 1 resources. ocean energy. Class II: licensed hydro. Wave Energy. Small Hydroelectric. geothermal. Biomass. 1¢/kWh for tier II. Photovoltaics. GATS DC 11% by 2022 (0. solar hot water. R&D. hydro. solar. existing hydro < 30MW. DE Yes. advanced renewable energy conversion technologies. Biomass. and biomass. geothermal. Hydroelectric. hydropower. waste to energy. Biomass.5¢/kWh paid to the Renewable Energy Investment Fund for the development of Class I renewables Penalty of 2. Wind. Resource supply under this definition exceeds RPS requirement. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Solar Thermal Electric. tidal. Biomass. methane recovery. landfill gas. geothermal. and MSW (< 100MW). wind.386% solar) Yes. PUC will revisit within 5 years. and other biomass. Hydroelectric.5¢/kWh (increases to 5¢/kWh for multi-year noncomplian ce) Penalty of 2. Photovoltaics. Geothermal Electric. Tidal Energy. 2004 Class I 1% Jan 1. standard to be revisited if utilities can not meet it in costeffective manner Unspecified Possible sanctions at discretion of PUC 94 . Landfill Gas. wave. Municipal Solid Waste. 2% by 2006. Penalty of 5. ocean thermal. Wave Energy. 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. 2010 10% by 2019 Yes. biomass including landfill gas. and 30¢/kWh for PV Unspecified. 10% by 2015 Eligible Resources PV and solar thermal electric. MSW. Solar Thermal Electric. biomass. fuel cells using renewable fuels. Landfill Gas. fuel cells using hydrogen from renewables Solar. solar. photovoltaic. ocean energy. Ocean Thermal.

State MD Purchase Requirements 3. Tier II remains at 2. 95 . Wind. other than standard regulatory oversight. GATS. Landfill Gas.5% by 2008 Class I: 4% by 2008. with solar requirement of 0. Excess production from existing generators over historical baseline eligible. MN MT (Not true RPS) Applies to Xcel Energy only: 425 MW wind by 2002 and 110 MW biomass. qualifying biomass. NM Yes. Photovoltaics. Noncomplying retailers must submit a compliance plan. animal waste and aquatic plants). wave. 1 kWh solar = 3kWh. tidal. wave. Tier 1 increasing by 1% every other year from 2007 to 2018. Using NEPOOL Generation Information System.5¢/kWh for Tier 2 paid to Maryland Renewable Energy Fund Entities may comply by paying 5¢/kWh. biomass. & biomass (includes agricultural waste. Biomass. 5% of retail sales by 2006. Class I. wind. biomass. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Solar. and low-emission advanced biomass. Hydroelectric.15). Solar Thermal Electric. Class I or II: 2. RECs valid for 4 years from date of issuance. fuel cells using renewable fuels. 30¢/kWh for solar. 15% in 2015 Wind.5%.16% retail sales (90MW) Goal of 20% by 2020. Minimum 5% must come from solar. Additional 400 MW wind by 2006 and 300 MW by 2010 5% in 2008. Alternative Compliance Payment of 5¢/kWh. 1 Yes. Solar. tidal. Increase by 1%/yr to 10% by January 1. wind. Electricity must be delivered to MT. No. landfill gas. +0.: Solar. wind. Financial penalties may be applied for noncomplian ce. wind. ocean thermal. No MA New renewables placed into commercial operation after 1997. geothermal. Distributed resources receives extra credit (1. and fuel cells. small hydropower (<30MW). At discretion of PUC. geothermal. rising to 20% by 2015. poultry litter incineration. MSW. Geothermal Electric.5% by 2006 with 1% from Tier 1 sources. 7. including solar. Yes. Penalty of 1¢/kWh goes to universal low-income energy assistance fund.5%/yr to 4% in 2009 1%/yr increase thereafter until determined by Division of Energy Resources Eligible Resources Tier 1: solar. fuel cells. PV. wind. 10% in 2010. Class II: hydro <30 MW and MSW facilities that meet air pollution requirements. wood. Revocation or suspension of license is possible. and landfill methane Tier II: existing large hydropower. and sustainable biomass. geothermal. hydro (<=5 MW). existing waste to energy Credit Trading Yes Penalties Alternative Compliance fee of 2¢/kWh for Tier 1 and 1. landfill methane. geothermal. Yes.5% total by 2019 and in subsequent years 1% of sales to end-use customers from new renewables in 2003. NJ Yes. NV 6% in 2005. Anaerobic Digestion.

Kappel. Solar Thermal Process Heat. 1. R. 5¢/kWh or landfill gas. Other Distributed Generation Technologies Solar. Photovoltaics.5¢/kWh.State Purchase Requirements 2011 and thereafter. tidal. R. geothermal. Fuel Cells. geothermal. Landfill Gas. increasing 0. Electricity must be delivered to NY.6% can come use renewable fuel. Wind. Creating Geothermal Markets: Evaluating Experience with State Renewables Portfolio Standards. Coal Mine Methane. extended by PUC. 2003. Fuel Cells. small hydropower.. legislation. market value other than wind of renewable energy credits. NEPOOL Generation Information System. Biomass. CHP/Cogeneration. Hydroelectric. Unspecified. Eligibility may be allowed in prior to 1998). 8% Tier 1 and 10% Tier II Solar set-aside of 0. New (operational 200% of Target of at least 500 after Sept. RI 16% by 2020. fuel cells that excess RECs can $5.5% annually 2008-2010. for solar penalty is 200% of PV REC value. or fuel cells =2 kWh toward compliance Photovoltaics. Anaerobic Digestion. tidal. Wind.5% by 2001 Wind. & hydro trade or bank them. K. ocean. Grace. Geothermal Electric.5% by 2020 Possibly. 3% by 2003. GATS Penalty of 4. Liquid Biofuel. Eligible Resources kWh biomass. Penalty of 5¢/kWh can be made to Renewable Energy Developmen t Fund TX Solar. Source: Table updated by NREL. Derived from table in Wiser.2% by geothermal. ERCOT REC Lesser of wave. Coal Gasification. March 2006. increasing 1% annually 2011-2014.. hydro. Solar Space Heat. Utilities with Penalty of increasing to 2. Solar Thermal Electric. including Trading System. Municipal Solid Waste.0002011 (0. report prepared for the National Geothermal Collaborative. Anaerobic Digestion. eligible biomass. 1% voluntary standard. geothermal. Waste Coal. $500.5% annually 20152019 5880 MW by 2015 (5000 MW new) Yes.71%) is set-aside for customersited 18% by 2020. Wave Energy. including co-firing. biomass. Yes. 2% of total incremental RPS requirement (7. landfill gas. Yes. increasing 1. Tidal Energy. fuel cells using hydrogen derived from renewables Credit Trading Penalties NY PA 25% by 2013. Yes. biomass. CHP/Cogeneration. wind. WI 0. Biogas. Porter. C. Biomass. Landfill Gas.000 is from facilities installed under 60 MW. solar. 1999) or small average MW from renewables (<2MW) facilities eligible. Hydroelectric. wind. 96 . Ocean Thermal Solar Water Heat.

Table 3.3% 1.186 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 9.3%).4%). Hydroelectric.2 2.3.183 7 2.335 Share of Total 2.3%). 2004. State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals: Status Through 2003. Photovoltaics. Wind.3% 2. Biomass.5%) is wind power. CHP/Cogeneration. U.S. Photovoltaics.3% 0. Source: NREL. Anaerobic Digestion. July http://www. solar. The five largest states in terms of capacity are Texas. DOE Energy Information Administration. 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. California. Landfill Gas. and Wisconsin.2 1.html State Biomass Hydro Landfill Gas 97 . Solar Thermal Electric. Table 3. hydropower (1.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/rps/index. Wind. "Other Such Alternative Sources of Environmentally Preferable Energy" Wind. Landfill Gas.5% 0.335 MW of generating capacity.0% Source: Petersick.eia. T. Minnesota Nationwide the RPS requirements for renewable energy are estimated to total 2. hydro (<60 MW). and biomass Solar Thermal Electric.3% 100. Minnesota.4% 93.doe.3 Estimated Renewable Energy Capacity Satisfying RPS Requirements Through 2003 (Megawatts.3%). The vast majority (93. March 2006. landfill gas (2. and other (0. Hydroelectric. solar energy (0. 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 0.2: State Renewable Energy Goals (Nonbinding) State Illinois Purchase Requirements 8% by 2013 (75% wind) Eligible Resources Solar Water Heat.3%). followed by biomass (2. Iowa.140 0 1. Biomass.

000 35.000 20. IA.3. **If achieved. November 2005.40.000 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.000 30. and MN goals would support an additional 5. New renewable energy supported: .000 10.000 Megawatts 25. IL.29.300 MW by 2017.000 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.2: The Future Impact of State Purchase Mandates and Renewable Energy Funds 98 . Figure 3.000 5.000 15.

cfm?TopicCategoryID=6&CurrentPageID=10 Figure 3.org/library/includes/topic.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.dsireusa. 25 kW 25 25 50 kW 50 25/100 25* 100 kW * 25 2.1) 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.g.000 * 10 NH: 25 MA: 60 RI: 25 * * CT: 100 * * varies NJ: 2. IOUs only) Net metering offered by one or more individual utilities #s indicate system size limit (kW). exempting others.3.4. a second meter is usually installed to measure the electricity that flows back to the provider. January 2006 http://www.1: Net Metering Policies by State 99 . with the provider purchasing the power at a rate much lower than the retail rate.. In this way. Most states have some type of net metering policy (Figure 3. Without net metering. net metering enables customers to use their own generation to offset their consumption over a billing period.1). Of the states that do have net metering policies (Table 3.000 kW. in some cases limits are different for residential and commercial as shown Source: DSIRE database.4.4.000* 10* 100 * 40 500 * 20 * 150 * 1. This offset means that customers receive retail prices for the excess electricity they generate. Some states only require certain types of utilities to offer net metering.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.

Industrial. 500 kW Tucson Commercial. 100 . Fuel Cells None Yes All utilities 0.4.5% 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. Small Hydro. investor-owned utilities must offer net metering to customers with fuel cells and biomass-energy systems. Biomass. Wind. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle All utilities 1 Solar. Wind peak Electric Power Residential aggregate (Utility guidelines) Tucson Electric Power Arkansas California Colorado 25 kW for residential systems.) In addition.000 or more customers Fort Collins Utilities 1 In California. at end of each calendar year. 25 customers Credited at retail Yes Wind rate to customer's next bill. 100 kW for commercial systems 1 MW (three biogas digesters up to 10 MW per unit may net meter) / Commercial. Industrial. Landfill Gas. Wind. Residential Solar. Microturbines Photovoltaics. 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. Anaerobic Digestion.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. Geothermal. Residential 2 MW / Commercial. 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. granted to utility at end of Colorado utilities serving 40.Table 3. customer reimbursed for NEG at utility’s average hourly incremental cost for the prior 12month period Photovoltaics. (LADWP offers net metering voluntarily. Anaerobic Digestion. Landfill None Gas. Fuel Cells. Hydro. Wind.00017/kWh Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Colorado – Fort Collins Utilities 10 kW / Residential Credited at retail Yes rate to customer’s next bill.

Fuel Cells annual peak customer's next 10 kW for demand bill. Geothermal Credited at retail Yes rate to customer's next bill. Wind. Hydro. granted to residential utility at end of systems. 50 kW for fossil fuels / Residential. rate to Beach Utilities Industrial. 12-month billing Renewables None (unspecified).2% of a Credited at retail commercial Wind. Industrial. 0. 25 kW Wind. 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.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. Wind. 50 customers Purchased by Yes Commercial. Biomass. Commercial Delaware Solar. CHP Photovoltaics. customer's next Residential bill Georgia 100 kW for Photovoltaics. Biomass. Residential Photovoltaics. Wind utility at Residential wholesale rate None / Commercial. Small Hydro. Ocean Thermal 25 kW / Solar. Landfill None Gas. Tidal Energy. 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 . 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. utility’s rate to systems. None Commercial. 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. Industrial. Municipal Solid Waste. Fuel Cells. Residential Hydro. Microturbines. Fuel Cells. Biomass. Wave Energy.

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

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

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

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

Residential Texas – San Antonio City Public Service 25 kW / Commercial. Wave Energy. Biomass. Residential Utah 25 kW / Commercial. Industrial. Biomass. Municipal Solid Waste. Hydro. Wind. Tidal Energy. Microturbines Photovoltaics.1% of a Credited at retail Yes utility's 2001 rate to peak demand customer's next bill. Tidal Energy. Fuel Cells 1 MW Credited at retail No (Narragansett rate to territory) customer's next bill. Wind. Wind Residential Pennsylvania (new rules under development) Rhode Island Varies by utility / Commercial. Hydro. Geothermal. cooperatives All utilities 106 . Wind. CHP Solar. Biomass. 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. Hydro. Municipal Solid Waste Solar. Industrial. 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. Hydro. utility’s 1996 rate to 15 kW for Biomass. Wind. Residential 25 kW / Commercial. Biomass. Wind.Program System Size Limit/ Limit on Eligible Customer Total Technologies Capacity Classes Eligible Industrial. Geothermal. Geothermal. 1% of a Credited at retail Yes farm systems. Wave Energy Solar. Fuel Cells. Residential Solar. Wind. Fuel Cells. 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. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle 150 kW for Photovoltaics. Wind. Residential Vermont 0. Hydro. Residential Texas – 20 kW / Austin Energy Commercial. Industrial.000 kWh/month maximum) Varies by utility Varies by utility (granted to utility in most cases) Ashland Electric All utilities Texas 50 kW / Commercial. Fuel peak demand customer's next Solar. None Commercial. Geothermal. Industrial. Biomass.

Biomass.C.1% of a Commercial. Wind. http://www. Nonprofit.irecusa. recent Residential.1% of a nonHydro utility’s residential. annual peak 10 kW for demand residential / Commercial. Hydro. Industrial. Wind. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle All utilities Washington – 25 kW / Grays Harbor Commercial.org. calendar year Agricultural (whichever is less) 500 kW for Solar. Geothermal. Additional information. "Connecting to the Grid" Project Web site. Institutional 25 kW / Solar.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. Solar Center (NCSC). http://www. PUD Industrial. Fuel Cells Wyoming Solar. 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. 0. Municipal Solid Waste. Industrial. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle 0. Biomass. Hydro. Residential Solar. Hydro Residential Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill. is available via DSIRE. Hydro. Commercial. CHP 25 kW / Solar. Fuel Cells peak load Residential Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) bill. Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE).org/connect. Residential. 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. Residential Wisconsin 20 kW / Commercial. Government. March 2006.dsireusa. utility’s 1996 Industrial. 107 . Wind.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. Wind. Schools. Wind. including most legislative and regulatory source citations. 0.

State has a Disclosure Rule Source: DSIRE database.dsireusa. it is important that consumers understand the environmental implications of their energy consumption decisions.3. Although most of these policies have been adopted in states with retail competition. With this choice comes the need for consumers to have access to information about the price. in some cases. For green power marketers. and environmental characteristics of their electricity.cfm?&CurrentPageID=10 Figure 3. emissions associated with electricity generation.1: Environmental Disclosure Requirements by State 108 .5 – States with Environmental Disclosure Policies As electricity markets open to competition.1). http://www. D. 25 states and the District of Columbia have environmental disclosure policies in place (Figure 3.C. a handful of states with no plans to implement restructuring have required environmental disclosure.5. source.5. January 2006.org/index. requiring electricity suppliers to provide information on fuel sources and. retail consumers are increasingly gaining the ability to choose their electricity suppliers. To date. in particular.

Competitive markets have experienced penetration rates of from 1% to 2% in states where the market has been conducive to retail competition. or are in the process of preparing programs. REC sales have increased dramatically because of a number of very large purchases. While REC customers represent a small fraction of the total customer base. Electricity markets are now open to full competition in a number of states. More than 600 utilities in 34 states offer green pricing.1). consumers can purchase green power through “renewable energy certificates. Average participation rates among utility green pricing programs have remained steady at just more than 1%. although the top performing utility green pricing programs have achieved rates ranging from 4% to 15%. more than 500.” which is an optional service or tariff offered to customers. 109 . In aggregate. from green power marketers in a competitive market setting. 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. retail electricity customers can choose from among multiple electricity suppliers. These utilities include investor-owned utilities.3.000 electricity customers nationally were purchasing green power products through regulated utility companies. In regulated markets. other markets have failed altogether—most notably in California and Connecticut. Customers At the end of 2004. Finally. While green power sales have grown in Texas and some Northeast states.6 – Green Power Markets There are three distinct markets for green power in the United States. 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. while others are phasing in competition. competitive markets have been less consistent. And business and other nonresidential customers. a single utility may provide a green power option to its customers through “green pricing. whether or not they already have access to a green power product from their existing retail power provider. and government entities are increasingly interested in green power. including colleges and universities. and other publicly owned utilities.” These certificates represent the environmental attributes of renewable energy generation and can be sold to customers in either type of market. some of which may offer green power.6. On the other hand. In restructured (or competitive) electricity markets. or in the form of RECs (Table 3. rural electric cooperatives.

2002). and nearly all REC sales.650 1.000 * Annual program participant numbers have been adjusted downward from those originally reported in Bird and Swezey (2003). with another 450 MW planned.000 2003 270.720 6.900 660 3.000 < 10.000 2001 170. Purchases by residential customers represent slightly more than half of total renewable energy sales in voluntary markets. ** Includes only customers purchasing Green-e certified green power products. because of program participation revisions made by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.000** ->280.000 ~390.000 >150.Table 3.000 < 10.6.1: Estimated Green Power Customers by Market Segment 2000 Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets REC Markets Retail Total 130.6. Sales Retail sales of renewable energy in voluntary purchase markets experienced strong growth in 2004. more than 2. nonresidential customers accounted for 30% and 20% of total renewable energy sales in green pricing programs and competitive markets. the amount of renewable energy capacity serving green power markets has increased more than tenfold. Since 2000.2 billion kWh annually.200 MW of new renewable energy generation capacity was being used to supply green power markets.000 2002 230. At the end of 2004.000* >110. respectively.000 >180.000** ->290.2: Estimated Green Power Sales by Market Segment (million kWh) 2003 Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets REC Markets Retail Total 1.000 < 10.840 2.000 ~520.210 Increase 43% 40% 162% 62% *Includes sales of new and existing renewable energy. 110 .840 2004 1. as reported by the Center for Resource Solutions (2001. increasing more than 60% to 6. Table 3.000 ~430. This includes sales of renewable energy derived from both new and preexisting renewable energy sources.000 2004 330. while sales through utility green pricing programs and competitive marketers also exhibited strong annual growth of about 40%.000* ~150.280 1. REC sales nearly tripled.000* >160. In 2004.

480 2. http://www.eere.5 80.9 Total 2.4: Estimated New Renewables Capacity Supplying Green Power Markets.shtml 111 .0 100. Swezey.S.5 0.0 455.8 12.1 0. 2004 (million kWh) Green Pricing Residential Nonresidential Total 1.690 1.6 364.233.6. 2004 Source MW in Place % MW Planned % Wind 2.6.650 REC Markets 40 1. 2000-2004 (megawatts) Market Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets/RECs Total Totals may not add due to rounding. Table 3.6.9 Solar 8.636 2004 706 1.1 Biomass 135.5: New Renewables Capacity Supplying Green Power Markets.740 6. 2000 77 90 167 2001 221 542 764 2002 279 695 974 2003 510 1.233 Table 3. September 2005.energy.0 0. Source: Bird and Swezey (2005).4 0.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/new_gp_cap.0 Small Hydro 8.300 540 1.6 91. Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving U.3 6.126 1.720 Total 3.Bird and B.4 31.840 Competitive Markets 2.045.140 510 2.5 1.210 Share 56% 44% 100% Totals may not add due to rounding.3: Estimated Green Power Sales by Customer Segment.1 58. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.3 100.6 0.1 Geothermal 35.528 2.0 Source: L. Green Power Markets (2004).6 6.Table 3.4 0.

and cooperative utilities in 34 states have either implemented or announced plans to offer a green pricing option (Figure 3.7. Updated May 2005. Bird and B.shtml?page=4 Figure 3. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.7. http://www. Source: L.1). To date.energy.1: Number of Utilities Offering Green Pricing Programs by State 112 . Participating customers pay a premium on their electric bill to cover the extra cost of the renewable energy.eere. more than 600 investor-owned.gov/greenpower/markets/pricing. Many utilities are offering green pricing to build customer loyalty and expand business lines and expertise prior to electric market competition.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. municipal.3. Swezey.

8% 3.3 13.3% 1.8%– 2.800 25% 2.7% 2003 258.0%–5.7 100.9% 4.5 Installed 82.2% 100.0% 3.000 1.1% 0.Table 3.100 331.3: Customer Participation Rates in Utility Green Pricing Programs by Year 1999 Average 0. and the utility has not attempted to expand it.2: Estimated Cumulative Number of Customers Participating in Utility Green Pricing Programs Customer Segment Residential Nonresidential Total % Annual Growth % Nonresidential 1999 na* na* 66.5 705.700 8.7% 0.8% 0.1 30.6%–7.3% Median 0.5% *Information on residential and nonresidential participants is not available for 1999.7.0 76.9%–1.400 35% 1.500 3.900 na na 2000 131.500 265.7% 228.0%–7. The program was fully subscribed in 2000.7.1% 0.0% Planned 139.0 0.5% participation * *The high end of the range declined from 2000 to 2002.0% 31.5 8.7%# 2.7% 0.2 0.9% 2000 1.900 228.800 27% 1.8% 0.000 16% 2.700 98% 1.3% 2001 166.3% 2002 1.0% Source: Bird and Brown (2005) Table 3. Source: Bird and Brown (2005) Table 3.2% 2004 1. because the utility with the highest participation rate (Moorhead Public Service) experienced an increase in its overall customer base.700 6.1%–4.2% 2001 1.700 132.5 25.4% 2004 323.7.9% 1.3% 3. #Data for April 2000 source: Bird and Brown (2005) 113 .0% Top 10 programs 3. while the number of participants in its green pricing program remained steady.3 6.2% 2003 1.300 2.500 168.8% 10.7 61.1% 57.5% 2002 224.1% for 4.1: New Renewable Energy Capacity Supplying Green Pricing Programs in 2004 (megawatts) Source Wind Biomass Solar Geothermal Small Hydro Total 584.8% 0.

2 1.7 895.48 2.6 2004 2.5: Price Premiums Charged for Utility Green Pricing Products (¢/kWh) 1999 Average Median Range 2.6–1.7 172.93 2.5)–2.284.1 410.4: Annual Sales of Green Energy through Utility Green Pricing Programs (million kWh) 2000 Residential customers Nonresidential customers Total All customers % Annual Growth % Nonresidential Customers ------453.7–17.5 26% 30% 2002 661. In 2001.5 0.6 2002 2.7.7.50 0.0 544.82 2.50 0. because it was either selling existing renewables or had not installed any new renewable capacity for its program.0 2000 3.7 2001 399. 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 (0.6–17.00 0. Source: Bird and Brown (2005) 114 .295.3 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.7–1.9¢/kWh) was not eligible for the Top 10.Table 3.0 56% 26% 2003 874.4–5.0–1.62 2.3 233.3 1. Source: Bird and Brown (2005) Table 3.4–2.839.33– 17.4 44% 32% 2004 1. This includes only programs that have installed – or announced firm plans to install or purchase power from – new renewable energy sources.5** (0. **Data for April 2000.5 1.45 2.0 2001 2.15 2.5)–20.5 0.8 572.6 0.9–17.00 0.00 0.2 43% 30% *Sales information for customer segments not available for 2000.6 2003 2.33– 1.0 10 Programs with Lowest 0.50 (0.

5¢/kWh 1.6: Utility Green Pricing Programs by State. PV wind. Florence Utilities.6¢/kWh 3. PV 2004 wind wind small hydro.0¢/kWh 2. landfill 2001 gas. small hydro. Cullman Power Board.0¢/kWh 1. PV. landfill 1997 gas. 2000 PV wind.0¢/kWh or $6/month 1. geothermal landfill gas. Sheffield Utilities. Muscle Shoals Electric Board. landfill gas Blue Sky Block wind Palo Alto Green Green Power RE Green Energy wind. Longmont Power & Communications. Scottsboro Electric Power Board. 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.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.0¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 2. 1998/ wind.5¢/kWh 2. hydro. wind Start Date Premium 2005 Contribution 2003 2000 6.5¢/kWh GreenWatts PV Green Power for the Schools PV Green Power for the Grid wind.Table 3.3¢/kWh 1.67¢/kWh 1997 17.7.0¢/kWh 3. landfill gas Clean Green Support various Green Power for a Green LA wind. Decator Utilities. Loveland Water & Light Santa Clara Green Power Green Power Wind Power Pioneers Local Renewable Energy Pool Wind Energy Premium geothermal. 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.95¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 2. PV 2000 2004 2002 2002 2001 1999 2000 2003 2003 10¢/kWh 10¢/kWh Contribution 1.5¢/kWh 1. 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. Cullman Electric Coop. Fort Collins Utilities. PV wind 1999 1998 2002 1999 115 .5¢/kWh 3.5¢/kWh 3. Huntsville. Hartselle Utilities. Joe Wheeler EMC.

95¢/kWh 116 .5¢/kWh 1993 1997 1999 2002 Contribution 0. landfill 2000 Energy Program gas. biomass GO GREEN: USA Green wind. Snapping Shoals EMC. San Isabel Electric. Lamar EMC. North Georgia Electric Membership Corporation Hawaiian Electric Avista Utilities Idaho Power PacifiCorp: Utah Power Green Power Switch Contribution 2. hydro Carbon Power. Public Power District. New Mexico. Jackson EMC.6¢/kWh 0. San Luis Valley Rural Electric Coop. Coweta-Fayette EMC. PV Start Date Premium 1998 2. 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. Service Gunnison County Electric. Northwest Rural.975¢/kWh 2. San Miguel Power. PV GO GREEN: Florida Ever solar hot water. Sawnee EMC. PV. Kit Carson Electric. Jefferson Energy. wind 2005 2000 5. United Power. wind. Walton EMC of Monroe Georgia Power Green Energy TVA: Blue Ridge Mountain Electric Membership Corporation.0¢/kWh3.PV Tampa Electric's Renewable PV. Springer Electric. Tri-County EMC.33¢/kWh Contribution 1. Habersham EMC. Mountain View Electric.Program State Utility Name Type Name CO Tri-State Generation & Transmission: Renewable Resource Power wind.75¢/kWh 1.67¢/ 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. 2004 PV GRUgreen Energy landfill gas.0¢/kWh PV only 2002 biomass. La Plata Electric. Chimney Rock. 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.6¢/kWh 11.60¢/kWh 5. 2004 biomass. 2004 Green PV. 2003 wind. Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association. Irwin EMC.97¢/kWh 3.0¢/kWh 2. Coastal Electric. Cobb EMC. Sangre. GreyStone Power.5¢/ kWh 2.0¢/kWh 1. Ocmulgee EMC. Mountain Parks Electric.3¢/kWh landfill gas landfill gas. Flint Energies.

5¢/kWh IA IA wind wind 2000 2003 2. Nishnabotna Valley Cooperative.5¢/kWh Contribution 1.1¢/kWh 2005 3. landfill gas. Northeastern REMC Alliant Energy Second Nature Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Prairie Winds Lyon Rural. Eastern Illini Electric. Franklin REC. Miami-Cass REMC. Heartland Power/Thompson & St.9¢/kWh1. Spoon River Electric Co-op City of Naperville / Community Renewable Energy Option Energy City of St. Decatur County REMC.0¢/kWh wind.5¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh 2. Ansgar Farmers Electric Cooperative Green Power Project Program Name Alternative Renewable Energy Program EcoEnergy Type wind. Grundy County REC. PV. Northwest Rural Electric Cooperative. White County REMC. wind wind 2001 2000 2.9¢/kWh Contribution 0. Tipmont REMC. Utilities District of Western Indiana REMC. Energy Program Hawkeye Tri-County/Cresco. PV wind.0¢/kWh IA IA landfill gas. 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.0¢/kWh4. wind 2004 Contribution 117 .0¢/kWh2. South Central Indiana REMC. 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. Menard.5¢/kWh IA wind 1997 3. Kankakee Valley REMC.0¢/kWh geothermal wind. hydro wind Start Date Premium 2003 1. Sac County REC Dairyland Power Cooperative: Evergreen Renewable Allamakee-Clayton/Postville. McDonough Power. Hendricks Power Cooperative. digester gas landfill gas 1998 2001 2000 0. Harrison County. landfill gas wind landfill gas 2005 2003 1997 2001 2.State Utility Name ID Vigilante Electric Cooperative IL IL IL IL IN IN IN IN CCS/Soyland and Community Energy. Rural Electric Convenience Co-op.0¢/kWh 1. Inc (8 of 11 coops offer program): Adams Electric Co-op. Coles-Moultrie Electric. Western Iowa Cedar Falls Utilities Harvest the Wind Corn Belt Power Cooperatives (5 of Energy Wise Renewables 11 co-ops): Butler County REC. small hydro. Shelby Electric.0¢/kWh IA biodiesel. Humboldt County REC. PV.

Lake View. Neola. Brooklyn. Greenfield. Coggon. Licking. Winterset IA MidAmerican Energy Renewable Advantage IA Missouri River Energy Services RiverWinds (MRES): Alton. Durant. Cascade.0¢/kWh2. Guttenberg. Fontanelle. West Liberty. Sergeant Bluff. Westfield. landfill 2005 gas landfill gas. Fontanelle. Sabula. Eldridge. Hopkinton.5¢/kWh 4. Osage. Farnhamville. Clark. Rock Rapids. Lake Park. Grundy Center. Hartley. Carlisle. Corning. Remsen. Villisca. Nolin. West Bend. Callender. Bancroft. South Kentucky KY TVA: Bowling Green Municipal Green Power Switch Utilities. Sibley. Manilla. Grand Junction. Hudson. Strawberry Point. Stanhope. Bloomfield. Sanborn. Inter-county Energy. McGregor. State Center. landfill 2004 gas and animal waste methane 118 . Atlantic. Fleming. Montezuma. Paullina. Grayson. Pocahontas. Dayton. 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. Salt River. Whittemore. Jackson.0¢/kWh wind.0¢/kWh 1. 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. Cumberland. Algona.0¢/kWh 2. Livermore. Breda. Laurens. Burt. Shelby.0¢/kWh 1. La Porte City. Kimballton. New Hampton. Aplington. Webster City. Spencer. Lenox. PV. 2001 small hydro wind 1996 wind. Tipton. Fairbank.67¢/kWh 3. Bellevue. Vinton. Lake Mills. Orange City. Danville. Gowrie. Estherville. Ellsworth. Panora. Wilton. Mason. Stuart. Keosauqua. Preston. Coon Rapids. Sioux Center. Readlyn. Hawarden. Grafton. Dysart. Rockford. Earlville. Mount Pleasant.Program State Utility Name Name IA Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities Green City Energy (80 of 137 participating) Afton. Forest City. Marathon.5¢/kWh PV wind wind landfill gas 2004 2003 2001 2002 Contribution Contribution 2. Buffalo. 2003 Varies by PV utility wind wind 2004 2003 Contribution 1. Pella. Ogden. Milford. biomass. Primghar. Denison. Orient. Shelby.75¢/kWh landfill gas. Corwith. Stratford. Independence. Auburn. Owen Electric. West Point. wind hydro 2000 2004 2. Alta Vista. Maquoketa.67¢/kWh 3.

5¢/kWh2.0¢/kWh2. Red River. Todd-Wadena . Energy Program BENCO Electric. Arrowhead.0¢/kWh2. Crow Wing Power. Stearns Electric.5¢/kWh 1. wind wind wind.5¢/kWh 1. Tri-County / Rushford Great River Energy (all 28 coops Wellspring Renewable Wind offer program): Agralite.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. Kandiyohi Power Cooperative. McLeod Cooperative Power. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power. Red Lake. Madison. Brown County Rural Electric. Westbrook. Staples. landfill gas.45¢/kWh2. Luverne. Clearwater Polk.0¢/kWh wind wind 2002 1999 2.5¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh 2002 2002 n/a 1997 2. Elbow Lake. Mille Lacs Electric Cooperative. Wright-Hennepin Electric Minnesota Power WindSense Minnkota Power Cooperative: Infinity Wind Energy Beltrami.5¢/kWh wind 2002 1. Sauk Centre.5¢/kWh wind 1998 1.6¢/kWh 119 . St. Goodhue County. Lakefield. Steele-Waseca. Redwood Electric Cooperative. PKM. Federated Rural Electric. Lake Park. hydro landfill gas. Ortonville. Roseau. Runestone Electric. Jackson. Alexandria. Benson. People's / Rochester. North Star. Barnesville. James.5¢/kWh 1. Nobles Cooperative Electric. Lake Region Electric Cooperative. Minnesota Valley. Wild Rice. Itasca Mantrap Cooperative. Sioux Valley Southwestern Central Minnesota Municipal Power Green Energy Program Agency Dairyland Power Cooperative: Evergreen Renewable Freeborn-Mower Cooperative / Albert Energy Program Lea. Detroit Lakes. Worthington Moorhead Public Service Capture the Wind Otter Tail Power Company TailWinds Type wind. Breckenridge.5¢/kWh wind wind 1998 2002 1. Lake Country Power. Dakota Electric Association. Henning. Co-op Light & Power. Wadena. Connexus Energy. Thief River Falls Missouri River Energy Services (39 RiverWinds of 55 munis offer program): Adrian.0¢/kWh 1. Moorhead. East Central Electric Association. landfill gas wind Start Date Premium 2000 2. North Itasca. South Central Electric Association .

Litchfield Public Utilities. 2003 solar biomass. Princeton Public Utilities. Yellowstone Valley. landfill Service gas Renewable Energy Tariff Green Power PNM Sky Blue wind wind wind Renewable Resource Power wind.2¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 2. hydro wind.Program State Utility Name Name MN Southern Minnesota Municipal Power SMMPA Wind Power Agency (all 18 offer program): Fairmont Public Utilities.5¢/kWh 2. Mid Yellowstone. hydro. PV wind. Rochester Public Utilities.5¢/kWh 3.05¢/kWh wind. wind.3¢/kWh 3. St. Redwood Falls Public Utilities. hydro 2003 2000 2.0¢/kWh landfill gas. landfill Service gas WindSource wind NC GreenPower NC GreenPower biomass. PV wind 2003 1998 2002 2001 2003 2005 2003 2001 1999 1. wind. Grand Marais Public Utilities MN Xcel Energy WindSource MS TVA: City of Oxford. Preston Public Utilities. Waseca Utilities. North Branch Water and Light.67¢/kWh 2003 2000 2000 2003 2002 2002 2. 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. PV. 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. Austin Utilities. Spring Valley Utilities. 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 1.5¢/kWh 3. wind Renewable Resource Power wind. Peter Municipal Utilities.8¢/kWh 2.8¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 2. Bear Tooth Electric.1¢/kWh 4.0¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 4. 2003 solar 120 . Blooming Prairie Public Utilities.0¢/kWh 4.0¢/kWh 5.0¢/kWh wind landfill gas. wind wind wind wind wind.0¢/kWh2. New Prague Utilities Commission. Owatonna Public Utilities. Mora Municipal Utilities. Lake City Utilities.0¢/kWh 1. Wells Public Utilities.19¢/kWh 1. North East Green Power Switch Mississippi Electric Power Asssociation.

Burke Divide. 2003 PV 4. North Central Electric Coop. Cuyahoga Falls. Morgran-sou Electric Coop. 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.0¢/kWh 2. Brunswick Electric Membership Corp. NC Progress Energy / CP&L NC GreenPower NC ND TVA: Mountain Electric Cooperative Program Name NC GreenPower Start Date Type Premium biomass. Verendrye. City of Shelby..0¢/kWh 1. Pee Dee Electric Membership Corp.State Utility Name NC ElectriCities: City of High Point. 2000 PV. Wyandotte OG&E Electric Services OG&E Wind Power Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority: Pure & Simple Tonkawa. EnergyUnited.0¢/kWh2. wind. Roanoke Electric Membership Corp.5¢/kWh wind 1999 1. City of Laurinburg. Capital . Frederick. Tri-County Electric Membership Corp.. Nodak Electric. Okeene.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 solar landfill gas. JonesOnslow Electric Membership Corp.0¢/kWh2.. town of Apex.8¢/kWh 2003 2004 121 . 2003 4. wind wind wind 2002 2003 1. West Plains.. City of Newton. wind wind 2000 4.5¢/kWh 1.3¢/kWh1.. wind. Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp. Four County Electric Membership Corp. KEM Electric Coop. Cavalier Rural Electric. Dakota Valley..5¢/kWh 2. Town of Granite Falls NC NC Electric Cooperatives (15 of 27 NC GreenPower cooperatives offer the program): Albemarle EMC.. Wake Electric Membership Corp. Altus.5¢/kWh wind small hydro.. McKenzie Electric Coop. landfill gas. Prague Municipal Utilities and Edmond Electric biomass. Northern Plains. Montrail Williams.. Haywood Electric Membership Corp..0¢/kWh solar biomass. EdgecombeMartin County Electric Membership Corp. City of Statesville.. Carteret Craven Electric Coop. Piedmont Electric Membership Corp. Slope Electric Coop Minnkota Power Cooperative: Cass Infinity Wind Energy County Electric. wind.67¢/kWh 1. Randolph Electric Membership Corp..

wind existing geothermal. Oklahoma Electric Cooperative. wind wind 2002 2002 0. Cotton Electric Cooperative. Red River Valley Rural Electric Cooperative.35¢/kWh1. Kiamichi Electric Cooperative.78¢/kWh + $2. Caddo Electric Cooperative.8¢/kWh4. Douglas Electric Cooperative.State Utility Name OK Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (19 of 19): Alfalfa Electric Cooperative. 2002 PV wind.5¢/kWh PV.50/mo. biomass. geothermal wind wind.5¢/kWh Sliding scale depending on size 1.7¢/kWh OR Clean Wind for Medium to Large Commercial & Industrial Accounts 2003 122 . 2002 PV landfill gas 1998 OR OR OR existing geothermal.5¢/kWh 1. Harmon Electric Cooperative.2¢/kWh 0.50/mo. donation 1. biomass. Choctaw Electri Cooperative. Northwestern Electric Cooperative.95¢/kWh 0. Kiwash Electric Cooperative. small hydro wind wind 2003 2005 2003 1999 1999 2002 2004 2.0¢/kWh wind 2000 wind. Consumers Power. Clearwater Power.8¢/kWh 0. 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. donation 1. East Central Oklahoma Electric Cooperative. Kay Electric Cooperative.0¢/kWh 1. People's Electric Cooperative.8¢/kWh + $2. wind wind wind.71¢/kWh 2.78¢/kWh 0. Northfork Electric Cooperative. Rural Electric Cooperative. Canadian Valley Electric Cooperative.0¢/kWh 2. Cimmaron Electric Cooperative. Southeastern Electric Cooperative. 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.

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

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.0¢/kWh 2001 1. Greeneville Light and Power System.95¢/kWh 1. wind Renewable Resource wind. Sevier County Electric System. Fayetteville Public Utilities. hydro wind wind wind. Volunteer Energy Austin Energy (City of Austin) GreenChoice City Public Service of San Antonio El Paso Electric Company City of St.5¢/kWh 97 2000 3. Plateau Electric Cooperative.95¢/kWh 1. Springfield Department of Electricity. biomass 2002 wind landfill gas.0¢/kWh 124 . Knoxville Utilities Board. EPB (Chattanooga). Sequachee Valley Electric Cooperative. Lenoir City Utilities Board. Newport Utilities. Meriwhether Lewis Electric Cooperative. Pulaski Electric System. Harriman Utility Board.0¢/kWh Contribution 0.33¢/kWh Contribution Contribution biogas 2004 wind. wind PV. Middle Tennessee Electric Membership Corporation.5¢/kWh 2. Gas & Water. Morristown Power System. Gibson Electric Membership Corporation. Paris Board of Public Utilities. Jackson Energy Authority. Loudon Utilities. small hydro various wind 2000/19 0.State TX TX TX UT UT UT VT VT WA WA WA Utility Name Elizabethton Electric System. Tullahoma Utilities Board. Lafollette Utilities Board. Sweetwater Utilities Board. Mountain Electric Cooperative. PV Energy 2001 2002 2002 0. Murfreesboro Electric Department. Lawrenceburg Power System. Oak Ridge Electric Department. wind. Erwin Utilities. Memphis Light. 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. Johnson City Power Board. Powell Valley Electric Cooperative.95¢/kWh 4.7¢/kWh 1.92¢/kWh 2005 2004 2000 2. landfill gas. Upper Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation. Nashville Electric Service. McMinnville Electric System.

Eau Claire / Fall Creek. Boscobel. Richland. Slinger. Plymouth. Westby Wisconsin Public Service NatureWise Wisconsin Public Service Wellspring Renewable Wind wind Energy Program Wind Power Program wind Energy for Tomorrow landfill gas. Florence.05¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh 2. Bayfield/ Iron River.3¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh 3. landfill 2002 gas. hydro wind. Two Rivers.0¢/kWh 2. Cuba City. wind. Oakdale.5¢/kWh 1. Lodi. biogas wind small hydro. Whitehall. Dunn / Menomonie. Waterloo. Pierce-Pepin / Ellsworth. Croix / Baldwin.0¢/kWh 3. Waunakee. Richland Center. PV.0¢/kWh 1. New London. Jefferson. Stoughton. Chippewa / Cornell Valley. Polk-Burnett / Centuria.5¢/kWh WI WI WI WI WI WI Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Riverland / Arcadia. Muscoda.45¢/kWh2. wind wind. Sun Prairie. biogas 1997 1999 1996 2001 1. Waupun. Prairie du Sac. New Holstein.86¢/kWh Contribution 125 . Hartford.0¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh Solar Wise for Schools wind. Cedarburg. Kaukauna. hydro landfill gas wind wind. Oconomowoc. River Falls. Columbus. Clark / Greenwood.0¢/kWh 2002 2003 2003 1999 2002 2000 2002 2002 2005 2002 2002 2000 2000 1998 3. biogas PV in schools 1996 1. 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. Jackson / Black River Falls. Reedsburg.04¢/kWh 2.95¢/kWh 2. hydro. wind Renewable Energy Program small hydro. Lake Mills. New Richmond.0¢/kWh 1. Scenic Rivers / Lancaster. St. Jump River / Ladysmith. Price / Phillips. landfill gas wind Start Date Premium 2002 2.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. Taylor / Medford.8¢/kWh 2. Eagle River.5¢/kWh Contribution 2. Sturgeon Bay. Hustisford. (34 of 37 munis offer program): Algoma. biogas wind PV. 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 1. Menasha.

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.5¢/kWh 1999 3.0¢/kWh 126 . landfill gas wind Start Date Premium 2003 1.95¢/kWh 2001 2.17¢/kWh 2000 1.

1).shtml?page=4 Figure 3.8.1: Green Power Marketing Activity in Competitive Electricity Markets 127 . or tradeable renewable certificates – present the environmental attributes of power generated from renewable electric plants. Rhode Island. and the District of Columbia (Figure 3. New York.8 – Competitive Green Power Offerings and Renewable Energy Certificates Green power marketing refers to selling green power in the competitive marketplace. Maryland. Renewable energy certificates (RECs) – also known as green tags.gov/greenpower/markets/marketing. Bird and B. Electricity markets are now open to full competition in a number of states. customers do not need to switch from their current electricity supplier to purchase these certificates). renewable energy credits. New Jersey. allowing some customers to choose their electricity supplier. in which multiple suppliers and service offerings exist. competitive marketers offer green power to retail or wholesale customers in Maine.3. http://www. Virginia.8. See our list below of organizations that offer green certificate products. Pennsylvania. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Massachusetts.energy.eere. Swezey. Updated July 2005. while others are phasing-in competition.e. As of mid-2004. A number of organizations offer green energy certificates separate from electricity service (i. Texas. Source: L.

000 2004 >180.000 <10.000 participants in utility/marketer programs.Based on data received from green power marketers. primarily in the Northeast and Texas. It also includes sales of renewable energy through default utility/supplier programs or utility/marketer partnership in states with retail competition.900 2.2: 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 2.690 1.000 ~160.530 MW of new renewables capacity is used to supply competitive green power markets. again dominated by wind. as well as that sold to customers in products that contain only a small percentage of renewable energy. 128 . Of the total.000 <10.4 billion kWh of renewable energy was sold to retail customers by competitive and REC marketers. Most of these customers are purchasing green power from competitive suppliers in states with retail competition. wind energy is the predominant resource type. 2002-2004 2002 Competitive Markets RECs Total ~150. fewer than 10.1). More than 225 MW of additional renewables capacity is planned. or is being sold as RECs in both retail and wholesale markets.000 2003 >150. Table 3.720 4. the vast majority of customers purchasing green power are residential customers.000 Table 3.8.650 2004 na = not available An estimated 1. About 2.8.140 510 2.1: Estimated Number of Customers Purchasing RECs or Green Power from Competitive Marketers.000 <160. with most customers concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states where REC marketers tend to be most active.560 40 1. This figure includes renewable energy from both existing and new sources.7 billion kWh of this total was sold to retail customers bundled with electricity in competitive electricity markets – a 40% increase from 2003. while the fraction of nonresidential customers purchasing RECs is higher – on the order of one-fifth.000 retail customers were purchasing green power from competitive suppliers – or in the form of RECs – at the end of 2004.000 retail customers purchase REC products (Table 3. In competitive markets.8.000 <10. an estimated 200. An estimated 4.370 na na 1. including about 30.000 ~190.

S.973 56. Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving U.0 0. Table 3.0 Small Hydro 0.which totaled 136 million kWh. Swezey.3 100.9 0.0 0.8 99.0 Source: L.527.8. NEPOOL GIS 129 .0 Total 1. September 2005. Bird.Bird and B.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/new_gp_cap. which are sold separate from electricity and largely derived from new renewable energy sources.3 3.2 0.3 0. grew nearly threefold. NREL.1 0.eere.9 1.1 Geothermal 5.3 Biomass 59.4 1.0 0.3 0.6 95. reaching 1.000 NEPOOL Voluntary REC Retirements (MWh)* 0 112. Retail sales of RECs.0 Table 3.8.9 Estimated RECs Sales Millions of MWh 0.7 billion kWh in 2004. http://www.461.0 0.7 224.3 1.7 3. Green Power Markets (2004).9 0.shtml Table 3.3: New Renewables Capacity Supplying Competitive Markets and Renewable Energy Certificates.905 2001 2002 2003 Sources: ERCOT 2004. 2003 Retail Sales Millions of MWh Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets Unbundled RECs Total Green Power Market Source: L.5: Voluntary Market REC Retirements in Texas and NEPOOL Year Texas Voluntary REC Retirements (MWh) N/a 241.4: Estimated Wholesale RECs Supplying Voluntary Markets. 2004 Source MW in Place % MW Planned % Wind 1.000 797.energy.0 0.6 Solar 2.8.7 3.9 100. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.0 0.0 226. 2004 1.

50 WECC 1.00 Southeast Source: Evolution Markets.00 130 .00-3.00 6. Data for July 2003 through October 2004. Table 3.7: Voluntary Market Wholesale REC Prices for Existing Sources by Type and Region ($/MWh) Biomass Geothermal Hydro Small Hydro WECC 0.8.50 Central PJM New York 2.00-150.50 1.50 Central 2. LIHI Hydro 6.00 4:00-5.50 30.50 Sources: Evolution Markets (data for July 2003 through October 2004) and GT Energy.00 1.00-3.00 New York 15.50-5.00 45.00 80.00 5.6: Voluntary Market Wholesale REC Prices for New Sources by Type and Region ($/MWh) Wind Solar Biomass Small Hydro CA 1.00 Southeast 3.00-5.50 1.50 NEPOOL 2.00-3.25-7.00-5.25-2.00 1.00 SPP 2.00-17.00-4.50 PJM 15.8.00-16.00 2.Table 3.00 1.00-200.50-3.00 NEPOOL 35.75-2.

35¢/kWh (for 51% or 100% of 100% usage) usage Non-residential product New Wind Energy NA 2.35¢/kWh (for Services (3) 10%.5¢/kWh — DC — new wind — DC — new wind — ME ME MD Maine Renewable Maine Clean Power 2.5¢/kWh — 100% low impact hydro 80% low impact hydro.15¢/kWh — DC PEPCO Energy Green Electricity 1. and landfill gas — 33% new wind.87¢/kWh Energy/Maine Plus Interfaith Power & Light (4) PEPCO Energy Green Electricity 2. 20% wind landfill gas — — — — — MD — new wind — MD MD — 50% to 100% eligible renewables — new wind (5%.05¢kWh (for 51% or 100% of 100% usage) usage New Wind Energy (5%. 50%. 1% new solar 50% small hydro.75¢/kWh (for Services (5) 10%. 10%.768¢/kWh (for 100% usage) 2. fuel cells. 24% new wind or landfill gas. 50%. or 100% of usage) 2. 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. October 2005 State CT Company Community Energy (CT Clean Energy Options Program) Levco Product Name Residential Price Premium1 CT Clean Energy 1. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage PEPCO Energy Services (5) PEPCO Energy Services (5) Washington Gas Energy Services / Community Energy NewWind Energy 3. 10%. wind. or 100% of usage) or 100 kWh blocks — 75% small hydro.4¢/kWh — MA Massachusetts Electric/Nantucket Electric/Community Energy New Wind Energy 50% or 100% of usage — Green-e 131 .Table 3. 33% existing small low impact hydro.1¢/kWh Options 50% or 100% of usage 0.8: Retail Green Power Product Offerings in Competitive Electricity Markets. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage PEPCO Energy Services (3) Washington Gas Energy Services / Community Energy NewWind Energy 2. 50% new wind Green-e — MA Cape Light Compact Cape Light Compact (6) Green 50% or 100% 1. 25%.8. 50% landfill gas 98% waste-toenergy and hydro (Class II). 25%.37¢/kWh Energy/Maine Interfaith Power & Light (4) Maine Renewable Maine Clean Power 2. 2% new solar.0¢/kWh Fee Resource Mix2 — 50% new wind.

10% wind 40% wind.6% captured methane. 0. 30% bioenergy. 5% new solar $3.95/mo. 30% bioenergy — NY NY 1.5¢/kWh — — NY Catch the Wind/New 2. 25% small hydro 55% small hydro. 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. 33% small hydro.35¢/kWh NJ 1.4¢/kWh (for — 100% usage) Resource Mix2 75% small hydro.9¢/kWh Program Clean Power Choice 2.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. 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 1.5¢/kWh Program: New Jersey Wind Energy Clean Power Choice 1.0¢/kWh — — — — NY 1.5¢/kWh Wind Energy — 100-kWh blocks of — new wind 132 . 40% small hydro 75% landfill gas. 49% low — impact hydro. 34% bioenergy 25% new wind. — 75% existing landfill gas new wind — NY 1.3¢/kWh — 60% new wind. 5% wind.20/day for 200kWh 0.5¢/kWh 50% wind.4% solar. 5% new wind.5¢/kWh to 0. 44.9¢/kWh Program Clean Power Choice 5.0¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh $.2¢/kWh Program 0. 15% wind.75¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh 50% small hydro. 30% small hydro. 50% low — impact hydro 100-kWh new wind — 33% wind. 19% biomass. 50% low — impact hydro 50% wind. 1% solar 50% wind. 35% bioenergy.3¢/kWh Program Clean Power Choice 0.10/day for 100kWh $. 1% solar (≥25% of total is new) Certification — MA 1.

Environmental 25% biomass.54¢/kWh — — — 89% landfill gas.0¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 1.3¢/kWh 2.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 — Resource Mix2 60% new wind.1¢/kWh 1. 30% small hydro.34/mo. 1% new solar 40% small hydro.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. 25% Resources new solar.34/mo. wind TX -0. 50% or 100% of Inc.0¢/kWh — PA 100% new wind — RI Narragansett Electric / NewWind Energy Community Energy. 10% Trust wind — — RI 1. 30% bioenergy — NY 1. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage NewWind Energy 51% or 100% of usage 4.46¢/kWh — 100% renewable $5. Green-e 10% 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.48¢/kWh (for — 100% usage) 2.7¢/kWh (for — 10%. Green-e 30% new wind. 30% bioenergy 50% small hydro.53¢/kWh (for — 10%. wind and hydro — TX VA -1.5¢/kWh 2.5¢/kWh — — 100-kWh blocks of — new wind 40% new wind.5¢/kWh — — — — — Environmental Resources Trust Green-e NY NY Green Mountain Energy Electricity Catch the Wind/NewWind Energy Sterling Green Renewable Electricity 1. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage 133 . 40% hydro new wind 75% landfill gas.5¢/kWh — 69% small hydro.78¢/kWh 2.1¢/kWh — wind landfill gas — — Green Electricity 4. 50% wind Certification — NY NY NY 2. 25% hydro 40% 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. 30% small hydro.03¢/kWh $5. 1% solar wind — 100-kWh blocks of — new wind 100% renewable — PA Green Electricity 3. 50% new wind Green-e RI 1.

Program only available in Niagara Mohawk service territory. Price is for PEPCO service territory based on price to compare of 6. Texas) (Except where noted).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 5.503¢/kWh). 3 Offered in PEPCO service territory. Product prices are for renewal customers based on annual average costs for customers in PEPCO's service territory (6. 4 Price premium is for Central Maine Power service territory based on standard offer of 7. 7 Green Mountain Energy offers products in Conectiv. 2 New is defined as operating or repowered after January 1. Prices may differ for large commercial/industrial customers and may vary by service territory. Product prices are for PSE&G (price to compare of 6. 12 Products are available in Dominion Virginia Power service territory 134 .8¢/kWh).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.1¢/kWh for TXU service territory (specifically Dallas. 8 Price premium is based on a comparison to ConEdison Solutions' standard electricity product in the ConEdison service territory. 1999 based on the Green-e TRC certification standards. 9 Price premium is for Niagara Mohawk service territory. 10 Product prices are for PECO service territory (price to compare of 6. JCPL.55¢/kWh.13¢/kWh.33¢/kWh (for — 100% usage) 2. 5 Product offered in Baltimore Gas and Electric and PEPCO service territories. 6 Price premium is based on a comparison to the Cape Light Compact's standard electricity product. which is listed in price per kWh.21¢/kWh). prices based on 1000 kwh of usage monthly. and PSE&G service territories. 11 Product prices are based on price to beat of 12. Except for Gexa Green. and include monthly fees. Premium varies depending on energy taxes and usage.

2.2¢/kWh 1.6¢/kWh Environmental Resources Trust Environmental Resources Trust Green-e National 1.0¢/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.5¢/kWh 1. Illinois.2¢/kWh. South Dakota (wind) 100% new wind South Dakota ~1.0¢/kWh — ** NativeEnergy WindBuilders New biogas and Vermont and 0. $12 per ton of CO2 avoided ** Renewable Choice Energy American Wind 100% new wind Nationwide 2. 50% landfill gas.8¢/kWh new wind Pennsylvania 1.95¢/kWh — Green-e Clean and Green Clean Energy Partnership/Community Energy Clean Energy Partnership/Sterling Planet Clean Energy Partnership/Sterling Planet Community Energy Washington.0¢/kWh Green-e 1. West Virginia 95% new wind. Montana. Kansas (wind). 1% solar National and 100% new wind Regional New Wind New Wind 100% new wind Energy National 0.0¢/kWh Oregon.0¢/kWh (biomass). ≤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* 2.0¢/kWh Conservation Services Group EAD Environmental EAD Environmental Green Mountain Energy Maine Interfaith Power & Light/BEF Mass Energy Consumers Alliance NativeEnergy ClimateSAVE Colorado. Wyoming. 1. ≤1% new solar. 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. ≤1% new biomass New England 100% new wind Wind CoolHome National Washington. Montana. Alberta Massachusetts 5.5¢/kWh Pennsylvania.0¢/kWh Green-e 135 .8. 2. Alberta National 3.0¢/kWh 2.7¢/kWh2.65¢/kWh 5% new solar New York (solar) 1.Table 3. 2.75¢/kWh 1.9: Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Retail Products. Wyoming. ≤1% new solar. 2. 25% Clean Energy MIx biomass.0¢/kWh Oregon.0¢/kWh New York.0¢/kWh Green-e Green-e Mid Atlantic Wind 100% new wind Mid Atlantic National New 24% wind.

3¢/kWh Green-e 2. ~$11/ton CO2 — Waverly Light & Power WindCurrent Iowa Energy Tags Chesapeake Windcurrent Iowa 2. NA = Not applicable. Most product prices are as of July 2005.Certificate Marketer Renewable Ventures SKY energy. Nationwide 50% new biomass. 5% new solar TerraPass Various (including efficiency and CO2 offsets) 100% wind Nationwide Residential Price Premiums* Certification 3. Inc. Large users may be able to negotiate price premiums.0¢/kWh 2. ** The Climate Neutral Network certifies the methodology used to calculate the CO2 emissions offset. 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¢/kWh — Green-e 100% new wind Mid-Atlantic States Premium may also apply to small commercial customers.6¢/kWh Green-e Green-e TerraPass Inc.4¢/kWh 1. 136 .

5% by 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter.5% of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by September 30. calling for agencies to derive 3% of their electric energy from renewable sources in fiscal years 2007 through 2009. establishes a new set of federal renewable energy goals. signed into law by President Bush on August 8. increasing to 5% in fiscal years 2010 through 2012. purchases 2. The Energy Policy Act of 2005.375 billion kWh of renewable energy annually. which is the nation's largest energy consumer. 2005. 137 . 2005. issued by President Clinton in 1999. The federal renewable energy goal was established under Executive Order 13123.3. and 7. The federal government.9 – Federal Agency Purchases of Green Power The federal government exceeded its goal of obtaining 2.

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

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

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

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

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

55 3.C.66 135..93 4.32 78.76 1.03 3.27 8.55 MSW and LFG AEO2006 .71 2015 3.27 78.10 22.31 78. Total Renewable Capacity GPRA projections provided by OnLocation.1 – Projections of Renewable Electricity Net Capacity (Gigawatts) Data Sources Renewable Energy Geothermal AEO2006 .16 78.21 68.14 4.53 78.61 17.31 2. The portfolio case accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.92 3. as the portfolio analysis accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects. Total includes biomass combined heat and power and on-site electricity-only plants for industrial and commercial sectors not detailed above.23 2010 2.81 18.21 123.Reference Case AEO2006 . 143 .09 98. and LFG are not included in the portfolio value.86 78.Reference Case AEO2006 .02 4.Reference Case AEO2006 .64 9.Table 4. MSW. Biomass.15 2.87 77.97 78.20 1.33 79.11 3.56 2.56 16.15 2. which uses the EIA AEO 2005 as the baseline for its analysis.Reference Case AEO2006 . February 2006.78 3.82 119.81 137. “Total” represents portfolio case values.57 4.83 2.01 3.63 2025 6.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Biomass/Wood (excludes cogen) AEO2006 .21 79.61 6.19 3.25 225.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Solar 1 Projections 2006 2.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2 3. because the Biomass Program has been redirected away from biomass power to integrated biorefinery technologies.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 3 102.84 2.02 2030 6.09 2.12 115.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Wind AEO2006 .19 2020 4.92 109.47 31.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Hydroelectric AEO2006 .87 4.17 1.92 3.80 2. The GPRA FY07 modeling effort uses the NEMS model.93 120.46 3.54 115.21 6.83 4.62 4.63 10. 1 2 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy.47 1.71 2.53 78.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2.79 3.96 2.17 1.26 112.Reference Case AEO2006 .14 AEO2006 .67 1. LFG/MSW.21 79.53 78. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.85 1.27 16.80 20.91 0.88 19. EERE does not have an R&D program for biomass.53 196.Reference Case AEO2006 .38 Sources: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006.41 79. February 2006).45 4. D. Tables A16 and D7. so they are not included in GPRA projections. Notes: OnLocation GPRA07 benefits estimates do not estimate any programmatic influence on biomass power.14 Total Renewable Energy AEO2006 .62 2.95 109.53 18.37 18. The portfolio values do not equal the summed values of the individual programs.Reference Case AEO2006 .98 1. while individual program values represent each program case.21 11.

Biomass. Renewable generation GPRA projections provided by OnLocation.70 12. 1 2 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy.10 63. The GPRA FY07 modeling effort uses the NEMS model.13 301. MSW.60 55.45 27.27 304.13 27.84 2020 34.20 44. 144 .82 64.74 2030 52.51 19.87 50.Reference Case AEO2006 .60 539. “Total” represents portfolio case values.97 309.75 28.60 28. The portfolio values do not equal the summed values of the individual programs. February 2006).Reference Case AEO2006 .60 3.70 48. EERE does not have an R&D program for biomass.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 18.Reference Case AEO2006 .80 490.75 479.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 3 417.80 1.48 64. Notes: OnLocation GPRA07 benefits estimates do not estimate any programmatic influence on biomass power.08 28.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2 25.45 475.82 59.70 73.67 Sources: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006.19 2.60 51.15 544.00 63.51 73.59 59.10 29.36 3. D.Reference Case AEO2006 . Tables A16 and D7.70 30.29 27.90 2025 46.04 Total Renewable Energy AEO2006 .06 927.03 30.90 293.01 AEO2006 .Table 4.96 MSW and LFG AEO2006 .60 303.25 35.67 45.30 151. and LFG are not included in the portfolio value.91 2010 17.25 50.87 44.13 27.01 47.91 742.94 32.69 15.Reference Case AEO2006 .15 304.40 301.16 12.80 301.10 302. because the Biomass Program has been redirected away from biomass power to integrated biorefinery technologies.30 39.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Solar 1 Projections 2006 14.91 23.86 454.60 2.40 3.06 303.98 2015 22.14 638.46 558. as the portfolio analysis accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.90 57.00 304. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.71 6. which uses the EIA AEO 2005 as the baseline for its analysis. The portfolio case accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Biomass/Wood (without cogeneration) AEO2006 .C.70 559.10 3.30 35.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Wind AEO2006 .Reference Case AEO2006 .87 25. LFG/MSW. so they are not included in GPRA projections.30 29..2 – Projections of Renewable Electricity Net Generation (Billion Kilowatthours) Data Sources Renewable Energy Geothermal AEO2006 .83 95.50 59. February 2006.10 303.65 400.80 29.50 515.20 27.68 5.40 303.35 2.06 29.87 302.Reference Case AEO2006 .High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Hydroelectric AEO2006 . while individual program values represent each program case.

74 8.44 6.96 7.01988 0.34 9.Reference Case AEO2006 .S.67 5..39 5.12 0.36 55. Appendix B.03 5.56 0.59 7.39 82.48 3.36 94. pages B-13 and B-16.10 8.65 49.872 4.49 95.87 3.42 9.68 7.92 3. Department of Energy.39 6.10 5.01875 0.18 46.03 142.59 10.87 9.81 2. 2030 values are NREL estimates based on trend.77 56.10 10.39 5.Reference Case AEO2006 .266 7.60 39.86 9.593 5.53 23.54 83.69 0.78 4. DOE/EIA-0383 (06) (Washington.92 46.019 8.85 50. 145 .01944 0.01900 Sources: Generation data: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006. Renewable generation GPRA projections provided by OnLocation.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Wind AEO2006 .75 85.17 2030 6.23 0. February 2006).98 9.27 2. D.27 79.37 49.88 10.84 0.50 2.47 5.03 4.85 5.56 3.75 0.75 11.47 0.79 10.796 10.87 2010 3.51 10.78 4.3 – Projections of Renewable Electricity Carbon Dioxide Emissions Savings (Million Metric Tons Carbon Equivalent per Year) Data Sources Renewable Energy Geothermal AEO2006 .Reference Case AEO2006 .47 0.83 9.Table 4.68 84.Reference Case AEO2006 .High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Heat Rate Carbon Coefficient Btu/kWh MMTCE/Tbtu 3 0.Reference Case AEO2006 .69 73.63 8.13 90.50 80. Carbon emission coefficients and heat rates for 2006-2025: U. GPRA2003 Data Call.99 122.C.Reference Case AEO2006 .82 5.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Hydroelectric AEO2006 .37 9.87 5.40 4. (September 14.65 2025 7.27 4.22 2020 5.891 6.02048 0. 2001).49 39.53 AEO2006 .High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Solar 1 Projections 2006 2.Reference Case AEO2006 .30 3.77 49.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2 Total Renewable Energy AEO2006 .87 7.86 60.43 59.21 56.51 0.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 MSW and LFG AEO2006 . Heat Rate and Carbon Coefficienct data based on GPRA 2003 Data Call.34 2015 4.88 9.86 59.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Biomass/Wood AEO2006 .55 12.93 0.65 89.01783 0. February 2006.00 83. Tables A16 and F8.

The portfolio values do not equal the summed values of the individual programs.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. so they are not included in GPRA projections Biomass. 146 . as the portfolio analysis accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects. MSW. and LFG are not included in the portfolio value. 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.

838 782 30 812 49 15 243 3.501 226 4.978 177 4.208 1. data also include net summer capacity at independent power producers.827 280 5.926 579 NA 579 25 4 216 2.098 56 1..027 44 1.3 – Electricity Overview (Billion Kilowatthours. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.717 988 32 1.021 42 21 NA 3.629 919 30 949 30 24 233 3.497 429 5.956 252 5. EIA. 3 Commercial and industrial combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and electricity-only plants. D.883 3.300 192 4. A9.038 3.713 125 2.286 3 2.463 166 3.551 166 3. All data after 1989 include electric-sector combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants.C. and A10. 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.C.491 1.155 965 37 1.11b. but which may also sell some power to the grid.638 164 3. and electricity sales among adjacent or colocated facilities for which revenue information is not available. 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.491 5.Through 1988. 6 Commercial and industrial facility use of on-site net electricity generation.072 29 15 NA 4.727 4.592 819 29 848 39 16 226 3. NA = not available . beginning in 1989. Tables A8.858 3.002 41 18 NA 4.721 162 3.290 2. Tables 8. and small on-site generating systems in the residential.656 938 30 968 34 22 248 3.154 28 13 NA 4.737 3.421 171 3.901 137 3. commercial.388 4. and data collection frame differences and nonsampling error. data are for net summer capacity at electric utilities only.629 214 4..580 157 3. data are for electric utilities and independent power producers.698 160 3. 2 Through 1988.341 278 5. 4 Electricity losses that occur between the point of generation and delivery to the customer. Annual Energy Review 2004. and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation.094 710 24 734 18 16 203 2.186 64 1. Beginning in 1989.953 4.11a.533 876 29 905 36 14 253 3. 8. and 8. August 2005).794 160 3. data are for electric utilities only. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.802 3.108 5.844 1. February 2005).370 163 3. D.121 370 5.250 27 13 NA 5.1. 5 Electricity retail sales to ultimate customers reported by electric utilities and other energy-service providers. 8. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.Table 5.619 Sources: EIA.11d. Data begins in 1989.488 168 3.196 192 4.094 NA 2.

and synthetic coal.Table 5. and petroleum coke.0 0. electric utility data also include a small amount of fuel oil No. 2. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. Data include fuel consumption to produce electricity by combined-heat-and-power plants.354 44 118 NA NA 162 7. residual fuel oil. August 2005).014 102 2001 962 29 159 3. Table 8. Through 1988. 3 Heavy fuel oil (Nos. bituminous coal.. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. D.909 122 2004 8 2010 1.7 1.7 1. Through 1998.502 46 128 NA NA 173 6.140 40 117 NA NA 157 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. kerosene. 4 Jet fuel.9 195 4.8.5b and 8.2 NA 5 1.003 27 137 5.235 41 117 NA NA 158 7. other petroleum liquids.4 184 5. For 1949-1979. Annual Energy Review 2004. D. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. data are for steam plant use of petroleum.287 MMBtu/barrel. 5 and 6). and A15. Notes: Data is for electric-power sector consumption only. In forecasted values. 1 2 Anthracite. EIA. Includes distillate fuel oil.C. total petroleum is calculated sum.142 NA 2020 1. Forecast values calculated from quadrillion Btu using conversion factor 6. For 1949-1979.408 142 2003 1. Forecast values calculated from quadrillion Btu using conversion factor 5.2 0. electric utility data also include small amounts of kerosene and jet fuel.0 195 5. lignite.. February 2006). data are for electric utilities only.825 MMBtu/barrel. Beginning in 1989.2 156 5.161 40 116 NA NA 156 7. other liquids. A13.142 138 2002 975 22 105 5. subbituminous coal.8 2.509 NA 2015 1.459 NA 2025 1. For 1980 2000.4 – Consumption of Fossil Fuels by Electric Generators 1980 Coal (million short tons) 1 2 3 1990 781 16 183 1.682 183 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. waste coal. consumption data also include independent power producers. Light fuel oil (Nos. consumption data are for electric utilities only. Beginning in 1999. 4.381 NA 569 29 391 0.052 NA 2030 1. 1. Tables A2. 5 Petroleum coke is converted from short tons to barrels by multiplying by 5. For 1980-2000.3 0. data are for gas turbine and internal combustion plant use of petroleum. and waste oil.013 18 141 6. data are for electric utilities and independent power producers.02 205 3.C. and 4).147 6 2000 983 30 138 3. 8 All 2004 figures are preliminary NA = not available 7 6 .4 205 5.

February 2006). 4 Batteries. 1980 data included in Conventional Hydroelectric.746 6.196 30 26.08 2000 20.522 955 25 26.137 5.739 2 20. D. propane gas.068 NA 38.123 3.659 NA 2.4b. hydrogen.199 30 26.692 42. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.57 2004 5 2010 22.28 2001 19.96 2003 20.982 71 NA 2.228 998 NA 35.235 8.033 -90 2.003 75 0. pitch.044 8.068 38.352 7.185 5. sulfur.209 116 314 289 6 70 3.645 972 NA 33.635 9. chemicals. 2 Pumped storage facility production minus energy used for pumping.C.804 8. Beginning in 1989.224 1. August 2005). Tables A2 and A17.089 NA 2. and EIA.994 584 369 1. Through 1988.281 6 20.541 1.817 45. D.710 Sources: EIA. 1 Blast furnace gas.994 566 360 918 15 616 5.442 NA 2.088 NA 2.919 5.145 19 26.235 3.542 7.633 8.232 -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. Table 8.537 8.810 2.647 971 NA 29.223 48 NA 12.09 Total Primary Consumption 24.00 2002 19.616 39 0.567 2.994 633 372 1.768 9.120 1.658 8 0.C.650 141 353 305 6 105 3.959 -88 2. Notes: Data are for fuels consumed to produce electricity at both electricity-only and at combined-heat-and-power plants..742 6.270 9 26.470 49 NA 2025 27. data also include consumption at independent power producers.333 18 654 5.244 50.227 5.953 50 NA 2030 30. data are for consumption at electric utilities only. 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy.351 1.018 7.154 38.763 74 NA 2015 23.383 48.733 5.5 – Electric-Power Sector Energy Consumption (Trillion Btu) 1980 Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Other Gas 1 1990 16.494 5.143 -88 2. and miscellaneous technologies.013 79 NA 2020 25.862 -57 2.985 522 349 567 13 577 5.022 38.634 NA 18.320 960 NA 31. Annual Energy Review 2004. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.271 1.983 518 335 393 10 524 4.673 158 334 302 6 143 3.089 NA 2.Table 5.860 53.995 37. purchased steam.351 9. 5 All 2004 figures are preliminary .470 7.014 106 180 326 4 29 3.. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.009 1.374 7.768 126 294 296 5 57 3.104 -36 3.697 22 15.517 37.359 30.560 78 6. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.867 3 2 110 NA NA 2.547 115 1.538 21 665 6.781 156 337 303 5 115 3.

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

156 33.879 143.855 226.274 44.982 155.859 8.977 196.129 2001 90.967 822.291 623.694 205.376 1990 39.236 145.140 175.603 1999 34.427 Source: PowerDat.119 33.6 – 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. Platts.868 93.232 501.731 31.676 830.466 42.057 210.566 573.735 82.701 2.854 33.259 692.139 94.877 42.546 2004 218.292 91.001 136.487 804.166 128.382 89.023 4.215 102.504 33.582 11.690 141.461 188.136 93.270 224. a division of the McGraw-Hill companies.450 14.465 156.464 172.560 24. Notes: Total MW does not equal fossil-fuel generation capacity cited in Table 6.085 156.618 99.128 2005 233.613 80.161 757.042 4.854 221.204 18.055 86.234 81.1.078 204. .634 652.870 54.976 81.321 15.164 87.274 95.Table 5.214 2003 204.223 21.465 2000 54.042 92.952 2002 155. © 2005.121 83.534 37. Capacity reported in this table is nameplate capacity.

073 0 111.859 6.036 44.270 4.214 2002 0 2.628 48.143 107.537 46.420 17.435 107.324 107.095 107.214 2001 0 2.289 33.413 309 0 57.214 2004 0 1.597 4.408 25.000 1990 30.200 41.7 – Nuclear Generation by Age of Generating Units (Megawatts) 1980 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 16.435 40.1.039 1999 1.940 106.989 6. © 2005.432 44.315 26.278 39.189 43.Table 5.270 1.177 Source: PowerDat. Capacity reported in this table is nameplate capacity. Notes: Total MW does not equal nuclear-generation capacity cited in Table 6.485 51.270 40.270 47.929 6.332 107.533 32.105 12. Platts.214 2000 1.351 107. a division of the McGraw-Hill companies.810 54.485 49.270 31.558 2.215 56.214 2005 0 1. .214 2003 0 1.

and 483. wood gas (from wood gasifier) 4 5 6 Municipal solid waste (includes industrial and medical).324 2.970 7.930 2002 373 1. tree pitch.06 85.780 111.458 11. alcohol (includes butahol.779 67.003 2.897 802 0. cannery wastes.779 38. because they have no specific online date.491 0.497 11. Notes: Totals do not equal renewable generation capacity cited in Table 6. 2003. ethanol. scrap tires.987 2001 373 999 2. hazardous waste.gov/analysis/repis/.170 274 90. saw dust.703 354 94. 1 2003 data is preliminary. refused-derived fuel Timber and logging residues (Includes tree bark. wood or wood waste) There are an additional 65.970 7.4 MW of photovoltaic capacity that are not accounted for here.335 5.190 373 1. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.569 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS Database).090 114.922 2. and methanol).025 0 80.645 354 94. Version 7. livestock manure. wastewater sludge. hydrogen. nut shells 3 Biogas.45 MW of ag waste.030 2.955 1.1.869 2.344 2000 373 933 2.452 354 94.053 3.576 3.569 104.000 7.172 6. wood chips. 8 There are an additional 24 MW of hydroelectric capacity that are not accounted for here.356 5. http://www.800 2. bagasse.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 2.475 2003 1 40 18 263 3. pulping liquor.31 MW of wood residues that are not accounted for here.540 4. 5.335 4.nrel. peat.779 59.078 114. .305 9.779 27. because they have no specific online date.710 354 94.Table 5.445 MW of bio gas. fruit pits. 7 There are an additional 3.970 7.447 11.497 11. landfill gas.722 2. nut hulls.623 113. because they have no specific online date. it is not verified at time of data book release 2 Agricultural residues.

012 3.150 1.538 147 2004 220 9 884 2. and the District of Columbia NA = not available 1999 and 2000 for nonutilities exclude commercial and industrial generators.015 3.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920. The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry 2000: An Update (historical). while 2001-2004 include commercial and industrial generators.012 3.9 – 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.html.015 3.eia.753 2.eia. and Form EIA-906 and EIA-920 databases (2001+ for IPPs) . EIA 861 report (1999+ for utilities) .160 381 155 2000 240 9 894 2.010 3.970 NA NA Other Publicly Owned Utilities Sources: EIA.237 NA NA 1999 238 9 901 2.doe.156 446 134 2001 232 9 889 2. .380 127 2002 230 9 882 2.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.doe.015 3.013 3.http://www. Rhode Island.html 1 Notes: Co-ops operate in all states except Connecticut.154 1.500 136 2003 223 9 885 2.150 153 240 41 936 1.http://www.Table 5. Hawaii.120 1.145 1.

338 46.244 53. Electric Sales and Revenue .073 49.335 3. Duke Energy Corp Reliant Energy HL&P1 1 In 2002.622 2 3 4 1 6 5 7 9 8 14 1 3 4 6 2 5 8 9 7 11 2002 Rank Million kWh 95.845 5.159 5.433 7.391 47.953 58. D.380 5.028 6.545 72.340 4.915 5 8 7 9 1 2 12 3 4 10 65.434 5.022 4.897 49.123 4.434 53.648 5.708 2001 Rank 7.898 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 99.977 67.339 75.520 7.369 6.457 4. TXU Electric Co.342 6. Duke Energy Corp Virginia Electric & Power Co. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.723 4.426 3.151 4.288 4. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.803 6.526 76.502 3.681 3.680 52. DOE/EIA -0540 (00) (Washington.310 4. 1 2000 Rank Million kWh 2 4 9 8 1 3 10 7 6 43 88.988 6.726 65.197 79.436 2 5 4 7 1 3 9 12 8 11 2001 Rank Million kWh 90. TXU Electric Co.141 71.848 4.222 53.622 5.859 2000 Rank 4 2 3 1 6 5 9 8 12 7 Million $ 6.952 6.C.543 75.830 54.522 73.918 49.208 47.782 5.S.. Georgia Power Co.286 5.068 72.200 6. PacifiCorp 1 In 2002.050 68.763 72.437 6.738 6.416 5.299 3.063 40.703 4.028 5.767 4.340 70.Table 5.432 75.384 52.477 90.858 102.122 78.748 7.176 52. December 2005). Alabama Power Co.821 6.030 2002 Million $ 7.065 6.885 77.345 2.144 77.305 4.015 4.302 7. electric industry restructuring commenced in Texas and both TXU and Reliant became Power Marketers Source: EIA.874 5.121 73.611 4.437 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 99.359 52.294 100. Southern California Edison Co.034 47.154 5.288 1990 Commonwealth Edison Co.229 48.495 72.339 2003 Million $ 7.171 7.852 38.777 4.665 4.385 5.816 2004 Million $ 8.362 71.544 66. electric industry restructuring commenced in Texas and both TXU and Reliant became Power Marketers Utility by Revenue (Million $) Rank Florida Power & Light Co.668 3.743 Rank 3 4 2 1 6 5 7 8 9 10 4.904 75.081 70.283 3.686 18. 1 Million $ 4 2 6 1 5 3 10 9 7 8 Southern California Edison Co.881 52.10 – Top 10 U.123 48. Georgia Power Co. Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc Commonwealth Edison Co.597 70.775 75. Virginia Electric & Power Co.128 74. Investor-Owned Utilities & Power Marketers 1990 Utility by Sales (Million kWh) Rank Million kWh Florida Power & Light Co.018 73.835 52.513 4. Table 10 (2005) and Table 17 (previous years) .419 54.

Source: Company 10K SEC filings at http://www.830 21.737 17.146 27.891 24.400 8.319 23.349 22.954 18.000 42.744 29.100 20.086 18.Table 5. Calpine Dominion Generation Entergy Wholesale Operations Reliant Mirant NRG Energy Edison Mission Energy 1 1 2002 Capacity (MW) 2003 Capacity (MW) 2004 Capacity (MW) 50.000 32.323 22.000 55.gov/ accessed 2/06 .149 28.408 30.917 45.688 48.11 – Top 10 Independent Power Producers Worldwide (Megawatts) Company SUEZ Energy International (formerly Tractebel Electricity & Gas Int'l) AES ENEL SpA.834 In 2004.200 18.660 46.254 21.456 19.000 19. Edison Mission Energy sold most of its international power-generating assets.442 23.841 44.317 44.sec.733 46.889 15.

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. The McGraw-Hill Companies Notes: 1 Gas local distribution company.Table 5. or developer 2 Excludes Canadian mergers and acquisitions.S. pipeline. Directory of Electric Power Producers. companies 3 Includes pending mergers and acquisitions . Includes foreign acquisition of U.

com .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. www.nerc.Table 5.

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

.

0 NA NA 444. residual fuel oil.6 8.4 94.5 811.7 1245.3 2. and other wood waste.2 731.5 6.0 418.9 4.2 19.9 0. 1 2 Anthracite.4 220. subbituminous coal.9 0.1 108.9 0. data also include net summer capacity at independent power producers and the commercial and industrial (end-use) sectors.5 2.4 6.1 4.8 20. fuel cells. tires. distillate fuel oil. purchased steam.2 5.6 7.9 3. NA = not available .4 6.9 95. Beginning in 1989. 5 Municipal solid waste.4 2.5 79.1 0.5 6.3 436. Includes other biomass in projections.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. and miscellaneous technologies.9 0.2 2025 409.5 73.4 79.1 79. Includes natural gas-fired distributed generation.3 2003 313.9 97.8 0. other petroleum.1 NA NA NA 82.7 112.1 2010 322. pitch.6 Sources: EIA.7 NA 578. Through 1988.4 3.5 4. hydrogen.6 2015 325. black liquor.0 20.9 3.9 1. Annual Energy Review 2004.7 1020.2 0.4 468.7 2001 314. Table 8.9 98.6 905.2 99.4 2.3 5.1 5.1 2020 355.8 598.0 10.8 0.8 86.C.1 1.2 16.2 20.7 2. petroleum coke.4 848. Includes projections for energy crops after 2010.7 1151.6 824.4 374..5 4.6 2030 481.5 78. Waste included in Wood prior to 1985. Petroleum. natural gas.4 104. and synthetic coal.8 0. D. Tables A9.1 0.8 99.8 990.8 78. jet fuel.7 0. 6 Includes batteries.5 437.6 20.7 1070.2 3. sulfur. waste coal.7 20.5 2.2 7.3 1.7 19.8 20.8 108.2 97.1 0. kerosene.0 509.0 108.2 320.3 2002 315.4 4.3 109.1 123.9 0.5 78.8 0. sludge waste. propane gas.8 78. 4 Wood. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.8 0.3 17.4 527.8 120.8 78.8 115. blast furnace gas.4 3.9 3.7 634. supplemental gaseous fuels.11a. EIA. landfill gas.4 2004 313.9 750. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.7 5. waste oil.4 2.1 2.1 5.5 0. 3 Pumped storage included in Conventional Hydro prior to 1989.9 100.1 283.8 NA 81.9 19.3 491..6 19.8 1.6 968.8 78. 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.1 51.7 2. August 2005).6 11.6 3.5 734. lignite.6 20.8 6.6 948.2 689.7 0.8 3. and other biomass.Table 6.9 20. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington. February 2006).8 466.5 18.C.0 1.9 0. A16.8 78. agricultural byproducts. data are for net summer capacity at electric utilities only. bituminous coal.9 763.3 0.9 2.8 20.8 901.4 96.1 788.7 1001.5 98.2 99.1 3.1 2000 315. D. chemicals.0 96.

8 20.6 2. distillate fuel oil.9 682.0 379. and miscellaneous technologies.0 97. Includes projections for energy crops after 2010.2 243. NA = not available . DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.2 2.0 986.0 790. sulfur.8 80.6 2000 305.5 2001 305.5 78.6 17.0 698.4 2.8 0.3 102.0 947.6 20.7 0.8 0.8 77.7 409. EIA.5 2015 315. 1 Anthracite.9 0.9 897.8 111.9 19.1 630.8 0. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.2 108.1 694. chemicals.5 73. and other biomass.4 78. data are for net summer capacity at electric utilities only. Pumped storage included in Conventional Hydro prior to 1989.3 2004 303. Includes natural gas-fired distributed generation.4 3.0 1140.0 2020 340.4 2.4 89. data also include net summer capacity at independent power producers.0 0. Waste included in Wood prior to 1985.1 0. Through 1988. D. 2 Petroleum.7 0.0 893.7 428. jet fuel.9 407.6 89.4 378.7 2. subbituminous coal.5 98.4 2. supplemental gaseous fuels.8 77.9 198.9 549.1 0. and other wood waste. agricultural byproducts.9 99.1 0.1 1.0 362.4 6.2 99.5 2.9 0.8 20.8 108.9 0.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sources: EIA.4 3.7 105.0 2025 385.3 2..4 6.9 665. Includes other biomass in projections.9 98. Table 8.7 18. residual fuel oil. sludge waste. waste coal.8 1. waste oil.5 3.6 99.2 – 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 299.1 100.C. A16.6 2. February 2006).3 1.0 3.0 0.5 3.4 4.8 0. black liquor.2 0.4 723. other petroleum.0 839.9 2.2 279.3 1. natural gas. lignite.6 0.8 20.5 77.7 0. purchased steam. kerosene.0 90.8 77.1 104.8 3.5 77.9 20.2 20. 3 4 5 6 Includes batteries.1 443.5 16.C. Tables A9.9 0.0 1055.6 4. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.2 3.0 20.7 20.9 2.2 1.1 78.1 2010 313. and synthetic coal.8 108.6 3.8 77.5 3.2 3. pitch.8 325.1 0.2 2.Table 6. Beginning in 1989.9 20. D.8 0.7 498.2 19.0 924.8 19. Wood.6 19.9 4. September 2004).2 2030 453.1 813.4 2.3 2. tires.9 6.0 90. bituminous coal.1 1. Notes: Data are for electricity-only plants in the electric-power sector.0 1. petroleum coke. fuel cells.3 748.2 2003 303..9 6.11c.8 2002 305. Municipal solid waste. hydrogen. whose primary business is to sell electricity to the public.8 77.0 108.4 584. landfill gas.4 88.7 0.0 754.5 0.7 1.0 876. propane gas.1 114. blast furnace gas. Annual Energy Review 2003.

11c.0 7.5 49. Includes projections for energy crops after 2010.8 0.9 93.3 – 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 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.5 57.0 0. kerosene.1 41. subbituminous coal.7 0.0 0.C. EIA.2 0.7 73. purchased steam.5 0.7 84. bituminous coal.3 0.6 0..6 0.0 0. propane gas. landfill gas.6 0.3 65.7 69.0 4.9 0.7 0.C. and other wood waste.0 0.0 4.7 87. blast furnace gas.3 0.0 55. 6 Includes batteries. 3 4 5 Wood.0 0.9 49. Waste included in Wood prior to 1985.9 0.0 6.0 4.0 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.5 0. pitch..0 0. August 2005).1 56.4 75. hydrogen.4 57.7 0.0 0. other petroleum. and other biomass.3 50.7 29. Notes: Includes combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants whose primary business is to sell electricity and heat to the public.8 2030 27.0 5.3 0. supplemental gaseous fuels.2 2001 9.0 1.0 0.0 39. Annual Energy Review 2004.0 5.0 4.8 0.0 5. Includes other biomass in projections.0 0.0 0.6 72.6 63.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0. Table 8.1 2004 9.5 2020 14.0 0.0 6.7 77.9 58.6 2003 10.0 7. fuel cells.1 0. sludge waste.3 0.0 10.4 0. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels. lignite.1 0. Pumped storage included in Conventional Hydro prior to 1989.7 96. D.4 2002 9.4 0.0 4. A16. jet fuel.0 8.6 75. 1 2 Anthracite.9 0. sulfur.4 2015 10. Tables A9. Includes electric utility CHP plants.0 0.0 7.5 0.1 58.0 0.0 1.6 0. natural gas.0 0.8 0.5 61.0 0.7 0. Also includes commercial and industrial CHP and a small number of commercial electricity-only plants. tires.8 0. and miscellaneous technologies.9 0. distillate fuel oil.8 0.3 0. D.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 1.3 1. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. NA = not available .9 0.0 0.7 104.9 65.0 2010 9. Municipal solid waste. February 2006).5 21. petroleum coke.5 2000 10.5 0.3 5. Includes natural gas fired distributed generation.3 0. and synthetic coal.7 2025 23.0 0. agricultural byproducts.1 0.0 0. black liquor.0 5.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 65.6 0.5 35.Table 6. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.6 0. chemicals. waste coal.0 5.0 0.0 67. waste oil.1 0. Petroleum.0 8. residual fuel oil.8 0.6 65.0 6.5 58.0 0.0 4.5 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sources: EIA.7 0.1 0.

113 40. Table 8.4 – Regional Noncoincident 1 Peak Loads and Capacity Margin (Megawatts. D. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.475 53.552 56.088 149.606 55.605 28.551 32.972 28.367 122.199 40.312 604.844 NA 2000 84.994 28.566 56.458 46.273 39.949 94.815 NA 36.628 47.312 604.740 52.293 158.409 24.535 157.874 NF NF 608.252 484.478 33.996 40.868 29.469 104. Net internal demand does not include estimated demand for direct control load management and customers with interruptible service agreements.537 709.6 2004 102.812 714.Table 6.9 29.201 56.988 28.702 36.413 687.119 119.015 45.551 40.635 39. except as noted) North American Electric Reliability Council Regions 1990 2000 2001 2002 Summer Peak ECAR 79.696 MAAC 42. .4 Source: EIA.886 57.389 114.423 61.613 49.737 57. 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.C.541 40.4 2003 98.471 42.079 137.606 43.013 NF NF 729.413 687.569 MAIN 40.852 139.244 57.943 24.187 96.477 54.949 56.074 Contiguous U.013 19.321 29.182 141.2 1990 67.986 141.794 678.485 87.231 613 NF 484.461 21.432 42.841 45.565 3 Capacity Margin (%) 21.012 SERC 121.986 NF NF NF NF 576.020 593.815 23.688 2 WECC (U.258 92.S.767 SPP 52.375 NF NF 717.576 97.176 28.450 102. Notes: NF = data not filed.652 18.426 29.614 30.536 43.882 29.418 45.556 45.641 38.393 611.089 122.414 40.961 40.396 MAPP (U. Annual Energy Review 2003.487 59.448 38.S. September 2004). 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.545 117. 546.478 NF NF 611.146 30.332 42.344 56.4 2003 86.622 95..831 55.235 102.602 109.015 55.194 39.018 153.812 714.12.116 50.529 42.331 678.009 135.300 44. NA = not available 2003 data are forecast estimates.) 97.324 588.943 156.134 48.) 24.719 24.5 2004 87.972 43.S.625 41.412 21.565 ASCC (Alaska) 463 NF NF NF Hawaii NF NF NF NF U.097 35.062 40.870 729.119 NPCC (U.705 56.256 41.) 44.033 100.7 14.546 44.922 45.5 16. Total 546.S.110 40.986 28.645 42.426 NF NF 588.6 15.951 576.248 FRCC NA 37.5 2001 2002 Winter Peak 85.670 46.996 ERCOT 42.729 33.057 55.

9 0.0 51.7 5.8 3.6 32.2 0.6 8.0 11.6 1.0 0.1 0.0 0. 2001.0 5.3 0.1 60.9 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 51. and wind power.3 0.9 21.0 0.1 53.8 1. 4 Primarily peak load capacity fueled by natural gas.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.6 6.0 0. municipal solid waste.0 0. and dual-fired capability.1 7.7 0.0 41.4 9.0 0.0 4.2 0.5 77.0 0.0 0.5 11.1 25.0 0.0 0.1 25.2 6.0 0.1 64.0 0. landfill gas. February 2006).0 0. .7 9.0 10.4 0.6 8. 3 Includes conventional hydroelectric.0 0.1 25. wood.3 0.2 0.4 5.8 49.0 0.1 0.8 7.0 0.5 260. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. D.0 29.0 10.Table 6.0 0.0 0.1 25.4 0. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.0 0.4 96.7 0.5 9.0 8.7 5.4 0.0 11.0 0.7 5.6 2.5 6.1 0.3 0.0 2.0 4.2 0.0 0.8 46.0 11.7 5.0 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.8 37. 2 Includes oil-.1 25. Notes: 1 Additions and retirements since December 31.5 – 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 8.1 59.8 45.3 6.6 8.7 5.0 0..3 0.7 0.C. wood waste.0 46.3 2.8 6. geothermal.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0. gas-.2 8.7 Sources: EIA.0 0. solar.0 49.1 6.0 51.9 0.7 145.6 8.6 9.0 0.8 6.8 44.0 51.0 0.2 0.3 0. other biomass.4 0. Table A9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 167.0 0.3 0.6 28.0 0.

6 – Transmission and Distribution Circuit Miles (Miles) 1 Voltage (kilovolts) 230 345 500 765 Total 1980 NA NA NA NA NA 1990 70.038 2.343 2.025 25.948 23.827 27. Electricity Transmission Fact Sheets. http://www.855 27.252 54.992 Sources: EIA.com/~esd/Brochure.231 81.762 49.437 51.845 1999 76. http://www.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/transmission.226 82.992 55.nerc. Data includes both existing and planned transmission lines .560 166.560 167.000 2.238 54.515 53.pdf Notes: 1 2 Circuit miles of AC lines 230 kV and above.195 27.429 28.011 2.503 2000 2 2001 2 2002 2 2003 2 2004 2 76.453 154.html.518 164.587 2.426 154. 2005. NERC.250 26. Electricity Supply and Demand Database.511 47.eia.407 2.888 80.400 81.958 2.560 166.Table 6.doe.428 144.

August 2005). beginning in 1989. kerosene. 10 Batteries. Table 8. sludge waste.069 12 4.Table 7.505 107 1.737 2002 1.883 2004 1.491 2030 3.381 115 990 12 4. agricultural byproducts..809 789 -8 270 14 37 23 1 14 359 NA 6 3. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. data also include generation at independent power producers and the commercial and industrial (end-use) sectors.692 754 -6 276 14 38 23 0 6 356 NA 5 3.218 105 774 12 3.896 108 1.162 246 346 NA 1. minus energy used for pumping. landfill gas. 9 Includes nonutility and end-use sector generation for own use. Forecast data include electricity generation from fuel cells. lignite.C. Through 1988. bituminous coal.677 769 -9 217 14 35 22 1 7 295 NA 5 3. pitch.018 12 3. and waste oil. including a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels. 6 Hydroelectric data through 1988 are for generation at electric utilities and industrial plants only.933 95 691 11 2.2a.388 2015 2. black liquor. Annual Energy Review 2004. 3 Natural gas.411 829 -9 302 23 79 28 3 56 491 -192 12 4. other petroleum.730 780 -9 264 14 39 23 1 10 351 NA 6 3.926 1. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels (including refinery and still gas).594 127 373 10 2. propane gas. sulfur. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.725 871 -9 303 34 86 29 3 60 515 -214 12 5. Beginning in 1989. and synthetic coal. 7 Wood.802 2001 1. Data for 1980 included in conventional hydroelectric power.759 764 -9 276 14 38 24 1 11 363 NA 6 3. data also include generation at independent power producers and commercial plants. D.727 2020 2. data are for generation at electric utilities only. 2 Distillate fuel oil.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. D. and other wood waste.754 251 NA 279 5 0 0 NA NA 285 NA NA 2.277 104 1. February 2006). whose primary business is to sell electricity – or electricity and heat – to the public.038 2000 1.085 871 -9 303 47 103 30 4 63 549 -252 12 5. subbituminous coal.953 2010 2. hydrogen. and miscellaneous technologies. chemicals.290 Sources: EIA..858 2003 1. 1 Anthracite. residual fuel oil.104 577 -4 293 15 33 13 0 3 357 NA 4 3. Tables A8 and A16.C.102 12 3. Notes: Data include electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants. 8 Municipal solid waste.976 118 700 15 2. tires.966 111 601 14 2. 4 Blast furnace gas.108 809 -9 301 18 76 27 2 51 476 -177 12 4. NA = not available .497 871 -9 303 53 103 30 6 65 559 -278 12 5.904 125 639 9 2. purchased steam. 5 Pumped-storage facility production. petroleum coke.974 119 650 16 2.108 2025 2. and other biomass. and EIA. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. waste coal. jet fuel.

945 2030 3. August 2005).473 2001 1. 4 Blast furnace gas. minus energy used for pumping.505 2003 1. residual fuel oil. 5 Pumped-storage facility production.968 871 -9 299 53 58 28 2 65 504 NA 5.411 2002 1. 7 Wood. black liquor. petroleum coke.178 99 691 NA 3. pitch.286 Sources: EIA.942 577 -4 290 15 6 10 0.525 2004 1. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.392 769 -9 214 14 7 17 0. beginning in 1989. landfill gas.306 2020 2.881 83 457 0 2. Through 1988. hydrogen. Data for 1980 included in conventional hydroelectric power. sludge waste. purchased steam.916 109 421 0 2. 6 Hydroelectric data through 1988 are for generation at electric utilities and industrial plants only. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. Forecast data include electricity generation from fuel cells.209 89 743 NA 3.787 809 -9 297 18 45 25 1 51 436 NA 4.638 2025 2.5 6 316 0 3. other petroleum. data are for generation at electric utilities only.2 NA NA 282 0 2. and other wood waste. lignite. February 2006).310 871 -9 298 34 49 27 1 60 469 NA 4.332 1.6 10 311 1 3.4 3 324 0 2. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. tires. jet fuel. and other biomass. Annual Energy Review 2004.840 2000 1.916 108 486 0 2.Table 7.164 90 533 NA 2.5 7 259 0 3. D. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels (including refinery and still gas). propane gas. 2 Distillate fuel oil. D.754 251 NA 276 5 0.408 754 -6 271 14 7 18 0. and miscellaneous technologies. 10 Batteries.852 113 427 0 2.C.Table 8. waste coal. and EIA. bituminous coal. NA = not available . Tables A8 and A16. 9 Includes nonutility and end-use sector generation for own use.3 0. 8 Municipal solid waste.. subbituminous coal.C. including a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels. sulfur.2c. and waste oil.6 14 319 3 3.560 118 265 0 1.2 – 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. 3 Natural gas. Beginning in 1989. data also include generation at independent power producers.422 780 -9 260 14 7 17 0.405 90 814 NA 3.510 789 -8 264 14 7 18 0. 1 Anthracite.5 11 323 1 3.911 98 399 0 2. chemicals. agricultural byproducts.596 871 -9 299 47 51 28 2 63 489 NA 4.020 2015 2..728 93 775 NA 3. kerosene.446 764 -9 272 14 7 18 0. Notes: Data are for electricity-only plants in the electric-power sector whose primary business is to sell electricity to the public. data also include generation at independent power producers and commercial plants.041 829 -9 297 23 45 26 1 56 448 NA 4. and synthetic coal.162 246 346 NA 1.611 2010 2.

. 1 2 3 Anthracite. propane gas. and miscellaneous technologies. and synthetic coal.. waste coal. August 2005). purchased steam. and EIA. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. tires. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels (including refinery and still gas).C. other petroleum. subbituminous coal. whose primary business is to sell electricity and heat to the public. residual fuel oil. Wood. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.Table 7. Includes electric utility CHP plants. kerosene.Table 8. Also includes commercial and industrial CHP and a small number of commercial and industrial (end-use sectors) electricity-only plants. and waste oil. pitch. and other wood waste. NA = not available . hydrogen. Tables A8 and A16. Municipal solid waste. bituminous coal. D.C. Includes CHP plants that use multiple sources of energy. landfill gas. black liquor. Distillate fuel oil. Natural gas. February 2006). Batteries. plus a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels that cannot be identified separately. agricultural byproducts. D.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. 5 6 7 8 9 Pumped-storage facility production. jet fuel. sludge waste. minus energy used for pumping. lignite. Notes: Includes combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants.2c and 8. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. including hydropower.2d. Forecast data include electricity generation from fuel cells. Annual Energy Review 2004. and other biomass. chemicals. 4 Blast furnace gas. petroleum coke. sulfur.

953 8. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.038 6. and data collection frame differences and nonsampling error.648 10.C.802 7. Tables A2 and A8.290 4. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.764 254 2020 4. Annual Energy Review 2004. and 8.652 294 2030 5. where Electricity Needed to be Transmitted = Total Generation from Electric Generators + Cogenerators + Net Imports .737 7.536 8.Generation for Own Use. 8.858 7.4 – Generation and Transmission/Distribution Losses (Billion kWh) 1980 Net Generation Delivered Generation Losses 1 2 1990 3. 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.094 317 2. 2 Transmission and Distribution Losses= Electricity Needed to be Transmitted.006 271 2010 4.883 7.2a. D. and EIA. D.Electricity Sales. August 2005).1.756 257 2004 3.232 274 2025 5. Tables 8.C.211 8.Table 7. Represents energy losses that occur between the point of generation and delivery to the customer..4a.240 9.316 219 2000 3. NA = not available .798 266 2003 3..893 9.809 258 2001 3.339 251 2015 4. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.859 NA Transmission and Distribution Losses Sources: Calculated from EIA. February 2006).617 243 2002 3.

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

doe.2 6.South Atlantic Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Maryland North Carolina South Carolina Virginia West Virginia 778. Data Tables. 1c.415 218.780 13.html Tables 1b.548.5 7.S.919 54.785 8.xls Notes: Revenue in 2004 dollars.416 11.2 6.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_sum.972 6. http://www. Includes bundled and unbundled consumers .5 8.456 15.943 12.483 7.eia. Census Bureau.908 105.835 8.466 66.4 5.917 Hawaii U.874 885 852 17. Total 10.census.424 28.685 270. and for Puerto Rico: April 1.270 11.944 14.026 11.1 13. and U.State Population Estimates 2005.218 1.657 79.973 13.780 1. 2000 to July 1. 1d.S.931 15.756 4.732 3. Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States.2 7.7 7.584 129.0 6.525 4.761 11.471 18. http://www.6 7.892 125.6 8.971 Sources: EIA.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-01. Electric Sales and Revenue 2004 Spreadsheets.943 225. 2005 (NSTEST2004-01) .287 14.1 7.

29 1. "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.46 1. Data are for steam-electric plants with a generator nameplate capacity of 50 or more megawatts.36 2. and No.49 NA NA NA NA NA Fossil Fuel Average Sources: EIA.11 1. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) (Washington.44 3.67 1.08 1. 1.44 2.46 1.29 1.23 4.88 3.96 1. residual fuel oil (No. 3 4 Natural gas. No. 2 1990-2003 data are for distillate fuel oil (all diesel and No.87 1. 6 fuel oils and bunker C fuel oil). Table 4. February 2006). waste coal.48 2.70 1.41 2015 9.50 2030 10.02 5.29 1.1 – 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 2.93 2000 NA 4.04 5. kerosene.86 2001 NA 3.40 1.C.62 6.31 2004 9. the data for 2001 and previous years include only data collected from electric utilities via the FERC Form 423. Anthracite.to the public. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. 5 Weighted average price.C. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.41 2020 9.51 2. Appendix D. D. 2. including a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels that cannot be identified separately.73 6. subbituminous coal.Table 9.or electricity and heat .39 2. November 2005). Notes: Includes electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity . and waste oil.87 4.48 4..56 2003 6. Electric Power Annual 2004.5. D.. data from the Form EIA-423.57 2010 9. 5 and No. 4 fuel oils). petroleum coke (converted to liquid petroleum).61 1. and EIA. Table A3. and synthetic coal. jet fuel. NA = not available .40 2.05 6.70 5. lignite.69 1.02 5.81 2002 NA 3.65 4. Beginning in 2002. bituminous coal.29 5.46 2025 10.72 5.29 2.28 6.40 5. 1 Historical data converted to 2003$/MMBtu using EIA Annual Energy Review 2003. these data were not collected.26 1. Prior to 2002.43 5.

267 1. other energy-service providers. September 2005).262 31 5.064 5 3.421 2001 1.. (Washington.060 26 4.C.147 29 4.203 1.200 1.021 8 3. Annual Energy Review 2004.576 1. and EIA. Industrial sector.463 2003 1.293 1.151 1.192 1. February 2006).897 2.155 2015 1. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. beginning in 1996." "Commercial. Table A8. and other sales to public authorities.. D.229 1.592 1.370 2002 1.461 1.430 1.691 1.491 2020 1.Table 9.488 2004 1.9.551 2010 1.008 7 3.844 2025 1." and "Transportation.944 1." "Industrial.619 717 559 815 3 2.C.2 – Electricity Retail Sales (Billion Kilowatthours) 1980 Retail Sales Residential Commercial Industrial Total 5 3 4 2 1 1990 924 838 946 5 2.787 1.103 28 4.218 972 6 3.762 1. Transportation sector.094 Transportation Sources: EIA.159 1.208 2030 1. beginning in 2003. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. including public street and highway lighting.273 1. Table 8." .195 30 5. Notes: 1 Electricity retail sales to ultimate customers reported by electric utilities and. includes agriculture and irrigation. including sales to railroads and railways. D. The sum of "Residential.197 964 5 3. interdepartmental sales. excludes agriculture and irrigation.713 2000 1. Through 2002. 2 3 4 5 Commercial sector. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).

data are for selected Class A utilities whose electric operating revenues were $100 million or more during the previous year.3 – Prices of Electricity Sold (2003 cents per Kilowatthour) 1 1980 Price by End-Use Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation / Other 3 2 1990 10.3 2015 8.3 7.0 7. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.7 2002 8.1 7. For 1990.4 9. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006). 3 Public street and highway lighting.2 5. data also include energy-service providers selling to retail customers 1 Historical data real prices expressed in chained (2004) dollars.Table 9.4 9.6 5..C. (Washington.4 5.9 4..1 7.4 5.7 5.7 1.0 4.9 8.3 7. For 2000 onward.8 11. calculated by using gross domestic product implicit price deflators using EIA Annual Energy Review 2004 Appendix D.9 7.1 6. and EIA. Notes: For 1980.0 7.9 8.1 7. D.8 5.0 0.3 8.10.1 5.7 2000 8.2 7.8 5.0 5.4 2030 8.8 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 5.0 4. 2 Prices represent average revenue per kilowatthour.8 8.3 7. data are for a census of electric utilities.0 0.1 2020 8.6 9.5 5.6 2.1 0.5 8. Table 8.7 6.6 2004 8.9 5.2 5. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.4 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.C. sales to railroads and railways and interdepartmental sales. Table A8.7 1.5 7.5 2003 8.5 2.6 1.9 8.8 Sources: EIA.1 7.6 2010 8. August 2005).3 7.1 8.5 10.2 7.4 7. February 2006).7 0.4 7.0 7.4 2001 9.8 0. other sales to public authorities.1 5. NA = not available .6 0.7 7.2 2025 8. Annual Energy Review 2004.1 6. D.7 1.0 7.5 2.

data are for selected Class A utilities whose electric operating revenues were $100 million or more during the previous year.235 100. EIA. data are for a census of electric utilities.392 421.865 348. and interdepartmental sales through 2003. August 2005). sales to railroads and railways.153 236.245 61.624 60.419 252.090 115.455 289 93.731 259.808 132. other sales to public authorities.803 420 52. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).579 111.130 197. February 2006).180 519 56.688 167.741 385.259 1.680 117.173 542 56.536 49.108 161.932 2.537 81.368 355 99. (Washington.165 2.185 130.760 100. 2 For 1980.353 150.399 59.980 106.Table 9. D.778 52. D.598 95.351 109.190 260. Table A8..C.808 140.10.C.425 Sources: Calculated from EIA.533 1. Annual Energy Review 2004.Transportation-sector revenue reported starting in 2010. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.589 264. For 2000 onward.315 318.453 113.369 108.369 53.594 124. Tables 8. data also include energy-service providers selling to retail customers .9 and 8.448 424 51. Notes: 1“ Other” includes public street and highway lighting. DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington.150 149.4 – 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..331 372 97.291 268.846 59.658 64. For 1990.811 303.030 68.

985 3.537 527 2.950 4.044 1.701 1.853 14.510 1.628 1.486 37.984 18.494 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.648 497 1.466 8.465 5.134 1.306 4.934 2.742 5.004 3.990 10.922 7.251 1.544 756 510 1.307 13.085 830 2.505 731 893 1.343 294 321 752 609 551 203 16.551 1.277 2.477 1.554 1.209 11.324 1.409 1.619 2.150 2.992 11.295 1.299 605 1.799 10.401 10.475 5.447 1.506 1.Table 9.867 5.890 4.332 428 2.679 7.221 6.759 4.596 637 596 344 190 895 312 314 308 6.455 2.710 1.654 3.624 2.010 1.069 5.395 674 36.095 2.681 1.115 36.012 1.520 11.920 9.657 16.5 – Revenue from Sales to Ultimate Consumers by Sector.034 1.116 7. 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.638 .864 1.925 3.793 9.Commer1 Industrial Other tial cial 7.444 2.198 6.833 4.847 3.034 488 528 163 13.855 3.707 6. and State.945 720 1.022 1.278 4.696 1.401 5.305 1.538 1.Commer1 2 Industrial Other All Sectors tial cial 5.995 423 244 844 233 126 126 5.407 28.313 25.148 6.717 2.901 1.232 2.248 865 624 37.749 7.682 3.038 661 369 33 14 19 302 32 210 60 32 25 1 0 5 1 1 0 13.618 5.284 3.323 535 366 273 14.247 1.364 3.774 12.307 446 319 1.560 1.287 1.732 2.063 4.448 2.019 1.629 4.221 3.646 677 5.902 3.935 2.045 1.266 1.132 962 1.187 2. Census Division.890 3.952 2.185 610 5.710 529 825 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 18.432 759 1.677 16.858 480 373 226 17.293 2.570 1.975 1.638 2.353 3.482 16.

516 1.304 2.756 4.S. http://www.483 Pacific Noncontiguous Alaska Hawaii U.eia.269 1.086 4.016 2.369 2.html.780 1.267 3.601 2.doe. Table 1c. Notes: 1 2 Includes sales for public street and highway lighting.037 100.321 636 1. and interdepartmental sales.874 885 852 17.835 8.973 300 670 6.255 Source: EIA.530 394 124 87 8.310 207 13 1. Total 828 256 571 874 286 588 619 94 526 53.587 1.456 116.315 843 419 80 22 7 9 31 10 0 599 594 54.912 1. to public authorities.510 378 147 10. Data Tables.397 670 225 224 18.972 6.525 4.685 270.785 8.661 0 0 0 504 2. .gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_tabs.North Dakota South Dakota South Atlantic Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Maryland North Carolina South Carolina Virginia West Virginia 249 283 27.390 2. Includes bundled and unbundled consumers. railroads and railways.140 1.871 1. Electric Sales and Revenue 2004 Spreadsheets.181 4.

502 68. Tables 8.276 10.897 2.348 24. Table 8 and Table 17.585 3.. data for 2004 not available.097 4. EIA. Electric Power Annual 2001. Electric Power Annual 2004.828 24.726 3.688 90.983 107.444 3.352 96.981 9. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1999. Table 8.594 5.044 754 311 95 2.113 4. DOE/EIA-0348(2001) (Washington. and EIA.018 845 854 662 233 82 2.664 11.028 22.542 155 15.130 2.246 1. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 2000. DOE/EIA-0437(99)/2 (Washington.180 1.494 3.122 29. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1994.173 7.C.354 8.398 9.519 3. EIA.988 212 17. Public Electric Utility Database (Form EIA-412) 2002 and 2003.6 – Production. and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.4. November 2001).532 2004 28.893 234 13.828 7.C. D.1.476 62.185 4.C.702 16.772 951 1. Table 10 and Table 21.256 Publicly Owned Utilities 1990 1995 2000 2002 5.613 1. EIA.466 26. Operation.S. .132 58..526 32.285 38.378 26.341 9. D. EIA.678 67.863 7.009 25. 3 Collection of Form EIA-412 has been suspended.481 225 24.311 3. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) (Washington.821 261 12.872 25. D. November 2005)..181 104.619 3.923 Source: EIA.1.012 238 13. D.526 62.Table 9. DOE/EIA-0437(94)/2 (Washington.247 1.C.585 1.165 1.969 12. DOE/EIA-0437(00)/2 (Washington.425 2.543 4.922 348 13. Notes: 1 2 Publicly Owned Utilities include generator and nongenerator electric utilities.181 212 10.683 977 1.699 3. Table 10 and Table 21.288 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 1.301 4..519 27. November 2000). 8.653 663 630 448 120 30 2.839 403 13. and 8. December 2002).C. because of independent rounding.446 1.3 2003 10. 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 29.555 61.127 4.087 2.000 700 354 84 2...188 1.649 26.676 604 950 375 75 29 1.371 18.561 3. Totals may not equal sum of components.635 20.647 36. D.078 1.3.742 5.973 5. December 1995).880 32.115 4.

.

04 5.45 2.132 58.68 2.962 24.828 2.38 2. and EIA. 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 142.41 2.86 2.501 32.16 .181 212 10.180 1.779 14.21 3.26 Gas Turbine and Small Scale Source: EIA..69 3.Table 9.74 4.113 4.471 127.122 29.872 10.38 3.995 2002 188.321 150.C. 2 Includes gas turbine.893 234 13.699 3.839 403 13.43 2.519 11.6a – Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.76 8. D.599 91.983 29.64 2.65 2. 5.1 and 8.823 10.901 81. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) (Washington.181 26.28 3.73 Hydroelectric and Pumped 2.981 9. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities (Million of Nominal Dollars.2.745 171.721 18.23 Fossil Steam 2. weighed by net generation.54 2.01 Storage 2 12.065 14.165 1.087 2. and wind plants.97 2.173 7. Tables 8.38 2.58 2. Electric Power Annual 2004.247 1.50 2.519 3.494 3.454 2003 197.185 4.291 116.662 107.843 17.648 21. Electric Power Annual 2001.93 5.19 2.96 3.05 2.73 Maintenance (Mills per 1 Kilowatthour) Nuclear 5.287 28.58 3. Tables 8.444 3.571 165.68 5.722 2000 210.723 96.50 4.767 19.146 14.086 62.561 3.1 and 8.476 62.585 3.99 3.354 8.881 68.009 12. internal combustion.889 20. photovoltaic.352 32.922 348 13.161 182.688 3.319 26.613 1.821 261 12.76 9.2.68 5.23 4.466 11. Notes: 1 Operation and maintenance expenses are averages.21 4.828 7.130 2.301 4.S.635 20.57 8.374 90. November 2005).324 191.555 61.880 1.473 122.885 27.72 8.012 238 13.185 22.04 2.115 4.962 104.425 2.256 4.141 16.532 3.228 24.649 24.969 12.31 4.57 8.07 2.028 11.986 2004 207.774 16.337 131.678 67.459 175.50 2.755 17.54 5.526 1.373 22.35 8.341 9.761 23.329 132.3 2.371 11.246 1.

D. November 2000).772 30.395 242 113 N/A 2.988 212 17. D.Table 9.647 36. Tables 8.526 3.539 1. Financial Statistics of Major U.646 746 1.863 2000 5.742 5.C.683 44.752 Source: EIA..818 433 754 93. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1994. EIA. DOE/EIA-0437(99)/2 (Washington.018 22.739 785 1.165 2. D.S. D.S.044 754 311 95 2.973 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.C..100 951 1.285 38. 2 Number of employees was not submitted by some publicly owned electric utilities.4 Notes: EIA suspended collection of this dataset in 2004..172 4. 1 Totals may not equal sum of components.651 845 854 662 233 82 2. EIA.353 4.S. NA = not available .347 332 603 16.097 4. Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1999. Public Electric Utility Database (Form EIA-412) 2002 and 2003.078 1.420 1.558 1. 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 3.144 24. because the number of electric utility employees could not be separated from the other municipal employees.626 663 630 448 120 30 2.624 398 771 92..653 19.127 4.895 1. Publicly Owned Generator and Nongenerator Electric Utilities (Million of Nominal Dollars.188 2003 7.542 155 15.481 225 24. Table 8 and Table 17. Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 2000.000 700 354 84 2. or the electric utility outsourced much of the work.C.6b – Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.150 316 373 71. December 1995).133 205 196 10.520 5.742 1. Table 10 and Table 21.619 3. EIA.163 222 101 73. EIA. November 2001).923 47.100 26. because of independent rounding.398 2002 6. Financial Statistics of Major U.446 1.594 5.277 261 231 11.3 and 8. DOE/EIA-0348(2003) (Washington. DOE/EIA-0437(00)/2 (Washington.813 977 1. Electric Power Annual 2003. Table 10 and Table 21. DOE/EIA-0437(94)/2 (Washington.C. December 2004).

38 145 Source: Electric Power Annual 2004. Table 5.35 118 1.23 124 1. Notes: Includes plants under the Clean Air Act that were monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency.. even if sold to an unregulated entity. .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 1.3.11 124 1. Table 5.3. steam-electric capacity of 100 megawatts or more. EIA. DOE/EIA-0348(04) (November 2005).16 126 0. DOE/EIA-0348(01) (March 2003). Electric Power Annual 2001.27 131 1.Table 9.96 124 1. These data are for plants with a fossil-fueled.

89 NA 21.34 1.31 NA 14.69 14. Annual Energy Review 2004.52 9.43 6.42 6.67 7.32 2015 1.71 7.73 13.1 – Consumer Price Estimates for Energy Purchases (2004 Dollars.14 2030 1.53 7. 2 Consumption-weighted average price for asphalt and road oil.49 14.50 1. D.18 2005 1.08 10.72 N/A N/A 11.30 N/A N/A 11.20 1.38 17.87 13.C.56 2.07 10. kerosene.64 1. Notes: 1 Historical data converted to 2004$/MMBtu using GDP deflators from EIA.66 17.16 2020 1.28 12.47 14.82 0.79 NA 15.61 NA 24.44 15. special naphthas.69 11.43 13..26 19.80 1990 1.92 5. petrochemical feedstocks.53 16.04 11. 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 2.64 10.35 NA 21.98 5. Table A3.54 10.10 4.53 Sources: EIA..94 13.90 17. February 2006).90 1.95 25.64 18.10 14.04 18.65 5.07 NA 13. lubricants. NA = not available .04 N/A N/A 12.03 NA 13.42 6.40 NA 20. August 2005).52 27.72 9.15 3. Table 3.68 7.67 13.3. Table D. 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.43 1.76 0.23 13. Annual Energy Review 2004. and EIA.52 1.34 6. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).87 13.52 NA 21.07 4.21 7.57 2010 1.92 1.66 2025 1.97 12.30 19.71 5. DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington.00 14.77 14.73 0.92 7.1.51 7.51 1.18 1.94 2000 1.19 16.87 5.98 15.C.93 14.49 2.52 6. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. and miscellaneous petroleum products..54 8.58 6.86 NA 22.49 2.12 NA 15. September 2005).78 21. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.C.32 4.07 10.89 1.00 4.19 7.42 1.60 6.28 N/A N/A 13.53 9.75 NA 14.49 6.73 6. (Washington.74 11.72 5.52 10.25 1.91 0. D.92 15. D.52 N/A N/A 12.07 N/A N/A 11.98 1.14 11.86 4.60 15.49 1.30 9.46 7.46 1. petroleum coke.74 11.42 12.19 13. waxes.72 9.03 13.39 16.34 6.Table 10.60 13. aviation gasoline.02 6.

org/generic.1 7.509 1.817 6.0 2020 1.838 6.036 1. http://www.4 6.025 2.9 248. February 2006).235 13.4 134.1 1.8 1.541 11.8 2030 2.352 4.4.476 7.194 1.722 1.398 15.5 95. D.Table 10.347 1.4 B-D..295 9.528 337.004 1. Annual Energy Review 2003. millions) Employment Non-Agriculture (millions) 226.373 2.9 12.5 2.985 2.156 17.736 1. 1.043 9.3 12.C.8 173. D.1 142.810 1. Tables 1.8 115.6 2.464 3. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.123 13.659 13.857 11.818 20.631 5.916 3.096 1.3 1990 0.776 3.nahb.858 0.048 23.555 4.000 9.4 1. and 6.091 10. Bureau Of Economic Analysis.bea.529 5.969 1.asp. Table D1.824 7. EIA.439 4.6 0.150 1.153 4.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/NIPATableIndex.862 4. Bureau of Labor Statistics.115 324 311 3. unless otherwise noted) 1980 GDP Chain Type Price Index (2000 = 1.882 364.2 17.2 2000 1.530 553 607 5.265 3.1 2010 1.6 1.293 2.926 6.350 3.113 4.770 895 1.3 14.4 19.713 2.833 6.doc.756 7..889 5.118 1.000) Real Gross Domestic Product Real Consumption Real Investment Real Government Spending Real Exports Real Imports Real Disposable Personal Income Consumer Price Index (2002 = 1.0 156.6 281. http://www.808 5.4 5.589 1.083 4.0 2015 1.0 1.831 2.2 9. 2.259 2. http://www.5 14.783 1.5 13.622 2.6. National Association of Home Builders.324 1.182 3.627 5.5 147. Current Population Survey.722 4.112 15.783 4.997 323.000) Unemployment Rate (percent) Housing Starts (millions) Gross Output Total Industrial Non-Manufacturing Manufacturing Energy-Intensive Manufacturing Non-Energy-Intensive Manufacturing Population (all ages.1.135 350.816 7.9 2025 1.597 17.6 7. Table A19. Household Data Annual Averages.689 5.161 3. .578 2.541 5. Current Population Survey. October 2004).8 Employment Manufacturing (millions) 20.128 2.162 3.589 1.082 10.562 3.069 7.296 2.pdf.2 – Economy-Wide Indicators (Billions of 2000 Chain Weighted Dollars.739 1.6 164.572 4.057 2. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.734 15.9 1. Department of Labor.719 8.952 1.671 2.464 4.1.058 2. National Income and Products Accounts Tables (NIPA).2 8.1 131.374 645 1.441 4.518 310.044 294.310 4.307 5.bls.664 1.643 1.204 1.355 1.0 13.6 2004 1. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.gov/cps/cpsa2003.aspx?sectionID=130&genericContentID=554.1.7 2.C.6 Sources: EIA.778 1.

C.4.3.6.752 665 1.360 41.742 2.828 25.650 27. 8.1.287 4.Electric Operating Expenses .337 131. Includes utilities with and without generating facilities.420 20. Electric Power Annual 2004.228 33.519 3. (Washington.118 32.774 16.822 46.504 4.813 977 1. 2004 (Million 2004 Dollars) Investor-Owned Electric Utilities Operating Revenue .323 5. Form EIA-412 has been suspended until further notice. 8. 2 Values for 2003.012 238 13. In 2004.S.737 26. NA= not available .. Publicly Owned Generator and Investor-Owned Electric Utilities. and 8.044 754 311 95 2. November 2005).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. 2 Cooperative Borrower Owned Electric Utilities 30.962 104. D.539 182.301 4.373 22.182 226 2. DOE/EIA-0348(2003).3 – Composite Statements of Income for Major U.Table 10.242 Source: EIA. Note: 1 The data represent those utilities meeting a threshold of 150 million kilowatthours of customer sales or resale for the two previous years.519 11.555 1.860 595 141 80 1. Tables 8.327 NA 2.180 2.158 Publicly Owned Generator Electric Utilities 1.

909 11.185 NA NA NA NA 15.153 NA NA NA NA 444.674.355 3.933.515 5.170.850 10.791.857 NA NA NA NA 14.498 2.521 2.034 NA NA 1 1 306.795 2.363.800 3.Table 11.310 2.208 13 31 111.867 2.251 NA NA NA NA 419.270 2.453 4.667 2.511.862 2.269 3.533.578 2.563 13 31 100.101 4.843.732 4.535 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 90.216 2.642 11 25 111.043.885 529 170 1 1 319.087.290 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81.480.189 4.773 2.987.223 639 221 1 1 194.875 15.090.002 NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA 1 NA NA 13 32 107.888 6.024 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82.658 NA NA NA NA 16.365 NA NA 1 1 326.644 2.396 10.367.125.094 13 31 85.119 262 359 1 1 NA 55 180 NA 0 9.553 NA NA NA NA 16.086.870 343 130 1 1 336.866 8 270 1 1 NA 210 206 NA 1 NA NA 13 31 107.580 2.293 10.657.034.200 482 166 1 1 310.220 5.947 2.412.512.185 NA NA NA NA 379.091 NA NA NA NA 327.004 4.621 3.999 1 565 0 0 NA 49 235 NA 1 10.174 NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA 82.834 NA NA NA NA Carbon Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide 2 Nitrogen Oxide 2 Methane Nitrous Oxide 3 Total Carbon Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide 1.103 .478.1 – 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 1.014 2.819 2.623 4.190 232 422 1 1 NA 59 180 NA 1 10.447 15.806 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84.001 NA NA NA NA 15.596 10.583.142 NA NA NA NA 425.

306 14 33 1 2. All Criteria Pollutants.330 NA 14 33 1 4. nontoxic.C. EIA. NA = not available . 1 Emissions total less than 500 tons.. D.585 41.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.695 14 33 1 3.379 18. DOE/EIA-0383 (2005) (Washington. Tables A8 and A18.283 NA NA NA 2.epa.312 26.390 16. and nonflammable gas used as an insulator in electric T&D equipment.html. 3 Emissions from wood-burning plants. 25.200 times that of carbon dioxide and has an atmospheric lifetime of 3. DOE/EIA-0573(2003) (Washington. http://www..200 years.742 53. 4 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless.595 NA NA NA 2. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.872 NA NA NA Sources: EIA. D. February 2006). Notes: Emissions from electric-power sector only.699 50.345 20. and EPA.119 50. odorless. includes internal-combustion generators. 17. National Emission Inventory Air Pollutant Emission Trends.081 14 33 1 4. 29.C.” August 2004. “Average Annual Emissions. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004.663 NA 12 26 2 5.653 NA NA NA 2. SF6 has a 100-year global warming potential that is 22.503 NA NA NA 2. November 2005) Tables 10.Nitrogen Oxide Mercury Methane Nitrous Oxide 4 Sulfur Hexafluoride 6. 2 Emissions from plants fired by other fuels.917 NA 14 33 1 4.

187 2002 329. data are for electric utilities and unregulated generating plants (independent power producers.187 154.557 69. DOE/EIA-0348(2004).319 162.168 358.675 328.928 99.954 355.567 409.522 Petroleum and Gas Fired Particulate Collectors Cooling Towers Scrubbers Total Total Particulate Collectors Cooling Towers Scrubbers Total 1 1 33.093 89.804 329.009 210. because some generators are included in more than one category.html.158 99.988 390..894 352.782 214.459 154. steam-electric capacity of 100 megawatts or greater.770 310 81. http://www.492 409.520 89.634 29. NA = not available .gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p2. 2004 Total Data: EIA Electric Power Annual. Beginning in 2001.989 101.879 45.497 98.697 31. commercial plants.769 Source: EIA. Table 12.2.747 310 71.396 97.741 2001 329.Table 11. Table 5.372 31.709 29.727 175.090 29.636 146.338 200. D.587 155.363 329. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.422 55.459 2003 328.427 0 57.438 360.8.639 28.eia.649 184 61.587 2004 NA NA NA NA 315. Through 2000.750 98. Annual Energy Review 2004.359 65 59.2 – Installed Nameplate Capacity of Utility Steam-Electric Generators With Environmental Equipment (Megawatts) 1990 Coal Fired Particulate Collectors Cooling Towers Scrubbers Total 1 2000 321.doe.821 359. Notes: 1 Components are not additive.673 401.675 386. and industrial plants) with fossil-fueled or combustible renewable steam-electric capacity of 100 megawatts or greater.575 34.057 317.199 69.493 NA NA NA NA 349.762 189.681 134.C.747 97. September 2005).122 376.257 328. data are for electric utilities with fossil-fueled.

721 2.876 3. nitrogen oxides (NOx).908 3.599 2020 8. dispatch. and Mercury Emissions from Electric Generators EPA Base Case 2004 2007 SO2 (Thousand Tons) NOx (Thousand Tons) CO2 (Thousand Tons) 10. and 2004 CAIR Case Final 2004 http://www. dynamic. EPA Base Case for 2004 Analyses http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/iaqr/basecase2004. IPM is a multiregional.zip. deterministic linear programming model of the U. carbon dioxide (CO2).3 – EPA-Forecasted Nitrogen Oxide.S.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.epa.374 3.231 2.452 2015 5. • The model provides forecasts of least-cost capacity expansion.796 2007 7. Sulfur Dioxide. electricity dispatch.571 2020 4.470 2015 9.758 2.679 2. and used to support public and private-sector clients. electric-power sector.351 2.665 2.227 2. and mercury (Hg) from the electric-power sector . Runs Table for EPA Modeling Applications 2004.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/iaqr/cair2004_final.733 3. Developed by ICF Resources Incorporated. and emission-control strategies for meeting energy demand and environmental.212 2.Table 11.gov/airmarkets/epaipm/iaqr.html. using IPM http://www.776 Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).epa.600 2. transmission. IPM can be used to evaluate the cost and emissions impacts of proposed policies to limit emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2).365 EPA CAIR Case 2004 2010 6.391 2010 9.084 3.480 2. and reliability constraints.453 2.

November 2005.191. Opt-in Allowances are provided to units entering the program voluntarily.897 250.Table 11.4 – Origin of 2004 Allowable SO2 Emissions Levels Number of SO2 Allowances Type of Allowance Allocation Initial Allocation Allowance Auctions Opt-in Allowances 9. which can be used for compliance in 2004 or any future year. TOTAL 2004 ALLOCATION Banked Allowances TOTAL 2004 ALLOWABLE 9. based on the product of their historic utilization and emissions rates specified in the Clean Air Act. There were 11 optin units in 2004.000 99.903 Banked Allowances are those allowances accrued in a unit's account from previous years.085 8.pdf .gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp04/2004report.epa.188 Explanation of Allowance Allocation Type Initial allocation is the number of allowances granted to units. http://www. Figure 4. Source: EPA.187.541.646. Acid Rain Program 2004 Progress Report. 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-05-011.818 18.

760 17.558.01783 0.727 10. displacement of fossil generation depends on power system generation portfolio and dispatch order. page B-16.893 24.. Competing heat rate from Fossil-Fueled Steam-Electric Plants heat rate.583 44.1 – 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.Table 12.107 178 0.107 6 0.760 36.100 Solar Thermal 388. Table A16.449.205 36.096 80. D.C. Annual Energy Outlook 2005.495 90.954. Appendix B. Notes: For illustrative purposes only. Capacity values exclude combined-heat-and-power (CHP) data. February 2006).. 2005. Table A6. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.107 368 0.991. August 2005). but include end-use sector (industrial and commercial) non-CHP data.312.172 Biomass 6. 2003.C.235.064 0. EPRI TR-109496.. 1997.5% 8. D.01783 54.760 552.107 467 0.455.0% 8.0% 8. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.2% 8. Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.4% 8.760 303. D.128 10. DOE/EIA-0383 (2005) (Washington.01783 3.211.01783 6.569 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 2.760 831. Table A16.579.355 22. Capacity factors: Hydropower calculated from EIA.128 Sources: Capacity: Projected values for the year 2006 from EIA. Annual Energy Review 2004.472 10.107 8 0.635 PV 280. and program data.01783 0. Heat Rate: EIA.176.314 10.600.01783 8.187 10.760 46.C.328 Hydropower 78.107 3. All others based on DOE.232.594. 201 .427.0% 8. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. Carbon Coefficient: DOE. February 2005). GPRA2003 Data Call.525 10.

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

6 39 0.5 0.7 14.1 1.42 0.42 0.06 15.6 3.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.6 157 38 2.06 3.42 0.6 157 38 2.6a – Sulfur Dioxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors.5 30 1.6 157 38 2.5 0.08 3.42 0.7 0.6 3.5 1.08 147 Tangential 0.6 3.5 30 1.8 35 38 38 1.01 0.08 3.5 1.35 1.6 3.08 3.1 0.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.01 0.42 0.42 0.01 14.17 0.2 14.2 0.08 3.35 0.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.28 3.6 39 0.5 1.7 3.1 0.7 0.42 0.9 0.08 3.06 0.35 1 0.8 35 38 38 1.42 0.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.5 30 1.5 0.8 38 38 38 1.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.6 39 0.2 14.08 3.6 3.1 3.08 3.08 147 206 .08 3.42 0.42 0.5 30 1.6 157 38 2. 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 0.5 0.6 39 0.8 35 38 38 1.6 39 0.7 0.08 147 Spreader Stoker 0.5 0.6 157 38 2.8 3.7 0.5 30 1.35 3.42 0.Table 12.08 3.08 3.8 35 38 38 1.08 147 All Other 0.7 0.42 0.5 1.5 1.08 147 Fluidized Bed 0.7 Opposed Firing 0.

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

1 [13.00 5.50 21.20 14.00 72.20 15.90 280.00 11.0] 1.00 47.40 15.00 24.90 280.00 24.66 1.00 72.50 21.90 170.40 7.20 14.40 1.00 47.00 Opposed Firing 1.00 Fluidized Bed 1.00 72.40 11.00 47.00 5.00 8.66 1.40 13.10 5.00 5. 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 5.0] 208 .00 1.00 5.40 15.40 1.50 21.00 33.0] 5.90 1.00 5.20 15.90 1.00 24.40 33.00 19.00 5.40 7.00 24.00 72.00 19.90 1.00 8.50 21.00 72.00 72.20 15.00 12.90 1.50 21.50 24.00 72.00 24.00 5.00 19.20 14.0 [24.90 1.40 22.00 24.00 1.00 24.90 280.00 24.40 1.90 1.80 5.40 22.20 14.00 24.00 17.00 1.40 All Other 1.20 14.50 24.00 19.00 19.00 19.50 24.40 1.40 1.00 5.00 47.00 15.66 1.40 1.6b – Nitrogen Oxide Uncontrolled Emissions Factors.Table 12.50 24.00 24.20 15.66 1.50 24.40 3.00 72.20 14.50 24.00 22.80 Tangential 1.20 15.00 22.60 5.66 1.00 72.66 1.00 72.00 32.00 72.00 1.00 24.00 72.50 21.00 47.00 Spreader Stoker 1.00 24.90 280.20 15.0 [31.90 280.00 5.0] 1.40 5.0 [14.00 12.40 5.

00 21.00 11.00 22.70 1.00 15. 209 .00 21.66 1.50 19.66 1.50 19. *** Although Sludge Waste and Black Liquor consist substantially of liquids.00 21.66 1.00 21.00 21. Electric Power Annual 2004.70 1.50 19.00 5.70 1.epa.epa.66 1.70 1.50 19. MMCF = million cubic feet.00 21.50 19.66 1.gov/ttn/chief/software/fire/index.00 Source: EIA. Table A1.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ and http://www.50 19. Notes: 1 2 All Dry-Bottom Boilers.70 1.html.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 33.70 1.00 22. ** Source is EPA emission factors reported in http://www. these fuels are measured and reported to EIA in tons. Except Wet-Bottom as indicated by values in brackets Lbs = pounds. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) November 2005.66 1. MG = thousand gallons.

45 212. DOE/EIA-0348(2004).54 225.Table 12. Electric Power Annual 2004. 210 .13 139.45 161.11 141.72 205.58 205.41 159.97 205.63 116.16 163.12 215.97 115.34 159.27 0. * CO2 factors do not vary by boiler type or firing configuration.61 Source: EIA.6c – Uncontrolled Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factors.53 14.41 115.04 173. Table A1. 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. November 2005.

1 The methane GWP includes direct effects and those indirect effects. Although the GWPs have been updated by the IPCC. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2003.500 9. The UNFCCC reporting guidelines for national inventories were updated in 2002. due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor.300 6.000 7. 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.S.300 1. GWP from Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (SAR) and Third Assessment Report (TAR). official emission estimates are reported by the United States using SAR GWP values.900 6.800 140 2.400 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.Table 12.7 – Global Warming Potentials (GWP) (100-year time horizon) Gas GWP SAR 1 21 310 11.300 3. 211 .700 650 2. Table ES-1. estimates of emissions presented in this report use the GWPs from the Second Assessment Report. Notes: The GWP of a greenhouse gas is the ratio of global warming.800 1.200 7. Therefore. Inventory of U. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included. to comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC. EPA 430-R-05-003 (Final Version: April 2005). 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.

187 6. Btu per pound Solid wood waste.411 Biomass Materials 2 Switchgrass Btu per pound Bagasse.. Btu per pound 7.000-8.341 6. 212 .799 1.Table 12. February 2006).287 5. Btu per pound Rice Hulls. 2. D.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.C. Btu per pound Poultry Litter.027 20.065 6. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. Animal Waste Screening Study. June 2001. Electrotek Concepts Inc.. VA.575 6. EIA.000 Sources: 1. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington. Arlington. Table G1.

096 2000 10. Beginning in 2001.448 21.107 10..439 21. August 2005).908 21.119 10.439 21. 4 Used as the thermal-conversion factor for geothermal electricity net generation. used as the thermal conversion factor for hydro.017 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.Table 12. heat rates are for all fossil-fueled plants at electric utilities and independent power producers. used as the thermal conversion factor for wood and waste electricity net generation at electric utilities. 3 Used as the thermal-conversion factor for nuclear electricity net generation. solar.429 21. DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington.201 10.017 2004 10. 2 Through 2000.017 2001 10.639 Source: EIA. and wind electricity net generation. 2 1990 10. heat rates are for fossil-fueled steam-electric plants at electric utilities.C.107 10. D.146 10. Annual Energy Review 2004.388 10. 1 213 . Table A6 Notes: Through 2000.017 2002 10.402 10.017 2003 10. For all years.582 21.439 21.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).eia.284 2003 944 801 572 344 165 41 4 5 62 261 477 784 4. Heating degree-days are deviations below the mean daily temperature of 65° F.7 Notes: Based on calculations of data from 1971-2000 • This table excludes Alaska and Hawaii.Table 12. Asheville.224 Normal 917 732 593 345 159 39 9 15 77 282 539 817 4. see http://www. For example. Table 1. The population-weighted state figures are aggregated into Census divisions and the national average. Maryland.eia. which reports data from NOAA. Sources: • 19492003 and Normals—U.doe.doe.460 2001 935 725 669 302 115 29 8 6 71 267 400 696 4.460 2004 957 769 487 302 105 28 5 16 42 241 484 788 4.C. February 2004-January 2005 issues.. Camp Springs. Beginning in 2002.gov/emeu/aer/overview. Department of Commerce. Monthly Energy Review. 1 214 . Historical Climatology Series 5-1. • Temperature information recorded by weather stations is used to calculate statewide degree-day averages based on resident state population.html.S.016 2000 886 643 494 341 115 29 12 12 69 244 610 1. North Carolina. D.• For current data. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.gov/emeu/mer/overview. data are weighted by the estimated 2000 population. National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center.10. Web Pages: • For data not shown for 1951-1969. a weather station recording a mean daily temperature of 40° F would report 25 heating degree-days. August 2005).524 Source: EIA.707 1990 728 655 535 321 184 29 6 10 56 246 457 789 4. Table 1. National Climatic Data Center. Annual Energy Review 2004.10 – 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 4.005 4. • 2004—Energy Information Administration. see http://www.html.223 2002 778 670 624 282 185 23 3 8 38 299 561 813 4. • Degree-days are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature.

Sources: • 1949-2003 and Normals—U.gov/emeu/aer/overview.C. Asheville.393 2003 5 7 24 30 110 187 336 345 156 65 21 4 1. Monthly Energy Review.11.245 2002 8 6 17 53 92 242 369 331 202 57 11 5 1. • For current data.doe. Cooling degree-days are deviations above the mean daily temperature of 65° F.eia.html.gov/emeu/mer/overview. For example. • Degree-days are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature. National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center.. The population-weighted state figures are aggregated into Census divisions and the national average. Table 1. February 2004-January 2005 issues.260 Normal 1 9 8 18 30 97 213 321 290 155 53 15 8 1. see http://www. Annual Energy Review 2004. Table 1. Web Pages: • For data not shown for 1951-1969. Historical Climatology Series 5-2. • 2004—Energy Information Administration.281 2004 5 5 26 41 140 208 310 254 178 69 17 6 1. data are weighted by the estimated 2000 population. • Temperature information recorded by weather stations is used to calculate statewide degree-day averages based on resident state population. National Climatic Data Center. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.8 Notes: Based on calculations of data from 1971-2000 • This table excludes Alaska and Hawaii. a weather station recording a mean daily temperature of 78° F would report 13 cooling degree-days. 1 215 . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Maryland.Table 12.215 Source: EIA.doe.229 2001 3 12 11 37 114 220 302 333 138 46 18 11 1. Camp Springs. Department of Commerce.S. which reports data from NOAA.eia. North Carolina.260 2000 10 10 25 28 131 221 284 302 156 50 8 4 1.html.313 1990 15 14 21 29 86 234 316 291 172 57 16 9 1. August 2005). see http://www.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. Beginning in 2002. D.

One set of maps (Figures 13. or turned into a liquid fuel that can be combusted (see the Biomass section of Chapter 2 for more detail on biomass technologies). 13. A number in the state shows generating capacity in MW. data analysis.3.1). The Eastern states have much higher-quality resources. and yard waste through combustion.1 – Geographic Information System (GIS) Maps A Geographical Information System (GIS) is a computer-based system used to manipulate. areas with excellent renewable energy resources have little demand for electricity – while many major load centers are far from areas with good renewable resources. Alaska has limited biomass resources. and many major load centers in Eastern states are near areas with excellent biomass resources.4.6. Biomass Biomass power utilizes biomass such as wood. and presentation of results in graphic or report forms.2. Higher-resolution resource maps are available online (see Online Resources later in this chapter. data management. while Hawaii has excellent biomass resources on some of the islands. Natural Resource The majority of biomass resources exist east of the Continental Divide (Figure 13. data manipulation.13. and 13.5. The GIS system is composed of hardware. All information in GIS is linked to a spatial reference used to store and access data. 13. The biomass fuel is either directly combusted in a boiler. 13. The other set of maps (Figures 13. The major load centers represent the areas in the United States where the vast majority of electricity demand exists (large metropolitan areas). 13. Because the western part of the United States has sparse vegetation. A GIS system allows the user to perform several tasks. Biomass resources are derived from the vegetation. and analyze multidisciplinary geographic and related attribute data. and analyzed with other layers of information. manage. or gasified and then combusted. The GIS allows identification of relationships between features. within a common layer or across layers – and data can be queried or manipulated based on the tabular and/or the spatial characteristics. The transmission grid and the major load centers are overlaid on the resource maps. in many cases. software. the biomass resource in the Western states is generally poor. The maps featured here are simplified to make them easier to read. and 13.8) shows the installed generating capacity from 1996 through 2005 by state. and a bar chart in the state shows the generating capacity over time.7) illustrates the natural renewable resource for the United States by quality of the resource. and expertise.1. including data capture. One of the challenges facing renewable energy is that. agricultural waste. GIS data layers can be recombined or manipulated. data. .

California (799 MW). The largest states. and Maine (788 MW). while Hawaii has good – to very good – solar resources. The Northeast.3). New York (0. Nevada (0. California is by far the largest (2.4). as several of the major load centers are in – or close to – high-quality geothermal resources. A good supply of high-quality geothermal resources exists in sparsely populated areas in the West.Installed Capacity Biomass-generating capacity was nearly level during the past decade. generally has moderate-quality solar resources.5 MW). followed by Nevada (272 MW) and Utah (38MW). Natural Resource The southern parts of the United States. are Florida (1. by far (418 MW). Plants are currently operating in the Western United States (see the Geothermal section of Chapter 2 for more details on geothermal technologies). Solar resources generally decline in quality. and Pennsylvania (0. Total CSP-generating capacity is virtually unchanged over the past decade. Most of the major load areas in the Eastern states are not near any high-quality geothermal resources. with a slight decline in the past few years (Figure 13.3 MW). Natural Resource The majority of high-quality geothermal resources exist in the western part of the United States – and. have the greatest potential for solar energy (Figure 13. 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). followed by Arizona (10 MW). in particular. Geothermal Geothermal technologies for power generation utilize heat from underground sources to generate electricity. Alaska has moderate solar resources. moving east and north from the Southwest. California has the most CSP generating capacity.3 MW). Installed Capacity Geothermal generation is currently located in three Western states (Figure 13.051 MW). the Southwest (Figure 13. Alaska and Hawaii both have some areas with excellent geothermal resources. in terms of generating capacity. Installed Capacity This map features concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) generating capacity (Figure 13.2). The Western states are more promising.5).802 MW). This is determined largely by latitude and weather patterns. and especially the southwest. . as a whole.6).

while some Western load centers are located close to high-quality wind resources. and analysis tools – as well as downloadable high-resolution maps – please see the NREL GIS Web site at http://www. Installed Capacity Wind power is the most consistently growing renewable energy technology among those featured in this chapter (Figure 13.nrel.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). has less than half the capacity of the largest states. Many of the major load centers in the Eastern states are not located near good wind resources.7). GIS data. So far. Natural Resource The wind resources of the United States fall into two major categories: 1) onshore. Wind-generating capacity is growing rapidly in many states. and 2) offshore.995 MW). Iowa.8). the third-largest state (836 MW). with Texas close behind (1. Most of the best onshore wind resource is in the Midwestern states (Figure 13. California is the largest state.gov/gis . in terms of capacity (2. including dynamic maps. most of the wind resource assessments focused on onshore wind.150 MW). Online Resources For more GIS information.

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

Installed Biomass Generating Capacity .Figure 13.2.

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

Installed Geothermal Generating Capacity .4.Figure 13.

Figure 13. and Load Centers . Transmission.5. Direct Normal Solar Resources.

6.Figure 13. Installed CSP Generating Capacity .

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

Figure 13. Installed Wind Generating Capacity .8.

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful