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

....6 Production.................................175 E 8..............................181 Electricity Retail Sales....................S......5 Electric Generator Cumulative Additions and Retirements......... and Consumption by Census Division and State .....................159 Top 10 Independent Power Producers Worldwide (2001) .0 Prices 9................187 9................. Publicly Owned Generator and Nongenerator Electric Utilities ..............................162 5..........169 6...........................167 6............160 Utility Mergers and Acquisitions..............185 9...................................166 6.......6b Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U...............S.........13b Census Regions Map.........................158 Top 10 U.......................................................................................... and State .......................13a Fossil Fuel Generation by Age of Generating Units.....174 7.................0 Electricity Generation 7.................1 Electricity Net Generation ............3 9...................................................171 7..11 5...................................183 Revenue from Electric Utility Retail Sales by Sector...........S......................................2 9.....................7 Environmental Compliance Equipment Costs ............................................... Operation.10 5.................................2 Net Generation at Electric-Only Plants ..................177 8................3 Electricity Generation at Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants ............................................1 Electric Net Summer Capability ........................................................... Investor-Owned Utilities .........................179 9...................163 6..........2 Demand-Side Management.................S...........................................189 9. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities ................3 Electric Utility Sales....1 9....................................8 5.......7 5...........5 lectricity Trade................168 R 6.5..........................................2 Electric-Only Plant Net Summer Capability..............................170 7............ and Maintenance Expenses for Major U..190 iv ....165 6...188 9...................173 7......4 egional Noncoincident Peak Loads and Capacity Margin ............156 Operational Renewable Energy Generating Capacity ..................................155 Nuclear Generation by Age of Generating Units ......178 8.......9 5....6 5....................12 5...............184 Revenue from Sales to Ultimate Consumers by Sector.........................4 9.......3 Combined-Heat-and-Power Plant Net Summer Capability .....6a Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U...161 North American Electric Reliability Council Map for the United States ........................5 Price of Fuels Delivered to Electric Generators ...........................................................................................1 Electricity Sales ..............0 Electricity Capability 6........................................................................................ Revenue.......182 Prices of Electricity Sold .......4 Generation and Transmission/Distribution Losses .172 7.............6 Transmission and Distribution Circuit Miles......157 Number of Utilities by Class of Ownership and Nonutilities ............................................................. Investor-Owned and Publicly Owned Utilities .0 Electricity Demand 8. Census Division......................

...10 Heating Degree Days by Month ...215 13................... and Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors................... Nitrogen Oxide......... Sulfur Dioxide...............0 Economic Indicators 10................... Publicly Owned Generator and Investor-Owned Electric Utilities ....0 Conversion Factors 12.....191 10.........................199 12.....................................6c Uncontrolled Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors..............................................214 12....3 Coal Displacement Calculation.......................................................................11 Cooling Degree Days by Month ............213 12..................................................................................................197 11.......3 EPA-Forecasted Nitrogen Oxide............1 enewable Energy Impacts Calculation .............201 R 12........................................198 11..................6a Sulfur Dioxide........................ NOx................................211 12..........................................................................10.212 12......................................6b Nitrogen Oxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors...5 SO2.2 Economy-Wide Indicators ...... Electricity Generators .............................................217 v ....................................208 12................................S..............9 Approximate Heat Rates for Electricity.............3 Composite Statements of Income for Major U........210 12............................................................195 11............. and Mercury Emissions from Electric Generators ..............................203 12.........204 12...............206 12.................................. Electricity Generators ................... Electricity Generators .............1 Emissions from Electricity Generators ....................2 Installed Nameplate Capacity of Utility Steam-Electric Generators with Environmental Equipment ...........192 10.....................................2 Number of Home Electricity Needs Met Calculation..202 12..4 Origin of 2004 Allowable SO2 Emissions Levels...................................8 Approximate Heat Content of Selected Fuels for Electric Power Generation...........4 National SO2 and Heat Input Data .......7 Global Warming Potentials (GWP) ...................................................................1 Price Estimates for Energy Purchases.........205 12........................193 11.....0 Geographic Information System (GIS) Maps ................................ CO2 Emission Factors for Coal-Fired and Noncoal-Fired Title IV Affected Units ......................0 Environmental Indicators 11............

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

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

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

700 MWe in 2001. • Biomass gasification for large-scale (20-100MWe) power production is being commercialized.000 plants – is mainly comprised of direct-combustion plants. and clean. Gasification also is important as a potential platform for a biorefinery.Technology Applications • The existing biopower sector – nearly 1. Recent studies estimate that on a life-cycle basis. wood was the primary fuel for residential. about 3. DOE is developing systems for village-power applications and for developed-world distributed generation that are efficient. as well as for new baseload capacity. In addition. with an additional small amount of cofiring (six operating plants). • There are now nearly 1. Technology History 4 . • At that point. • The combination of low natural gas prices. led to annual installations declining from about 600 MW in 1989.000 wood-fired plants in the United States. while one-third of the biopower is from municipal solid waste and landfill gas.g. commercial. However. • Utility and industrial biopower generation totaled more than 60 billion kWh in 2001. • Small biopower and biodiesel systems have been used for many years in the developing world for electricity generation. these systems have not always been reliable and clean. 23% GHG emissions reduction with 15% cofiring). Prices generally range from 8¢/kWh to 12¢/kWh. and withdrawal of incentives in the late 1980s. • 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. Cofiring also reduces sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. 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).1 quadrillion Btu of primary biomass energy. Current Status • CHP applications using a waste fuel are generally the most cost-effective biopower option. Growth is limited by availability of waste fuel and heat demand. with about two-thirds of those providing power (and heat) for on-site uses only. other fuels had supplanted wood. improved economies of scale in combined cycle palns. when cofiring crop and forest-product residues. 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. GHG emissions are reduced by a greater percentage (e. 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. and transportation uses. representing about 75% of nonhydroelectric renewable generation. About two-thirds of this energy is derived from wood and wood wastes. Grid-connected electrical capacity has increased from less than 200 MWe in 1978 to more than 9. In 1973. existing biopower plants represent an annual net carbon sink of 4 MMTCe. In addition. reliable. and the biomass-to-electricity conversion efficiency is about 20%.300 MWe of municipal solid waste and landfill gas generating capacity exists. Wood-fired systems account for close to 95% of this capacity. Plant size averages 20 MWe. • 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. wood use had dropped to 50 million tons per year. Industry consumes more than 2. • Biomass cofiring with coal ($50 . These systems range in size from 3kW to 5MW and completed field verification by 2003. • In the latter part of the 19th century. By the 1950s.

1 5. 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. DOE/PI-0002. 5 . September 2005). • 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.5 7. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. as this technology has reached a mature status.7 6. Systems are expected to include biomass cofiring up to 5% of natural gas combined-cycle capacity. However. November 2003 (draft update. EPRI TR-109496. Future technology development will benefit from finding ways to better prepare. Improved methods for combining coal and biomass fuels will maximize efficiency and minimize emissions. 1997. Cofiring – The DOE biopower program is moving away from research on cofiring. inject. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term.S. U. especially to demonstrate integrated operation of biomass gasifier with advanced-power generation (turbines and/or fuel cells). Integration of gasification into a biorefinery platform is a key new research area.8 Gasification 6.0 5. continued industry research and field verifications are needed to address specific technical and nontechnical barriers to cofiring.4 Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. Climate Change Technology Program.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.

382 1.046 5. Number derived from subtracting U.750 10.789 1.528 1.389 N/A 78 Wood and Other Biomass U.511 5.660 6. and world data from United Nations Development Program.924 10.883 6.585 NA 2 151 200 351 2.817 5.11c.410 2003 2.S.993 1.495 29.600 1. total from the world total. sludge waste.803 5.882 9. EIA.808 10.590 6. D. Cogenerators 3 1 Municipal Solid Waste 659 2 786 5.405 3.S.733 1.852 964 1995 2. 1980 U.269 3.061 3.708 Wood and Other Biomass 78 78 World Total 1 Municipal solid waste.S.389 2004 2.674 3.802 10.452 1998 2. Annual Energy Review 2004. Figures may not add due to rounding. and other biomass.636 1.S.454 3. 2 3 4 Wood.515 3.058 5. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. 6 .842 1..399 961 4.519 6.694 6. black liquor.502 Wood and Other Biomass U. Table 7. by Type (MW) Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA).482 961 4.394 842 4.C.795 10.438 1999 2. Tables 8. Data include electric power sector and end-use sector (industrial and commercial) generators. agricultural byproducts. and other wood waste.311 1.871 9.484 2000 2.062 5. landfill gas.000 3.486 2001 2. Electric Power Sector Municipal Solid Waste 1 2 1985 151 200 1990 1.845 5. August 2005).827 5.25.709 3.891 9.11a and 8.024 3.856 1.598 6.549 8.451 1996 2.472 1.505 40.Biomass Market Data Cumulative Generating Capability. 2000.949 1.655 834 4.364 1. World Energy Assessment.614 1. Total Municipal Solid Waste Biomass Total Rest of World Total 4 1 4.487 2002 2.689 3.141 10.298 998 5.094 4. tires.425 1997 2.844 9.

5 182.935 5.5 94.970 7.6 92.3 1998 0 87.5 1996 0 74.0 0 53.003 1995 351 526 2. wood or wood waste) There are an additional 65.7 1990 0 51. hydrogen.445 MW of Bio Gas.6 0. Version 7.358 1998 373 781 2.3 177. 2003.970 7. 2003.8 69.S.576 3.343 11.212 11. landfill gas. 2 3 4 5 6 Agricultural residues.1 58. bagasse.0 13.0 142. tree pitch.6 117. NREL. scrap tires.869 2003 1 373 1. pulping liquor. peat.8 0 91. wastewater sludge.970 7.0 2003 1 0 23.203 1997 373 694 2. and 483. refused-derived fuel Timber and logging residues (includes tree bark.2 254.3 299.1 2002 0 30.722 2001 373 999 2.8 2001 0 66.5 66.8 0 11. wood gas (from wood gasifier) Municipal solid waste (includes industrial and medical). NREL.948 7. and methanol).U. due to different coverage ratios in EIA and REPIS databases. wood chips. 1980 40 18 263 3.497 11. ethanol.3 260. livestock manure.172 6. cannery wastes.305 9.303 11. by Type (MW) Agricultural Waste Biogas 3 4 2 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).053 3.4 1997 21.6 166.45 MW of Ag Waste.3 78.3 0 90.1 30. saw dust.0 1985 20.2 0 38.8 0 0 43.000 7. hazardous waste.0 17.0 260.8 450.922 Municipal Solid Waste Wood Residues Total 5 Note: The data in this table does not match data in the previous table. Version 7.497 11.948 7.840 1990 165 361 2.948 7.7 0 40.037 1996 351 601 2. nut shells Biogas.6 1999 0 107. by Type (MW) Agricultural Waste Biogas 3 4 2 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS). 5.897 1985 92 117 697 4.434 11.0 1995 4. Annual Installed Generating Capability.447 11.31 MW of Wood Residues that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date.1 Municipal Solid Waste Wood Residues Total 5 U. 7 . alcohol (includes butahol.678 2000 373 933 2. Cumulative Generating 6 Capability.1 50. 1 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.S.6 22.948 7. 1980 22. fruit pits.970 7.800 2002 373 1.030 2.4 333.6 2000 0 43. nut hulls.447 11.0 154.458 11.4 611.535 1999 373 889 2.

498 31.468 16.214 22.857 38.327 16.747 37.405 36. 2 3 4 Wood.25. 8 .8 1.8 1999 415. Annual Energy Review 2004.S.712 21.939 4.1 2003 493. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 158 275 640 743 10.0 32.041 59.448 36.254 17.5 1997 408. Tables 8.911 36.572 37.543 28.S. Tables 8. agricultural byproducts.475 Municipal Solid Waste 2.834 30. and other biomass).359 7.3 1998 412.2c.265 18.765 35.4 32.665 61.726 21.4 653. black liquor.8 825. Annual Energy Review 2003.3 380.889 29.6 1996 397.6 832.0 22.312 30. and other wood waste) and waste (municipal solid waste.200 56.0 806. Data include electric power sector and end-use sector (industrial and commercial) generators.4 22.245 5.149 32.9 16.000 1 Municipal solid waste. 2000.5 378.6 2002 494.7 902.7 823.4b and 8.964 22.787 5.402 17. Source: EIA.786 101.2a and 8.079 30.522 23.4 4.0 822. landfill gas.092.6 379.0 1995 388.112 7.0 2000 420.295 60.S.644 17.221 6.1 28.948 58. agricultural byproducts.400 5. landfill gas.5 1.938 29.7 362.6 378.7 26.415 20.1 836. tires.5 33.694 5.266 45.963 6.658 22. sludge waste.800 57.301 17. Total Municipal Solid Waste Biomass Total Rest of World Total 4 1 158 2 640 743 1.595 60.460 29. Figures may not add due to rounding.885 16.636 4. by Type (Million kWh) U.5 1985 14.3 795.383 13. Electric Power Sector 1 Municipal Solid Waste Wood and Other Biomass U.592 7. 1 Data includes combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and electricity-only plants.5 Data include wood (wood. and other wood waste.5 373. and other biomass.926 20.5 14.629 5.4 1990 285.904 26. tires. World Energy Assessment.485 29.078 6.9 2001 430.1 407.4 2004 492.S. and world data from United Nations Development Program.493 16.521 56.540 30.Generation from Cumulative Capacity.3 34.809 7.4c U. sludge waste.480 5.2 567.338 58.265 22.820 Wood and Other Biomass U. Table 7.5 481.S.709 36.3 385. black liquor.131 37.294 4.529 61.571 17.141 7. Number derived from subtracting U.004.1 30.7 351.736 37.042 Wood and Other Biomass 275 433 World Total 160.3 32.613 23.397 6. Annual Energy Consumption for Electricity Generation (Trillion Btu) Electric-Power Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector Total Biomass 1 1 1980 4.307 5. Cogenerators 3 1 2 2 Source: EIA.326 5. total from the world total.735 4.

002 -0.0 85.0 13.50 2.1 9.073 0.745 1.0 80.4 43.000 11.4 10.007 0.892 1.346 1.73 -0.620 11.036 0.231 1.7 43.0 27.061 0.730 2015 80.0 54.002 -0.0 60.0 33.007 0.5 37.810 11.0 27.0 60. the base year of the Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations analysis.102 1. and assume $9.009 -0.004 Total Operating Costs ($/kWh) Direct-fired 0.50 2.14/dry tonne biomass and $39.50 2.0 85.09/tonne coal.007 0.7 32.650 1.6 9.4 1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1980 1990 1995 Variable Operating Costs ($/kWh) Direct-fired 0. 1997.0 15.5 41.0 80.036 0.280 11.73 -0.058 3 Cofired N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Gasification 0. a heat input from biomass at 19.50 2.008 -0.087 0.002 -0. EPRI TR-109496.73 Gasification 2.054 1 Data is for 1997.067 0.066 8.4 43. Cost Total Capital Cost ($/kW) 9 .965 1.033 Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh) Direct-fired 0.075 0.50 3 Cofired -0.015 10.0 32.006 0.5 10.0 23.104 kJ/kg.0 13.3 Gasification 68.000 11.004 0.0 85.5 37.002 Gasification 0.066 9.730 2010 80.000 1 1 Efficiency (%) Net Heat Rate (kJ/kWh) 2000 80. 1980 Direct-fired Cofired Gasification Direct-fired Cofired Gasification Direct-fired Cofired Gasification 1980 1990 1990 1995 80.0 30.004 0.0 80.066 10.008 -0.004 0.8 32.670 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1995 Direct-fired 1.055 0.0 80.50 2.5 49.7 32.066 9.8 9.0 85.0 13.464 1. 2 Number derived by interpolation.7 36.200 2 2020 80.036 0.50 2.50 2.Technology Performance Efficiency Capacity Factor (%) Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.73 -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).115 3 Cofired 272 256 241 230 224 217 Gasification 2.009 -0.50 Fixed Operating Cost ($/kW-yr) Direct-fired 73.5 39.039 3 Cofired -0.000 11.002 -0.0 80.510 1.002 -0.034 0.043 0.0 85.008 -0.000 2005 80.0 85.50 2.004 0.0 3 Cofired 10.73 -0.9 32.0 27.3 11.4 43.009 0.006 3 Cofired -0.5 9.040 0.066 9.258 Feed Cost ($/GJ) Direct-fired 2.009 Gasification 0.047 0.4 43.070 0.047 0.047 0.7 32.0 60.50 2.0 80. and that variable O&M includes an SO2 credit valued at $110/tonne SO2.73 -0. No cofiring COE is reported in the RETC.004 0.50 2.361 1.5 36.

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

but fell into disuse. • With approval of the federal production tax credit and with support from state-level renewable portfolio standards. such as enhanced geothermal systems.7 Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. Today. confirmed resources.9 2. the U. The plant was 250 kW. the system was serving 200 homes and 40 downtown businesses. • In 1892. Although no one imitated this system for nearly 70 years. 1997. advancing this renewable energy.0 2. • The United States’ first geothermal power plant went into operation in 1922 at The Geysers in California. high front-end costs. and lag time between investment and return. with major projects in Indonesia and the Philippines. with a supporting loan from DOE. EPRI TR-109496. The first turbine produces 11 megawatts (MW) of net power and operated successfully for more than 30 years.S. The resource at The Geysers is dry steam. 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. U. This project established the technical feasibility of larger-scale commercial binary power plants. Pacific Gas and Electric operated the plant. • Improvements in cost and accuracy of resource exploration and characterization can lower the electricity cost. demonstration of new resource concepts. increasing the operating capacity by 70 MW.S. geothermal power is poised to double in capacity within the next couple of years. lack of new. the country's first large-scale geothermal electricity-generating plant began operation. generating 10 MW at Brawley. • In 1979. use of hydrothermal when economics become favorable. Idaho.1 Hydrothermal Binary 3. • In the 1990s. 11 . UNOCAL built the country's first flash plant. • By the mid-1980s. the Boise district heating system continues to flourish. would allow a large expansion of the U.Technology History • The use of geothermal energy as a source of hot water for spas dates back thousands of years. • In 1981.6 2. electricity was being generated by geothermal power in four western states: California.S. the world's first district heating system was built in Boise. • In 1997. Utah. located at The Geysers. as water was piped from hot springs to town buildings. the first electrical development of a water-dominated geothermal resource occurred at the East Mesa field in the Imperial Valley in California. Hawaii. • In 2000. • In 1980. successfully demonstrated binary technology in the Imperial Valley of California. • Costs at the best sites are competitive at today’s energy prices – and investment is limited by uncertainty in prices. there are now 17 district heating systems in the United States and dozens more around the world. The project was so successful that Ormat repaid the loan within a year. • The DOE Geothermal Program sponsored research that won two R&D awards in 2003. • In 1960.4 2. DOE initiated its GeoPowering the West program to encourage development of geothermal resources in the western United States by reducing nontechnical barriers. California. Within a few years. and Nevada. a pipeline began delivering treated municipal wastewater and lake water to The Geysers steamfield in California. Ormat International Inc.

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

DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. “Geothermal Energy: European and World-wide Perspective.. electricity data from EIA.000 17.797 2.239 2.181 7.379 15.184 4.057 5. 1997 world electricity and U.893 5.346 8.133 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: International Geothermal Association.664 1.072 8. Rest of World World Total Cumulative Installed Capacity Electricity (MW e) U. Annual Energy Review 2004.S.846 2. Rest of World World Total 1. 1998 world totals from UNDP World Energy Assessment 2000.S. http://iga. Tables 7.968 3.746 7.20 and 7.php 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 13 .216 2.” 1980 Electricity (MW e) U.905 7.799 9.252 2.833 2.580 3.it/index.893 5.25.402 1.145 4.730 8.893 2.874 6.S.016 6.817 4.764 2.S.igg.604 3.166 5. D. Table 8.974 2.064 8.228 5.666 3. Table 1.974 2.cnr.832 2. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat (MW th) U.C.11a.382 8.133 2.175 909 1. August 2005). world totals from Renewable Energy World/July-August 2000. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat (MW th) U.793 5.950 7.766 11.350 2.832 2.100 1.020 6. page 123.S.775 3.021 2.191 2.829 6.S.Geothermal Market Data Cumulative Installed Capacity Source: U.128 8.704 11. and world direct-use heat data from Stefansson and Fridleifsson 1998.

J.htm. Installed Capacity and Power Source: Lund and Freeston. Version 7.Annual Installed Electric Capacity (MW e) U.833 2.832 1.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 59. Cumulative Installed Capacity 1980 Electricity (MW e) U.887 4.284 2.950 7.S. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat* (MW th) U.S.314 2.9 1990 48.664 16.geothermie. May 28-June10.369 4. 2003. 1980 802 1985 1.6 1995 1996 36.779 2003* 2. World-Wide Direct Uses of Geothermal Energy 2000. Rest of World World Total 2.464 6.072 8.698 1990 2.0 1985 352. Lund and Boyd. Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2000 http://geothermal. 2003.200 12.htm.779 2001 2. Kyushu-Tohoku.720 1998 2. Sifford and Blommquist. Geothermal Electric from Installed Capacity Power Production in the United States: A Survey and Update for 1995-1999.540 1995 2.764 5.228 5.746 7.343 2. Lund.S.720 2000 2.779 * 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.175 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 3. Geothermal DirectGeneration/Energy Production Use in the United States Update: 1995-1999.stanford. 2000. Version 7. 1980 251.720 1997 2. Cumulative Installed Electric Capacity (MW e) U.064 8. NREL. NREL.209 14 .975 17. Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).9 2001 2002 2003* Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS). Japan.293 2. The Status of World Geothermal Power Generation 1995-2000.edu/wgc2000/SessionList.779 2002 2. and G.S.974 4.de/europaundweltweit/Lund/wsoge_index.720 1999 2. Huttrer.684 1996 2. World Status of Geothermal Energy Use Overview 1995-1999 http://www.

6 20 3. Table 8.439 World Total 86.214 TJ) in 1999 of the world totals and 3600 MW th (8.707 163.0 43.8 49.4 14.S.551 141.S.” 1998 world totals from UNDP World Energy Assessment 2000.3 53.3 14.6 19 13.3 7.S.1 8.8 31.2 13. 1995. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Electricity (Billion kWhe) U.139 * Direct-use heat includes geothermal heat pumps as well as traditional uses.25.4 15 . and 2003 direct-use heat and 1999 electricity world total from International Geothermal Association.1 35. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat (billion kWhth) U.0 5. and world direct-use heat data from Stefansson and Fridleifsson 1998.S.700 U. “Geothermal Energy: European and World-wide Perspective.6 6.617 TJ) in 1995 and 6849 MW th (23.C. D.2 46 14. Annual Energy Review 2004. electricity data from EIA.S. Rest of World World Total 27.3 5.cnr. Table 2.it/index.009 185.0 14.Annual Generation/Energy Production from Cumulative Installed Capacity 1980 Electricity (Billion kWhe) U.800 TJ) in 2000 of the U.igg.0 15.249 112.4 31.S. Rest of World 98.5 33. http://iga.5 14.7 15..8 49 14. page 126.3 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 13.4 15.302 21. Annual Generation from Source: U.2 49. 2000.2 31. Cumulative Installed Capacity August 2005).7 17 15. Geothermal heat pumps account for 1854 MW th (14.2778 GWh.4 3.890 20. Conversion of GWh to TJ is done at 1TJ = 0. Rest of World World Total Direct-Use Heat* (TJ) 14.9 14.8 4. total. 1997 world electricity and U.9 14 9.441 162.7 14.1 40 47.php.2a.6 14.1 14. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.7 29.S.4 6. world electricity totals from Renewable Energy World/July-August 2000.1 35. Table 7.

970 153.697 7. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.302 18.510 7.697 28.735 191.145 355 18. 2 No survey was conducted for 2001. and REA 1998 Table 40.385 37.800 25. REA 2000 Table 38.947 9.999 10.132 7.562 16 .631 26.219 N/A 26.469 124.445 10. June 2006). Renewable Energy Annual 2004. June 2006).335 26. REA 2001 Table 40.091 112.S.272 N/A 552 1.S.438 2004 23. Table 61. by type (units) ARI-320 ARI-325/330 Other non-ARI Rated Totals * No survey was conducted for 2001.446 1999 27..S.980 1 One Rated Ton of Capacity equals 12.336 829 3.327 1.679 35.. DOE/EIA-0603(2004) (Washington.821 43.444 29.C.806 Source: EIA.306 26.191 2001* N/A N/A N/A N/A 2002 16.554 N/A 3.317 20.181 14. D.042 31.000 Btu's.186 6.120 ARI-325/330 113.434 38.784 13.556 1998 35. DOE/EIA-0603(2003) (Washington.297 2003 29.762 25. Annual U.377 9.935 1995 Totals 130.491 N/A 10.819 5. REA 2003 Table 40. REA 1999 Table 38. Capacity of U.092 21.652 2000 26. Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments by Customer Type and Model Type (units) Exporter Wholesale Distributor Retail Distributor Installer Source: EIA.662 141.266 41. D. D. June 2006). REA 2002 Table 40. D.912 6.172 784 N/A 1.139 36.708 110. Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments.731 5.130 31.167 23.4a.238 89.C.222 2. 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. Renewable Energy Annual 2004. Table 8.758 141. Heat Pump Shipments (Rated Tons) Source: EIA.756 96.334 31.910 7. DOE/EIA-0603(2004) (Washington.925 Other non-ARI Rated 3. Rest of World World Total Annual U.764 100.301 ARI-320 13.802 25.469 130.429 24. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 2003 4.439 2004 9.000 125.Annual Geothermal Energy Consumption for Electric Generation (Trillion Btu) U. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.917 20.714 2.541 12.855 2..772 10.C.808 N/A 6. Table 59.590 164. Table 58.060 92.276 226 109 6.776 98.804 N/A 20.193 9.647 8.138 1.211 838 991 1. August 2005). 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 2003 2004 2.165 945 1.555 2. Annual Energy Review 2004.C..892 922 1995 32.220 144.S.970 1997 24. 1996 15.888 16.581 N/A 37.696 4.

139 36.756 74.417 9.302 26.220 N/A 3.922 38.25 55.519 96. 1997. REA 2002 Table 39.788 16.S.581 N/A N/A N/A 207 3.4 163 17 .95 171 2020 96 96 85 2020 1.403 6.749 N/A 12. D. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.372 1.162 63 2.025 3.044 4. REA 1999 Table 37. REA 2001 Table 39.994 5.276 58.323 3.112 10.947 2.764 2. 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 1.1 78. June 2006). REA 2003 Table 39.2 52.806 Source: EIA.439 397 4.439 43.403 N/A 13.266 66 6.259 49.903 5. and REA 1998 Table 39.581 N/A 37.444 2.195 20.753 43.042 14.139 1.312 66.924 8.3 59.100 1.922 994 1.194 1.4 87.427 481 6.754 4.837 6.280 5.5 179 2015 96 96 84 2015 1.5 207 2005 93 93 82 2005 1.167 35.End User Others Total Annual U.250 1.266 49.438 51. DOE/EIA-0603(2003) (Washington.166 3.295 36.135 38.103 6.875 4.271 2.402 12.C. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 2003 2004 4.112 5.794 62.982 12.806 Technology Performance Source: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.637 3.935 17. Table 60.176 87.090 2.650 6.660 12.060 25.4 219 2000 92 92 81 2000 1.543 14..162 35.696 3.984 11.520 57.727 57.874 13.138 N/A 3.8 66.674 3.520 657 1.071 N/A 3. Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments by Export & Census Region (units) Export Midwest Northeast South West Total 689 13 51.328 37.768 2.8 191 2010 95 95 83 2010 1.240 13.147 1. REA 2000 Table 37.303 1. EPRI TR-109496.

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

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

Cummins canceled their solar development in 1996. and Nevada. Cummins Engine Company attempted to commercialize dish/Stirling systems based on free-piston Stirling engine technology. California. and WG Associates with Sunfire Corporation. (SAIC) teamed with STM Corp. • A near-term to midterm opportunity exists to build production capacity in the United States for both domestic use and international exports. Technology Future The levelized cost of electricity (in constant 2003$/kWh) for three CSP configurations are projected at: 2003 2007 2012 2025 Trough 11. • A 64-MW parabolic trough plant is under construction near Boulder City. Nevada. September 2005). NREL Report No. 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. Boeing with Stirling Energy Systems. and a 25 kWe dish/engine system for utility applications. Efforts included a 5 to 10 kWe dish/Stirling system for remote power applications. largely because of a corporate decision to focus on its core diesel-engine business. Significant domestic and international interest will likely result in additional projects. with a third off-grid system being developed in 2002 on an Indian reservation for water-pumping applications. MP-520­ 33875. Systems. • At Congress’ request.4 5.000MW of CSP in the Southwest United States.0 N/A 6 Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan. all of it in Southern California's Mojave Desert. DOE scoped out what would be required to deploy 1. • Power purchase agreements have been signed for 800 MW of new dish/engine capacity in California. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. DOE/GO-102004-1775. and silver/glass mirror dishes. achieved solar-to­ electric conversion efficiencies of around 30%. • In the early 1990s. and university sites in Arizona. Technical difficulties with Cummins' free-piston Stirling engines were never resolved. The World Bank considers CSP to be a primary candidate for Global Environment Facility funding. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. • The World Bank’s Solar Initiative is pursuing CSP technologies for less-developed countries. The plants are anticipated to come on-line within the next several years. Market Context • There is currently 350 MW of CSP generation in the United States.. Eight prototype systems were deployed and operated on a daily basis from 1986 through 1988.S. SAIC and Boeing together have five 25kW systems under test and evaluation at utility.0 20. industry teams – Science Applications International Corp. This technology used directly illuminated. • Current dish/engine efforts are being continued by three U.• Development of modern technology began in the late 1970s and early 1980s.3 6. • Parabolic troughs have been commercialized and nine plants (354 MW total) have operated in California since the 1980s.7 4. DOE/PI-0002. a kinematic Stirling engine developed for automotive applications. Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific Power will purchase the power to comply with the solar portion of Nevada’s renewable portfolio standard. 20 . • According to a recent study commissioned by the Department of Energy. WGA has two 10kW systems under test in New Mexico. However.0 5. U. industry. November 2003 (draft update.S. tubular solar receivers. CSP technologies can achieve significantly lower costs (below 6¢/kWh) at modest production volumes. nominally rated at 25 kWe.4 N/A Power Tower 12. Climate Change Technology Program.0 N/A Dish/Engine 40.

114 3.58 U.125 Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity (Billion kWh) Source: EIA.S.663 Imports Exports 1 2003 11. NREL.930 2.616 8.502 3. Renewable Resources in the Electric Supply.352 2. Table A16.756 8.583 8.409 7. Solar Thermal Shipments (Thousand Square Feet) 1980 198 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5 1 Total 19.206 2.354 11. Source: EIA . Power Tower Trough Dish/Engine Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).82 0.02 billion kilowatthours grid-connected photovoltaic generation.57 2004 0. 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.S. = Preliminary 21 .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. 1* 0. 2003.986 2004 P 14. EPRI TR-109496. Version 7.723 235 NA 1.398 NA 11. and Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.189 11.89 0.068 1.3 and Renewable Energy Annual 2004 Table 30. Table 4. 1993.562 2.125 2002 354 0 354 0.87 0.49 0. Table 10.666 7.Concentrating Solar Power Market Data U. Installations (electric only) Cumulative (MW) U.125 2001 354 0 354 0.201 3.138 7.102 2.125 2000 354 0 354 0.54 * Includes both solar thermal and less than 0. 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 0.S.90 0. Annual Energy Outlook 1998-2006.54 0. Annual U.125 1999 364 10 354 0.Annual Energy Review 2004. P No data are available for 1985.89 0.S.037 1.444 2.

DOE/GO-102004-1775. NREL Report No.04 .007 NA NA .01 NA NA .40 2005 4100 3556 NA .10 NA 2007 3500 3422 NA .11 .01 NA .06 .Technology Performance Efficiency Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan.01 . (%) 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 .04 NA NA 2025 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA .20 2012 NA 2920 NA NA .01 .06 .06 . 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. MP-520-33875.05 NA 2018 2500 NA NA .01 NA .12 .02 NA .06 22 .

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

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

total installed PV is more than 2 GW. however. remote water pumping).04-0. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. renewed interest in making PV technology more affordable.06 Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan. But.S. and hydrogen production for portable fuel. • Hundreds of applications are cost-effective for off-grid needs. Vanguard space satellite carried a small array of PV cells to power its radio. with systems valued at more than $7 billion.g. industry. grid-connected PV.200 MW of PV were sold in 2004. and 60% in 2004. and research organizations have invested billions of dollars in research. and production.S. approximately 1. increasing energy costs.22 0. Since then. November 2003 (draft update. in the mid-1970s. it was the new space program that gave the technology its first major application. The cells worked so well that PV technology has been part of the space program ever since. this technology transfer process often works in reverse. scientists at Bell Laboratories depended on the Czochralski process to develop the first crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. electric car-charging stations. the fastest-growing segment of the market is battery-free. especially for billions of people worldwide who do not have electricity. A thriving industry now exists to meet the rapidly growing demand for photovoltaic products. September 2005). Transistors and PV cells are made from similar materials and operate on similar physical mechanisms.S. However. supplying nearly all power for satellites. In 1958. • U. the U. Although a few attempts were made in the 1950s to use silicon cells in commercial products.. • Even today. peak-shaving. The U.• Major steps toward commercializing PV were taken in the 1940s and early 1950s. when the Czochralski process was developed for producing highly pure crystalline silicon. (Today. DOE/PI-0002. world market share fell to about 12% in 2004. Technology Future The levelized cost of electricity (in constant 2003$/kWh) for PV are projected to be: 2007 2020 2025 2003 Utility-owned Residential 0. especially for peak daytime loads that match PV output. the federal government. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. as advances in PV research and development are sometimes adopted by the integrated circuit industry. Market Context • Electricity for remote locations. 33% in 2003. Worldwide sales grew 36% in 2001. such as airconditioning. markets include retail electricity for residential and commercial buildings. • Future electricity and hydrogen storage for dispatchable electricity.20 NA 0. As a result. The commercial integrated circuit technology also contributed to the development of PV cells. In 1954. such as roof-mounted arrays on homes and commercial buildings in the United States. 44% in 2002.) • Despite these advances. which had an efficiency of 4%. • Worldwide. advances in transistor research provided a steady flow of new information about PV cell technology. sparked by a world oil crisis.10 NA (crystalline Si) Concentrator 0. 25 . and other daytime uses (e. PV devices in 1970 were still too expensive for most “down-to-Earth” uses.40 0. NREL Report No. distributed utility systems for grid support.25-0. development. PV plays an important role in space. California is subsidizing PV systems to reduce their dependence on natural gas. DOE/GO-102004-1775.40 0. U. MP-520­ 33875. market growth for PV has averaged more than 20%/year for the past decade as a result of reduced prices and successful global marketing. Climate Change Technology Program. • Worldwide.S.8-0.

16.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. 1996.S.S.3 246 26 . 2. No. Feb. 20.S.395 2002 22% 30% 2003 823 1. www.139 2003 14% 26% Annual Capacity (Shipments retained.5 110 1998 13. MW)* U. No. % of World Sales Annual Cumulative Source: PV News.156 1999 30% 37% 2000 499 499 320 127 1. 2.4 3 1985 4. 4.444 2000 26% 35% 2001 599 670 407 160 1. No. Vol. 15.Photovoltaics Market Data PV Cell/Module Production (Shipments) Annual (MW) U.2 79 1997 10.6 131 1999 18. 22. 2.4 170 2000 21.285 735 298 3. Feb. Vol.4 68 1996 9.S. No. 2001. Total World *Excludes indoor consumer (watches/calculators).2 15 1990 5. Paul Maycock. No. May 2003. Vol.835 2001 26% 33% 2002 720 921 542 214 2. Source: Strategies Unlimited 1980 1.pvenergy. 5. April 2004.1 39 1995 8. Feb. 1997. Japan Europe Rest of World World Total Cumulative (MW) U. Vol. and Volume 23. Japan Europe Rest of World World Total U.

0 73.1 35.0 447. No.8 2003 809.1 0.8 60.3 28.8 8.5 2. 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 1.2 54. Vol.7 31. DOE/EIA-0603(2003) (Washington.3 102. and original equipment manufacturers.210 *Excludes indoor consumer (watches/calculators).0 13.3 104 1.5 19.5 46.4 66.3 14.4 * Domestic Totals include imports and exclude exports.2 18 160.1 109.9 22.7 33.0 25.1 92.6 103.0 200.5 24.9 Domestic Total Off-Grid* 26.3 120. Renewable Energy Annual 2003.8 16.5 1995 193.2 38.0 100.8 31. 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 5.3 9.3 1.4 43.2 97.8 0.0 24.9 22.6 76.S. excludes water pumping.9 1.7 1.7 7.7 102. Shipments (MW) Total Imports Exports Source: Renewable Energy World.C.8 10.8 35. 5.8 38.3 37.4 50. D.S.5 23.2 1.5 611.3 4.6 2002 700.7 113. Shipments (MW) Annual Shipments Total Imports Exports Domestic Total On-Grid* Domestic Total Off-Grid* Cumulative Shipments (since 1982) Total Imports Exports Source: EIA.5 319.9 252.6.0 108.6 32.7 1985 35. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.7 47. U.4 3. health.8 1998 325.8 88. U.5 55.0 12.8 18.7 251.2 1996 228.8 75. 23.4 61. Annual Energy Review 2004.0 9.2 81.9 29.2 2001 588.0 2000 490.4 2004 991.7 112.S. Tables 10. communications.6 68.9 142.7 9.5 55.9 1.3 1997 275.1 26.1 1990 84.5 51.9 4.7 0.4 33.0 18. Electricity generation only. and EIA.Cumulative Capacity (Shipments retained.4 1.8 169.4 181.0 2.7 381.9 51.1 36.9 195. MW)* U.8 Domestic Total On-Grid* 2.7 19. consumer goods. D. December 2004) Table 26.9 4.7 60.6 230. transportation.7 5.8 55.5 and 10.5 127.2 16.3 1...0 27 .2 10.9 39.2 126.6 47. May 2004 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 34.2 10.8 13.2 6. Number 4.3 52.9 15.4 1999 402.0 5.7 10.3 126.0 4. July-August 2003.9 14.0 5.3 81.7 8.8 11.8 60.2 7. and PV News.8 508. Volume 6.8 6. September 2004).2 10.9 1.0 70.0 53.C.3 4.

0 2. Annual World Installations (MW) Consumer Products U.0 1.2 0 14. Central Station (>100kW) Total Source: Renewable Energy World.8 * Excludes installations less than 40kW.5 6. Number 4.8 167. Commercial Grid-Conn.1 28.0 40.8 3..7 5. Table 1.oja-services.5 0.2 100. Maycock and Ward Bower.4 1.7 15.3 27.8 30.7 5. prepared by Paul D.5 2.0 0 32.0 13.4 2. and PV News. 2003.8 2.0 9.0 4.4 32. Volume 6.0 1.0 Total 66. Maycock and Ward Bower.5 6.0 3.0 22.5 1.2 1. http://www.2 46. 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 .7 2.pdf.0 16.0 0 11.4 0 15.0 13.5 2.3 138.5 Off-grid Nonresidential 25. Res.2 2.0 0 48.5 50.3 23.htm.5 43.0 12. 23 No. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Off-grid Residential 19.0 12. prepared by Paul D.8 4.0 1.2 0 13.ojaservices.0 37.6 On-grid Centralized 12.0 4.0 12. 5.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/usa2. Off-Grid Residential World Off-Grid Rural Communications/ Signal PV/Diesel.5 3.8 76. prepared for the IEA. Vol. May 31.0 12.S.0 8.0 Grid-Connected Distributed Off-Grid Consumer Government Off-Grid Industrial/Commercial Consumer (<40 w) Central Station Total Cumulative U.S.5 88. prepared for the IEA.1 40.Annual U.2 4.5 0 24.8 2.5 2. Installations* (MW) Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States. May 31. July-August 2003.0 4.S.8 2.0 4.1 117.5 4. Comm.0 7.5 32.2 35.0 12.9 21.7 11.5 0 20.0 2. 2003.0 67.7 55. Table 1 http://www.5 7.0 12.0 9.2 4.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/download/usa. Installations (MW) Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States.2 64.0 5. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1.0 12.5 5.7 On-grid Distributed 9.

7 48.51 0.3 1.41 162.7 3.8 0.6 2000 44. 18. Number 4. Volume 6. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 46. 3.5 62.0 0 75 2001 63. Feb.0 0. July-August 2003. 1998. 19. 5. No.7 3. Vol. 17. March 2000. May 2003. 16. Vol. 1997.5 14. Feb. 15. Vol.3 N/A N/A 2. Vol. 1999. Feb.7 4. No.3 0. No. Feb. May 2003.6 278.7 1. Vol.3 88.2 1.5 16.8 59.6 16.8 73 89.3 N/A N/A N/A 2 1. Volume 6. 17. 2. Feb.5 53.2 0 2. No. Vol.7 150. 2.5 4. Vol. 1999.7 3 1.2 4 1.7 15 19.7 0. 1996.9 4. Number 4.8 1996 24.5 126. 2. No. 22.3 0.9 24 11 0. No. No. 2.2 4.7 30 561.01 32.5 0.8 0.6 3.1 11.22 0. 3.0 5.3 89.9 1997 31. Feb.7 1999 36. Vol. No.0 17. 20. No.3 39. No. 15. 3. Vol.1 34.2 1 151. July-August 2003.5 0.6 1. 16.5 6.1 1.0 0 0.0 64.1 0.S.7 30 512. Vol. 2. Shipments by Cell Type (MW) Source: PV News. No.77 3.9 27 28.3 0. and Renewable Energy World. Vol. 3.5 4. March 2002.9 2.6 7.1 79.5 5. Vol.0 9. No. Vol. No.0 0 1.0 14.3 0.0 1.4 140.3 0. 5.4 0. Vol.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. March 2001. Feb.Annual U.2 4 1. No. 1998. 3. 1980 1985 1990 1995 22.7 29 .6 1.1 0. and Renewable Energy World.0 0 2.1 24 43 66. 21. 21. Feb. 1996. 18.2 2 8. March 2002.9 306.5 6. Vol. No. 2. 2.5 16.5 1998 30.7 0.2 23. Vol. No.0 6.9 1.7 0.8 14.0 53.0 20.1 10. 19.6 0.7 120.2 0. 2.0 0.5 0.31 20.7 0 100.1 201. March 2001.55 9. 1997. 20.0 2. 22.6 2002 71. 3.2 2 12 287. March 2000.7 1.9 0.

7 74. Table 28.2 35. 2003.0 564.5 3. prepared for the IEA. No.7 30 30.2 30 .2 5.4 0. Solar Collector Manufacturing Activity annual reports.1 57. Vol. Maycock and Ward Bower.4 26.2 2. January 2004.S.7 71.7 74.3 178.2 46.7 12.1 98.8 13. May 31.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/jpn2.oja-services.0 0.7 23.3 29.3 0.htm.6 73.0 80.5 0.1 52.7 151. May 31.8 56. January 2004. Table 28. 1982-1992.3 16. Vol.0 280. prepared by Paul D.5 3.9 12. prepared by Paul D. Table 27.0 11.S. Japan Source: The 2002 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States. 1.9 54.0 603.5 0. REA 2000.5 19.6 5.9 114. 23.6 34. and EIA.S.1 22.7 104.2 13.0 U.2 34 1.oja-services. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1.7 0.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/usa2.3 88.0 435. Japan data from PV News.2 84. REA 2003. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 6.9 266. derived from Table 1 http://www. prepared for the IEA.0 168.3 2.4 94.4 46.0 155. 1.2 7.0 25.8 U.oja-services.1 40. Japan Japan Grid-Connected Capacity (MW) Annual Cumulative Source: IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Program.9 0.5 1.6 5.9 7. 23.1 5.htm.1 76.8 1.0 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.3 47. Maycock and Ward Bower. Renewable Energy Annual 1997. 2003.1 31.3 1.htm Table 1.8 47.0 12.4 91.4 0.2 33. derived from Table 1 http://www.6 189.5 24.0 0 181.8 13.5 109. 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 19.7 27.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/usa2.2 9.3 14.5 97.7 22.3 0.1 7. 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.7 23.2 51.9 64.7 2.5 159.9 29.7 386. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 21. Japan data from PV News.Annual U. http://www. No.3 12.8 85.1 50.8 119.9 21.6 44. National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in Japan 2002.7 59.0 9.6 112. REA 2002.3 32. Table 26.2 3.3 0.9 33.4 38.3 114.2 29.

008 0.002 0. 2003.261 1999 2000 11.941 0.244 2001 2002 7.645 2001 2002 2003 24.-Installed Capacity (MW) Top 10 States California Arizona New York Ohio Hawaii Texas Colorado Georgia Florida Illinois 1 Total U.S.344 0.325 0.352 0.807 21.437 0.018 1.993 0.352 0.021 4.032 0.236 16.028 0.106 0.034 0.105 19.010 0.598 0. NREL.334 2.016 1.159 2.592 0.050 0.000 0.013 1995 0.089 0.117 0. 1980 1985 0.031 0.010 0 0.917 0.741 0.016 0.720 0.798 1.008 0.021 0.516 1.145 1.650 0.144 0.004 1990 0.4 MW of photovoltaic capacity that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date. 2003.029 2.670 1998 0.012 0.609 0.369 0.713 48.170 1995 1996 1997 6.560 10.135 0.627 0.001 0.527 0. 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.093 0 2.005 1.-Installed Capacity (MW) Top 10 States California Arizona New York Ohio Hawaii Texas Colorado Georgia Florida Illinois Total U.592 0.078 0.248 0.008 0.026 0.021 0.040 0.146 0 0.641 40.803 0.013 0 0.405 1.577 0.333 1.002 1.009 0.609 0. Version 7.888 0.113 0.352 0.449 0.016 0. 1980 0.006 0.190 0.S.015 0.671 0 0 0.334 0.131 1996 0.574 0.703 67.790 5.002 0.023 8.033 0.029 14.097 0.137 0.155 0.067 0.072 2.003 0.033 0.764 1.008 0.759 0.020 0. 1 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).412 0.087 0.965 0.251 2003 7.691 12.378 0.724 0.495 7.579 0.202 0.828 0.759 0.133 0.986 0.171 0.437 0.025 1985 1.041 0.004 1.457 5.008 0 0 0 0.032 0 0 0.446 0.833 0.062 0.246 0.579 1.558 0.278 0.164 4.759 0.412 2.396 8.021 0.006 0 0 0.352 1997 0.710 There are an additional 3.900 0.046 0.018 0. Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).366 0.140 0. Version 7.140 2000 5.491 0.043 8.048 0. Cumulative U.067 0.362 1998 8. 31 .226 0.452 59.104 1990 2.598 38.554 0.019 0.049 8.016 1.759 0.250 0.275 0.595 0.291 0.002 0.006 0.034 5.899 1999 2.079 0.425 0.452 0.047 0.132 0.044 10.301 0. NREL.177 0.001 0.008 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002.009 0 0.001 0.145 2.622 0.135 0.078 0.371 0.014 0.164 0.958 1.917 0.606 0.572 17.S.218 0.965 0.S.021 0 0 0.010 0.377 0.221 0.100 0.945 0.401 27.036 0.Annual U.015 0.002 0.

005 Total Installed System ($/Wp) O&M ($/kWh) 32 .50 NA 0.02 2007 2.60 6.80 160 0.50 NA 0.005 NA 2025 NA 80 NA 0.85 0.01 2020 1. NREL Report No. MP-520-33875.30 5. Efficiency Cell (%) Crystalline Silicon Concentrator Crystalline Silicon Concentrator Crystalline Silicon Concentrator 2003 NA 25 14 NA 11.0.80 NA 0.50 90 0.60 0.02 0.00-1.08 0.15 NA NA NA 0. DOE/GO-102004-1775.Technology Performance Source: Solar Energy Technologies Program Multiyear Technical Plan.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 4.20 NA .40 NA 2.30-2.20-9.

remote. with the blades facing into the wind.600 MW in 1994 to more than 9. Lifting forces spin the blades. • The National Wind Technology Center (operated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. Turbines either rotate at constant speed and directly link to the grid.5 million households. especially in developing countries. Village and off-grid applications are important for displacing diesel generation and for improving quality of life. nearly 8. driving a generator that produces electric power in proportion to wind speed. In the past decade. and efficiencies of 65%-75% of theoretical (Betz limit) maximum. drive trains.000-$1.200 MW by the end of 2005 – enough to serve more than 2. towers. Representative Technologies • The most common machine configuration is a three-bladed wind turbine. the wind energy capacity exploded from 1. technology advances are being made for rotors and controls. DOE sponsored (and NASA managed) large-scale turbine development – starting with hundred-kilowatt machines and culminating in the late 1980s with the 3.2-MW. site-tailored designs.Wind Energy Technology Description Wind turbine technology converts the kinetic energy in wind to electricity.000 MW by the end of 2004. Numerous designs were available commercially for residential and farm uses. Utility-scale turbines for wind plants range in size up to several megawatts. • Current performance is characterized by levelized costs of 3¢-5¢/kWh (depending on resource quality and financing terms). using a power electronics system for grid connection. • Small-scale (2-20 kW) turbine development efforts also were supported by DOE at the Rocky Flats test site. 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. 33 . DOE-supported Mod-5 machine built by Boeing. 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. or at variable speed for better performance.500 MW in 1994 to almost 50. manufacturing methods. which operates “upwind” of the tower. yielding much higher efficiency than traditional windmills that relied on wind “pushing” the blades.300/kW. availability of 95-98%. • Wind power is the world’s fastest-growing energy source. System Concepts • Most modern wind turbines operate using aerodynamic lift generated by airfoil-type blades. the global wind energy capacity has increased tenfold from 3. total installed costs of approximately $1. Current Status • In 1989. Technology Applications • In the United States. and smaller turbines (under 100 kilowatts) serve a range of distributed.000 MW of new capacity was added worldwide. and stand­ alone power applications. and offshore and onshore foundations. Technology History • Prior to 1980. capacity factors of 30%-50%. To improve the cost-effectiveness of wind turbines. • 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. 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). During 2004. Grid-connected wind power reduces greenhouse gas emissions by displacing the need for natural gas and coal-fired generation.

• In 2006. Clipper Windpower began testing on its highly innovative. but still make up less than 1% of total U.S.S.S. • Wind energy is often the least variable cost source of generation in grid supplied electricity and due to its less predictable (variable resource) supply. spurred by ambitious national programs. • In 2005. 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 5.5 MW Liberty prototype wind turbine. wind usually displaces natural gas and coal generated electricity as these sources adjust to hourly changes in demand and supply. PURPA provided substantial regulatory support for this initial surge. New Mexico. Coupled with several state programs and mandates. Danish.. installing U. wind energy industry had a record-breaking year for new installations.4 2. the U.9 2. • 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. • In 1989. 34 . • Installed wind capacity in the United States expanded from 2. one of the value-engineered turbine manufacturers. Emerging markets for wind energy include providing energy for water purification. Colorado.5 2. In 2002. federal tax credits were abruptly ended. Following that. many U.5 cent/kWh tax credit for wind-produced electricity.554 MW to 4. and Oklahoma. companies became proficient in operating the 1. • In 1992. At the same time. • In 1997.3 Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request. with support from the production tax credit – and in high-value niche applications or markets that recognize non-cost attributes. Enron purchased Zond Energy Systems. • During the next five years.8 Class 6 4. European market exceeded the United States for the first time. and Dutch turbines. A number of new companies emerged in the U.600 MW of installed capacity in California.S. and hydrogen production.S.1 3. May 2005.9 2. irrigation. the U. adding more than 2. • In 1988.5 4. NREL/TP-620-37931. • In FY2001. installations in the United States began to increase. the market boomed. the first wind farms were installed in California by a small group of entrepreneurial companies. multiple-drive 2. Iowa.• In 1981.0 2. Wyoming.150 MW during the period of 2000 to 2005. • By 1985.S. Washington. General Electric Co. • DOE program supported value-engineering efforts and other advanced turbine-development efforts. and Germany. DOE’s focus changed to supporting industry-driven research on components and systems. and Clipper Windpower begins manufacturing its multiple-drive. Congress passed the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPI). 2. Minnesota. annual market growth had peaked at 400 MW. purchased Enron Wind Corporation. Oregon.6 2. • In 2004. • Wind technology is competitive today in bulk power markets at Class 5 and 6 wind sites.5 MW turbine. • California has the greatest installed wind capacity.400 MW of new capacity to the nation’s electric grid. which provided a 1. They launched into value engineering and incremental increases in turbine size. cost-competitive resource base.K. Department of Energy signed a $27 million contract with General Electric to develop a multimegawatt offshore wind power system.1 2. generation. and California incentives weakened the following year. DOE initiated a low wind-speed turbine development program to broaden the U.0 3. Its competitiveness is negatively affected by policies regarding ancillary services and transmission and distribution regulations. followed by Texas.

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

623 2002 454 5.961 1.060 1985 337 674 1990 154 1.843 4.137 126 630 255 22 193 2.554 6. 2001 data from Windpower Monthly.082 421 1.078 2003 12 2 5. 1980 0.S. Source: US DOE.525 60 9 310 49 3 6 450 20 1 6 2.202 2.100 325 103 324 4.095 75 574 13.752 416 282 344 9.890 2.334 2.308 28.644 933 7 254 7.874 834 1.887 1996 1. Mfg Share of World Market 36 .961 1999 695 2.002 1995 1.1982-87 wind turbine shipment database.023 0.656 2000 124 2. Version 7.362 1.Wind Market Data Grid-Connected Wind Capacity (MW) Cumulative U.374 11.579 1998 1. 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002. 2003.788 1998 173 1.384 820 14 106 6.100 3.220 121 797 17.889 3.294 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS).773 1996 8 1. January 2002.569 1995 37 1.653 2001 4.494 550 10 63 4. Germany Spain Denmark Netherlands Italy UK Europe India Japan Rest of World World Total Installed U.118 1997 1.039 3 0 50 0 0 58 0 0 0 1.418 31.781 1997 8 1.825 6.097 1990 1.780 2001 1.110 693 912 788 904 552 649 23.S. DOE Wind Program Data Sheets.270 2002 2003 4.576 216 785 305 70 264 3.400 364 180 331 6. April 2001).794 1.270 1.S.625 1999 2.770 1.175 2. 1988-94.706 1. 1980 10 2 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 15 1985 1.420 968 32 315 9.741 2. Market U. Mfg Share of U.240 8.455 4.598 2000 2.338 447 427 391 12.445 1. 1996-2000 American Wind Energy Association 1980 98% 65% 1985 44% 42% 1990 36% 20% 1995 67% 5% 1996 NA 2% 1997 38% 4% 1998 78% 13% 1999 44% 9% 2000 0% 6% Annual Market Shares U.S.539 1. 2002 data from AWEA "Global Wind Energy Market Report 2004".090 There are an additional 48 MW of wind capacity that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date.685 6.994 14.702 2110 415 686 1.417 483 682 477 16. NREL.128 39.399 1. Wind Capacity (MW) Annual Cumulative 1 2 1 Source: Reference IEA (data supplemented by Windpower Monthly.S.426 250 992 23.095 2.609 4.

9 2.2 0 0 0.2 243. 37 .9 9.0 139.5 2004 99.0 0.0 149.4 Washington 0 0 0.2 180.4 259.3 176.8 41.8 Minnesota 0 0 25.8 50.8 243.0 0.53 MW of wind in California that is not given a specific installation year.0 1.7 0.1 Iowa 0 0 0.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.5 90.6 0.1 0.0 1.578.0 67.2 1.3 142.0 1.0 1694.3 0.0 9. 10.6 284.3 0.6 17.0 528.0 144.3 Oklahoma 474.3 1.5 319.0 1.0 0.6 140.0 0.454.5 49.6 237.0 5.0 0.8 393.4 Oregon 0 0 0.0 1.1 1.763.5 1.0 162.2 Colorado 21.8 760.6 288.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.454.0 0.0 0.7 25.6 266.3 0.0 0.0 176.4 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Top 10 States California* N/A N/A 1.2 Wyoming 0 0 140.0 2.465.0 41.0 0.0 176.0 0.2 228.8 2.0 2.142.8 2.8 3.0 0.0 0.8 145.0 41.9 701.0 44.5 218.0 139.912.0 0.9 2005 61.0 0.0 1997 8.0 18.0 52.0 449.9 8.6 Total of 10 states N/A N/A 1.4 6.0 6. and 33.0 60.0 206.4 259.0 0.293.0 0.0 64.0 0.6 284.991.0 6.0 35. N/A Source: American Wind Energy Association and Global Energy Concepts.6 229.6 0 0.7 0.7 0.5 884.0 0.2 61.0 1525.0 1999 250.0 0.293.0 25.0 1.0 0.6 New Mexico 406. 87.0 1. 1990 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 1995 3.1 0.686.1 272.S.7 0.4 1.1 0.2 1.98 in 1982-1987.6 1.9 1491.646.396.1 157. but has been added to the cumulative totals for 1995 and later.6 0.431.1 0.2 223.8 0.1 25.3 1.1 25.0 1.0 1.4 334.6 2.7 1694.2 781.0 0.325.4 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.0 0.5 17.0 0.193.7 614.3 0.6 61.0 131.461.9 562.0 1.0 41.3 0 * The data set includes 1.353.511.0 1.204.0 0.0 1996 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 137.0 203.0 0.1 0.8 5.291.1 1.069.0 0.0 178.1 140.0 2002 2003 108.697.0 0. this has led to the "Not Available" values for 1985 and 1990 for California and the totals.3 1.0 0.1 44.5 324.0 0.0 0.5 71.714.7 25.0 67.0 0.0 176.0 0.0 109.5 242.0 0.0 21.1 335.0 6.2 25.603.344.8 98.0 0. and this data is not listed in the annual installations.396.7 Total U.0 242.0 4.646.7 471.0 0.3 2.0 2.3 202.9 984.777.275.36 MW in 1981-1995.698.0 1.0 2000 2001 0.0 4.0 0.994.S.0 48.0 1.042.0 21.2 422.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 1443.4 0.497.9 135.9 0.7 290.0 0.0 41.0 915.387.19 MW in "mid-1980's").0 1039.6 1.387.0 205.1 0.0 180.2 0.3 337.1 310.0 0.095.2 Texas 0 0 41.0 1998 0.3 0 0 0.0 39.848.0 0. but rather a range of years (1072.0 0.6 4.706.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2 28.5 2.2 3.822.0 0.5 559.095.0 1.0 81.2 229.3 206.8 16.8 75.0 0.9 239.0 0.3 72.3 1.0 298.0 858.

IEA Wind Energy Annual Reports. 2.3 8. 1 2003 2004 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2 U.3 1999 4.935 5.5 22.4a 1980 N/A 1985 (s) 1990 29.124 6.. Table 8.9 1998 3. IEA Total ."Renewables Information 2002".2 2002 10.0 2000 5.8 1995 3. as the Energy Information Administration continues to identify new wind facilities.678 1. IEA Total . DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.2 7.4 million kilowatts. Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity (Billion kWh) U. August 2005).040 2.731 1." IEA.720 2.4 1997 3. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.7 14.001 11.5 1.103 1. Data for IEA R&D Wind Countries through 2001 included 16 IEA countries.6 1996 33.4 2002 104. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington. Ireland and Switzerland were added in 2002 and Portugal was added in 2003.275 6.1 28. IEA R&D Wind Countries IEA Total N/A 17.386 4.417 27.1 1996 3. Source: EIA.2 69..2a. Annual Energy Review 2004. IEA.9 2.4 19.0 2004 14.1 2001 68.5 trillion Btu. September 2004).995 35. Table 8.4 10.440 3. Ireland and Switzerland were added in 2002 and Portugal was added in 2003. IEA R&D Wind Countries .553 4.252 10.Cumulative Installed Capacity (MW) Source: U. Annual Energy Review 2004.0 11.228 8. Data for International Energy Agency R&D Wind Countries through 2001 included 16 IEA countries. August 2005).3 10.864 21. 2002.4 49.235 5. IEA R&D Wind Countries . Wind capacity in 2002 will be revised upward to at least 4.006 1990 2.0 2003 11.S.8 2003 114.9 2000 57.S.Table 8. Annual Wind Energy Consumption for Electric Generation (Trillion Btu) U.377 15.390 16.S. D.2 8.2 3."Renewables Information 2002. . Total (s)=Less than 0.IEA Wind Energy Annual Reports.6 1998 30.C.610 1. 1980 N/A 1985 0. 2002. 1995-2003.6 2004 143.190 2.C.0 38 .9 1999 45. 2 IEA R&D Wind Countries IEA Total Source: U.8 7.EIA.0 1995 32. D.7 37.4 1997 33. 1995-2003.799 1.4 2001 6.S.S. D.. . Annual Energy Review 2004.6 26.11a.EIA.C.

5 50.1 25.0 15. 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 27. May 2005.3 52. NREL/TP-620-37931.7 28. NREL/TP-620-37931.3 Class 6 43. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Capacity Factor (%) Class 4 33.5 13.7 24.1 39 .6 24.2 48.8 13.0 16. NREL/TP-620-37931.0 28.9 30.2 13.4 51.3 23.2 48.0 48.7 51.8 29.2 52.9 52.6 49.5 Cost (2002 dollars) Capital Cost ($/kW) Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request.4 23.0 20.9 47.1 40.2 48. May 2005.3 27.8 12.0 14.8 O&M ($/kW) Levelized Cost of Energy* ($/kWh) (2002 dollars) Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request.Technology Performance Energy Production Source: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs – FY 2006 Budget Request.3 32.2 12.3 30.3 46.4 46.6 29.8 23.2 48.2 26. May 2005.1 52.5 28.8 Class 6 40.7 51.8 40. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Class 4 55.

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

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

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

and metal hydrides. efficiencies of fuel cells for electric power generation will increase. replacing today's natural gas. or even gasoline. and advances will be made in fuel cell systems based on carbon structures. the cost goal is $30/kW by 2015.000 psi to the vehicle. much of the hydrogen will be derived from domestically plentiful renewable energy or fossil resources.S. Renewable energy sources. Nevada. Technology Future • Fuel cells are a promising technology for use as a source of heat and electricity for buildings. But hydrogen can store this energy until it is needed and it can be transported to where it is needed. November 2003. NREL/TP-620/34783. natural gas pipelines—while fuel cells are phased in. • Some experts think that hydrogen will form the basic energy infrastructure that will power future societies. This facility also operates a PV-powered electrolysis system to provide renewable hydrogen to their fleet. They see a new hydrogen economy to replace our current energy economies. The RD&D target for 2010 is $45/kW for internal combustion engines operating on hydrogen. • For a fully developed hydrogen energy system. oil. The refueling systems deliver gaseous hydrogen up to 5. • In summary. coal. the cost of hydrogen energy is targeted to be equivalent to gasoline market prices ($2-3/gallon in 2001 dollars). • To enable the transition to a hydrogen economy. A transit agency in California installed an autothermal reformer. • Although comparatively little hydrogen is currently used as fuel or as an energy carrier. • In the future. Although these applications would ideally run off pure hydrogen. in the near-term they are likely to be fueled with natural gas. • By 2010. Climate Change Technology Program. produced hydrogen via electrolysis using intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar energy. generating hydrogen for buses and other vehicles.A renewable energy fuel cell system in Reno. making the Hydrogen Economy synonymous with sustainable development and energy security. and as an electrical power source for electric vehicles. hydrogen also could join electricity as an important energy carrier. future fuel cell technology will be characterized by reduced costs and increased reliability for transportation and stationary (power) applications. 43 . alanates. advances will be made in photobiological and photoelectrochemical processes for hydrogen production. DOE/PI-0002. a new hydrogen infrastructure/delivery system will be required. although that vision probably won't happen until far in the future. An energy carrier stores. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.An industry-led project has developed fueling systems for small fleets and home refueling of passenger vehicles. U. . Reforming these fuels to create hydrogen will allow the use of much of our current energy infrastructure—gas stations. and National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The electricity grid and the natural gas pipeline system will serve to supply primary energy to hydrogen producers. November 2003 (draft update. and delivers energy in a usable form to consumers. such as the sun or wind.. and electricity infrastructures. moves. methanol. Furthermore. The sun doesn't always shine nor the wind blow. September 2005). Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. 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. can't produce energy all the time. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations.

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

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

700 3 OECD Europe 124.948 97.307 132.779 138.387 21.11a.580 144.359 19.038 135. Installed Capacity (MW)* Annual Cumulative Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS). Cumulative GridConnected Hydro 1 Capacity (MW) U.074 Japan 19. 1996-2003.145 712.666 134.577 130.562 76.900 93.920 NA 78.522 99. Excludes pumped storage.4. World Total from EIA. Hungary.S. Electricity Information 2004. Hydro Total 88.902 135.151 19.6 1999 179.446 335. 2003 data not complete as REPiS database is updated through 2002. International Energy Annual.002 2003 21.663 132.505 316.880 723.513 339.342 IEA Total 286.893 134.184 124.130 324.734 600.357 130. 4.437 79. Countries' data are included only after the year they joined.216 NA NA NA NA NA NA 78.081 352.254 21.171 21.462 21.555 346.395 World Total 470.548 98.581 79.237 673.839 1990 862 90.052 1996 19.S. 2003. 1980 1.143 94.277 21.385 99.564 339.749 79.689 79. Countries' data are included only after the year they joined the OECD.913 138. Pumped storage values for 1980-1985 are included in "Conventional and other Hydro" 3.694 20.610 79.Hydroelectric Power Market Data U.110 19.673 331.939 4 IEA Europe 123. Mexico.881 140.315 21. Updated international data not available at time of publication 46 . Poland.251 135.3 94.S.054 94. pumped storage capacity listed. Czech Republic.958 136.936 661.484 19.093 22. International data from International Energy Agency.377 OECD Total 286.391 80.969 300.725 316. Slovak Republic joined after 1980.923 78. NA = Not Available. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2.825 21.518 98.323 2000 1.335 94.S.703 331. Conventional and 81. Version 7.136 94.930 680.S.356 * There are an additional 21 MW of hydroelectric capacity that are not accounted for here because they have no specific online date.690 338.373 99.0 94.259 342.703 20. Table 6.393 19.886 132.491 1985 3.019 351.068 330.222 21. data from EIA. except for specific U. South Korea.893 346.354 20.669 133.955 1995 1.912 22.0 1998 7.565 98.745 300.900 73.700 88.335 94.477 342. AER 2004.768 697.522 98.522 99.980 20.291 340. Table 8.415 other Hydro 2 Pumped Storage N/A 19.9 94.072 1997 64. 79.797 1. NREL.010 21. OECD included 24 countries as of 1980.947 335.580 141.237 87.1 94.725 81.225 NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: U.096 98. IEA included 26 countries as of 2003.960 124.310 N/A U.324 2001 11 2002 0.669 537.727 147.206 650.

453 3.S.088 3.305 3.468 3.xls 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 19.613 3.012 21.2002 Existing Nameplate and Net Summer Capacity by Energy Source and Producer Type (EIA-860)” http://www.268 8.S.950 3.314 3.857 2.685 2.414 3. “1990 .545 5.016 21.343 96.923 21.948 3.221 8.455 3.973 1990 289 294 23 205 453 231 23 125 88 435 2.211 8.564 1998 319 329 24 289 523 225 35 203 92 533 2.566 2.345 5.005 3.doe.088 3.828 94.eia.011 21. DOE/EIA-0219(02).948 3.885 2.513 94.487 20.466 1996 344 352 31 263 491 215 34 185 80 515 2.571 1999 313 342 32 290 531 227 35 211 86 541 2.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/existing_capacity_state.500 13.5.091 3.287 3.736 Source: EIA.890 2.445 13.891 3.712 5.890 2.879 95.948 2.885 2.499 3.523 13.313 3.961 2.890 2.S.261 2.668 5.557 5.383 13.948 3.471 13.R. Table 1.314 3.893 2.126 3.844 96.687 13.937 3.658 2001 208 330 28 265 553 239 30 258 83 571 2.006 21.323 8.511 1997 352 347 26 276 506 216 36 193 89 522 2.267 8.659 5.818 3.959 2.093 3.011 21.899 2.306 13.468 3.475 13.842 5.459 3.804 5.149 3.264 8.452 3.904 2.240 8.Annual Generation from Cumulative Installed Capacity (Billion kWh) United States Canada Mexico Brazil Western Europe Former U.453 3.961 2.935 20.222 95. Total 89.475 13.609 2000 270 355 33 302 555 228 31 241 86 558 2.717 3.893 2.959 3.265 8.261 8.950 3.868 2. Electric Power Annual 2004 – Spreadsheets.372 * Values are nameplate capacity for total electric industry 47 .313 3. 1980 279 251 17 1985 284 301 26 177 453 205 26 91 82 328 1.961 2.565 5.249 8.072 3.565 2002 255 315 25 282 503 243 32 309 81 581 2.941 12.903 95.802 95.018 20.519 13.893 2.950 3.353 96.167 1995 308 332 27 251 506 238 34 184 81 504 2.662 5.864 2.627 128 432 184 27 58 88 273 1.088 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.367 3.159 3.082 3.090 3.453 3.088 2.236 5.442 3.818 3.431 20.442 3.496 95. International Energy Annual 2003.699 U.235 8.

1 39.8 13.7 12.6 268.3 4.2 10.8 33.1 352.0 8.1 13.3 38.4 318.3 9. Annual Energy Review 2004.S.0 6. Total 2. for all sectors.811 2.2 11.046 3.3 23.7 10.4 255.4 7.4 308.S.5 14.8 27.3 275.0 10. and industrial plants. Hydroelectric data through 1988 include industrial plants as well as electric utilities.7 42.4 10. August 2005) Table 8.9 6.825 Note: Conventional hydroelectric power only.doe.297 3.7 9.640 3.6 8.4 24. “1990 .4 30. 48 .9 50.5 10.8 39..7 270.7 12.9 24.C.9 27.1 24.0 1997 104. Electric Power Annual 2002 – Spreadsheets.5 3.0 4.5 44.268 2.6 12.205 3.0 8.7 8.1 29.1 7.2 22.6 8.900 2.1 344.6 8.8 8.9 9.201 2.7 5.2 5. D.4 3.9 46.6 2003 71. Total 289.8 7.8 11.725 U.5 13.1 12.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state.4 23.6 25.7 2000 80.9 313.8 7. Annual Hydroelectric Consumption for Electric Generation (Trillion Btu) Source: EIA.9 11.1 7.6 40. Years before 1998 do not include nonutility generation.4 * Values are for total electric industry.4 9.8 8.0 8.1 10.1 2002 78.5 7.1 9.8 2004 71.5 40.2002 Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source (EIA-906)” http://www.2 6.9 1995 82.9 10.2 6.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.689 2.2 3.0 45.6 5.4 7.4a 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2.8 13.5 11.4 208. independent power producers.8 28.6 5.4 9.5 41.8 50.5 24.5 9.2 7.6 33.eia. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.0 2001 54.1 10.7 28.5 10.4 11.3 8.8 11.970 3.3 36. data are for electric utilities.0 1996 98.8 1999 97.2 46.2 24.1 34. commercial plants.6 7. Beginning in 1989.6 13.4 U.0 1998 79.7 9.xls 1990 87.2 34.590 3.8 10.

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

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

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

Several thousand systems were sold to homeowners. • 1900s – Solar water-heating technology advanced to roughly its present design in 1908 when William J. and Solaron./yr.000 square feet per year (sq.Technology History • 1890s – First commercially available solar water heaters produced in southern California. In 1974. When the tax credits expired in 1985. the industry declined significantly. a Colorado company that specialized in solar space and water heating. • 1990s – Solar water-heating collector manufacturing activity declined slightly. low-temperature solar water heaters for swimming pools have been a real success story.000 solar-heated swimming pools exist. more than 20 companies started production of flat-plate solar collectors. became the first national solar manufacturers in the United States. • 1950s – Industry virtually expires due to inability to compete against cheap and available natural gas and electric service. • 1970s – The modern solar industry began in response to the OPEC oil embargo in 1973-74. the year before solar tax credits expired. Bailey of the Carnegie Steel Company.000-plus solar hot-water systems were sold. Initial designs were roof-mounted tanks and later glazed tubular solar collectors in thermosiphon configuration. During the Gulf War. Unglazed. commercial markets and manufacturing had developed with fairly widespread use. Today's industry represents the few strong survivors: More than 1.ft. and a Florida businessperson who bought the patent rights sold nearly 60. Reference: American Solar Energy Society and Solar Energy Industry Association 52 . In Israel.2 million buildings in the United States have solar water-heating systems. with more than a doubling of growth in square footage of collectors shipped from 1995 to 2001. more than 11. but has hovered around 6./yr) in 1989 and 1990. Japan. sales again increased by about 10% to 20% to its peak level.000 to 8. most using active systems with antifreeze capabilities.ft. a California company specializing in solar pool heating. President Jimmy Carter put solar water-heating panels on the White House.000 units by the end of WWI.000 sq. FAFCO.000 systems. In 1984. with a number of federal and state incentives established to promote solar energy. • 1940s – Bailey sold 4. and Australia.000 units by 1941. Sales in 1979 were estimated at 50. and 250. Incentives from the 1970s helped create the 150-business manufacturing industry for solar systems with more than $800 million in annual sales by 1985. an estimated 100. invented a collector with an insulated box and copper coils. • 1980s – In 1980. the Solar Rating and Certification Corp (SRCC) was established for testing and certification of solar equipment to meet set standards.

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

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

279 255.749 3.526 76.354 2.152 427 4 8.763 765 6.528 7. Annual Shipments (Thousand Sq.S.666 2.926 452 13.948 400 5 8.137 1998 7.164 755 7. Table 16.353 2001 10.608 506 0 14. REA 1997. Table 38. REA 2002.046 367 7.857 274 10.955 4.829 153.396 373 8.153 292.136 6.115 21. Shipments by Cell Type (Thousand sq.068 659 2003 11.578 28.126 535 2 11.349 423 11.583 2. Table 18.283 19.015 66.821 785 10 7.165 N/A 19.877 560 7 11.) Total Imports Exports U.102 379 1998 7.189 3.919 268 2 11.616 1.616 1997 7.138 2.756 2.583 2000 7. Table 10.386 Total Solar Thermal 1 1.3.527 5.307 2.763 Pool Heaters 62. Table 18.703 2. Renewable Energy Annual 2004.398 1.080 281.201 496 2001 11. Table 11.078 248. Table 12. Domestic shipments . ft.520 13.115 1985 N/A N/A N/A 1990 11.999 6.634 14.502 840 2002 11.459 233.797 10.166 11. 1996 6.) Low-Temperature Collectors Medium-Temperature Collectors High-Temperature Collectors Total 1980 12.352 537 2000 8.) Annual Hot Water Pool Heaters Total Solar Thermal 1 Cumulative Hot Water 755 1.409 1.592 55.930 454 1997 8.237 11.037 530 1996 7.606 3.524 606 7 8.035 199.587 317.663 3. and REA 1999.863 7.444 2. and Renewable Energy Annual 2003.800 10.162 595 7.283 271.756 1999 8.114 3. Table 11. Installations (Thousands of Sq.S.723 813 Source: EIA Annual Energy Review 2004.645 2.Solar Buildings Market Data U.114 55 .total shipments minus export shipments U.073 11.951 36.420 263.141 8.233 7.409 1995 6.398 1985 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1990 3.953 303.004 511 10. 1980 19.206 360 1999 8.201 7.550 240.986 518 2004 14.2000. Ft.114 Source: EIA.759 463 7.562 245 1995 7.666 18. 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: EIA.189 2002 11.885 4. Ft.292 443 21 7.959 4.978 90.S. REA 1996. Renewable Energy Annual 2003.444 2004 13.318 44. REA 2003 Table 18 and Table 10.661 2003 10.548 2.787 7.813 840 13 7.

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

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

600 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 13.782 42 61 0 34 0 0 10.877 2004 12.791 726 7 0 0 7.146 625 51 0 0 6.046 2003 9. Table 16.152 10.608 58 .U.164 60 53 0 0 0 0 7.152 2000 2001 9.778 0 65 0 34 0 0 10. REA 2002.046 10.731 11 70 0 6. Table 19.178 44 0 0 13.885 987 12 0 34 10.045 1 0 0 0 0 0 11.821 7.129 0 18 0 5 0 0 8.822 1997 6.919 2002 10. Table 18. and End Use (Thousands of Sq.993 813 71 0 0 10.) 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 6.877 13.766 4 51 0 0 0 0 6.Temperature Collectors by Market Sector.524 1998 6. Shipments of Low.524 7.919 11.192 552 69 0 0 6. REA 1997.813 Source: EIA. Table F9.517 0 7 0 0 0 0 7.285 8. REA 1996. and REA 1998.408 726 18 0 0 8.608 6. 1996 6.813 6. Table 18.S. Ft.386 1.285 1999 7. 1999-2000.810 429 44 0 2 7. Renewable Energy Annual 2003.519 524 2 0 0 11.

such as a low-cost polymer integral collector for domestic hot-water heaters. Solar Today. Little. 22-25. December 1999.Technology Performance Energy Production Energy Savings DHW (kWh/yr) Pool Heater (therms/yr) Source: Arthur D. please refer to the “Buildings Energy Data Book” which is a comprehensive collection of buildings.750 1.30 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 * Costs represent a range of technologies. which are expected to become commercially available after 2010.000 25 . and Pool-Heater data from Ken Sheinkopf. Little. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2. The Buildings Energy Data Book is available online at http://buildingsdatabook. page 53. For more data on the Buildings sector.eren.4.and energy-related data.2. November 1996. Water-Heating Situation Analysis. Nov/Dec 1997. pp.900 .300 . Review of FY 2001 Office of Power Technology's Solar Buildings Program Planning Unit Summary. with the lower bounds representing advanced technologies. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1.gov/ 59 .600 2005 2010 2015 2020 Cost Capital Cost* ($/System) Domestic Hot-Water Heater Pool Heater O&M ($/System-yr) Domestic Hot-Water Heater Pool Heater Source: Hot-Water Heater data from Arthur D.doe.500 3.

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

• In the mid-1980s.350/ kW depending on size and whether the unit is for a straight generation or cogeneration application. which represented 16 GW shipments compared with 2 GW of natural gas reciprocating engine shipments in 2000. emission controls.S. “Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations (2003).7 to 2. 61 .200° F in non-CHP mode and 350­ 500°F in a CHP system after heat recovery. the engines reduced NOx from 20 to 5 g/bhp-hr. Department of Energy – in partnership with the Gas Technology Institute. Gas-fired engine sales in 1990 were 4% compared to 14% in 1998. construction and mining equipment. The earliest engines were derived from diesel blocks and incorporated the same components of the diesel engine.Target fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency (LHV) is 50 % by 2010. • More than 35 million reciprocating engine units are produced in North America annually for automobiles. marine propulsion. • Exhaust temperature for most reciprocating engines is 700-1. These engines were designed to run without regard to fuel efficiency or emission levels. • The reciprocating-engine systems typically include several major parts: fuel storage. Performance targets include: High Efficiency. lawn care and a diverse range of power-generation applications. (Source: Diesel and Gas Turbine Worldwide.5 GW). Operating and maintenance costs range 0. trucks. Leaner air-fuel mixtures were developed using turbochargers and charge air coolers. • The cost of full maintenance contracts range from 0. the Southwest Research Institute. The growth is overwhelming in the diesel market. The lower in-cylinder fire temperatures also meant that the BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure) could increase without damaging the valves and manifolds. manufacturers were facing pressure to lower NOx emissions and increase fuel economy. and conditioning. • Reciprocating-engine sales have grown more then fivefold from 1988 (2 GW) to 1998 (11. and lower compression-ratio pistons were substituted to run the engine on gaseous fuels. handling. Spark plugs and carburetors replaced fuel injectors. in 2000 146 GW 52 GW 1.8 -1.055 Sources: Distributed Generation: The Power Paradigm for the New Millenium. aimed at further advancing the performance of the engine. Remote monitoring is now available as a part of service contracts. They were used mainly to produce power at local utilities and to drive pumps and compressors. Technology Future In 1998. 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. prime mover (engine).S. and equipment manufacturers – joined the Advanced Reciprocating Engines Systems (ARES) consortium. 2003). and electrical switchgear. • Annual shipments of reciprocating engines (sized 10MW or less) have almost doubled to 18 GW between 1997 and 2000.8 ¢/kWh. 2001. Production costs are generally lowest for high-speed engines. and in combination with lower in-cylinder fire temperatures. • Noise levels with sound enclosures are typically between 70-80 dB. waste recovery (CHP systems) and rejections (radiators).” Technology History • Natural gas-reciprocating engines have been used for power generation since the 1940s.0 cents/kWh. Key indicators for stationary reciprocating engines: Installed Worldwide Installed US Number of CHP sites using Capacity Capacity Recips in the U. The U.• Installed cost for reciprocating engines range between $695 and $1.

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

000 Market Data Market Shipments (GW of units under 10 MW in size) Source: Debbie Haught.07 63 .23 1. Diesel Recips Gas Recips 1996 7.600 5.02 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. communication 2/26/02 .350 2.35 1998 8.800 1.96 0.750 2.63 2000 16.73 1997 7. DOE.19 1999 10.46 2.from Diesel and Gas Turbine Worldwide.51 1.

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

in 1998. Technology Future • The acceptable cost target for microturbine energy is $0. 65 . Capstone Turbine Corporation began developing the microturbine concept. and. November 2003. For gas-fired microturbines. − Cost of Power — System costs < $500/kW. diesel-engine turbochargers. and biofuels. • In 1988. − Environment — NOx < 7 ppm (natural gas). The technology used in microturbines is derived from aircraft auxiliary power systems.636 for CHP systems. landfill gas. NREL/TP-620-34783. − Durability — 1. Capstone was the first manufacturer to offer commercial power products using microturbine technology. which entered the commercial market in 1999-2000. the present installation cost (site preparation and natural gas hookup) for a typical 30 kW commercial unit averages $2.05/kWh. which would present a cost advantage over most nonbaseload utility power.000 hours of reliable operations between major overhauls and a service life of at least 45. ethanol.• The typical 30 kW unit package cost averages $1. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations. high-efficiency" microturbine product designs focus on the following DOE performance targets: − High Efficiency — Fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency of at least 40%.000 hours. • "Ultra-clean.100/kW.263/kW for power only systems and $2. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. and automotive designs. 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. Service contracts are available at 1 to 2 cents/kWh Technology History • Microturbines represent a relatively new technology.

others estimated. 1998 1999 2000 2 211 790 2001 1. of units Capstone Other Manufacturers MW Capstone Other Manufacturers Source: Debbie Haught. Little (ADL) estimates. communications 2/26/02.Microturbines Market Data Microturbine Shipments No.000 hr before major overhaul (rotor replacement) 0. Capstone sales reported in Quarterly SEC filings. LHV: 17-20% unrecuperated. depending on duty cycle Current 670 .1 10.180 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 10.2-0. Arthur D.7 38.1.000-12.033 120 6 23.4 66 . 25-30%+ recuperated 5-10 years.2 Technology Performance Current System Efficiency (%) Lifetime (years) Emissions (natural gas fuel) CO SO NO CO PM 2 2 x Source: Manufacturer Surveys.

000 DTE Energy Technologies ENT 400 recuperated 300 kW 480/277 VAC natural gas (diesel. CO O2. propane future) 28% (+/.com/energy turbo.com/new/produ systems/powerworks. diesel.html html 3 min emergency. NOx <9ppmV @15% NOx NG <25ppm. communication 2/26/02 and Energetics Inc. biogas. asp 67 .com www. UHC <10ppm 2000: 20 units in the European market $75.com/ener gynow/portfolio/2_1_4.turbec. CO <9ppmV @15% diesel <400ppm. DOE.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. medium Btu gas.73 14.irco. July 12 2001.elliottwww. CO O2 NG <85ppm 2000: 2 precommercial units. CO <15ppm.2 30% 80% CHP NOx <15ppmV @15% O2.23 26% (+/-2%) 28% (+/. diesel 11. cts_microtubines. kerosene 13.033 units NOx diesel <60ppm. 7 min normal www.Technology Performance Sources: Debbie Haught.com www.dtetech. ethanol.capstone. 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%) 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. 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. Distributed Energy Technology Simulator: Microturbine Validation.

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

• Data centers and sensitive manufacturing processes are ideal settings for fuel cells. • MCFC – 50 kW and 2 MW systems have been field-tested.000 hours of operations. The solid-state ceramic construction enables the high temperatures.000/5 yrs Source: Energetics. with those installed by ONSI having surpassed 2 million total operating hours with excellent operational characteristics and high availability.35/MMcf $20. 25 kW natural gas tubular SOFC systems has accumulated more than 70. • SOFC – A small. Depending on the type of fuel cell (most likely SOFC and MCFC). PEMFCs currently cost several thousand dollars per kW. low-noise. • Premium power applications are an important niche market for fuel cells.1 1-4 69 . and industrial facilities. small-footprint portable power. PEMFCs are a leading candidate for powering the next generation of vehicles. May 2001. semiannual and annual maintenance Major Overhaul Replacement of the cell stack Cost $850. • Fuel cells also can provide power for vehicles and portable power. useful heat can be captured and used in combined heat and power systems (CHP). and foundation Operation Natural gas costs Minor Maintenance Service events. PEM systems up to 200 kW are also operating in several hydrogen-powered buses. Most units are small (<10 kW). Both 5 kW and 250 kW models are in demonstration. and contributes to stability and reliability. Multiple fuel cells can be used to provide extremely high (more then six-nines) reliability and high-quality power for critical loads. Commercial offerings are in the 250 kW-2 MW range. 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. Distributed Energy Technology Simulator: Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Validation. displaying all the essential systems parameters needed to proceed to commercial configurations.000 $40. plumbing. allows more flexibility in fuel choice.000 $5. Economic Specifications of the PAFC (200 kW) Expense Description Capital Cost 1 complete PAFC power plant Installation Electrical. • PEMFC – Ballard’s first 250 kW commercial unit is under test. The military is interested in the high-efficiency. As with MCFCs.000/yr $320.of a liquid electrolyte. • PAFC – More than 250 PAFC systems are in service worldwide. 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. Technology Applications • Fuel cell systems can be sized for grid-connected applications or customer-sited applications in residential. commercial. Current Status • The cost of fuel cells hinders competition in widespread domestic and international markets without significant subsidies.

S DOE and the private sector. 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. propane. NREL/TP-620/34783. CRC Press.S. Other efforts include raising the operating temperature of the PEM fuel cell for building. February 2000 Technology History • In 1839. ultra-low emissions. to produce electric power which was then used to split the water in the smaller upper cell into hydrogen and oxygen. 2001. Its collaborative agreement with the U. heating.MCFC SOFC Lithium. Grove utilized four large cells. September 2005). each containing hydrogen and oxygen. including natural gas.S. • The emergence of new fuel cell types (SOFC. Kreider. • 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. Little. and 40. Technology Future • According to the Business Communications Company. cooling. and methanol.000 hour stack life. Distributed Generation: The Power Paradigm for the New Millennium. • In the 1960s. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations. ONSI introduced the first commercially available PAFC. U. Department of Defense enabled more than 100 PAFCs to be installed and operated at military installations. the market for fuel cells was about $218 million in 2000 and will reach $7 billion by 2009. alkaline fuel cells were developed for space applications that required strict environmental and efficiency performance. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. • In the early 1970s. The successful demonstration of the fuel cells in space led to their serious consideration for terrestrial applications in the 1970s. a British jurist and amateur physicist. November 2003 (draft update. potassium. DOE/PI-0002. 70 . William Grove. DuPont introduced the Nafion® membrane. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. • Fuel cells are being developed for stationary power generation through a partnership of the U. Climate Change Technology Program. MCFC) in the past decade can lead to technology applications where high temperature heat recovery has value. and power applications and improve reformer technologies to extract hydrogen from a variety of fuels. and Arthur D.000 -$1. Distributed Generation Primer: Building the Factual Foundation (multiclient study). first discovered the principle of the fuel cell. November 2003. • Industry will introduce high-temperature natural gas-fueled MCFC and SOFC at $1. and National Renewable Energy Laboratory. • In 1993.500 per kW that are capable of 60% efficiency. which has traditionally become the electrolyte for PEMFC.

Development and Demonstration Plan.000 16.000 15. Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Multiyear Research.000 71 . 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 40.000 20.

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

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

The advantages of flow-battery technologies are low cost. The advantages of lithium batteries include their high specific energy (four times that of lead-acid batteries) and charge retention. and zinc bromine. His cell used two thin lead plates separated by rubber sheets. German researchers developed the gelledelectrolyte lead-acid battery (a type of VRLA) in the early 1960s. This allowed much quicker formation and better plate efficiency than the solid Planté plate. sodium metal chloride. Such batteries have power densities ranging from 0. with sales from one manufacturer doubling from 2000 to 2001. when experiments by Alessandro Volta resulted in the generation of electrical current from chemical reactions between dissimilar metals. utility applications. lithium polymer. flexible operation – and all components are easily recyclable. and sodium-sulfur batteries.71 million. when Raymond Gaston Planté invented the lead-acid battery. many attempts have been made to eliminate free acid in the battery.2 to 0. Although the rudiments of the flooded lead-acid battery date back to the 1880s. there has been a continuing stream of improvements in the materials of construction and the manufacturing and formation processes. modularity. low weight. Technology History • Most historians date the invention of batteries to about 1800. nickel metal hydride. • Lead-acid battery manufacturers saw sales drop with the collapse of the telecommunications bubble in 2001. transportability. Initial capacity was extremely limited because the positive plate had little active material available for reaction. Working from a different approach. VRLA and flooded battery sales were $5. • Batteries are the most common energy storage device. • Lead-acid battery annual sales tripled between 1993 and 2000. The major disadvantage is a relatively low cycle efficiency. • In 2003. A few dozen manufacturers in the United States and abroad still make batteries. in 2000. 74 . • Others developed batteries using a paste of lead oxides for the positive plate active materials. and invested in production and marketing in anticipation of further growth. • Utility-grade batteries are sized 17-40 MWh and range in efficiency from 70% to 80%. • There are two demonstration sites of ZBB’s Zinc Bromine batteries in Michigan and two additional ones in Australia. They saw significant growth in sales in 2000. Sodium sulfur batteries operate at high temperature and are being tested for utility load-leveling applications. and the other in the United States. • 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. scalability. • Rechargeable lithium batteries already have been introduced in the market for consumer electronics and other portable equipment. The relative importance of battery sales for switchgear and UPS applications shrunk during this period from 45% to 26% of annual sales by 2000.bromine batteries in function and are under development for large-scale. Gates Energy Products developed a spiral-wound VRLA cell. lithium-polymer. respectively. which represents the state of the art today.34 million and $1. • Government and private industry are currently developing a variety of advanced batteries for transportation and defense applications: lithium-ion. Current Status • Energy storage systems for large-scale power quality applications (~10 MW) are economically viable now.K. sodium sulfur. He rolled the combination up and immersed it in a dilute sulfuric acid solution. • About 150 MW of utility peak-shaving batteries were in use in Japan in 2003.4 kW/kg and 30-50 Wh/kg in energy density. • Many manufacturers have been subject to mergers and acquisitions. due to the demand from communications firms. • Secondary batteries date back to 1860.

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

Annual Sales Summary. MW 496 805 965 ($ Million) 372 443 434 2000 533. Battery Energy Storage Market Feasibility Study.9 79.1 69% 26% Growth 340% 214% 298% Year 2000 2005 2010 76 .5 58% 45% Source: Sandia National Laboratories.5 170.6 704.Batteries Market Data Recent Battery Sales Source: Battery Council International. October 2001. 1993 Flooded Batteries (Million $) VRLA Batteries (Million $) Total Lead-Acid Batteries (Million $) Percent Communications Percent Switchgear/UPS Market Predictions 156. September 1997.6 236.

vs. June 2000. March 2001.000 ~ 10 8.85 0.5 to 1 hr 131.70 Source: Sandia National Laboratories.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 137.85 0. Short-Term Energy Storage. Their Requirements.5 MWh 100 < 1000 0.000 Developing Community: Moderate Industry 400 3. Energy Storage Systems Program Report for FY99.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 8 45 77 .5 3 0.85 0.000 <5 < 7.5 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. Characteristics and Technologies for Long.85 0.000 Advanced Community or Military Base 1 MW 1.000 ~ 30 12.000 > 50 69.600 100 < 400 5 to 24 hrs 84. Single Home: Developing Community 0. Energy Related Power Related Cost ($/kW) Balance of Plant Cost ($/kWh) ($/kWh) Discharge Efficiency Technology Performance Off-Grid Storage Applications. and Potential Markets to 2010 According to Boeing Application Source: Sandia National Laboratories.

Boulder City Battery Energy Storage. 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 $32.5 MWh/yr 10 to 20 yrs 65 to 70% $30 to $150k/yr Energy Storage System Field Experience Production Capacity Actual Production Life Efficiency O&M Costs 78 . 25 kW power). Largest 400 kWh 40 to 70 MWh/yr 4. Sodium Sulfur Vanadium Redox Over 30 Several Projects 100kW to 3 MW (pulse Projects.Technology Performance Advanced Batteries Characteristics Source: DOE Energy Storage Systems Program Annual Peer Review FY01.5k/yr Zinc Bromine Several Projects.15 MWh to 6 MW. November 2001. Largest 1. 50 kW to 250 kW.

Advanced Energy Storage Technology Description Advanced storage technologies under active development include processes that are mechanical (flywheels. so it’s only practical in certain locations. advanced energy storage technology would improve their applicability. thereby increasing the amount of CO2 production required for each unit of output. Compressed-air energy storage uses off-peak electricity to force air into underground caverns or dedicated tanks. Many energy-storage systems offer multiple benefits. too. this. If an interruption occurs that disrupts these processes. Technology Applications • For utilities. and financial services such as banking. Energy storage allows these intermittent resources to be dispatchable. including sodium sulfur and flow batteries. maximizing industrial productivity. Energy-storage devices do positively affect CO2 production on an industrial output basis by providing high-quality power. is location-specific. computerized manufacturing depends directly on the quality of power the plant receives. Energy storage devices must be charged and recharged with electricity generated elsewhere. preventing an environmental release in the event of a loss of power. pneumatic). Energy-storage value is usually measured economically with the cost of power-quality losses. area. The stored energy could displace high cost. System Concepts • Stationary applications: Electric demand falls at night. or defer equipment upgrades. The storage system would be placed downstream from the heavily loaded component. For intermittent renewables. plant cleanup can be required. Industry is also installing energy-storage systems to purchase relatively cheap off-peak power for use during on-peak times. Because the storage efficiency (output compared to input energy) is less than 100%. allowing the most efficient use of capital by utility companies. which is estimated in excess of $1.5 B/year in the United States alone. plastics and paper manufacturing. ultracapacitors). etc. stock brokerages. product is often lost. hydrogen. reversible fuel cells. on a kilowatt-per-kilowatt basis. transformers. New battery technologies. Equipment upgrades also would be postponed. less efficient power normally produced at the peak during the day. Any loss must be made up decreasing the overall efficiency of the operation. Energy storage also can be used to alleviate the pressure on highly loaded components in the grid (transmission lines. This use dovetails very nicely with the utilities’ interest in minimizing the load on highly loaded sections of the electric grid. The system provides power-quality protection for the plant’s pollution-control equipment. California. and transactions can be lost. Industries that are particularly sensitive are semiconductor manufacturing. Batteries. both 79 . providing an opportunity for the most cost effective electric generators to produce low cost power at night for storage. it requires topography with significant differences in elevation.) These components are typically only loaded heavily for a small portion of the day. and releases the air to drive turbines to generate on-peak electricity. This would reduce electrical losses of overloaded systems. 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. equipment can be damaged. • Power quality and reliability: The operation of modern. reducing the plant’s energy costs. electronic retailers. Any voltage sag or momentary interruption can trip off a manufacturing line and electronic equipment.5-MWh valve-regulated lead-acid battery system is installed at a lead recycling plant in the Los Angeles. 3. however. This 5-MVA. CO2 emissions would be reduced if the efficiency of the energy storage were greater than 85%. The system carries the critical plant loads while an orderly shutdown occurs. The battery system also in discharged daily during the afternoon peak (and recharged nightly). and purely electrical (superconducting magnetic storage). electrochemical (advanced batteries. increase reliability. and credit card-processing centers. the most mature storage technology is pumped hydro. significantly improve the energy and power densities for stationary battery storage as compared to traditional flooded lead-acid batteries. Energy storage devices are added to the utility grid to improve productivity. energy storage does not directly decrease CO2 production.

Flywheels are now commercially viable in power quality and UPS applications. a control system for the storage system. 1 German high-power apps most common US & foreign dev. only pumped hydro has made a significant penetration with approximately 21 GW.000 250-2. Ultracapacitors have very high power density.5 kWh Technology Future • For utilities. • Each energy-storage system consists of four major components: the storage device (battery. and emerging for high power.2-0. and interconnection hardware connecting the storage system to the grid. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 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.. high-energy applications. The control system must manage the charging and discharging of the system. Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) is largely focused on high-power.4 1-3 5. and interface with the local environment at a minimum to receive on/off signals. September 2005).1-20 kWh 37 existing in U. multi-MW systems. • Two 10-MW flow battery systems are under construction – one in the United Kingdom and the other in the United States. 1 U. U. a power-conversion system. Technology Options: For the Near and Long Term. DOE/PI-0002.200 20 MW 17-40 0.000-20.1-0. shortduration applications such as power quality and transmission system stability.S. • Approximately 150 MW of utility peak-shaving batteries are in service in Japan. Climate Change Technology Program.S. • Megawatt-scale power quality systems are cost effective and entering the marketplace today. are commonly used for energy-storage systems. flywheel. Efficiency [%] Energy density [W-h/kg] Power density [kW/kg] Sizes Comments [MW-h]____________________ Ultracapacitors high-power dens 90+ 2-10 high 0. etc. Interconnection hardware allows for the safe connection between the storage system and the local grid. short-duration applications. monitor the state of health of the various components.27/100 m 0 0 30-50 15-30 low low high 0.). possibly tied in with a utility SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system or industrial facility control system. Current Status Utilities Technology m Pumped hydro Compressed gas SMES Batteries Flywheels 75 70 90+ 70–84 90+ 0. Advanced flowing electrolyte batteries offer the promise of longer lifetimes and easier scalability to large. November 2003 (draft update. but currently have relatively low total energy capacity and are also applicable for high-power. 80 .conventional and advanced.S.

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

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

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

2002 Edition. Total Market Benefits.968 108.353 56. This number was chosen based on historic figures (the past fifteen years) and the assumption that electric demand will drive electric supply.29 169.693 592.73 371.656 318.97 42.634 48.081 222.710 14.857 1.47 90. Source: Analysis of Future Prices and Markets for High-Temperature Superconductors.86 7.17 Total 0 3.24 527.59 1.03 1554.49 3103.09 15.12 101.81 4.83 Transformers 0 3.44 2.21 15.770 164.964 445.Superconducting Power Technology Market Data Projected Market for HTS devices (Thousands of Dollars) Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory .386 2019 2021 2023 2025 50.37 6360.535 135.597.405 40.326 586.01 12642.2 3584.872 1.816.277 390.783 570.8 14.26 426.5% per year through 2020.56 41.87 605.117 11.236 2017 15.451 227.499 675.001 379.7 11.31 11322.1 7201.071 2015 4.926 4. DOE.399 1.844 488.975 84 .24 636.23 877.072 9.17 0.284 824. 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Motors 0 0 27.1 212. September 2001.270 2013 956 0 24. p 40.429 148.246.16 224.335 136.High Temperature Superconductivity: The Products and Their Benefits.22 37.025 243 83.32 The report assumes electrical generation and equipment market growth averaging 2.196 1.63 197.61 Cables 0 0.71 Generators 0 0 0 4.03 1310. Projected Market for HTS devices (Thousands of Dollars) 2011 Motors Transformers Generators Cables Total 225 0 6.904 656.

194 5.428 HTS Energy Savings (GWh) Source: Analysis of Future Prices and Markets for High-Temperature Superconductors.1 0 3 4 2008 0.699 1.196 2. 2009 Motors Transformers Generators Cables Total 0 0 2 1 3 2011 0 0 11 3 14 2013 1 0 44 13 58 2015 4 0 171 55 231 2017 15 2 556 196 769 2019 57 15 1. 2002 Edition. T-1.326 10.4 0. G-1.086 2021 154 94 2. Tables M-2.283 2023 300 449 4. C-2 2004 Motors Transformers Generators Cables Total 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0.289 7.235 2025 468 1.336 4.774 85 .1 56 60 2012 8 1 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. DOE.2 0 18 19 2010 3 1 0.236 1.Technology Performance HTS Energy Savings (GWh) Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory – High-Temperature Superconductivity: The Products and Their Benefits.417 598 2. September 2001.785 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

org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/state-clean-energy-maps-and-graphs. Together.ucsusa. such as low-income energy assistance.2. Cumulative 1998-2017 $14 mil $95 mil. energy efficiency.1) through which a portion of the money will be used to support renewable resources.3.2 – 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.html Figure 3. NJ: $286 mil. these states will collect about $4 billion (Figure 3. There are 15 states with SBCs (Table 3. • 15 state funds = $4 billion by 2017 Source: Union of Concerned Scientists. $89 mil $2.2.048 mil $234 mil.1: State System Benefit Funds 90 . and renewable energy.1) in funds to support renewable resources between 1998 and 2017. mil DE: $18 mil.2. June 2004 http://www. CT: $248 mil $114 $25 mil. $200 mil $21 mil MA: $494 mil RI: $30 mil $67 mil.

April 2001.0 1.3 0.22 NY 6 Æ 14 0.4 0.indefinite SBC funding.0 Billion US$ 2.8 (portion of) 0.0 3.2 0.09 OR 8.6 2.0 0.2).1: Renewable Energy Funding Levels and Program Duration Approximate Annual $ Per-Capita $ Per-MWh Funding Annual Funding ($ Million) Funding CA 135 4. has supported the development of 707 MW of generating capacity that is online.2. Stoddard.43 NM 4 2.17 PA 10.2003 4/1999 .indefinite 7/1998 .59 MN 9 N/A N/A MT 2 2.9 0. there is currently about $345 million in funding obligated through the respective SBC programs (Table 3.8 0.11 OH 15 Æ 5 (portion of) 1.2007 1998 . Milford.2.7 0.5 2.2012 2000 . Figure 3.5 1.2008 2007 .548 MW of new capacity is still pending for a total of 163 different projects. L.2. Porter.7/2003 2001 . Nationwide. M.2: Aggregation Annual and Cumulative State Funding Table 3.7 0. so far..5 0. Clean Energy Funds: An Overview of State Support for Renewable Energy.4 0.09 IL 5 0.5 0.07 Note: Annual and per-MWh funding are based on funds expected in 2001.indefinite 1999 .0 Source: Bolinger.2010 10/2001 .5 3.9/2010 1999 .28 WI 1 Æ 4.indefinite 2000 . R.2 0.04 MA 30Æ20 4.20 NJ 30 3. 2001 State Funding Duration 1998 . Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.6/2006 2001 .400 350 300 Million US$ 250 200 150 100 50 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Annual. M.indefinite 1998 .indefinite 10/1999 . and K.58 CT 15 Æ 30 4.3 0. A further 1. Source: Bolinger et al..50 DE 1 (maximum) 1.9 0.08 RI 2 1.indefinite 1997 . all states (left scale) Cumulative (right scale) 4.0 0.6 0. Wiser.9 0. 91 .

R.560. Wiser.590. http://www. October.6 41.331.6 OR 1 $3.964.9 Capacity On-Line (MW) 11.6 830.0 0. The single project located in New Hampshire is receiving support from Massachusetts’ clean energy fund..4 707.873.461 30.841.7 31. Wiser.0 MN 68 $61.118.305. Table 3.5 31. http://www.5 NH* 1 $2. The Impact of State Clean Energy Fund Support for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Projects.0 0.1 0.1 35.573.378.2 0.6 0.0 283.000 $14.964.287.pdf # of Projects Of the 163 projects announced. biomass.1 32. hydropower.000 $9. R.0 41.331.cleanenergystates.285. Fitzgerald.376 $344.2 6.cleanenergystates.8 Waste Tire 1 $7. Prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Clean Energy States Alliance.6 0.3 Landfill Gas 28 $38.6 0.org/CaseStudies/LBNL56422_Utility-Scale_Renewables.9 1.3 30.1 32.417 1.4 Source: Bolinger.093 $19. M.0 97.930 $2.2: State SBC Funding for Utility-Scale Renewable Projects (as of September 2004) Project Location Original Current Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Dollars Dollars Obligated Cancelled Pending On-Line Obligated ($) Obligated ($) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) CA 60 $243.6 568.2.884.977.000 325.000 $3.600.108.2.0 14.4 3.1 118.930 50.618 $80.0 0.548.787.0 NY 12 $26.210 Capacity Obligated (MW) 85.000 41.466.pdf 92 .9 0.560. 2004.0 Capacity Cancelled (MW) 9.118.3: Support for Utility-Scale Renewable Projects by Resource Type (as of September 2004) Resource Type # of Projects Original Dollars Obligated ($) $15.000 269.6 0.841.548. Fitzgerald.0 Total 163 $399.0 PA 8 $17.7 0.993 2.0 41.800.376 $193.093 49. the vast majority – both in terms of number of projects and generating capacity – are wind power projects (Table 3.000.413 $3.0 1.7 19.9 59.376 $344.3).305.098.000 $14.3 1.108.977 $61.0 NJ 5 $14.232.5 0.4 MA 4 $19. 2004.2. and G.000 41.4 0.555 $202.3 2.618 156.0 Capacity Pending (MW) 64.552 $31.406.8 35. and G.4 *New Hampshire does not currently have a clean energy fund.288.7 91.108. landfill gas.org/CaseStudies/LBNL56422_Utility-Scale_Renewables.590. October.0 Wind 112 $240.2 50.800.0 0.0 50.0 0.000 $26.832 $4.1 Biomass 8 Digester 3 Gas Geothermal 4 $80.988 45. Prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Clean Energy States Alliance. M.000 101.0 51.1 424.019. The Impact of State Clean Energy Fund Support for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Projects.469.953.4 707.993 2.5 IL 4 $9.0 49.770 $4.378. waste tire.0 Hydro 7 $12.210 Current Dollars Obligated ($) $11.302.469 90.Table 3.. In descending order of capacity are geothermal.993 1.258 $11.60 3.288. and digester gas.977 124.0 0.0 30.469. Source: Bolinger.5 Total 163 $399.3 1.0 151.

Retail suppliers can meet the obligation by constructing or owning eligible renewable resources or purchasing the power from eligible generators. have adopted RPS policies (Table 3.3.3.1: Renewable Portfolio Standards and Renewables Purchase Obligations by State 93 .3.000 MW of new renewable energy capacity by 2017 (Figure 3. Source: NREL/Union of Concerned Scientists. a number of states have increased their renewable energy standards in recent years.5% by 2008 DE: 10% by 2019 MD: 7..5% by 2019 DC: 11% by 2022 PA: 8% by 2020 California: 20% by 2017 Arizona: 1. while several other states have adopted nonbonding renewable energy goals (Table 3.1). In addition. Montana: 15% by 2015 Nevada: 20% by 2015 Minnesota: 19% by 2015* Iowa: 2% by 1999 Wisconsin: 2.3. Xcel Energy. 20 states plus Washington.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. RPS policies are expected to lead to the development of more than 29.2% 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. In conjunction with system benefits funds.3. To date.3.2).1) or renewable purchase obligations (Figure 3. D.C.2).1% by 2007 New Mexico: 10% by 2011 Texas: 5% by 2015 Colorado: 10% by 2015 Hawaii: 20% by 2020 *Includes requirements adopted in 1994 and 2003 for one utility. October 2005 Figure 3.

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

MN MT (Not true RPS) Applies to Xcel Energy only: 425 MW wind by 2002 and 110 MW biomass. Photovoltaics.5% by 2008 Class I: 4% by 2008. Alternative Compliance Payment of 5¢/kWh. with solar requirement of 0. Minimum 5% must come from solar. biomass. Financial penalties may be applied for noncomplian ce. and landfill methane Tier II: existing large hydropower. 7. Using NEPOOL Generation Information System. wave. and fuel cells. landfill gas. 15% in 2015 Wind. Distributed resources receives extra credit (1. Wind.16% retail sales (90MW) Goal of 20% by 2020. At discretion of PUC. geothermal. tidal. animal waste and aquatic plants). Excess production from existing generators over historical baseline eligible.State MD Purchase Requirements 3. Yes. ocean thermal. small hydropower (<30MW). fuel cells using renewable fuels. Class I. 1 Yes.5%. PV. & biomass (includes agricultural waste. wave. No MA New renewables placed into commercial operation after 1997. Landfill Gas. wood.: Solar. geothermal. fuel cells. Yes. Noncomplying retailers must submit a compliance plan. tidal.5% by 2006 with 1% from Tier 1 sources. No. Class II: hydro <30 MW and MSW facilities that meet air pollution requirements. wind. Anaerobic Digestion. GATS. and sustainable biomass. MSW. Revocation or suspension of license is possible. Additional 400 MW wind by 2006 and 300 MW by 2010 5% in 2008. Hydroelectric. biomass. Solar Thermal Electric. Class I or II: 2. NM Yes. Biomass. Geothermal Electric. other than standard regulatory oversight. wind.5%/yr to 4% in 2009 1%/yr increase thereafter until determined by Division of Energy Resources Eligible Resources Tier 1: solar. poultry litter incineration. wind. including solar. landfill methane. rising to 20% by 2015. hydro (<=5 MW). Tier II remains at 2.15). qualifying biomass. Increase by 1%/yr to 10% by January 1. and low-emission advanced biomass.5¢/kWh for Tier 2 paid to Maryland Renewable Energy Fund Entities may comply by paying 5¢/kWh. +0. geothermal. NV 6% in 2005. NJ Yes. 5% of retail sales by 2006.5% total by 2019 and in subsequent years 1% of sales to end-use customers from new renewables in 2003. RECs valid for 4 years from date of issuance. 30¢/kWh for solar. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Solar. geothermal. existing waste to energy Credit Trading Yes Penalties Alternative Compliance fee of 2¢/kWh for Tier 1 and 1. Tier 1 increasing by 1% every other year from 2007 to 2018. 10% in 2010. 1 kWh solar = 3kWh. Solar. Electricity must be delivered to MT. 95 . Penalty of 1¢/kWh goes to universal low-income energy assistance fund. wind. wind.

increasing 1. 2% of total incremental RPS requirement (7. Liquid Biofuel. CHP/Cogeneration. 1. solar. eligible biomass. Coal Gasification. Waste Coal. small hydropower. Unspecified. 1999) or small average MW from renewables (<2MW) facilities eligible.. Electricity must be delivered to NY. landfill gas. tidal. Yes. Anaerobic Digestion. fuel cells using hydrogen derived from renewables Credit Trading Penalties NY PA 25% by 2013. hydro. Other Distributed Generation Technologies Solar. including Trading System. Kappel. biomass. Wave Energy. 1% voluntary standard. GATS Penalty of 4. Yes. R. March 2006.5% annually 2008-2010.5% annually 20152019 5880 MW by 2015 (5000 MW new) Yes. Derived from table in Wiser. Hydroelectric. Fuel Cells. geothermal. RI 16% by 2020. 5¢/kWh or landfill gas. Utilities with Penalty of increasing to 2. WI 0. Solar Space Heat.000 is from facilities installed under 60 MW. biomass. Ocean Thermal Solar Water Heat. Porter. Biomass.5% by 2020 Possibly. increasing 1% annually 2011-2014. including co-firing. Penalty of 5¢/kWh can be made to Renewable Energy Developmen t Fund TX Solar. Landfill Gas.6% can come use renewable fuel.. C. Coal Mine Methane. Grace.71%) is set-aside for customersited 18% by 2020. $500. 2003. 3% by 2003. extended by PUC. Fuel Cells. Hydroelectric. Eligibility may be allowed in prior to 1998). legislation.5¢/kWh. Yes. Creating Geothermal Markets: Evaluating Experience with State Renewables Portfolio Standards. Photovoltaics. Solar Thermal Electric. Biomass. NEPOOL Generation Information System. R. K. tidal. Eligible Resources kWh biomass. 96 .State Purchase Requirements 2011 and thereafter. for solar penalty is 200% of PV REC value. New (operational 200% of Target of at least 500 after Sept. Biogas. Wind. report prepared for the National Geothermal Collaborative. geothermal. wind. increasing 0. CHP/Cogeneration.0002011 (0. Municipal Solid Waste. Wind. 8% Tier 1 and 10% Tier II Solar set-aside of 0.5% by 2001 Wind. Anaerobic Digestion.2% by geothermal. Source: Table updated by NREL. ocean. or fuel cells =2 kWh toward compliance Photovoltaics. Landfill Gas. ERCOT REC Lesser of wave. Tidal Energy. fuel cells that excess RECs can $5. Geothermal Electric. Solar Thermal Process Heat. & hydro trade or bank them. geothermal. wind. market value other than wind of renewable energy credits.

3% 1.183 7 2. followed by biomass (2. solar energy (0. landfill gas (2.3%). Hydroelectric. Solar Thermal Electric. Wind.3 Estimated Renewable Energy Capacity Satisfying RPS Requirements Through 2003 (Megawatts. Source: NREL. Photovoltaics.3% 100. Anaerobic Digestion.3.5% 0. State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals: Status Through 2003.eia. and biomass Solar Thermal Electric.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/rps/index.140 0 1.html State Biomass Hydro Landfill Gas 97 . Wind.4%).2: State Renewable Energy Goals (Nonbinding) State Illinois Purchase Requirements 8% by 2013 (75% wind) Eligible Resources Solar Water Heat. T.335 MW of generating capacity. CHP/Cogeneration. The five largest states in terms of capacity are Texas. Biomass. Biomass. hydropower (1. and other (0.3%). solar. DOE Energy Information Administration. Photovoltaics.335 Share of Total 2.5%) is wind power. hydro (<60 MW). 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. Landfill Gas. Iowa. Hydroelectric. 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). and Wisconsin.S.3%). 2004.3.186 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% 2. Table 3. U.Table 3.4% 93.2 2.3%). Landfill Gas.2 1. "Other Such Alternative Sources of Environmentally Preferable Energy" Wind.0% Source: Petersick. Minnesota. March 2006. California.3% 0.doe. The vast majority (93. July http://www. Minnesota Nationwide the RPS requirements for renewable energy are estimated to total 2.

40.000 20.000 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. IA.000 10.000 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. New renewable energy supported: .000 15.3. Figure 3.29.000 Megawatts 25. **If achieved. IL. and MN goals would support an additional 5.2: The Future Impact of State Purchase Mandates and Renewable Energy Funds 98 .000 30.000 35. November 2005.000 5.300 MW by 2017.

This offset means that customers receive retail prices for the excess electricity they generate. In this way.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. IOUs only) Net metering offered by one or more individual utilities #s indicate system size limit (kW). with the provider purchasing the power at a rate much lower than the retail rate. Without net metering. net metering enables customers to use their own generation to offset their consumption over a billing period. exempting others. January 2006 http://www.000 kW.org/library/includes/topic.g.4.4. Most states have some type of net metering policy (Figure 3.1: Net Metering Policies by State 99 . in some cases limits are different for residential and commercial as shown Source: DSIRE database.000 * 10 NH: 25 MA: 60 RI: 25 * * CT: 100 * * varies NJ: 2. a second meter is usually installed to measure the electricity that flows back to the provider.1).000* 10* 100 * 40 500 * 20 * 150 * 1.4 – 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.3. Some states only require certain types of utilities to offer net metering. Of the states that do have net metering policies (Table 3.4.cfm?TopicCategoryID=6&CurrentPageID=10 Figure 3.. 25 kW 25 25 50 kW 50 25/100 25* 100 kW * 25 2.000 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.

granted to utility at end of Colorado utilities serving 40. Hydro. Wind peak Electric Power Residential aggregate (Utility guidelines) Tucson Electric Power Arkansas California Colorado 25 kW for residential systems. Wind. 25 customers Credited at retail Yes Wind rate to customer's next bill. Landfill Gas. Biomass.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. 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. Industrial. Small Hydro. Residential Solar. Residential 2 MW / Commercial. (LADWP offers net metering voluntarily.00017/kWh Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill.) In addition.000 or more customers Fort Collins Utilities 1 In California. Anaerobic Digestion. customer reimbursed for NEG at utility’s average hourly incremental cost for the prior 12month period Photovoltaics. investor-owned utilities must offer net metering to customers with fuel cells and biomass-energy systems. Fuel Cells (Renewable Fuels) Colorado – Fort Collins Utilities 10 kW / Residential Credited at retail Yes rate to customer’s next bill. Wind. Anaerobic Digestion. 100 kW for commercial systems 1 MW (three biogas digesters up to 10 MW per unit may net meter) / Commercial.4. 100 .Table 3. Wind. Landfill None Gas. at end of each calendar year. Fuel Cells. Biomass. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle All utilities 1 Solar. Geothermal. 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. Microturbines Photovoltaics. 500 kW Tucson Commercial. Industrial.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. Fuel Cells None Yes All utilities 0.

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

Program System Size Limit/ Eligible Customer Technologies Classes Eligible 50 kW / Commercial. 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. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle Purchased monthly by utility at avoided-cost rate. Utah Power & large Biomass. Hydro. Residential.1% of utility’s 2000 peak demand) (Utility guidelines) Idaho Power Idaho – 100 kW for Solar. Hydro Limit on Total Capacity Treatment of Net Excess Generation (NEG) cycle Credited at retail rate to customer's next bill.5% of a utility's annual peak demand Yes All utilities Idaho – Idaho Power 100 kW for large commercial and agricultural. Wind. 25 kW for residential and small commercial Photovoltaics. Hydro. Agricultural Solar. Wind. Wind. 0. Biomass. Biomass. Government Photovoltaics. Fuel Cells 2. Biomass. Light commercial Hydro and irrigation.1% of utility’s Idaho retail peak demand in 2002) (Utility guidelines) Utah Power & Light Idaho – 25 kW / Avista Utilities Commercial. Fuel Cells 1.1% of Wind utility’s annual peak demand (Utility guidelines) ComEd 102 .1% of utility's 1996 peak demand) (Utility guidelines) Avista Utilities Illinois – ComEd Wind and PV Generation Program 40 kW / All retail customers Photovoltaics.52 MW (0. Residential. customer receives an annual incentive payment for production Interconnection Standards for Net Metering Utilities Involved Hawaii 0. granted to utility at end of 12-month billing cycle Purchased monthly by utility at retail rate for residential and small commercial customers. 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. Wind.9 MW (0. 25 kW for residential and small commercial 714 kW (0.

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

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

Biomass. 0. wind: 0. Biomass. None Granted to utility No 25. All NEG purchased by utility at avoidedcost rate at end of 12-month billing cycle. of a utility’s 125 kW for Wind demand in farm-based 1996. Wind. avoided-cost Industrial. utility’s North rate to 100 kW non.2% of a Credited at retail Yes residential. Hydro. utility’s peak utility’s no limit for Hydro. farm wind. CHP Ohio 100 kW for Solar. Wind. Wind. Wind. None Purchased by No Commercial. utility guidelines) Green Residential Fuel Cells Municipal Utilities Oklahoma 100 kW or Solar. Hydro.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 . Microturbines 400 kW for Photovoltaics. next monthly bill Industrial. Biomass. customer's next less) / Municipal bill at utility’s Commercial. Hydro. utility at avoidedIndustrial. 10 kW demand in for solar 1996.Biomass Carolina customer's next residential retail peak monthly bill.4% for residential of a utility’s wind. North Carolina 20 kW Photovoltaics. Municipal Solid Waste. demand unbundledother systems Fuel Cells. Residential Ohio – 25 kW / Photovoltaics. cost rate Residential Geothermal. generation rate / Microturbines to customer’s Commercial. 0.000 Biomass. credited to (whichever is Geothermal. 1% of a Credited at Yes microturbines. None Negotiated with (Utility Bowling Commercial. CHP rate (varies by Residential utility) Oregon 25 kW / Solar. load for the granted to utility previous year every June 1 and October 1 North Dakota 100 kW / Solar. Solid Waste. which is credited to customer’s next bill at the utility’s avoided-cost rate.5% of a Credited at retail Yes Commercial. Fuel utility's rate to System Size Limit/ Limit on Eligible Customer Total Technologies Capacity Classes Eligible CHP. monthly or kWh/year Hydro.Program New York Credited to Yes customer's next bill – except NEG from wind systems over 10 kW. Wind. Solar: 0.1% farm waste. Wind. 25 kW biogas: 0.

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

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

1).org/index. emissions associated with electricity generation.cfm?&CurrentPageID=10 Figure 3. requiring electricity suppliers to provide information on fuel sources and.1: Environmental Disclosure Requirements by State 108 . To date.3. With this choice comes the need for consumers to have access to information about the price. 25 states and the District of Columbia have environmental disclosure policies in place (Figure 3.5. in some cases. State has a Disclosure Rule Source: DSIRE database. D.C. Although most of these policies have been adopted in states with retail competition. source.5.5 – States with Environmental Disclosure Policies As electricity markets open to competition. it is important that consumers understand the environmental implications of their energy consumption decisions. January 2006. a handful of states with no plans to implement restructuring have required environmental disclosure.dsireusa. and environmental characteristics of their electricity. retail consumers are increasingly gaining the ability to choose their electricity suppliers. For green power marketers. http://www. in particular.

These utilities include investor-owned utilities. while others are phasing in competition. More than 600 utilities in 34 states offer green pricing.000 electricity customers nationally were purchasing green power products through regulated utility companies.” which is an optional service or tariff offered to customers. and government entities are increasingly interested in green power. or in the form of RECs (Table 3.6. Electricity markets are now open to full competition in a number of states. a single utility may provide a green power option to its customers through “green pricing. Customers At the end of 2004. or are in the process of preparing programs.” These certificates represent the environmental attributes of renewable energy generation and can be sold to customers in either type of market. REC sales have increased dramatically because of a number of very large purchases. On the other hand. rural electric cooperatives. Average participation rates among utility green pricing programs have remained steady at just more than 1%. While REC customers represent a small fraction of the total customer base. In restructured (or competitive) electricity markets. 109 . competitive markets have been less consistent. other markets have failed altogether—most notably in California and Connecticut.1). While green power sales have grown in Texas and some Northeast states. consumers can purchase green power through “renewable energy certificates. In regulated markets. retail electricity customers can choose from among multiple electricity suppliers. some of which may offer green power.3. Competitive markets have experienced penetration rates of from 1% to 2% in states where the market has been conducive to retail competition. And business and other nonresidential customers. Finally. more than 500.6 – 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. and other publicly owned utilities. whether or not they already have access to a green power product from their existing retail power provider. In aggregate. 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. from green power marketers in a competitive market setting. including colleges and universities. although the top performing utility green pricing programs have achieved rates ranging from 4% to 15%.

000* >160. In 2004. 110 . REC sales nearly tripled.000 < 10.2 billion kWh annually.000 ~390.000 ~520. as reported by the Center for Resource Solutions (2001.000 < 10. Purchases by residential customers represent slightly more than half of total renewable energy sales in voluntary markets.2: Estimated Green Power Sales by Market Segment (million kWh) 2003 Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets REC Markets Retail Total 1.6. the amount of renewable energy capacity serving green power markets has increased more than tenfold. increasing more than 60% to 6. while sales through utility green pricing programs and competitive marketers also exhibited strong annual growth of about 40%.000 >180.000 ~430. nonresidential customers accounted for 30% and 20% of total renewable energy sales in green pricing programs and competitive markets. This includes sales of renewable energy derived from both new and preexisting renewable energy sources. 2002).000** ->280. Sales Retail sales of renewable energy in voluntary purchase markets experienced strong growth in 2004. with another 450 MW planned.6. At the end of 2004.Table 3.720 6.000** ->290. Since 2000.000 < 10.000* ~150.840 2004 1. ** Includes only customers purchasing Green-e certified green power products.000 2004 330. more than 2.000* >110.000 2001 170.000 * Annual program participant numbers have been adjusted downward from those originally reported in Bird and Swezey (2003).280 1.840 2. Table 3.650 1.000 2002 230.900 660 3.000 2003 270. and nearly all REC sales.1: Estimated Green Power Customers by Market Segment 2000 Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets REC Markets Retail Total 130.000 >150.210 Increase 43% 40% 162% 62% *Includes sales of new and existing renewable energy.200 MW of new renewable energy generation capacity was being used to supply green power markets. respectively. because of program participation revisions made by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

2000 77 90 167 2001 221 542 764 2002 279 695 974 2003 510 1.energy.Bird and B.0 0.1 58.S.0 100.9 Solar 8. Table 3. http://www. 2004 (million kWh) Green Pricing Residential Nonresidential Total 1.6 0.6.720 Total 3. Green Power Markets (2004).140 510 2.4 0. Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving U.233.1 Biomass 135.840 Competitive Markets 2.5 80.045.1 0. Source: Bird and Swezey (2005).210 Share 56% 44% 100% Totals may not add due to rounding. 2000-2004 (megawatts) Market Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets/RECs Total Totals may not add due to rounding.4 31.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/new_gp_cap.1 Geothermal 35.0 Small Hydro 8.4: Estimated New Renewables Capacity Supplying Green Power Markets.0 Source: L.636 2004 706 1.5: New Renewables Capacity Supplying Green Power Markets.740 6. 2004 Source MW in Place % MW Planned % Wind 2.3 100.5 1.3 6.0 455.528 2.6.9 Total 2. Swezey.3: Estimated Green Power Sales by Customer Segment.shtml 111 . National Renewable Energy Laboratory.6 364.8 12.480 2.126 1.650 REC Markets 40 1.233 Table 3.4 0.6 91.6 6.5 0.Table 3. September 2005.690 1.6.eere.300 540 1.

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

0% Source: Bird and Brown (2005) Table 3.3% Median 0.1% 57.3% 1.3 13.8% 0.0%–5.2: Estimated Cumulative Number of Customers Participating in Utility Green Pricing Programs Customer Segment Residential Nonresidential Total % Annual Growth % Nonresidential 1999 na* na* 66.7% 0.0%–7.5 705.8% 0.7% 2003 258.700 98% 1.3% 2002 1.2% 2004 1.5 25. #Data for April 2000 source: Bird and Brown (2005) 113 .1 30.8% 10.3% 3.900 na na 2000 131.5% *Information on residential and nonresidential participants is not available for 1999.9% 4.7 100.0% 31. and the utility has not attempted to expand it.1% 0.9% 2000 1.5 Installed 82.3% 2001 166.300 2.7.700 132.7% 0.8%– 2.8% 0. because the utility with the highest participation rate (Moorhead Public Service) experienced an increase in its overall customer base. while the number of participants in its green pricing program remained steady.8% 3.900 228.9% 1.400 35% 1.3 6. Source: Bird and Brown (2005) Table 3.1: New Renewable Energy Capacity Supplying Green Pricing Programs in 2004 (megawatts) Source Wind Biomass Solar Geothermal Small Hydro Total 584.2% 2003 1.7.500 265.7 61.0% 3.7% 228.0 76.800 27% 1.2% 100.1%–4.9%–1.2 0.0% Top 10 programs 3.700 6.6%–7.1% for 4.500 3. The program was fully subscribed in 2000.000 16% 2.800 25% 2.7.100 331.2% 2001 1.0% Planned 139.Table 3.0 0.000 1.5% 2002 224.7%# 2.1% 0.500 168.5% participation * *The high end of the range declined from 2000 to 2002.3: Customer Participation Rates in Utility Green Pricing Programs by Year 1999 Average 0.700 8.5 8.4% 2004 323.

7 2001 399.50 (0. Source: Bird and Brown (2005) Table 3.7–17.00 0.4: Annual Sales of Green Energy through Utility Green Pricing Programs (million kWh) 2000 Residential customers Nonresidential customers Total All customers % Annual Growth % Nonresidential Customers ------453.5 0.8 572.9¢/kWh) was not eligible for the Top 10.6–17. In 2001. **Data for April 2000.Table 3. because it was either selling existing renewables or had not installed any new renewable capacity for its program.5 1. This includes only programs that have installed – or announced firm plans to install or purchase power from – new renewable energy sources.5** (0.4–2.50 0. 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 (0.839.15 2.00 0.0 2000 3.0 2001 2.3 233.50 0.7 895.5: Price Premiums Charged for Utility Green Pricing Products (¢/kWh) 1999 Average Median Range 2.7.00 0.5)–2.6 0.2 1.33– 17.284.33– 1.4 44% 32% 2004 1.6 2002 2.4–5.62 2.82 2.9–17.93 2.7–1.2 43% 30% *Sales information for customer segments not available for 2000. Source: Bird and Brown (2005) 114 .5 0.0 544.45 2.6 2003 2.1 410.6 2004 2.48 2.0 10 Programs with Lowest 0.5 26% 30% 2002 661.7.0 56% 26% 2003 874.3 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.5)–20.0–1.6–1.7 172.3 1.295.

5¢/kWh 3. 1998/ wind. Scottsboro Electric Power Board.7.0¢/kWh 2.0¢/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. Fort Collins Utilities. PV 2004 wind wind small hydro. hydro.67¢/kWh 1997 17.5¢/kWh 2.95¢/kWh 1. 2000 PV wind. geothermal landfill gas. Cullman Power Board. Florence Utilities. 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. Longmont Power & Communications. PV 2000 2004 2002 2002 2001 1999 2000 2003 2003 10¢/kWh 10¢/kWh Contribution 1.0¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh GreenWatts PV Green Power for the Schools PV Green Power for the Grid wind. landfill gas Blue Sky Block wind Palo Alto Green Green Power RE Green Energy wind.5¢/kWh 1. Sheffield Utilities.6¢/kWh 3. Joe Wheeler EMC. wind Start Date Premium 2005 Contribution 2003 2000 6.3¢/kWh 1.Table 3. Huntsville. landfill gas Clean Green Support various Green Power for a Green LA wind. Muscle Shoals Electric Board.5¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh 2. PV wind 1999 1998 2002 1999 115 . 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. landfill 1997 gas.6: Utility Green Pricing Programs by State.0¢/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. small hydro.0¢/kWh 3.5¢/kWh 3.0¢/kWh or $6/month 1. PV wind. Hartselle Utilities. Cullman Electric Coop. Loveland Water & Light Santa Clara Green Power Green Power Wind Power Pioneers Local Renewable Energy Pool Wind Energy Premium geothermal. PV. Decator Utilities. landfill 2001 gas.

Chimney Rock.6¢/kWh 0.0¢/kWh3. San Isabel Electric. wind 2005 2000 5. Springer Electric. Sangre. GreyStone Power.5¢/kWh 1993 1997 1999 2002 Contribution 0. 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. Jackson EMC. wind.0¢/kWh 1.33¢/kWh Contribution 1. Flint Energies. Irwin EMC. Habersham EMC. 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. Snapping Shoals EMC. hydro Carbon Power.60¢/kWh 5. 2004 PV GRUgreen Energy landfill gas.6¢/kWh 11.0¢/kWh 2.95¢/kWh 116 . Cobb EMC. Mountain Parks Electric.Program State Utility Name Type Name CO Tri-State Generation & Transmission: Renewable Resource Power wind. La Plata Electric. Tri-County EMC. Coastal Electric. Northwest Rural. Public Power District.0¢/kWh PV only 2002 biomass. PV Start Date Premium 1998 2. landfill 2000 Energy Program gas. 2004 Green PV. Jefferson Energy. Sawnee EMC. Ocmulgee EMC. Coweta-Fayette EMC.975¢/kWh 2. 2004 biomass. Lamar EMC. Mountain View Electric.PV Tampa Electric's Renewable PV.3¢/kWh landfill gas landfill gas. Kit Carson Electric. PV. North Georgia Electric Membership Corporation Hawaiian Electric Avista Utilities Idaho Power PacifiCorp: Utah Power Green Power Switch Contribution 2.67¢/ 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. United Power. Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association.75¢/kWh 1. PV GO GREEN: Florida Ever solar hot water. 2003 wind. Walton EMC of Monroe Georgia Power Green Energy TVA: Blue Ridge Mountain Electric Membership Corporation. New Mexico.5¢/ kWh 2. Service Gunnison County Electric. San Miguel Power. San Luis Valley Rural Electric Coop.97¢/kWh 3. biomass GO GREEN: USA Green wind.

Humboldt County REC. Kankakee Valley REMC. wind 2004 Contribution 117 . landfill gas wind landfill gas 2005 2003 1997 2001 2.5¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh4. landfill gas.9¢/kWh1. Grundy County REC.1¢/kWh 2005 3. Harrison County. Energy Program Hawkeye Tri-County/Cresco. Hendricks Power Cooperative.5¢/kWh IA IA wind wind 2000 2003 2. small hydro. Inc (8 of 11 coops offer program): Adams Electric Co-op. Northeastern REMC Alliant Energy Second Nature Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Prairie Winds Lyon Rural. 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¢/kWh geothermal wind. PV.9¢/kWh Contribution 0. digester gas landfill gas 1998 2001 2000 0. Nishnabotna Valley Cooperative. Rural Electric Convenience Co-op. Utilities District of Western Indiana REMC.5¢/kWh IA wind 1997 3.0¢/kWh IA IA landfill gas. 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. wind wind 2001 2000 2. PV wind.State Utility Name ID Vigilante Electric Cooperative IL IL IL IL IN IN IN IN CCS/Soyland and Community Energy. Ansgar Farmers Electric Cooperative Green Power Project Program Name Alternative Renewable Energy Program EcoEnergy Type wind. Menard. Northwest Rural Electric Cooperative. McDonough Power.0¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh Contribution 1. 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. Franklin REC. Decatur County REMC. Eastern Illini Electric. Heartland Power/Thompson & St. Spoon River Electric Co-op City of Naperville / Community Renewable Energy Option Energy City of St. Sac County REC Dairyland Power Cooperative: Evergreen Renewable Allamakee-Clayton/Postville. South Central Indiana REMC. Miami-Cass REMC. PV. Shelby Electric.0¢/kWh2. White County REMC. Tipmont REMC. hydro wind Start Date Premium 2003 1.0¢/kWh IA biodiesel.0¢/kWh wind.

Stanhope. Readlyn. Bloomfield. Grafton. Ogden. Milford. McGregor. Alta Vista. Gowrie. New Hampton. Farnhamville. Auburn. PV. Coggon. Pocahontas. Maquoketa. Kimballton. Eldridge. Coon Rapids. Brooklyn. Lenox. Licking. Burt. Paullina. Hawarden. Wilton. Dayton.0¢/kWh wind. Buffalo.Program State Utility Name Name IA Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities Green City Energy (80 of 137 participating) Afton. Rock Rapids. landfill 2005 gas landfill gas. Carlisle. Guttenberg. Shelby. Panora.5¢/kWh 4. Tipton. Hopkinton. Forest City. Cascade. Spencer. South Kentucky KY TVA: Bowling Green Municipal Green Power Switch Utilities. West Point. Villisca.0¢/kWh2. Montezuma. Mason. Westfield. Fleming. West Bend. Atlantic. Algona. Earlville. Rockford.75¢/kWh landfill gas. 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. Callender. 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. Independence. Inter-county Energy. West Liberty. Whittemore. Corning.5¢/kWh PV wind wind landfill gas 2004 2003 2001 2002 Contribution Contribution 2. Primghar. Sioux Center. Bancroft. 2003 Varies by PV utility wind wind 2004 2003 Contribution 1. Dysart. Durant.67¢/kWh 3. Stratford. Lake View. State Center. Fontanelle. Marathon. Neola. Grand Junction. Sibley. Keosauqua. Cumberland. La Porte City. Owen Electric. Winterset IA MidAmerican Energy Renewable Advantage IA Missouri River Energy Services RiverWinds (MRES): Alton. Danville. Ellsworth. Clark. Mount Pleasant. biomass. Corwith. Pella. Stuart.0¢/kWh 2. Hartley. Hudson. Greenfield. Grundy Center. 2001 small hydro wind 1996 wind. Fontanelle. Sanborn. Shelby. Orange City. Orient.0¢/kWh 1.67¢/kWh 3. Vinton. Preston. Lake Park. Breda. Laurens. Fairbank. Strawberry Point. Manilla. Jackson. Sergeant Bluff.0¢/kWh 1. Bellevue. Grayson. Aplington. Remsen. Estherville. Sabula. Livermore. wind hydro 2000 2004 2. Denison. landfill 2004 gas and animal waste methane 118 . Nolin. Salt River. Osage. Lake Mills. Webster City.

5¢/kWh wind wind 1998 2002 1. Todd-Wadena . Moorhead. Wadena.6¢/kWh 119 . Sioux Valley Southwestern Central Minnesota Municipal Power Green Energy Program Agency Dairyland Power Cooperative: Evergreen Renewable Freeborn-Mower Cooperative / Albert Energy Program Lea. Madison. Thief River Falls Missouri River Energy Services (39 RiverWinds of 55 munis offer program): Adrian. Redwood Electric Cooperative. St.45¢/kWh2.0¢/kWh 2002 2002 n/a 1997 2. Staples. Sauk Centre. Lake Park. Breckenridge. Dakota Electric Association. Wild Rice. North Itasca.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. Elbow Lake.5¢/kWh 1. Jackson. landfill gas. Kandiyohi Power Cooperative. Energy Program BENCO Electric. Goodhue County. Tri-County / Rushford Great River Energy (all 28 coops Wellspring Renewable Wind offer program): Agralite. Lake Country Power.5¢/kWh 2.5¢/kWh wind 2002 1. Itasca Mantrap Cooperative. Roseau. Luverne. Ortonville.5¢/kWh wind 1998 1.0¢/kWh2. Nobles Cooperative Electric. Crow Wing Power. Steele-Waseca. Runestone Electric. PKM. hydro landfill gas.0¢/kWh wind wind 2002 1999 2. East Central Electric Association. Benson. Connexus Energy. Federated Rural Electric. Wright-Hennepin Electric Minnesota Power WindSense Minnkota Power Cooperative: Infinity Wind Energy Beltrami. landfill gas wind Start Date Premium 2000 2.5¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh 1. Red Lake. Barnesville. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power. Stearns Electric. People's / Rochester. McLeod Cooperative Power. Lakefield. Co-op Light & Power. Henning.0¢/kWh 1. Alexandria. James. Westbrook. North Star. Lake Region Electric Cooperative. Detroit Lakes. Mille Lacs Electric Cooperative. South Central Electric Association . Arrowhead. Worthington Moorhead Public Service Capture the Wind Otter Tail Power Company TailWinds Type wind. Brown County Rural Electric. Clearwater Polk.5¢/kWh2. Red River. wind wind wind.0¢/kWh2. Minnesota Valley.

Mora Municipal Utilities.05¢/kWh wind.2¢/kWh 1.1¢/kWh 4. Starkville Electric System MO Boone Electric Cooperative Renewable Choice MO City Utilities of Springfield WindCurrent MT Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Prairie Winds Lower Yellowstone MT Northwestern Energy E+ Green MT Park Electric Cooperative Green Power Program MT Southern Montana Electric Environmentally Preferred Generation and Transmission Power Cooperative (5 co-ops): Fergus Electric.0¢/kWh 5.5¢/kWh 3. PV wind 2003 1998 2002 2001 2003 2005 2003 2001 1999 1.5¢/kWh 2. Blooming Prairie Public Utilities. Austin Utilities.0¢/kWh 2. wind wind wind wind wind. Northwest Rural Public Power District El Paso Electric Los Alamos Department of Public Utilities Public Service of New Mexico Tri-State: Kit Carson Electric Cooperative Xcel Energy Dominion North Carolina Power Duke Power Type wind Start Date Premium 2000 1. Yellowstone Valley.0¢/kWh 4. 2003 solar 120 .19¢/kWh 1. wind Renewable Resource Power wind.3¢/kWh 3. Lake City Utilities. PV. wind.0¢/kWh 1. Redwood Falls Public Utilities. landfill Service gas WindSource wind NC GreenPower NC GreenPower biomass.0¢/kWh landfill gas.0¢/kWh2. North East Green Power Switch Mississippi Electric Power Asssociation. 2003 solar biomass. Princeton Public Utilities.0¢/kWh wind landfill gas. Preston Public Utilities. Bear Tooth Electric.Program State Utility Name Name MN Southern Minnesota Municipal Power SMMPA Wind Power Agency (all 18 offer program): Fairmont Public Utilities. hydro 2003 2000 2. landfill Service gas Renewable Energy Tariff Green Power PNM Sky Blue wind wind wind Renewable Resource Power wind. Grand Marais Public Utilities MN Xcel Energy WindSource MS TVA: City of Oxford. Spring Valley Utilities. Wells Public Utilities. Waseca Utilities. Rochester Public Utilities. St. hydro. North Branch Water and Light. PV wind.0¢/kWh 4. New Prague Utilities Commission. Peter Municipal Utilities. hydro wind. Litchfield Public Utilities.8¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh 1.8¢/kWh 1. Owatonna Public Utilities.5¢/kWh 3. Mid Yellowstone. 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.67¢/kWh 2003 2000 2000 2003 2002 2002 2. wind.0¢/kWh 2.

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

2002 PV wind. wind existing geothermal. small hydro wind wind 2003 2005 2003 1999 1999 2002 2004 2.78¢/kWh + $2.35¢/kWh1.71¢/kWh 2.78¢/kWh 0. Cotton Electric Cooperative. Kay Electric Cooperative.0¢/kWh wind 2000 wind.State Utility Name OK Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (19 of 19): Alfalfa Electric Cooperative. Cimmaron Electric Cooperative.50/mo.2¢/kWh 0. Kiamichi Electric Cooperative. Rural Electric Cooperative. Clearwater Power.5¢/kWh 1. Southeastern Electric Cooperative. Southwest Rural Electric Cooperative OR City of Ashland/Bonneville Renewable Pioneers Environmental Foundation OR Columbia River PUD Choice Energy OR Emerald People's Utility Choose Renewable District/Green Mountain Energy Electricity OR Eugene Water & Electric Board EWEB Wind Power OR Midstate Electric Cooperative Environmentally-Preferred Power OR Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative Green Power OR PacifiCorp: Pacific Power Blue Sky QS (Commercial Only) OR OR OR PacifiCorp: Pacific Power Blue Sky Block PacifiCorp: Pacific Power / 3 Phases Blue Sky Usage Energy Services PacifiCorp: Pacific Power / 3 Phases Blue Sky Habitat Energy Services Pacific Northwest Generating Green Power Cooperative: Central Electric Cooperative. People's Electric Cooperative.7¢/kWh OR Clean Wind for Medium to Large Commercial & Industrial Accounts 2003 122 . Oklahoma Electric Cooperative.50/mo. Northfork Electric Cooperative. Caddo Electric Cooperative. wind wind 2002 2002 0. wind wind wind. Red River Valley Rural Electric Cooperative. donation 1. Harmon Electric Cooperative. biomass.8¢/kWh 0.5¢/kWh PV. Northwestern Electric Cooperative. Choctaw Electri Cooperative.0¢/kWh 2. Douglas Electric Cooperative. geothermal wind wind. biomass. Kiwash Electric Cooperative.8¢/kWh4.0¢/kWh 1. 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 0.5¢/kWh Sliding scale depending on size 1. East Central Oklahoma Electric Cooperative.95¢/kWh 0. Canadian Valley Electric Cooperative. Consumers Power. donation 1.8¢/kWh + $2. 2002 PV landfill gas 1998 OR OR OR existing geothermal.

Codington-Clark Electric Cooperative. Union County Electric Cooperative. Aiken Electric Cooperative. Green Power Switch Appalachian Electric Cooperative. Tri-County Electric Cooperative. Renville-Sibley Coop.State Utility Name OR Portland General Electric Company SC Santee Cooper. Grand Electric Cooperative. Power Assn.0¢/kWh2. Athens Utility Board. City of Maryville Electric Department. Dakota Energy Cooperative. ClayUnion Electric Corporation. Cookeville Electric Department. Cherry Todd Electric Coop. Southeastern Electric Coop. Kingsbury Electric Cooperative. Whetstone Valley Electric Cooperative.0¢/kWh wind 2000 1. York Electric Cooperative SD Basin Electric Power Cooperative: Prairie Winds Bon Homme-Yankton Electric Assn. Butte Electric Coop. Marlboro Electric Cooperative. West River Power Association.. McCook Electric Cooperative. Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation.5¢/kWh wind landfill gas..75¢/kWh 2001 3. Lynches River Electric Cooperative. Laurens Electric Cooperative. wind 2002 2000 1.0¢/kWh2. Charles Mix Electric Association. Program Name Clean Wind Power Green Power Program Type wind landfill gas Start Date Premium 2002 1. Fairfield Electric Cooperative. Palmetto Electric Cooperative. FEM Electric Association. Sioux Valley Southwestern Electric Coop. Horry Electric Cooperative. Douglas Electric Cooperative. Bristol Tennessee Electric System.67¢/kWh 123 . Northern Electric Cooperative. Duck River Electric Membership Corporation. Edisto Electric Cooperative. Santee Electric Cooperative.5¢/kWh 2. Pee Dee Electric Cooperative. Lyon-Lincoln Electric Cooperative. Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative. Black Hills Electric Coop. Rosebud SD Missouri River Energy Services: City RiverWinds of Vermillion TN TVA: Alcoa Electric Department. Oahe Electric Cooperative. H-D Electric Cooperative. Central Electric Cooperative Association. Clinton Utilities Board. LaCreek Electric Coop. Caney Fork Electric Cooperative. Dickson Electric Department. Cleveland Utilities. Moreau Grand. Clarksville Department of Electricity. City of Elk Point. PV. Berkeley Electric Cooperative.

95¢/kWh 4. Tullahoma Utilities Board. 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. Memphis Light. wind PV. Upper Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation. Plateau Electric Cooperative. wind. Greeneville Light and Power System. Loudon Utilities.5¢/kWh 2. Springfield Department of Electricity. Mountain Electric Cooperative. Johnson City Power Board.95¢/kWh 1. Meriwhether Lewis Electric Cooperative. PV Energy 2001 2002 2002 0. Paris Board of Public Utilities.33¢/kWh Contribution Contribution biogas 2004 wind.95¢/kWh 1. Volunteer Energy Austin Energy (City of Austin) GreenChoice City Public Service of San Antonio El Paso Electric Company City of St. Powell Valley Electric Cooperative. Middle Tennessee Electric Membership Corporation. Sevier County Electric System. Pulaski Electric System.0¢/kWh 124 . Fayetteville Public Utilities.0¢/kWh 2001 1. small hydro various wind 2000/19 0. 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. Lafollette Utilities Board. Nashville Electric Service. Erwin Utilities. hydro wind wind wind. Lenoir City Utilities Board. Gibson Electric Membership Corporation. McMinnville Electric System. landfill gas. Morristown Power System. Gas & Water. wind Renewable Resource wind. Harriman Utility Board. Oak Ridge Electric Department. biomass 2002 wind landfill gas. Newport Utilities.0¢/kWh Contribution 0. Murfreesboro Electric Department. Lawrenceburg Power System. Jackson Energy Authority.92¢/kWh 2005 2004 2000 2.7¢/kWh 1. Knoxville Utilities Board.5¢/kWh 97 2000 3.State TX TX TX UT UT UT VT VT WA WA WA Utility Name Elizabethton Electric System. Sweetwater Utilities Board. Sequachee Valley Electric Cooperative. EPB (Chattanooga).

Bayfield/ Iron River.3¢/kWh 2.0¢/kWh 1. Dunn / Menomonie. Menasha.0¢/kWh Solar Wise for Schools wind.0¢/kWh 2. Jump River / Ladysmith.0¢/kWh 2.04¢/kWh 2. Polk-Burnett / Centuria. Jefferson. Clark / Greenwood. Riverland / Arcadia. Slinger. hydro. New Richmond.45¢/kWh2. Whitehall. Waunakee. Scenic Rivers / Lancaster. Kaukauna. Two Rivers. 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. Lodi. Taylor / Medford. Waterloo. Boscobel. wind.0¢/kWh 3. Sturgeon Bay. River Falls. hydro wind. PV. Plymouth. Chippewa / Cornell Valley. wind wind. Price / Phillips.0¢/kWh 1. Croix / Baldwin. Pierce-Pepin / Ellsworth. Florence.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. wind Renewable Energy Program small hydro.95¢/kWh 2.5¢/kWh 2. Sun Prairie. Westby Wisconsin Public Service NatureWise Wisconsin Public Service Wellspring Renewable Wind wind Energy Program Wind Power Program wind Energy for Tomorrow landfill gas. biogas wind PV. Hustisford. Oakdale. Columbus. Richland.86¢/kWh Contribution 125 . Jackson / Black River Falls. Lake Mills.5¢/kWh 1. Reedsburg. hydro landfill gas wind wind. New Holstein. Waupun. Eagle River. St. biogas PV in schools 1996 1.0¢/kWh 1. 3 Orcas Power & Light Pacific County PUD Pacificorp: Pacific Power Peninsula Light Puget Sound Energy Seattle City Light Seattle City Light Snohomish County Public Utility District Tacoma Power Alliant Energy Dairyland Power Cooperative: Barron Electric.0¢/kWh 2002 2003 2003 1999 2002 2000 2002 2002 2005 2002 2002 2000 2000 1998 3. Richland Center.8¢/kWh 2. Eau Claire / Fall Creek. Cuba City.5¢/kWh WI WI WI WI WI WI Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Stoughton.05¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh Contribution 2. biogas wind small hydro. Prairie du Sac. (34 of 37 munis offer program): Algoma. New London.0¢/kWh 3. biogas 1997 1999 1996 2001 1. landfill gas wind Start Date Premium 2002 2. Oconomowoc. Muscoda. Hartford. landfill 2002 gas. Cedarburg.

0¢/kWh 126 .17¢/kWh 2000 1.5¢/kWh 1999 3. landfill gas wind Start Date Premium 2003 1.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.95¢/kWh 2001 2.

Renewable energy certificates (RECs) – also known as green tags.3.e. allowing some customers to choose their electricity supplier. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. while others are phasing-in competition.1: Green Power Marketing Activity in Competitive Electricity Markets 127 . Electricity markets are now open to full competition in a number of states. Massachusetts.8.eere. Texas. or tradeable renewable certificates – present the environmental attributes of power generated from renewable electric plants. A number of organizations offer green energy certificates separate from electricity service (i. http://www.shtml?page=4 Figure 3.8. Updated July 2005. Source: L. Virginia. renewable energy credits. competitive marketers offer green power to retail or wholesale customers in Maine. New York. Pennsylvania. and the District of Columbia (Figure 3.8 – Competitive Green Power Offerings and Renewable Energy Certificates Green power marketing refers to selling green power in the competitive marketplace. Swezey. New Jersey. Rhode Island. Bird and B.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/marketing.1). As of mid-2004. in which multiple suppliers and service offerings exist. customers do not need to switch from their current electricity supplier to purchase these certificates). Maryland. See our list below of organizations that offer green certificate products.

8. while the fraction of nonresidential customers purchasing RECs is higher – on the order of one-fifth. Of the total. This figure includes renewable energy from both existing and new sources. including about 30.690 1.140 510 2. the vast majority of customers purchasing green power are residential customers. Table 3.000 participants in utility/marketer programs. an estimated 200.000 <10. About 2.8.650 2004 na = not available An estimated 1.000 <160.000 <10.370 na na 1.1). primarily in the Northeast and Texas. Most of these customers are purchasing green power from competitive suppliers in states with retail competition. again dominated by wind. It also includes sales of renewable energy through default utility/supplier programs or utility/marketer partnership in states with retail competition.4 billion kWh of renewable energy was sold to retail customers by competitive and REC marketers.000 2003 >150. or is being sold as RECs in both retail and wholesale markets.Based on data received from green power marketers.7 billion kWh of this total was sold to retail customers bundled with electricity in competitive electricity markets – a 40% increase from 2003.530 MW of new renewables capacity is used to supply competitive green power markets.000 2004 >180. In competitive markets. An estimated 4. wind energy is the predominant resource type.000 Table 3.000 ~190.000 retail customers purchase REC products (Table 3.720 4.000 retail customers were purchasing green power from competitive suppliers – or in the form of RECs – at the end of 2004. 128 . More than 225 MW of additional renewables capacity is planned.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 2.560 40 1. 2002-2004 2002 Competitive Markets RECs Total ~150. as well as that sold to customers in products that contain only a small percentage of renewable energy.000 ~160.1: Estimated Number of Customers Purchasing RECs or Green Power from Competitive Marketers.900 2.8. with most customers concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states where REC marketers tend to be most active.000 <10. fewer than 10.

2004 Source MW in Place % MW Planned % Wind 1. NREL.3 0.973 56.0 0.shtml Table 3.9 100.0 0.905 2001 2002 2003 Sources: ERCOT 2004.9 1.5: Voluntary Market REC Retirements in Texas and NEPOOL Year Texas Voluntary REC Retirements (MWh) N/a 241.3 3.which totaled 136 million kWh.0 0. Green Power Markets (2004).9 Estimated RECs Sales Millions of MWh 0.7 3.461.7 billion kWh in 2004.0 Total 1.6 Solar 2.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/new_gp_cap. 2003 Retail Sales Millions of MWh Utility Green Pricing Competitive Markets Unbundled RECs Total Green Power Market Source: L.0 0.1 0.8.3 100.8.0 Source: L. Bird.1 Geothermal 5.S.527.3 0.7 3. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.0 0.energy.000 797.2 0.4 1. Retail sales of RECs.8.3 1.0 226. Table 3. grew nearly threefold.6 95. NEPOOL GIS 129 . September 2005. Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving U.9 0.4: Estimated Wholesale RECs Supplying Voluntary Markets.0 Small Hydro 0. 2004 1.000 NEPOOL Voluntary REC Retirements (MWh)* 0 112.0 0. reaching 1.eere.9 0. which are sold separate from electricity and largely derived from new renewable energy sources. http://www.7 224.Bird and B.3: New Renewables Capacity Supplying Competitive Markets and Renewable Energy Certificates.3 Biomass 59.8 99.0 Table 3. Swezey.

50 1.00 1. Data for July 2003 through October 2004.00-4.50-3.00 4:00-5.00 NEPOOL 35.00 6.00 Southeast Source: Evolution Markets.00 80.8. LIHI Hydro 6.00 1.00-3.75-2.50 WECC 1.6: Voluntary Market Wholesale REC Prices for New Sources by Type and Region ($/MWh) Wind Solar Biomass Small Hydro CA 1.7: Voluntary Market Wholesale REC Prices for Existing Sources by Type and Region ($/MWh) Biomass Geothermal Hydro Small Hydro WECC 0.50 1.00 2.00 New York 15.00 5.50 Central PJM New York 2.25-7.00-3.8.00-17. Table 3.00 1.00-5.00 45.50 PJM 15.50-5.50 Sources: Evolution Markets (data for July 2003 through October 2004) and GT Energy.50 Central 2.00-16.50 30.00 Southeast 3.25-2.00-200.00-150.Table 3.00-5.00 130 .00 SPP 2.00-3.50 NEPOOL 2.

or 100% of usage) or 100 kWh blocks — 75% small hydro.87¢/kWh Energy/Maine Plus Interfaith Power & Light (4) PEPCO Energy Green Electricity 2. 2% new solar.768¢/kWh (for 100% usage) 2.0¢/kWh Fee Resource Mix2 — 50% new wind.37¢/kWh Energy/Maine Interfaith Power & Light (4) Maine Renewable Maine Clean Power 2. 50% new wind Green-e — MA Cape Light Compact Cape Light Compact (6) Green 50% or 100% 1.1¢/kWh Options 50% or 100% of usage 0. 50%. 24% new wind or landfill gas. October 2005 State CT Company Community Energy (CT Clean Energy Options Program) Levco Product Name Residential Price Premium1 CT Clean Energy 1.Table 3.15¢/kWh — DC PEPCO Energy Green Electricity 1. 25%.5¢/kWh — 100% low impact hydro 80% low impact hydro.8. fuel cells.05¢kWh (for 51% or 100% of 100% usage) usage New Wind Energy (5%. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage PEPCO Energy Services (5) PEPCO Energy Services (5) Washington Gas Energy Services / Community Energy NewWind Energy 3. 25%. 20% wind landfill gas — — — — — MD — new wind — MD MD — 50% to 100% eligible renewables — new wind (5%. 33% existing small low impact hydro.5¢/kWh — DC — new wind — DC — new wind — ME ME MD Maine Renewable Maine Clean Power 2. 10%.35¢/kWh (for Services (3) 10%. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage PEPCO Energy Services (3) Washington Gas Energy Services / Community Energy NewWind Energy 2.8: Retail Green Power Product Offerings in Competitive Electricity Markets.75¢/kWh (for Services (5) 10%. or 100% of usage) 2. 50% landfill gas 98% waste-toenergy and hydro (Class II). wind.35¢/kWh (for 51% or 100% of 100% usage) usage Non-residential product New Wind Energy NA 2. 50%. 1% new solar 50% small hydro. 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) 1.4¢/kWh — MA Massachusetts Electric/Nantucket Electric/Community Energy New Wind Energy 50% or 100% of usage — Green-e 131 . 10%. and landfill gas — 33% new wind.

3¢/kWh Program Clean Power Choice 0.2¢/kWh Program 0. 25% small hydro 55% small hydro. — 75% existing landfill gas new wind — NY 1.75¢/kWh 2.4% solar.5¢/kWh — — NY Catch the Wind/New 2.5¢/kWh $.10/day for 100kWh $.35¢/kWh NJ 1.5¢/kWh to 0. 30% small hydro. 5% new wind. 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 50% wind.9¢/kWh Program Clean Power Choice 2. 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. 50% low — impact hydro 100-kWh new wind — 33% wind. 30% bioenergy.95/mo.5¢/kWh Wind Energy — 100-kWh blocks of — new wind 132 .4¢/kWh (for — 100% usage) Resource Mix2 75% small hydro.5¢/kWh Program: New Jersey Wind Energy Clean Power Choice 1.State MA Company Product Name Massachusetts New England Electric/Nantucket GreenStart 50% or Electric/Mass Energy 100% of usage Consumers Alliance Massachusetts Electric/Nantucket Electric/Sterling Planet Green Mountain Energy Company (7) Sterling Premium 50% or 100% of usage Enviro Blend Residential Fee Price Premium1 2.6% captured methane.0¢/kWh — — — — NY 1.20/day for 200kWh 0. 50% low — impact hydro 50% wind. 19% biomass. 5% new solar $3.0¢/kWh 1. 30% bioenergy — NY NY 1. 49% low — impact hydro. 35% bioenergy. 10% wind 40% wind. 1% solar 50% wind. 33% small hydro.3¢/kWh — 60% new wind. 5% wind. 40% small hydro 75% landfill gas. 0. 15% wind. 1% solar (≥25% of total is new) Certification — MA 1. 44. 34% bioenergy 25% new wind.9¢/kWh Program Clean Power Choice 5.0¢/kWh 50% small hydro.

30% small hydro. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage NewWind Energy 51% or 100% of usage 4.5¢/kWh — PA PA PA Energy Cooperative of EcoChoice 100 Pennsylvania (10) Energy Cooperative of Wind Energy Pennsylvania (10) PECO PECO Wind Energy/Community Energy (10) PEPCO Energy Services (10) PEPCO Energy Services (10) 2.7¢/kWh (for — 10%.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 1.1¢/kWh — wind landfill gas — — Green Electricity 4. 51% or 100% 100% usage) of usage 133 . 25% Resources new solar.0¢/kWh — Resource Mix2 60% new wind. wind and hydro — TX VA -1. wind TX -0. 30% bioenergy — NY 1. 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.5¢/kWh — — 100-kWh blocks of — new wind 40% new wind.5¢/kWh 2.78¢/kWh 2.53¢/kWh (for — 10%.03¢/kWh $5.98¢/kWh — TX TX Gexa Energy (11) Gexa Green Green Mountain 100% Wind Power: Energy Company (11) Reliable Rate or Month-to-Month Green Mountain Pollution Free: Energy Company (11) Reliable Rate or Month-to-Month Reliant Energy (11) PEPCO Energy Services (12) Renewable Plan -1. 50% new wind Green-e RI 1.54¢/kWh — — — 89% landfill gas.3¢/kWh 2. 50% wind Certification — NY NY NY 2. 1% solar wind — 100-kWh blocks of — new wind 100% renewable — PA Green Electricity 3. Green-e 30% new wind. 30% bioenergy 50% small hydro.46¢/kWh — 100% renewable $5.5¢/kWh — 69% small hydro.5¢/kWh — — — — — Environmental Resources Trust Green-e NY NY Green Mountain Energy Electricity Catch the Wind/NewWind Energy Sterling Green Renewable Electricity 1.48¢/kWh (for — 100% usage) 2. 10% Trust wind — — RI 1. 50% or 100% of Inc. 30% small hydro.34/mo. Green-e 10% wind.1¢/kWh 1. 25% hydro 40% wind.0¢/kWh 1. 40% hydro new wind 75% landfill gas. Environmental 25% biomass.0¢/kWh — PA 100% new wind — RI Narragansett Electric / NewWind Energy Community Energy.34/mo. 1% new solar 40% small hydro.0¢/kWh 1.

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 5.8¢/kWh). 3 Offered in PEPCO service territory.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.13¢/kWh. 2 New is defined as operating or repowered after January 1. Price is for PEPCO service territory based on price to compare of 6.21¢/kWh).503¢/kWh). 7 Green Mountain Energy offers products in Conectiv. Program only available in Niagara Mohawk service territory. and PSE&G service territories. 11 Product prices are based on price to beat of 12. Product prices are for PSE&G (price to compare of 6. Texas) (Except where noted). Premium varies depending on energy taxes and usage. Prices may differ for large commercial/industrial customers and may vary by service territory. 1999 based on the Green-e TRC certification standards. 12 Products are available in Dominion Virginia Power service territory 134 . 6 Price premium is based on a comparison to the Cape Light Compact's standard electricity product.33¢/kWh (for — 100% usage) 2.5¢/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.55¢/kWh. and include monthly fees. prices based on 1000 kwh of usage monthly. Except for Gexa Green. 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. which is listed in price per kWh. 9 Price premium is for Niagara Mohawk service territory. JCPL. 5 Product offered in Baltimore Gas and Electric and PEPCO service territories. 10 Product prices are for PECO service territory (price to compare of 6.

0¢/kWh New York. 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.0¢/kWh Oregon. Kansas (wind). 2.0¢/kWh 2. $12 per ton of CO2 avoided ** Renewable Choice Energy American Wind 100% new wind Nationwide 2.8.75¢/kWh 1.5¢/kWh 1.0¢/kWh Green-e 1.0¢/kWh Green-e Green-e Mid Atlantic Wind 100% new wind Mid Atlantic National New 24% wind. ≤1% new solar.Table 3. ≤1% new biomass New England 100% new wind Wind CoolHome National Washington. ≤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 Oregon.5¢/kWh Pennsylvania. 1.2¢/kWh 1. Montana. 25% Clean Energy MIx biomass. South Dakota (wind) 100% new wind South Dakota ~1. Wyoming. 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.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.9: Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Retail Products.6¢/kWh Environmental Resources Trust Environmental Resources Trust Green-e National 1. 2.0¢/kWh (biomass). 1% solar National and 100% new wind Regional New Wind New Wind 100% new wind Energy National 0. Montana.7¢/kWh2. Alberta Massachusetts 5. 50% landfill gas.8¢/kWh new wind Pennsylvania 1. ≤1% new solar. 2.0¢/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.0¢/kWh — ** NativeEnergy WindBuilders New biogas and Vermont and 0.65¢/kWh 5% new solar New York (solar) 1. Alberta National 3. Illinois. Wyoming.0¢/kWh Green-e 135 . West Virginia 95% new wind.2¢/kWh.

136 . ~$11/ton CO2 — Waverly Light & Power WindCurrent Iowa Energy Tags Chesapeake Windcurrent Iowa 2.3¢/kWh Green-e 2. NA = Not applicable.4¢/kWh 1. Most product prices are as of July 2005. 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. Nationwide 50% new biomass. Large users may be able to negotiate price premiums.0¢/kWh 2.Certificate Marketer Renewable Ventures SKY energy.5¢/kWh — Green-e 100% new wind Mid-Atlantic States Premium may also apply to small commercial customers. Inc. ** The Climate Neutral Network certifies the methodology used to calculate the CO2 emissions offset. 5% new solar TerraPass Various (including efficiency and CO2 offsets) 100% wind Nationwide Residential Price Premiums* Certification 3.6¢/kWh Green-e Green-e TerraPass Inc.

establishes a new set of federal renewable energy goals.3. which is the nation's largest energy consumer.5% by 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter. 2005. 2005.375 billion kWh of renewable energy annually. purchases 2. increasing to 5% in fiscal years 2010 through 2012. 137 . calling for agencies to derive 3% of their electric energy from renewable sources in fiscal years 2007 through 2009. and 7.9 – Federal Agency Purchases of Green Power The federal government exceeded its goal of obtaining 2. issued by President Clinton in 1999. The federal government.5% of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by September 30. The Energy Policy Act of 2005. The federal renewable energy goal was established under Executive Order 13123. signed into law by President Bush on August 8.

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

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

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

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

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

63 10. which uses the EIA AEO 2005 as the baseline for its analysis.14 4. because the Biomass Program has been redirected away from biomass power to integrated biorefinery technologies. 143 .63 2025 6.47 1.20 1.Reference Case AEO2006 .31 78.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Biomass/Wood (excludes cogen) AEO2006 .82 119.Reference Case AEO2006 .C.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2.37 18. and LFG are not included in the portfolio value. February 2006).Reference Case AEO2006 . The GPRA FY07 modeling effort uses the NEMS model. MSW.09 98.17 1.62 4.62 2. LFG/MSW.Reference Case AEO2006 .84 2.55 3.79 3.67 1.96 2.19 2020 4.53 78.61 17.03 3.21 6.21 68. 1 2 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy.Reference Case AEO2006 .27 16.85 1.92 109.91 0.17 1.21 123.33 79.23 2010 2.93 120.21 11.80 2.15 2.64 9..92 3. Notes: OnLocation GPRA07 benefits estimates do not estimate any programmatic influence on biomass power. February 2006.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Hydroelectric AEO2006 .21 79.88 19. The portfolio case accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.61 6.32 78.97 78.27 8. while individual program values represent each program case.26 112.83 2.71 2015 3.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Wind AEO2006 .19 3.41 79. Total includes biomass combined heat and power and on-site electricity-only plants for industrial and commercial sectors not detailed above.09 2.47 31.27 78.11 3.81 18.31 2.Reference Case AEO2006 .46 3.53 78.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 3 102.25 225.57 4.53 78.55 MSW and LFG AEO2006 . EERE does not have an R&D program for biomass.14 AEO2006 .02 4. The portfolio values do not equal the summed values of the individual programs.83 4.54 115.95 109. “Total” represents portfolio case values. as the portfolio analysis accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Solar 1 Projections 2006 2.78 3.01 3.16 78. Biomass.45 4.12 115.93 4.71 2. so they are not included in GPRA projections.56 16.80 20.76 1.92 3.87 77.53 18.66 135.53 196.Reference Case AEO2006 .10 22.02 2030 6.1 – Projections of Renewable Electricity Net Capacity (Gigawatts) Data Sources Renewable Energy Geothermal AEO2006 .86 78. D.56 2. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.15 2.14 Total Renewable Energy AEO2006 .81 137. Total Renewable Capacity GPRA projections provided by OnLocation.87 4.38 Sources: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2 3.98 1.21 79.Table 4. Tables A16 and D7.

91 23. D.30 35.80 490.82 64.Reference Case AEO2006 .69 15.13 27.60 55.75 28.83 95.C.59 59.10 29.60 539.90 293.25 35.87 50.Reference Case AEO2006 .50 59.90 2025 46.91 2010 17.80 29. 144 .45 27.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Hydroelectric AEO2006 . The GPRA FY07 modeling effort uses the NEMS model.20 27.10 302.2 – Projections of Renewable Electricity Net Generation (Billion Kilowatthours) Data Sources Renewable Energy Geothermal AEO2006 . Tables A16 and D7.01 47.00 63.74 2030 52.96 MSW and LFG AEO2006 .87 25.50 515.45 475. Biomass. EERE does not have an R&D program for biomass.46 558.30 39.10 63.60 28.60 303.40 3.19 2.87 302.71 6.15 544. February 2006.87 44.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Solar 1 Projections 2006 14.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 18.13 301.67 45.84 2020 34.65 400. so they are not included in GPRA projections.60 51.35 2.06 29.15 304.68 5. Notes: OnLocation GPRA07 benefits estimates do not estimate any programmatic influence on biomass power.Reference Case AEO2006 . while individual program values represent each program case. “Total” represents portfolio case values.70 73.08 28.10 3.80 301. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.60 2. which uses the EIA AEO 2005 as the baseline for its analysis.48 64.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Wind AEO2006 . The portfolio case accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects..High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2 25. MSW. February 2006).70 48.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Biomass/Wood (without cogeneration) AEO2006 .94 32.51 73.70 30.04 Total Renewable Energy AEO2006 .29 27.06 927.67 Sources: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006.10 303.60 3.51 19.16 12.80 1.40 301.30 151. The portfolio values do not equal the summed values of the individual programs.03 30.27 304.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 3 417.75 479.00 304. because the Biomass Program has been redirected away from biomass power to integrated biorefinery technologies.97 309. LFG/MSW.86 454. Renewable generation GPRA projections provided by OnLocation.01 AEO2006 .70 12.Reference Case AEO2006 .98 2015 22. as the portfolio analysis accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.20 44. and LFG are not included in the portfolio value.36 3.70 559.Reference Case AEO2006 .90 57.13 27.25 50.Reference Case AEO2006 . 1 2 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy.14 638.Reference Case AEO2006 .06 303.Table 4.40 303.30 29.82 59.91 742.

50 80.36 94.10 8.27 2.85 50.83 9.81 2.68 84.37 49.36 55.03 142.17 2030 6.30 3.96 7.Reference Case AEO2006 .78 4.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Heat Rate Carbon Coefficient Btu/kWh MMTCE/Tbtu 3 0. Department of Energy.01900 Sources: Generation data: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006.53 23.019 8. pages B-13 and B-16.S. 145 .Reference Case AEO2006 .47 0.22 2020 5.27 4. Appendix B. 2030 values are NREL estimates based on trend.Reference Case AEO2006 .03 5.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Solar 1 Projections 2006 2.63 8. D. Tables A16 and F8.92 3.87 9.Reference Case AEO2006 . Carbon emission coefficients and heat rates for 2006-2025: U.84 0.99 122.86 9.85 5.92 46.01944 0.42 9.54 83.47 0.60 39.02048 0. Heat Rate and Carbon Coefficienct data based on GPRA 2003 Data Call.37 9.78 4.75 85.796 10. Renewable generation GPRA projections provided by OnLocation.69 0.68 7.27 79.65 89.87 3. February 2006).01783 0.00 83.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 MSW and LFG AEO2006 .High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Biomass/Wood AEO2006 .39 6. GPRA2003 Data Call.50 2.51 10.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Wind AEO2006 .75 11.44 6.88 9.12 0.10 5.55 12.Table 4..10 10.39 5.47 5.79 10.65 49.87 7.56 0.High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 Hydroelectric AEO2006 .98 9.C.77 49.87 5.Reference Case AEO2006 .21 56.74 8.49 95.87 2010 3.53 AEO2006 .48 3.86 60.Reference Case AEO2006 .High Renewables EERE GPRA FY07 2 Total Renewable Energy AEO2006 .49 39. 2001).Reference Case AEO2006 .93 0.01875 0.59 10.75 0.40 4.891 6.34 2015 4.59 7.18 46.65 2025 7.86 59.82 5.872 4.69 73.88 10. (September 14.01988 0.593 5.43 59. February 2006.266 7.03 4.77 56.3 – Projections of Renewable Electricity Carbon Dioxide Emissions Savings (Million Metric Tons Carbon Equivalent per Year) Data Sources Renewable Energy Geothermal AEO2006 .34 9.51 0.56 3.39 5. DOE/EIA-0383 (06) (Washington.39 82.23 0.67 5.13 90.

and LFG are not included in the portfolio value. EERE does not have an R&D program for LFG/MSW. The portfolio values do not equal the summed values of the individual programs. MSW. as the portfolio analysis accounts for program interactions and micro-price feedback effects.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 .

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.

4 Electricity losses that occur between the point of generation and delivery to the customer. data are for net summer capacity at electric utilities only.953 4.827 280 5.094 710 24 734 18 16 203 2.838 782 30 812 49 15 243 3. February 2005).956 252 5.196 192 4.038 3.858 3. D. beginning in 1989. Tables 8. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.Table 5. 2 Through 1988..794 160 3.072 29 15 NA 4. data also include net summer capacity at independent power producers.11d. 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.501 226 4.802 3.421 171 3. data are for electric utilities only. August 2005).901 137 3. EIA.737 3.926 579 NA 579 25 4 216 2.027 44 1.533 876 29 905 36 14 253 3. and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.713 125 2.C.098 56 1.250 27 13 NA 5. NA = not available . All data after 1989 include electric-sector combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants. but which may also sell some power to the grid.108 5.3 – Electricity Overview (Billion Kilowatthours.300 192 4.341 278 5. and electricity sales among adjacent or colocated facilities for which revenue information is not available..463 166 3.488 168 3.551 166 3. data are for electric utilities and independent power producers.208 1.844 1. 6 Commercial and industrial facility use of on-site net electricity generation.656 938 30 968 34 22 248 3.580 157 3.094 NA 2.11a. A9.721 162 3.638 164 3. and 8. 8.002 41 18 NA 4.727 4. Annual Energy Review 2004. 8. 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 2.717 988 32 1.11b.C.021 42 21 NA 3. and data collection frame differences and nonsampling error. 3 Commercial and industrial combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and electricity-only plants.290 2.592 819 29 848 39 16 226 3.Through 1988.388 4.286 3 2.883 3.497 429 5.619 Sources: EIA.698 160 3. and small on-site generating systems in the residential. Beginning in 1989.1.186 64 1.629 214 4.154 28 13 NA 4.491 1. D.121 370 5.491 5. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. Tables A8. Data begins in 1989.629 919 30 949 30 24 233 3. and A10.155 965 37 1. commercial.370 163 3. 5 Electricity retail sales to ultimate customers reported by electric utilities and other energy-service providers.978 177 4.

Annual Energy Outlook 2006. Data include fuel consumption to produce electricity by combined-heat-and-power plants. 8 All 2004 figures are preliminary NA = not available 7 6 .408 142 2003 1. Forecast values calculated from quadrillion Btu using conversion factor 5.7 1. total petroleum is calculated sum. Beginning in 1989.2 NA 5 1.825 MMBtu/barrel. data are for steam plant use of petroleum. 1. consumption data also include independent power producers. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. and 4).161 40 116 NA NA 156 7. data are for electric utilities and independent power producers. 4. D. In forecasted values.013 18 141 6. and waste oil.7 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. Tables A2.3 0.8. 5 Petroleum coke is converted from short tons to barrels by multiplying by 5. electric utility data also include small amounts of kerosene and jet fuel.Table 5. kerosene. 2. and A15. and petroleum coke. data are for gas turbine and internal combustion plant use of petroleum.4 205 5.381 NA 569 29 391 0. electric utility data also include a small amount of fuel oil No.5b and 8.052 NA 2030 1. 3 Heavy fuel oil (Nos.0 0. 5 and 6). bituminous coal. A13. Table 8.459 NA 2025 1.287 MMBtu/barrel.235 41 117 NA NA 158 7. Light fuel oil (Nos.142 138 2002 975 22 105 5. Includes distillate fuel oil.014 102 2001 962 29 159 3. waste coal. other petroleum liquids.. 4 Jet fuel.003 27 137 5.02 205 3. Beginning in 1999.140 40 117 NA NA 157 5. For 1980-2000. August 2005). subbituminous coal.147 6 2000 983 30 138 3.8 2. For 1949-1979. Annual Energy Review 2004..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 3.142 NA 2020 1. Notes: Data is for electric-power sector consumption only. Through 1998.C.909 122 2004 8 2010 1. EIA. D. For 1949-1979. 1 2 Anthracite. other liquids. lignite. February 2006).509 NA 2015 1. residual fuel oil.C. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.4 184 5. and synthetic coal.354 44 118 NA NA 162 7.2 0. Forecast values calculated from quadrillion Btu using conversion factor 6.502 46 128 NA NA 173 6. consumption data are for electric utilities only.2 156 5.0 195 5.9 195 4.4 – Consumption of Fossil Fuels by Electric Generators 1980 Coal (million short tons) 1 2 3 1990 781 16 183 1. For 1980 2000. Through 1988. data are for electric utilities only.

143 -88 2.763 74 NA 2015 23. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.28 2001 19.537 8.137 5.199 30 26. Annual Energy Review 2004.616 39 0.634 NA 18.692 42.635 9..746 6.810 2.542 7. hydrogen.994 566 360 918 15 616 5.739 2 20.470 49 NA 2025 27.089 NA 2.088 NA 2.351 1. and EIA.C.57 2004 5 2010 22.013 79 NA 2020 25.232 -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. 4 Batteries.383 48. 1 Blast furnace gas.235 8.089 NA 2.96 2003 20.270 9 26. Through 1988. 3 Solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy.00 2002 19. D.442 NA 2.982 71 NA 2.710 Sources: EIA.547 115 1.517 37. chemicals.953 50 NA 2030 30.209 116 314 289 6 70 3. August 2005).522 955 25 26.281 6 20.271 1.022 38. purchased steam.867 3 2 110 NA NA 2.352 7.044 8.244 50.697 22 15. sulfur.068 NA 38. propane gas.154 38. D.123 3.120 1. Notes: Data are for fuels consumed to produce electricity at both electricity-only and at combined-heat-and-power plants.228 998 NA 35.673 158 334 302 6 143 3.633 8.538 21 665 6.Table 5.742 6.196 30 26.860 53.567 2.995 37.003 75 0.994 633 372 1.768 9.018 7. and miscellaneous technologies.659 NA 2.658 8 0.351 9.994 584 369 1.C.08 2000 20.185 5.068 38. pitch.647 971 NA 29.560 78 6..804 8.5 – Electric-Power Sector Energy Consumption (Trillion Btu) 1980 Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Other Gas 1 1990 16.227 5.919 5.104 -36 3. 5 All 2004 figures are preliminary . Tables A2 and A17.983 518 335 393 10 524 4.374 7. 1980 data included in Conventional Hydroelectric.733 5.09 Total Primary Consumption 24.014 106 180 326 4 29 3.985 522 349 567 13 577 5.959 -88 2.645 972 NA 33.781 156 337 303 5 115 3.223 48 NA 12. February 2006).009 1. data are for consumption at electric utilities only.768 126 294 296 5 57 3.541 1.145 19 26.470 7. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels. data also include consumption at independent power producers. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. Table 8. 2 Pumped storage facility production minus energy used for pumping.235 3.359 30.333 18 654 5.033 -90 2.224 1. Beginning in 1989.494 5.862 -57 2.320 960 NA 31.4b. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.817 45.650 141 353 305 6 105 3.

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

859 8.854 33.270 224.877 42.215 102.879 143.166 128.487 804.042 4.466 42.001 136.121 83.976 81.613 80.078 204. a division of the McGraw-Hill companies.136 93.023 4.139 94.676 830.6 – Fossil-Fuel Generation by Age of Generating Units (Megawatts) 1980 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50 Total: 91.1. Notes: Total MW does not equal fossil-fuel generation capacity cited in Table 6.870 54.504 33.694 205.204 18. .085 156.560 24.967 822.291 623.376 1990 39.119 33.156 33.465 156.534 37.055 86.582 11.292 91.952 2002 155.382 89.546 2004 218.274 44.464 172.731 31.236 145.Table 5.868 93.982 155.855 226.618 99.129 2001 90.214 2003 204.634 652.461 188.042 92.465 2000 54.427 Source: PowerDat.566 573.450 14.164 87.232 501.603 1999 34.735 82.690 141.854 221.161 757. © 2005.274 95.128 2005 233.223 21.234 81.057 210.140 175. Platts.321 15.259 692.701 2.977 196. Capacity reported in this table is nameplate capacity.

215 56.435 107.000 1990 30.485 49.214 2003 0 1.420 17.324 107.432 44.270 40.039 1999 1.332 107. Platts.597 4.270 31.810 54.105 12.189 43.1.408 25.036 44.537 46. a division of the McGraw-Hill companies.7 – Nuclear Generation by Age of Generating Units (Megawatts) 1980 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 16.Table 5.485 51.435 40.073 0 111. .214 2002 0 2.351 107.214 2001 0 2.289 33.214 2004 0 1.533 32.177 Source: PowerDat.143 107.214 2005 0 1.270 1.270 47. Notes: Total MW does not equal nuclear-generation capacity cited in Table 6.859 6.413 309 0 57.989 6.200 41.940 106.558 2.315 26.095 107.929 6. © 2005.278 39. Capacity reported in this table is nameplate capacity.628 48.270 4.214 2000 1.

335 4. http://www.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.nrel.445 MW of bio gas. hazardous waste.710 354 94.4 MW of photovoltaic capacity that are not accounted for here.324 2.447 11. cannery wastes.497 11.569 Source: Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS Database).475 2003 1 40 18 263 3.Table 5.000 7. 7 There are an additional 3. it is not verified at time of data book release 2 Agricultural residues.172 6. because they have no specific online date. hydrogen.540 4.569 104.576 3.335 5.800 2. nut hulls.030 2. wood chips. alcohol (includes butahol. because they have no specific online date.779 67.497 11. wood gas (from wood gasifier) 4 5 6 Municipal solid waste (includes industrial and medical). Notes: Totals do not equal renewable generation capacity cited in Table 6.955 1. because they have no specific online date. and methanol).930 2002 373 1. scrap tires.090 114.987 2001 373 999 2. peat.779 27.703 354 94.970 7. 1 2003 data is preliminary. 5.356 5. 8 There are an additional 24 MW of hydroelectric capacity that are not accounted for here.452 354 94. 2003.897 802 0.170 274 90. refused-derived fuel Timber and logging residues (Includes tree bark.06 85. saw dust. fruit pits. tree pitch.344 2000 373 933 2.190 373 1. bagasse. landfill gas.645 354 94. wood or wood waste) There are an additional 65.970 7.722 2. and 483. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.922 2. ethanol.003 2.078 114.053 3.458 11.779 38.869 2.1. wastewater sludge.45 MW of ag waste.779 59.780 111.gov/analysis/repis/. Version 7.305 9.623 113. pulping liquor. livestock manure. nut shells 3 Biogas.970 7.025 0 80.491 0.31 MW of wood residues that are not accounted for here. .

150 153 240 41 936 1.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.156 446 134 2001 232 9 889 2.9 – 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 2.013 3.160 381 155 2000 240 9 894 2.015 3. .doe.http://www.237 NA NA 1999 238 9 901 2.120 1.eia.145 1.150 1.015 3.html.Table 5. and the District of Columbia NA = not available 1999 and 2000 for nonutilities exclude commercial and industrial generators.http://www. Hawaii. The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry 2000: An Update (historical).970 NA NA Other Publicly Owned Utilities Sources: EIA. while 2001-2004 include commercial and industrial generators. Rhode Island.eia.380 127 2002 230 9 882 2.012 3.doe.html 1 Notes: Co-ops operate in all states except Connecticut.010 3.154 1.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920. and Form EIA-906 and EIA-920 databases (2001+ for IPPs) .753 2.015 3.538 147 2004 220 9 884 2.500 136 2003 223 9 885 2. EIA 861 report (1999+ for utilities) .012 3.

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. Duke Energy Corp Reliant Energy HL&P1 1 In 2002.952 6.904 75.767 4.433 7.852 38.302 7.830 54. Alabama Power Co.068 72.176 52.544 66.340 4. Georgia Power Co.680 52.434 53. December 2005).432 75.898 Rank 1 4 3 2 5 6 7 9 8 11 1 3 4 5 2 6 8 10 7 9 2003 Rank Million kWh 99.339 2003 Million $ 7.858 102. Southern California Edison Co.200 6. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.648 5.434 5.522 73.881 52.545 72.622 5.10 – Top 10 U. Electric Sales and Revenue .197 79.859 2000 Rank 4 2 3 1 6 5 9 8 12 7 Million $ 6.034 47.141 71.C.835 52.229 48.953 58.477 90. Virginia Electric & Power Co.665 4.775 75.885 77.703 4.743 Rank 3 4 2 1 6 5 7 8 9 10 4.028 5.338 46. electric industry restructuring commenced in Texas and both TXU and Reliant became Power Marketers Source: EIA.611 4.123 4.380 5..385 5.416 5.Table 5.340 70.030 2002 Million $ 7. PacifiCorp 1 In 2002.018 73.845 5. Table 10 (2005) and Table 17 (previous years) .362 71.222 53.339 75.597 70.073 49.384 52.526 76.668 3.726 65. TXU Electric Co.335 3. DOE/EIA -0540 (00) (Washington. 1 2000 Rank Million kWh 2 4 9 8 1 3 10 7 6 43 88.803 6.S.171 7. Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc Commonwealth Edison Co.502 3. 1 Million $ 4 2 6 1 5 3 10 9 7 8 Southern California Edison Co.305 4.310 4.294 100.028 6.122 78.495 72.144 77. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.816 2004 Million $ 8.848 4.419 54.681 3.244 53.748 7. TXU Electric Co. Georgia Power Co.345 2.299 3.128 74.686 18.977 67.123 48.763 72.426 3. D.081 70.121 73.543 75.874 5.520 7.050 68.359 52.065 6.208 47.777 4.988 6.436 2 5 4 7 1 3 9 12 8 11 2001 Rank Million kWh 90.457 4.723 4.915 5 8 7 9 1 2 12 3 4 10 65.918 49.782 5.288 1990 Commonwealth Edison Co.283 3.391 47.437 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 99.288 4.821 6.897 49. Investor-Owned Utilities & Power Marketers 1990 Utility by Sales (Million kWh) Rank Million kWh Florida Power & Light Co.708 2001 Rank 7.151 4. electric industry restructuring commenced in Texas and both TXU and Reliant became Power Marketers Utility by Revenue (Million $) Rank Florida Power & Light Co.286 5.513 4.437 6.015 4.022 4.159 5.369 6. Duke Energy Corp Virginia Electric & Power Co.738 6.154 5.342 6.063 40.

000 32. Edison Mission Energy sold most of its international power-generating assets.317 44.100 20.149 28.sec.733 46.954 18.323 22.254 21.400 8.830 21.146 27.Table 5.688 48.841 44.834 In 2004.889 15.744 29.917 45.660 46.442 23.086 18.408 30.891 24.737 17.200 18.349 22.000 55.11 – Top 10 Independent Power Producers Worldwide (Megawatts) Company SUEZ Energy International (formerly Tractebel Electricity & Gas Int'l) AES ENEL SpA. 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.gov/ accessed 2/06 .000 42. Source: Company 10K SEC filings at http://www.319 23.000 19.456 19.

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

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.Table 5.nerc.com . www.

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

.

5 79.6 2030 481.9 0.8 20. chemicals. Includes natural gas-fired distributed generation.1 1.8 78.9 19.Table 6.8 6.9 3.9 100.6 8.7 2001 314.7 0.9 3. sulfur.8 0.11a.2 16.8 20.0 20.8 86.3 2.9 98. Table 8.4 4.4 6.8 0.2 731.7 20.6 7.1 0.0 509.2 97.4 220.8 115.6 19.5 73.1 5.5 78.5 6.0 108.8 3.6 3.8 20.4 6. Annual Energy Review 2004.3 5.7 112. A16.8 78.8 0. 1 2 Anthracite.0 10.6 968. distillate fuel oil.6 20. sludge waste. 5 Municipal solid waste. data are for net summer capacity at electric utilities only.9 2. hydrogen.9 95.4 2.0 96.5 4.9 97.1 79. NA = not available .3 0.2 320. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels. 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.6 2015 325.1 2020 355. waste coal. other petroleum.3 436. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.6 948.1 788. Includes other biomass in projections. bituminous coal.8 0.7 1020.4 2. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.7 1151. 4 Wood.2 7. 3 Pumped storage included in Conventional Hydro prior to 1989.2 19. supplemental gaseous fuels. Tables A9.5 6. EIA. Through 1988.8 99. lignite.5 78.7 2.9 3.9 1.8 78. August 2005).6 11. Includes projections for energy crops after 2010.5 811.2 99..1 2010 322.5 2. data also include net summer capacity at independent power producers and the commercial and industrial (end-use) sectors.8 120.5 0.1 0.7 634. tires. black liquor. kerosene.1 0. blast furnace gas.8 0.9 763. Waste included in Wood prior to 1985.7 19.1 2000 315.9 4.3 2003 313.4 468.8 78.9 0.6 905.4 94.4 104.9 0. natural gas.0 1. pitch.0 NA NA 444.7 5. Petroleum.5 734.2 0.8 598.5 98.4 527.8 901.6 824.4 374.7 1001.1 – 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 307.3 491.7 1070.3 109.9 20.3 17. landfill gas.1 123. jet fuel.1 108.7 NA 578.0 418.6 20. 6 Includes batteries.9 0.2 2025 409.5 18. February 2006).3 1. purchased steam.5 437.C.1 3.3 2002 315. subbituminous coal.1 51..4 3.8 466.1 NA NA NA 82.8 990.8 NA 81. D.4 3.5 4.8 78.9 0.4 2.2 99.2 689. fuel cells.1 5.2 3. Beginning in 1989. petroleum coke.4 96.7 2.1 283.8 108.7 1245.5 2.2 5. agricultural byproducts. propane gas.1 4.9 750. residual fuel oil. waste oil.9 0. D.6 Sources: EIA.4 2004 313.4 848.4 79.C. and other biomass.8 1.2 20. and other wood waste.7 0. and synthetic coal.1 2. and miscellaneous technologies.

4 88.. 3 4 5 6 Includes batteries.9 6.1 100.9 198.4 4.8 2002 305. residual fuel oil.0 2025 385.7 409.6 17.0 986. black liquor.4 89.7 2. Includes natural gas-fired distributed generation.C.5 3. petroleum coke.8 325. distillate fuel oil.5 2. tires.1 694.0 698.7 0.9 2.0 108.8 108.2 2003 303.7 498.0 0. NA = not available .8 111.2 – 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 299.0 893.0 90. EIA. sludge waste. data also include net summer capacity at independent power producers.6 89. other petroleum.2 2.2 0.1 2010 313.1 0. Through 1988. and synthetic coal.8 77. February 2006).1 0. waste coal. Notes: Data are for electricity-only plants in the electric-power sector.5 77.0 20.C. lignite.1 104.8 19.3 102. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.0 1. sulfur.9 407.4 378.2 2.5 78.0 1140.0 839.8 20.5 3.6 2000 305.6 2.9 682.1 1.8 20.0 97.9 99.9 4.4 2. agricultural byproducts.0 379.0 1055. propane gas.7 0.0 790.9 0. data are for net summer capacity at electric utilities only. Includes projections for energy crops after 2010. Beginning in 1989.8 108.6 2. whose primary business is to sell electricity to the public.9 20.6 19.9 20.0 0.0 876.3 748.4 3.0 754.2 279. Annual Energy Review 2003.0 924.8 80.3 2.4 2. waste oil.7 0. 2 Petroleum.9 665.8 0.8 77.8 0.3 2. blast furnace gas. chemicals.5 16.2 2030 453.9 0.8 1.9 2.0 2020 340.1 114. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.8 77.4 78. subbituminous coal..8 77. pitch.9 0.7 1.5 2001 305.3 1.7 20.5 98.1 78.2 3.8 3. Pumped storage included in Conventional Hydro prior to 1989.2 19.1 1. 1 Anthracite. landfill gas.5 2015 315. Wood.1 630.Table 6.5 0. Waste included in Wood prior to 1985.5 73.8 0.7 0.5 3.1 813. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington. bituminous coal.6 0.1 443.9 549. supplemental gaseous fuels. kerosene.2 3.0 362. natural gas. and miscellaneous technologies.6 99.4 3. purchased steam.6 3. Tables A9.4 723.2 99. and other biomass.7 428. September 2004).0 3. fuel cells. hydrogen.4 2.2 20.6 4.3 1. A16. jet fuel.4 584. and other wood waste.9 98. D.7 18.5 77.8 77.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sources: EIA.3 2004 303.7 105.9 19.1 0.9 0.4 6.0 947.2 243. Includes other biomass in projections.2 1. Municipal solid waste.11c.9 6. D.2 108.8 20.1 0.9 897.4 6.4 2.6 20.8 0. Table 8.0 90.8 0.

8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sources: EIA. sludge waste.3 0.3 0. blast furnace gas.0 1.7 69.5 49.6 75. Includes electric utility CHP plants.5 58.6 0.1 0. kerosene. Waste included in Wood prior to 1985.3 0.3 – 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 7.0 5. purchased steam.0 1. and other wood waste.0 0. black liquor. August 2005).3 0.. D.0 55. natural gas.0 1. D.0 4.0 7.0 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.0 4. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington. subbituminous coal. Includes projections for energy crops after 2010.11c. tires.7 0.7 0.7 29. Tables A9.0 0.9 93.0 0.1 2004 9. agricultural byproducts.0 7.0 0.1 0.5 61.0 8. bituminous coal.9 49. Municipal solid waste.0 0.0 0.. jet fuel. other petroleum. EIA. and miscellaneous technologies.0 7.3 0. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.7 0. Table 8. supplemental gaseous fuels. Includes other biomass in projections. Pumped storage included in Conventional Hydro prior to 1989.3 0.7 65.0 67.0 5.1 41.C.4 2015 10.6 0.0 4.0 0.9 0. propane gas.6 65.0 39. Annual Energy Review 2004. 3 4 5 Wood.1 0.Table 6.0 2010 9.5 0. NA = not available .3 5.0 0.0 0.9 65.1 0.0 0.3 65.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.4 2002 9.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0. Petroleum.0 0.4 75.6 0.5 0. 1 2 Anthracite.0 0.2 0. petroleum coke.8 0.7 0.0 5.1 56.0 6. chemicals.0 6.0 0. 6 Includes batteries. sulfur.5 2000 10.6 0.5 0.0 0.3 50.0 4.4 0.7 0.1 58.8 0.2 2001 9.6 0.8 0.0 5.0 0.6 0.4 0.7 0. lignite. landfill gas.9 0.3 0. hydrogen.8 0.0 0.6 2003 10.0 0.7 87.7 104.4 57. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.7 84.7 77.0 4.9 0.0 8.6 0.7 73.0 0.0 5. February 2006).8 0.5 2020 14.3 0. distillate fuel oil.0 5. Notes: Includes combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants whose primary business is to sell electricity and heat to the public.7 96.8 2030 27.3 1. fuel cells.5 35.0 0.5 21.0 0. waste coal. residual fuel oil.8 0.3 0.6 0. and synthetic coal.0 4. A16.6 63.0 0.5 0. waste oil.1 0. pitch.0 10.9 58. and other biomass.6 72. Includes natural gas fired distributed generation.0 0.5 57.8 0.6 0.8 0.C.7 2025 23.5 0. Also includes commercial and industrial CHP and a small number of commercial electricity-only plants.

4 Source: EIA.922 45.C.605 28.020 593.972 43.4 – Regional Noncoincident 1 Peak Loads and Capacity Margin (Megawatts.949 94.996 ERCOT 42.729 33.012 SERC 121.705 56.961 40.812 714.831 55.988 28.5 16.737 57.344 56.201 56.602 109.565 ASCC (Alaska) 463 NF NF NF Hawaii NF NF NF NF U. September 2004).794 678.321 29.986 141.551 32.815 NA 36.551 40.088 149.110 40.389 114.529 42.015 55.244 57.874 NF NF 608.182 141. Notes: NF = data not filed.545 117.199 40.Table 6.293 158.079 137.841 45.187 96.565 3 Capacity Margin (%) 21.546 44.312 604.009 135.652 18. 546.719 24.2 1990 67.635 39.9 29.413 687.423 61.235 102.606 43.868 29.176 28.448 38.432 42.6 2004 102.556 45. NA = not available 2003 data are forecast estimates.972 28. 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.418 45.487 59.12. Annual Energy Review 2003.332 42.7 14.994 28.645 42.471 42.312 604.113 40.331 678.256 41..812 714.033 100. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.5 2004 87.057 55.119 NPCC (U.5 2001 2002 Winter Peak 85. except as noted) North American Electric Reliability Council Regions 1990 2000 2001 2002 Summer Peak ECAR 79. Net internal demand does not include estimated demand for direct control load management and customers with interruptible service agreements.089 122.4 2003 86.606 55.461 21.625 41.943 24.469 104.537 709.134 48.576 97.015 45.396 MAPP (U.535 157.) 24.194 39.413 687. Table 8.) 97.324 588.367 122.986 28.097 35.S.943 156.018 153.886 57.S.300 44.478 33.688 2 WECC (U.949 56.628 47.074 Contiguous U.566 56. D. Total 546.475 53.870 729.569 MAIN 40.696 MAAC 42.412 21.986 NF NF NF NF 576.248 FRCC NA 37.702 36.614 30.951 576.231 613 NF 484.S.013 19.S.767 SPP 52.393 611.641 38.882 29.670 46.013 NF NF 729.815 23.6 15.062 40.541 40.622 95.458 46.852 139.146 30.258 92.4 2003 98.536 43.740 52.552 56.450 102.477 54.996 40.S.485 87.426 NF NF 588.414 40.844 NA 2000 84.116 50.273 39. .426 29.375 NF NF 717.478 NF NF 611.119 119.613 49.252 484.409 24.) 44. 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.

.6 6.0 4.0 0.3 0. Table A9.4 9.0 0.4 5.0 3.3 0.0 0.Table 6.3 0.3 2.0 0.8 37. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.1 60.7 9.5 9.6 32. geothermal.0 11.0 0.0 0.8 6.4 0.0 4. and dual-fired capability.0 0. other biomass. 2 Includes oil-.1 0.0 8.9 0.6 1.6 28. solar.2 0.8 49. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.8 7.0 0.0 0.6 2.0 0.1 25.0 0.4 0.0 51.7 5.4 0.0 49.6 8.1 0.0 46.0 0.6 8.0 0..0 51.7 Sources: EIA.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 7.5 260.0 0.8 1.3 6.0 0.0 0. landfill gas.0 0.4 96.0 0.9 31.2 0.2 8.8 3.0 0. gas-. and wind power.9 0.0 0.2 0.8 45.1 53. 2001.1 6.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 59.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 25.0 1.1 0.6 9.7 0.6 8.0 0.0 0.8 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.8 44.C.7 145.1 25.0 0.5 6. 4 Primarily peak load capacity fueled by natural gas.3 0.0 2.0 5.7 5.2 0.7 5.5 11.2 6.5 77.7 5.8 46. 3 Includes conventional hydroelectric.0 51.0 0.9 21.4 167.0 11.7 5.0 41. D.6 8.1 64.0 11.2 0. wood waste.0 10.5 – 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 8.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 25.0 51.0 0.0 0. Notes: 1 Additions and retirements since December 31.4 0.1 25. February 2006).2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0. municipal solid waste.0 10.0 0.3 0.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 0. wood.

503 2000 2 2001 2 2002 2 2003 2 2004 2 76.845 1999 76.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/transmission.doe.195 27.000 2.560 166.407 2.827 27.958 2.231 81.nerc.pdf Notes: 1 2 Circuit miles of AC lines 230 kV and above.855 27.587 2.343 2.560 166. NERC.428 144.511 47.6 – Transmission and Distribution Circuit Miles (Miles) 1 Voltage (kilovolts) 230 345 500 765 Total 1980 NA NA NA NA NA 1990 70. Data includes both existing and planned transmission lines .560 167. Electricity Supply and Demand Database.Table 6. 2005.250 26.429 28.948 23.252 54.453 154.400 81.038 2. http://www.888 80.238 54.011 2.426 154. Electricity Transmission Fact Sheets.eia.992 55.992 Sources: EIA.com/~esd/Brochure.html.518 164.226 82. http://www.762 49.515 53.025 25.437 51.

497 871 -9 303 53 103 30 6 65 559 -278 12 5. residual fuel oil. minus energy used for pumping.491 2030 3.926 1.933 95 691 11 2. kerosene. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels (including refinery and still gas). Data for 1980 included in conventional hydroelectric power.505 107 1. 1 Anthracite. Through 1988..162 246 346 NA 1.730 780 -9 264 14 39 23 1 10 351 NA 6 3.802 2001 1.974 119 650 16 2. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. tires.381 115 990 12 4.2a.727 2020 2.290 Sources: EIA.754 251 NA 279 5 0 0 NA NA 285 NA NA 2. and miscellaneous technologies.677 769 -9 217 14 35 22 1 7 295 NA 5 3. 3 Natural gas.883 2004 1. lignite. including a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels. and synthetic coal. pitch. data are for generation at electric utilities only. bituminous coal.108 809 -9 301 18 76 27 2 51 476 -177 12 4. other petroleum.038 2000 1.953 2010 2. and other biomass. propane gas.102 12 3. data also include generation at independent power producers and commercial plants. landfill gas.108 2025 2. 5 Pumped-storage facility production. jet fuel. and other wood waste. purchased steam.085 871 -9 303 47 103 30 4 63 549 -252 12 5.725 871 -9 303 34 86 29 3 60 515 -214 12 5. and EIA. Annual Energy Review 2004.976 118 700 15 2.018 12 3. sulfur.411 829 -9 302 23 79 28 3 56 491 -192 12 4. August 2005). black liquor. Tables A8 and A16.388 2015 2. 4 Blast furnace gas. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington. 8 Municipal solid waste.069 12 4. subbituminous coal. sludge waste. NA = not available .C.218 105 774 12 3. 6 Hydroelectric data through 1988 are for generation at electric utilities and industrial plants only. Beginning in 1989. 2 Distillate fuel oil. Table 8.737 2002 1.858 2003 1. agricultural byproducts.C. whose primary business is to sell electricity – or electricity and heat – to the public. and waste oil. D. data also include generation at independent power producers and the commercial and industrial (end-use) sectors.809 789 -8 270 14 37 23 1 14 359 NA 6 3. D.. February 2006).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. Forecast data include electricity generation from fuel cells. 9 Includes nonutility and end-use sector generation for own use.896 108 1. petroleum coke. beginning in 1989.Table 7.904 125 639 9 2. hydrogen. chemicals.104 577 -4 293 15 33 13 0 3 357 NA 4 3. 7 Wood.594 127 373 10 2.692 754 -6 276 14 38 23 0 6 356 NA 5 3.759 764 -9 276 14 38 24 1 11 363 NA 6 3.966 111 601 14 2. Notes: Data include electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants. waste coal.277 104 1. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. 10 Batteries.

propane gas. beginning in 1989.162 246 346 NA 1. petroleum coke. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. and synthetic coal. residual fuel oil. hydrogen.942 577 -4 290 15 6 10 0. and waste oil.525 2004 1.2c.5 7 259 0 3. 8 Municipal solid waste. Notes: Data are for electricity-only plants in the electric-power sector whose primary business is to sell electricity to the public. NA = not available .392 769 -9 214 14 7 17 0.411 2002 1. 5 Pumped-storage facility production.968 871 -9 299 53 58 28 2 65 504 NA 5.178 99 691 NA 3. black liquor.C. agricultural byproducts. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.945 2030 3.2 – 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 1.408 754 -6 271 14 7 18 0. minus energy used for pumping. and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels (including refinery and still gas).6 14 319 3 3. landfill gas. tires.560 118 265 0 1. 7 Wood.C..2 NA NA 282 0 2.473 2001 1.332 1. purchased steam.787 809 -9 297 18 45 25 1 51 436 NA 4.164 90 533 NA 2.754 251 NA 276 5 0. sulfur.728 93 775 NA 3. kerosene.852 113 427 0 2. sludge waste.310 871 -9 298 34 49 27 1 60 469 NA 4. Beginning in 1989.Table 7. data are for generation at electric utilities only.405 90 814 NA 3.596 871 -9 299 47 51 28 2 63 489 NA 4.510 789 -8 264 14 7 18 0. D. other petroleum.Table 8. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.5 11 323 1 3. Forecast data include electricity generation from fuel cells. 1 Anthracite.505 2003 1.916 109 421 0 2.4 3 324 0 2. and other wood waste. chemicals.446 764 -9 272 14 7 18 0.3 0.286 Sources: EIA. data also include generation at independent power producers and commercial plants. and miscellaneous technologies.422 780 -9 260 14 7 17 0.5 6 316 0 3. 9 Includes nonutility and end-use sector generation for own use. and EIA.041 829 -9 297 23 45 26 1 56 448 NA 4. February 2006).6 10 311 1 3. 2 Distillate fuel oil. Tables A8 and A16. 3 Natural gas.881 83 457 0 2. Through 1988. lignite.209 89 743 NA 3.306 2020 2. 10 Batteries. subbituminous coal.911 98 399 0 2.. pitch. jet fuel. bituminous coal.611 2010 2. including a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels. data also include generation at independent power producers.840 2000 1.916 108 486 0 2. 6 Hydroelectric data through 1988 are for generation at electric utilities and industrial plants only. Data for 1980 included in conventional hydroelectric power.020 2015 2. August 2005). and other biomass. 4 Blast furnace gas. D. Annual Energy Review 2004. waste coal.638 2025 2.

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

4a.798 266 2003 3.2a.858 7. 2 Transmission and Distribution Losses= Electricity Needed to be Transmitted. August 2005).802 7.737 7.339 251 2015 4. and EIA. 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.1.. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.617 243 2002 3. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.232 274 2025 5.240 9.006 271 2010 4.652 294 2030 5. and 8. D.893 9.883 7. and data collection frame differences and nonsampling error. Tables 8.C.764 254 2020 4.038 6. NA = not available .859 NA Transmission and Distribution Losses Sources: Calculated from EIA.094 317 2.536 8.809 258 2001 3. Annual Energy Review 2004.290 4.316 219 2000 3.211 8.C. Tables A2 and A8.4 – Generation and Transmission/Distribution Losses (Billion kWh) 1980 Net Generation Delivered Generation Losses 1 2 1990 3. 8.Generation for Own Use. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.648 10. February 2006).Electricity Sales. where Electricity Needed to be Transmitted = Total Generation from Electric Generators + Cogenerators + Net Imports . D..953 8.756 257 2004 3.Table 7. Represents energy losses that occur between the point of generation and delivery to the customer.

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

4 5.835 8. 1c.html Tables 1b.780 13.525 4.2 6.South Atlantic Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Maryland North Carolina South Carolina Virginia West Virginia 778.eia.0 6.931 15.919 54.483 7. Total 10.S.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_sum.424 28.944 14.908 105. Census Bureau.2 7.5 7.584 129. Includes bundled and unbundled consumers .6 8. 1d.1 7.2 6.415 218.466 66.287 14.218 1.756 4.S.1 13.972 6.971 Sources: EIA.943 12. and for Puerto Rico: April 1.026 11. 2000 to July 1.761 11. 2005 (NSTEST2004-01) .5 8.874 885 852 17.doe.785 8.6 7.census.685 270.270 11.xls Notes: Revenue in 2004 dollars. http://www.780 1.732 3.416 11.State Population Estimates 2005.917 Hawaii U.548.892 125.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-01. Data Tables.657 79. http://www. Electric Sales and Revenue 2004 Spreadsheets.471 18.943 225. Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States. and U.456 15.973 13.7 7.

including a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels that cannot be identified separately.70 5.39 2. and No.40 2. 1 Historical data converted to 2003$/MMBtu using EIA Annual Energy Review 2003.88 3.Table 9. bituminous coal.67 1. jet fuel. 3 4 Natural gas.. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.70 1. D.02 5.43 5.11 1.31 2004 9. Notes: Includes electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity . residual fuel oil (No. 2 1990-2003 data are for distillate fuel oil (all diesel and No. Beginning in 2002. petroleum coke (converted to liquid petroleum). subbituminous coal. Appendix D.29 2. NA = not available .29 1.26 1. Table 4. D.36 2. kerosene.96 1.51 2. and synthetic coal. Electric Power Annual 2004.87 1. 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 2.08 1.05 6.40 5. "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.44 2. Prior to 2002. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.57 2010 9.29 5.56 2003 6. No.. 5 and No.62 6. data from the Form EIA-423.29 1.40 1.72 5.86 2001 NA 3.44 3.49 NA NA NA NA NA Fossil Fuel Average Sources: EIA. 5 Weighted average price.50 2030 10. and waste oil.or electricity and heat .to the public. 4 fuel oils).41 2020 9. Anthracite. lignite. 6 fuel oils and bunker C fuel oil).23 4.48 2. waste coal.28 6. Data are for steam-electric plants with a generator nameplate capacity of 50 or more megawatts.41 2015 9.61 1.87 4.46 2025 10.04 5.65 4.81 2002 NA 3.29 1. the data for 2001 and previous years include only data collected from electric utilities via the FERC Form 423.48 4.C.46 1.02 5. February 2006).69 1.46 1. November 2005).C.93 2000 NA 4. 2.73 6. Table A3. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) (Washington.5. these data were not collected. and EIA.

(Washington.200 1.787 1. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.262 31 5. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).060 26 4.461 1. includes agriculture and irrigation.197 964 5 3." . and other sales to public authorities. Table A8.944 1.273 1.421 2001 1.551 2010 1.192 1. D.619 717 559 815 3 2.488 2004 1." and "Transportation.Table 9. Industrial sector. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. 2 3 4 5 Commercial sector. September 2005).491 2020 1.147 29 4.208 2030 1. Annual Energy Review 2004.C.008 7 3.159 1..592 1.203 1.844 2025 1.463 2003 1." "Industrial. including sales to railroads and railways.195 30 5.370 2002 1. Table 8.576 1. including public street and highway lighting. interdepartmental sales. Through 2002. Notes: 1 Electricity retail sales to ultimate customers reported by electric utilities and.293 1.229 1.103 28 4.155 2015 1." "Commercial.691 1. D.9.C. excludes agriculture and irrigation.094 Transportation Sources: EIA. February 2006).897 2.151 1.064 5 3. Transportation sector.430 1.762 1. and EIA. The sum of "Residential.267 1.. other energy-service providers. beginning in 2003.2 – Electricity Retail Sales (Billion Kilowatthours) 1980 Retail Sales Residential Commercial Industrial Total 5 3 4 2 1 1990 924 838 946 5 2. beginning in 1996.713 2000 1.218 972 6 3.021 8 3.

5 5. (Washington.6 2.1 6. 2 Prices represent average revenue per kilowatthour. calculated by using gross domestic product implicit price deflators using EIA Annual Energy Review 2004 Appendix D.0 7.5 10.5 8.4 7. For 2000 onward..6 9.1 7.2 7.7 7.5 7. D.0 7.8 0.5 2. D.7 2002 8.0 4.0 4.4 5.9 5.5 7.4 7.8 0.1 7.4 5.2 5. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.5 2.3 – Prices of Electricity Sold (2003 cents per Kilowatthour) 1 1980 Price by End-Use Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation / Other 3 2 1990 10. and EIA.7 0.2 7.Table 9.4 9.5 7.7 6.3 2015 8.8 11.C. data also include energy-service providers selling to retail customers 1 Historical data real prices expressed in chained (2004) dollars. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).9 8.C.7 1.4 2001 9.3 7.9 8. sales to railroads and railways and interdepartmental sales.6 0.6 2004 8. For 1990.4 9.0 0.9 7. 3 Public street and highway lighting. Table A8.3 7. NA = not available .0 5. Notes: For 1980. other sales to public authorities.1 8. August 2005).4 2030 8.4 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. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.1 7.3 7.4 7.3 8. Annual Energy Review 2004.1 6.1 7.2 2025 8.6 5. data are for selected Class A utilities whose electric operating revenues were $100 million or more during the previous year.0 7.8 5.10.2 5.1 0.9 4.0 7.0 0.5 2003 8. February 2006).8 8.2 7. Table 8.6 1.7 2000 8..1 5.4 7.6 2010 8.7 1.8 5.8 Sources: EIA.7 5. data are for a census of electric utilities.9 8.1 2020 8.3 7.1 5.7 1.

598 95.533 1. (Washington. For 1990.190 260. DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington.C..865 348.353 150. other sales to public authorities.090 115. August 2005).688 167.315 318. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).C. D. February 2006). Annual Energy Outlook 2006. Table A8.Transportation-sector revenue reported starting in 2010. D.846 59.180 519 56.624 60.808 132.419 252.259 1.369 108.680 117.448 424 51.185 130.731 259. Annual Energy Review 2004.165 2.173 542 56.778 52.369 53.741 385.368 355 99.331 372 97. For 2000 onward. data are for a census of electric utilities.980 106.10.589 264..932 2.130 197.245 61.425 Sources: Calculated from EIA.536 49.453 113.455 289 93.9 and 8.811 303. Notes: 1“ Other” includes public street and highway lighting.594 124.351 109. EIA. data also include energy-service providers selling to retail customers .579 111.4 – 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 77.392 421.291 268.760 100.808 140.150 149. Tables 8. 2 For 1980.153 236.399 59.537 81. sales to railroads and railways.Table 9. data are for selected Class A utilities whose electric operating revenues were $100 million or more during the previous year.108 161.658 64.235 100.803 420 52. and interdepartmental sales through 2003.030 68.

867 5.510 1.853 14.759 4.209 11.444 2.945 720 1.323 535 366 273 14.5 – Revenue from Sales to Ultimate Consumers by Sector.063 4.299 605 1.793 9.596 637 596 344 190 895 312 314 308 6.486 37.045 1.324 1.506 1.284 3.494 1.307 13. 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.544 756 510 1.287 1.278 4.677 16.343 294 321 752 609 551 203 16.332 428 2.150 2.890 3.277 2.858 480 373 226 17.034 488 528 163 13.975 1.799 10.475 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.116 7.950 4.774 12.455 2.248 865 624 37.628 1.132 962 1.395 674 36.732 2.992 11.646 677 5.855 3.307 446 319 1.833 4.306 4.902 3.012 1.638 2.985 3.922 7.115 36.717 2.364 3.560 1.313 25.401 10.221 3.864 1.901 1.952 2.657 16.890 4.934 2.407 28.221 6.648 497 1.295 1.Table 9.034 1.570 1.554 1.696 1.742 5.654 3.198 6.134 1.679 7.624 2.232 2.466 8.995 423 244 844 233 126 126 5.925 3.187 2.710 1.Commer1 2 Industrial Other All Sectors tial cial 5.Commer1 Industrial Other tial cial 7.682 3.185 610 5.538 1.638 .069 5.619 2.266 1.847 3.935 2. and State.681 1.629 4.551 1.448 2.618 5.409 1.247 1.920 9.432 759 1.293 2.004 3.010 1.447 1.710 529 825 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 18.465 5.353 3.044 1.505 731 893 1.475 5.401 5.990 10.305 1.537 527 2.038 661 369 33 14 19 302 32 210 60 32 25 1 0 5 1 1 0 13.095 2.749 7.520 11. Census Division.701 1.019 1.251 1.477 1.984 18.022 1.085 830 2.482 16.707 6.148 6.

Total 828 256 571 874 286 588 619 94 526 53. railroads and railways. to public authorities.doe.661 0 0 0 504 2.181 4. Data Tables.530 394 124 87 8.601 2.973 300 670 6.390 2.397 670 225 224 18.315 843 419 80 22 7 9 31 10 0 599 594 54.140 1.785 8.912 1.587 1.269 1.510 378 147 10.310 207 13 1. http://www.255 Source: EIA. Table 1c. Includes bundled and unbundled consumers.086 4.267 3.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_tabs.835 8.756 4.780 1.304 2.456 116.016 2.eia. and interdepartmental sales.html. .525 4.972 6.483 Pacific Noncontiguous Alaska Hawaii U.037 100.321 636 1.874 885 852 17.871 1. Electric Sales and Revenue 2004 Spreadsheets.369 2.516 1.North Dakota South Dakota South Atlantic Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Maryland North Carolina South Carolina Virginia West Virginia 249 283 27.685 270. Notes: 1 2 Includes sales for public street and highway lighting.S.

1.619 3.897 2.676 604 950 375 75 29 1.Table 9.352 96.285 38.130 2. DOE/EIA-0437(00)/2 (Washington.115 4. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) (Washington. December 2002). DOE/EIA-0348(2001) (Washington.341 9.699 3. D. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1994. data for 2004 not available.009 25.466 26.585 3.647 36.. DOE/EIA-0437(99)/2 (Washington.180 1.555 61. DOE/EIA-0437(94)/2 (Washington..354 8.893 234 13. EIA.301 4.247 1.988 212 17.653 663 630 448 120 30 2. November 2005).726 3.649 26.3..828 7.127 4.C.4.594 5.543 4.3 2003 10.398 9.444 3.983 107.561 3. because of independent rounding.C.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 1.122 29. Table 10 and Table 21. Electric Power Annual 2001.371 18. Tables 8.526 62. Table 8. November 2000).969 12.256 Publicly Owned Utilities 1990 1995 2000 2002 5.613 1. 3 Collection of Form EIA-412 has been suspended.922 348 13.772 951 1. EIA.863 7. D. 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. D.1.532 2004 28. December 1995). Electric Power Annual 2004.276 10. Table 8 and Table 17..481 225 24. Public Electric Utility Database (Form EIA-412) 2002 and 2003. D. and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.446 1.S.132 58.246 1. Notes: 1 2 Publicly Owned Utilities include generator and nongenerator electric utilities..097 4. .821 261 12.C.. and 8.113 4.000 700 354 84 2.378 26. EIA.044 754 311 95 2.923 Source: EIA.028 22.585 1.476 62.165 1. 8. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 2000.173 7. November 2001).087 2. Operation.880 32.C.519 27.181 104.973 5.494 3.348 24.683 977 1. and EIA. EIA.311 3.502 68.519 3.6 – Production.018 845 854 662 233 82 2.181 212 10.526 32.678 67. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1999. D.702 16.542 155 15.742 5.981 9.839 403 13. Table 10 and Table 21.664 11.078 1.425 2.012 238 13.188 1.185 4.828 24. Totals may not equal sum of components.688 90.635 20.872 25.C.

.

821 261 12.501 32.19 2.599 91.31 4.50 2.466 11.995 2002 188.S.341 9.901 81.722 2000 210.64 2.454 2003 197.146 14.35 8.181 26. weighed by net generation.54 2.165 1.C.983 29.132 58. internal combustion.774 16.57 8.07 2.761 23.41 2.287 28.962 104.635 20.58 3.555 61.585 3.256 4.291 116.38 3.473 122.425 2.01 Storage 2 12.678 67.519 3.04 2.23 4.086 62.755 17.839 403 13.561 3.180 1.028 11.50 2.3 2.16 .45 2.723 96.087 2.301 4.1 and 8.26 Gas Turbine and Small Scale Source: EIA.86 2.662 107.962 24.373 22.354 8. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) (Washington.21 4.881 68.444 3.1 and 8.012 238 13.893 234 13.065 14. November 2005).23 Fossil Steam 2.319 26.161 182.68 5.009 12.65 2.72 8.93 5.613 1.115 4.69 3.228 24.96 3.324 191.185 22.50 4.246 1.880 1.352 32.526 1.532 3.745 171.476 62. Notes: 1 Operation and maintenance expenses are averages.889 20.113 4.28 3.721 18.181 212 10.699 3.247 1.73 Hydroelectric and Pumped 2.459 175. D.371 11..321 150. 2 Includes gas turbine.43 2.2.73 Maintenance (Mills per 1 Kilowatthour) Nuclear 5.57 8.494 3. 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 142.58 2.68 2.649 24.885 27.173 7.38 2.779 14.21 3.571 165.648 21.329 132. 5.04 5.54 5.185 4. Tables 8.38 2.688 3.97 2. Electric Power Annual 2001.74 4.05 2.141 16.76 8.6a – Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.872 10.122 29.2. and EIA. Electric Power Annual 2004.76 9. photovoltaic.828 2.828 7.767 19.471 127. Tables 8.130 2.981 9. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities (Million of Nominal Dollars. and wind plants.519 11.68 5.99 3.986 2004 207.337 131.374 90.922 348 13.823 10.Table 9.969 12.843 17.

DOE/EIA-0437(94)/2 (Washington.C.S.895 1. D..619 3.624 398 771 92.923 47. Publicly Owned Generator and Nongenerator Electric Utilities (Million of Nominal Dollars.172 4.044 754 311 95 2.395 242 113 N/A 2.133 205 196 10. DOE/EIA-0437(00)/2 (Washington. December 2004). EIA.772 30.018 22. EIA.818 433 754 93. NA = not available .646 746 1.163 222 101 73. 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. DOE/EIA-0437(99)/2 (Washington. Financial Statistics of Major U. November 2001).C.3 and 8.446 1.813 977 1.973 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. D. Financial Statistics of Major US Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1994.653 19.165 2. DOE/EIA-0348(2003) (Washington.. EIA.127 4.C.285 38. December 1995).594 5. or the electric utility outsourced much of the work.100 951 1. Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1999. Tables 8. Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 2000.651 845 854 662 233 82 2.188 2003 7.353 4. November 2000).000 700 354 84 2. 1 Totals may not equal sum of components.683 44. D. Electric Power Annual 2003.4 Notes: EIA suspended collection of this dataset in 2004.100 26.347 332 603 16. Table 10 and Table 21.626 663 630 448 120 30 2. Table 8 and Table 17.539 1. Financial Statistics of Major U. Table 10 and Table 21.097 4.420 1.988 212 17.S.Table 9.526 3. 2 Number of employees was not submitted by some publicly owned electric utilities.078 1.6b – Operation and Maintenance Expenses for Major U.144 24. D. Public Electric Utility Database (Form EIA-412) 2002 and 2003..647 36..150 316 373 71.398 2002 6.752 Source: EIA. because the number of electric utility employees could not be separated from the other municipal employees.863 2000 5.481 225 24.742 1.542 155 15. EIA.520 5.277 261 231 11.742 5.739 785 1. because of independent rounding.S.C.558 1.

even if sold to an unregulated entity.Table 9. Notes: Includes plants under the Clean Air Act that were monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. EIA.3.96 124 1. Table 5. steam-electric capacity of 100 megawatts or more. Table 5.23 124 1.38 145 Source: Electric Power Annual 2004.7 – 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 1.16 126 0. These data are for plants with a fossil-fueled. DOE/EIA-0348(04) (November 2005)..35 118 1. DOE/EIA-0348(01) (March 2003).27 131 1. Electric Power Annual 2001.11 124 1. .3.

89 NA 21.93 14.89 1..90 1.30 19.94 2000 1.92 15.21 7.98 15.65 5.32 4.53 16. Annual Energy Review 2004.19 16. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.51 7.02 6.73 13.C.52 27.16 2020 1. February 2006).46 1.87 13.18 1.56 2.00 14.71 7.90 17..94 13.53 7.86 NA 22.60 13.51 1.97 12. 3 The "Primary Energy Total" and "Total Energy" prices include consumption-weighted average prices for coal coke imports and coal coke exports that are not shown in the other columns.87 13.00 4.07 10.73 6.87 5.49 1.64 18.14 2030 1.49 2.30 N/A N/A 11.32 2015 1.07 4.03 13.66 2025 1. Annual Energy Review 2004.52 NA 21.42 1.92 5.20 1.15 3.78 21.10 14.49 6.28 12. waxes. (Washington. NA = not available .57 2010 1.53 Sources: EIA.60 6.10 4.12 NA 15.04 N/A N/A 12.92 1.34 6. special naphthas.04 18.44 15.68 7.46 7.52 1. Table D.98 5.74 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. Notes: 1 Historical data converted to 2004$/MMBtu using GDP deflators from EIA.91 0. D.43 6.07 N/A N/A 11.80 1990 1.35 NA 21.42 6. Table A3.69 14.74 11.92 7. petrochemical feedstocks.18 2005 1.28 N/A N/A 13.53 9. D.64 1.14 11.40 NA 20.61 NA 24. petroleum coke.52 9.07 10.1.49 14.98 1.82 0.07 NA 13.73 0. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006).72 9.77 14.75 NA 14..43 1.69 11.72 9.C. D.52 N/A N/A 12.72 N/A N/A 11.72 5.86 4.08 10.54 10.79 NA 15.54 8. and EIA.39 16.76 0.60 15. Table 3.19 13.23 13. DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington.1 – Consumer Price Estimates for Energy Purchases (2004 Dollars.30 9.64 10.3.47 14.04 11.50 1.25 1. September 2005).66 17. and miscellaneous petroleum products. kerosene. August 2005).19 7.34 6. aviation gasoline. lubricants.43 13.38 17.42 6.49 2. 2 Consumption-weighted average price for asphalt and road oil.52 10.67 13.31 NA 14.26 19. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.C.03 NA 13.58 6.67 7.52 6.71 5.95 25.42 12.34 1.Table 10.

0 156.528 337.882 364.6 2004 1.4 5.115 324 311 3.1 2010 1.112 15.5 14.719 8.555 4.739 1.833 6. 2.004 1.734 15.000) Real Gross Domestic Product Real Consumption Real Investment Real Government Spending Real Exports Real Imports Real Disposable Personal Income Consumer Price Index (2002 = 1.036 1.162 3.770 895 1.824 7.9 12.6 7.4 134. http://www.1 7.8 115.810 1.310 4.2 9. Bureau of Labor Statistics.817 6.529 5.123 13.153 4.057 2.5 13.355 1. EIA.1.818 20.135 350.0 2020 1.643 1.8 2030 2..589 1.048 23.1 131.627 5.C.838 6.889 5.476 7.150 1.562 3.182 3.000) Unemployment Rate (percent) Housing Starts (millions) Gross Output Total Industrial Non-Manufacturing Manufacturing Energy-Intensive Manufacturing Non-Energy-Intensive Manufacturing Population (all ages.1 1.gov/cps/cpsa2003.1. Household Data Annual Averages. and 6.858 0.4 B-D.464 3. D.857 11.778 1.509 1.259 2.374 645 1. D.128 2.6 281.350 3.3 14.997 323.295 9.398 15. February 2006). October 2004).091 10.689 5. millions) Employment Non-Agriculture (millions) 226. DOE/EIA-0384(2003) (Washington.597 17.1 142.671 2.235 13.bls.bea.783 1.808 5. Current Population Survey.6.736 1.324 1.4 1.0 1.783 4.4 6.058 2. .1.2 17.307 5.664 1.572 4.6 0. National Association of Home Builders.6 Sources: EIA.293 2..722 1.9 2025 1.916 3.118 1. Table D1.713 2.862 4.5 2.530 553 607 5.025 2. Tables 1.113 4. Department of Labor.nahb.161 3.756 7.2 8.9 248.204 1.9 1. 1.541 11.622 2. Current Population Survey.Table 10.0 2015 1. DOE/EIA-0383(2006) (Washington.347 1.952 1.000 9.441 4.082 10.043 9.doc. http://www.194 1. unless otherwise noted) 1980 GDP Chain Type Price Index (2000 = 1.8 1.044 294.7 2.659 13.pdf.6 164. Table A19.265 3.3 12.6 2.352 4.8 Employment Manufacturing (millions) 20.2 – Economy-Wide Indicators (Billions of 2000 Chain Weighted Dollars.156 17.541 5. Annual Energy Outlook 2006.0 13.464 4.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/NIPATableIndex.969 1.578 2.722 4. http://www.096 1.5 95. Annual Energy Review 2003.816 7. Bureau Of Economic Analysis.aspx?sectionID=130&genericContentID=554.083 4.2 2000 1.296 2.6 1.069 7.518 310.631 5.373 2.985 2.4 19.926 6.org/generic.831 2.C. National Income and Products Accounts Tables (NIPA).776 3.8 173.5 147.asp.439 4.3 1990 0.4.589 1.

774 16.Table 10. (Washington.360 41. and 8. Publicly Owned Generator and Investor-Owned Electric Utilities. Electric Power Annual 2004. 2004 (Million 2004 Dollars) Investor-Owned Electric Utilities Operating Revenue .228 33. 8. Form EIA-412 has been suspended until further notice.287 4. Tables 8. NA= not available .S.420 20. Note: 1 The data represent those utilities meeting a threshold of 150 million kilowatthours of customer sales or resale for the two previous years.180 2.327 NA 2. 2 Values for 2003.118 32.301 4.Electric Operating Expenses .519 3.504 4.4.337 131. 8.373 22.C.044 754 311 95 2. DOE/EIA-0348(2003). Includes utilities with and without generating facilities.737 26.822 46.962 104.6.3 – Composite Statements of Income for Major U.742 2. In 2004.1.012 238 13.242 Source: EIA.752 665 1. November 2005).539 182.828 25.182 226 2.519 11.323 5.3.813 977 1. 2 Cooperative Borrower Owned Electric Utilities 30.. D.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 213.860 595 141 80 1.650 27.158 Publicly Owned Generator Electric Utilities 1.555 1.

515 5.002 NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA 1 NA NA 13 32 107.453 4.Table 11.667 2.014 2.947 2.867 2.480.732 4.119 262 359 1 1 NA 55 180 NA 0 9.819 2.220 5.535 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 90.034.521 2.850 10.270 2.101 4.553 NA NA NA NA 16.888 6.478.583.094 13 31 85.658 NA NA NA NA 16.216 2.293 10.870 343 130 1 1 336.875 15.644 2.857 NA NA NA NA 14.623 4.999 1 565 0 0 NA 49 235 NA 1 10.103 .862 2.933.412.987.269 3.1 – 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 1.125.843.834 NA NA NA NA Carbon Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide 2 Nitrogen Oxide 2 Methane Nitrous Oxide 3 Total Carbon Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide 1.087.866 8 270 1 1 NA 210 206 NA 1 NA NA 13 31 107.773 2.367.806 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84.208 13 31 111.153 NA NA NA NA 444.142 NA NA NA NA 425.185 NA NA NA NA 379.621 3.290 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81.533.365 NA NA 1 1 326.091 NA NA NA NA 327.657.795 2.200 482 166 1 1 310.310 2.578 2.511.355 3.909 11.004 4.800 3.170.642 11 25 111.498 2.086.223 639 221 1 1 194.447 15.189 4.001 NA NA NA NA 15.363.596 10.396 10.563 13 31 100.034 NA NA 1 1 306.043.885 529 170 1 1 319.090.580 2.251 NA NA NA NA 419.791.512.674.190 232 422 1 1 NA 59 180 NA 1 10.174 NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA 82.185 NA NA NA NA 15.024 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82.

National Emission Inventory Air Pollutant Emission Trends.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index. 17.663 NA 12 26 2 5.283 NA NA NA 2. http://www.390 16.119 50.epa.653 NA NA NA 2. and EPA. and nonflammable gas used as an insulator in electric T&D equipment. D. 29. nontoxic. Tables A8 and A18.306 14 33 1 2.C. 4 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless.” August 2004. 2 Emissions from plants fired by other fuels.695 14 33 1 3. All Criteria Pollutants. November 2005) Tables 10.html.585 41. NA = not available . “Average Annual Emissions.345 20. 3 Emissions from wood-burning plants.917 NA 14 33 1 4.330 NA 14 33 1 4. EIA. 25.379 18.312 26. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. D.C. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004.742 53.200 times that of carbon dioxide and has an atmospheric lifetime of 3. DOE/EIA-0383 (2005) (Washington.081 14 33 1 4.. odorless.Nitrogen Oxide Mercury Methane Nitrous Oxide 4 Sulfur Hexafluoride 6.699 50.503 NA NA NA 2. DOE/EIA-0573(2003) (Washington. 1 Emissions total less than 500 tons.. February 2006).872 NA NA NA Sources: EIA.595 NA NA NA 2. SF6 has a 100-year global warming potential that is 22.200 years. includes internal-combustion generators. Notes: Emissions from electric-power sector only.

750 98. Annual Energy Review 2004.988 390.769 Source: EIA. Table 5.636 146.422 55.2.821 359. Table 12.575 34.8.363 329.C. because some generators are included in more than one category.741 2001 329.567 409.2 – Installed Nameplate Capacity of Utility Steam-Electric Generators With Environmental Equipment (Megawatts) 1990 Coal Fired Particulate Collectors Cooling Towers Scrubbers Total 1 2000 321.093 89. http://www.804 329.359 65 59.438 360.770 310 81. September 2005).649 184 61.727 175.319 162. Notes: 1 Components are not additive.Table 11. D.681 134. commercial plants.989 101.459 2003 328.879 45.009 210. and industrial plants) with fossil-fueled or combustible renewable steam-electric capacity of 100 megawatts or greater.doe.. 2004 Total Data: EIA Electric Power Annual.639 28.199 69.894 352.634 29.928 99.497 98.557 69.html. NA = not available .158 99.187 2002 329.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p2.057 317.492 409.675 386. Through 2000. Beginning in 2001.522 Petroleum and Gas Fired Particulate Collectors Cooling Towers Scrubbers Total Total Particulate Collectors Cooling Towers Scrubbers Total 1 1 33.673 401.257 328.747 310 71. DOE/EIA-0348(2004).396 97.587 155. steam-electric capacity of 100 megawatts or greater.459 154.493 NA NA NA NA 349.122 376. data are for electric utilities and unregulated generating plants (independent power producers.eia.762 189.187 154.338 200.427 0 57.709 29. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.520 89.090 29.954 355.587 2004 NA NA NA NA 315.372 31. data are for electric utilities with fossil-fueled.747 97.168 358.782 214.675 328.697 31.

epa.776 Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).600 2.374 3.3 – EPA-Forecasted Nitrogen Oxide. IPM is a multiregional. and emission-control strategies for meeting energy demand and environmental. IPM can be used to evaluate the cost and emissions impacts of proposed policies to limit emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2). and reliability constraints. • The model provides forecasts of least-cost capacity expansion.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/iaqr/cair2004_final. and 2004 CAIR Case Final 2004 http://www.470 2015 9. Runs Table for EPA Modeling Applications 2004.876 3.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/iaqr/basecase2004.679 2.Table 11. EPA Base Case for 2004 Analyses http://www. electricity dispatch. and used to support public and private-sector clients.212 2.758 2. electric-power sector.epa.zip. carbon dioxide (CO2).084 3. deterministic linear programming model of the U. and mercury (Hg) from the electric-power sector .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. dynamic.480 2.452 2015 5.html.epa.908 3. nitrogen oxides (NOx).227 2.571 2020 4.365 EPA CAIR Case 2004 2010 6.S.665 2. Developed by ICF Resources Incorporated. Sulfur Dioxide.721 2.599 2020 8.gov/airmarkets/epaipm/iaqr.453 2.231 2. using IPM http://www. and Mercury Emissions from Electric Generators EPA Base Case 2004 2007 SO2 (Thousand Tons) NOx (Thousand Tons) CO2 (Thousand Tons) 10.733 3.351 2.796 2007 7.391 2010 9. dispatch. transmission.

TOTAL 2004 ALLOCATION Banked Allowances TOTAL 2004 ALLOWABLE 9.897 250. Opt-in Allowances are provided to units entering the program voluntarily.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp04/2004report.903 Banked Allowances are those allowances accrued in a unit's account from previous years. Document EPA-430-R-05-011.pdf . 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. based on the product of their historic utilization and emissions rates specified in the Clean Air Act.000 99. http://www.Table 11.epa.818 18.191.188 Explanation of Allowance Allocation Type Initial allocation is the number of allowances granted to units. which can be used for compliance in 2004 or any future year. November 2005.187.4 – Origin of 2004 Allowable SO2 Emissions Levels Number of SO2 Allowances Type of Allowance Allocation Initial Allocation Allowance Auctions Opt-in Allowances 9. Source: EPA.541. There were 11 optin units in 2004.085 8.646. Figure 4.

DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.727 10.. February 2005).760 552.107 178 0.954. Appendix B..01783 0. and program data.C. Notes: For illustrative purposes only.211. Capacity values exclude combined-heat-and-power (CHP) data.205 36. D.991.0% 8.583 44.594.C. but include end-use sector (industrial and commercial) non-CHP data.525 10. D.C.328 Hydropower 78. August 2005). D.312.1 – 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 11.760 46.579.0% 8. Heat Rate: EIA.4% 8.107 467 0.128 10.5% 8.172 Biomass 6. 2005.760 831.569 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 2.0% 8.232. Annual Energy Review 2004.235.Table 12.2% 8.107 3. 201 .107 368 0. Table A16.455.449.427. February 2006).176. GPRA2003 Data Call.01783 54. Annual Energy Outlook 2005. displacement of fossil generation depends on power system generation portfolio and dispatch order.128 Sources: Capacity: Projected values for the year 2006 from EIA.01783 3.760 303. DOE/EIA-0383 (2005) (Washington.064 0. Competing heat rate from Fossil-Fueled Steam-Electric Plants heat rate.635 PV 280.107 6 0. EPRI TR-109496. 1997.187 10.760 36. Table A6.893 24.01783 8. 2003.472 10. All others based on DOE.107 8 0.01783 0.100 Solar Thermal 388.495 90.355 22.600.558.. Annual Energy Outlook 2006. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington. Table A16.096 80.314 10. Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.01783 6.760 17. Capacity factors: Hydropower calculated from EIA. Carbon Coefficient: DOE. page B-16.

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.Table 12.08 3.42 0.06 15.8 38 38 38 1.06 3.17 0.5 0.6 157 38 2.08 3.28 3.42 0.42 0.6 39 0.7 0.42 0.6 3.08 3.7 0.1 3.08 3.5 1.01 0.7 0.8 35 38 38 1.5 30 1.42 0.42 0.5 30 1.08 147 206 .8 35 38 38 1.5 30 1.7 0.42 0.08 3.1 1.01 14.42 0.35 3.01 0.5 1.06 0.6 3.08 3.08 3.1 0.35 1.8 35 38 38 1.2 14.7 0.08 3.35 0.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.42 0.7 14. Electricity Generators Boiler Type/Firing Configuration Fuel Agricultural Byproducts Blast Furnace Gas Bituminous Coal* Black Liquor Distillate Fuel Oil* Jet Fuel* Kerosene* Landfill Gas Lignite Coal* Municipal Solid Waste Natural Gas Other Biomass Gas Other Biomass Liquids Other Biomass Solids Other Gases Other Petroleum Coke* Propane Gas Residual Fuel Oil* Synthetic Coal* Sludge Waste Subbituminous Coal* Tire Derived Fuel* Waste Coal* Wood Waste Liquids Wood Waste Solids Waste Oil* Emissions Units Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per ton *** Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per ton *** Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MG 1 Cyclone 0.2 0.2 14.7 3.6 3.08 147 Spreader Stoker 0.6 157 38 2.6 3.5 30 1.6 39 0.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.08 3.5 0.5 30 1.5 1.6 3.42 0.5 1.08 147 Fluidized Bed 0.6 157 38 2.5 0.6 39 0.42 0.5 0.8 35 38 38 1.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.6 157 38 2.35 1 0.7 Opposed Firing 0.08 147 All Other 0.5 38 7 142 142 142 3.5 0.42 0.08 3.6 157 38 2.8 3.9 0.08 147 Tangential 0.6 39 0.1 0.6a – Sulfur Dioxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors.5 1.

The value used (1. * For these fuels.gov/ttn/chief/software/fire/index. Electric Power Annual 2004.epa. ** Source is EPA emission factors reported in http://www. 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). Note that EIA data do not provide a sulfur content for TDF. 207 .epa. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) November 2005.56 percent) is from http://www. MMCF = million cubic feet.gov/appcdwww/aptb/EPA-600-R-01-109A. MG = thousand gallons. Notes: 1 Lbs = pounds.epa.Source: EIA.html. *** Although SLW and BLQ consist substantially of liquids. Table A1.pdf. these fuels are measured and reported to EIA in tons. Table A-11.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ and http://www.

40 13.40 15.00 72.90 280.00 47.20 15.90 280.20 15.Table 12.00 Opposed Firing 1.00 24.50 21.40 1.00 72.00 5.40 5.20 15.90 280.00 5.1 [13.00 72.00 72.20 15.00 47.50 24.90 280.90 280.00 5.00 72.0 [14.40 1.00 24.20 14.00 72.50 21.40 All Other 1.00 12.00 5.0] 1.00 24.50 24.80 Tangential 1.50 24.90 1.00 1.50 21.00 5.40 1.40 33.66 1.00 19.00 5.00 47.00 1.00 72.00 5.90 170.20 14.00 15.00 19.90 1.00 12.0 [24.66 1.00 24.6b – Nitrogen Oxide Uncontrolled Emissions Factors.00 5.00 19.00 19.00 24.66 1.00 72.00 19.66 1.0] 1.00 72.20 14.00 17.40 22.00 19.40 22.0] 5.0 [31.00 8.00 22.90 1.20 15.00 11.00 22.40 1.00 47.00 24.00 24. 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 1.80 5.00 72.40 15.00 72.00 24.50 21.00 33.50 24.00 Fluidized Bed 1.40 11.20 14.00 24.00 Spreader Stoker 1.00 1.50 21.40 7.40 5.40 7.40 1.00 47.10 5.40 3.00 1.66 1.50 24.20 14.00 5.00 5.60 5.00 24.90 1.90 1.00 24.40 1.50 24.20 14.00 8.90 1.0] 208 .20 15.00 24.00 72.50 21.00 32.66 1.

00 21.html.epa.66 1.70 1.epa.00 5.70 1.50 19. Electric Power Annual 2004.66 1.50 19. Table A1. 209 .70 1.00 11.66 1.50 19. DOE/EIA-0348(2004) November 2005.66 1. ** Source is EPA emission factors reported in http://www.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ and http://www.00 21.00 21.50 19. *** Although Sludge Waste and Black Liquor consist substantially of liquids.70 1.50 19.00 Source: EIA.00 22.00 21.00 21.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 33.00 22. Except Wet-Bottom as indicated by values in brackets Lbs = pounds.00 15.70 1.70 1.66 1. Notes: 1 2 All Dry-Bottom Boilers. these fuels are measured and reported to EIA in tons.gov/ttn/chief/software/fire/index.50 19.66 1. MG = thousand gallons.00 21. MMCF = million cubic feet.

54 225.41 159.97 205. Table A1.13 139.45 161. November 2005.27 0. * CO2 factors do not vary by boiler type or firing configuration.34 159.6c – Uncontrolled Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factors.41 115.61 Source: EIA.04 173.53 14.Table 12. 210 .63 116.58 205.97 115.12 215. DOE/EIA-0348(2004). 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)* 116.72 205.45 212.11 141. Electric Power Annual 2004.16 163.

800 140 2. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included. GWP from Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (SAR) and Third Assessment Report (TAR).200 7. official emission estimates are reported by the United States using SAR GWP values.500 9.800 1.300 1. 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. 211 .300 3. 1 The methane GWP includes direct effects and those indirect effects. Notes: The GWP of a greenhouse gas is the ratio of global warming.7 – Global Warming Potentials (GWP) (100-year time horizon) Gas GWP SAR 1 21 310 11.300 6. estimates of emissions presented in this report use the GWPs from the Second Assessment Report. EPA 430-R-05-003 (Final Version: April 2005).900 Source: EPA.Table 12. to comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC. 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. Therefore.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 23.700 650 2. Although the GWPs have been updated by the IPCC. Table ES-1.S.900 6. The UNFCCC reporting guidelines for national inventories were updated in 2002. Inventory of U. due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2003.000 7.

2.000 Sources: 1.. Table G1. Btu per pound Solid wood waste. February 2006).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. VA. EIA. Electrotek Concepts Inc. Btu per pound Rice Hulls. Arlington.Table 12.000-8.187 6. Btu per pound Poultry Litter.C. 212 . Annual Energy Outlook 2006.065 6.799 1. D. Animal Waste Screening Study.. June 2001.575 6. Btu per pound 7.341 6.411 Biomass Materials 2 Switchgrass Btu per pound Bagasse. DOE/EIA-0383 (2006) (Washington.027 20.287 5.

402 10.201 10. solar.017 2002 10.439 21.908 21. heat rates are for all fossil-fueled plants at electric utilities and independent power producers.388 10. 4 Used as the thermal-conversion factor for geothermal electricity net generation. For all years.119 10.096 2000 10. D. Annual Energy Review 2004.439 21. Table A6 Notes: Through 2000.639 Source: EIA.448 21. heat rates are for fossil-fueled steam-electric plants at electric utilities.9 – Approximate Heat Rates for Electricity (Btu per Kilowatthour) 1980 Fossil-Fueled Steam-Electric Plants Nuclear Steam-Electric Plants Geothermal Energy Plants 4 3 1.582 21. Beginning in 2001.Table 12.439 21. 2 1990 10. DOE/EIA-0384 (2004) (Washington.107 10. and wind electricity net generation.017 2001 10.C.017 10. used as the thermal conversion factor for wood and waste electricity net generation at electric utilities..017 2004 10. used as the thermal conversion factor for hydro.146 10. August 2005).429 21. 2 Through 2000. 1 213 .107 10. 3 Used as the thermal-conversion factor for nuclear electricity net generation.017 2003 10.

S. data are weighted by the estimated 2000 population. Heating degree-days are deviations below the mean daily temperature of 65° F.005 4. see http://www. North Carolina. Table 1. August 2005). Beginning in 2002.eia.gov/emeu/aer/overview. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington.460 2001 935 725 669 302 115 29 8 6 71 267 400 696 4..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. Web Pages: • For data not shown for 1951-1969.524 Source: EIA.10. D. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Annual Energy Review 2004.016 2000 886 643 494 341 115 29 12 12 69 244 610 1. 1 214 . Monthly Energy Review. For example. • Degree-days are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature.224 Normal 917 732 593 345 159 39 9 15 77 282 539 817 4.doe. Asheville. see http://www. Historical Climatology Series 5-1. The population-weighted state figures are aggregated into Census divisions and the national average.460 2004 957 769 487 302 105 28 5 16 42 241 484 788 4.C. February 2004-January 2005 issues.Table 12.284 2003 944 801 572 344 165 41 4 5 62 261 477 784 4.gov/emeu/mer/overview.doe. which reports data from NOAA. • 2004—Energy Information Administration. Camp Springs.7 Notes: Based on calculations of data from 1971-2000 • This table excludes Alaska and Hawaii. • Temperature information recorded by weather stations is used to calculate statewide degree-day averages based on resident state population.707 1990 728 655 535 321 184 29 6 10 56 246 457 789 4. National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center. a weather station recording a mean daily temperature of 40° F would report 25 heating degree-days.html. Sources: • 19492003 and Normals—U. Table 1.eia.html. Maryland.223 2002 778 670 624 282 185 23 3 8 38 299 561 813 4. National Climatic Data Center.• For current data. Department of Commerce.

Monthly Energy Review. North Carolina. a weather station recording a mean daily temperature of 78° F would report 13 cooling degree-days. Historical Climatology Series 5-2.doe.393 2003 5 7 24 30 110 187 336 345 156 65 21 4 1. National Climatic Data Center. • Temperature information recorded by weather stations is used to calculate statewide degree-day averages based on resident state population. Asheville.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. February 2004-January 2005 issues. Department of Commerce. Cooling degree-days are deviations above the mean daily temperature of 65° F.. National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).260 2000 10 10 25 28 131 221 284 302 156 50 8 4 1. Beginning in 2002.215 Source: EIA.229 2001 3 12 11 37 114 220 302 333 138 46 18 11 1.html. For example.gov/emeu/mer/overview. Table 1.Table 12. Sources: • 1949-2003 and Normals—U. which reports data from NOAA.8 Notes: Based on calculations of data from 1971-2000 • This table excludes Alaska and Hawaii. see http://www.313 1990 15 14 21 29 86 234 316 291 172 57 16 9 1. Web Pages: • For data not shown for 1951-1969. The population-weighted state figures are aggregated into Census divisions and the national average. • Degree-days are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature. 1 215 . • For current data.245 2002 8 6 17 53 92 242 369 331 202 57 11 5 1. DOE/EIA-0384(2004) (Washington. Maryland. August 2005). Annual Energy Review 2004. Table 1.C. Camp Springs.doe. D.281 2004 5 5 26 41 140 208 310 254 178 69 17 6 1.eia.eia.S. • 2004—Energy Information Administration. see http://www. data are weighted by the estimated 2000 population.gov/emeu/aer/overview.html.11.260 Normal 1 9 8 18 30 97 213 321 290 155 53 15 8 1.

and yard waste through combustion. The other set of maps (Figures 13. One of the challenges facing renewable energy is that. The major load centers represent the areas in the United States where the vast majority of electricity demand exists (large metropolitan areas). . and a bar chart in the state shows the generating capacity over time. data analysis.8) shows the installed generating capacity from 1996 through 2005 by state. in many cases. and presentation of results in graphic or report forms.6. Natural Resource The majority of biomass resources exist east of the Continental Divide (Figure 13.13. and analyzed with other layers of information. 13.4. areas with excellent renewable energy resources have little demand for electricity – while many major load centers are far from areas with good renewable resources. Biomass Biomass power utilizes biomass such as wood. Higher-resolution resource maps are available online (see Online Resources later in this chapter. and 13. while Hawaii has excellent biomass resources on some of the islands. software. manage. The transmission grid and the major load centers are overlaid on the resource maps. including data capture. A number in the state shows generating capacity in MW. or gasified and then combusted. 13. The GIS system is composed of hardware. The biomass fuel is either directly combusted in a boiler. 13. 13. data. the biomass resource in the Western states is generally poor. All information in GIS is linked to a spatial reference used to store and access data.7) illustrates the natural renewable resource for the United States by quality of the resource.5. The GIS allows identification of relationships between features.1. data management. Because the western part of the United States has sparse vegetation.1). and many major load centers in Eastern states are near areas with excellent biomass resources. Biomass resources are derived from the vegetation. agricultural waste. One set of maps (Figures 13. within a common layer or across layers – and data can be queried or manipulated based on the tabular and/or the spatial characteristics.1 – Geographic Information System (GIS) Maps A Geographical Information System (GIS) is a computer-based system used to manipulate. data manipulation. A GIS system allows the user to perform several tasks. and expertise.3.2. GIS data layers can be recombined or manipulated. The maps featured here are simplified to make them easier to read. Alaska has limited biomass resources. The Eastern states have much higher-quality resources. or turned into a liquid fuel that can be combusted (see the Biomass section of Chapter 2 for more detail on biomass technologies). and 13. and analyze multidisciplinary geographic and related attribute data.

followed by Nevada (272 MW) and Utah (38MW). Plants are currently operating in the Western United States (see the Geothermal section of Chapter 2 for more details on geothermal technologies). Most of the major load areas in the Eastern states are not near any high-quality geothermal resources. California is by far the largest (2.2). with a slight decline in the past few years (Figure 13.4). by far (418 MW). moving east and north from the Southwest. in terms of generating capacity. Natural Resource The southern parts of the United States. Solar resources generally decline in quality. and Pennsylvania (0. while Hawaii has good – to very good – solar resources. California (799 MW).802 MW). are Florida (1. Total CSP-generating capacity is virtually unchanged over the past decade.051 MW). Alaska has moderate solar resources. and Maine (788 MW). Natural Resource The majority of high-quality geothermal resources exist in the western part of the United States – and.Installed Capacity Biomass-generating capacity was nearly level during the past decade. The Northeast. California has the most CSP generating capacity. Installed Capacity This map features concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) generating capacity (Figure 13.3 MW). Installed Capacity Geothermal generation is currently located in three Western states (Figure 13. have the greatest potential for solar energy (Figure 13. A good supply of high-quality geothermal resources exists in sparsely populated areas in the West. . Nevada (0. The largest states. 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). in particular. This is determined largely by latitude and weather patterns. as several of the major load centers are in – or close to – high-quality geothermal resources. and especially the southwest. generally has moderate-quality solar resources. New York (0. The Western states are more promising.3). as a whole.6). the Southwest (Figure 13.5). followed by Arizona (10 MW). Geothermal Geothermal technologies for power generation utilize heat from underground sources to generate electricity. Alaska and Hawaii both have some areas with excellent geothermal resources.5 MW).3 MW).

Wind Wind power utilizes naturally occurring wind patterns to drive turbines that generate electricity (see the Wind section of Chapter 2 for more information on wind power technologies).gov/gis . Many of the major load centers in the Eastern states are not located near good wind resources. Natural Resource The wind resources of the United States fall into two major categories: 1) onshore. most of the wind resource assessments focused on onshore wind.nrel. Wind-generating capacity is growing rapidly in many states. with Texas close behind (1. 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 13.150 MW). Online Resources For more GIS information. has less than half the capacity of the largest states.7). including dynamic maps. California is the largest state. in terms of capacity (2. GIS data. and 2) offshore.995 MW). while some Western load centers are located close to high-quality wind resources. Most of the best onshore wind resource is in the Midwestern states (Figure 13.8). the third-largest state (836 MW). So far. Iowa.

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

Installed Biomass Generating Capacity .Figure 13.2.

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

Installed Geothermal Generating Capacity .Figure 13.4.

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

6. Installed CSP Generating Capacity .Figure 13.

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

8. Installed Wind Generating Capacity .Figure 13.

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