Examination of the Regional Supply and Demand Balance for Renewable Electricity in the United States Through 2015

This report examines the balance between the demand and supply of new renewable electricity in the United States on a regional basis through 2015. It expands on a 2007 NREL study (Swezey et al. 2007) that assessed the supplynational basis. As with the earlier study, this analysis relies on estimates of renewable energy supplies compared to demand for renewable energy generation needed to meet existing state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) policies in 28 states, as well as demand by consumers who voluntarily purchase renewable energy. However, it does not address demand by utilities that may procure cost-effective renewables through an integrated resource planning process or otherwise. The analysis examines two supply scenarios: 1) a business as usual (BAU) scenario based on current growth rates in renewable energy supply in each region and 2) a market-based scenario that differs only in an assumed higher overall level of wind energy development nationally (based on estimates from BTM Consult and referred to as “high wind case”). Because the BTM Consult (2008) projections are only available nationally, and are not broken out regionally, this analysis uses results from a recent study by DOE (DOE 2008) that presents a scenario of 20% wind energy penetration by 2030 to apportion the wind energy capacity by region

Examination of the Regional Supply and Demand Balance for Renewable Electricity in the United States Through 2015: Projecting From 2009 Through 2015 (Revised)

This report examines the balance between the demand and supply of new renewable electricity in the United States on a regional basis through 2015. It expands on a 2007 NREL study (Swezey et al. 2007) that assessed the supply and demand balance on a national basis. As with the earlier study, this analysis relies on estimates of renewable energy supplies compared to demand for renewable energy generation needed to meet existing state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) policies in 28 states, as well as demand by consumers who voluntarily purchase renewable energy. However, it does not address demand by utilities that may procure cost-effective renewables through an integrated resource planning process or otherwise. The analysis examines two supply scenarios: 1) a business as usual (BAU) scenario based on current growth rates in renewable energy supply in each region and 2) a market-based scenario that differs only in an assumed higher overall level of wind energy development nationally (based on estimates from BTM Consult and referred to as “high wind case”). Because the BTM Consult (2008) projections are only available nationally, and are not broken out regionally, this analysis uses results from a recent study by DOE (DOE 2008) that presents a scenario of 20% wind energy penetration by 2030 to apportion the wind energy capacity by region

Florida's Global Warming Solutions: A Study for: World Wildlife Fund

This report assesses how the set of national actions presented in America’s Global Warming Solutions would affect Florida’s energy systems, carbon emissions and economy. This study finds that by 2010, the set of national actions to reduce global warming would decrease Florida’s primary energy use by 26 percent and its carbon emissions by 36 percent. They would also provide increasing annual savings reaching about $300 per-capita in 2010 and averaging about$110 per-capita per year between now and 2010. Thus, the State would cumulatively save about $17 billion over that period. The set of national actions would also create approximately 39,000 net additional jobs in Florida by 2010. They would reduce emissions of other pollutants and begin to shift the basis of the State’s economy towards more advanced, energy-efficient technologies and cleaner resources. The table below summarizes these results

Challenges for Third-Party PPA System Owners

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308NOTICE 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 a

PTC, ITC, or Cash Grant? An Analysis of the Choice Facing Renewable Power Projects in the United States

Renewable power technologies are inherently capital-intensive, often (but not always) with relatively high construction costs and low operating costs. For this reason, renewable power technologies are typically more sensitive to the availability and cost of financing than are natural gas power plants, for example. In the United States, the bulk of renewable project finance in recent years has been provided by 'tax equity investors' (typically large investment banks and insurance companies) who partner with project developers through highly specialized financing structures (Bolinger, 2009; Cory et al., 2008; Harper et al., 2007). These structures have been designed primarily to capitalize on federal support for renewable power technologies, which has historically come in the form of tax credits and accelerated depreciation deductions. The number of tax equity investors active in the renewable power market has declined precipitously, however, as a result of the financial crisis that began unfolding across the globe in the summer of 2008. The resulting shortage and increased cost of project financing has, in turn, slowed the development of new renewable power projects, leading to layoffs throughout the entire industry supply chain. In recognition of the fact that tax-based policy incentives are not particularly effective when tax burdens are shrinking or non-existent, Congress included several provisions in 'The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009' (ARRA 2009) designed to make federal incentives for renewable power technologies more useful. Among these provisions is one that allows projects eligible to receive the production tax credit ('the PTC', see Text Box 1) to instead elect the investment tax credit ('the ITC', see Text Box 2). Another provision enables ITC-eligible projects (which now include most PTC-eligible renewable power projects) to instead receive--for a limited time only--a cash grant of equivalent value. These two provisions (among others) could have a significant impact on how renewable power projects are financed over the next few years. The purpose of this report is to both quantitatively and qualitatively analyze, from the project developer/owner perspective, the choice between the PTC and the ITC (or equivalent cash grant) for a number of different renewable power technologies.1 Because the two credits are structured differently, and apply in different ways to different technologies, the choice between the two lends itself to quantitative financial analysis of the conditions under which either the PTC or the ITC would, at least in theory, provide greater financial value. Qualitative considerations may be equally important, however, particularly in instances where quantitative differences are modest. This report proceeds as follows. Section 2 provides a brief summary of ARRA 2009, with some emphasis on those provisions designed to ease the liquidity crisis facing the renewable power sector. Section 3 describes the quantitative analysis methodology, as well as modeling results for wind, open-loop biomass, closed-loop biomass, geothermal, and landfill gas projects. Section 4 discusses a number of qualitative considerations that may play as important of a role as quantitative results in deciding between the PTC and the ITC (or equivalent cash grant). Section 5 concludes, and an Appendix provides supplemental tables that present quantitative analysis results conducted at different discount rates