mid-atlantic wind - overing the challenges
TRANSCRIPT
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overcoming the Challenges
Prepared by:
Daniel F. Ancona IIIVice President for Renewable Energy
Kathryn E. GeorgeSenior Financial Analyst
Richard P. BowersIntern
and
Dr. Lynn SparlingAtmospheric Scientist, Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Bruce C. BuckheitRegulatory Consultant
Daniel LoBuePower Market Consultant
May 31, 2012
Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 550Rockville, MD 20852
Contract Information:
Contract No.: DE-EE0000513US Department of Energy, Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program
Sponsored by:
US Department of Energy andMaryland Department of Natural Resources
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overcoming the Challenges
Prepared by:
Daniel F. Ancona IIIVice President for Renewable Energy
Kathryn E. GeorgeSenior Financial Analyst
Richard P. BowersIntern
and
Dr. Lynn SparlingAtmospheric Scientist, Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Bruce C. BuckheitRegulatory Consultant
Daniel LoBuePower Market Consultant
May 31, 2012
Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 550Rockville, MD 20852
Contract Information:
Contract No.: DE-EE0000513US Department of Energy, Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program
Sponsored by:
US Department of Energy andMaryland Department of Natural Resources
Front Covat a 9 km warmer co Research Princeton Daniel F. Vice Pres Kathryn ESenior Fin Richard PIntern, Pr UniversityDr. Lynn Atmosphe ConsultanBruce C. BPolicy and Daniel LoPower Ma Sponsors: United StGolden Fi1617 ColeGolden, C Maryland580 TayloAnnapolis
ver: Early evehorizontal reolors indicatin
h Team:
Energy Reso
Ancona III: ident for Ren
E. George: nancial Analy
P. Bowers: rinceton Ener
y of MarylandSparling:
eric Scientist,
nts: Buckheit: d Regulatory
oBue: arket Consult
:
ates Departmield Office e Boulevard
Colorado 8040
d Department or Avenue s, Maryland 2
ening low-levsolution usingng stronger m
ources Interna
ewable Energ
yst, Princeton
rgy Resources
d, Baltimore C
Department o
Consultant
tant, Competi
ment of Energy
01
of Natural Re
21401
el jet at 140 mg the Mellor-Y
mean wind spe
ational (PERI)
gy, Princeton
n Energy Reso
s Internationa
County:
of Physics, U
itive Energy C
y
esources
meters compuYamada-Janjeeds.
):
Energy Reso
ources Interna
al, LLC
University of M
Consulting Inc
uted with Weaic (MYJ) bou
ources Interna
ational, LLC
Maryland Bal
c.
ather Researcundary layer s
ational, LLC;
ltimore Count
ch Forecast Mscheme, with
;
ty
1
Model
1.0 Execu1.1 Prim1.2 Pol
1.2.1.2.1.2.1.2.1.2.
1.3 Pol1.3.1.3.
1.4 Win1.5 Bus1.6 Pub
2.0 Introd3.0 Goals 4.0 Regio
4.1 Mid4.1.4.1.4.1.4.1.
4.2 Ene4.3 Eur4.4 Iner
5.0 Power5.1 Reg
5.1.5.1.5.1.5.1.
6.0 Projecthey Mean
6.1 Met6.1.6.1.6.1.6.1.6.1.
6.2 EcoEnergy
utive Summarmary Barriersicy and Regu.1 RPS and .2 RPGs are.3 RPS-RPG.4 Restrictiv.5 State Supicy Changes o.1 Emphasis.2 State Enend Resource Usiness and Ecblic Interest Isduction ..........
and Objectivonal Energy Sd-Atlantic Wi.1 Ridgeline.2 Coastal P.3 Bay and S.4 Offshore ergy Situationropean Offshortia toward Or Transmissiogional Whole.1 Power Pr.2 Energy P.3 Capacity .4 Pricing Sct Economic Rn ..................thodology, C.1 Forward P.2 Four Win.3 A Mercha.4 50% Deb.5 Financialonomic Analyy Plants .........
ry ..................s and Mitigatiulatory Issues
RPGs are Inee Treated as CGs Face Indireve State Statupported Studieor Mitigations on Offshoreergy ProgramsUncertainty ..onomic Issuessues ..................................
ves ................ituation - Ripind Energy Me Sites ...........Plain Sites .....Sound Sites ..Ocean Sites .
n in the Mid-Aore Project Cocean Applica
on and Pricingsale Power Pr
ricing Model –ricing ...........Pricing ........ummary .......Results and C.....................ost and PerfoPricing vs. Ca
nd Market Segant Power Fin
bt Fraction .....l Figures of Mysis Results, u.....................
.....................ion Measures.....................
effective ........Caps ..............ect Constrainttes and Locales ..................
n Options .......e Wind Powers emphasize s.....................
es ..................................................................................
pe for Wind MMarket Segmen
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................Atlantic Stateost Trends ....ations in U.S.g ....................ricing ............– Methodolog...............................................................
Conclusions -.....................
ormance Estimalculated COEgments and Fnancial Case w.....................
Merit to Evaluunder Current.....................
...........................................
......................
......................
......................ts ..................l Zoning and N............................................r Developmensmall scale pr..............................................................................................................
Market Develonts ........................................................................................................s ..............................................................
......................
......................gy ...................................................................................Financial Re
......................mates, and FinE ..................our Plants .....with BB-Rate......................
uate a Project .t, Likely Fina......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................Noise Ordina..........................................nt ..................rojects ...................................................................................................................opment ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................sults of the C.....................nancial Assum..........................................ed Debt. .................................................
ancing, for Mi.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................ances .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Cash Flow An.....................
mptions ..................................................................................................................id-Atlantic W.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................nalysis and W..........................................................................................................................................................
Wind ......................
i
....... 1
....... 1
....... 2
....... 2
....... 2
....... 3
....... 3
....... 3
....... 4
....... 4
....... 5
....... 5
....... 7
....... 8
..... 10
..... 11
..... 12
..... 13
..... 13
..... 14
..... 15
..... 18
..... 20
..... 20
..... 24
..... 25
..... 26
..... 26
..... 29
..... 32
..... 34 What
..... 37
..... 37
..... 38
..... 38
..... 38
..... 39
..... 39
..... 40
ii
6.2.6.2.6.2.6.2.6.2.
6.3 Eco6.3.
6.4 Fin6.4.6.4.6.4.6.4.6.4.
7.0 ProjecExpenses,
7.1 Pow7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.
7.2 PJM7.3 Cap7.4 Sou7.5 Per7.6 Ope7.7 Fin
7.7.7.7.7.7.7.7.
8.0 Regul8.1 Vir
8.1.8.1.8.1.8.1.
8.2 Nor8.2.8.2.8.2.8.2.
.1 DPL-ODE
.2 Cloverda
.3 Calvert C
.4 Fentress,
.5 Summaryonomic Analy.1 Summarydings and Co.1 Land-Bas.2 Ridgeline.3 Shallow W.4 Ocean Pla.5 Final Comct Economic I, and Financia
wer Plant Proje.1 PJM Forw.2 Calculate.3 Three Set.4 Three Me
M Forward Prpital Costs forurces of Fundformance (Plaerating Expenancial Assum.1 Project Fi.2 Debt Feat.3 Equity Fe.4 Property latory and Polginia .............1 Renewab.2 Appalach.3 Zoning O.4 Virginia Mrth Carolina...1 North Ca.2 North Ca.3 Zoning O.4 The North
EC Coastal Ple Ridgeline .
Cliffs ShallowOcean ..........
y of Findings ysis Results, uy of Findings mments ........sed Plants .....e Plants ShowWater Bay Plants ..............mments .........Inputs and Asal Assumptioect Discountedward Pricing .ed COE .........ts of Analysiseasures of COricing Forecasr the Wind Ens ...................ant Capacity nses for the W
mptions for cuinance ..........tures, includineatures ..........Taxes ...........licy Issues .........................le Portfolio G
hian Power CoOrdinances ....Marine Resou.....................rolina RPS Drolina Mount
Ordinances ....h Carolina Ut
Plains ..................................
w Bay .......................................................
under Favorab...............................................................
w the Best Ecolants ........................................................ssumptions –ns .................d Cash Flow –..........................................s per Node/Pl
OE .................sts – Energy anergy Plants .......................Factors) for t
Wind Energy Purrent likely an.....................ng Rating and....................................................................................
Goal (RPG) Pompany (APC.....................urces Commi.....................
Design ............tain Ridge Pro.....................tilities Comm
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................ble Financing..................................................................onomics ..........................................................................Financial Me
......................– Return on In............................................lant Location .......................and Capacity ............................................the Wind EnePlants ............nd favorable ......................d Interest Rat........................................................................................rogram DesigCO) State Cor......................ssion Report .............................................otection Act ........................
mission ...........
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................g, for Mid-Atl...................................................................................................................................................ethodology, P.....................
nvestment Met....................................................................................Payments ..............................................
ergy Plants .........................financing of t.....................te ......................................................................................................gn .................rporation Com...................................................................................................................................................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................lantic Wind E...................................................................................................................................................
Plant Capital C.....................thodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................................the Wind Ene...................................................................................................................................................mmission De...................................................................................................................................................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................Energy Plants..........................................................................................................................................................Costs, Operat..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ergy Plants ..............................................................................................................................................................cision .....................................................................................................................................................................
..... 40
..... 41
..... 45
..... 45
..... 46 . ... 47 ..... 50 ..... 51 ..... 51 ..... 52 ..... 52 ..... 53 ..... 54 ting ..... 57 ..... 57 ..... 58 ..... 58 ..... 59 ..... 59 ..... 60 ..... 62 ..... 69 ..... 71 ..... 72 ..... 74 ..... 74 ..... 74 ..... 76 ..... 83 ..... 87 ..... 87 ..... 89 ..... 90 ..... 91 ..... 92 ..... 97 ..... 98 ..... 99 ... 100 ... 101
8.2.8.2.
8.3 Mar8.3.8.3.8.3.
8.4 Del8.4.8.4.
8.5 Dis9.0 Mid-A
9.1 Eas9.2 Win9.3 The9.4 Win
10.0 Envi10.1 No10.2 Ri10.3 At10.4 Eu10.5 Ae10.6 Ra
11.0 Conc11.1 Po11.2 Fe11.3 Ec11.4 Te11.5 Pu
12.0 BibliAppendixparticipanAppendixAppendixAppendix
.5 North Ca
.6 Other Potryland ...........1 Maryland.2 State App.3 Zoning Olaware ...........1 State App.2 Delawaretrict of Colum
Atlantic Windstern Wind Innd measureme Mid-Atlantind Resource Pironmental Coon-Governmeisks to Birds atmospheric Emutrophication esthetics and adar ..............clusions ........olicy and Regederal Emphaconomic Asseechnical Unceublic Interest iography ......
x A: Interviewnts)................x B: Economicx C: Power Mx D: Examples
rolina Studiestential Barrier.....................
d RPS Designproval Proces
Ordinances .........................proval Procese RPS Designmbia ..............d Resource ....tegration Students and comc low level jePotential and onsiderations ental Organizand Bats Relamission Dispof Regional WPublic Attitu..........................................
gulatory Issuesis on Offsho
essment Resuertainties .................................................
w and Discuss.....................c Model Run arket Tradings of Coastal S
s ...................rs .......................................
n ....................ss .............................................................
ss ...................n ..............................................................dy (EWITS) .
mparisons withet as a potentiUncertainties.....................ation Workshative to Alternlacement ......Waters ..........de ...........................................................s ...................
ore Projects ...lts ................................................................................
sion Meetings.....................Examples ....
g Model ResuSites that coul
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................h EWITS .......ial wind resous ..........................................hop ................natives ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................s (ground rule............................................ults for the 20ld be evaluate
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................urce .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................es, questions,..........................................
012 Mid-Atlaned for Wind P
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
....................., contacts and..........................................ntic Wind EnPower Genera
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................d NGO meetin............................................ergy Plants ...ation ..............
iii
... 101
... 102
... 103
... 104
... 106
... 106
... 107
... 107
... 108
... 108
... 111
... 111
... 115
... 120
... 122
... 123
... 123
... 125
... 126
... 127
... 129
... 131
... 133
... 133
... 134
... 135
... 135
... 136
... 137 ng ... 141 ... 147 ... 167 ... 189
iv
Table of F
Figure 1-1Figure 1-2height of Figure 1-3Figure 4-1Figure 4-2(300 km lFigure 4-3Figure 4-4Figure 4-590m Hub Figure 4-6Figure 4-7Figure 4-8Figure 5-1Figure 5-2Figure 5-3Figure 6-1(2013 DoFigure 6-2(2013 DoFigure 6-3Figure 6-4(2013 DoFigure 7-1Figure 7-2Figure 8-1Figure 8-2Figure 8-3Figure 8-4Figure 8-5Figure 8-6Figure 8-7Figure 9-1Figure 9-2Figure 9-3Figure 9-4Figure 9-5Figure 9-6Figure 9-7Figure 9-8
Figures
1 Near-shore 2 The Weathe312m above g3. COEs of Fo1. Mid-Atlant2. DELMARVline is to indic3. Location of4. Onshore &5. Mid-AtlantHeight - ......
6. Offshore E7. Offshore E8. Tall met to1. PJM region2. Example co3. PJM interc1. COEs for Fllars). ...........2. COE Resulllars) ............3. COEs of Fo4. COE Resulllars) ............1 Average PJM2. Offshore w1. VMRC Rep2. VMRC “M3. VMRC “M4. VMRC “Le5. Boone N.C6. UNC Revie7. Maryland E1. Measureme2. Seasonal an3. Diurnal var4. Seasonal an5. Annual Me6. Seasonal an7. Vertical pro8. Monthly m
wind plant iner Research Mground level.our Plants wittic States WinVA-Jutland Ccate scale) ....f NOAA Buo
& Offshore Platic Bight Reg.....................
EU Wind PlanEU Wind Plan
wer near a tunal operation ontour map wonnection no
Four Plants w.....................lts for Four P.....................our Plants witlts of Four Pla.....................M Energy Pri
wind turbine pport Excluded
Major ConflictModerate Conf
esser ConflictC. DOE/NASAew of CoastalEnergy Adminent sites for send Diurnal Chriability in Wnd diurnal varean Wind Spend Diurnal Vaofiles of wind
mean wind at N
n Denmark - pModel simulat .....................th Favorable nd Plant MarkComparison w.....................
oys .................ants in Denmaional Offshor.....................
nt Cost vs. Disnt Cost vs. Waurbine in Denm
area ..............with locationade locations s
with Current, L.....................lants with Cu.....................th Favorable ants with Fav.....................ices by Seaso
platform desigd Areas .........ts” .................flicts” ............t Areas” ........A 2 MW Expl and Offshornistration: Coelected PJM nharacteristics
Wind Power deriability in wi
eed at Each Aariability of thd speed at AbNOAA/NOS
produces election of low le......................Financing us
ket Areas .......where 2,400 M............................................ark, Circa 199re Lease Bloc......................stance from Sater Depth in mark. ..................................l marginal prselected for thLikely Financ......................urrent, Likely ......................Financing us
vorable Financ......................on ..................gns for shallow........................................................................................erimental Wi
re Wind Poweounties with Wnodes. ...........of the 100m
ensity (WPD)ind speed at E
Anemometer Lhe Difference
berdeen, MD. .Buoy BISM2
ctricity and seevel jets on Au.....................
sing PJM Forw.....................
MW of land-b..........................................96 .................cks and Wind.....................
Shore and DatSheltered vs...........................................
rice (LMP) dihe four wind cing using PJM.....................Financing us
.....................sing PJM Forwcing using Ca..........................................w bays and o....................................................................................indmill Built er DevelopmeWind Ordinan.....................Wind from th
) for each monEWITS. ........Level. ............e in Wind Spe.....................
2 (Bishop’s H
erves as aids tug 3, 2007 at .....................ward Prices (2.....................
based wind pla...............................................................
d Resources at.....................te of Construc. Open Water..........................................fferential on tmarket applicM Forward Pr.....................sing Calculate.....................ward Prices (2alculated COE..........................................cean applicat....................................................................................in 1979 .........ent Potential .nces ...................................he EWITS. ...nth of 2004. ............................................eed between .....................
Head, MD). ....
o navigation .1:00 am at a
......................2013 Dollars)......................ants are opera..................................................................t ......................ction .............
r .................................................................typical day. ..cations. .........rices ......................ed COE ......................2013 Dollars)E ............................................tions. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................110 and 49 m............................................
....... 4
....... 6 ). .... 8 ..... 12 ating ..... 14 ..... 17 ..... 18
..... 19
..... 23
..... 23
..... 24
..... 25
..... 27
..... 28
..... 46
..... 46 ). .. 50
..... 50
..... 61
..... 62
..... 94
..... 95
..... 95
..... 96
..... 99
... 102
... 106
... 113
... 114
... 115
... 116
... 117 m. 118 ... 119 ... 119
Figure 9-9Figure 9-1Figure 10Figure 10Figure 10Figure 10Figure 10
9. Annual me10. The Aug 2-1. NGO Mee-2. Bird Fligh-3. Atlantic F-4. Chesapeak-5. Survey of
ean wind at se2, 2007 low leting Agendaht Path MappiFlyway ..........ke Bay Dead f Anticipated
everal NOS loevel jet at acr
a ....................ing at Nysted.....................Zones ..........Tourist React
ocations in Deross-rotor heig......................d Wind Farm, ............................................tion to a Hyp
elmarva. .......ghts 60, 99 an..................... Denmark ..............................................othetical Win
.....................nd 140m AGL....................................................................................
nd Farm ........
......................L .................................................................................................................................
v
... 120
... 121
... 124
... 125
... 126
... 129
... 130
vi
Table of TTable 4-1potential s
Table 4-2
Table 4-3analysis) .
Table 5-1
Table 5-2energy va
Table 5-3
Table 5-4
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 7-1
Table 7-2
Table 7-3
Table 7-4
Table 7-5Wind Ene
Table 7-6
Table 7-7
Table 7-8
Table 7-9
Table 7-1
Table 7-1
Table 7-1
Table 7-1
Tables DOE Estimasites in bays a
. Metocean as
. The future p.....................
. Differential
PJM Forwaraluation estim
. Monthly Av
. Energy Prod
. Cash Flow A
. Cash Flow A
. Analysis Me
. PJM Power
. PJM Capaci
. Fully Loade
. Fully Loadeergy Plants. ..
. Sources of F
. Sources of F
. just gives on
. Methodolog
0. Performan
1. Classic Lo
2. Financial A
3. Property T
ates of land-baand sounds). .
ssumptions u
projects and th.....................
Energy Price
rd Pricing Momation, betwee
verage Capaci
duction Estim
Analysis Resu
Analysis Resu
ethod per Nod
Prices (Cents
ity Payments
ed Capital Co
ed Capital Co.....................
Funds for 201
Funds for 201
ne capacity fa
gy for Estimat
nce and Annua
ong-Term Sen
Assumptions
Taxes for Win
ased and offs.....................
sed for bay, s
heir announce.....................
e Adders for F
odel Sample Oen 2012 and 2
ity Factors ....
mates and Cap
ults for 2012
ults for 2012
de/Plant Site.
s/kWh) by Se
.....................
sts or Uses of
sts or Uses of.....................
12 100 MW W
12 100 MW W
actor per seas
ting Wind En
al Operating E
nior Debt Rati
for 2012 100
nd Energy Pla
hore wind en......................
sound and oce
ed capital cos......................
Four Nodes R
Output – Calv2014, with the
......................
pacity Factors
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
......................
eason and by N
......................
f Funds for th
f Funds with ......................
Wind Energy
Wind Energy
on, and skips
nergy Plant Op
Expenses for
ings ...............
MW Wind E
ants in the Mid
nergy potentia.....................
ean lease bloc
sts (data colle.....................
Relative to We
vert Cliffs node full data ext
.....................
s (assume 100
c 100 MW Wi
c 100 MW Wi
.....................
Node ............
.....................
he 2012 100 M
Favorable Fin.....................
Plants. .........
Plants. .........
s over on-peak
perating Expe
2012 Wind E
.....................
Energy Plants
d-Atlantic Sta
al by 2030 (bu.....................
ck application
ected, but not .....................
estern Hub ($
de, showing mtending to 203
.....................
0m hub height
ind Energy P
ind Energy P
.....................
.....................
.....................
MW Wind En
nancing. for t.....................
.....................
.....................
k vs. off-peak
enses ............
Energy Plants
.....................
s. ...................
ates. ..............
ut not countin......................
ns. .................
used in the ......................
$/MWh) ........
monthly wind37 .................
......................
t) ...................
lants. ............
lants. ............
......................
......................
......................
nergy Plants. .
the 2012 100 ......................
......................
......................
k. ...................
......................
s.....................
......................
......................
......................
ng ..... 13
..... 16
..... 22
..... 31
d ..... 32
..... 33
..... 35
..... 42
..... 48
..... 59
..... 61
..... 61
..... 64
MW ..... 67
..... 69
..... 69
..... 71
..... 72
..... 73
..... 75
..... 78
..... 84
AEP AGL AOE APCOAWEAbp BNEFBOEM BOS BWEACAA CBF CF COE Cp CPCNdb DCF-RDELMDNR DOE DOI DominDPL-ODSIREEIA EPC EPRI EU EWITFCR FERCGW GHG HAP HURDHVDCICC IEC IPPs IRR
Abbreviation
O A
F M
A
N
ROI MARVA
nion ODEC E
TS
C
DAT C
ns AnAbAnApAmBaBloBuOcBaBriCleChCaCoCoCeDeDisDeMaU.SU.SDoDeDaEnEnEleEuEaFixFedGigGrHaHuHigInsIntIndInt
nnual energy pbove Ground Lnnual operatinppalachian Pomerican Windasis point oomberg New
ureau of Oceancean Energy Malance of statioitish Wind Enean Air Act
hesapeake Bayapacity factorost of energyoefficient of prtificate of Pu
ecibel scounted Cas
elaware-Maryaryland DeparS. DepartmenS. Departmen
ominion Electelmarva Poweatabase of Statnergy Informangineering proectric Power R
uropean Unionstern Wind Inxed charge ratderal Energy gawatts eenhouse Gas
azardous Air Purricane Databgh-voltage distalled capitalternational Eledependent powternal Rate of
production Level
ng expenses ower Compand Energy Asso
w Energy Finan Energy Ma
Management, on nergy Associa
y Foundation
performance ublic Conven
h Flow - Retuyland-Virginiartment of Nat
nt of Energy nt of the Interitric Power Coer and Light -te Incentives
ation Adminisocurement andResearch Instn ntegration Stute Regulatory C
s Pollutant base rect current l cost ectrotechnicawer producer
f Return
Definition
ny ociation
ance anagement (fo
Regulation a
ation
nience and Ne
urn on Investma Peninsula tural Resourc
ior ompany
Old Dominiofor Renewab
stration d constructiontitute
udy
Commission
al Commissiors
ormerly the Dand Enforcem
ecessity
ment
ces
on Electric Coble Energy and
n
n
DOI Bureau ofment)
ompany d Efficiency
vii
f
viii
ITC Km kWh LCOELDA LIBOLLJ LMP m m/s MAAMACMARMRPAMW MWhNCUCNGO Nm NOS NOX NRELNUG O&MPACEPERI PJM PPA PSC PTC PUC REC RGGIRPS/RSOX SPP TVA UMBVCERWPD WRF
E
R
AC T CS A
h C
L
M E
I RPG
C RC
InvKilKilLevLoLoLoLoMeMeMiMaMoMoMeMeNoNoNaNaNitNaNoOpProPriPenPowPubProPubReReReSuSouTenUnVirWiWe
vestment Tax lometers lowatt-hour velized Cost cational Delivndon Interbanw Level Jet cational Margeters eters per secoid-Atlantic Araximum Achiodified acceleountain Ridgeegawatt egawatt-hourorth Carolina Uon-Governmenautical Mile ational Ocean trogen oxides
ational Renewon-Utility Genperations and operty-Assessinceton Energnnsylvania-Jewer purchaseblic Service Coduction tax cblic Utility Cnewable energional Greennewable Portlfur Oxides uthwest Powennessee Valle
niversity of Mrginia Coastaind Power Deeather Resear
Credit
of energy verability Arenk offered rat
ginal Pricing
nd rea Council ievable Contrerated cost rece Protection A
Utilities Comnt Organizati
Service s
wable Energy nerator Maintenancesed Clean Enegy Resources ersey-Marylane agreement Commissioncredit
Commission rgy certificate
nhouse Gas Intfolio Standar
er Pool ey Authority
Maryland Baltial Energy Resensity rch and Forec
ea te
rol Technologcovery systemAct
mmission ion
Laboratory
e ergy Internationalnd Interconne
e nitiative rds or Goals
imore Countyearch Consor
cast
gy m
l, LCC ection
y rtium
1.0 Exe The Mid-AColumbiato date. Thdemand foAppalachand Chesathis reportwind and there are ndevelopm To addresregion areteam incluanalyst, ator “reportmeans thastakeholdefollowed bmitigationwind resou This procthe regionthe likelihidentified developmbarriers, bmeasures 1.1 Prim The primacategoriesinterest. Tresources in the weson the conof the regalthough ithe markestate or loand avianeconomicsuitable reto a substadevelopm
ecutive Su
Atlantic regioa, has areas whe absence ofor electricity ian mountainapeake Bays, t is being writerrain conditno new utility
ment is continu
ss this deficiene analyzed anduding: a wind tmospheric sced” barriers a
at go beyond “ers and policyby objective qn options to ovurces in regio
ess identifiedn. Individuallyhood that deve
several majoment of wind eboth major anto overcome
mary Barrie
ary barriers tos; policy and rThese issues in
in the regionstern portion ontinental shelion is generalit is possible tet. Many of thocal governmen species collic uncertainty cesources are aantial degree,
ment for onsho
ummary
on, including ith excellent wf wind energythat is among
n ridgeline siteAlbemarle antten, constructions similar t
y-scale wind puing in the mi
ncy, the actuald are presenteenergy engin
cientist, and enat face value, r“literature revy makers, and quantitative anvercome the con is explored
d a number of y, these lesserelopers will in
or barriers to wenergy in thosnd minor, and
these barriers
ers and Mit
o wind develoregulatory issn these catego
n are limited pof the region,f in the Atlanlly consideredthat local terr
he potential rients concernesion issues. Cconstrains winavailable. Stat, developmenore and shallo
Delaware, Mwind energy p
y projects for g the highest ies, on the coand Pamlico Sction is commto ridgeline spower plant pid-west and w
l, as opposed d along with r
neer, power mnvironmental rather to invesiews” includinground truthi
nalysis and unchallenges. In
and factored
f minor challer barriers alonnvest in commwind energy dse areas whereprovides reco
s.
tigation Me
opment outlinsues, wind resories are not w
primarily to fo, Coastal landntic Ocean. Td to be inadeqrain may provdgeline sites
ed with the poCoastal wind rnd power devte-level suppo
nt of potential ow water wind
Maryland, Nortpotential yet bulk power gin the nation. astal plains, atounds, and at
mencing on yeites in our stu
projects underwest, but not i
to theoreticalreduction mecarket expert, aengineer. Thestigate in deptng, but not liming of all undenbiased reportaddition, critiinto the local
nges and barrne may not demercial scale development e they exist. Tommendation
easures
ned in this repsource uncertwholly indepeour areas – Rid areas, shallohe wind resou
quate to suppovide usable sitin the area ha
otential adversresources havvelopment in tort for wind poffshore win
d power deve
rth Carolina, Vhas only two
generation conAmple wind
t shallow shelt deeper wateret another winudy area. Yet rway. The quein the Mid-At
, barriers to wchanisms or ma regulatory ae team approath by personnemited to, in deerlying assumting along witical new technwind market
riers to the deerail wind enewind farms iwhich will efThis section sns to possible
port can be grotainty, businesendent of eacidgeline sites
ow Bays and Surce in the ceort commercites for “low wave been deterse impact on
ve not been adthose areas alpower varies wnd resources hlopment.
Virginia, and utility scale p
ntinues despitresources are
ltered water sr sites off the
nd plant in Pein the Mid-Aestion is whytlantic region
wind energy demitigation meaand policy expach was not toel experienceepth interview
mptions. This ith possible resnical informatprojections.
evelopment ofergy developmin the region. ffectively presummarizes thsolutions or
ouped into foss/ economic
ch other and din the Appala
Sounds in theentral plain thial scale windwind speed” trmined to be view sheds in
dequately chalthough recenwidely within
has eclipsed s
the District oprojects instate a growing e available at sites in Delawe Atlantic coaennsylvania -Atlantic Statesy wind power .
evelopment inasures. The PEpert, financial o accept theored in the field b
ws of key investigation wsponses or tion concernin
f wind energyment, but lessThe review aclude he identified mitigation
our general issues, and p
do interact. Wachian Moun
e east, and offhat makes up md developmenturbines comi“off limits” b
n the region, naracterized annt data indicatn the region atate policy
1
of alled
ware st. As in
s
n this ERI
etical by
was
ng the
y in sen also
public Wind ntains fshore most
nt, ng on
by noise,
nd, so, tes and,
2
One of theUncertaineconomicthe overri 1.2 Poli In each Stdevelopmand tax inthese progdefined carenewableto levels tdevelopmpower devAttorney ridgeline r
1.2.1 R As Renewprovide thCertificatesystem anfulfilled laand wouldinstalled iwastes (knRECs be lin-state soreached lepower proto extend It is likelyeffective iin other stto new ren
1.2.2 R In Virginirenewableminimumagreemenstatute. Thsupportedcurrently that the pr
e largest, andnties facing rec, technical (eding uncertai
cy and Reg
tate in the regment of wind ancentives. A rgrams currentategories of “e resources. Tthat would pro
ment. Certain lvelopment in General and tresources.
RPS and RPG
wable Energy he intended ines (RECs) req
nd there is no argely with “ad operate anyin the early 19nown as blacklimited to facources. The Nevels sufficienoject in Norththe Federal S
y that as the Nin incentivizintates in the renewable sour
RPGs are tre
ia the State Ce energy sold
m target to be mnts (PPA) for nhe Commissio
d under the prapplicable goroject would b
d most difficulegional wind p.g., relating tointy regarding
gulatory Is
gion, policies and other formeview of the dtly transfer parenewable res
Tax incentivesovide a signiflocal zoning athose jurisdic
the Public Uti
Gs are Ineffe
Portfolio Stancentive for dquired to fulfirequirement fanyway” cred
yway for reaso900s for econk liquor) for e
cilities deployNorth Carolinant to incentivi
h Carolina hasSection 45 Pro
North Carolinang in-state rengion are unlikces and that a
eated as Cap
orporation Counder the Co
met or exceednew wind powon determinedogram and th
oal was not prbe used to me
lt, barriers to project develoo grid intercog the future of
ssues
and programsms of renewabdetailed strucayments fromsources,” ands are generallyficant incentivand noise ordictions and in Nility Commis
fective
andards and Gdevelopment ofill the mandatfor creating ndits. Many creons other thannomic reasonsenergy needs.
yed after the Ra RPS requireize commercis recently beeoduction Tax
a requirementnewable enerkely to be effa portion, say
ps
ommission ruommonwealthded. The Comwer generatiod that the goa
hat any new rerudent. The Ceet the renewa
wind developopers fall intonnection capaf the Section 4
s are in place ble energy thrcture of RPS p
m ratepayers tod do not proviy limited in sve for onshorinances have North Carolinsion chills de
Goals (RPS/RPof wind and otes are allowe
new facilities.edits are genen RPS/RPG. Ts and pulp mil. North Carol
RPS law was pements escalaial wind powe
en suspended Credit.
ts become morgy, includingfective unless
75 percent, o
uled that the ph’s renewablemmission was on were “reasoals of the RPGenewable gen
Commission apable goal esta
pment in the Mo several categacity) and env45 Federal Pr
that nominalrough renewaprograms in eo pre-existingide an incentiscope and amore commercialbeen enacted
na, the interprevelopment of
PG) are curreother renewabed to come fro. Consequentlerated from faThese facilitiells that have flina is an excepassed and th
ate gradually oer developmebecause of th
ore stringent og wind power
and until theyof RECs origi
portfolio goal e portfolio pro
asked to deteonable and pr
G were caps oneration that wpplied this teablished for la
Mid-Atlantic gories: wind vironmental. roduction Tax
lly are intendeable portfolio each jurisdictig facilities thaive for the devount and do nl scale wind p
d that effectivretation of a sf almost all of
ently structurebles. Renewabom anywherely REC requiracilities that wes include hydfor decades coeption. Its RPhat 75 percentover time, andent. A proposehe failure of th
over time, the. However, thy require thatinate in-state.
shall be treatogram, rather ermine if tworudent” as reqon the amountwas not needest even thougater years. Th
is uncertaintyresources, Of course thex Credit.
ed to support mandates (R
ion reveals that fall into brovelopment of not generally power
vely bar wind state stature bf that state’s
ed, they do noble Energy e in the PJM rements are b
were built londropower plaombusted pul
PS requires that must come fd have not yeed coastal winhe U.S. Cong
e program wihe RPS prograt RECs be lim
ted as a ceilinthan as a power purchquired by the t of renewabl
ed to meet thegh it was asserhe Commissio
y.
ere is
the RPS) hat oadly f new rise
by the
ot
being ng ago ants lping at from et nd
gress
ll be ams
mited
ng for
hase RPG
les e rted
on
also suggemethod of One legislsuccessfuface simil 1.2.3 R MarylandConvenieCPCN is aincluding outcome iprojects leclearly de 1.2.4 R North Carcondominstatute waState PUCcontrary vvaluable w In North Ceffectivelyordinanceactivities shown a winstances ordinancesuch as onadopted. Sinterests aauthority 1.2.5 S Environmregion. Gepreclude tavailable financial bfacilitate dbaseline swind devedetail.
ested that if lof compliance
lative attemptl. It is also nolar issues.
RPS-RPGs F
d State law reqnce and Necea formal adjutechnical, ec
is uncertain. Iess than 100 Mefined process
Restrictive St
rolina’s Ridgeniums on highas informally C has adoptedview. The resuwind resource
Carolina and y bar develop
e. Developers that can have
willingness toit appears tha
es have been ane ordinance Several of theand have passof local gove
State Suppor
mental permittenerally envirthe use of envin the region.barrier, especdevelopment studies that caelopment prog
ow cost RECthan new win
t has been maot clear wheth
Face Indirect
quires that a wessity (CPCNudicatory proconomic and eIn Virginia, thMW. These lis and consequ
tate Statutes
eline Protectih ridgeline siteinterpreted by
d the interpretulting uncertaes.
Virginia, sevepment in those
of wind farme local impacto work with loat the siting oadopted that bthat bars deve
e states in the sed statutes sernments.
rted Studies
ting has not bronmental issvironmentally. However, thcially for smalof such proje
an identify sengram, but no
s generated bnd plants, then
ade to correct her other state
t Constraints
wind plant gre) from the Pu
cess that involenvironmentahe “permit-byimits and incouently are not
s and Local Z
on Act was enes and specifiy the North Ctation of the Aainty is a sign
eral counties e jurisdiction
ms should recots. For the moocal communif wind plants bear no reasonelopment of aregion have r
etting out mod
een shown tosues can be dey sensitive sitehe cost of conller projects tects, the statesnsitive areas. state in the st
y pre-existingn they should
this situationes with regula
s
eater than 70 ublic Service Clves public pal issues. This
y-rule” projeconsistencies bbarriers to de
Zoning and
nacted to bar fically excludeCarolina AttorAttorney Genenificant barrie
have adopteds. One countyognize that coost part, develities to strike has acquired
nable relationa wind farm wrecognized thdel noise and
be a barrier tefined, and aves, but adequaducting baselhat might be s in the regionNew Jersey h
tudy region h
g sources werd be utilized.
n, but it is notated utilities, s
MW must obCommission articipation an process can b
ct approval prbetween stateevelopment.
Noise Ordin
developmentes “windmillsrney General eral, but seve
er to developm
d zoning and/y in Marylandommercial scalopers have acthe appropria
d a political canship to the powithin one mihe need to pro
zoning restri
to the developvoided or mitiate “non-sensline environmmore approprn could conduhas conducted
has conducted
re available a
t yet clear whsuch as North
btain a Certifi(PSC). The isnd addresses be lengthy, exocess appliess may be dete
nances
t of unsightlys” from its teras applying t
eral counties hment of North
or noise ordind is considerinale wind planccepted this nate balance. Hast and local rotential impaile of a schooloperly balanceictions and lim
pment of winigated. Thesesitive” areas a
mental studiesriate in some uct broad envd such a study
d such a study
as a lower cos
hether it will bh Carolina, wi
icate of Publicssuance of a all relevant isxpensive and
s to “small” werrents but are
y resort rms. Howeverto wind farmshave adopted h Carolina’s m
nances that ng a similar
nts are industrnotion and havHowever, in srestrictive ct of a wind fl, have been e competing miting the
nd power in the issues can appear reason can pose a areas. To
vironmental y for its offsh
y in sufficient
3
t
be ill
c
ssues, the
wind e
r, this s. The a
most
rial ve
some
farm,
he
nably
hore
4
An overlythe legislaof leasingresources,consider tresult wasdetermineBay. Thisdiscussed state, whescale proj
1.3 Poli 1.3.1 E In recent yapplicatioManagemThe Natioenhanced blocks in proposals significan(nm) limit This largeconsideratSounds, acreated a b Our studybays and scosts are shurricane in the oce Based on cost of enestimated installatioinstallatioeventually$0.063 peThese estioffshore pdetailed eearly in th There are in the bay
y broad and inature directedg state-owned , the VMRC rthe economic s a widely dised that existins report effect
later in this rere state suppoects.
cy Change
Emphasis on
years the atteons to offshorement (BOEM) onal Offshore
commercial ithe Atlantic Oand has com
nt impact.” Alt in federal w
e emphasis ontion of possib
and from landbarrier to ons
y team reexamsounds. Windsignificantly hgenerated wa
ean than for th
detailed econnergy (in 2013
at $0.091 peron vs. $0.167 ons. Under poy the COEs (ier kWh Bay animates appearproject cost trngineering st
he Federal Wi
issues associys and sounds
nsufficiently rd the Virginia
bottomlands report providevalue of poss
sseminated anng competing ively ended freport, this issorted research
es or Mitiga
Offshore W
ntion of statee in Federal whas kindled mWind Strateg
interest in offOcean off the
mpleted necessll this effort h
waters.
n offshore oceble sites in an-based sites a
shore and Bay
mined the prevd resources aphigher, due paves up to 20 hose in the ba
nomic analysi3 constant dolr kWh (kilowper kWh for ossible favorabin 2013 constnd $0.119 perr to be consistrends in Europudies compleind Program.
iated with depbut these hav
resourced studMarine Resoin the Chesaped only a supsible wind sit
nd quoted repouses ruled ou
further considsue also arisesh could remov
ation Optio
Wind Power D
governmentswaters. The Umuch of this igy prepared bfshore wind d coast of Dela
sary environmhas created sub
ean applicatiod near the De
along the Atlay wind develo
viously over lppear to be martly to the plm height. Op
ays. COE resu
is, the levelizellars) was
watt-hour) for ocean ble financingant dollars) ar kWh Oceantent with pe and with eted by DOE
ploying turbinve been resolv
dy can, howeources Commipeake Bay anerficial exam
tes and possibort, in which ut any commederation of this in the conteve an econom
ons
Developmen
s in the Mid-AU.S. Departmeinterest from
by U.S. Depardevelopment. aware, Maryl
mental assessmbstantial inter
ons has drawnelaware and Cantic coast. Coopment.
looked applicarginally bettlatform cost inperations and ults are describ
ed
bay
, re
n.
nes ved
Figure 1electricit
ever, do more ission (VMR
nd its environsmination of poble compatibleit was reporte
ercial scale wis resource in ext of mappinmic barrier to
nt
Atlantic regioent of Interiorthe states andrtment of EneBOEM has d
land, and Virgments with favrest for projec
n attention andChesapeake Bonsequently,
cations in the ter offshore cn the ocean fomaintenancebed below wi
1-1 Near-shore wity and serves a
harm than goRC) to determi
s. In the absenotential issues e uses of botted that the Coind farms in tthe Common
ng the wind rethe developm
on has shiftedr, Bureau of Od potential proergy in consordefined three pginia, solicite
avorable resulcts beyond th
d resources awBays, Albemar
offshore win
shallow sheltompared to b
for deeper wate expense are ith Figure 1-3
wind plant in Ds aids to naviga
ood. In Virginine the feasibnce of adequaand did not
tom land. Theommission hathe Chesapeanwealth. As esources of thment of smalle
d from land-baOcean Energyoject developrt with BOEMpotential leas
ed project ts showing “n
he 12 nautical
way from rle and Pamlid developmen
tered waters obays, but capitter and survivhigher for pla3.
Denmark - prodation
nia, ility ate
e ad ake
e er
ased y pers. M e
no mile
ico nt has
of tal val in ants
duces
in Europeconcerns mcoal mininby focusinfeasible conavigationareas of p Large shasimilar areenvironm 1.3.2 S All of the energy imat residenbut not in because thare popula In DelawaGreenhou10% fromon each stto the stathave beenThis sourc All states District ofgeneratedconduct nhelp all po 1.4 Win There is areferenced(EWITS) Marylandmodeling measured wind meaestimate tareas. Res Four of thcame fromAdministrTogether
e and we beliemust be addreng and thermng on offshorost. While setn aids, rather otential shall
allow bays andeas in Europeental analysis
State Energy
Mid-Atlanticmports by deve
tial applicatioothers. All st
hey benefit mar although th
are and Maryuse Gas Initiatm power planttate’s individutes to be invesn held. Marylace of funding
should consif Columbia, V
d from RGGI’needed wind rotential comm
d Resourc
a paucity of wd data consist[1]. To exam
d and Virginiafor each of thdata sources
asurements fothe average disults were com
he measured wm NASA’s Wration programthese seven d
eve can be ovessed and balal power plan
re wind, it is ntback from shthan obstacleow water win
d sounds are ae that have nos is needed to
y Programs e
c State energyeloping indigons along withtates are strap
more individuahey result in o
land, money itive (RGGI), s by 2019. RGual CO2 limitsted in consumand has receiv
g is available o
der adding emVirginia, and s periodic car
resource measmercial develo
ce Uncertai
wind resource ts of modeled
mine the accura were obtainehe four wind available thar one or moreiurnal and seampared to mo
wind sites werWallops Island
m); and NOAdata sets were
ercome here. lanced againstnt emissions. Wnot clear whethipping channes. See Figurend sites that ar
a unique resoow been large quantify and
emphasize s
y plans mentiogenous resourch property an
pped for fundials. Funding ioverall small
is available foa ten-state caGGI operates ts and cycles amer programsved $188,828only to states
mphasis on prNorth Carolinrbon credit ausurements andopers.
inty
data suitable d estimates of racy of these wed and reviewmarket areas
at included hue years at mulasonal averagodeled estima
re described id site; CrisfielAA measureme used to estim
Environmentt the benefits While it may ther offshore nels is requiree 1.1. The Mire sheltered f
ource area in tly built out. A
d recognize th
small scale p
on policies faces. There are
nd sales tax aning these progis small, but cenergy contri
or renewable ap-and-trade p
carbon tradina portion of ths and clean en8,931 and Del
that are RGG
romoting comna should recuctions are likd baseline env
for planning f wind speed fwind resource
wed. These dathat will be d
ub height of grltiple heights
ge wind speedtes from EWI
in detail in thd, Maryland (
ments from Chmate the avera
tal issues, sucto bay water
y be politicallywind can be
ed, turbines inid-Atlantic Stfrom the chall
the Mid-AtlanAdditional techis unique opp
projects
avoring renewe a variety of nd property wgrams. Small can be easily libutions.
energy progrprogram meanng auctions quhe revenue genergy developlaware $25,41GI members.
mmercial windconsider joininkely to increavironmental s
utility-scale wfrom Eastern e estimates, data were also udiscussed latereater than 70were compile
ds for a typicaITS.
e Tall Tower (collected und
hesapeake Ligage wind spee
ch as birds, baand air quali
y tempting to developed at
nstalled on shtates all have lenging condi
ntic. They arechnical, econoportunity.
wable energy f grant programwavers availab
projects tendlimited. How
rams from thent to reduce C
quarterly for thenerated frompment. To dat12,511 in cum
d plant develong the RGGI.
ase in value anstudies and ot
wind plant. CWind Integra
data from seveused as input
er. These sites0 meters in thed. This data
al site in each
Study [2]. Ader a Marylan
ght off the Vireds in each of
ats and view sity from reducavoid those ian economic
hoals can servaccess to vas
itions in the o
e much largeromic and
and reducing ms aimed mable in some std to be favore
wever, the prog
e Regional CO2 emissionhese states ba
m the auction bte 15 auctions
mulative proce
opment. The . Revenues nd could servther actions th
Commonly ation Study en sites in to the econom
s were the onlhe region. The
was used to of the marke
dditional datand Energy rginia coast. f the four mar
5
shed ced issues cally e as
st ocean.
r than
ainly tates ed grams
s ased back s eeds.
e to hat
mic ly e
t
a
rket
6
areas. Theoff-peak ecollected SignificanThe Ridgemeasured conclusioleast one w The reverwind speeto be stati An additioMid-Atlanmonths. T
Midwest aproductio Many factlack of lonthe land-san inadeq
Figure 1-2 Aug 3, 2007
ese data were energy outputduring the sam
nt differenceseline data winat 100 metern that averagewind power c
rse is true on ted offshore wistically and e
onal wind resntic region. L
These jets are
as shown but n.
tors contributng-term, hub
sea boundary,quate resource
The Weather R7 at 1:00 am at
used to estimt as well as mme years.
were noted bnd speeds andr (m) hub heige onshore coaclass.
the ocean. Thwere about 15%economically
source uncertaLLJ may signi
powerful win
with differen
te to uncertainheight or abo and the prese
e, this uncerta
Research Modela height of 312
mate average wmonthly and se
between the md capacity facght and aboveastal area win
he analysis sho% higher thansignificant.
ainty is evidenificantly incrends that arise
nt drivers, yet
nty regardingove wind meaence of low le
ainty is a poten
l simulation of l2m above groun
wind speeds aeasonal differ
measured windctors were sime on the Delmnd speeds at th
owed that then estimates in
nce of the preease wind planfrom large sc
they can sign
the regional asurements, thevel jets. For ntial barrier f
low level jets onnd level.
and plant caprences. Unfort
d strength anmilar. But lookmarva at Wallohose heights m
e EWITS estim this study. T
esence of Lownt productioncale topograp
surfacewesternseasonto a noplain. Tthat oclayer csummesunsetnight. Tcharactshows night ostate-oForecaresolutm heigthat dadramatturbinedata is locationoccur inknown
nificantly incr
wind resourche atmospheriareas where c
for developers
n
pacity factors tunately not a
d the EWITSking at the higops and Eastvmay be under
mates for aveThese differen
w Level Jets (n during sprinhic/thermal fo
e cooling of thn region durin. This forcing
octurnal LLJ oThe LLJ is a scurs under staonditions at n
er months. It band persists fTo illustrate tteristics of thea model simu
on August 2, 2f-the-art Wea
ast (WRF) motion. This modght but direct mate show the jetically increase rotor height.needed to dens and frequen the Mid-Atlto occur freqrease wind pl
ce characteristic complexitycurrent lowers.
for on-peak aall of the data
S model resultgh wind sheaville leads to trestimated by
erage seasonances are consid
(LLJ) across tng and summeforcing due tohe elevated ng the warm g often gives rover the coastsheet of fast wable boundarynight during tbegins aroundfor most of ththe spatial e LLJ, Figureulation for on2007 using thather Researchodel at 9 km del run was ameasurementets can se wind speed. Much addititermine the s
ency that LLJ lantic. LLJs a
quently in the lant energy
tics includingy and variabilr level data sh
and a was
ts. ar the
y at
l dered
the er o
rise tal wind y the d he
e 1.2 ne he h and
at 312 ts on
ds at ional cale,
are
g: the lity at how
1.5 Bus Economicare capitaavailable power. Puabove, weused data built and oconsidere European team founnear shoredepth andcommissiapplicatio The studyregion andPenn-JersMid-Atlanconnectioprojects, Dprojects, C Using theplant at eadifferent Pconservat2015 Addinterstate implemenlarge fract PERI thenproject strlikely fina(PPA) or ran the mocoverage, Another mwith a satmeets thoEnergy (C The land-could alsooffer pote
iness and
c issues pose l intensive; thwind resourc
ublished data ere used to evfrom NREL operating to ed due to the u
offshore projnd that most ee. As these “e
d 25 km from oning and ma
ons for this pr
y team then prd actual futurey-Marylandntic States ann points repreDelmarva PowCalvert Cliffs
measured wiach node, the PJM forward ive estimate g
der Prices, whtransport stan
nted. Of courstion of region
n performed dructure and fiancing, with dother well-guodel to calcul which demon
method of anaisfactory IRRse requiremen
COEs), where
based plants wo work financential, but ther
Economic
other barriershe viability ofe, on operatinon land-based
valuate the ecoand other souevaluate bay auncertain natu
ject costs werearly projects easy” sites weshore. The Eu
aintenance weoject.
repared a forwres pricing tra Interconnectd certain nearesenting eachwer and Lighs for Bay proj
ind characterivalue of elecpricing scena
given recent fhich assumes Endards, requirse these standnal generation
discounted canancing were
debt rated oneuaranteed salelate after-tax Instrates ease
alysis, to betteR and debt covnts. From this
e the latter fig
were found tocially. The ocere are technic
c Issues
s to wind devef such projectng expenses, ad turbine projonomics of pources that werand ocean basure of such es
re analyzed towere built in
ere built out, puropean expeere factored in
ward pricing maded on the NYtion, which is rby areas. Fou
h of the wind mt – Old Domiects, and Fen
istics (on-peactricity was dearios were usefuel and poweEPA Utility Mring additiona
dards will not n.
ash flow-reture employed: (e level below es with favoraIRR, which isof repayment
er compare thverage, and ths, we calculature excludes
o be economiean projects s
cal and econom
elopment. Altts depends onand on projecject costs andotential coastre based on acsed projects. Ntimates.
o determine pvery shallow
project develoeriences on prnto wind plan
model based oYMEX commthe Regional
ur existing nomarket areas,inion Electricntress for Ocea
k, off-peak anetermined by ed, including er forecasts, aMaximum Acal pollution cochange costs
rn on investm(1) merchant pinvestment-g
able financings the rate of rt for lenders.
he projects, PEhen using the ted levelized ninflation.
cally viable ashow a broad mic problems
though wind n initial cost, octed demand ad local wind stal and ridgelictual costs forNo “proposed
possible trendw sheltered waopment shifterices for founnt cost estima
on historical wmodities tradil Transmissioodes were sele, namely Clovc Company (Dan projects.
nd seasonal) fextrapolating2.5% price e
and another, hchievable Conontrols on coafor natural g
ment (DCF-ROpower sales wgrade and (2) g, and debt ratreturn for equ
ERI performemodel to calcnominal-dolla
and with favogap over mar
s to solve. If S
plants run onon the amounand price paidtrength estimine projects inr European prd” project cos
s in project praters less thaned to deeper wdations, insta
ates for bay an
wholesale priing exchange.on Organizatioected on the Pverdale node DPL-ODEC) f
for a simulateg forward for scalation, wh
higher-priced ntrol Technolal-fired plantsas or nuclear
OI) analysis. Twith current (fPower Purchted at investmity investors,
ed a DCF-ROculate the revar and consta
orable financinrket prices. TShallow Bay
n “free fuel”, tnt and timing od for the proje
mates, discussen the region. Wrojects that wsts were
rices. The stun 15 m deep awater, up to 30allation, nd ocean
ices in the PJM. PJM refers ton (RTO) forPJM system afor Ridgelinefor Coastal
ed 100 MW w25 years. Tw
hich is a scenario term
logy (MACT)s, are plants that ar
Two types of first half 2012
hase Agreemement-grade. P
and debt
OI analysis stavenue stream ant-dollar Cos
ng the bay plaThe Ocean pla
plants were b
7
they of the ect’s ed We
were
udy and 0 m
M to the r the as e
wind wo
med ) and
re a
2), ent PERI
arting that
sts of
ant ants built
8
first, drawFigure 1-
Figure
There are lows, whisystem. Tissue facinpast. Second, ththe energy(MAPP) abackbone In conclusterm deveof bays anRidgelineenvironm 1.6 Pub Public opaddressedMountainstate. Reacontroverbegan bef
wing on lesson-3 shows the f
e 1-3. COEs of F
two other poich some obse
This has reducng wind and o
he study teamy from the 10are assumed t.
sion, the leveelopment in thnd sounds duee sites are lowental factors m
lic Interest
inion of windd properly in tn Ridge Protecasonable zoninsial. Model z
fore model or
ns learned in favorable fina
Four Plants wit
otential barrierervers forecasced PJM’s whother renewab
m assumed tha00 MW plantsto be available
lized cost of ehe Mid-Atlante to proximity
west cost, but tmust be consi
t Issues
d energy playsthe project plaction Act has ng ordinancesoning policiedinances wer
Europe, the fancing COEs.
h Favorable Fin
rs. First, the pst to stay low holesale powebles but has n
at required tras. Transmissioe. We did not
energy from ptic. Next mosy to load and the distance toidered.
s a key role inanning proceseffectively b
s can go a lons are availabl
re ready.
field experien.
nancing using P
price of naturafor up to five
er prices, becanot been a bar
ansmission linon line project evaluate the
potential coasst attractive pobecause the wo load centers
n wind develoss. In North Clocked all win
ng way to addle and in use e
ce gained wo
PJM Forward P
al gas has falle years till excause PJM is arrier preventin
nes will be avcts like the Mi
potential imp
stal sites appeotential sites wind resources, associated t
opment. It canCarolina a judnd developme
dress siting issexcept in a fe
ould benefit O
Prices (2013 Do
len in recent ycess capacity
a spot market.ng wind deve
vailable whenid-Atlantic Popact from the
ears to be attrare in shelter
es are probabltransmission
n become a badicial interpreent in the wessues before prew communiti
Ocean plants.
ollars).
years to recoris absorbed b This is a rece
elopment in th
n needed to haower Pathway proposed off
ractive for neared shallow wly underestimissues and
arrier if it is ntation of the stern part of trojects becomies where pro
rd by the ent
he
andle y fshore
ar-waters mated.
not
the me ojects
Generallyenvironmways shouNoise andbenefits frthe “dead doing so ibarrier to
y environmententally sensituld be avoided aesthetics arrom wind powzones” in the
is possible. Hwind energy
tal issues can tive sites but ad. Bats issuesre issues that wer that resule bay and oce
However, becadevelopment
be defined, aare not consids can largely bcan generally
lt from reduciean. Althoughause of potentt for the purpo
avoided or midered a barriebe avoided by
y be handled ting coal and oh changing putial initial opposes of this re
itigated. Theser to developmy raising the tthrough open other fossil fuublic opinion cposition, publeport.
se can precludment. Bird santurbine cut-indialog citing
uel burning, ancan be a challlic interest is c
de the use of nctuaries and n wind speed. g the value andnd from shrinlenging task, considered a
9
fly
d nking
10
2.0 Intr This reporin responsbarrier red09GO990(DNR). Princeton Baltimorewind and and federaincluded: regulatoryconsultanenvironmphysics, dand wind where he a senior min the elecconventio The team’be impedivalue, butlimited to,assumptioalong withtechnical iwind mark Benefits oof the Midterm poweConsequeidentified barriers to Results wgroups in regional e
roduction
rt presents resse to the U.S.duction progr009. Cost shar
Energy Resoe County (UMother renewaal and state enDr. Lynn Spa
y issues, and Dts have experental and regi
dynamics, andpower generaserved as sen
manager in thectric power buonal power pla
’s approach wiments to wint rather investi, in depth inte
ons. This invesh possible respinformation cket projection
of wind energd-Atlantic Staer price stabil
ently these benand discusse
o wind develo
were communiregional busi
environmental
sults of work Department
ram, competitred funding su
ources InternaMBC) and the able energy plnergy policy parling AtmospDan Lobue onrience in windional power gd air pollutionation policy is
nior counsel ae Environmenusiness has heants and for w
was to identifynd energy devigated in depterviews of keystigation was ponses or mitoncerning the
ns.
gy are widely ates include wlity, reduced enefits will no
ed. However, opment.
icated in meetiness, governml groups and N
conducted byof Energy, “2tive Funding Oupport came f
ational (PERI)Chesapeake
lant design, coplanning and pheric Physicn regional trad energy and ageneration issn transport. Mssues in this c
at the Justice Dntal Protectionelped in strucwind power pr
y and investigvelopment. Wth by means thy stakeholdersfollowed by o
tigation optione wind resourc
recognized. Rwind energy, aenergy import be discussedthis report is
tings and presments and unNon-Governm
y Princeton E20% Wind byOpportunity Afrom the Mar
) organized a Bay Foundatonventional pmanagement
cist from UMBansmission orgalso bring det
sues. Dr. SparMr. Buckheit h
country and aDepartment’sn Agency’s a
cturing and oprojects.
gate technicale did not accehat go beyonds and policy mobjective quanns to overcomces in the regi
Renewable Poacknowledginrts, job creatiod here. Regiomore specific
sentations at rniversities. In mental Organ
Energy Resoury 2030: TopicAnnouncemeryland Depart
a team includition (CBF). PEpower plant imt. In addition BC, Bruce C.ganizational ctailed and brorling is a promhas consulted abroad since rs Environmenair program. Mptimizing tran
l, business andept theoreticald “literature remakers, and grntitative analy
me the challengion was expos
ortfolio Standng its value inon and reduce
onally specificcally focused
regional workaddition the C
nizations (NG
rces Internatic2A Wind Powent Number: Dtment of Natu
ing the UniveERI staff are mplementatioto PERI staff. Buckheit, adconsiderationoad perspectivminent scienti
on a number retiring from tntal EnforcemMr. Lobue witnsmission agr
d regulatory il or “reportedeviews” includround truthingysis and unbiages. In additiosed and factor
dards or Goalsn terms of sused air and wac or unique mon defining a
kshops, seminCBF hosted a
GOs).
onal, LLC (Pwering AmeriDE-PS36-ural Resource
ersity of Maryexperienced
on, project finf, key consultddressing ns. These ves on ist on atmosphof fossil fuel
the governmement Section a
th his experiereements for
issues that cod” barriers at fding, but not g of all underlased reportingon, critical newred into the lo
s (RPS/RPG)stainability, loater pollution. market drivers
and overcomi
nars and direca meeting of
PERI), ica”
s
yland in
nance, ants
heric l-fired ent and as ence
uld face
lying g w
ocal
in all ong-
are ing
ctly to
3.0 Goa The objecdevelopmmitigating Specific oto define sto analyzecharacterienvironm Our goal winclude:
1. “T2. “P3. “W4. “C5. “C
als and Ob
ctive of this stment of wind eg those barrie
objectives arespecific techne the economiistics and uncental conside
was also to di
The only usefPopulation deWind resourcCoastal wind Competing us
bjectives
tudy is to defienergy in the Mrs.
: 1) to refine nical, businesic factors that
certainties in trations in per
ispel or reduc
ful winds are ensity is too hce is not suffic
power cannoses rule out m
ine technical,Mid-Atlantic
the understans, and regulatt may impact the local windrspective with
ce myths abou
at ridgeline shigh on coastacient in coasta
ot compete wimost of the oth
economic anregion and to
nding of the ntory barriers aproject devel
d resource poth other power
ut Mid-Atlant
sites and mostal plains.” al plains, bayith stronger ofherwise availa
nd policy issuo identify mec
nature of the ralong with oplopment decistential and 5)r generation te
tic wind powe
t of those are
y(s) and soundffshore wind able bottomla
ues that have bchanisms for
regional windptions for ovesions, 4) to qu) to put wind eechnologies.
er markets. T
on protected
ds.” strengths.”
and.”
been impedinovercoming
d energy markercoming themuantify energy
hese myths
land.”
11
ng the or
ket, 2) m, 3)
12
4.0 Reg The regioColumbiaresources,potential. different d As shownmountainsDelaware over the C
Figure 4-1.
To quantiNational REnergy (Dwind resoindividualChesapeakagain not Carolina 8data are suThese excsounds. Tcan be ov If fully demegawatt 1 NREL esti50 m height
gional Ene
n chosen for a, generally ha, growing demFor purposes
development
n in Figure 4-s, 2) Coastal –and Chesape
Continental sh
Mid-Atlantic S
fy these markRenewable EnDOE) titled 20ource potential state are: Mke Bay), Delaincluding De
807 MW on aummarized inclusions could
The potential cercome.
eveloped, assut-hours (MWh
imated an averagt. See Table B-10
ergy Situa
this study: Deas similar winmand for elecs of this studyissues and po
-1, the market– on the plain
eake Bays, Alhelf off the At
States Wind Pla
kets , the authnergy Labora0% Wind Ene
al by 2030 at 1aryland 1,483aware 9.5 MWelaware Bay, Vand offshore pn Table 4-1 thd be reconsidecapacity could
uming an aveh) annually. T
ge capacity facto0 in reference 1.
ation - Rip
elaware, Marynd energy mactricity and yey, the wind enotential
t segments arens east of the lbemarle and tlantic coast.
ant Market Are
hors of this repatory (NREL)ergy by 2030. 16 to 43 thou3 MW onshorW onshore (likVirginia 1,79potential largehat also descriered but mored equal the of
rage 35% capThat amount o
or of 35% in 201
pe for Win
yland, North rket character
et almost no dnergy market i
e: 1) RidgelinPiedmont, 3) Pamlico Soun
as
port expanded in preparing This report e
sand megaware and 53,782kely underest3 on land ander than the othibes land areae important isffshore estima
pacity factor1,of electricity i
10 increasing to
d Market
Carolina, Virristics. These
development ois divided int
ne - along the Sheltered Wnds, and 4) O
d on the data their study fo
estimated the atts (MW) [3]2 offshore (notimated) and d 94,448 offshher Mid-Atlaas that were es the omissionates provided
, wind could is equivalent
38% by 2030 fo
Developm
rginia, and the include: reasof the availabto four segme
e tops of AppaWaters – in the Ocean – offsho
and models uor the U.S. Dusable Mid-A
]. DOE’s estimot counting posimilar to Mahore plus the
antic States coexcluded fromn of possible sd potential env
supply at leasto 15% of the
or Class 3 wind r
ment
e District of sonably good ble wind energents each with
alachian shallow wate
ore in deeper
used by the epartment of
Atlantic regiomates for otential sites iaryland offshoBay, and Nor
ombined. Them consideratiosites in bays ovironmental i
st 50 million e current five
resource measure
wind gy
h
ers in water
onal
n the ore rth
ese on. or ssues
-state
ed at
Barrier Mitigatpotentiamisinfor
consumptthis report Table 4-1 Dbays and so
The wind turbine caestimated maps drawClass 3 anhigher altiestimates.could dram 4.1 Mid- 4.1.1 R Ridgeline120 MW some locaprojects onotable ththe 790 Mnew ridgeMehoopanhad alreadplants opein PennsyPennsylvacounty. Tfamiliarity
State
MarylandNorth Caroli
DelawareVirginia
r – Visual imp
tion Option –al wind powerrmation abou
tion, based ont will show th
DOE Estimates ounds).
resource dataapacity being
as Class 2 orwn at 50 metend excluded eitudes, indica. The basis fomatically incr
-Atlantic W
Ridgeline Site
e sites have enin two wind p
al governmenor caused themhat in nearby PMW of wind peline projects ny beginning dy been damaerating, and reylvania. Althoania Departmhis was aimedy wind turbin
Total (km2)
Ex
567.7ina 1,155.60
36.61,567.20 1
Windy La
pact from ridg
– Support demr plant sites in
ut noise and vi
n Energy Infohat potential e
of land-based a
a available at located either
r below were er (50 m) heigexcept ridgelinate that Mid-Aor new higher rease the wind
Wind Energ
es
ncountered seplants have bets and in Nor
m to be abandPennsylvania
plants in Pennare being buiin June of 20
aged by strip mecognizing th
ough in some ment of Enviro
d at educatingnes through sm
xcluded (km2)
Available(km2)
271.1 296.6994.1 161.534.7 1.9
,208.50 358.7
and Area ≥ 30% G
geline sites.
monstration prn an effort to isual impact.
rmation Admelectricity pro
and offshore win
the time of thr on ridgelineconsidered to
ght that were nes [5]. More
Atlantic coastawind resourcd energy pote
gy Market S
rious oppositeen built in Mth Carolina th
doned. These ia, wind develonsylvania at thilt this year in012. In some cmining, later
heir economiccases there is
onment had a g the public amall projects.
e Available % of State
%L
1.18%0.13%0.04%0.35%
Gross Capacity Fac
rojects with tuincrease techn
ministration (Eoduction from
nd energy poten
he DOE studyes or at offshooo “marginal”used in the st
e recent wind al areas may bce estimates isential for land
Segments
tion in MarylaMaryland. Opphe “Mountainissues are disopment is prohe end of 201ncluding a 13cases the initiother ridges a
c and environms still organizepolicy to supp
and winning gThis leads to
% of Total Windy Land Excluded
I
47.80%86.00%94.80%77.10%
ctor at 80 m
urbines instalnology accep
EIA) data fromm wind may be
ntial by 2030 (b
y resulted in nore ocean site” to be considtudy, virtuallyresource meabe several pos discussed ind-based sites.
and, Virginia position fromn Ridge Protecscussed in detoceeding well 1 are currentl1 MW plant tial projects wand farm landmental benefied oppositionport wind dem
general accepto a possible so
Installed Capacity (MW)1,4838079.5
1,793
Land-Based Wi
lled in commuptance and to
m 2010 [4]. Ae substantially
but not counting
nearly all of tes. In the DOEdered. Lookiny all of the lanasurements, sower classes hn detail later i
and North Cam some memb
ction Act,” hatail later in thion similar te
ly located on that began ins
were placed onds were emplofits, has helpedn, several yearmonstration ptance based oolution in the
y Annual Generat(GWh)4,2692,395
265,395
ind Energy Potenti
unities near overcome
Analysis later y underestim
g potential sites
the projected wE study, sites ng at wind resnd area was bome measure
higher than eain this report a
arolina, althoers of the pubave delayed is report but irrain. Nearly ridgelines. Fi
stallation in n mountains toyed. Seeing d to open marrs ago the projects in eveon increased
target states.
Offshore Po
tion Estimated C(MW)53,782
Very LaSimilar to M
94,448
ial
13
in ated.
s in
wind
ource below ed at arlier and
ugh blic,
it is all of
ive
that wind rkets
ery
otential
apacity )2
argeMaryland
8
14
4.1.2 C This studyenergy decoast. As usable giv Populatiomillion pehighway cfrom ridge For persp(DELMAGermany 4-2. Both Wind resoaverage mestimated Wind Atlaenough enduring lowSweden aperiods in
Figure 4-2. to indicate
Coastal Plain
y concludes thevelopment. Tmentioned pr
ven better win
n high densityeople live in tcorridors. Howeline areas an
ective, the coARVA) penins
to the northerregions are m
ources are commeasured at 50
Class 3 resouas). In 2010, Jnergy to meetw demand perand Germany.n Denmark [7
DELMARVA-scale)
n Sites
he plains eastTerrain varies reviously, thend measureme
y is often citethe five-state wever, the hig
nd agricultura
oastal plain in sula. The Danrn tip. DELM
mainly agricul
mparable with0 m above grource of 6.4 to Jutland had mt 100% of theriods at night Electric pow].
-Jutland Compa
t of the Appalfrom rolling
e wind resourcents and mod
ed as a reasonRegion, maingh density urb
al areas along
Denmark cannish Jutland P
MARVA has sltural with so
h open plainsound level [67.0 m/s at 50
more than 2,40 Danish electwhen actuall
wer was later r
arison where 2,
lachian Mounhills in the wces once thou
dern turbines w
n for lack of renly in urban aban areas in tthe coast that
n be compareeninsula is ap
similar dimenme urban and
in Denmark ]. This is only
0 m height (th00 MW of lantrical load. Hily much of threturned from
400 MW of lan
ntains containwest to large reught to be marwith taller tow
egional wind and suburban the region aret have stronge
ed to the Delapproximately
nsions and topd industrial ar
reported at 6y slightly betthe standard hend-based winighest wind g
he wind energym other genera
nd-based wind p
n many sites selatively flat rginal are nowwers and larg
developmentareas along th
e generally moer wind resou
aware – Maryl300 km from
pography, as sreas.
.5 to 7.5 m/s ter than DELMeight used in t
nd plants prodgeneration peny was exporteating sources
plants are opera
suitable for wareas near thew considered er rotors.
t. In fact, 25 he Interstate ore than 50 murces.
land – Virginm the border wshown in Figu
average annuMARVA withthe European
ducing at timenetration occued to Norwayduring low w
ating (300 km li
ind e
miles
nia with ure
ual h an
n es urred y, wind
ine is
4.1.3 B The potenhas receivon 100 m concludedbased inst That initiadriven reqmetoceanand it shoincluding maximumand Atmoocean neablocks. Thshown in Wind, wathe Amerifor designgusts are tcriteria neextrapolatThis will ldetailed dithe admittstudies. DMadison U
For majorof over 30depths of continentawave heigwaves in sthe maximthe bays smaximum
2 Metocean and turbulen3 Miles, J.J. 4 Australianhttp://cawcr5 NOAA Naone-third of
Bay and Soun
ntial value of ved little atten
towers in offd that the costtallations. As
al study focusquirements di2 assumptions
ould be noted Alaska. Of m
m winds, waveospheric Admar Chesapeakehe location ofFigure 4-3.
ave and currenican Ship Buin and structurto be based oned to be modiing surface wilikely overestiiscussion of thedly limited data for the Oc
University at a
r tropical cycl0 m in deep wapproximatelal shelf. Data ght or 0.22 x dshallow water
mum possiblesheltered from
m wave height
is a term coinednce at different het al., “Offshore
n Bureau of meter.gov.au/bmrc/puational Data Buof the waves, as m
nd Sites
installations intion. Early infshore applicat of energy froa result that p
sed on ocean ctated much os used by Wethat their assu
more direct rele heights and
ministration (Ne Light Housef NOAA mea
nt characteristilders. This stal load predic
n recognized tefied to apply tind speed up timate the windhis issue). Condata recorded bean applicatio
a meeting of th
lones of Saffiwater as descrily 20 m and "from measur
depth (varies r is, to a first wave height
m ocean swellt of 3.8 m.
d recently to incluheights above thee Wind Advanceeorology Researcubs/tcguide/ch4/oy Center definitmeasured from th
in the shallown the Federal ations was comom offshore apath of resear
based applicaof the cost difestinghouse anumptions are levance in thecurrents. Me
NOAA) on twe (CHLV2) nsurement site
tics are descritandard requirction. Long-teechniques andto Bay applicato turbine hub d speed and consequently theby NOAA, yeton are also conhe Virginia Of
ir-Simpson caibed in the W
"feel" the ocearements from by location). approximatiois 22 to 30 m
l and surge, th
ude meteorologie water, sea stateed Technology Dch Centre, The C/ch4_3.htm tion: “Significanhe trough to the c
w sheltered wawind programmpleted by Wapplications wrch was dropp
ations where wfference betwnd their marinfor open ocea
e Mid-Atlantiasurement dao buoys locatear one of De
es near Point L
ibed in standares the use of
erm and extremclearly descri
ations. Also thheight is base
onsequently th assumptions t are considere
nsistent with thffshore Wind D
ategory 3 or hWestinghouse r
an bottom at mGermany in tTheoretical w
on, about 75%m for lease blohe measured s
ical and oceanoge and currents.
Demonstration SCentre for Austra
nt wave height, iscrest of the wave
aters of bays m, a detailed sWestinghouse was two to thrped in 1980.
water depth aween land andne contractorsan applicationic are the morata shown are ted in the Cheepartment of ILookout, Stin
ards for offshf the so calledme-value predibed in the des
he wind shear ed on the 1/7 Phe structural loused here are ed reasonable he extreme wiDevelopment
higher, it is noreport. Howemuch greaterthe North Seawave models
% of the local ocks ranging isignificant5 w
graphic character
ite Developmenalian Weather an
s approximately es”.
and sounds instudy of 6.5 tElectric Com
ree times high
and extreme wd sea based inss are summarns around there recent meaby National
esapeake BayInterior’s winngray Point an
hore wind turbd “100-year stdictions for sussign documenused in standa
Power Law. oads (see Sectqualitative adfor prelimina
ind estimates pAuthority (VO
ot unusual to fever these wavr depths, well a indicate 8-1predict the moceanic dept
in depth fromwaves are 2.2 m
ristics including
nt”, 15 February nd Climate Rese
equal to the ave
n the Mid-Atlo 10 MW turb
mpany [8]. It her than land
weather and wstallations. Thrized in Tablee U.S. coast asurements ofOceanograph
y and one in thnd energy leasnd near CHLV
bines developtorm” as the bstained and wi
nt, however theard for
tion 9 for moredjustments basary economic presented by JOWDA)3.
find wave heives break in woffshore alon1m maximum
maximum heigth 4. Conseque
m 30 to 40 m. m with the
g wind speed, dir
2012. earch,
erage of the high
15
lantic bines
wave he e 4-2
f hic he se V2 is
ped by basis ind ese
e sed on
James
ights water ng the m ght of ently For
rection,
hest
16
Table 4-2. M
Wofor o
MeChesap
100-Y
W(troug
Worst-cfor o
100-Y
100-Y
Refereences and N
4. National Data
5. Kinsman, Blair
6. Estimate of wa
Potomac Buoy, h
7. SCRIPPS Instit
ht tp://cdip.u
8. Chesapeake Ba
9. Reeds Nautical
10. IEC 61400-1
11. JMU presenta
W(100-ye
Bay
3. Kilar, L.A., DeVolume IV - Mete
C
2. NOAA definiti
1. Kilar, L.A., DeVolume II - Appa
Metocean assump
orst-case pen-ocean
asured at peake Light
Year Storm
Waves gh to crest)
ase extremes pen-ocean
Year Storm
Year Storm
Notes:
Buoy Center, NOAA, ht
r (1984), Wind Waves: th
ave height in sheltered wa
http://buoybay.noaa.gov/o
tute of Oceanography, C
ucsd.edu/?nav=historic&s
ay Interpretive Buoy Sys
Alminac, East Coast Ed
for Class I assumes extre
ation to VA Offshore Wi
Wind ear storm) on and Ocean
MRS
CH
(E
wa
MRS
D
esign Study and Economeorological and Oceanog
urrent
ion -Significant wave hei
esign Study and Economaratis Designs and Costs,
mptions used fo
y,
ttp://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
heir Generation and Prop
waters - NOAA Chesapeak
observations/data-graphi
Coastal Data Information
sub=data&stn=147&stre
stem (CBIBS), NOAA, h
dition, 2008
eem wind of 50 m/s at hu
ind Development Autho
Location
UnitsMaximum Design LRequiremnts for Ocurvival all US regio
HLV @ 43.3 m hei1996 -2010
Design for survivaExtreme Wave in 3
water depth) 5
Design for significaaves in ocean opera
2, 3
Maximum Design LRequiremnts for Ocurvival all US regio
Location
Units
Design max @hub. 1
ic Assessment of Multi-Ugraphic Surveys, WASH
Location
Design for oceanoperation
Units
Design for Surviva(Extreme)
ight is calculated as the a
ic Assessment of Multi-U WASH-2330-78/4(Vol.
or bay, sound an
Estimated M
(Kno
104.(@ 10
72
Ocean DesiHgt. in 1
Storm
(m)
30.5
15.6
22.5
Ocean D
(m/s
1.8
2.2
/station_history.php?sta
pagation on the Ocean S
ke Bay Interpretive Buoy
ing-tool.html
n Program (CDIP),
am=p1&xyrmo=200806
http://buoybay.noaa.gov/l
ub in 50-year storm but n
rity 15 January 2012.
oad ean
ons 1
ight 4
al 0 m
-
ant ation
oad ean
ons 1
10, 11
Unit Offshore Wind Energ-2330-78/4(Vol. 4), We
n
al
verage of the highest on
Unit Offshore Wind Energ. 2), Westinghouse Elect
nd ocean lease b
Maximum Es
Sustainm Hu
ots) (Kno
.2 0 m)
21
ign Wave 100-yr.
m 3, 7
)
5
6
5
esign 3
s)
8
2
ation=chlv2
Surface , Dover Publicati
y System (CBIBS) operat
6&xitem=product33
locations/potomac.html
not category 3 hurricane
MeasC
36.6
gy Conversion Systems Apstinghouse Electric Corp
Meas
ne-third of all of the wave
gy Conversion Systems Apric Corporation, June 14
block applicatiopp
t. Max ned @ 100 ub Height
EsSus100
Hots or m/s)
5.0 kts
37.0
ions, ISBN 0-486-49511
ting since 2007,
es.
6.7
4.7
sured Max. Oceanape Henry Buoy 4
2008 - 2011
(m)
(IEC 10 )
pplication,poration, June 14, 1979.
sured Max. @ CaBuoy 44099 2008 - 2011
-
(m/s)
-
e heights during the 20-m
pplication,4, 1979.
ons.
st. Max tained @
0 m Hub Height
Ma
(m/s) (K
110.5 2
-
BaSuMa
BaSu
Ma
(m
-6.
n Wave @ 44099
56.0
ape Henry
minute sampling period.
ax GustMax G
HuHeig
Knots) (m/
275.0 141
ay Est. rvival ax. 6, 8
Bay Meoff Stin
Poi
(m) (m
3.0 2.2
4.0 3.
ay Est. rvival
ax. 6, 8, 9
Bay Meoff Stin
Poi
m/s) (m/
1.0 0.
1.5 1.
69.
Gust @ ub ght
/s)
1.4
asured ngray int
m)
2
8
asured ngray int
/s)
7
1
.7
Figure 4-3.
The availaassociatedRegardlesan installaoffshore i The cost bEurope. Tslightly mDenmark Agency (Ihad risen depth, witmore chalthis report
Location of NO
able NOAA md with an extrss, significantation in the shn the ocean. T
benefit of depThe first sea-bmore costly tha
in 1996 are sIEA) regardinto $3.88 millth most early llenging condt.
OAA Buoys
measurementsreme 100-yeat wave heighthallow watersThis differenc
ployments in sbased plants wan land-based
shown in Figung offshore apion per MW (plants less th
ditions in the N
s are short terar storm that ws and extreme
s of bays and ce is reflected
shallow sheltewere located nd installationsure 4-4 alongpplications. B(double land-
han 10 km froNorth Sea [7]
rm (less than would be neede waves are asounds that a
d in the cost st
ered waters cnear shore in vs. The land-bag with commeBy 2009, Denm-based costs) m shore. Late
]. These cost t
five years) anded to updatea factor of 8-1are sheltered ftudies later in
can be seen frovery shallow ased and offshent reported tomark reportedas projects wer projects wetrends are ana
nd do not incle the Westingh10 higher offsfrom extreme n this report.
om initial offsheltered wat
hore plant loco the Internatid that offshor
were built in upere built furthalyzed in mor
lude conditionhouse estimat
shore compareconditions
fshore projectters, and werecations in ional Energy re installation p to 15 m wather from shorere detail later
17
ns tes. ed to
ts in e
cost ter e in in
18
Figure 4-4.
4.1.4 O There are waters, whcontinentathe Mid-A DOE in cothe Burealease bloccompletingrowth ofdescribed
Onshore & Of
Offshore Oce
vast areas ofhere large wial shelf is up
Atlantic Bight
onsort with Dau of Ocean Ecks in Federalng a regional ef a commerciain the Nation
ffshore Plants in
ean Sites
ffshore along nd power plato 200 nautict, see Figure
Department ofEnergy Managl water for wienvironmentaal offshore winal Offshore W
n Denmark, Cir
the East coasants can be depal miles (nm)4-5.
f Interior’s Bugement, Regund energy pro
al assessmentind industry iWind Strategy
rca 1996
t and elsewheployed. This ) wide with re
ureau of Oceaulation and Enoject develop[9]. These efn the U.S. Thy, which is de
ere in the U.Sincludes the o
elatively shall
an Energy Manforcement) apment by accefforts are desihe intent of thesigned to dra
S., in both statocean area whlow 30 to 60 m
anagement (Bare aggressiveepting lease oigned to promhese federal eaw on lessons
te and federalhere the m water dept
BOEM) (formely working toffers and
mote and acceefforts are s learned from
l
th in
merly o
lerate
m the
extensive more cost
Figure 4-5.
BOEM-NOADE, MD and The Natiothat are ho(PTC) incstill technOffshore Wmore turb Other posdevelopmwaters thadetail late
6 http://wwwViewer/Inde
offshore dept-effective tur
Mid-Atlantic B
AA Multipurposd VA are shown
onal Offshore opefully suppcentive that isnical and econWind Techno
bines in the wa
ssible paths arment risk. Oneat are not exper in this repor
w.boem.gov/Oil-ex.aspx
loyment in Eurbines. A goal
Bight Regional O
se Marine Cadasn. NC has yet to b
Wind Energyported by cont currently set
nomic uncertaology Demonater and opera
re discussed h scenario couosed to the exrt.
-and-Gas-Energy
urope and mol is to have in
Offshore Lease
stre6 Using NREbe allocated by B
y Strategy inctinuation of tht to expire in tainties and constration Projeating by 2014
here to help ovuld be to deploxtreme condit
y-Program/Mapp
ove on directlnstalled 10 GW
Blocks and Wi
EL Wind Speed DBOEM.
cludes extensihe essential fethe end of 20ncerns that ar
ects have been4.
vercome techoy the first bltions of the op
ping-and-Data/M
ly to the next W at $0.10 pe
ind Resources a
Data at 90m Hub
ive research afederal Section12. Assumingre described in fast tracked
hnical and ecolocks of machpen ocean. Th
Multi-Purpose-M
generation ofer kWh by 20
at 90m Hub Hei
b Height, April 2
and demonstrn 45 Productig the PTC is ein this report. d with a plan t
onomic barriehines (possiblhis option is d
Marine-Cadastre-
f larger hopef20 [10].
ight -
2012. Lease bloc
ration programion Tax Crediextended, theThe DOE
to have one or
ers by reducinly 500 MW) idiscussed in m
-Map-
19
fully
cks for
ms it re are
r
ng in more
20
4.2 Ene The Mid-Ain the nati3.2%. Allrenewablepromotingnot provenregion. As a resulRECs fromlocated inproject co The energThere is cold plantsplants pla Wind resothe inevita 4.3 Euro NREL rep(depth of projects wminimize Since 200projects into 45 km ddata was cfrom publ[12]. Data on fucapital cotrends assTable whefurther fro
Barrierfrom co Mitigatmeasureand soun
rgy Situati
Atlantic Stateion. Accordin of the Sates he energy fromg local job cren to be suffic
lt, all of the Mm pre-World
n other states. onstruction job
gy supply shocurrently onlys supplying neanned, and all
ources can woable decomm
opean Offs
ported, “Of th30 m or less)
were constructdevelopment
07, other Euron deeper watedistance to shcompiled fromlished data fo
uture projectssts are listed
sociated with ere similar sizom shore in w
r – Federal anastal and shel
tion Option –ements, econonds.
ion in the M
es have seen cng to EIA, annhave energy p
m in-state soureation. Howevient to encour
Mid-Atlantic SWar II hydroThis has the bs elsewhere.
rtfall will be y one new 600early half of tbut three of t
ork well to acmissioning of t
shore Proje
he 50 installed and an averated in shelteret cost and risk
opean Union (er further fromhore, costs havm NREL’s dar a total of 36
s was collectein Table 4-3.increasing waze projects sh
water up to 22
nd Mid-Atlantltered water a
– State and Feomic/regulato
Mid-Atlanti
continuing grnual growth inplans and goarces, reducingver state policrage significa
States are incroelectric and oeffect of crea.
complicated b0 MW coal plthat state’s elethe units in th
ct, along with these outdated
ect Cost T
d and proposeage depth is 1ed waters in Nk.
(EU) countriem shore. As pve increased ata base used 6 projects that
ed but not use. In examiningater depth and
howed cost im2 m depth. Co
tic State prograpplications th
ederal programory analysis, a
ic States
owth in deman power demals that place g Greenhousecies and incenant wind or ot
reasing electrold industrial ating equipme
by planned phlant under conectricity genehe eight existi
combined cyd coal plants.
rends
ed projects in 2.9 m.” As mNordic countr
es have entereprojects now hsubstantially in the Offshot had been bu
d in the analyg this data, it d distance fro
mpact of an adonsequently, l
ram emphasishat will be les
ms can be expand environm
and for electrimand in the fiv
importance oe Gas (GHG)ntives neededther renewabl
ricity imports plants or from
ent manufactu
hase out of agnstruction in Verated. In Maring coal plant
ycle natural ga
the [NREL] mentioned prevries. This was
ed the offshorhave foundatito over $6 m
ore Barriers anuilt and comm
ysis. The projappears clear
om shore. Foudditional 16 toater in this re
s is on offshoss costly.
panded to empmental assessm
icity that is amve states rangeon increasing and other em
d to achieve thle energy dep
and are buyim renewable uring and rene
ging thermal pVirginia and ryland there ats are over 40
as units, as a r
dataset, 48 arviously, manys intended and
re wind markeions in 30 m w
million /MW innd Opportuni
missioned for o
ects and theirr that there arur cases are hio 40% as a reeport a 30% co
ore, drawing a
mphasize windments for coas
mong the higes from 2.0 tothe use of
missions, and hese goals ha
ployment in th
ng a majorityenergy projecewable energy
power plants.there are a do
are no new coyears old.
replacement f
re in shallow y of these initd did effectiv
et with largerwater depth an some cases.ities report anoperation [11
r announced re significant ighlighted on
esult of buildinost increase w
attention away
d resources stal areas, bay
hest o
ave he
y of cts y
. ozen al
for
water tial
vely
r and up . Cost nd ]
cost n the ng
was
y
ys
assumed fcompared Cost trendconstructiwere less than 10 kmsuccessfu More receoperating conditionstypically iClearly foeconomic
for offshore tod to bay applic
ds were analyion. Results acostly regardm from shorel. This is cons
ent European conditions ar
s than what cin 30 m of waoundations anc analysis late
ower foundatcations. See S
yzed by countrare shown in Fdless of plant e. These initiasidered to be
projects werere more diffican be expecteater depth andnd turbines canr in this repor
tion costs alonSection 6 and
ry, project sizFigure 4-6 ansize since mo
al projects, boan important
e primarily incult. These sited at offshored are exposedn be built for rt.
ng with incread Section 7 of
ze, water deptnd Figure 4-7ost were in sheth large and slesson that c
n exposed sitetes are still coe BOEM leased to severe con
these conditi
ased operatiof this report.
th and distanc7. Projects buieltered watersmall had siman be drawn f
es in the Northonsidered to be sites in the Unditions in thions but the a
ons and mainte
ce from shoreilt between 19
rs less than 15milar cost per
from Europea
h Sea where cbe substantiallU.S. where fo
he North Atlanadded costs ar
enance costs
e and date of 990 and 20065 m deep and MW and weran experience
construction aly less challenoundations arentic Ocean. re included in
21
6 less
re e.
and nging e
n the
22
Table 4-3. T
The future projjects and their aannounced capiital costs (data ccollected, but nnot used in the aanalysis)
Figure 4-6.
Figure 4-7.
Some EUmaterials macro-eco
Offshore EU W
Offshore EU W
studies attrib(steel, copperonomic condi
Wind Plant Cost
Wind Plant Cost
bute the cost ir, cement, etcitions [13]. Th
t vs. Distance fr
t vs. Water Dep
increases for rc.) and the inchese studies a
rom Shore and
pth in Sheltered
recent offshorcreased demanalso project th
Date of Constr
d vs. Open Wate
re plants to innd for land-bahat stronger w
ruction
er
ncreasing cosased machine
winds and larg
ts for raw es plus other ger turbines d
23
double
24
Barrier from coa Mitigatimeasureand soun
the hours these estimcomplete Analysis odeploymesounds. Tfar less risprimarily be addres All this prshallow atsubsequen 4.4 Iner The BOEMlocated inof no signstates andfrom shor But there wind meauncertaintmet tower4-8 of a tadeveloper
– Federal andastal and shel
ion Option –ements, econonds.
of full powermates and theprojects are u
of European eent in the largThese sites avosky to develoimportant, bused or mitigat
resents a uniqt a lower costnt larger deplo
tia toward
M offshore wn the ocean. Enificant negatid DOI can expre and away fr
are consideraasurements anties regardingrs to at least hall met tower rs will benefit
d Mid-Atlantiltered shallow
– State and Feomic/regulator
r operation ofe wide range oused in this st
experience sue areas of sheoid extreme sp and maintaiut unique winted more easi
que opportunit and there byoyments in th
Ocean Ap
wind lease pronvironmentalive impact. Tpect use revenfrom bird mig
able uncertainnd metocean dg cost. One wahub height or near a turbine
t.
ic State progrw water applic
deral programry analysis an
ffsetting someof costs projetudy.
uggests that sieltered, shallotructural loadin than ocean
nd resources, sily at the State
ity for the Midy establish thehe ocean lease
pplications
ogram has crel studies havehere has been
nues and jobs ratory routes.
nties and majodata, lack of cay to reduce tpreferably the in Denmark
The offshbe very happlicatioemphasisareas on unique opoperatingdramatic In Figurturbine. Wor above
Figure 4-8
ram emphasiscations that w
ms can be expnd environme
e of the addedcted for U.S.
ignificant cosow state contrds resulting frn-based applicsimplified rege and local le
d-Atlantic Stae supply chaine blocks.
in U.S.
ated substante been complen extensive prto result. Als
. Some would
or risk on thisconstruction athese risks coe top of the tu
k. If the data i
hore wind demhelpful exceptons. During ts on potentialthe bays and pportunity to g experience. ally reduce th
e 4-8, a tall mWind measurthe top of the
. Tall met towe
s is on offshorwill be less cos
panded to inclental assessme
d cost. Becausoffshore win
st savings are rolled waters rom ocean wincations. Engingulations andevel than at th
ates to introdun and infrastru
tial inertia toweted on manyromotion of thso the projectd say, “Out of
s path. Specifand operating ould be to funurbine rotor (is publically a
monstration pt the emphasithe design phal cost savings sounds of the acquire manuThis could se
he technical a
met tower stanrements need e swept area t
r near a turbin
re, drawing atstly.
lude wind resents for coast
se of the uncend projects, on
possible in thin the Mid-Ands and waveneering and e
d environmenthe Federal lev
uce wind planucture leading
ward initial Uy of the lease ahese applicatits would be laf sight and ou
fic areas of co experience ind wind measu
(say 200 m heavailable all p
projects plannis is aimed at ase it is possiin sheltered w
e Mid- Atlantufacturing, coerve to quanti
and financial u
nds to the righto be taken atto accurately
ne in Denmark.
ttention away
source tal plains, bay
ertainty regardnly costs for
he U.S. with Atlantic bays aes and would conomics aretal issues can
vel.
nts in sheltereg to the
U.S. deploymeareas with finions and both
argely out of sut of mind.”
oncern are: lacn the U.S. andurements usineight). See Figpotential
ned by DOE wocean ble to add waters. The latic States provonstruction anify costs and uncertainties.
ht of the windt hub height adefine wind s
y
ys
ding
and be
e often
ed
ents ndings h sight
ck of d ng gure
will
arge vide a nd
d and at shear.
5.0 Pow PennsylvajurisdictioConsequeSouth wasprovisionadecided togrid is ope PJM coorIndiana, KVirginia,
Figure 5-1.
Although does provrenewablefrom all gshort-termgrowth orconnectio Having opopportuniindependerole is notmanagingexpansionare consisbuying, seTime mar
wer Trans
ania-Jersey-Mon over muchently this repos planned to ially approvedo continue to erated by the
rdinates the mKentucky, MaWest Virgini
PJM regional o
PJM has no dvide a platforme energy to thgeneration andm reliability, ar power suppln to the PJM
perational autity to encouraent and un-biat to bring reso
g congestion an of transmissstent with Statelling and delrkets. This sho
mission a
Maryland (PJMof the power
ort is focused include much d by the Federoperate their federally con
movement andaryland, Micha and the Dis
operation area
direct influenm for participhe grid. PJM td power markand transmissly source divesystem.
thority for all age long term ased toward tources to markand employinsion and genete energy planlivery of shortort term view
and Pricin
M) is the Regir system in thon their operof North Car
ral Energy Reown power s
ntrolled Tenne
d pricing of whigan, New Jetrict of Colum
nce in the deplation of windtraining materketing interestion service w
ersity although
regional tranuse of renew
the use of oneket. Consequg a transmissration facilitins and goals. t term wholes
w hinders intro
ng
ional Transme Mid-Atlant
rating and powrolina and sevegulatory Comystems [14]. essee Valley A
holesale electersey, North Cmbia.
loyment and dd plants and isrials defines its and has exc
within a regionh wind and so
nsmission faciwables. PJM ine type of energently PJM foion pricing syes today, not In fulfilling i
sale electricityoduction of ne
mission Organitic region covwer pricing poveral other Sommission (FEIn addition a Authority (TV
tricity in all oCarolina, Ohio
development s not a direct bits role as, “Aclusive responn." There is nolar are allow
ilities under Pntends to remgy technologycuses on mainystem that winecessarily in
its role, PJM y administereew technolog
izations (RTOvered in this stolicies. Anoth
outhern StatesERC) but the small portion
VA).
or parts of Deo, Pennsylvan
of wind powbarrier to the
An entity that insibility for g
no mention of wed into the qu
PJM's controlmain technolog
y or another. ntaining systeill promote efn the long tercoordinates th
ed through Dagies like wind
O) with tudy. her RTO, Gris. It was involved utilin of the region
elaware, Illinonia, Tennesse
wer in the regioconnection o
is independengrid operationf sustainable ueue for
emphasizes tgy neutral, PJM’s percei
em reliabilityfficient use anrm, in ways thhe continuouay Ahead andthat are more
25
d
ities nal
ois, ee,
on, it of nt ns,
the
ived y, nd hat s
d Real e
26
costly initPJM polic 5.1 Reg The PJM specific lothe same acertain loclocational The PJM forward moffers, dem The Real-based on asettles tran PJM is thePJM web
• Pkesh
• Incare
• Pfafran
• Pcoda
This givesneighbori 5.1.1 P Due to thelimitationhave the s Typically higher demsystem ca
tially but are lcies are chang
gional Who
market uses location and tiacross the entcations. In thal marginal pri
Energy Markmarket in whicmand bids an
-Time Marketactual grid opnsactions hou
e independensite the opera
JM's staff moeeps the electhould be gene
n managing thapacity over 6egion.
JM’s staff anault events. Erom extreme wnticipated cyc
JM exercises onduct dispatata from near
s PJM a big-png systems.
Power Pricing
e location andns on transfer same wholesa
the more ecomand centers
annot transfer
lower cost in ging and it is n
olesale Pow
locational maime it is delivtire grid. Wheat case, more-ice is higher i
ket consists ofch hourly LM
nd scheduled b
t is a spot marperating condurly and issue
nt centralized ational decisio
onitors the higtricity supply erated and by
he grid, the co65,441 miles
alyze hundredach variable tweather condcles of hours,
a broader reltch operationsrly 74,000 poi
picture view o
g Model – M
d separation ocapability of
ale energy val
onomical gene(i.e. eastern cadditional “e
the long termnot considere
wer Pricing
arginal pricingered. If the loen there is tra-expensive eln those “cons
f Day-Ahead MPs are calculbilateral trans
rket in whichitions. Integra
es invoices to
market operaons can be ch
gh-voltage traand demand adjusting imp
ompany dispaof transmissi
ds of "what ifthat might aff
ditions, emergdays, weeks
liability role ts and monitorints on the gri
of regional co
Methodology
of supply recothe transmiss
lue.
eration locatecoast/I-95 coreconomic” ele
m. Although thed to be a barr
g
g (LMP) that owest-priced eansmission colectricity is orstrained” loca
and Real-Timlated for the nsactions.
h current LMPated hourly remarket partic
ator for the Miharacterized a
ansmission grin balance byport and expo
atches about 1on lines. Mor
f" scenarios afect supply angency situation
and seasons.
than that of a r the status of id.
onditions and
ourses from thsion system, n
ed in western rridor) due toectricity to me
his can be an rier to wind e
reflects the velectricity can
ongestion, enerdered to meeations.
me markets. Tnext operating
Ps are calculateal-time pricecipants month
id-Atlantic reas follows:
rid 24 hours ay telling poweort transaction
185,600 megare than 60 mil
and prepare tond demand fons and equipm
local electricf the grid over
reliability iss
he location ofnot all locatio
regions is noo transmissioneet demand, t
impediment energy develo
value of the enn reach all locergy cannot flet that demand
The Day-Aheag day based o
ated at five-mies are publicahly.
egion. Based o
a day, seven der producers hns.
awatts (MW) llion people l
o deal with typor electricity iment failures
utility. PJM r a wide area,
sues, includin
f load centersons in the Mid
t able to fullyn system consthen more exp
short-term, thopment.
nergy at the cations, pricelow freely to d. As a result
ad Market is aon generation
inute intervalally available.
on data from
days a week. Phow much en
of generatinglive in the PJM
pical load ands considered –to the more e
system opera using teleme
ng those in
, and the d-Atlantic reg
y support the straints. Whenpensive gener
he
es are
, the
a
ls PJM
the
PJM nergy
g M
d – easily
ators etered
gion
n the ration
has to be as shown a higher e
Figure 5-2.
One set ofregion weIt is helpfuwholesale There are industry amarket pothis type oand budgepower flo Powerflowby-hour ptransmissidetailed edeterminedispatchedsatisfy trathe nodal To examinrepresentishown onthe four resounds; an
dispatched. Tin Figure 5-2
energy value t
Example PJM
f questions foere economic ful to develope power prices
a variety of eas tools for peower studies. of study. Unfoet for this projw value asses
w analysis is production cosion system. Tlectrical mod
ed from a solvd. This makes
ansmission linlocations on
ne these regioing each of th
n Figure 5-2: egional wind nd ocean.
This maintains2. Consequenthen the un-co
contour map w
or this study wbarriers to eners to focus os, will suppor
econometric cerforming cosThe Optimum
fortunately accoject, so the aussment on a li
a production sts while reco
The models pedel of the entirved AC load fs it possible tone flow limitsa system.
onal value difhe four marketand nodes wemarket sector
s the protectiontly the transmonstrained are
with locational m
was to determntry or if deveon areas wherrt developmen
computer modst-benefit analm Powerflow cess to and ututhors of this imited set of n
cost model foognizing the cerform a transre transmissioflow, to calcuo capture the and security
fferences in tht sectors wereere selected fors: coastal pla
on and reliabimission constreas.
marginal price (
mine if power pelopment effoe the energy vnt efforts.
dels that are rlyses, valuatioanalysis is on
tilization of threport had tonodes.
or detailed, chconstraints onsmission-conson network, aulate the real p
economic peconstraints an
his study, foue selected. PJor analysis to ains; ridgeline
ility of the syrained areas o
(LMP) differen
prices in seleorts were occuvalue of the s
recognized byons, market sne of the bettehese types of o develop a sim
hronological sn generation dstrained produ
along with genpower flows fenalties of re-dand produces f
ur PJM nodes JM operates a determine the; sheltered w
stem, but at aof the Mid-At
ntial on typical d
cted areas of urring in the “system, as ma
y the Mid-Atlstructure asseser types of moanalysis was mplified vers
simulation thdispatch impouction simulaneration shift for each genedispatching thforecasted ma
in wind powea transparent nhe economic vwater, as shall
an increased ptlantic region
day.
the Mid-Atla“better” locatianifested by h
lantic utility ssments and odeling tools beyond the s
sion to perform
at calculates hosed by the ation, which u
factors eration unit he generationarket values f
er areas nodal system value of energlow bays and
27
price, have
antic ions.
higher
for scope m
hour-
uses a
n to for
as gy in
28
Following C
Cth
Epoalpr
Fpr[1
Figure 5-3. Source: PJM In the absthe referenindicativeprices at ttraded on
7 Delmarva
g are the selec
Cloverdale – 5
Calvert Cliffshe Chesapeak
Eastern Shoreoint for eitherlso used Indiarice data base
Fentress – a nricing node as15].
PJM interconnM 01-August-2
sence of forwance point for
e forward pricthe Western Hthe NYMEX
Power and Ligh
cted PJM nod
500KV node
– 500KV noke in the proxi
e – DPL_ODr Coastal Plaian River for ine, available to
node adjacent s another poin
nection node loc2011
ard pricing frocomparison o
cing curve valHub are considX commodity e
ht and rural elect
des and their c
to represent r
de – robust trimity of two u
DEC7 - an areains, Shallow wnterconnectio
o our study, di
to the Virginnt of potentia
cations selected
om PJM, the of prices at thlue of each lodered to be thexchange.
tric cooperative O
characteristics
ridgeline wind
ransmission curban load ce
a node on thewaters, as welon node, in thid not contain
ia Offshore oal interconnec
for the four wi
power markehe other four nocational nodehe most liquid
Old Dominion E
s. Their locati
d sites,
capacity node enters Washin
e Delmarva Pell as, Offshoreir offshore w
n Indian River
ocean lease blction in their b
ind market app
et consultant cnodal sites as e in this develd in the easter
Electric Company
ions are show
located near ngton , DC an
eninsula as a re interconnecwind study [1r node.
lock site. PJMbaseline Offsh
plications.
chose PJM’s a means of p
lopment studyrn interconnec
ny.
wn on Figure
potential sitend Baltimore,
proxy pricingction point. PJ5]; however t
M also used thhore Wind stu
Western Hubproviding an y. Electricity ction and are
5-3:
es in MD
g JM the
his udy
b as
5.1.2 E To providLMP datawhere RTpoints perThe differcan be seelow value These valNYMEX 24, 2011. trades moplus some The tradinfollowing
1. Q
2. E
3. Q BWye
4. V
5. Pho124
6. Sen F
Since the assume fowould notdemonstrainto accoudifferentiaCalvert C
Energy Pricin
de a basis for ta from 2007 toT LMP is Realr year per nodrence in valueen in Table 5es; others are s
ue differentiacommodity eAs is well-kn
ostly energy ce contracts for
ng data then wg sources and
Qualitative ana
EPA’s propose
Qualitative ana
Best case – NoWorst case – f
ears after that
Various trader
JM Off-peak ours are defin1:00 pm). Off4 (11:01 pm t
easonal appronergy pricing
our seasons a
study team dor this study tht actually occate the differeunt effects of al for impact liffs vs. West
ng
the value anao 2011 for thel-Time Locat
de, with adjuse reflects the c-1 the value asubstantially
als are added exchange tradnown, NYMEontracts (e.g.r agriculture a
was extrapolaassumptions:
alysis perform
ed transport ru
alysis using be
o impacts – ufull impact – t,
s and develop
and On-peakned by PJM aff peak hours athrough 7:00
oach to energy, while maint
are: Wi Spr Sum Fal
id not have fuhat historical ur nor is it a p
ent values of econgestion, hexperienced btern Hub).
alysis, four yee PJM Westerional Margin
stments for leacompeting soat some nodeshigher.
or subtracted des for the PJMEX is the New, crude oil anand metals, w
ated for 25 yea
med on potent
ule [16] [17]
st case vs. wo
se only the 2.take financia
pers were inte
k pricing withs Monday – Fare Monday –am) plus all h
y pricing in ftain the ability
inter – Dec, Jaring – Mar, Ammer – June,ll – Sep, Oct &
unding to utilcongestion p
preferred metenergy on thehistorical pricbetween the W
ears of historicrn Hub were al Pricing,. Hap years and t
ources of avais is less than t
from the WeM Western huw York Mercad refined petr
which is now o
ars to develop
tial impacts o
[18]
orst case to com
.5% inflation l impact in fir
erviewed for i
separate curvFriday, with h– Friday, thoshours Saturda
four markets cy to operate w
an & Feb Apr & May , July & Aug& Nov.
ize Optimizedpatterns wouldthod, but it we system by pcing informatiWestern Hub
cal data was ucompared wi
Hourly data mthe start and silable generatthe Hub price
estern Hub priub were obtaiantile Exchanroleum produowned by CM
p a forward en
of factors effe
me up with cu
adder, and rst couple of
input on futur
ves to reflect hours ending 0se hours endinay, Sunday an
categories to cwithin budget
d Power flowd remain the sould provide roviding thesion was used and each of t
used. Actual Pith the four se
means there arestop of dayligtion and local es. For examp
ice. Four yearined on the trange, a futures ucts, natural gME Group of
nergy curve u
cting forward
urves for 2015
years, then 2.
re power curv
pricing differ08 to 23 (7:0ng 01 to 07 annd Holidays.
capture the set of this report
w analysis softsame. We undus with enou
se indicative vto develop a
the four pricin
PJM cleared Relected nodes,e about 8.760ght savings timcongestion. A
ple, Cloverdal
rs of actual ade date of Mexchange, wh
gas, electricityChicago.
using the
d Energy pric
and beyond f
.5% adder for
ves,
rentials. On-P1 am throughnd the hour en
easonal effectt.
ftware, we hadderstand that
ugh informatiovalues. To tak“basis” or ng points (e.g
29
RT ,
0 data me. As le has
March hich y),
ing,
for:
r all
Peak h nding
ts on
d to such on to ke
g.,
30
As discusenergy priThe two s For the loadder. ThInformatioper year oearly relea For the hiMonthly Rstudy anal2016 – 202037. It is notedelectric geindustry cterm Cleasome unit Each of thWestern Hfour pricinvalues for
8 Annual EnWashington
sed with noteicing for this
sets of prices w
ower case, for is is conservaon Administr
over the next 2ase version [1
igh case, termRT LMP Swalysis on EPA
037, 2.5% was
d, regarding Menerators, butconceded thatan Air Act (CAts to install po
he four indiviHub forward png nodes for tr each location
nergy Outlook 20n DC; January 23
e 3 above, in oreport, it waswould show a
2014 – 2015ative based onration projects25 years (20119]. The rate w
med “2015 Adap for both onUtility Maxi
s used for the
MACT, that Et the more sigthe Utility M
AA) [23] provollution contro
dual historicaprice curve, dthe study. Thn. Below, in T
012, Early Relea3, 2012; Macroe
order to best as determined ta range of ind
, our power mn recent respes the Wholesa10 to 2035), awas 2.8% per
dder Prices,” fn-peak and ofmum Achiev
e inflationary
EPA issued rugnificant rule MACT is not c
visions will liol equipment
al, “basis” condescribed aboe four curvesTable 5-1, ar
ase Report, DOEconomic Indicat
account for thto represent thdicative outco
market consulected economiale Price Indeccording to thr the 2011 AE
for 2014 – 20ff-peak NYMEable Control adder. Projec
les regulatingis the air trancausing the shikely impact cand others to
ngestion costsve, to develop were utilized
re the differen
E/EIA-0383ER(2tors table.
he effects of these risks, by
omes.
ltant assumedic forecasts In
ex for Fuel anhe 2012 AnnuEO.8
15, our poweEX trades andTechnology (
ct analysis run
g hazardous ansport rule dishut downs, nacoal-generatino retire.
s was used asp indicative fd for the indicntial energy pr
2012), US Energ
the potential fy two sets of f
d 2.5% for then particular, t
nd Power to inual Energy O
er market consd data from p(MACT) stanns 25 years, fr
air pollutants (scussed previoatural gas pricng units in pa
s a “differentiforward pricincative forwardrice adders fo
gy Information A
future impactforward price
e inflationary the US Energncrease by 3.1utlook (AEO
sultant utilizepublically avandards. Then, from 2013 thr
(HAPs) emittously. Most inces are. In thearticular, caus
ial adder” to tng at each of td energy markor the four no
Administration,
s to es.
y 1% ),
ed the ailable
for ough
ted by n
e long sing
the the ket des.
Table 5-1. D
The four cTable 5-2node. TheFor examp Table 5-2class. For peak and
Differential Ene
curves were u2, are sample ey show on-peple, for Janua
2 further showJanuary 2013424 hours off
ergy Price Adde
utilized for theresults from teak and off-pary 2013, the
ws on-peak an3, these are 43f-peak. Additi
ers for Four No
e indicative fthe Forward Peak energy pron-peak price
nd off-peak po3.58 MW on-ional informa
odes Relative to
forward energPricing modelrices, at 2.5%e is $61.97 pe
ower capacity-peak and 45.ation on the fo
o Western Hub
gy market valul. These resul
% escalation, fer MWh and o
y and number.33 MW off-pour nodes is p
($/MWh)
ues for each llts are for the for years 2012off-peak is $4
r of hours per peak, as well presented in A
location. BeloCalvert Cliff
2 through 20141.80.
month in eacas 320 hours
Appendix C.
31
ow, in fs 14.
ch on-
32
Table 5-2 Pestimation,
5.1.3 C PJM Capapromote/mof name pdeveloperlevel. Thioccurs dudeterrent tand conse
PJM Forward Pbetween 2012 a
Capacity Pric
acity Value asmaintain reliaplate capacity rs intervieweds value is bas
uring summer to wind devel
equently lowe
Pricing Model Sand 2014, with
cing
ssigned by mability of the s
or a demonstd for this studsed on averagmonths. Althlopment. See er efficiency w
Sample Output –the full data ex
arket adminissystem. For wtrated annual
dy, stated that e performanc
hough project Table 5-3 wh
wind plants.
– Calvert Cliffstending to 2037
sters is a forwwind assets, PJ
average of unthey would b
ce of similar teowners can b
hich compare
s node, showing7
ward looking cJM will allownforced capacbe willing to pechnology dubid a higher ves actual capa
g monthly wind
capacity prodw project owncity into the aparticipate iniuring system pvalue, the initiacity factors f
energy valuatio
duct (at auctioners to offer 1auction. Mostitially at the 1peak demandial level is a
for several ear
on
on) to 3%
t 13% d that
rly
Table 5-3. M
Pricing fonear term requiremeDeliverabmaximumFor this stclearing p Forward foutlying ppricing wslowly. Capacity basis. Medensity atfor energydifferencethe four se
Projects:AveraginJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember
Annual AOver
Notes:
4. Does not5. Hydropo6. Wind can
1. Based on2. InstallatioNational La3. No data a
Monthly Avera
or capacity is least cost ma
ents of some gbility Areas (Lm limit on the tudy, for the P
price was used
forecasted LDprices. Since cas escalated a
factors for sitasured wind dt ridgeline sitey production ees for day andeasons.
Sng Period: 20
r
rr
Avergae Period
t account for banwer can be used n be used as sup
n 5 to 8 year old tons in 2007 avaerab - US 2008 Markavailable from ne
Color Deno
ge Capacity Fa
the basis usedanner while regenerating unLDAs) with eaamount of ca
PJM forward d.
DA prices wercapacity priciat 1% per yea
tes in each of data were adje), and for amestimates for d night times w
Somerset M002-2008 2
38%34%32%28%21%14%13%10%14%23%32%42%
25%
nking of wind eneas supplement dplement during d
urbine technolograge capacity facket Reportwer Mid-Atlantic
otes Summer M
ctors
d by PJM to pecognizing lonits. Locationaach LDA hav
apacity that it pricing meth
re extrapolateing is only inc
ar. This rate is
the four markusted to hub h
mbient tempereach of the fowere used to
Mill Run M002-2008 2
44%40%37%35%25%28%13%12%18%27%35%44%
29%
ergy during low wind pdrought periods
PJM Capacity
gy - New machinector was 35%; ran
c plants built in 2
onths Peak Cap
procure a targcational consal constraints
ving a separatcan import frod, a 13% na
ed using histocremental to ts low, because
ket areas wereheight (100 m
rature. These our 100 MW develop capa
ountaineer2003-2008 2
41%41%36%33%23%18%16%12%19%29%36%43%
29%
periods
Value for Wind
es average nge 26% to 40%,
2008
pacity Factor
get capacity restraints and ms are establishte target capacrom resources
ame plate capa
orical clearingtotal project re utilities repl
e calculated om), compensaseasonal capaplant location
acity factors f
Waymart2004-2008
38%40%36%30%22%18%14%14%18%30%32%37%
27%
d and Solar
some mos. to 55%
eserve level fminimum “muhed by settingcity reserve les located outsacity times th
g prices, elimirevenue, to simlace plant and
on both a seasated for altitudacity factors sns. Diurnal wfor on-peak /o
PJM
Peak
%; based on Law
for the RTO inust-run”
up Locationaevel and a side of the LDhe LDA mark
inating signifimplify, capacd equipment
sonal and a dide (e.g., loweserved as the
wind pattern off-peak as we
17%14%
12%-14%uses 13% for
k Summer CapValues
wrence Berkeley
33
n a
al
DA. et
ficant city
iurnal r air basis
ell as
r Wind
pacity
34
5.1.4 P Ancillary Results wvalues for
• Cpe
• Tprpl
• Afo
• Cprpeat
These annthat are difactors aredifferent i Due to theprice advalimiting fa The price per MWhTable 5-1evaluating
Barrierwind ma Mitigatcommit
Pricing Summ
service valuewere combinedr each node. F
Capacity factoeak),
Total wind plaroduce revenulant,
All on/off peakorecasted ener
Capacity revenroducing totaeak, seasonal t each locatio
nual energy priscussed in See included in injection poin
e value differantage over Factor, althoug
differential ih difference be1 (as $11.74 –g project econ
r – Transmissarket penetrat
tion Options to build the l
mary
es and in-pland to provide cFactors includ
rs were used
ant energy proue from seaso
k values per srgy productio
nues were theal anticipated r
and wind patn.
roduction estiections 6 anddetermining p
nts are very im
ence alone it Fentress. Howgh moving po
s even more detween DPL a– 10.39). It is nomic barrier
ion line capaction increases
– The approaline to the pro
nt parasitic loscomprehensivded were that:
to develop to
oduction was onal energy p
seasons were on at each loc
n added to threvenue for etterns to prod
imates and prd Section 7 ofproject econo
mportant.
appears that twever Delmarvower in a west
dramatic wheand Cloverdaimportant to s as will be d
city is not a bs, leading to h
ach used in Euojects with co
sses are quiteve approach to:
otal energy pro
multiplied byroduction for
summed to pration,
he total annualeach location, duce an indica
rices were thef this report. Inomic viability
the Delmarvava transmissiotward directio
en comparing ale nodes durikeep in mindiscussed in S
barrier for inithigher costs.
urope and in ssts being shar
e small and wo developing
oduction for e
y applicable sr each set of tu
roduce a total
l revenue stretaking into a
atively expect
en input to then the econom
y. However th
a coastal siteson line capacon is helpful i
coastal to riding the summd there are othection 6 and
tial projects, b
some states inred by the gri
ere ignored foindicative for
each season (
seasonal on/ofurbines comp
l annual reven
eam for energaccount the efted market va
e energy projemic analysis ofhe pricing diff
s and offshorecity will quickin reducing co
dgeline sites. Tmer on-peak peher factors to cSection 7 of
but can becom
n the U.S. is tid system.
for this study.rward market
(both on peak
ff peak curve prising a 100 M
nue stream fo
gy productionffects of on/ofalue of electric
ect finance mf projects, maferentials betw
e would have kly become a ongestion.
There is a $22eriods, as shoconsider in this report.
me a barrier a
to clearly
t
k/off
to MW
or
ff city
models any ween
a
2.13 own in
s
TTable 5-4. Energy PProduction Estimatees and Capacity Facttors (assume 100m hhub height)
35
6.0 ProAnalysi One of thewind enerproforma Class 4, thFinance bwhich tenterms. As Carolina, regime at Across theRidgelinecontinenta As is wella project lconstruct,added cossteady as the Mid-A This secti
6.1 M6.2 E
lo6.3 E
in6.4 F
6.1 Meth The readeMethodolinputs, assforward pinclude peassumptio
oject Econos and Wha
e questions torgy developmfinancial ana
hat is owned abasis. Two typnds to involve
discussed preand the Distrthe location a
e Mid-Atlantie (mountainoual shelf).
l known, windlife running 2, the wind regst. Another opfor Ocean, bu
Atlantic region
on will discu
Methodology, Economic Anaocated in the M
Economics Ann the Mid-Atlindings and C
hodology,
er is encouraglogy, Plant Casumptions, an
pricing revenuerformance (pons.
omic Resulat they Mea
o be addressedment in the Mialysis. We assand financed pes of financin non-investmeviously, the rict of Columband equipmen
ic region, fouus land), Shelt
d energy plan25 years or longime in the moption is Shelteut where consn of the Unite
ss:
Cost and Peralysis ResultsMid-Atlantic nalysis Resultantic region (
Comments.
Cost and
ged to review apital Costs, Ond methodoloue forecasts, pplant capacity
lts and Conan
d in this studyid-Atlantic Stumed a 100 Mby an Indepeng are examin
ment-grade-ratMid-Atlanticbia. The specnt type.
ur classificatiotered Water (
nts are capitalnger. While Rountains and ered Water plstruction costsed States, is th
rformance Est, under Curreregion (in 20
ts, under Favo(in 2013 dolla
Performan
Section 7, “POperating Expogy for the casplant capital cy factor) estim
nclusions -
y was whetheates. To addrMW wind farendent Power ned – the currted debt, and fc region incluific plant cap
ons of wind fa(shallow bays
intensive to bRidge Line anfar offshore i
lants, where ths are lower. The purpose of
timates, and Fent, Likely Fin013 dollars); orable Financars); and
nce Estima
Project Econopenses, and Fsh flow mode
costs, and soumates, projecte
- Financial
er economic isress this questrm, utilizing mProducer (IP
rent strong stfavorable fina
udes Delawarepacity factor w
arm were studs and sounds),
build, but thend Ocean planis stronger anhe wind regim
To investigatef this report.
Financial Assnancing, for 2
ing, for 2012
ates, and F
omic Inputs anFinancial Assueling. The mources of projeced operating e
Results of
ssues would btion, the authomeasured winPP) on a limiteandard, as of ancing, whiche, Maryland, Vwill be adjuste
died. These ar, and Ocean (
en operate witnts are more end steady, whime may be nee these trade-o
sumptions; 2012 Wind En
2 Wind Energy
inancial As
nd Assumptioumptions.” Se
odel inputs incct funds (debtexpenses, and
f the Cash F
be a barrier toors performed
nds in the ranged recourse P
f first-half 201h assumes betVirginia, Nored based on w
re: Coastal Pl(offshore on
th “free fuel,”expensive to ich may offseearly as strongoffs and effec
nergy Plants,
y Plants, loca
ssumption
ons – Financiection 7 sets clude PJM t and equity).d financial
37
Flow
o d ge of
Project 12, tter rth wind
lains,
” over
et the g and cts, in
ated
ns
al forth
They
38
6.1.1 F By way o“Calculateequity andadequate a By the secand debt rthe pro foto market As is wellTransmissmethod, twgiven receEPA Utilimany exis 6.1.2 F Wind specapital colocations prepare fo The four pare:
1. D
2. C
3. C
4. F
6.1.3 A Cash floware assummarket at sites with As discuspurchase astrong, es When theby (have rinvestors from the d
Forward Prici
f summary, twed COE.” Byd debt returnsand either pro
cond method,returns are en
orma 25-year rprices, and w
l known, PJMsion Organizawo sets of forent fuel and pity MACT (Msting coal pow
Four Wind Ma
eds were measts and operawere matched
our sets of PJM
proposed plan
DPL-ODEC, C
Cloverdale, Ri
Calvert Cliffs,
entress, Ocea
A Merchant P
w analysis wasmed to sell pow
rates that flucstrong deman
sed with Sectagreement (Ptablished dev
y are financerecourse to) oseek assurancdeveloper. Fo
ing vs. Calcu
wo types of fiy the first meths, as after-tax oceeds, revam
, a Calculatedntered into therevenue strea
will proceed, r
M refers to theation (RTO) frward prices wpower forecasMaximum Achwer plants, as
arket Segme
asured and proating expensesd against PJMM forward pr
nts, located cl
Coastal Plains
idgeline;
Shallow Wat
an.
Power Finan
s performed fwer on a mercctuate. The dend and high p
tion 7.7, selliPPA). Accordivelopers.
d by limited ronly the projece they will bor a merchant
ulated COE
financial analyhod, PJM forwIRR and deb
mps, or rejects
d Cost of Enere cash flow mam that is necerevamp, or rej
e Penn-Jersey-for the Mid-Awere preparedts [19], and ahievable Cont discussed in
ents and Fou
oposed 100 Ms projected, fo
M nodes; compricing schedul
lose to PJM n
s;
ter Bay; and
cial Case wi
for each of thechant basis, meveloper will prices.
ng merchant ingly, some m
recourse project and not the
be repaid, by eplant utilizin
ysis were perfward power pt coverage. Ts the proposed
rgy (COE) is model as const
essary. The pject the propo
-Maryland InAtlantic Statesd: 2.5% escala high case, tetrol TechnoloSection 5.
ur Plants
MW wind eneor each of theprising substales.
nodes are map
ith BB-Rated
e four plants, meaning powe
investigate p
power is riskimerchant plan
ect finance, we developer’s evidence of a
ng limited reco
formed – termprices are fore
The project ded project.
figured, aftertraints, so the project develoosed project.
nterconnections and certain nlation, which ermed “2015 Aogy) standards
ergy power ple four wind mations, aggreg
pped in Sectio
d Debt.
assuming a 2er is sold on thprojected dem
kier than sellinnts are finance
where debt another assets, well-structur
ourse project
med “Forwardecast, so the m
eveloper decid
r reasonably amodel calcul
oper compares
n, which is thnearby areas. is a conservaAdder Prices,s are impleme
lants were bromarket segmengate locations
on 5, with Fig
25-year projeche competitiv
mand for powe
ng under a loned “on balanc
d equity invethe merchant
red project anfinance, in to
d Pricing” andmodel calculades if returns
attractive equlates and outps the plant’s C
he Regional Under the fir
ative estimate ,” which assuented, affectin
oadly definednts. These s, and other; t
gure 5.3. The
ct life. The plve wholesale er, looking fo
ng-term powece sheet” by
estors are secut power plant
nd by guaranteoday’s market
d ates are
uity puts COE
rst
umes ng
d with
to
ey
lants
r
er
ured ’s ees t
(first half investmen 6.1.4 5 Because downership By curren50% debt because mAcceleratis assumecan fully uand used tBB-rated estimated If a compchanges infraction minvestors modeling to examinrisk, IRR debt cove Conseque50% BB-rThey are 2with impr 6.1.5 F Cost of Enor other pSection 7future pric The two ocalculatedfigures thlevelizes tdiscount rrate, it proor nominanecessarythen defla
2012), currennt-grade.
0% Debt Fra
debt coveragep, the debt fra
nt, likely finanto 50% equit
most of the eqed Cost Recod the developutilize the proto assist with debt, with coas 3.0 times
lex ownershipn allocations
might be set hitake both casproject cash
ne a project wwould increarage limits se
ently, current rated, 20-year22% for Bay,roved debt ter
Financial Figu
nergy (COE),project finance.1.4. Year onces will be es
other measured based upon e Net Presentthe NPV into rate, it producoduces a levelal debt is repa
y to inflate andate these reven
nt, likely debt
action
e is the limitinaction is limit
ncing, the capty. Because th
quipment is deovery System)per seeks to fioject’s tax bendebt repayme
overage calculaverage and 1
p-financing stof cash and taigher. Howevh and tax benflows. The de
with 70% debtase significantet by lenders.
(first half 201r debt at 7.5%, and 25% forrms, is describ
ures of Meri
, debt coverage or business e COE is a si
scalated or oth
es are levelizethe project’s t Value (NPVone level pay
ces a levelizedlized constanaid and incomd figure the nnues.
t is unlikely to
ng or tight conted to 50%.
pital fraction ohe 10-year Seepreciated as ), the projectsind outside eqnefits. The PTent over the flated as annua1.8 times min
tructure, withax benefits ovver, for a “planefits, debt coebt fraction m, for exampletly, but the de
12), likely IPP% to 50% equir Ocean, reflebed later, with
t to Evaluate
ge, and IRR aopportunity. mple measureherwise calcu
ed nominal-donominal reve
V) of revenuesyment per yead nominal-dot-dollar COE
me tax is calcunominal reven
o be rated hig
nstraint, unde
of the project ection 45 Prodfive-year pro
s show signifiquity investorTC is assumedfirst ten years al operating in
nimum.
h Tax Investorver time to diain vanilla” owoverage becommust be set at e, assuming ineveloper woul
P project finaity. Target eqcting greater h Section 6.3
e a Project
are important That three mee; it is the pro
ulated.
ollar COE andenue stream ovs using the noar. If levelizatllar COE. If p, which exclu
ulated as a pernues that cove
gher than BB,
er conservativ
was estimateduction Tax Coperty (under icant tax beners, who are in d to be “monof project lifncome over t
rs and “flips”fferent ownerwnership strumes the limiti50% of total
nterest rates dld need a high
ance of the 10quity returns arisk. The fav
3.
measures in eeasures of COoject’s bid pri
d levelized cover its 25 yea
ominal-dollartion is performperformed usiudes inflationrcentage of no
er project expe
, which is one
ve, “plain van
ed at a conserCredit (PTC) iMACRS, the
efits as well aa positive ea
netized,” or cofe. Limits for the annual deb
” were assumership classes,
ucture, where ing or tight cocapital. If the
did not rise duher revenue s
00 MW wind pare 17% for laorable financ
evaluating a wOE are preparice for its firs
onstant-dollarar life, where r discount ratemed using theing the consta. When controminal profitenses, costs a
e level below
nilla” financin
rvative ratio ois utilized, an
e Modified as a cash returarnings mode onverted to cadebt coveragbt payment, a
ed, where flipthen the debtthe equity
onstraint in e developer wue to increasedstream to mee
projects assumand-based placing set of cas
wind energy pred is describest year, from w
r COE. Thesethe analyst fie and then e nominal ant-dollar disactually-spects, then it is and returns an
39
ng-
of nd
rn. It and
ash ge for are
ps are t
wished d
et the
mes ants. ses,
plant ed in which
e are irst
count cified
nd to
40
Debt coveincome agminimum IRR (Interflows to ethe preseninvestmenallows pro Other meathe projectax cash fdisadvantBy contra The otherinvestmenwhether thmeasure p 6.2 Econ
Wind Results oflikely finapresented performedwith 2015outputs deassumed acalculated 6.2.1 D As shownPJM forw$0.0540 pdeveloperdisappoinbelow the For the sethe year oCOE is $0below targ For the thaverage anwhich beafall slightl
erage and IRRgainst the ann
m (worst year)
rnal Rate of Requity investont value of thent. IRR is the ojects of diffe
asures to evalct, by the weigflows less initage of IRR is
ast, the NPV c
r measure of pnt is paid backhe later yearsprovides a qui
nomic Analyd Energy Pl
f cash flow mancing at 50%below, with
d, including 15 Adder Priceebt coverage as given paramd the project’s
DPL-ODEC C
n, cases 1-3 coward pricing atper kWh, nomr sees that debnting because e target of 17%
econd case, wone COE is $00.0611. Debt get. IRR is be
hird case, whicnd 2.21 timesats the 17% taly below targ
R are discussenual debt paym.
Return) is calcors, over all the stream of afrate where N
erent sizes to
luate a projecghted averageial equity inv
s that it assumcalculation as
project value ik by the proje of project retick means to
ysis Resultslants
modeling for a% debt to 50%
Table 6-1. Fo1) PJM Forwas; and 3) Calcand the after-meters into ths COE.
Coastal Plains
oncern the DPt 2.5%, reven
minal levelizedbt coverage isthey are belo
%.
with PJM forw0.0559 per kWcoverage is b
etter at 15.72%
ch is Calculats minimum, warget. If cash
get.
ed fully in Secment (interest
culated by cohe years of profter-tax cash
NPV (describebe compared
ct also may bee cost of capitvestment. Projmes all cash flo
sumes cash fl
is payback, wect’s after-taxturn are fat orlearn when h
s, under Cur
all four wind e% equity, inclu
or each of theard Pricing at culated COE.-tax IRR. For he model, so t
s
PL-ODEC Conues are givend COE is $0.0s 2.18 times aw the targets
ward pricing uWh, nominal lbetter, at 2.69%, but this rem
ted COE, debwhich meet thflows were ru
ction 7. Debtt plus principa
nsidering theoject life. IRRflows equals
ed below) bec.
e considered. tal, Net Presejects with a pows are reinv
flows are reinv
which measurex cash flows. Pr lean. Nonethe or she will r
rrent, Likel
energy plants,uding BB-ratee four plants, conservative
. For the first the third case
the model out
oastal Plains Wn, but it is inte0661, and converage and 1.of 3.0 times a
using 2015 Adlevelized COEtimes averag
mains below
bt coverage is he targets of 3un to achieve
t coverage comal). One calcu
e after-tax casR is defined athe present v
comes zero. A
After discounent Value is thositive NPV a
vested at the Ivested at the c
es the numberPayback ignoheless, for therecover the in
ly Financing
, selling merced, 20-year dethree sets of f
e 2.5% escalattwo cases, re
e, attractive dtputs a revenu
Wind Energy eresting to nonstant-dollar l.70 times minand 1.8 times
dder prices, reE is $0.0786,
ge and 1.79 tim17%.
the tight con.0 times and 17% IRR exa
mpares each yulates the ave
sh flow of the as that discounvalue of the inAs a simple pe
nting the afterhe discountedare attractiveIRR rate, whiccost of capita
r of years untores time value risk-adversenitial investm
g, for Mid-A
chant power; ebt at a 7.50%financial analtion; 2) PJM evenues are gidebt coverageue stream, fro
Plant. For thote that year olevelized COEnimum, whichs. IRR is 12.4
evenues again and constantmes minimum
nstraint, and it1.8 times. IRRactly, then de
year’s operatierage ratio and
project, whicnt rate at whi
nitial equity ercentage, IRR
r-tax cash flod sum of the a. One ch may be hig
al discount rat
til initial equiue of money ae investor, thi
ment.
Atlantic
under current% interest ratelysis were Forward Pric
iven, so the m and IRR are
om which is
he first case, wone COE is E is $0.0513.h are a bit 48%, which is
n are given. Ht-dollar levelim, but these re
t is 3.00 timesR is 18.42%,
ebt coverage w
ing d the
ch ch
R
ws of after-
gh. te.
ity and is
t, e; are
cing model
with
The
s
Here, ized emain
s
would
The COEis $0.0859with 2015higher tha 6.2.2 C For the ClPJM forwprices for and constminimumbelow the For the seare given.levelized minimum For the th3.02 timesto surpassThe year oCOE is $0 All three Cfor Coastathe PJM fover 2.5 ccalculated1.0 cent h Nearby, itturbines aby Synergpower purMW Roth(Newark, Universitywas sold tGestamp
s are the key 9, which is ab5 Adder Pricean PJM prices
Cloverdale Rid
loverdale Ridward pricing at
Cloverdale aant-dollar lev
m, which are be target of 17%
econd case, w. The year oneCOE is $0.04
m, but these are
hird case, cases average ands the 17% targone COE is $0.0577 per kW
Cloverdale Ral Plains. Howforward pricescents higher thd constant-dolhigher than PJ
t is noted thatand is located gics and starterchasers, whoh Rock plant sDE) and 10 M
y system, undto Gestamp W[21], and its t
points of intebout 2.0 centss. The constas at 2.5% and
dgeline
dgeline Wind t 2.5% and re
are low. The yvelized COE ielow the BB-
%.
which is case 5e COE is $0.0455. Debt cove below targe
e 6, which is Cd 2.29 times mget for land-b$0.0629 per kWWh.
Ridgeline COEwever, markes with cases 4han PJM pricllar levelized JM 2015 Add
t the 50 MW Ron the ridgel
ed up in Deceo pay higher psells 40 MW pMW power toder the GeneraWind North Atax equity sha
erest. The yeas higher than fant-dollar leve
0.6 cent high
Energy Plantevenues givenyear one COEis $0.0368. D-rated debt tar
5, with PJM fo0375 per kWhverage improvet. IRR is bett
Calculated COminimum, whased wind enWh. Nominal
Es, when calct prices at Clo
4 and 5. The ces at 2.5% anCOE at US$0er Prices.
Roth Rock wine in Garrett
ember 2010 [2prices. That ispower and re
o Maryland’s ating Clean H
America, a busare was sold t
ar one COE isfor PJM forwelized COE isher than PJM
t, results are pn, COEs mighE is $0.0367 pebt coverage rgets of 3.0 ti
forward pricinh, nominal levves because itter at 14.02%,
OE, debt covehich meet the tnergy plants. Fl levelized CO
ulated, are aboverdale, neacalculated nomnd 1.5 cents hi0.0577 is 2.0
ind energy plt County Mar20], transmitss, under two 2newable enerDepartment o
Horizons progsiness subsidio US Bancorp
s $0.0739 per ward pricing ats $0.0667 per with 2015 Ad
presented withht be considerper kWh, nomis 1.86 times
imes and 1.8 t
ng using 2015velized COE t is 2.39 times, but it is still
erage is the titargets of 3.0For CalculateOE is $0.0743
bout 1.0 cent lar Roanoke Viminal levelizeigher than PJcents higher
lant, which feryland, whichs and sells mu20-year Powergy credits to of General Se
gram [21,22]. iary of the larp [23].
kWh. Nomint 2.5% and 0.
r kWh, which dder Prices.
h cases 4-6. Fred low. The P
minal levelizeds average and times. IRR is
5 Adder priceis $0.0585, as average andl below 17%.
ight constrain0 and 1.8 timed COE, the C3, and constan
lower than thirginia, are loed COE at US
JM with 2015than PJM pri
eatures 20 Noh was financeduch of its power Purchase ADelmarva Po
ervices and thIn 2011, the
rge Spanish in
nal levelized C.7 cent higheris about 1.6 c
For case 4, wiPJM forward d COE is $0.01.42 times 10.33%, whi
s, revenues agand constant-dd 1.55 times
nt. Debt coveres. IRR is 19.6COEs are critint-dollar leve
he calculated Cow, as revealeS$0.0743 is ju Adder Pricesices at 2.5% a
ordex 2.5 MWd and develop
wer to more diAgreements, thower & Light he Maryland SRoth Rock pl
ndustrial comp
41
COE r than cent
ith
0473,
ich is
gain dollar
rage is 69%, ical. elized
COEs ed by ust s. The and
W ped istant he 50
State lant
mpany
4
Tf
42
Table 6-1. Cash Flowfor 2012 Mid-Atlant
Ownershi
1 DPL-ODEC
2 DPL-ODEC
3 DPL-ODEC
4 Cloverdale R
5 Cloverdale R
6 Cloverdale R
w Analysis Results ftic 100 MW Wind E
ip/Financing Struct
C Coastal Plains - PJMCOE & Debt Cov
IRRNPV a
Payback (yC Coastal Plains – PJM
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV aPayback (y
C Coastal Plains – COCOE & Debt Cov
IRRNPV a
Payback (yRidge Line - PJM Fo
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV aPayback (y
Ridge Line - PJM FoCOE & Debt Cov
IRRNPV a
Payback (yRidge Line - COEs c
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV aPayback (y
for Current Likely FEnergy Plants (in 20
ure COE as Y
One Pr(US$/kW
M Forward Pricing aterage 0.0R (%) at 9% years) M Forward Pricing uerage 0.0R (%) at 9% years) OEs calculated to meeerage 0.0R (%) at 9% years) orward Pricing at 2.5%erage 0.0R (%) at 9% years) orward Pricing using erage 0.0R (%) at 9% years) calculated to meet tarerage 0.0R (%) at 9% years)
Financing 13 dollars)
Year rice Wh)
Nominal Cover contr
life (US$/kW
t 2.5% increase per y0540 0.06
using 2015 Adder Pri0559 0.07
et target IRR and deb0739 0.08
% increase per year; 0367 0.04
2015 Adder Prices; 50375 0.05
rget IRR and debt cov0629 0.07
OE act
Wh)
Constant dollCOE over
contract life(US$/kWh)
year; 50% debt/50% e661 0.0513
ces; 50% debt/50% e786 0.0611
bt coverage; 50% deb859 0.0667
50% debt/50% equity473 0.0368
50% debt/50% equity585 0.0455
verage; 50% debt/50%743 0.0577
lar
e )
Average Debt Coverage
(times). Target3.0 X
equity 3 2.18
equity 1 2.69
bt/50% equity 7 3.00
y 8 1.86
y 5 2.39
% equity 7 3.02
t
Minimum Debt Coverage (times)
Target 1.80 X
1.70
1.79
2.21
1.42
1.55
2.29
. After-tax, leveraTargets: 17.0% l
22% Bay, 25% O
12.4$13.899
15.7$30.251
18.4$41.000
10.3$5.167
14.0$22.577
19.6$48.967
aged. land,
Ocean.
Pre-tax,unleverag
48% 4.49 mil ($57.783 m
5
72% 6.7 mil ($30.530 m
5
42% 8.00 mil ($12.606 m
4
33% 2.2mil ($86.651 m
6
02% 4.97 mil ($57.634 m
5
69% 8.07 mil ($13.586 m
4
, ed
7% mil)
17
7%
mil) 13
5%
mil) 12
9%
mil) 20
2%
mil) 16
4%
mil) 12
Ownershi
7 Calvert Clif
8 Calvert Clif
9 Calvert Cli
10 Fentress Oc
11 Fentress Oc
12 Fentress Oc
ip/Financing Struct
ffs Shallow Bay - PJM
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV a
Payback (yffs Shallow Bay - PJM
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV aPayback (y
ffs Shallow Bay - CCOE & Debt Cove
IRRNPV a
Payback (ycean - PJM Forward
COE & Debt CoveIRR
NPV aPayback (y
cean - PJM ForwardCOE & Debt Cove
IRRNPV a
Payback (ycean - COEs calcula
COE & Debt CoveIRR
NPV aPayback (y
ure COE as Y
One Pr(US$/kW
M Forward Pricing at
erage 0.0R (%)
at 9%
years) M Forward Pricing userage 0.0R (%) at 9% years)
COEs calculated to merage 0.1
R (%) at 9% years) d Pricing at 2.5% incerage 0.0
R (%) at 9% years) d Pricing using 2015erage 0.0
R (%) at 9% years) ated to meet target IRerage 0.1
R (%) at 9% years)
Year rice Wh)
Nominal Cover contr
life (US$/kW
t 2.5% increase per y
0531 0.06
sing 2015 Adder Pric0546 0.07
meet target IRR and 1004 0.11
crease per year; 50%0472 0.05
5 Adder Prices; 50%0479 0.06
RR and debt covera1821 0.21
OE act
Wh)
Constant dollCOE over
contract life(US$/kWh)
year; 50% debt/50% e
659 0.0512
ces; 50% debt/50% eq784 0.0609
debt coverage; 50%67 0.0907
% debt/50% equity 79 0.0450
% debt/50% equity 689 0.0535
age; 50% debt/50% e54 0.1674
lar
e )
Average Debt Coverage
(times). Target3.0 X
equity
2 2.00
quity 9 2.43
% debt/50% equity 7 3.70
0 1.00
5 1.26
equity 4 4.53
t
Minimum Debt Coverage (times)
Target 1.80 X
1.56
1.64
2.58
0.80
0.90
2.96
. After-tax, leveraTargets: 17.0% l
22% Bay, 25% O
10.2
$7.453
13.2$27.597
22.0$92.404
-2.9($78.608 m
1.0($60.432 m
25.0$188.060
43
aged. land,
Ocean.
Pre-tax,unleverag
29% 4.0
mil ($91.268 m
6
26% 6.07 mil ($57.694 m
5
04% 11.45
mil $50.324 m4
97% -1.76mil) ($246.308 mn/a
05% 0.30mil) ($216.015 m
24
01% 15.10
mil $198.180 m4
, ed
5%
mil)
17
8%
mil) 14
5% mil
9
6%
mil) n/a
0%
mil) 25
0% mil
7
6.2.3 C In Table 6PJM forw$0.0659, athose for Dtimes aver10.29%, w For case 8$0.0546 pAgain, the1.64 times For case 9which meminimum$0.1004 p$0.0907 pwith 2015escalation 6.2.4 F The last s10, PJM f$0.0579, aothers, exaverage anincome is negative rinitial inv Case 11, wthey still w$0.0689, atimes min For case 125.01%, wand 2.96 tCOE is $0is $0.1674and with 22.5% escagreatly ex
Calvert Cliffs
6.1, cases 7-9ward pricing at
and constant-DPL-ODEC, rage and 1.56which is signi
8, with PJM fper kWh, nomese revenues s minimum, w
9, with Calculeets the Shelte
m, which beat tper kWh, the nper kWh. The 5 Adder pricen and with 20
Fentress, Oc
et of entries iforward pricinand constant-
xcept for Clovnd 0.80 times too low for th
return means vestment, muc
with PJM forwwould be judgand constant-
nimum, which
12, the last cawhich meets ttimes minimu0.1821 per kW4 per kWh. Th2015 Adder palation and wixceed market
Shallow Bay
9 concern the t 2.5%, show
-dollar levelizfor the Coast
6 times minimificantly below
forward pricinminal levelized
are very closewhich are belo
lated COE, IRered Bay targethe targets of nominal levelnominal COE
s. The consta15 Adder Pric
ean
n Table 6.1 ang at 2.5%, th-dollar levelizverdale Ridge
minimum. Whe project to pthe equity inv
ch less make a
ward pricing ged very nega-dollar levelizh are very low
ase, with Calcthe Ocean targum, which excWh, the nominhe nominal C
prices. The coith 2015 Addprices.
y
Calvert Cliffs year one CO
zed COE is $0tal Plains case
mum, which arw the shallow
ng using 2015d COE is $0.0e to those for ow target. IRR
RR, the equityet of 22%. De
f 3.0 times andlized COE is E is 5.0 to 4.0
ant-dollar COEces.
are cases 10-1he year one Czed COE is $0line. For Fent
When debt covpay its full debvestors lose many return.
using 2015 Aative. Year onzed COE is $0w. IRR is bare
culated COE, get of 25%. Fceed the targenal levelized
COE is 15.7 toonstant-dollar der Prices. Wh
fs Shallow BaOE is $0.05310.0512. Thesee. For Calvertre low, agains
w bay target o
5 Adder price0784, and conDPL-ODECR is 13.26%,
y return, is thebt coverage id 1.8 times. R$0.1167, and0 cents higherE is 4.0 to 3.0
12, for the FenOE is $0.4720.0450. Thesetress Ocean, d
verage is less tbt payment. L
money on thei
Adder prices, sne COE is $00.0535. Debt ely positive, a
IRR, the equiFor Fentress Oets of 3.0 timeCOE is $0.21
o 14.6 cents hCOE is 12.0
hen Calculate
ay Wind Ener1 per kWh, noe prices, whict Cliffs Shallost targets of 3
of 22%.
s, revenues arnstant-dollar l. Debt coverawhich is belo
e limiting conis 3.70 times
Regarding COd the constant-r than the PJM0 cents higher
ntress Ocean 2 per kWh, noe prices, whicdebt coveragethan 1.0 times
Likewise, IRRir investment.
shows a sligh.0479 per kWcoverage is 1
at 1.05%.
ity return, is tOcean, debt coes and 1.8 tim154, and the chigher than the
to 11.0 centsd COEs are f
rgy Plant. Theominal levelizch are given, aow Bay, debt 3.0 times and
re given. Herlevelized COEage is 2.43 timow 22%.
nstraint, and iaverage and
OEs, the year -dollar leveliz
M prices at 2.r than the PJM
Wind Energyominal levelizch are given, ae is very low s, it means the
R is very low, a. They do not
ht improvemeWh, nominal le1.26 times ave
the limiting coverage is 4.5
mes. For Fentrconstant-dollae PJM prices
s higher than tfigured, the Fe
e first case, cazed COE is are very closet coverage is 21.8 times. IR
re, year one CE is $0.0609.
mes average a
it is 22.04%, 2.58 times one COE is zed COE is 5% escalation
M prices at 2.
y Plant. For czed COE is are lower thanat 1.00 times
e plant’s operaat -2.97%. A t recover their
ent in results, evelized COEerage and 0.90
onstraint. It i53 times averress, the year ar levelized Cat 2.5% escathe PJM priceentress COEs
45
ase 7,
e to 2.00
RR is
COE is
and
n and 5%
ase
n the
ating
r
but E is 0
s rage one
COE alation es at s
46
6.2.5 S The chartpricing CO
Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-2.
Summary of F
s below showOEs for each
COEs for Four
COE Results f
Findings
w the wind eneof the four pl
r Plants with Cu
for Four Plants
ergy plant COlants. Figure
urrent, Likely F
with Current, L
OEs described6-2 shows C
Financing using
Likely Financin
d above. Figualculated CO
g PJM Forward
ng using Calcul
ure 6-1 showsOE for each of
d Prices (2013 D
lated COE (201
s PJM forwarf the four plan
Dollars).
3 Dollars)
rd nts.
Figure 6-Reference3.0 times 17% land Figure 6-assumed tcents per kprices in aas shown 6.3 Eco
Ener Results ofbelow, in Purchase FavorableBBB-ratedebt repayFor this lominimum
As done ePJM Forwand 3) Caand the afparameterCOE. In reviewiare improone may r
-1, for currente to Table 6-1average and -based, 22% B
-2, for currentto be met. ForkWh and the a broad sensein Figure 6-1
nomic Anargy Plants.
f cash flow mTable 6-2. FAgreement (P
e financing, atd, 20-year deyment. As disower risk, BB
m. The target e
earlier, for eacward Pricing aalculated COEfter-tax IRR. Frs into the mo
ing cash flowved. The readrefer to Figur
t likely financ1 shows that n1.8 times worBay, or 25%
t likely financr example, foconstant-doll. However, th1.
alysis Resu.
modeling for aavorable finaPPA) at somet this point inbt at a 4.00%scussed in Sec
BB-rated debt,equity returns
ch of the fourat conservativE. For the firstFor the third c
odel, so the m
w results, methder is encourare 6-3 and Fig
cing, shows Cnone of these rst year. NoneOcean.
cing, shows Cr Cloverdale lar levelized Chey are all hig
ults, under
all four wind eancing is possewhat fixed ran time (first ha% interest rate,
ction 7, BBB, debt coveragare 17% for
r plants, threeve 2.5% escalt two cases, rcase, attractiv
model outputs
hodology is idaged to reviewgure 6-4 belo
COEs that are plants meet d
e of the plants
COEs that resuRidgeline, thCOE is 5.77 cgher than resp
r Favorable
energy plants ible when the
ates or when oalf 2012) assu, where the Se-rated debt isge targets are land-based pl
sets of financation; 2) PJM
revenues are gve debt coveraa revenue stre
dentical to thaw Table 6-2 cow.
given, as a redebt coverages meet IRR ta
ult when debthe nominal-docents. Some opective PJM w
e Financin
under favorae plants sell powners offer umes 60% debection 45 PTCs the lowest le
1.50 times avlants, 22% fo
cial analysis wM Forward Prigiven, so the mage and IRR eam, from wh
at used with Scarefully. For
esult of PJM fe requirementargets for equ
t coverage anollar levelizedof the results awholesale pric
ng, for Mid-
able financingpower under alenders stronbt to 40% equC is monetizeevel of investmverage and 1.
or Bay and 25
were performicing with 20model outputare assumed hich is calcula
Section 6.2. Hr summarized
forward pricits for lenders
uity investors
nd IRR targetsd COE is 7.43are close to mces at their no
-Atlantic W
g are set fortha long-term Pog guarantees.uity, and inclued to assist wiment-grade d.30 times % for Ocean.
med, including15 Adder Pricts debt coveraas given ated the proje
However, resuresults, howe
47
ng. of of
s are 3 market odes,
Wind
h ower udes ith
debt.
.
g 1) ces;
age
ect’s
ults ever,
4
Tf
48
Table 6-2. Cash Flowfor 2012 Mid-Atlant
Ownersh
1 DPL-ODEC
2 DPL-ODEC
3 DPL-ODEC
4 Cloverdale R
5 Cloverdale R
6 Cloverdale R
w Analysis Results Atic 100 MW Wind E
ip/Financing Struct
C Coastal Plains - PJMCOE & Debt Cov
IRRNPV
Payback (yC Coastal Plains – PJM
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV Payback (y
C Coastal Plains – COCOE & Debt Cov
IRRNPV
Payback (yRidge Line - PJM Fo
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV Payback (y
Ridge Line - PJM FoCOE & Debt Cov
IRRNPV
Payback (yRidge Line - COEs c
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV Payback (y
Assuming FavorablEnergy Plants (in 20
ture COE as
One Pr($/kW
M Forward Pricing atverage 0.R (%) at 9% years) M Forward Pricing u
verage 0.R (%) at 9% years) OEs calculated to meeverage 0.R (%) at 9% years) orward Pricing at 2.5%verage 0.R (%) at 9% years) orward Pricing using verage 0.R (%) at 9% years) calculated to meet tarverage 0.R (%) at 9% years)
e Financing 13 dollars).
Year rice
Wh)
Nominal Cover contrlife ($/kW
t 2.5% increase per y0540 0.06
using 2015 Adder Pri0559 0.07
et target IRR and deb0499 0.05
% increase per year; 0367 0.04
2015 Adder Prices; 60375 0.05
rget IRR and debt cov0389 0.04
COE ract
Wh)
Constant dolCOE over
contract lif($/kWh)
year; 60% debt/40% e661 0.051
ces; 60% debt/40% e786 0.061
bt coverage; 60% deb579 0.045
60% debt/40% equity473 0.036
60% debt/40% equity585 0.045
verage; 60% debt/40%451 0.035
llar r fe
Average DebtCoverage
(times). Targe1.50 X
equity 13 2.21
equity 11 2.72
bt/40% equity 50 1.93
y 68 1.89
y 55 2.41
% equity 51 1.78
t
et
Minimum DebtCoverage (times
Target 1.30 X
1.73
2.05
1.56
1.47
1.90
1.35
t s).
After-tax, levera Targets: 17.0%
22% Bay, 25Ocean.
19.6 $30.540
23.1 $46.891
17.0 $20.151
17.1 $22.483
21.0 $39.893
17.1 $19.753
aged. land,
% Pre-tax,
unleverag
61% 4.4 mil ($57.385 m
4
11% 6.8 mil ($30.133 m
4
06% 2.5 mil ($74.692 m
4
17% 2.2 mil ($86.253 m
4
09% 4.94 mil ($57.237 m
4
14% 1.24 mil ($90.740 m
4
, ed
8% mil)
16
0%
mil) 13
6%
mil) 19
9%
mil) 20
4%
mil) 16
4%
mil) 22
Ownersh
7 Calvert Clif
8 Calvert Clif
9 Calvert Clif
10 Fentress Oc
11 Fentress Oc
12 Fentress Oc
ip/Financing Struct
ffs Shallow Bay - PJMCOE & Debt Cov
IRRNPV
Payback (yffs Shallow Bay - PJM
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV Payback (y
ffs Shallow Bay - COCOE & Debt Cov
IRRNPV
Payback (ycean - PJM Forward P
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV Payback (y
cean - PJM Forward PCOE & Debt Cov
IRRNPV
Payback (ycean - COEs calculate
COE & Debt CovIRR
NPV Payback (y
ture COE as
One Pr($/kW
M Forward Pricing atverage 0.R (%) at 9% years) M Forward Pricing usverage 0.R (%) at 9% years)
OEs calculated to meeverage 0.R (%) at 9% years) Pricing at 2.5% increverage 0.R (%) at 9% years) Pricing using 2015 Average 0.R (%) at 9% years) ed to meet target IRRverage 0.R (%) at 9% years)
Year rice
Wh)
Nominal Cover contrlife ($/kW
t 2.5% increase per y0531 0.06
sing 2015 Adder Pric0546 0.07
et target IRR and deb0699 0.08
ase per year; 60% de0472 0.05
Adder Prices; 60% deb0479 0.06
R and debt coverage; 1319 0.15
COE ract
Wh)
Constant dolCOE over
contract lif($/kWh)
year; 60% debt/40% e659 0.051
ces; 60% debt/40% eq784 0.060
bt coverage; 60% deb807 0.062
ebt/40% equity 579 0.045
bt/40% equity 689 0.053
60% debt/40% equity538 0.119
llar r fe
Average DebtCoverage
(times). Targe1.50 X
equity 12 2.03
quity 09 2.45
bt/40% equity 27 2.57
50 1.02
35 1.28
y 95 3.22
t
et
Minimum DebtCoverage (times
Target 1.30 X
1.57
1.84
1.90
0.81
1.02
2.19
t s).
After-tax, levera Targets: 17.0%
22% Bay, 25Ocean.
16.8 $32.248
20.1 $52.393
22.0 $57.713
-1.1 ($41.956 m
4.2 ($23.780 m
25.0
$121.411
49
aged. land,
% Pre-tax,
unleverag
84% 4.0 mil ($90.712 m
4
10% 6.1 mil ($57.138 m
4
09% 6.4 mil ($48.266 m
3
17% -1.7mil) ($245.466 mn/a
29% 0.3mil) ($215.173 m
18
02% 10.6 mil $26.853 m
3
, ed
6% mil)
17
0%
mil) 14
0%
mil) 13
7%
mil) n/a
0%
mil) 25
7% mil 10
50
6.3.1 S The chartshows PJMshows Ca
Figure 6-3.
Figure 6-4.
Summary of F
s below showM forward pr
alculated COE
COEs of Four
COE Results o
Findings
w the wind enericing COEs, uE, under favor
Plants with Fav
of Four Plants w
ergy plant COunder favorabrable financin
vorable Financi
with Favorable
OEs that wereble financing,ng, for each of
ing using PJM
Financing using
e presented w, for each of tf the four plan
Forward Prices
g Calculated CO
with Table 6-2the four plantnts.
s (2013 Dollars)
OE (2013 Dolla
2. Figure 6-3ts. Figure 6-4
).
ars)
4
Figure 6-Table 6-2for equitymeet debtmeet debt Both Calvhitting thecase 8, wiOcean casIRR return 6.4 Find Earlier, it fuel.” Theinsurance Virginia, Water Bayoff-shore 6.4.1 L Land-BasLikely Fin As the subplants, forThey appeCoastal Pltimes min
Barrierlikely fiinvestmtimes avare 22% Mitigatassume spread olarge grofurther. With timmore cooffshorefinancintimes avand 25%
-3, for favorab2 shows that sy investors. Spt coverage tart coverage and
vert Cliffs Shae equity targeith 2015 Addeses (cases 10 ns.
dings and C
was noted their annual opeand major mthe District oy and Ocean pwas stronger
and-Based P
ed Plants are nancing.
bsequent analr Coastal Plaiear economiclains and case
nimum and th
r – Risk premnancing, the b
ment-grade, whverage and 1.8
% and 25%
tion Option –some project
over a large group of equity
me, as developomfortable ane demonstrationg rates for deverage and 1.3%, for Bay and
ble financing,several of thespecifically, thrgets and showd IRR targets
allow Bay plat levels of 22er Prices, hasand 11) are s
Comments
hat wind energerating expen
maintenance anf Columbia, aplants were m, to produce m
Plants
Financially F
lysis showed,ins and Ridgecally feasible. es 4 and 5 fore IRR target o
iums for bothbest debt for mhich carries a 8 times minim
– Power Purchrisk, will ass
roup of buyery investors, ca
pers, power pd experiencedon projects webt, with lowe3 times minimd Ocean, will
, shows COEsse plants mee
he two DPL-Ow IRRs over 1.
ants meet deb% Bay. Case an IRR of 20everely defic
s
gy plants are cses are low, cnd overhauls.and Washingtmore expensivmore power, w
Feasible with
under favoraeline, met fina
From Table r Ridgeline mof 17%.
h debt and equmost developlong-term int
mum. For Sha
hase Agreemeist with windrs, individual an share some
purchasers andd with offshor
will be helpfuler interest ratemum, will becl decline to ne
s that are giveet debt coveraODEC Coasta17%. The two
bt coverage re7, with a 2.5
0.10%, whereient, with ver
capital-intenscomposed onl For the Mid-ton DC; it wave to build, thwhich might o
Favorable Fi
able financingancial targets 6.2, looking
meet debt cove
uity investorspers (with rareterest rate 0f allow Water B
ents, where crd energy devel
risk is reducee of the initial
d end customre wind energl, but only if tes and with tacome availablear those of la
en under PJMage requiremeal Plains caseso Cloverdale
equirements, b% price incre
e the latter is fry low debt co
sive to build, bly of O&M, la-Atlantic stateas postulated that the wind rovercome the
inancing. The
g with BBB-rfor debt coveat PJM forwa
erage targets o
s, are high. Une exceptions) 7.5% and deb
Bay and Ocea
redit-worthy, lopment. If ined. If a large l risk, initial,
mers, and debt gy plants, riskthey are locatearget debt covle. Equity targand-based pla
M forward pricents for lenders (cases 1 andRidgeline cas
but they are bease, has an IRfairly close. Boverage ration
but then operand rental feees of Marylanthat while Ridregime in the e costs.
ey “come clos
rated debt, theerage and equard pricing, caof 1.5 times a
nder current (is rated BB,
bt coverage taan plants, targ
large power nitial purchasdeveloper, teindividual ris
and equity ink is reduced. Ped in this regverage on the get returns, esants, at about
cing. Referenrs and IRR ta
d 2 in Table 6ses (cases 4 a
both a little shRR of 16.84%Both Fentress ns and very lo
rate with “freees, property tand, Delaware,dgeline, Sheltmountains an
se” with Curre
e two land-bauity rate of retases 1 and 2 faverage and 1
(first half 201one level beloargets of 3.0 get equity retu
purchasers e risk can be aming with a
sk is reduced
nvestors becoPlanned DOEion. Favorablorder of 1.5
stimated at 2217%.
51
nce to argets 6-2) and 5)
hy in % and
ow
e ax, , tered
nd
ent,
sed turn. for .3
2), ow
urns
a
me E le
2%
52
From Tabnominal-dconstant d4.50 conscent to 2 cnominal avalues (caenergy plaprices, wh If one “strinterest rapricing at come partboth comeThey are b From Tabnominal-dCOEs areODEC (caRidgelinePJM forwby 2.7 to 6.4.2 R The Ridgemountain But it enjo Under favlevelized COEs fromCOEs for local neig Under curCalculatedconstant-dat Cloverdregion. 6.4.3 S Under Favmeeting eprices, thokWh, exis
ble 6.2, lookindollar and condollar COE extant, which arcents nominaland 3.51 consases 4 and 5) bants, assuminhich is obviou
resses” the plate, then their
2015 Adder tway to meetie close to meeboth close to
ble 6.1, lookindollar and con 8.59 cents peases 1 and 2)
e COEs are 7.4ward prices for
1.5 cents nom
Ridgeline Pla
eline plant shlocation, at $
oys better per
vorable financCOE of 4.51 m both sets oRidgeline are
ghborhood of
rrent likely find COE case 6dollar COE ofdale Ridgelin
Shallow Wate
vorable Finanequity return tose with 2015sts, which is n
ng at Calculatnstant-dollar lxcludes inflatre less than thl and 0.5 centtant, in 2013 by about 0.2
ng favorable fusly attractive
ants, by assumeconomic pePrices, whiching the averageting the minthe equity ret
ng at Calculatnstant-dollar ler kWh nominby about 2 to43 cents per kr Ridgeline (c
minal and 2.1
ants Show th
hows only a m$1,600 per kWrformance, wi
cing, from Tacents per kW
of PJM forware slightly lessCloverdale R
nancing, from6 for Ridgelinf 5.77 cents pe, but they ar
er Bay Plant
ncing, the Shatargets. It is w5 Adders. Undnot insurmoun
ted COE, caslevelized COEtion. The Coaheir respectivet to 1.5 cents dollars, whiccent to 1.3 ce
financing, proe to power pur
ming current,erformance slih is higher revge 3.0 times dnimum 1.8 timturn 17% targ
ted COE, caslevelized COEnal and 6.67 co 1 cents per kkWh nominalcases 4 and 5)to 1.2 cents c
he Best Econ
modest increasW vs. $1,530 fith a capacity
able 6-2, the CWh and a const
rd pricing (at s than the pric
Ridgeline unde
m Table 6-1, rne shows a noper kWh. Thesre in the gener
ts
allow Water Bwithin 0.3 cender current likntable.
e 3 for CoastaEs that are wistal Plains COe PJM forwarconstant. Theh are less tha
ents nominal aoduce power archasers.
, likely financips some. Frovenue, case 2 debt coveragemes debt coverget, with IRRs
e 3 for CoastaEs that are cloconstant, whikWh nominall and 5.77 con), which are thconstant.
nomics
se in capital cfor overnight
y factor of 34.
Calculated COtant-dollar CO2.5% escalati
ces of 4.73 ceer PJM forwa
results are lesminal levelizse are over thral range of m
Bay plant meents per kWh okely financing
al Plains and ithin market pOEs are 5.79 rd pricing vale Ridgeline Can their respecand 0.2 cent tat COEs that a
cing, with riskom Table 6.1,
for Coastal Pe target, at 2.6rage target, as of 15.72% a
al Plains and ose to marketich exceed PJl and 1.5 to 0.nstant, in 201he lowest pric
cost over the Ccapital cost (2% vs. 28.4%
OE case 6 forOE of 3.51 cetion or with 20ents nominal aard pricing (ca
ss dramatic, bzed COE of 7.he COEs for bmarket prices
ets debt coverf meeting theg, a gap to ma
case 6 for Riprices. As discents per kW
lues (cases 1 aCOEs are 4.51ctive PJM forto 1.0 cents coare less than t
kier BB-rated, looking at P
Plains and cas69 times and 2at 1.79 times aand 14.02%.
case 6 for Rit prices. The CJM forward pr.5 cents per k3 dollars. Theces for all nod
Coastal Plains(See Table 7-4% (see Table 7
r Ridgeline shents per kWh015 Adders). and 3.68 centase 4), with c
but the trend s.43 cents per both sets of PJfor the broad
rage and “come higher set ofarket prices, o
dgeline showscussed, the
Wh nominal anand 2) by abo cents per kW
rward pricing onstant. The wthe PJM forw
d debt at a higPJM forward se 5 for Ridge2.39 times. Thand 1.55 time
dgeline showCoastal Plainricing for DP
kWh constant.ey compare todes, as in exc
s plant, due to4 and Table 77-8).
hows a nomin. These are unThe Calculat
ts constant forcase 5 higher.
still holds. ThkWh and a JM forward p
der PJM whole
mes close” tof PJM forwardof 3 to 4 cents
w
nd out 1 Wh
wind ward
gher
eline hey
es.
w ns L-. The o cess
o its 7-5).
nal nder ted r the
he
prices esale
d s per
Specificalbecause o7-4 and T Under favwith 2015average anof 1.57 anand 20.1% For Calve8.07 cents0.3 cents pCalvert C6.11 centsand 6.09 ccents per knominal a Under curmarket prtargets. Thcents per kwith 2015about 3.8 6.4.4 O The Offshunder bothper kWh n Comparedcost, partlper kW, wfactor is 3 Under favfor both psafety to mreturns arefor case 1 For Fentreand a con(cases 10 constant. Under curslightly wpayback i
lly, the Shalloof its tougher, Table 7-5). Its
vorable financ5 Adder Pricend 1.3 times m
nd 1.84 times.%.
ert Cliffs Shals per kWh andper kWh, to tliffs. Specifics constant forcents constankWh nomina
and 5.12 cents
rrent likely finrices. The PJMhe CalculatedkWh and a co
5 Adders, the and 3.0 cents
Ocean Plants
hore Ocean plh favorable finominal and
d to the other ly due to the nwhich is nearl36.2% vs. 28.4
vorable financprojects, debt meet the payme slightly neg0 and is 18 ye
ess Ocean, thstant-dollar Cand 11) by 8.These represe
rrent likely finweaker. All de
s 24 years. Th
ow Water Baywater locatio
s capacity fact
cing, from Tas, which are cminimum eas. However, th
llow Water Bd a constant-dthe COEs fromcally, the Calv
DPL-ODEC t for Calvert Cl and 1.1 cents constant (ca
nancing, fromM forward prid COE case 9 onstant-dollarprices of 7.84
s.
s
lant fails to minancing and 12 to 16.7 cen
wind energy need for massly double the 4% for Coast
cing, from Tacoverage is e
ment, and cougative for caseears for case
e Calculated COE of 11.95 .5 cents to 9.5ent a significa
nancing, fromebt coverage ihe Fentress C
y plant showson, at $2,300 ptor is 35.4% v
able 6-2, lookcases 7 and 8sily, with averhey are both s
ay, the Calcudollar COE ofm PJM forwavert Cliffs BaCoastal Plain
Cliffs Bay (cats constant, ab
ase 7).
m Table 6-1, ricing cases (cfor Shallow W
r COE of 9.074 cents nomin
meet debt covecurrent likelynts per kWh c
plants, the Osive foundatio$1,530 Coastal (see Table
able 6-2, the textremely lowuld fail to be ae 10 and only11.
COE case 12cents per kW
5 cents per kWant gap to cur
m Table 6-1, rs under 1.25 t
Calculated CO
s increased caper kW vs. $1vs. 28.4% (se
king at PJM fo, the projects rage coveragehy in meeting
ulated COE caf 6.27 cents p
ard pricing wiay COEs compns (case 2). Tase 8). The Bbove PJM pri
results for theases 7 and 8) Water Bay sh7 cents per kWnal and 6.09 c
erage and equy financing. Cconstant.
Offshore Oceanons needed intal Plains coste 7-8).
two PJM forww at about 1.0 adequate with
y 4% for case
shows a nomWh. These excWh nominal arrent market p
results for thetimes, IRRs a
OE case 12 sh
apital cost aga1,530 for ove
ee Table 7-8).
orward pricinmeet debt co
e of 2.03 and g the 22% Ba
ase 9 shows aper kWh. Theith 2015 Adde
mpare to pricesThey compare Bay prices are ices at 2.5% i
e Shallow Wa do not meet
hows a nominWh. These arecents constant
uity return tarCalculated CO
an plant showsn severe oceant (See Table
ward pricing cto 1.2 times,
h a slight shift11, at great ri
minal levelizeceed the Fentrand by 6.5 cenprices.
e Fentress Ocare no better tows a nomina
ainst the Coasernight capital.
ng with 2.5% overage target
2.45 times anay return, with
a nominal levese are very clers for DPL-Os of 7.86 cent to prices of 7only a pennyncrease, whic
ater Bay case debt coverag
nal levelized Ce over, for PJt for Calvert C
rgets by a signOEs range from
s the highest n water condi7-4 and Tabl
cases are 10 awhich leaves
ft in circumstaisk. Payback
d COE of 15.ress PJM forwnts to 7.5 cen
cean cases (cathan 1.05%, aal levelized C
stal Plains plal cost (See Ta
escalation ants of 1.5 timesnd with minimh IRRs of 16.
elized COE olose, at 0.2 ceODEC and fots nominal and7.84 cents nomy difference, ach are 6.59 ce
are not so cloe or equity reCOE of 11.67JM forward prCliffs (case 8
nificant margim 15. to 21.5
overnight capitions, at $3,3le 7-5). Its cap
and 11. As shos no margin oances. The eqis never reach
.38 cents per ward pricing Cnts per kWh
ases 10 and 11and the better COE of 21.54
53
ant, able
d s mums 8%
of ents to or d minal at 1.5 ents
ose to eturn 7 ricing ), by
in, 5 cent
pital 90 pacity
own, of quity hed
kWh COEs
1) are
cents
54
per kWh aby 11 to 1 6.4.5 F The authofour differforward pVariabilitymight be cshould invofficials a In additioenergy prithey fetchThe Calcuconstant, load centeRidgeline That said,plants in t Under favmarket proffset to tor slightlyHowever,attractive Plains plaand Tableproduces the COEs Second, socean plan(35.4%), aplants is l$2,300 vs Under favproducingnominal aby 0.3 cen2.5% pricincreases,market pr Under curon the ord
and a constan16 cents.
Final Comme
ors of this reprent wind ene
pricing curvesy to our estimconsidered “bvestigate furthand others.
n, the PJM foices, and ackn
h low off-peakulated COE ewhich approaers and associe plants.
, what do finathe Mid-Atlan
vorable financrices. Under che slightly hi
y reduced cos, even thoughCOEs that m
ant, due to its e 7-5, but withpower efficie often will be
hallow water nts. Bay planas do the offsikely to be lo
s. $3,390 for O
vorable financg power at maand 6.27 centsnts per kWh ace increase. Th, if capital cosrices increase.
rrent, likely fider of 3 to 5 c
nt-dollar COE
ents
ort used budgergy plants, los for four nodemates exists, sball park” numher, working
orward pricingnowledge thak power paymstimates assuach does not diated transmis
ancial results ntic States are
cing, both Cocurrent likely gher financiats and/or oper
h the Ridgelinmeet market pr
mountain loch an improve
ently. When pe attractive to
bay and sounts enjoy nearl
shore Ocean pwer with less
Ocean, per kW
cing, the Calvarket rates. Ws per kWh conand by 1.5 to hese increasests decline wi.
inancing, the cents. Specific
E of 16.74 cen
get pricing estocated two ones. Financing
so our equity rmbers that showith prospect
g estimates mat some Mid-Aments from a mume one capacdistinguish session cost, an
of the cash fle “about ready
astal Plains a(higher-price
al costs, such arating expense plants pay trices. With oncation, at $1,6ed capacity facpower from th
various buye
nd plants showly as good a wplants (36.2%s costly foundW-capacity.
vert Cliffs ShaWith favorable
nstant (case 91.1 cents, fors are not veryith greater ope
Calvert Cliffcally, the Bay
nts per kWh. T
timates to pron land and twog assumptionsreturn percenow a trend or tive power pu
match hourly wAtlantic windmarket that pacity factor foreasonal and timd environmen
ow analysis sy to go.”
nd Ridgeline d) financing cas a site with ses, or a powethe lowest manly a modest i600 per kW foctor of 34.2%
he Ridgeline pers.
w much bettewind regime, ), as stated in
dations than fo
allow Water Bfinancing, th
9, Table 6-2),r PJM forwardy large. They erating experi
fs Bay plant Cy COEs are 11
These greatly
oject capital co in the waters are based onntages and COr direction. Frurchasers, lan
wind plant capds blow strongays top dollarr the year andme-of-day difntal concerns
show? First, th
plants can beconditions, thstronger win
er purchaser warket prices ofincrease in caor overnight c
%, as shown inplants is sold
er financial reas shown by
n Table 7-8. Bor offshore O
Bay plant COhe Bay plant C, are only sligd pricing withmay be overc
rience and/or
COEs, exceed1.67 cents per
y exceed curre
costs and operr. We likewisn first half 201OE results arerom this basisndowners, com
apacity factorsg at night andr for summer
d one energy pfferences. Homust be addr
he land-based
e built to prodhe developer mnds and a highwho will pay f the four nodapital cost ovecapital cost, an Table 7-8, tinto PJM’s w
sults than do their high cap
But the capitaOcean. Overni
OE estimates “COEs, at 8.07ghtly above PJh 2015 Addercome if wind economies of
d market pricer kWh nomin
ent market pri
rating expense projected P12 conditions
e not exact. Ths, a developermmunity and
s against hourd during winte
day time peapayment that owever, distanressed for
d wind energy
duce power atmust look forher capacity faa small prem
des, they shower the Coastal
as seen in Tabthe Ridgeline
wholesale netw
the off-shorepacity factor
al cost of Bay ght capital co
“come close” 7 cents per kWJM market prrs and with thcapacity fact
f scale, or if
es by a greaternal and 9.07 ce
ices,
ses for PJM s. hey r state
rly er aks. holds
nce to
y
t r an factor,
mium. w l
ble 7-4 e plant work,
e
ost is
to Wh rices,
he tor
r gap, ents
per kWh cby 5 to 4 cmay be ovdecline by However,Ocean plaShallow Bfuture dev One final marginal, shortage, the trend iopportuni However,equity invreflect botlow, but itmight shorepaid, agbe cheape
constant (casecents, for PJMvercome withy learning cur
, the Fentress ants offer vastBay wind enervelopment of
note is that Pvariable costspot prices wis. For an “oldity, especially
, for the new cvestors. A capth fixed and vt will not rise
ow a long, stegainst which ser to customer
e 9, Table 6-1M forward prih time, as the trve effects an
Ocean COEst area potentiargy plants weboth Bay and
PJM must be rt, so during an
will rise. Powed, mature” sm
y as fuel price
capital-intenspital intensivevariable costse to meet spot ady, revenue
spot prices risrs in the long
1), which excicing with 20technology imd scale econo
s do not appeaal, but bridginere built, the fd Ocean plant
recognized asny period of oer plants sellinmall power plaes rise.
sive plant, have power plant . The wind enmarket highsstream that in
se and fall likerun.
ceed PJM mar15 Adders anmproves, so thomies.
ar economicang such a largfield experients.
s a spot markeoversupply orng at PJM whant, that has r
ving prices fotends to be p
nergy plant’s s. The tariff pncreases slowe waves again
rket prices, bynd with the 2.5he capacity fa
ally viable forge economic gnce gained in
et. Spot markr glut, spot prholesale pricerepaid its deb
ollow a variabpriced better u
tariff would npattern for a pwer than inflatnst a wall. Th
y 3.8 to 3.0 ce5% price incractor increase
r the foreseeabgap will be chdoing so wou
ket prices tendices will fall.
es “ride along”bt, this represe
ble path is upsunder long-ternot fall to me
profitable wintion and dips
he long, steady
ents per kWhrease. This gaes and capital
ble future. Thhallenging. Ifuld benefit the
d to reflect During a
” with whatevents a great
setting to debrm contracts weet the spot mnd energy plan
down after dey tariff patter
55
h and ap
costs
he f e
ver
bt and which
market nt ebt is
rn can
7.0 ProPlant C For the MSection 6of Class 4Project Fi2012, whibetter termCarolina, location a Across thePlains (lan(offshore As is wella project lconstruct,cost. Anoas for Oceand effect This chap
7.1 Pr
7.2 P
7.3 C
7.4 S
7.5 P
7.6 O
7.7 FP
7.1 Pow The SectiInvestmenassume limthe one prIndependebalance, amay be m Plant perfof revenu
oject EconCapital Co
Mid-Atlantic W. As discusse
4, which is owinance basis. Tich tends to inms. As discusand the Distr
and equipmen
e Mid-Atlantind), Ridge Lion continenta
l known, windlife running 2, the wind regther option isean, but wherts, in the Mid
pter will discu
roject Financ
JM Forward P
Capital Costs f
ources of Fun
erformance (P
Operating Exp
inancial Assulants.
wer Plant Pr
on 6 results wnt (DCF-ROI)mited recoursroject, not by ent Power Proas 40% to 50%
much longer, s
formance and es, operating
nomic Inpusts, Opera
Wind energy rd, the authors
wned and finaTwo types ofnvolve non-inssed, the Mid-rict of Columbnt type.
ic region, fouine (mountainal shelf).
d energy plan25 years or longime in the mos Sheltered Wre construction-Atlantic regi
uss:
e Discounted
Pricing Forec
for the Wind
nds for the W
Plant Capacit
penses for the
umptions for C
roject Disco
were obtained) analysis. Finse project finathe balance s
oducer, acting% of cost, as eo debt term is
capital cost texpenses, and
uts and Aating Exp
report, resultss assume a 10
anced by an Inf financing arenvestment-gra-Atlantic regibia. The spec
ur classificationous land), Sh
nts are capitalnger. While Rountains and
Water plants, wn cost is loweion of the Uni
d Cash Flow –
casts – Energy
Energy Plant
Wind Energy P
ty Factors) for
Wind Energy
Current, Like
ounted Cas
d by reviewingnancing and oance, where dsheets of the pg as developeequity. The prs 20 years.
to build the pld other charg
ssumptioenses, an
s of the cash f00 MW wind ndependent Poe examined –ade-rated debton includes Dific plant cap
ons of wind faheltered Wate
intensive to bRidge Line anfar offshore i
where the winer than for Ocited States, is
– Return On I
y and Capacit
s,
Plants,
r the Wind En
y Plants, and
ely and for Fa
sh Flow – R
g the projectsownership fordebt and equitproject develor, raises debt roject has a 2
lant are estimges. After-tax
ons – Finand Financ
flow analysis farm, utilizinower Produce
– the current st, and favorab
Delaware, Mapacity factor w
arm will be ster (shallow ba
build, but thend Ocean planis stronger and regime may
cean plants. Ts the purpose
Investment M
ty Payments
nergy Plants,
avorable Finan
Return on I
s using Discour each of the ty investors aroper or otherat 60% to 50
25-year contra
mated, with forcash flow is c
ncial Methial Assum
were set forthng measured wer (IPP) on a strong standarble financing,aryland, Virgiwill be adjuste
tudied. Theseays and sound
en operate witnts are more end steady, whiy be nearly as
To investigateof this report
Methodology,
ncing of the W
Investment
unted Cash F100 MW winre secured onequity invest
0% of capital act life, althou
rward projectcalculated.
hodologymptions
h in the previwinds in the rlimited recou
rd, as of first-, which assuminia, North ed based on
e are: Coastal ds), and Ocean
th “free fuel,”expensive to ich may offses strong and se these trade-ot.
Wind Energy
t Methodol
Flow – Returnnd energy plannly by assets fors. An cost and raiseugh useful life
tions for 25 y
57
,
ous range urse half
mes
n
” over
et the steady offs
logy
n on nts for
es the fe
years
58
Two methprices arecoverage.model cal 7.1.1 P As discusOrganizatStates. PJon the net For this reFigure 5.central tracentral traare derivepower, pr PJM forwso as to defour pricinpricing daforward e In order towas determthe inflatipower escwith implfrom 2013 When forwon equity developerimprove tby increaswith a betparticipan 7.1.2 C By contrareasonablstream frorate) and m
9 The US Enover the nexThe rate wa
hods of perfor forecast; so t The second ilculates the as
PJM Forward
sed, PJM is thtion (RTO) thM nodes are rtwork.
eport, four PJ3. Western H
ading hub andading hub, Weed . Prices at nices at nodes
ward prices areevelop a “basng points (e.gata from NYMnergy pricing
o best accounmined to repronary adder,
calation [19].9ementation o3 through 203
ward prices winvestment, a
r proceeds witthe project, bysing revenuestter wind regints may reject
Calculated C
ast, methodoloe return (to d
om which to fminimum deb
nergy Informatioxt 25 years (2010as 2.8% per the 2
rming cash flothe model calis where an atssociated reve
d Pricing
he Penn-Jersehat operates threpresentative
JM nodes plusHub, which is d is located viestern Hub’s nodes reflect can run high
e forecast, bassis” or differeng., Calvert CliMEX; and Qug. See Section
nt for the effecresent these riwhich is cons
9 The high casf EPA Utility
37.
were preparedas after-tax IRth the projecty reducing caps by negotiatinme. If IRR ant the project, b
OE
ogy for the caebt and equityfigure Cost ofbt coverage re
on Administratio0 – 2035), per th2011 AEO.
ow financial alculates returnttractive equitenue stream o
ey-Maryland he power gride of substatio
s PJM’s Westan aggregatioirtually near Pprices serve alocal supply a. The four nod
sed on regresntial for impaiffs vs. Weste
ualitative Anan 5 for details
cts of the poteisks by two seservative basese, termed “2
y standards, as
d and entered RR, and debt t. If IRR and dpital cost if thng with the pond debt coverbelieving that
alculated COEy investors), af Energy (COequirements,
on projects the Whe 2012 Annual E
analysis weren on equity inty return and
or Cost of Ene
Interconnectid and wholesaons, aggregate
tern Hub baseon of about 10Pittsburgh, PAas reference eand demand. des are descri
sion analysis act experienceern Hub); threlysis perform
s.
ential future iets of forwarded on recent r015 Adder Prs discussed in
into the cash coverage. If Idebt coveragehis can be donower purchas
rage are very lt project econ
E approach is and enter thisE), which meis the output
Wholesale Price IEnergy Outlook
e utilized. Thenvestment, as
adequate debergy (COE) n
ion, which is ale electric maed locations, g
e node were e00 underlyingA. As the moselectric pricesWhen there iibed in Sectio
of four yearsed between thee years of act
med on potenti
impacts to ened prices. The respected ecorices,” assumn Section 5. P
flow analysisIRR and debt e are slightly ne safely, by ser or by posslow, the deve
nomics cannot
to estimate ths data as the meets minimumof cash flow
Index for Fuel ak (AEO), early re
e first is wherafter-tax IRR
bt coverage arnecessary.
the Regional arket of the Mgenerators an
examined, as mg physical nodst liquid points against whicis congestion on 5.
s of historic hhe Western Htual Commodial impacts of
ergy pricing flower case as
onomic forecamed price escaProject analys
s, the model ccoverage loolow, the devereducing ope
sibly relocatineloper and otht be sufficient
he plant’s cosmodel’s inputm IRR require
modeling.
and Power to increlease version, d
re forward poR, and debt re assumed, s
TransmissionMid-Atlantic nd other locati
mapped withdes, is PJM’s t and PJM’s ch all other noin supplying
hourly nodal pHub and each odities futures f factors affec
for this reportssumed 2.5% asts for fuel analation associasis runs 25 ye
calculates retuok attractive, teloper looks trating charge
ng to another her project tly improved.
sts plus a ts. A revenue ements (the hu
rease by 3.1% pdated January 20
ower
o the
n
ions
odes
prices, of the
cting
t, it for
nd ated ars,
urn the to es, or site
.
urdle
er year 12.
From thisis at or bemarket pris relative It is usefusome Middifferencecalculatedthat holds 7.1.3 T Conseque7-1 belowconservatcomprisin7.7. As sh Table 7-1. A
Anal
conservat
1 Reve2.5%
2 Reve2015
3 Reveassumequit
favorable
4 Reve2.5%
5 Reve2015
6 Reveassumequit
7.1.4 T For each aare preparone, on a as inflatio
analysis, theelow market prices, then theely high, the d
ul to note that d-Atlantic wines in pricing, d COE approas constant.
Three Sets of
ently, for eachw. Furthermor
ive, current-dng 60% BBB-hown, six case
Analysis Metho
lysis Method
tive 50% debt t
enues Given, as% Escalation.
enues Given, asAdder Prices.
enue Pricing bymes attractive dy return are giv
e financing with
enues Given, as% Escalation.
enues Given, asAdder Prices.
enue Pricing bymes attractive dy return are giv
Three Measu
analysis, whered. These incunit basis, or
on or inflation
analyst compprices, the deve developer wdeveloper may
PJM forwardnds blow stronby hourly on-ach is simplifi
f Analysis pe
h of the four nre, assuming aday 50% BB-r-rated 20-yeares are examin
od per Node/Pla
to 50% equity
s PJM Forward
s PJM Forward
y Calculated COdebt coverage aven.
h 60% BBB-ra
s PJM Forward
s PJM Forward
y Calculated COdebt coverage aven.
ures of COE
ether it reflectclude year onper kWh. Be
n less one half
pares the planveloper will p
will negotiate py reject the pr
d pricing estimnger at night -peak/off-pea
fied, assuming
er Node/Plan
nodes, three sa 25-year projrated 20-year r debt at 4.0%ned for each p
ant Site
d Pricing with
d Pricing with
OE, which and after-tax
ated debt at a lo
d Pricing with
d Pricing with
OE, which and after-tax
ts PJM forware COE, which
ecause future f percent, the
nt’s COE to wproceed with tproject detailsroject.
mates match hand during w
ak rates and byg one capacity
nt Location
ets of analysiject life, two debt at 7.5%
% to 40% equiproject/plant s
Model O
After-taxCoverag
After-taxCoverag
Revenuecalculate
ower interest ra
After-taxCoverag
After-taxCoverag
Revenuecalculate
rd pricing or ah is the combrevenues ofteyear one figu
what the markthe project. Ifs and terms, a
hourly wind pwinter) against
y season (e.gy factor for th
is are performtypes of finan
% to 50% equitity. These aresite.
Output
x Equity IRR age Level.
x Equity IRR age Level.
e Stream, from ed the Project’s
ate to 40% equ
x Equity IRR age Level.
x Equity IRR age Level.
e Stream, from ed the Project’s
a calculated Cbined energy aen are projecture serves as a
ket is paying. f the COE is cas described a
plant capacityt hourly energ., summer pe
he year and on
med. These arencing are examty and favora
e described la
and Debt
and Debt
m which is s COE.
uity
and Debt
and Debt
m which is s COE.
COE, three mand capacity rted to escalatean easy rule o
If the plant’s close to a rangabove. If the C
y factors (e.g.gy prices showak). The ne energy pay
e listed in Tamined –
able financingater, with Sect
measures of COrevenues for e by a patternof thumb.
59
COE ge of COE
, that wing
yment
ble
g, tion
OE year , such
60
The otherreflect 25 heavily. Tless operaThe analynon-deducThe analyyear Sectiyears of afigured byrecording To figure year, comaverage coalternate spreferablerevenues, calculate oValue. Th If the analCOE. If aalso termeexample, 4.39% (asmakers fofuture. Note that contractuathen the avalue, fromay yieldinflation-f When runtends to bcharged toafter-tax iinvestors.process. 7.2 PJM Energy coforecasts athe Wester5.1.2. Ave
r two measureyears of proj
To figure nomating expensesyst then figurectible paymen
yst then deducion 45 Producafter-tax cash y comparing ethe average a
COE, the anambining energy
ost of capital source of powe to introducinthe analyst c
one level payhe analyst div
lyst uses a noa constant-doled a real COEif the nomina
s (1 + 0.07)/(1or setting metr
when financially-specific o
analyst must pm which to c
d a different afree taxable in
nning a cash fbalance three oo customers; 2internal rate o As new infor
M Forward
omprises the laare based on forn Hub and th
erage on-peak
es are levelizeect revenues,
minal COE, ths, interest, anes annual cashnts like princicts income taxction Tax Creare used to fieach year’s opand minimum
alyst returns ty and capacityof a tradition
wer to end cusng a mix of raalculates a Ne
yment per yeaides by annua
ominal discoular rate, exclu
E. Constant-doal discount rat1 + 0.025) – 1rics and goals
ing a power por nominal deprepare nominalculate the lenswer. The Uncome.
flow analysis,objectives. Th2) adequate d
of return (IRRrmation is dev
Pricing Fo
arger share of four years of hihree years of ac
and off-peak
ed nominal-do, but time value analyst calcd non-cash chh flows as befipal on debt ax payable andedit. This giveigure the projeperating incom
m (worst year)
to his cash floy payments. F
nal utility, becstomers, and tates reflectinget Present Va
ar over the yeaal power prod
unt rate to leveuding inflationollar levelizedte is 7.00% an1). Constant-ds and for prep
plant project oebt and paymenal inflated caevelized cons
US Internal Re
either with ahese are: 1) a debt coverageR) on investmeveloped, the c
orecasts – E
PJM wholesaistorical PJM ctual NYMEXenergy prices,
ollar COE andue of money mculates 25 yeaharges, to figufore-tax incomand any reservd adds back anes after-tax caect’s IRR (Intme against th).
ow analysis anFor his discoucause the utilithe utility’s rag different devalue. He or shars of project duced to figur
elize the nomn, is used, thed COEs are lond inflation isdollar COEs aparing R&D b
or other businent of incomeash flows, whstant-dollar Cevenue Servic
a revenue strealow Cost of E for lenders oent, composecash flows ar
Energy and
le power pricepower prices,
X data extrapo, were broken
d levelized comeans that eaars of project ure before-taxme plus depreve fund paymny tax creditsash. Against iternal Rate of
he debt payme
nd lists the prunt rate, he ority either buyate will standvelopers. Fro
he then levelizlife that is eq
re a unit COE
minal NPV, heen the analystower, becauses 2.50%, thenare useful to gbudgets, whic
ness venture ine tax (calculathich are deflatOE. Performice does not re
am given or tEnergy (COE
or other debt ied of cash andre rerun in wh
d Capacity
es. For this an, collected by holated out 25 yn out by season
onstant-dollararly years are cash flows, sx income, andeciation and a
ments, to figurs, such as wininitial equity if Return). Deent (interest p
roject’s annuar she might us wholesale p
dardize the anaom the streamzes the Net Prquivalent to thE, per kWh.
e or she calcult figures a cone they exclud
n the constant government ach look out ma
nvolves repayted on inflateted to figure aing a constanecognize cons
to calculate CE) from the reinvestors; andd tax benefits,hat tends to be
y Payment
nalysis, the PJMhour, for each
years as descrin and are set fo
r COE. They counted mor
showing revend income taxeamortization lre before-tax cnd energy’s 10investment, th
ebt coverage iplus principal)
al revenues, bse the weight
power or is analysis. This is
m of nominal resent Value, he Net Presen
lates a nominnstant-dollar
de inflation. Fdiscount rate
and industry pany years into
yment of ed nominal pra net present
nt-dollar analystant-dollar
COE, the analyevenues (tariffd 3) an attract, for equity e an iterative
s
M Forward Prh of four nodesibed in Sectionforth in Table
each re nues es. less cash. 0-he s ), and
by ted n s
to nt
nal COE,
For e is policy o the
ofits),
ysis
yst ff) tive
ricing s plus n 7-2.
Table 7-2. P
Calvert CCloverdaDPL-OPEFentress Western H
Prices maprice dataSeptembeSummer: and Sprinlowest no
Figure 7-1 A
For capaccalculate aby 365 dacapacity fthe 20% i Table 7-3. P
UnconstrMAAC (M
PJM Power Pri
Off-PeFall
Cliffs 4.ale 3.EC 4.
4.Hub 3.
ay be illustratea covers Januaer through NoJune through
ng prices, for bde prices in a
Average PJM E
city, in the PJMannual revenu
ays. Althoughfactor of 20%s raised to act
PJM Capacity P
ained RTO ZoMid-Atlantic A
ices (Cents/kWh
ak On-Peak
.42 6.34
.28 4.70
.42 6.38
.21 5.83
.97 5.60
ed as the grouary 01, 2007 tovember, Winh August Thisboth on-peak all groups.
Energy Prices b
M forward prues, one mult
h the current f for the first ttual.
Payments
ne Area Council)
h) by Season an
k Off-Peak Winter
4 5.600 4.298 5.523 5.340 4.92
up of node prithrough Marc
nter: Decembe chart shows and off-peak
by Season
ricing forecasttiplies the payfactor is 13%,two years. If t
StraightEscala
($/MW-
nd by Node
On-Peak
6.66 5.36 6.96 6.18 6.06
ices by each och 24, 2011. Ter through Febthat PJM’s su
k, are low. In a
ts, prices are yment ($/MW it was assumthe plant prov
2.5% ation -day)
60.00175.00
Off-Peak OSpring
4.53 3.29 4.61 4.30 4.10
of four seasonThe seasons abruary, Sprinummer on-peaddition, Clov
estimated as W-day) by planmed that PJM ves it has a be
2015 Adder($/MW-d
On-Peak OffSum
6.33 5.05 6.54 5.85 5.89
ns, as shown are defined asng: March throak prices are verdale Ridge
shown belownt capacity bywould estima
etter capacity
r Prices day)
90.00 240.00
f-Peak On-Pmmer
5.67 3.46 5.44 5.47 4.73
in Figure 7-1 Autumn: ough May, anhighest. Autueline prices ar
w, in Table 7-y capacity facate a wind enefactor over ti
61
Peak
8.43 6.35 8.56 8.07 7.38
1. The
nd umn re the
-3. To ctor ergy ime,
62
The UncoFentress. establisheElectric CUtilities. Tplant slow By contraa rate of 1assumptio 7.3 Cap Wind powset forth bselected, sturbines w For the Coto the sitePrimer repplants, capwith indu The largemaintenanturbine is
Figure 7-2.
onstrained RTThe MAAC a
ed in 1994. PJCompany, MeThe escalation
wly, over man
ast, for the “C1.0% per yearon of 20% for
ital Costs
wer plant equibelow. For lanso total plant were selected,
oastal Plains e, but are simiport [24]. Baspital costs westry and gove
st difference bnce. Sea baseto be located
Offshore wind
TO (Regional areas are DPLJM states the tropolitan Edn rate for cap
ny years.
alculated COr, is used for ar the first two
for the Win
ipment and sund-based projsize is 100.5
, so total plan
plant, plant ailar to those useline costs were estimated ernment sourc
between landd tower found
d, as shown in
turbine platfor
TransmissionL-ODEC and MAAC regio
dison Companpacity is estim
OE” cases, oneall cases. The years.
nd Energy
upport facilityects, on CoasMW. For wa
nt size is 100.0
nd equipmentused by DOE were updated f
by an experieces.
d and sea basedation design
n Figure 7.2.
rm designs for s
n OrganizatioCalvert Cliff
on includes thny, Pennsylva
mated at a rate
e capacity payactual annua
Plants
y constructionstal Plains andater-based proj0 MW.
t costs and buand NREL, afor inflation aenced enginee
ed projects is ns differ accor
shallow bays an
on) areas are Wfs. MAAC is the transmissioania Electric Ce of 1% per ye
yment of $16al capacity fac
n and installatd on Ridgelin
ojects, in Bays
usiness conditas set forth in and converteder after review
attributed to trding to the d
nd ocean applic
Western Hub,the Mid-Atlan
on zones of BaCompany, andear, because u
5.00 per MWctor is used, w
tion costs usenes, 1.5 MW ts and Ocean,
tions were upNREL’s Janu
d to 2012 dollwing the litera
the cost of foepth of water
cations.
, Cloverdale, ntic Area Coualtimore Gas d PPL Electriutilities replac
W-day, escalatiwith no reduce
ed in this studturbines were5 MW wind
pdated and revuary 2008 COlars. For the oature and talk
undations andr in which the
and uncil, and
ic ce
ing at ed
dy are e
vised OE other king
d e wind
Foundatiobased ridgto site on than land- For oceancost from project coturbine inapplicatioto weight,have highsea and di For this reand to sta Below is Ttower, andRidgeline
10 The 4-legtons. These Wind Suppl11 Heffron, RMaryland, S
on costs in shageline applicabarges and so-based projec
n applicationsthe engineeri
ost and 30-40%n extreme weaons, while use, height and le
her maintenanistance from s
eport, costs arrt operating in
Table 7-4 whd step-up tran
e, to just over
g platforms for 4
are installed in tly Chain ExamplRon, et al, “Red
September 2011.
allow, 3 to 10ations. On wao overall consts.
the foundatioing firm Moff% of capital eather conditioe of the largerength transpo
nce costs than shore.
re expressed in 2013.
hich shows plnsformer and $1,600/kW fo
8 of the 6 MW Rthe North Sea inle”, at Virginia O
ducing the Cost o.
0 m, water depater, cranes anstruction cost
ons become mffatt and Nichoequipment cosns and becau
r 5 MW turbinortation restric
land-based p
in 2012 dollar
ant capital cocontrols. Turb
for Shallow B
REPower turbinen water up to 26 mOffshore Wind Dof Offshore Wind
pth in bays annd heavy conss for shallow
much heavier o11 showed thst. This is becse larger, 5Mne componentctions. In add
projects due to
rs, because th
osts. As showbine costs runay, to just ov
es being installedm deep. Source:Development Aud Turbine Found
nd sounds arestruction equiwater sites m
and more coshat foundationcause of the n
MW turbines ats is unlikely
dition, offshoro access limit
he plants are a
wn, the turbinen $1,100/kWer $1,700/kW
d in Thornton B McNeilan, T., P
uthority meetingdations”, AWEA
e assumed to bipment can be
may not be sig
stly10. Data onns can amounneed to suppoare anticipated
in land basedre applicationtations caused
assumed to be
e capital cost for Coastal P
W for Ocean.
Bank in Belgium Presentation “Eu
g, 12 January 201A Offshore Conf
be similar toe easily movegnificantly gre
n European pnt to 24% of thort and protectd for offshored applicationsns are assumedd by condition
e built during
includes turbPlains and
each weigh oveuropean Offshor12. ference, Baltimo
63
land-ed site eater
project he t the
e s due d to ns at
g 2012
bine,
r 300 e
re,
6
TA
C
P
T
T
C
TC
F
T
C
A
(
PI
I
T
T
EA
64
Table 7-4. Fully LoaAssuming IPP Own
Component
Plant Size (MW)
Turbine
Tower
Step-up TransformerControls
TURBINE CAPITACOST
Foundation
Transportation
Civil Works & Road
Assembly & Installat
System Control & D(SCADA)
Plant Substations & Intraconnection
Step-up TransformerIntraplant Interconne
Transmission Lines
Substation and Transmission Lines
Engineering, PermitsApproval
aded Capital Costs (ership and Project F
Coastal PlaiDPL-ODEC67 1.5 MW t
Cost ($/kW)
956.0
130.7
r and 13.3
AL 1,100.0
52.7
54.7
ds 85.3
tion 54.7
ata 13.3
136.7
r and ection 0.0
0.0
0.0
s, and 35.3
(Uses of Funds) for tFinance, located in t
ins – C turbines
R67
) Cost ($1,000) C
100.5
96,078
13,132
1,340
110,550
5,293
5,494
8,576
5,494
1,340
13,735
0
3,551
the 2012 100 MW Wthe Mid-Atlantic re
idgeline - Cloverdal7 1.5 MW turbines
ost ($/kW) Cost ($
956.0 9
130.7 1
13.3
1,100.0 11
60.7
63.3
98.0
63.3
13.3
157.3 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.7
Wind Energy Plantsgion (in 2012 dollar
le Shallow BaCalvert Cli20 5.0 MW
$1,000) Cost ($/kW
100.5
96,078 0.0
13,132 1,610.0
1,340 0.0
10,550 1,610.0
6,097 115.0
6,365 115.0
9,849 0.0
6,365 92.0
1,340 23.0
15,812 0.0
253.0
0 0.0
0.0
4,087 92.0
. rs).
ays – iffs
W turbines
O2
W) Cost ($1,000) C
100
0
0 161,000
0
0 161,000
0 11,500
0 11,500
0 0
0 9,200
0 2,300
0
0 25,300
0
0 0
0 9,200
Offshore Ocean - Fe20 5.0 MW turbines
Cost ($/kW) Cost (
0.0
1,709.7 1
0.0
1,709.7 1
460.0
230.0
0.0
200.0
41.7
0.0
583.8
0.0
0.0
166.8
entress
$1,000)
100
70,970
70,970
46,000
23,000
0
20,000
4,170
58,380
0
16,680
C
BS
IC
A5
C(5
C(dr
D5
E
Dm7y
W(w
T
Component
BALANCE OF STATION COST
INITIAL OVERNIGCAPITAL COST
Assume plant financi50% Debt to 50% eq
Construction Financi(8% * subtotal * 1 ye50% level drawdown
Construction Insuran(0.36% to 0.50% of depreciable base, frorecent quote)
Debt Financing Fees50% capital fraction)
Equity Financing Fee* 50% capital fractio
Debt Financing Resemonths payment, giv7.50% interest over 2years)
Working Capital Res(O&M * 1 year * 25%which is 3 months.)
TOTAL LOADED
Coastal PlaiDPL-ODEC67 1.5 MW t
Cost ($/kW)
432.7
GHT 1,532.7
ing is quity.
ing ear * n)
nce
m a
(1% * )
es (2% on)
erve (6 ven 20
serve %,
COST 1,669.2
ins – C turbines
R67
) Cost ($1,000) C
43,483
154,033
6,000
580
840
1,680
4,100
520
167,753
idgeline - Cloverdal7 1.5 MW turbines
ost ($/kW) Cost ($
496.7 4
1,596.7 16
1,738.1 17
le Shallow BaCalvert Cli20 5.0 MW
$1,000) Cost ($/kW
49,915 690.0
60,465 2,300.0
6,200
600
870
1,750
4,250
540
74,675 2,501.9
ays – iffs
W turbines
O2
W) Cost ($1,000) C
0 69,000
0 230,000
8,800
1,000
1,250
2,500
6,090
550
9 250,190
Offshore Ocean - Fe20 5.0 MW turbines
Cost ($/kW) Cost (
1,682.3 1
3,392.0 3
3,697.3 3
entress
$1,000)
68,230
39,200
13,200
1,780
1,850
3,700
9,000
1,000
69,730
65
66
Balance oparts and interconnebased planper kW foOcean, wh Note that water-bastransmissigrid. The Southapproved by approvprices cansystem wiopted not Also noteconnect oStates.15 Wtreat the traccording Looking aconstructeConstructmonth debfully loadCoastal Plassume cugrade, andto fully ut For favoraThe overnconstructiof the debruns $1,66$3,680 peslightly le 12 “SPP PropDistribution13 DiMugnoPublications14 NAW StaZackin Publ15 On MarcRegulation aRegionalProat http://ww
of Station (BOinstallation. Bection for thents, plus engior Coastal Plahich requires
for the land-bed plants, a sion can vary w
hwest Power Psome new pr
ving Order 10n vary widely ide electric mto include tra
the Atlantic ffshore powe
While it has yransmission l
gly. The wires
at Table 7- 4,ed are added. tion insurancebt service res
ded project caplains and Ridurrent, likely d 50% equitytilize the Sect
able financingnight capital cion insurancebt and equity r60 to $1,730 per kW for Oceess than those poses New Cost
n World, Penton o, Laura, “FERCs, Waterbury CTaff, “FERC Denlications, Waterb
ch 31, 2011, Atlaand Enforcemenoposals.htm . On
ww.atlanticwindc
OS) costs incluBOS costs fure land-based pneering desig
ains and Ridgesubstantial fo
based plants, ubstation andwidely and w
Pool and otherojects.12 In Ju000.13 In May
and because market participansmission co
Wind Connecer generation tyet to be deterlines and a plas are brought
, one sees thatThese includ
e was added, berve was addpital cost. As
dgeline, to $2,(first half 201, where the eqtion 45 Produ
g, plant capitacost is identic, and workingraised, and thper kW for Cean. It is inter listed earlier
t Sharing MethodMedia Inc.; New Final Rule Refo
T; July 26, 2011.nies Rehearing onbury CT; May 1antic Grid Holdinnt (BOEMRE). Sn December 20, 2connection.com/f
ude foundatiorther include plants or step-gns, permits, aeline, to $690oundations.
transmission d transmission
will be high fo
ers are lookinuly 2011, FER2012, FERC it is unclear w
pants, so as noosts here.
ction (AWC).to the onshorermined how thant substationto the project
t to the overnde constructiobased on a sped, as well asshown, the fu500/kW for S
12) financingquity investor
uction Tax Cre
al costs are secal by the twog capital are the debt serviceCoastal Plains resting that thr.
d for Expandingw York, NY; Aporms Transmissi n Transmission P8, 2012. ngs submitted a
See http://www.b2010, AWC fileferc/2010-12-fili
on, transportaSCADA equi-up transformand approvals0 per kW for S
lines are not n lines are notr a Ridgeline
ng at cost-sharRC addressedupheld Orde
when transmiot to confuse
. The AWC ise electrical grhe cost will bn as part of tht.
night plant cosn financing a
pring 2011 qus financing fefully loaded prShallow Bay, , with 50% ders are assumeedit (PTC).
et forth in Tab financing mehe same. Onle reserve chanand Ridgeline total loaded
g the Regional Elpril 19 2010. ion Planning, Co
Planning and Co
request for rightboemre.gov/offsd with FERC, iningsummary/.
ation, civil woipment, plant
mer and Interps. As shown, Shallow Bay,
included witht included as
e or Ocean pla
ring methods d transmissioner 1000.14Accoission is allocproject econo
s a proposed lrid of the Mide paid, in Eure grid and the
st, certain cosand a small wouote for propees to raise debroject cost ruto $3,697/kW
ebt rated BB, ed to be in a p
ble 7-5 belowethods. The cly the financinnge. As show
ne, to $2,490 pd costs under
lectric Transmis
ost Allocation,” N
ost Allocation O
t-of-way to the Bshore/Renewablen a petition for d
orks and roadt substations aplant Interconn
BOS costs ru, and to $1,68
h plant cost. Ipart of the pl
ant that is loca
and, in early n planning anordingly, bec
cated to a projomics, the aut
large transmid Atlantic andrope it is comeir costs are a
sts to get the porking capitarty damage anbt and equity
uns $1,670 to W for Ocean. which is non
positive earnin
w. As shown, construction fng fees, whic
wn, the fully loper kW for Shfavorable fin
ssion Grid,” Tran
North American
Order,” North Am
Bureau of OceaneEnergy/StateAcdeclaratory order
ds, and assemband nection for w
un $430 to $580 per kW for
In addition foant cost. Costated far from
2012, SPP d cost allocatause transmisject or to regithors of this r
ission system d New Englan
mmon practiceallocated
plant financedal reserve. nd liability. A
y, to produce a$1,740/kW foThese plants
n-investment-ngs mode and
for all four pfinancing, h are percentoaded projecthallow Bay, a
nancing are ju
nsmission &
n Windpower, Za
merican Windpow
n Management, ctivities-r. See the press r
bly of
water-00 r
or the t of the
tion ssion onal report
to nd e to
d and
A six-a or
-d able
lants.
ages t cost and to st
ackin
wer,
release
T
AalAd
P
T
T
C
TC
F
T
C
A
(
PI
I
T
T
Table 7-5. Fully Loa
Assuming IPP Ownand Project Financelocated in the Mid-Atlantic region (in 2dollars).Component
Plant Size (MW)
Turbine
Tower
Step-up TransformerControls
TURBINE CAPITACOST
Foundation
Transportation
Civil Works & Road
Assembly & Installat
System Control & D(SCADA)
Plant Substations & Intraconnection
Step-up TransformerIntraplant Interconne
Transmission Lines
Substation and Transmission Lines
aded Capital Costs (
nership e,
2012 t
Coastal PlaiDPL-ODEC67 1.5 MW t
Cost ($/kW)
956.0
130.7
r and 13.3
AL 1,100.0
52.7
54.7
ds 85.3
tion 54.7
ata 13.3
136.7
r and ection 0.0
0.0
0.0
(Uses of Funds) with
ins – C turbines
R67
) Cost ($1,000) C
100.5
96,078
13,132
1,340
110,550
5,293
5,494
8,576
5,494
1,340
13,735
0
h Favorable Financi
idgeline - Cloverdal7 1.5 MW turbines
ost ($/kW) Cost ($
956.0 9
130.7 1
13.3
1,100.0 11
60.7
63.3
98.0
63.3
13.3
157.3 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
ing. for the 2012 100
le Shallow BaCalvert Cli20 5.0 MW
$1,000) Cost ($/kW
100.5
96,078 0.0
13,132 1,610.0
1,340 0.0
10,550 1,610.0
6,097 115.0
6,365 115.0
9,849 0.0
6,365 92.0
1,340 23.0
15,812 0.0
253.0
0 0.0
0.0
0 MW Wind Energy
ays – iffs
W turbines
O2
W) Cost ($1,000) C
100
0
0 161,000
0
0 161,000
0 11,500
0 11,500
0 0
0 9,200
0 2,300
0
0 25,300
0
0 0
y Plants.
Offshore Ocean - Fe20 5.0 MW turbines
Cost ($/kW) Cost (
0.0
1,709.7 1
0.0
1,709.7 1
460.0
230.0
0.0
200.0
41.7
0.0
583.8
0.0
0.0
entress
$1,000)
100
70,970
70,970
46,000
23,000
0
20,000
4,170
58,380
0
67
6
AalAd
EA
BS
IC
A6
C(5
C(dr
D6
E
Dm4y
W(w
T
68
Assuming IPP Ownand Project Financelocated in the Mid-Atlantic region (in 2dollars).Component
Engineering, PermitsApproval
BALANCE OF STATION COST
INITIAL OVERNIGCAPITAL COST
Assume plant financi60% Debt to 40% eq
Construction Financi(8% * subtotal * 1 ye50% level drawdown
Construction Insuran(0.36% to 0.42% of depreciable base, frorecent quote)
Debt Financing Fees60% capital fraction)
Equity Financing Fee* 40% capital fractio
Debt Financing Resemonths payment, giv4.00% interest over 2years)
Working Capital Res(O&M * 1 year * 25%which is 3 months.)
TOTAL LOADED
nership e,
2012 t
Coastal PlaiDPL-ODEC67 1.5 MW t
Cost ($/kW)
s, and 35.3
432.7
GHT 1,532.7
ing is quity.
ing ear * n)
nce
m a
(1% * )
es (2% on)
erve (6 ven 20
serve %,
COST 1,663.1
ins – C turbines
R67
) Cost ($1,000) C
3,551
43,483
154,033
6,000
580
1,000
1,340
3,670
520
167,143
idgeline - Cloverdal7 1.5 MW turbines
ost ($/kW) Cost ($
40.7
496.7 4
1,596.7 16
1,732.0 17
le Shallow BaCalvert Cli20 5.0 MW
$1,000) Cost ($/kW
4,087 92.0
49,915 690.0
60,465 2,300.0
6,200
600
1,040
1,400
3,820
540
74,065 2,493.2
ays – iffs
W turbines
O2
W) Cost ($1,000) C
0 9,200
0 69,000
0 230,000
8,800
1,000
1,500
2,000
5,470
550
2 249,320
Offshore Ocean - Fe20 5.0 MW turbines
Cost ($/kW) Cost (
166.8
1,682.3 1
3,392.0 3
3,684.3 3
entress
$1,000)
16,680
68,230
39,200
13,200
1,780
2,200
2,950
8,100
1,000
68,430
7.4 Sou For the MIndependeMW, this or munici Given Useshown in Table 7-6. SAssuming 5
Funds
Debt
Second Lo
Equity
Total
Table 7-7. SAssuming 6
Funds
Debt
Second Lo
Equity
Total
As will beTax Credilikely finaDPL-ODEfinancing,and $149.
rces of Fu
Mid-Atlantic Went Power Prois the more lipal utility mi
es of Funds, aTable 7-6 an
Sources of Fund50% Debt to 50
s DPL-O
CoasPlai
8
oan
8
16
Sources of Fund60% Debt to 40
s DPL-O
CoasPlai
10
oan
6
16
e discussed lait (PTC), whiancing approaEC Coastal Pl, the debt frac.592 million f
nds
Wind Energy soducer using ikely ownershght pursue wi
as shown in Tnd Table 7-7,
ds for 2012 100 0% Equity (in 2
ODEC stal ins
CloveRidge
83,877 8
0
83,877 8
67,754 17
ds Under Favor0% Equity (in 2
ODEC stal ins
CloveRidge
00,286 10
0
66,857 6
67,143 17
ater, under Finch offers a taxach, the fractilains and $12ction increasefor Calvert Cl
study, it is asslimited recouhip/financingind energy pl
Table 7-4 andfor the differ
MW Wind Ene012 dollars).
rdale eline
CalvCli
ShaBa
87,338 12
0
87,338 12
74,676 25
rable Financing012 dollars).
rdale eline
CalvCli
ShaBa
04,439 14
0
69,626 9
74,065 24
nancial Assumx benefit but ion of debt is 25.095 milliones to 60%, whliffs Shallow
sumed that wurse Project Fi option for abant ownership
d Table 7-5, trent cases for
ergy Plants.
vert iffs llow ay
FentOc
25,095 1
0
25,095 1
50,190 369
g for 2012 100 M
vert iffs llow ay
FentOc
49,592 2
0
99,728 1
49,320 3
mptions, to mnot cash withreduced to 50
n for Calvert Chich is $100.2Bay.
wind energy plinance. For a
bout the next p.
then Source o2012.
tress cean
84,865 at 7.5%custommonet
0
84,865 receivover 2remain
9,730
MW Wind Ener
tress cean
21,058 at 4.0%custommonet
0
47,372 receivover 2remain
68,430
make better ush which to rep0%. For examCliffs Shallow
286 million fo
lant ownershia wind energyten years, alth
of Funds could
Comments
% for 20 years, pmized schedule wtized Section 45
ving cash and tax25-year contract nder value
rgy Plants.
Comments
% for 20 years, pmized schedule wtized Section 45
ving cash and tax25-year contract nder value
e of the Sectipay debt, und
mple, debt is $w Bay. With or DPL-ODEC
ip will be by ay plant sized ahough a regul
d be prepared
s
paid on a with PTC
x benefits, life, plus
s
paid on a with PTC
x benefits, life, plus
ion 45 Producder the current$83.877 milliofavorable C Coastal Pla
69
an at 100 lated
d, as
ction t, on for
ains
70
Because cfinancing,Treasuriescustomize By favoralowest invfinancing,expected tprobably might dec As Table is 50% or ODEC Coequity framillion foits 25-yea Note that benefits (ibenefits. I“monetizeAssumpti2013. Induthe ITC (Ihigh powe When it isand calcul Furthermoownershipcomplicatbasic case
contracted pla, fixed rate ins at 1.75% aned payment of
able financingvestment-grad, for 20-year dto increase, bdecline, so th
cline slightly.
7-6 and Tab40% of the p
oastal Plains aaction is reducor Calvert Clifar contract life
it is assumedi.e., from fiveIt has been coe” the Sectionons, the PTC ustry observeInvestment Taer production
s “monetized,late the debt c
ore, this analyp pattern invoted ownershipe, the after-tax
ant life is 25 ynterest is estimnd a spread off principal.
g, against 10-yde, is smaller,debt is 4.00%
but spreads forhe energy proj
le 7-7 show, project cost. Fand $125.095ced to 40%, wffs Shallow Be, plus remain
d that outside e-year rapid dommon practin 45 PTC and
was extendeders are hopefuax Credit), wh
n, regardless o
,” the PTC is coverage ratio
ysis representolving variousp strategy is dx return on eq
years, the debmated at a ratef 5.70%, roun
year Treasuri, at 2.25%. Th
%. When futurr corporate, pject’s nomina
for these winFor example, b5 million for Cwhich is $66.8Bay. Equity owning value.
equity investodepreciation ace, over abou
d use it to repad in 2009 for
ul this credit fhich rewards
of cost. The S
“counted” wio. This practi
ts a basic cases classes of eqdesired, the baquity, includin
bt term is 20 ye of 7.50%, foded up slight
es at 1.75%, therefore, the pre economic cproject, and otal current likel
d energy projby current finCalvert Cliffs857 million fowners receive
ors will be sond ten years o
ut the past decay debt. As wthree years, f
for wind energhigh cost, theection 45 PTC
ith operating ce was used h
e over which quity investorasic project wng all cash an
years. For curor BB-rated dtly. Debt repay
the spread forproject’s inte
conditions imther debt and ly interest rat
jects, the balanancing, equit Shallow Bayor DPL-ODECe all the proje
ought, who caof Section 45cade, for wind
will be describfor plants placgy will be exte PTC rewardC for wind is
profits againshere.
a developer mrs, including T
will stand on itnd tax benefits
rrent (first haldebt, assumingayment is twic
r BBB-rated derest rate, und
mprove, Treasuespecially fo
te is not expec
ance of fundinty is $83.877 y. With favoraC Coastal Pla
ect’s cash and
an fully utilize5 PTC), as wed energy plan
bed later with ced in servicetended again ds efficiency, $0.022 per k
st the debt pa
may place a mTax Investorsts own. Conses, is project-w
lf 2012), likelg 10-year ce per year, by
debt, which isder favorable ury rates are or riskier debtcted to rise an
ng is equity, wmillion for D
able financingains and $99.7d tax benefits
e the project’sell as its cash nt developers
Financing e before Januabecause, unliin the form o
kWh in 2012.
ayment, to pay
more complicas. If no equently, for
wide.
ly
y
s the
t, will nd
which DPL-g, the 728 over
s tax
to
ary 1, ike of
y debt
ated
the
7.5 Perf To show hcalculatedhourly capthe four pon-peak a Table 7-8. P
Calvert ClifCloverdale –DPL-OPECPlains Fentress – O
These capchart, for highest inThey are lconsidereSection 5.
Figure 7-3.
formance (
how much pod. Capacity fapacity and ass
plant locationsand for off-pe
Plant Capacity
O
ffs - Bay – Ridgeline
C – Coastal
Ocean
pacity factors each season,
n winter, both lowest in sumd to be repres. Wind resour
Plant Capacity
(Plant Capa
ower would beactor is definesuming 8,760s. Table 7-8 bak hours.
Factors by Nod
Off-Peak On-PFall 34.13% 3333.42% 30
26.55% 23
33.76% 33
are also showto orient a refor on-peak a
mmer. The capsentative of earces estimates
y Factors by No
acity Facto
e produced ated as annual p0 hours of opebelow shows
de, by Season.
Peak Off-PeakWinter
3.64% 45.330.13% 48.46
3.34% 40.11
3.27% 47.17
wn in Figure ader. As Figuand off-peakpacity factor each wind mars and assump
ode
ors) for the
t each plant lopower produceration. Tableplant capacity
k On-Peak r 3% 43.58%6% 48.46%
% 36.41%
7% 45.13%
7- 3 below. Ture 7- 3 showhours. Capacestimates are rket sector an
ptions are disc
e Wind Ene
ocation, planted by the plane 5-4 shows cy factors by s
Off-Peak OnSpring
41.50%35.62%
37.96%
42.26%
The Calvert Cws, for all plancity factors are
all based on nd are used in cussed in deta
ergy Plants
t capacity factnt over capac
capacity factoseason, furthe
n-Peak Off-P Sum
36.44% 234.71% 2
35.89% 1
40.50% 2
Cliffs data labents, that capace second highmeasured datthe Forward
ail in Section
s
tors were city at full rateors, by seasoner broken out
Peak On-Pemmer 24.26% 23.722.08% 19.0
15.02% 12.9
25.04% 23.5
el is printed ocity factors arhest in springta at sites thatpricing mode9 of this repo
71
ed n, for for
ak AverageAnnual
74% 35.35%01% 34.20%
95% 28.43%
50% 36.20%
on the re . t are els in ort.
%%
%
%
72
7.6 Ope The methofor the wi Table 7-9. M
Expense
Operations a
Major Main
Site Owner
Property Ta
Property, CaInterruption
For each pDPL-ODErent is $0.Operatingfinancing Note that expressedthe plant descalated For propejurisdictioenergy pla
erating Exp
odology to esind energy pla
Methodology fo
and Maintenanc
ntenance and Ov
Land Rent (or R
ax
asualty and Busin Insurance
plant, operatinEC Coastal Pl.335 million. g expenses are.
the wind ened in 2012 US ddoes not startone year to 2
erty tax, rates on. See Tableants for Delaw
penses for
stimate annuaants is describ
or Estimating W
Comm
e For C$32,0$200,
erhauls For C$9,18
Royalty) For CShalloEstimfor Rino proline d
iness Estimmilliocost, aShallomillio
ng expenses alains, the planProperty tax,e the same, w
rgy plant is bdollars. Capitup till Januar
2013, to be “y
and methods e 7-14, at the ware, Maryla
the Wind E
al operating exbed below in
Wind Energy Pla
ments
Coastal Plains, es000 per 1.5 MW ,000 per 5.0 MW
Coastal Plains, es80. For Shallow BCoastal and Ridgow Bay and Oce
mated as 1.10% oidgeline. Assumoperty tax for Ba
depreciation of 4mated as 0.311% on for Ridgeline,annual revenuesow Bay and Oceon.
and performant capacity fa insurance, an
whether the pla
built during 20tal costs will bry 1, 2013, soear one” expe
of assessmenend of this chnd, North Car
Energy Pla
xpenses, rangTable 7-9.
ant Operating E
stimated as $31,0turbine or $21.3
W turbine or $22.stimated as $9,00Bay and Ocean, eline, assume re
ean, assume rent of depreciable ba
me the assessmenay or Ocean. As.0% [1.0/25] is dof depreciable b, in spring 2011.
s, deductibles, anean, assume perc
nce are showactor is 28.4%nd major mainant is finance
012, so it is cobe paid as the
o operating exenses.
nt vary by stathapter, for detrolina, Virgin
ants
ging from O&
Expenses
000 per 1.5 MW33/kW. For Shall.00/kW and $4000 per 1.5 MW tas $35,000 and
ent is $5,000 per t is $4,000 per 5.ase, at $160.6 mint increases by insume equipmentdeducted, till onbase, at $160.6 m. Insurance cost nd so forth, whiccentages are 0.44
wn in Table 7-%. O&M is est
ntenance andd by current m
onsidered a 2e plant is consxpenses for th
te and, withintailed propertnia, and the D
&M to land ren
W turbine or $20.low Bay and Oc.00/kW. turbine per year.$45,000 per 5.01.5 MW turbine
.0 MW turbine oillion for Coastanflation, which isnt life is 25 yearsne reaches a minimillion for Coastis calculated bas
ch works out to t4% and 0.45% o
-10 below. Fotimated as $2
d overhauls armethods or by
2012 plant andstructed durin
he cash flow p
n a state, by cty tax informa
District of Col
nt and insuran
67/kW. For Ridgcean, $110,000 a
. For Ridgeline, 0 MW turbine. e or $3.33/kW. For $0.80/kW. al and $167.3 mis 2.5% here. Ass
s, so annual straiimum level of 30tal Plains and $1sed on replacemthis percentage. on $239.8 and $3
or example, fo.077 million.
re added. y favorable
d costs are ng 2012. Howprojections ar
county and location for windlumbia.
nce,
geline, and
as
For
llion sume ght-0%. 167.3 ent For
354.2
or Land
wever, re
cal d
T
L
Table 7-10. Perform
Located in the Mid-A
mance and Annual O
Atlantic region (in 20
Operating Expenses
13 dollars, except fir
for 2012 Wind Ener
st column. Plant is co
rgy Plants.
onstructed in 2012 annd begins operating inn 2013.)
73
74
Regardingdrawn dowannual exneeded, theach year taken to simpact on 7.7 Fina
Ener Finance aMid-Atlan25 years. repaymenownershipalternate, or iron-claInvestors assume eqincluding 7.7.1 P For the parenewablebalance-shto, as colland other other projother lend 7.7.2 D Because pproblem iinvestors tariff redu As describpower, sizTable 7-1institutioninvest. Hisaid to hato CCC, o
g major maintwn every fifthpense, estima
hey may be saand a deposihelter income
n COE.
ancial Assurgy Plants
and project owntic Wind stuBecause the p
nt and becausep flips is assufavorable finad guaranteesor flips, is 60
quity investorfive-year dep
Project Finan
ast 20 to 30 yee energy, werheet corporatateral, only thassets of the ects. Because
ding, debt and
Debt Feature
project life is n debt paymeenjoy an outs
uction beginni
bed earlier, cuzed at 100 MW11 below. Nonnal investors (igh-yield interve “fallen off
over comparab
tenance, someh or tenth yeaated here as $aved for the nt to a reserve e. The tax sav
umptions f
wnership assuudy, inflation plants are selle the Section
umed, therefornancing scenars from an esta0% debt to 40rs are in a pospreciation and
nce
ears, many inre structured ae finance, Prohe assets of thdeveloper an
e IPP Project d equity inves
es, including
25 years, debent may be “wsized return, wing in year 21
urrent, likely,W or more, ten-investment (as required brest rates are f a cliff” and sble Treasurie
e wind energyar, to perform 6/ to $9/kW-c
next year. Althfund is not, o
vings from ex
for current
umptions repreis estimated aling merchant45 PTC is takre, the projectrio, which ass
ablished, cred% equity. Bo
sitive earningsd the PTC.
ndependent poand financed uoject Finance he project. Dend they do not
Finance is risstors require a
Rating and
bt term is 20 yworked out.” Iwhich they m1.
, long-term prends to be rategrade debt is
by their bylawmuch higher spreads of abs.
y projects wilmajor overha
capacity, thathough a majoonce the overhpensing majo
t likely and
esent an impoat 2.50% and t power, whicken and no cot’s capital frasumes either a
dible developeoth financing ss mode, so th
ower projects utilizing limitgives its debt
ebt and equityt have recoursskier than bala higher rate o
Interest Rat
years. This ofIf there are noay share partl
roject debt fored BB, whichs termed high-ws) and other
than those foout 300 to 90
ll deposit monauls. Anothert escalates witor maintenanchaul is perfor
or maintenanc
d favorable
ortant area forproject life is
ch is riskier toomplicated straction is set ata strong Power if selling mscenarios util
hey may fully
(IPPs), whetted recourse pt and equity i
y investors dose to assets orlance sheet coof return.
te
ffers a short po debt repaymly with the po
r a large windh is one grade-yield or “juninvestors (as
or investment 00 basis point
ney to a reserr approach is th inflation. Ice expense is rmed, repair dce does not ha
e financing
r cash flow ms assumed to bo the lender seructure with Tt 50% debt to
wer Purchase Amerchant, and lize a monetizutilize all tax
ther fossil-fueproject financinvestors’ seco not have recr earnings of torporate finan
period of five ment problemower purchase
d energy plane below investnk” debt, into a matter of chgrade, with rs or higher, fo
rve fund, to bto assume an f funds are notax-deductibl
depreciation cave a significa
g of the Win
modeling. For be contract lieeking certainTax Investors50% equity.
Agreement (Pagain with no
zed PTC and x benefits,
eled or using cing. In contracurity or recoucourse to the cthe developer
nce and certain
years, where ms, then equity
er, by a slight
nt, selling mertment grade. which certain
hoice) will norates sometimfor debt rated
e ot le can be ant
nd
this fe, at nty of s or The
PPA) o Tax
ast to urse cash r’s n
any y t
rchant See n ot
mes BB+
Table 7-11.As describe
S&P andothers
AAA
AA+ AA AA-
A+
A A-
BBB+
BBB BBB-
At the prequote of 1range of acrisis in la4.00%, beSeptembe Ten-year 2012, giveamong gloTreasury r
16 Richard CYork; New 17 Bloomberhttp://www.
. Classic Long-Td in the 1994 Fe
Investment
d Moody’
Aaa
Aa1 Aa2 Aa3
A1
A2 A3
Baa1
Baa2 Baa3
esent time, in 1.74% from Babout 3.50% tate 2008. Oveefore trading fer 22, 2011, w
Treasuries laten the “easy mobal investmerates.
Cantor and FrankYork, NY; Sumrg Government B.bloomberg.com
Term Senior Deederal Reserve B
t Grade Rating
’s Inte
Highest qu
High qualit
Strong pay
Adequate pcapacity.
mid-May 201Bloomberg at to 5.20% fromer the past twofrom a high o
with a bounce
tely range fromoney” policents. See Figu
k Packer, “The C
mmer-Fall 1994, pBonds: 10-year T
m/markets/rates-b
ebt Ratings Bank of New Yor
s
rpretation
uality.
ty.
yment capacity.
payment
12, the 1.75%the close on M
m 2005 througo and a half y
of about 3.70%and a fall to a
om about 1.70cies of the Fedure 7-4 below
Credit Rating Indpage 3. Treasury Notes;
bonds/governmen
rk Quarterly Rev
S&P and others
BB+
BB BB- B+ B B-
CCC+
CCC CCC-
C
D
% estimated raMay 25, 2012gh mid-2008, years, ten-year%, during the a historical lo
0% to 2.40%, deral Reservew, which pres
dustry,” FRBNY
New York, NYnt-bonds/us/ ; M
view.16
Speculati
Moody
Ba1
Ba2 Ba3 B1 B2 B3
Caa
Ca
D
ate for 10-yea2.17 Ten-year before fallin
ar Treasury ratfirst half of 2
ow of 1.57% o
from Septeme and the percents an appro
Y Quarterly Revi
; internet site: May 15, 2012 and
ive Grade Ratin
y’s I
Likely tongoing High ris Current default, (Moody In bankrother ma
ar Treasuries iTreasuries tra
ng to 2.10% duates ranged fro2011, down toon May 31, 2
mber 2011 throceived safety ooximate 13-ye
iew: Federal Res
d May 25, 2012.
ngs
Interpretation
to fulfill obligatig uncertainty.
sk obligations.
vulnerability to or in default
y’s).
ruptcy or defaultarked shortcomi
is correct, witaded within auring the finaom about 1.70o 1.72% on
2012.
ough late-Maof US Treasuear history of
serve Bank of N
75
ons;
t, or ing.
th a a ancial 0% to
ay uries f
ew
76
Figure 7-4.
Source: FedMaturity Ra Current mis 5.70%. one perce Limits forannual opminimum For favoracurrent minvestmenis 4.00%. times aver Debt repaoperating Cloverdalintervals, years 6-102.5%, 2.52.1%, 2.1 7.7.3 E As describequity. Wproject’s cassumed tfrom five-targets forfor ocean.
10-Year Treas
deral Reserve Baate: 01/02/1999 –
market conditiThe spread mnt. Conseque
r debt coveragperating incom
m.
able financingmarket conditio
nt-grade debt.Limits for derage and 1.3 t
ayment is assucash flow an
le – Ridgelineby five-year 0: 2.7%, 2.7%%, 2.5%, 2.5%%, 2%, and 2
Equity Featur
bed earlier, unWith favorable
cash and tax bthat outside e-year rapid der after tax IRR. Rates are hig
ury Note Intere
ank of St. Louis, – 05/21/2012; pr
ions suggest tmay be cited antly, the wind
ge for BB-ratme over the an
g, against 10-ons, is 2.25%. The project’ebt coverage ftimes minimu
umed to be twnd ten-year rece, under curreincrements, i
%, 3.1%, 3.1%%, 2.5%, 2.5%
2%.
res
nder current, financing, th
benefits over quity investorepreciation anR are 17% forgh because ri
est Rates: Jan 1
Fred Graph Obsrepared May 23,
that against 10as 570 basis pd energy proj
ed debt, by cunnual debt pa
-year Treasuri or 225 basis s interest ratefor BBB-ratedum. The debt
wice per year, ceipt of the Sent, likely finas: years 1-5:
%, 3.5%, 3.5%%, 2.5%; and
likely long-tehe equity fract
its 25-year cors will be sound ten years or land based wsk exists and
1999 – May 2012
servations, St. L 2012.
0-year Treasupoints, where ect’s interest
urrent marketyment, are es
ies at 1.75%, points. Sprea
e, under favord debt, by curfraction is es
by customizeection 45 Proancing, the pr1%, 1%, 1.5%
%, 4%, 4%, 4.2d years 16:20:
erm financingtion is reduceontract life, pught, who canof Section 45 wind energy pthe cash flow
2.
Louis MO; intern
uries at 1.75%one basis poirate for 20-ye
t conditions, wstimated as 3.
the spread foads are markerable financinrrent market ctimated as 60
ed payment ooduction Tax rincipal paym%, 1.5%, 1.8%2%, 4.2%; ye: 2.5%, 2.5%,
g, capital raiseed to 40%. Eqplus remainingn fully utilize PTC), as welplants, 22% f
ws are only es
net site: 10-Year
%, the spread fint (bp) is oneear, BB-rated
with coverage0 times avera
or BBB-rated edly lower forng, for 20-yeaconditions, ar0%, against 40
of principal, thCredit. For ex
ment schedule,%, 1.8%, 2%, ears 11-15: 2., 2.5%, 2.5%,
ed is expectedquity owners rg value. As dithe project’s
ll as its cash bfor shallow wastimates.
Treasury Consta
for BB-rated e one-hundredd debt is 7.50%
e calculated aage and 1.8 tim
debt, under r less risky, ar, BBB-ratedre estimated a0% equity.
hat follows xample, for , at six-month2%, 2.4%, 2.2%, 2.2%, 2. 2.5%, 2.5%,
d to include 5receive all theiscussed it is tax benefits (
benefits. Projeater bay, and
ant
debt dth of %.
as mes
d debt as 1.5
h .4%; 5%,
50% e
(i.e., ected 25%
For this anrepay debto calcula When comfraction mdeveloperreceive dicomplicatthe basic c Financial Summary Section 4NREL, whis assumepractice. Beyond thDepreciatcredits proif construthey are nincentivesenergy pla Financial below in T
nalysis, an unbt. When it is ate the debt co
mplex ownersmay be increasr may place a ifferent percented ownershipcase, the after
assumptions y descriptions
5 Productionhere the Sectid for this repo
he Section 45tion, were incovided under ction is begun
not a permanes will be extenant of 100 MW
assumptions Table 7-12.
nderlying assu“monetized,”
overage ratio a
ship-financingsed. Howevermore complintages of cashp strategy be pr-tax return on
for the Mid-Aof how and w
n Tax Credit (ion 45 PTC wort that the PT
PTC, no otheluded in this 2009 ARRA
n during 2011ent part of the nded, and becW or more, it
for the cash f
umption is tha” the PTC is “and it is used
g structures inr, as stated eaicated ownersh and tax benproposed, then equity, com
Atlantic windwhy certain va
(PTC): Note twas not includTC is include
er recent inceanalysis. For , which can ru1 and is compUS Tax Cod
cause there is t was decided
flow analysis
at the Section“counted” with
to repay deb
nvolving Tax arlier, this anaship pattern, wnefits, that “flie basic projectmposed of bot
d energy projealues were se
that in contraded because ited. Including t
entives or subexample, theun 30% of ca
pleted by Decde, it is difficu
a certain “lagd not to includ
of Mid-Atlan
n 45 PTC willth operating pt.
Investors arealysis is the bawith various cip” or changet will stand onth cash and ta
ect are shownelected are inc
ast to some fort is not a permthe Section 4
bsidies, such ae Section 1603apital cost for ember 31, 20
ult to predict wg time” to plade special ince
ntic wind ene
l be “monetizprofits against
e employed, thasic case overclasses of eque over time. Sn its own. Co
ax benefits, is
n below in Tacluded also.
rmal estimatemanent part o5 PTC is com
as cash grants3 cash grants qualified win
012; are not inwhether or noan and build aentives.
rgy plants are
zed” and used t the debt pay
he project’s dr which the
uity investorshould no
onsequently, fproject-wide
ble 7-12.
es at DOE andf the Tax Cod
mmon industry
s or Bonus in lieu of tax
nd energy plancluded. Becaot these speciaa large wind
e summarized
77
to yment,
debt
who
for e.
d de, it y
x ants; ause al
d
7
T
A
1
78
Table 7-12. Financia
Assuming IPP Own
Parameter
Lifetime
Inflation Start Year Construction Period
Debt/Equity
Debt Rate
Debt Term Debt Rating Level (meet this level, wherated or not)
After-tax Leveraged
Income Tax Rate
Debt Coverage (defioperating income ovpayment, composedprincipal) Cost Of Energy (CO
IOU Cost of Capitalfor COE
18 “Range of State C
al Assumptions for 2
ership and Project F
Cu
25
2.520
d (years) 1.0
50
7.5rou20
project must ether actually
BB“jupo
d Equity Return 1722407.6ra6.
fined as ver the debt d of interest and
Avthe
OE) Coprido
l Discount Rate 7.04.3
Corporate Income Tax
2012 100 MW Wind
Finance, located in t
urrent (2012), Likely
5 years.
50% 013 0
0/50 with PTC.
50%, assuming 10-yeunded.
0 years. B, first level below inunk” debt. For currenower on a merchant b
7.00% target for Land2% target for Bay; an0.0% combined, as an69% deductible statetes are Delaware =9%, Virginia = 6.0verage of 3.00 times;e project sells power
ost Of Energy is presice, b) a discounted n
ollar, levelized charge00% nominal; 39% constant = [1.07
x Rates (For tax year
d Energy Plants.
the Mid-Atlantic re
y Conditions for IPP P
ear Treasuries at 1.75
nvestment-grade, whint, likely 2012 financbasis, its debt will pro
d-based plants; d 25% target for Oce
n “average” federal/st. For .the Mid-Atlan
= 8.7%, Maryland =%, and Washington minimum of 1.80 timon a merchant basis.
ented by three measunominal levelized chae, where the latter exc
70/1.025-1]
r 2011…)”; Federatio
gion (in 2012 dollar
Project Finance
5% and a spread of 5.
ich is also termed higcing, if the wind energobably be rated BB, a
ean. tate rate, assuming 35ntic states, maximu
= 8.25%, North Carn DC = 9.975%.18
mes, assuming a BB-.
ures, as: a) a raw yeaarge, and c) a discouncludes inflation.
on of Tax Administra
rs)
Fav
sam
samsamsam
60/
.70%, 4.0sprsam
gh-yield or gy plant sells at the highest
BBfavPoa Mandfrowosam
5% federal and um corporate rolina =
sam
-rating, where Ava Beithgu
ar-one bid nted, constant-
sam
sam
ators; Washington DC
avorable Conditions f
me
me me me
0/40 with PTC.
00%, assuming 10-yeread of 2.25%. me BB, lowest level of invorable financing, a Bower Purchase AgreemMerchant Plant be locd that it have extrem
om the developer’s paorthy entity, which isme
me
verage of 1.80 times; BBB-rating. The invether by a strong PPA,uarantees from a largeme
me
C; February 2011.
for IPP Project Finan
ear Treasuries at 1.75
nvestment-grade debtBBB-rated project rement. Alternatively, cated to receive attracely strong, contractedarent corporation or o
s probably a rare even
minimum of 1.30 timestment-grade rating , or possibly by iron-e, credit-worthy deve
ce
5% and a
t. Under quires a strong it requires that ctive prices d guarantees other credit-nt.
mes, assuming is achieved clad
eloper.
Parameter
Merchant Plant MetPower Purchase Agr
Energy Payment
Capacity Payment
Energy Payment Esc
Cu
thodology vs. reement (PPA)
ThwhpriBeca
Th$pco Fofor20pareqCaadcapaca2.5M20pethecaca AseqAsye
calation Rate ThbalonestAn Thinfwh
urrent (2012), Likely
he project is assumedholesale market, wheicing curve, as can beecause merchant saleapable developer and
he energy componentper kWh, that is basedomponents. This is hi
or this analysis, the enrecast, customized by
015 Adder prices. Othayment is the revenuequirements. apacity is a fixed paydministered forward lapacity auctions haveayment, estimated at [apacity factor. For unc50% escalation and $AAC regions, the rat
015 adders. PJM nowerformance once histoe rate would be adjus
apacity factor used theapacity factor is alway
s a measure of proporquivalent of about $0.ssume 1.0% escalatioears. he PJM Forward Pricased on four years of nger-term escalation timated at 2.5%. Thennual Energy Outloo
he “Calculated COE”flation less 0.5%. Thhere power prices inc
y Conditions for IPP P
d to sell power on a mere rates fluctuate, bue estimated for PJM s are risker, debt is pother project particip
t of the tariff paymend on marginal fuel, opstorically the larger s
nergy payment is figuy PJM node, and utiliherwise, by the “Calce required to meet pro
yment, paid as $ per kooking auction. For tpaid wind energy pla
[$rate/MW-day] * plconstrained RTO reg
$90/MW-day with 20te is $175/MW-day a
w allows units to use aoric data is available.sted to 20% for the fiereafter. By the “Calys used. .
rtion, the capacity pa.001 to $0.007 per kWon because utilities re
ing forecasts assumehistorical prices, plusprojected, One varia
e 2.5% rate is conservk 2012 project faster
” method assumes 2.0is revenue pattern allcrease slower than inf
Project Finance
merchant basis, to the ut may be estimated w(Penn-Jersey-Maryla
probably rated BB, depants.
nt is a variable paymeperating expense, andshare of the tariff pay
ured by a PJM Forwaizing either 2.5% escculated COE” methodojected cost and retur
kW-capacity, that is bthe Mid-Atlantic statants an as-delivered cant MW size * 365 d
gions, the rate is $60/M015 environment addeat 2.50% and $240/Ma capacity factor of 1 For this analysis, it wrst two years, with thculated COE” metho
ayment here ranges frWh, so it is less than eplace plant slowly, o
e customized initial ess NYMEX futures pr
able in forecasting is ivative because sourcer energy inflation [19
0% escalation, whichlows, conservatively,flation.
Fav
competitive with a forward and) RTO. espite a
A 2to utidebmigu
ent, paid as d other
yment.
ard Pricing calation or d, the energy rn
sam
based on PJM es, the PJM capacity
days/year * MW-day at er prices. For
MW-day with 3% or actual was assumed he actual od, the actual
rom the one cent.
over many
sam
scalation rices, and with inflation, es like EIA’s ].
h is 2.5% , for the pattern
Sam
avorable Conditions f
25-year Power Purchbe signed with a larg
ility. This contract rebt is rated BBB. In a ight be rated BBB, if
uarantees. me
me
ame.
for IPP Project Finan
hase Agreement (PPAge, established, creditduces risk for the prorare instance, a merc
f the developer provid
79
ce
A) is assumed t-worthy oject, such that chant plant des iron-clad
8 80
Parameter
Renewable Energy C(REC) Price
Energy Production aof Expected Product
Section 45 Productio
Principal Repaymen
Cu
Certificate $0pebu ReCrpoor enplano In utireqcehotheREbuRE20tha
as Percentage tion.
10vaapcoan
on Tax Credit Incmi0.0Int
nt of Debt Cuopthe
urrent (2012), Likely
0.003/kWh or $3.00/Mercent slower than infundled into the tariff p
enewable Energy Cerredits or “green tags”ower produced by a re
separate from the elenvironmental and sociant. If RECs are sold
o longer considered to
those states with Renilities to sell a certainquirements by buyingrtain commercial and
omeowners) voluntarie utility can meet its ECs, then prices tenduy from far out-of-staECs are assumed to b011 price in Marylandan inflation, which is
00%. It is assumed thalue (i.e., what is termpproach to accountingonservative P90 (90%nd financial investors cluded in this analysiix of outside equity in022 per kWh. See httternal Revenue Bulleustomized repaymentperating income. Whee first 10 years, than
y Conditions for IPP P
MWh, escalating by 2flation). Assume RECprice.
rtificates (RECs), som”, represent the enviroenewable energy planectricity produced byial benefits from 1,00
d separately from the o be green.
newable Portfolio Stan percentage of greeng RECs. A few sociad industrial companieily buy RECs, but theobligation only by bu
d to be higher, on the ate, then prices are lowbe sold at $3/MWh ord. Prices are assumeds 2.0%. at energy production
med P50 – 50% probag for energy producti
% probability of occurmight impose when
is. Paid to the projectnvestors plus the devtp://www.irs.gov/irb/etin: 2012-21, dated t schedule, where theen the PTC is monetiotherwise.
Project Finance
2.0% per year (whichCs are sold separately
metimes termed Reneonmental and social bnt. RECs may be soldy the plant. One REC00 kWh from a renewplant’s power, then t
andards (RPS), whichn power, utilities oftenally-conscious customes, certain schools, a ey are mostly boughtuying in-state or nearorder of $40/REC. Ifwer, on the order of $r $0.003/kWh, whichd to escalate at one ha
n will be at 100% of itability of occurring). on is more aggressivrring) approach that revaluating wind projt’s owners, who are pveloper. For 2012, the/2012-21_IRB/ar07.hMay 21, 2012.
e payment is adjustedized, payments are hi
Fav
h is one half y and not
ewable Energy benefits from d bundled with is the
wable energy that power is
h require their n meet their
mers (e.g., few residential t by utilities. If r-regional f the utility can $3/REC. Here, h is a recent alf percent less
sam
ts projected Therefore, this e than the rating agencies ject financing.
sam
probably some e value is $ html with
sam
d to follow igher during
sam
avorable Conditions f
me
me
me
me
for IPP Project Finan
ce
1
2
2
2
Parameter
“Monetized” PTC
Depreciation
Unleveraged Pretax
19 FPL Energy, “FPL20 Doug Harvin and B21 Fitch Ratings, “Fit22 Fitch Ratings, “Fit
Cu
WTaobowfinpo AntheCoopCotha20Hoinc5-ythathaSyFustranPlacoAptheWha
Equity Return Thcobeof paeareq
L Energy announces cBen Cooper, “FPL Etch Downgrades FPLtch Downgrades FPL
urrent (2012), Likely
When the developer strax Credit “counts” asbtains an ironclad guawners, so they, in turnnancing so that equityortion of the debt pay
n example is that FPLe PTC to FPL Energyompany’s March 200perating wind farms oompany’s related offeat in 2009, FPL Ener
012, Fitch Ratings dooldCo notes to B, beccreased levels of O&year MACRS using hat wind (and solar) enat can be treated as fiystem of MACRS, theurther, Tax Regulatioructures or other comnd thus eligible for theant is 5-year property
omponents (e.g., fencpplying the half-year e annual fractions are
With 50% Bonus Depralf according to the gihe cash flow model uomparison. With no Pe much lower than thef return for this case fassboook savings accoarned on a money marquirement, but occas
completion of subsidnergy National Wind
L Energy Nat’l Wind L Energy National Wi
y Conditions for IPP P
ructures the project s money with which t
arantee, to provide can, can pay the lender y investors, who are tment from their tax s
L Group Capital uncoy National Wind LLC05 wind portfolio finaof $365 million of “Bering of $100 millionrgy was renamed Nexwngraded the OpCo cause of lower than p
&M, following an intehalf-year conventionnergy plants are consive-year property unde Modified Acceleratns Section 1.48-1(e)(
mponents to be conside same tax treatmenty, but Tax Counsel ming) must take longer
r convention to 5-yeare: 20.0%, 32.0%, 19reciation, half is depriven schedule, but Bo
used here runs a pretaPTC and no debt, the e leveraged equity retformerly was about 4ount, but lately is morket account at a banionally it can become
diary bond offerings,”d, LLC;” Fitch Ratingto ‘BBB-‘and …;” Find OpCo Sr. Secure
Project Finance
o that the Section 45 to repay debt. Either tash equivalent to the Por lenders structure tthe project’s owners savings from the PTC
onditionally guaranteC, in connection withance offering, coverin
BBB-“ -rated notes ann of “BB-“-rated notextEra Energy ResourcSenior Secured notes
projected wind resourermediate downgrade. Section 168 of the tsidered alternative ender the General Deprted Cost Recovery Sy(1) permits “closely r
dered as part of the or. It is assumed all the
might research whether depreciation. r MACRS depreciati.2%, 11.52%, 11.52%eciated in year one anonus Depreciation is ax, unleveraged case apretax, unleveraged Iturn. The minimum a%, as would be earne
ore like 2.0% to 1.0%k. Most cases easily e the tight constraint.
” FPL Energy press regs; New York; March
Fitch Ratings; New Yd …;” Fitch Ratings;
Fav
Production the developer PTC to project the debt will pay a
C.
eed payment of h the Operating ng nine nd the Holding es. 19 20 Note ces. In January s to BB+ and rces and e in 2011.21 22
sam
tax code states nergy property eciation ystem. related” riginal plant e Wind Energy er some
on means that %, and 5.76%. nd the other not used here.
sam
as a point of IRR tends to acceptable rate ed on a
%, as would be exceed this .
sam
elease, Miami FL, Feh 9, 2005.
York; January 25, 201; New York; January
avorable Conditions f
me
me
me
ebruary 23, 2005.
11. y 06, 2012.
for IPP Project Finan
81
ce
8 82
Parameter
Positive Before-Tax
Phantom Income, denegative after-tax ca
Cu
x Cash Flow In pobe
efined as ash flow.
Prpriof deontheinvthe
urrent (2012), Likely
similar fashion, it is ositive. It must exceedecome the tight constrrevent phantom incomincipal repayment, de
f interest, profits are heductible debt principne or the other out of e project takes on lesvestors will refuse toe project to default to
y Conditions for IPP P
required that each yed zero. For IPP projeraint. me or hold it very lowebt payments are comhigh and taxes are higpal payments are highhis or her pocket. Ph
ss debt. Note that if p make payments and
o the lender. .
Project Finance
ear of Before Tax cascts taking the PTC, th
w. In the latter years omposed mostly of pringh, and at the same tih, so therefore the owhantom income can behantom income is onwill “mail in the key
Fav
sh flow be his can
sam
of debt ncipal and less ime non-
wner must pay e "cured" if
nerous, equity ys,” causing
sam
avorable Conditions f
me
me
for IPP Project Finan
ce
One may weighted produce can IOU wconstant-dflow analy Debt covebecause ocoverage merchant below invhedge powrisk mana Lastly, as PTC can btax credit water, a lathe projecregulated worthy. Iftheir tax c 7.7.4 P State propNorth Carto land-bafor a discu
comment upoaverage cost
competitive powith 55% debtdollar discounysis separatel
erage standardof the Power Pcan be somewbasis, which
vestment gradwer prices agaagement.
described prebe converted to cash. That
arge, establishct owners can utility affiliat
f there is no gcredits, and th
Property Tax
perty taxes arerolina, Virginased wind eneussion of state
on a couple poof capital of aower. Given 2at 5.50%, 1%
nt rate is 4.39ly sets out inc
ds for BBB-raPurchase Agrewhat low, at 1is riskier, the
de. To reduce ainst commod
eviously, it isto cash and u
t is, the develohed guarantorpay the lende
te is acting asguarantor, thenhey must prov
es
e set out in Tnia and The Dergy plants, bue and local pr
oints in Tabla typical Inve2.50% inflatio
% preferred st% [1.070/1.0
come taxes.
ated debt finaeement, whic1.5 times averen as discusserisk, a merchdity fuel price
s assumed thaused to pay thoper and his or will provideer. This guaras a developer n the equity i
vide adequate
able 7-13. InDistrict of Colu
ut are sometimrograms bene
e 7-12. For itestor Owned Uon, the discoutock at 5.30%25 -1]. The d
ancing are notch guarantees rage and 1.3 ted, its debt lathant plant’s owes for exampl
at the develope debt paymeor her lender e cash equivalantor may be of wind energnvestors musreassurance t
formation is pumbia figure mes reduced bfiting wind p
ts discount ratUtility that wunt rate is esti
%, and 44% codiscount rate i
t high. For thea price for al
times minimutely would bewners may pule, or they ma
per “monetizeent. Monetizinaccept a guarlent to the PTa utility holdgy projects. T
st agree to paythat the lende
provided on hassessments by state law fower generat
te, this analyswould buy pow
imated to be 7ommon stock is before-tax,
e IPP using Pll the plant’s oum. If the plane rated BB, whut together a say investigate
s the PTC” orng the PTC mrantee that, co
TC to the projeding companyThis guarantoy debt from cer or debt inve
how Delawareand rates. Profor such planttors.
sis employs thwer or would 7.00%, assumat 9.0%. Thebecause the c
Project Financoutput, debt nt sold powerhich is one lesynthetic PPA other financi
r considers thmeans convertome hell or hiect owners, so
y, if a non-r must be creash saved threstors are sati
e, Maryland, operty taxes ats. See Sectio
83
he
ming e cash
ce,
r on a vel
A, to ial
hat the ting a igh o that
edit-rough isfied.
apply on 8
8
T
SD
M
2
2
2
2
84
Table 7-13. Property
State AssDelaware De
locprocerassdiffdat ForCas50%CouSusdistthe
Maryland Bupromoas uat hassAssAsslesssimsim At ow(Noandutil
23 “State Tax Round24 “Delaware Proper25 Ibid. 26 “Report of the M
y Taxes for Wind E
sessment laware is composedal level and tax rat
operty, including rertain state property essments on marke
fferent assessment rtes and different rat
r example, Kent Costle County at 100%% of the 1974 markunty taxes at 100%ssex County taxes atinct School Distric three counties. 23, 2
siness property in Moperty, which are buoveable; as personautility property. Pehigher rates, but somessment. Assessmesessments and Taxsessments are calcus accrued depreciat
milar property, and milar to a stock mar
one wind energy pwned by the site own
on-Utility Generatod interconnect equility personal proper
dup: Delaware;” Bankrty Tax Rates: 2010-2
Maryland Business Tax
nergy Plants in the
d of three countieses. They are genera
esidential, commerctax incentives. The
et value at differentratios. Certain citietios.
ounty taxes at 60%% of the 1983 markket value. However
% of the 2002 assessat 50% of the 2000cts in Cities or unin24
Maryland is classifuildings and heavyl property, which irsonal property andmetimes a fractionents are calculated ation, from Baltimulated based on: 1)tion; 2) market whi3) capitalized incom
rket P/E ratio is app
plant in Garrett Couner and storage buior) are classed as repment owned by thrty.26, 27
krate.com; February 2011;” Delaware Eco
x Reform Commissio
Mid-Atlantic States
. Property taxes areally the same for alcial, and industrial,e three counties bast dates in time and s and towns use mo
of the 1987 markeket value; and Sussr, the town of Milfosment; the town of
0 assessment. Therencorporated areas w
fied in three ways: y fixed equipment ts equipment that isd utility property ar
nal multiplier is appby the state Depart
more or at field offic cost, which is replich is the recent salme, where a multipplied to earnings.
unty in western Maildings owned by theal property. The whe NUG are classed
2, 2009. onomic Development
on,” Chairman Raym
s.
Re levied at the ll types of , except for se their employ ore recent
et value; New sex County at ford in Kent f Lewes in e are over 20 within each of
ATGthC$ Rm
as real hat are not
s movable; and re often taxed
plied to the tment of ces. lacement cost les price of a plier that is
aryland, land he NUG
wind turbines d as non-
Tlain$$stafoa TCtatuC$5
t Office, Industry Res
mond S. Wacks; Anna
Rates About four to five pThese include the CGuard rate, and Vo-he County rate is $0
City rate is $0.49, th0.2666, for a total
Rates vary by schoomust investigate his
The real property taarger County and Cn the City of Gaithe0.112/$100 assessm0.262, for a total otate rate is $0.112 assessment. In Garror Non-Utility Genssessment.
The non-utility persCity/Town/District ax. In Maryland, a urbine and intercon
County, the County 0.530, for a total o0% exemption. In
search & Analysis Ce
apolis MD; Decembe
property tax rates arCounty rate, School-Tech rate. For exa0.3983/$100 assesshe Library rate is $tax rate of $3.7686
ol distract and locats or her location.25
ax in Maryland inclCity/Town/Special ersburg in Montgoment, the County r
of $1.073 per $100 and the City rate isrett County, the statnerators is $0.990, f
sonal property tax icomponents, but th50% exemption ap
nnect equipment. Iny rate is $1.747/$10of $2.277 per $100
Baltimore City, the
enter; Dover DE; Sep
er 15, 2010.
re charged by Delal rate, City rate, Libample, in Lewes in sment, the School r
$0.0467, and the Vo6 per $100 assessm
tion. The proposed
ludes a small state District componenmery County, the s
rate is $0.699, and tassessment. In Bal
s $2.268, for a totalte rate is $0.112 anfor a total of $1.10
in Maryland includhere is no state perspplies to most but nn Gaithersburg in M00 assessment and tassessment or aboue City rate is $5.67
ptember 2010.
aware counties. brary or Crossing Sussex County, rate is $2.567, the o-Tech rate is
ment.
d business owner
component and nts. For example, state rate is the City rate is ltimore City, the l of $2.380/$100 nd the County rate 2/$100
des County and sonal property not all of the wind Montgomery the City rate is ut $1.14 after the 7, for a total of
S
NC
2
2
2
3
3
3
23
3
3
2
State Ass
North Carolina
In NdefRevandsch Thapreestieleplayea(18straSinassene
27 March 25, 2011 p28 Ibid. 29 “2010‐2011 Coun30 “Report of the M31 March 30, 2011 ph32 “2011 Cost Index 2011. 33 March 25, 2011 ph34 Ibid. 35 “North Carolina 22011.
sessment
North Carolina, pofined as public utilivenue. Power plantd are assessed localhedule.
at schedule is the “epared by the Northimate replacement ctric generating eq
ant equipment as hyar life), steam powe8-year life). The assaight-line depreciatnce 2008, North Caessment for solar e
ergy plants or lobbi
phone conversation: P
ty Tax Rates;” MarylMaryland Business Tax
hone conversation: Pand Depreciation Sch
hone conversation: P
010-2011 Tax Rates
wer plants that sellities and are assessets that sell power tolly, as real property
“2011 Cost Index anh Carolina Departmcost new (RCN) leuipment, North Ca
ydroelectric (50-yeaered (28-year life), sessment tends to btion, but adjusted sarolina has applied electric, but no taxpied for tax benefits
PERI and Maryland S
and State Departmex Reform CommissioERI and Maryland Shedules,” North Caro
ERI and North Carol
and Effective Tax Ra
l power to end use ed by the NC Depao a utility are not py, according to a sta
nd Depreciation Scment of Revenue, wess depreciation. Harolina categorizes ar life), natural gasand solar photovol
be based on cost leslightly for trendingan 80% reduction t
payers have yet bui.32, 33
State Department of A
nt of Assessments anon,” Chairman Raymtate Department of A
olina Department of R
lina Department of R
ates;” North Carolina
R$Colod
customers are artment of ublic utilities andard
chedules,” which seeks to
ere, for the types of
s-fired (18-ltaic electric ss accrued g factors. to the ilt wind
InraoF$an$ NT
Assessments and Tax
nd Taxation; Baltimomond S. Wacks; AnnaAssessments and TaxaRevenue, Local Gove
Revenue manager (Ra
a Department of Reve
Rates 5.67/$100 assessm
County, the County f $2.475/$100 asseocations in Marylan
depreciation per yea
n North Carolina, bate. To obtain currer decrease the lates
For example, in Wa0.5340/$100 assessnd the 2010 ratio is1.0801/$100 assess
North Carolina has The proposed busin
xation (SDAT) Super
re MD; February 18, apolis MD; Decembeation (SDAT) Adminernment Division, Pro
aleigh NC).
enue, Policy Analysi
ment or $2.84 after ty rate for Non-Utilitessment or $1.24 afnd, with time, taxaar till it hits a minim
both counties and ment market prices, ast assessment, to obake County, in Waksment, the Municips 1.0346 times, so sment.
over 500 locationsness owner must inv
rvisor (Garrett Co, M
2011. er 15, 2010, pages 8-9nistrator (Baltimore, roperty Tax Section; R
is and Statistics Divis
the 50% exemptionty Generators is $2fter the 50% exemp
able base is reducedmum level of 25%.
municipalities charga sales assessment btain the effective cke Forest, the Counpal rate is $0.5100/the effective comb
with different propvestigate his or her
MD).
9. MD). Raleigh NC; effectiv
sion; Raleigh NC; ab
85
n. In Garrett 2.475, for a total ption. For all d by 5% .28, 29, 30, 31
ge a property tax ratio will increase combined rate. nty rate is /$100 assessment,
bined rate is
perty tax rates. r location.34, 35
ve January 1,
bout early
8
SV
To
3
3
3
3
86
State AssVirginia For
proall assperpregooyeaass
The District of Columbia
For“untaxeneclar
36 March 24, 2011 an37 May 22, 2012 pho38 “Real Property As39 Ibid.
sessment r Virginia, the Stateoperty tax assessmeelectricity generatiessed by the SCC e
rsonal property rateepares its assessmenod factor. Depreciaars. An equalizationessment with that o
r The District of Coniform and accuratexation.” At this poiergy plant is proposrification beyond th
nd May 31, 2012 phoone conversation: PEssessment Process,” T
e Corporation Coment for public servicing plants over 25 Mexcept autos and tre for property assesnt based strictly onation is calculated, rn ratio is applied, toof the region, based
olumbia, the Officee assessments are tint in time, until a psed, the authors of his general goal.38
one conversation: PERERI and Rockingham The District of Colum
mmission (SCC) perce corporations, whMW. All entity prorucks. There is no sssed by the SCC. Tn cost, adjusted by areflecting plant lifeo equalize the utilitd on recent sales in
e of Tax and Reventhe foundation of fapossible site for a lathis report did not
RI and Virginia SCCCounty VA represen
mbia Office of Tax an
Rrforms the real hich includes operty is separate he SCC a percentage e of 20 to 25 ty property
n that region.36
Varao F$pb
nue states that air property arge wind seek further
Fmis
C manager (Richmondntative. nd Revenue, Washing
Rates Virginia charges no ssessment to the coates. Tax rates varyn town or special d
For example, in Lou1.30/$100 assessmroperty tax rate forusiness owner mus
For The District of Cmillion and less is tas taxed at $1.85/$10
d VA).
gton DC, internet dow
o state property tax.ounties which applyy by county. An addistrict.
udon County, the rement. In Rockinghamr 2012 is $0.64/$10st investigate his or
Columbia, commeraxed at $1.65/$10000.39
wnload March 25, 20
. The Virginia SCCy commercial real
dditional tax may be
eal commercial prom County, the real 00 assessment.37 Tr her location.
rcial real property a0. The residual valu
011.
C sends its property tax e charged based
operty tax rate is commercial
The proposed
assessed at $3 ue over $3 million
8.0 Reg With the venvironmthose regunew winddetermineprojects. Wthe ordinaactivities degree to power. Thsuperior wresources differencethe rate an RidgelineCarolina tshed and nconcerns wbelow, actresources Coastal wopportunilimited. Edevelopmensures thissues exa 8.1 Virg Virginia penergy to financial igreater tha(Dominiofor the fordevelopmincentive an additiodoes not pCommonw
40 DSIRE isrenewable eongoing pro41 In this dis
gulatory a
very substantental groups, ulatory and pod projects in the the extent toWhere possibances and statand debates. which the po
his perceptionwind resourceand positive
e in general pnd extent of w
e wind resourcthan in neighbnoise issues awill likely detion at the stain the state.
wind resourcesities for devel
Each state in thment of renewahat they will bamined by the
ginia
provides for athe Common
incentives in an the cost ofn) and Appalreseeable futu
ment of wind pfor independe
onal revenue sprovide an incwealth or else
s a comprehensivenergy and energoject of the N.C. scussion we refe
and Policy
ial assistanceand industry
olicy issues thhe region. Coo which perceble, primary sotutes themselvIn general the
olicies and actn alone is likees. Accordingsupport fromerception of s
wind power de
ces are, for thboring states are likely be otermine whet
ate level in No
s are not well loping wind phe region hasable resourcebe ineffectivee PERI team a
a voluntary RPnwealth’s regulieu of a man
f the RPG thalachian Powerure, this aspecpower by inveent power prostream to sourcentive for thewhere.
ve source of infogy efficiency. Es
Solar Center anr to the District
y Issues
of the Databand governm
hat had substaomplaints and eived barriers ources, such aves, were reviere is a substations of the diely to be a drivly, developer
m the public anstate policy, sevelopment in
he most part, mof West Virg
of more concether ridge lineorth Carolina
understood apower in Nort adopted a RPs, but in most. What followand its consul
PG that proviulated utilitie
ndate, [25] butat to date Virgr Company (Act of Virginiaestor owned uoducers (IPPsrces of renewe developmen
ormation on statestablished in 199nd the Interstate Rof Columbia as
ase of State Iment representantial adverseconcerns raisactually drovas the actual piewed in addiantial differenifferent statesver of future rs are likely tond state and loseveral key issn the region.
more concentinia and Pennern and the ace resources whas effective
and overly broth Carolina anPS or RPG tht of the states
ws is a more dltants.
ides financial s. This prograt the incentiv
ginia’s largestAPCO) have ’s program do
utilities (IOUss) and, as disc
wable energy tnt of new sou
e, local, utility an95 and funded byRenewable Enera state.
Incentives fortatives, team e impact on thsed by partiesve decisions toprinted decisiition to mediance in the percs41 in the regiodevelopment o initially seleocal governmsues were ide
trated in Marynsylvania. Forctions of only
will be developely curtailed d
oad state studnd Virginia sthat is nominal in the region
detailed discu
incentives foam has been ces provided bt utilities, Domchosen to paroes not appeas). However, cussed below,that have been
urces of renew
nd federal inceny the U.S. Deparrgy Council. ww
r Renewable Emembers set
he potential fos were investio build, deferions of regulaa and other acception of maon are supporas no state in
ect locations wments. In additentified that a
yland, Virginir this reason,
y a few countiped. In additiodevelopment o
dies have suggtate waters arelly intended ton, the design oussion of the m
or the purchascriticized becby the programminion Electrrticipate. Accar to be a barrthe program p, the programn in existence
wable energy
ntives and policiertment of Energy
ww.dsireusa.org
Energy (DSIRout to identif
or developmeigated to r or abandon atory agenciesccounts of ongany parties ofrtive of wind n the region hwith good wintion to this
are likely to im
ia and North potential view
ies regarding on, as explainof ridge line
gested that e extremely o encourage tof these progrmore relevant
se of renewabcause it providm are so mucric Power ordingly, at lerier to provides no d
m merely prove for decades,in the
es that promote y, DSIRE is an
87
RE),40 fy ent of
s and going f the
has nd
mpact
w these
ned
the rams t
ble des h
east
direct ides , and
88
Virginia lmillion foprogram. create 30 jgenerationshould bewho manualso has thvariety ofHowever,much prac Virginia da public bpower to tCo-operatcustomersProgram.”per kWh; kWh for eEnergy Cresidentiamaximumpurchasinstandards Virginia’sthe use ofPlan speci “[ en te The 2006 ”[ di of coand “[ ag ac or
42 The progr43 Not availakW are char
aw also provior wind and soThis incentivjobs in the Con equipment m noted, howevufacture equiphe legal authof projects that , to our knowlctical assistan
does not provbenefit fund totwo electric ctive, that servs to TVA’s “G” The former while the latt
energy that caertificates (RE
al and non-resm generation ong 100 percen
and a model
s “Commonwf coal, naturalifically establ
[s]upport resenergy sourcesechnologies th
Virginia law
[a]ll agenciesiscretionary af the Commoonsistent ther
[t]he Commogencies and pction with regr override any
ram is subject toable to customerrged transmissio
ides for a poteolar equipmen
ve is availableommonwealthmanufacturerver, that the ipment used toority to arrangtheoretically
ledge, this funnce to a utility
ide personal, o support winco-operatives,vice very smalGeneration Paprogram wouter program oan be resold toECs). In addi
sidential renewof the affectedt renewable ezoning ordin
wealth Energyl gas, oil, nucllishes a policy
earch and devs” and to “[p]hat do not con
w further provi
and politicalaction with renwealth Ener
rewith”
nwealth Enerpolitical subdigard to energyy contrary pro
o the further discrs of municipally
on and distributio
ential42 Cleannt manufacture to wind powh. The investm
rs are substantncentive applo produce enege for low-int could includnd has never y-scale projec
corporate or nd power proj, the Powell Vll areas in souartners Prograuld pay small offers larger go TVA’s custition, Virginiawable on a “fd utility43 andenergy. Virginance to assist
y Policy” codilear energy asy for the Com
velopment of, romote the gentribute to gre
ided that
l subdivisionsgard to energrgy Policy and
rgy Policy is iivisions of they issues, and sovision of app
retionary provisy owned utilitieson system fees. N
n Energy Manrers and biom
wer equipmentment and job tially greater lies to the “prergy from bioterest state bo
de wind generbeen employ
ct.
sales tax relieects. The Ten
Valley Electriuthwest Virgiam” and “Midgenerators (u
generators (uptomers as “grea provides forfirst-come, fird mandates thania has also pt localities in p
ified in 2006, s well as rene
mmonwealth t
and promoteeneration of eeenhouse gase
s of the Commgy issues, shald where appro
intended to pre Commonweshall not be cplicable law.”
ion of funds by ts. Residential cusNet excess gener
nufacturing Inmass producert manufacturethresholds fothan for wind
roducers” of bomass. The Viond-backed loration of poweed for this pu
ef for wind ponnessee Valleic Co-operativinia. These end-Sized Reneup to 50 kW)p to 20 MW) aeen energy” ar a modest prorst-served” baat utilities pro
promulgated rpermitting w
is an “all of tewable energyto
e the use of, reelectricity throes and global
monwealth, inll recognize thopriate, shall
rovide guidanealth in takingconstrued to a”
the Legislature.stomers with a gration is sold to
ncentive grantrs, over the sixers who invesor biomass prd equipment mbiomass, not mirginia Resou
oans to local aer by the loca
urpose and is t
ower projectsey Authority (ve and the Apntities providewable Standaretail electrican average prand the associogram of net
asis, of up to 1ovide consumreasonable intind power fac
the above” ply and energy
enewable ough l warming.” [2
n taking he elements act in a mann
nce to the g discretionaramend, repeal
generating capacthe utility on an
t, capped at $x-year life of st $10 millionoducers and smanufacturersmerely to tho
urces Authoritauthorities foral governmenttoo small to b
s and does not(TVA) providppalachian Ele access to theard Offer c rates plus $0rice of $0.055iated Renewametering of
1 percent of thmers the optionterconnectioncilities.
lan that promoconservation
26]
ner
ry ,
city of greater tha“avoided cost”
$36 f the n and solar s. It
ose ty r a t. be of
t have des ectric eir
0.03 5 per able
he n of
n
otes . The
an 10 basis.
The Commpolicy; in"permit bypermittingthe permitother minestablishesite plannThe permstreamline However,generationone by thesubsequendevelopm 8.1.1 R The RPG 2017 the gwhich owsales. Undsuch as D0.5 percenthe Virginnet presenperformanvalue of $the bonus(to which In its appllargely thrTier II REbeneficialPortfolio pTier II REpre-existinwhile it mintended texisting hthrough 2
44 It should goals are mo45 Estimates(Nov 20, 2046 Based on 47 Virginia’s48 Tier 1 RE.
monwealth hacluding estaby rule" applieg requirementt by rule callsimal requirem
es reasonable ning, public pa
mit by rule incles the process
, notwithstandn and the adoe State Corpontly adopted p
ment of wind p
Renewable P
goal throughgoal increases
wns substantiader the statuteominion are ent rate of retunia State Corpnt value of $3nce bonuses a$987 million t will rise withthe increasin
lication [27] trough existin
ECs. Tier II Rl that Tier I soprograms. It s
ECs, the valueng Tier I REC
might constructo purchase T
hydropower ge025 was $7.9
be noted that beore modest than s provided in Sta009) and in Dom
2005 data respes hydropower ge
EC prices are sub
as taken a numblishing a streaes to wind enet on projects os for notifyingments. For prorequirementsarticipation, pludes projectss for addressin
ding Virginiaption of an ef
oration Commproscriptive zpower in Virg
Portfolio Goa
h 2016 is set as to 7 percentl nuclear resoe, all costs, inentitled to rec
urn on equity. poration Com30 million th
and penalties through 2025h the increase
ng goals are ap
to participate g47 in-state hy
RECs are geneources and theshould be note of even TierCS are allowect new renewa
Tier II RECs theneration. Do
9 million, com
cause a substantit otherwise mig
ate Corporation Cminion’s applicatiecting Dominioneneration has an bstantially less to
mber of usefuamlined permergy projects of less than 5g the Virginiaojects exceedis for potentialpermit fees, ins located in stng those issue
’s codified pofficient permi
mission, the otzoning regulatginia.
al (RPG) Pro
at 4 percent oft and in 2025 ources, the tarncluding Rec acover all of thFor Dominio
mmission staffhrough 2025. Tthat could eit. As the Dom
e in equity helpplied) is fixe
in the prograydropower reerated by soureir use is consted, that whiler I RECs is ined for compliaable generatiohroughout the
ominion estimmpared to $22
tial portion of theght appear. Commission stafion.
n’s capital base.average age of a
oday than at the
ul and potentimitting mecha
less than 10000 kW; for pr
a Department ing 5 MW anl environmentnter-agency cotate waters fores.
olicy of suppoitting mechanther by severations, have cr
ogram Desig
f the non-nuclto 12 percent
rget through 2and administr
heir costs of pon, the “bonusf45 to amount tThe SCC stafther eliminate
minion system ld by the comed at 2007 gen
am, Dominionsources, supprces that are gstrained or pre there is a di
nsufficient to iance with theon if market ce life of the R
mated that the 21 million for
e electricity sold
ff review of Dom
approximately 7time of Dominio
ially importananism. The pe0 MW. The rurojects more tof Environm
nd up to 100Mtal impact anaonsultations, r wind farms
orting and facnism, several al political subreated substan
gn
lear44 2007 sat of non-nucle2016 translaterative expense
participation ins” for participto nominally ff also pointede the bonus or
m grows over tmpany, even th
neration leve
n acknowledgplemented as generally conrohibited in a fference betwincentivize ne
e RPS or RPGconditions waRPG program
net present vTier I RECs4
d in Virginia is g
minion’s applica
70 years. on’s application
nt steps to impermit regulatioule places no ethan 500 kW
mental QualityMW, the permalysis, mitigacompliance aless than 100
cilitating new sets of discre
ubdivisions ofntial barriers t
ales of electriear 2007 saleses to 2.7 percees are reimbun the programpating has bee$39 million p
d out that the r increase it tothe next 13 yehough the “bals.
ged that it wounecessary by
nsidered less enumber of R
ween the valueew renewable
G. Dominion iarranted doingto fill any sh
value of the us48. Thus, the f
generated by nuc
ation; Case No. P
.
plement this on, known as environmentaand up to 5 M
y and imposesmit regulation ation plans, faand enforcem0 MW, and
wind power tionary action
f the state thatto the
city in the stas. For Dominent of total 20
ursed and IOUm and an addien estimated bper year46 andstatute provid
o a net presenears, the amouaseline” gene
uld meet the gy the purchaseenvironmenta
Renewable e of Tier I ande developmenindicated thatg so, the comp
hortfall from se of Tier II Rflaw in the de
clear power, Virg
PUE-2009-00082
89
al MW, s
acility ment.
ns; t
ate. In nion, 007 Us itional by d a des
nt unt of ration
goal e of ally
d nt if t, pany
RECs esign
ginia’s
2
90
of Virginiprioritizesthat have millions oneed an inreturn on 8.1.2 A At about tparticipatethat two pprudent” mas other gthe RPG wwould be renewableit would buse of Tieutilized [2unreasona
“Flothac
This decislarge rate violationsthat “… wto serve cuin Virginicost of anrenewablerelease thelevel was Energy (Cwhat the rsubstantia A bill wasCorporati
49 http://ww50 “The Comreflected in without signstatute.” Or 51 Here, howoffsetting be
ia’s RPG progs the use of woccurred dec
of dollars fromncentive to opequity, but is
Appalachian
the same timee in the RPG
power purchasmeans of com
generation souwere not miniconsidered “r
e generation tbe needed to mer II RECs, ho28]. Notably, able, but held
For example, ow when comhe Commissioctions incurrin
sion may be oincreases nee
s of the Cleanwe do not, by ustomers” ania. However,
ny new sourcee energy genee terms of thedetermined t
COE) for windrate increase fally higher tha
s introduced ion Commissi
ww.scc.virginia.gmpany's evidencthe statute.” “He
nificant offsettinrder, p. 11 (emph
wever, the new penefits and, furth
gram is not thwhat are know
ades earlier. Am ratepayers tperate and an unlikely to in
Power Com
e the State Coprogram, APse agreements
mplying with turces). The Coimums to be mreasonable anthat was not nmeet the goal olding that whthe Commissthat this ques
even if a utilmpared to otheon to find thatng such cost.”
one where “baeded to install
n Air Act, a fathis Order, in
nd the Commigiven the larg
e of renewableeration compae APCO PPAo be impruded power compfor the consuman that of Tier
in the Virginiion to conside
gov/pue/renew/apce shows that theere, however, th
ng benefits and, fhasis added)
proposals would hermore, are not
he fact that it wn in emissionAs a consequto operators oeven larger ancentivize ne
pany (APCO
orporation CoPCO submitteds (PPA) for nthe RPG (as rommission remet and exceend prudent” unneeded to mee
established fhere a lower csion did not fistion was not
ity shows thaer high cost ret such cost is ”
ad facts makel pollution co
act noted by thndicate that wission has appge price differe energy, it isatible with the, and therefor
ent. It should bpared to fossimer would ber II RECs.
a legislature ter the codified
pco_renew_09.pese PPAs are note new proposalsfurthermore, are
exacerbate an alt needed at this ti
is voluntary, ns trading circence, Virgini
of existing renamount to the w wind or oth
O) State Cor
mmission wad its applicati
new wind powrequired by thejected APCOeded, but capnder the Comet the currentlfor later yearscost method oind that the codispositive.
at the cost of ienewable resoreasonable or
e bad law” as ontrol equipmhe Commissio
wind power caproved proposrential betwees hard to image RPG prograre, wind powebe noted that il-fueled or nue. It merely de
to correct thisd Virginia En
pdf t needed at this ts would exacerba
not needed at th
lready difficult rime to meet volu
but the fact thcles as “anywa’s RPG prognewable geneparticipating
her renewable
rporation Co
as reviewing Dion to the Com
wer generationhe statute for O’s request anps on the amoummission’s ruly applicable s. The Commiof complianceost of energy
its proposed rources, the star that it is pru
APCO had rement and resolv
on in its Ordeannot be part osals from IPPen the marketgine the Commam unfortunater developersthe Commiss
uclear generaecided that th
s situation bynergy Policy w
time to achieve tate an already dihis time to meet
rate environmentuntary RPS goal
hat it not onlyway credits” – gram will tranerating facilitig IOUs in the e power proje
ommission D
Dominion’s ammission forn were “reasonew renewab
nd determinedunt of renewales [28].49 Thgoal50 was noission also noe is available,in the propos
renewable resatute does notudent for a uti
ecently requeve the compaer.51 The Comof a portfolio
Ps to build wint value of Tiemission will ftely. The Coms do not even sion did not reation and did nhe cost of the
y specifically rwhen conside
those goals undeifficult rate envirt voluntary RPS
t for customers wls under the statu
y allows, but credit for act
nsfer many ies that do notform of bonuects in Virgin
Decision
application to r a determinatonable and ble energy as wd that the goalable energy th
hus any new ot prudent, evoted Dominio, it must be sed PPAs was
source is t require ility to take
ested and receany’s ongoingmmission asse
of energy sond power projer II RECs andfind any new mmission did know what peview a Cost not determinePPA was
requiring the ering such ma
er the time frameronment for custgoals under the
without significaute.
tions
t us nia.
tion
well ls of hat
ven if on’s
s
eived g erted urces jects d the
not price
of e
State atters.
e tomers
ant
“I ca co or §§ However,resourcesamended. Several stnot adequCommissiof one or a noticeabCommissielsewherehigher thaemploy thstandard ffrustrated 8.1.3 Z Local opppower in ttime and cgenerationevaluate othose whoregion, eacommercisetting. Towelcome adverse im Almost alstrong winyears devVirginia. ordinancePennsylvafairly narrTrail and lower Chedecided bCounty, pof wind pcommerci
In determininapacity to its onsider the exr by contract,§67-101 and
, this bill was s is likely to re
tate observersuate to addression was alreamore 100 MW
ble increase inion that where in the countran fossil-fuelehe price of Tiefor what costsand millions
Zoning Ordin
position to newthe Mid-Atlancost of addresn and render aor address envo oppose windarly projects, iial-scale windoward this ensensible sitin
mpact on the c
ll of the lowernd resources, elopers have In response to
es. Virginia’s ania, West Virow band andNational Foreesapeake Bayy a relativelyrovide for senower [29]. Otial wind powe
ng the reasonacustomers fro
xtent to which, further the o67-102.”
amended to aesult in unrea
s and develops the problemdy obligated W wind farmsn utility rates e the cost of ary, that projeced generation er II RECs fros may be consof dollars of
nances
w wind powentic area. Evessing challenga project econvironmental id power genein particular, d farm is an innd wind poweg and noise recommunity an
r elevation prand so this isexpressed into this expressridgeline and
irginia or othed developable ests. Coastal r
y or Atlantic Oy small numbensible setbackther ordinancer developme
ableness or prom renewableh such renewaobjectives of t
also require thasonable incre
ers believe thm, especially s
to consider ths to Virginia’and so, this aa proposed prct should be aor the purcha
om existing ssidered reasonf ratepayer’s m
er projects canen if local oppges raised by nomically unvssues, the eve
erally. If windmust be good
ndustrial enteer developers egulation andnd the enviro
roperty in Virssue does not terest in a numsion of interesd coastal winder states. In Vsites are furth
resources are Ocean. Thus, er of countiesk and noise cones, such as th
ent.
rudence of a e energy resoable energy rethe Commonw
he Commissioeases in rates
hat, because osince under thhe Commonws energy pool
amended langroject is consiapproved, evease of RECs. ources (or Tienable and prumoney will be
n be a significposition is unopponents caviable. Moreoent is widely pd power is to gd neighbors. Drprise that oft(and early wi
d should adoponment.
ginia, except affect most o
mber of potenst, a number od power resouVirginia, high her constraineavailable onlthe future of . Some ordinantrols that reg
he ordinance a
utility providources, the Coesources, whe
wealth Energy
on to consides paid by cons
of this amendmhe 2006 statutwealth Energyl of 25,000 M
guage may be istent with simen though the If, however, er I RECs fro
udent, Virginie wasted.
cant barrier toable to stop a
an significantlover, when a publicized angain public acDevelopers shften must be loind power dev
pt conservativ
along the coaof Virginia’s cntial ridge lineof Virginia cources are not nvalue ridgelined by Nationaly in those comuch of Virgances, such agulate, but nonadopted by Ta
ding energy anommission shaether utility-oy Policy set fo
er “whether thsumers” and
ment, the revite the State Coy Policy. HowMW of capacit
sufficient to milar renewabcost of electrthe Commiss
om such sourcia’s Energy P
o the developma project as a mly increase thdeveloper fai
nd becomes grcceptance in thould understocated in a pavelopers in pa
ve designs tha
ast, does not hcounties. Ovee and a few coounties have enearly as dispne sites are coal Park land,
ounties that arginia’s wind pas that enactednetheless permazewell Coun
nd all owned orth in
he costs of sucpassed as
ised legislatioorporation
wever, the addty will not leasignal to the ble projects ricity may be sion continuesces) as the olicy will be
ment of windmatter of law
he cost of ils to properlyrist for the mithe Mid-Atlantand that a astoral or ruraarticular) shou
at minimize an
have sufficiener the past 10 oastal locatioenacted zoninpersed as thosoncentrated inthe Appalach
re adjacent to power will bed by Roanokemit, developmnty, effectivel
91
ch
on is
dition ad to
s to
d w, the
y ill of ntic
al uld ny
ntly
ons in ng se in n a
hian the
e e ment ly bar
92
Historicalalmost allCommonwenergy facthe Commsolar facilCommonwprovisionsincluding decommismodel zonappears toCommonw Floyd Couproposed,statutes anCommissiVirginia. greatest co While locforward, ithere are nthat is gengovernmecollaboratmany Virgimprove, that wind gain accep 8.1.4 V As noted ridge line economicResourcesChesapeakCommissiChesapeakresource. report; theaccordingChesapeakcompreheadditionalsuitable fo
52 Id.“Any m
lly, the Virginl situations, inwealth passedcilities that ge
monwealth Enlity while prowealth to proms establishingprovisions lim
ssioning. In Aning ordinanco exempt thoswealth’s 2006
unty likely ha, and is currennd effectivelyioners on thisIn contrast, Aoastal resourc
cal zoning ordit is still premno commercianerated by opent has attemptive fashion toginia countiesthere will likepower can be
ptance in cou
Virginia Marin
earlier, muchsites in weste
cally viable ws Commissionke Bay and ition determineke Bay. The pHowever, a de analysis doe
g to the reportke on further
ensive review l studies woulor developme
measures requir
nia state govencluding the sd a statute [30enerate electrnergy Policy, viding for themote the gene
g reasonable rmiting noise,
April of 2012,ce to assist locse zoning ordi6 Energy Poli
as greater winntly contemply bar any coms issue will haAccomack Coces, has been
dinances havemature to state
al scale wind ponents of wipted to addreso develop a res that are willely be some we a good neig
unties that curr
ne Resource
h of central Viern Virginia, ind resourcesn (VMRC) tots environs. Ined that existinpublication ofdetailed reviewes not supportt, may prove treview. The of the underl
ld need to be ent. For the m
ed by the ordina
ernment has bsiting of fossi0] requiring thricity from wiprovide reasoe protection oeration of enerequirements u
requiring buf, the Commoncal governmeinances that hicy.52
nd energy resolating, a zonin
mmercial scaleave a significaunty, one of tsupportive of
e clearly blocke that this issu
farms in the ind energy; soss the concerneasonable moling to acceptwind power dhbor that conrently do not
es Commiss
irginia does nonly the lowe
s. In 2009, the determine th
n a widely disng competing f this report ew of this repot this conclusto be appropristudy was nolying issues aconducted be
most part, the V
ance shall be con
een highly del fuel-fired pohat any local ond or solar re
onable criteriaof the locality ergy from winupon the sitinffer areas andnwealth, workents in addresshave already b
ources than anng ordinance e wind power ant impact onthe two Virgif the developm
ked several wue will be a sigCommonweaome degree ons of opponenodel ordinancet wind power.evelopment. D
ntributes to ecpermit comm
ion Report
not possess deer Chesapeake Virginia leghe feasibility osseminated anuses ruled ou
effectively endort reveals thaion. Indeed, tiate locationst sufficiently
and so it is notefore large areVMRC Repor
nsistent with the
eferential to loower plants. Hordinance addesources be coa to be addres in a manner nd and solar rng of any suchd setbacks, anking with locasing these issbeen adopted
ny other ridgethat would ig
r developmentn the prospectinia eastern shment of wind
wind power prgnificant barr
alth and, with of skepticism nts by workine to address l. Therefore, oDone properl
conomic growmercial scale w
evelopable wike Bay and adjgislature direcof leasing statnd quoted reput any commeded any consiat, while this the report idens for the devel
funded by tht surprising theas of the Chrt provides on
locality’s existin
ocal zoning dHowever, in 2dressing the sonsistent withssed in the sitconsistent wi
resources; andh renewable e
nd addressing al governmen
sues [31]. Howd even if they
eline county. gnore both thet. The decisiots of ridgelinehore counties d power.
rojects in Virgrier over the l
h the amount ois to be antici
ng with local gocal siting iss
once economily, this develo
wth in the regiwind power.
ind resourcesdjacent lands hcted the Virginte-owned bot
port [32] publiercial scale wideration of thconclusion isntifies a numlopment of w
he legislature that the report
hesapeake counly a superfic
ng ordinances.”
determination2011, the siting of renewh the provisioting of any wiith the goals od include energy facilitygeneration fa
nts published wever, the stacontravene th
The County he 2006 and 20on of the Coune wind power
likely to hav
ginia from golong term. Asof misinformaipated. The stgovernments sues, and theric conditions opment can shion and thereb
. Other than thave potentiania Marine ttomlands in tished in 2010
wind farms in he use of this
s stated in the mber of areas twind power in
to attempt a concludes th
uld be declarecial examinati
s in
wable ons of ind or of the
y, acility a
atute he
has 011 nty in
ve the
oing s yet, ation tate in a re are
how by
the ally
the 0, the the
s
that, the
hat ed ion of
potential ia tiering oillustratio The Repo “[
anF
The Commin an EastOcean fromost of thThe harboused by reVirginia pOnancock“shippingbars and sbe undersapart and harbors ofmore thanshallower The VMRunexplodewith militThese areBut the Uand local military wwhere turbradar interMaryland
issues and conof areas wherens most clear
ort identifies “
[a]reas for whnchorages, macility range,
mission’s mapt-West directiom the back bhe claimed “shors that are seecreational boportion of the k and Puncoteg lanes” identishifting channtood that the pose no threaf the lower Ban 100 feet deer waters are re
RC Report alsed ordinance tary, FAA andas include the
U.S. military, wgovernments
would object tbines can interference areas
d, Center for I
nflicts that we more extensrly reveals the
“Excluded Ar
hich there is ailitary securitBaylor Grou
p of these areion between thbays of the eashipping lanes
erved by theseoaters and smEastern Shor
eague Creek aified on Virginels that can bindividual tur
at to the navigay. The main
ep. The main eadily availab
o excludes lain some areasd weather rade approaches with its own rin addressing
to the siting oerfere with ras are clearly dntegrative Re
ould need to bsive review we short comin
reas” (Figure
a legally definty and trainingunds (public o
eas identifieshe Bay’s eaststern shore. As” are unmarke “shipping la
mall fishing crare is at Cape Care deep enouinia’s Atlanticbe navigated brbines in a wigation of smanorth/south s
shipping chanble.
arge areas unds of the Bay.
dar signals canto Norfolk an
renewable eneg such issues,
of any wind fadar. In contradefined and thesearch [34]. T
be addressed would be requ
gs of the repo
8-1), which i
ned use or prog areas, FAA
oyster grounds
a large numbtern and weste
A review of thked open wateanes” are oftenaft, not “shipsCharles Town
ugh to supportc coast are geby small, shalind farm are tller vessels sushipping channnel would no
der the headinThere also arn be disruptednd Patuxent Nergy goals [33, and there is arm in Chesapast, within theheir basis is eThat report su
as any projecuired. Examinort.
it defines as:
otection such A restriction ar
s) and private
ber of what it ern shores an
he nautical chers that are ton less than sixs.” The only sn, while a cout occasional b
enerally smallllow draft, botypically spacuch as those cnnel of the Baot be consider
ng of “Militarre areas whered by reflectedNaval Air Stat3] has been gno indicationpeake Bay boe State of Marexplained in auggests poten
ct proposed fonation of sever
as navigationreas, the NASe shellfish lea
styles “shippnd eastward inharts for the aro shallow forx or eight feesignificant hauple of creeksbarge traffic. l ocean inlets,oats, not shipsced approximcapable of usiay is clearly mred for a wind
ry” and, indeee the potentia
d signals fromtion further n
generally coopn in the Reporottomlands, exryland, milita
a report by Unntial mitigatio
or these areasral of the repo
n channels anSA Wallops Fases”.
ping lanes” thnto the Atlantrea reveals thr ships to enteet in depth andarbor on the s, such as the Similarly, the, guarded by ss. Here, it sho
mately 1000 yaing the small
marked and ofd farm where
ed, there is al for interfere
m wind turbinenorth in Marylperative with rt that the U.Sxcept in areasary and weathniversity of on measures.
93
s and ort’s
d Flight
hat run tic
hat er. d are
e sand
ould ards
ften e
ence es. land. state
S. s her
94
Figure 8-1.
The VMR“major co “w
dewbaduovcrwbe
There is liCarolina, portrayed conflictedrecreation
53 Actually,
VMRC Report
RC Report theonflicts.” Maj
where there aevelopment. E
with depths lesarrier islands,ue to the largverwinter in trab spawning
well as high coeaches.”
ikely to be soNew Jersey ain the VMRC
d both becausenal use.
the VMRC desi
t Excluded Are
en identifies aor conflict (F
are significantExamples of ass than 2 mete, and areas aloe number of sthe area. This and nursery
ommercial shi
ome conflict wand elsewhereC report. The e it is environ
ignates all water
as
an additional bFigure 8-2) ar
t use or resourareas suggesters,53 includinong the coast species and in area includesareas and fishipping and re
with migratorye have shownpolicy expert
nmentally sen
rs less than two m
broad swath oreas are define
rces conflictsted for this cang the Easternthat are of co
ndividuals thas much of thehery, marine mcreational use
y bird flywayn, such conflict also notes th
nsitive and bec
meters deep as m
of the lower Ced by the Rep
s that would aategory includn Shore lagooontinental andat migrate throe Bay mouth tmammal and e areas includ
ys along the ccts are unlikelhat the VMRCcause there is
major conflicts.
Chesapeake Bport as those a
appear to precde sensitive shon system behd global impoough this corthat overlaps turtle migrat
ding those nea
oastline, but aly to extend aC Report asses high comme
Bay that contaareas
clude wind enhallow water hind Virginia’ortance to birdrridor and or is near bluory corridors ar recreationa
as studies in Nas broadly as erts that this aercial shippin
ains
nergy areas ’s ds
ue as
al
North
area is g and
Figure 8-2.
Next, the defined aspossibly bthat are alis far morCommissiand bluefiIsland woper squarefoundatiobeneficial
Figure 8-3.
VMRC “Majo
Report identis “areas wherbe consideredlso dredged tore substantial ion believes t
fish managemould pose a coe mile of bottn based strucl havens for fi
VMRC “Mode
r Conflicts”
ifies areas thare there appead suitable for lo provide sandthan a typical
that a wind faent areas that
onflict with retomland and ttures that turb
fish and crusta
erate Conflicts”
at it deems to ars to be someleasing.” Thed and that incl wind farm. T
arm would pot it identifies oegional birds. that a numberbine and simiaceans.
”
have “modere use or resouse areas inclu
clude the CheThe Report dse a significanor how it deteWe note that
r of studies frolar foundation
rate conflicts”urce conflict, bude “blue crabesapeake Bay does not provint post-constrermined that at wind farms hom Europeanns and scour
” (Figure 8-3but with furthb spawning anBridge Tunn
ide a statemenruction conflia wind farm shave a relativ
n offshore winreducing ripr
). These areasher analysis mnd nursery ar
nel, a structurent of whether ict with the fisouth of Tangvely small foond farms and rap provide
95
s are might reas” e that the
infish gier otprint other
96
After thesThe Repodetailed efact, theseof the CheBay), theshave Classimply dis
“[ofinpr
This conc“some” coresult, thescale wind
Figure 8-4.
Attemptinthis reviewthe limitedgenerally airborne dmining, p
54 This is pa55 The reporline near theand Yorktow
se exclusions,ort defines “lenvironmental
e areas are deesapeake Bayse areas are lass 4 wind resosmisses these
[w]hile there f wind projecndustrial scalerojects except
clusion ignoreonflict, but foe reported cond generation i
VMRC “Lesse
ng to resolve tw. However, d review of thquoted as the
deposition of rocessing and
articularly true ifrt also errs in faie “lesser conflictwn, VA.
, there remainsser conflict al and use analemed by the C
y (south of Smarge enough tources. Howeve sites:
may very wects it is unlikee projects, nort in the Virgin
es the potentiaound by the Cnclusion of thin state-owne
er Conflict Area
the policy issuthe potential he issues affoe conclusion onitrogen in th
d transportatio
f one properly scling to identify ot” areas on the w
ns what the VMareas” as “arelysis will be nCommission
mith Point in to support comver, having id
ll be areas in ly there will br does it appenia Beach are
al for developCommission as
e VMRC is thed bottomland
as”
ue of whethervalue of the r
orded by the 2of the Commihe Bay and reon activities.
cales the markedother options for
western shore of
MRC identifieas that may bneeded beforeto be potentiathe vicinity ofmmercial scaldentified thes
state waters tbe large areasear the electricea.”55
pment of the ms potentially shat there is nods in the Ches
r to exploit thresource is too2010 VMRC Sission. Amonduces runoff There is a sig
d navigation chanr transmission ofthe Bay and the
ies as “lesser be suitable foe permits and ally suitable. f the Rappahale wind devele areas as pot
that are potens with suitablecal distributio
much larger asuitable for leo potential forsapeake Bay.
he available reo significant Study and the
ng its other attto the Chesap
gnificant diffe
nnels for small bf electricity genetransmission ca
conflict areasor leasing reco
leases can beLocated on thannock Riverlopment54 andtentially suita
ntially suitablee wind resouron system is a
areas, designaeasing on furtr developmen
esource is beyto be dismisse unsupportedtributes, windpeake Bay waerence betwee
boats that bisect erated in state wapacity available
s” (Figure 8-ognizing that e issued.” Thhe Western shr and Mobjackd are projectedable, the Repo
e for developrces for large adequate for l
ated as havingther analysis. nt of commerc
yond the scopsed on the basd “finding” thd energy reducatershed fromen identifying
the identified araters, such as a 2 at Calvert Cliff
-4).
hus, in hore k d to ort
pment
large
g As a cial
pe of sis of hat is ces
m coal g
reas. 220 kV
fs, MD
areas whearea mustThe VMRidentify arcommunitwind powVMRC tomore fairl 8.2 Nort The lack oresources is approxiinclude 97invested swind powland use iAttorney North Carauthority However,Several ofCarolina hnot yet ide North CarStandard”12.5 percesources inmeet a tarpercent, uindividuala tax credamount offinancing has also plocalities Duke Powsupport reFederal Prnew windper year57
MW windfor those spremium
56 As of this57 Nominall
ere further wot be excluded RC Report accreas for potenty has accepte
wer developmeo conduct a faly framed for
th Carolina
of wind develthat exist at b
imately 2400 70 MW on thsubstantial fun
wer. It also hasssues. HowevGeneral in 20rolina, and theof local gove
, wind power f these projechas identifiedentified a pro
rolina has esta” (RPS) that oent of 2020 renclude energyrget of 10 perup to $2.5 mill tax credit, u
dit for renewabf the credit. Itfor energy im
promulgated rin permitting
wer has a stanepresents a suroduction Tax
d projects in th7 from any ond farm, it maysources for wfor “green” e
s date, no countyy, 2MW of capa
ork is needed because the c
complishes thntial developmed the judgmeent in the low
ar more thorouVirginia’s re
a
lopment in Noboth ends of tmegawatts (Me mountain rinds to evaluats provided tecver, the interp002 has effecte General Assrnments that
projects havects involve wid a potential wocedure for re
ablished a maobliges the thretail electricity efficiency ancent renewablion per instap to $10,500,ble energy eqt also has estamprovements,reasonable int
wind power
nding offer to ubsidy of 5-10x Credit (if avhe state. Howe source. Thu
y provide a uswhich net mete
lectricity sup
y has adopted a Pacity.
to resolve potcompeting inthe former taskment of wind ent of the Com
wer Bay. Signiugh and balan
esidents and th
orth Carolinathe state. The MW) of potenidges and 143te the availabchnical resourpretation of thtively stoppedsembly has lewas taken aw
e been proposildlife protectwind power resolving the pe
andatory “Renree major invety sales in Nond new renew
bles by 2018. allation, for w, for wind powquipment manablished a loc, including diterconnectionfacilities.
purchase win0 percent of thvailable) wou
wever, the totaus, while this seful incentiveering is less oport the North
PACE financing
tentially comterests are irrek, but not the power on stammission, thuificant additionced evaluatioheir elected re
a is in markedNorth Caroli
ntial wind cap30 MW on-shble wind resources to assist
he 1983 Mound all developmeft this interpr
way by the 200
sed, and are pion issues tha
esource in its ermitting auth
newable Enerestor-owned u
orth Carolina fwables. MunicState law alsoind power uswer used for nnufacturers ofal option56 fostributed gen
n standards an
nd power genehe cost of newuld appear to bal purchase unoffer would ne to distribute
optimal. In adh Carolina Gr
program.
mpeting intereseconcilable anlatter. The leg
ate-owned botus ending anyonal resourceon of the issuepresentative
d contrast to thina State Enerpacity in Northore and in sources and the local governm
ntain Ridge Pment of commretation intact02 interpretat
proceeding in at are still beincoastal bays ahority of the v
rgy and Energutilities (IOUfrom eligible cipal utilities o provides a ced for a businnon-business f up to 25 percor Property-Aneration wind nd a model zo
erated RECs w wind generbe of some mnder this prognot be of muced wind powe
ddition, customreen Power p
sts, and determnd the earliergislature askettomlands andy discussion os should be p
ues so that thes.
he abundant argy Office estth Carolina. T
ound waters. Nbarriers to de
ments in addrProtection Actmercial wind pt by decliningtion.
several coastng worked thand sounds, bvarious agenc
gy EfficiencyUs) in the state
sources by 2and electric c
corporate tax ness purpose purposes. Thcent, with no
Assessed Cleanpower projecning ordinanc
at $5 per MWation. Togeth
meaningful valgram is limitech use to the der generation mers who elecprogram which
mining that ar use is a priored the VMRCd the user-of the potentiaprovided to the issues may b
amount of wintimates that th
These figures North Carolinevelopment oressing siting t advanced bypower in wesg to reinstate
tal counties. hrough. Northbut apparentlycies.
y Portfolio e to purchase 021. Eligible
cooperatives mcredit of 35 as well as an
he state also glimit on the
n Energy (PActs. North Carce to assist
Wh. This levelher with the lue in stimulad to 5,000 MWdeveloper of ain North Carct to pay a h, for larger
97
an rity.
C to
al for e
be
nd here
na has f and
y the stern the
h y has
up to
must
grants
ACE) rolina
l of
ating Wh a 100 olina
98
sources ofretires the$0.09 per “Generatiserving N One moresystem prvertically Fentress cutilities or North Carwith no liindustrial may be asUnder thi 8.2.1 N North Carexperiencdevelopm[35].58 ThIt further Carolina whydropowprojects orecommenefficiencystated legithe first gbut of the approximsince the p While theregion, Nodevelopmgenerally compliancthe requirwill growof the stanwaste (0.2
58 The progrThus far, pr59 http://ww60 Small hyd61 Thereafte
f renewable ee RECs gener
kWh from thion Partners P
North Carolina
e point, this strovides more
integrated utcase since ther to imbedded
rolina law reqmit on the agsystems up to
ssessed standbs program, ne
North Carolin
rolina’s RPS wced in the desi
ment of new rehe consultant’concluded thawould experie
wer was includor relying on “nded the incluy measures, wislative goal oeneral compl8,600 MW o
ately 8,000 Mprogram was
e percentages orth Carolina
ment, includingfocuses on ne
ce be “in-statered REC perce
w as system dendard through2 percent each
ram provides forogram costs hav
ww.ncuc.commerdro power (less ter, energy efficie
electricity, conated by those
he program plProgram,” disca customers.
tudy focused opportunitiesilities. In the re is not the o
d muni's.
quires its threeggregate capaco 100 kW havby charges at et excess gene
na RPS Desi
was adopted ign of such prenewable eners report conclat although a ence difficultyded in the mix“anyway credusion of new
while not direcof encouraginiance date is 2
of new renewaMW is represe
adopted.59
in North Caroa’s program isg new wind dew sources,60
e” RECs and entages are baemand increash 2021.61 Smah) and poultry
r caps on the amve been well belorce.state.nc.us/rethan 10 MW) do
ency may be used
ntracts with ree sources. Smalus approximacussed above
on the PJM as than the tradlatter, the eco
opportunity fo
e in-state IOUcity that mustve the right tothe same rate
eration is surr
ign
in 2007 basedrograms. Thisrgy, while avoluded that mogoal of 5 pery meeting a 1x of available
dits” from exisenergy efficie
ctly promotinng private inv2012, the souable generatioented by wind
olina’s RPS ps likely to be mdevelopment i requires thatexcludes bothased on generses. Energy efall percentagey waste powe
mount of the increow the allowed ceps/RegistrationSoes not need to bd to meet up to 4
enewable enealler wind-enately $0.04 pee, is also avail
area since pricditional controonomics will or developer t
Us to offer nett be accommoo net meteringe as for fossil rendered to th
d on a compres firm consideoiding signifiost new renewrcent new win10 percent newe resources. Rsting renewabency measureg the installat
vestment in reurce of the REon that has regd power proje
program are lomore effectivin North Carot a minimum oh new and exration in the yfficiency meaes of the overared energy su
emental programcaps. Spreadsheet2008be new. 40 percent of the
ergy sources bnergy systemser kWh from lable to TVA-
cing was transol area of Norlikely be discto sell mercha
t metering foodated. Residg without stanfuel-fired cu
he utility on a
ehensive analered the paralicant increasewable energy nd energy wasw renewable
Rather than puble generationes as part of thtion of new w
enewable enerECs used for cgistered to pr
ects across the
ower than thove in facilitatinolina, becauseof 75 percent
xisting large hyear prior to tasures may onall standard aupplies (900,0
m cost that the ut
8-2012.xls
e standard.
based on a bids can receive aparticipating -supplied elec
sparent and thrth Carolina ocounted compant power - o
r systems up dential systemndby charges
ustomer ownean annual basi
lysis by a conllel goals of ees in retail elewould come s readily achistandard unle
ursuing new lan, the consulthe standard. N
wind power, drgy and energcompliance isrovide RECs te U.S. that hav
ose found elseng new renewe the North Cat of the RECs hydropower sothe compliancnly be used toare reserved fo000 MWh). In
tilities may recov
dding processa payment of utilities. The
ctric cooperat
hat the PJM operated by pared to the Pnly PPA from
to 1 MW capms up to 20 kW
; larger systemd generation.is.
nsulting firm encouraging ectricity ratesfrom wind enevable, Northess large arge hydropoting firm New energy do further the gy efficiency.s not yet availto NC utilitieve come on li
ewhere in thewable arolina prograused for
ources. Morece year, and so meet 25 perfor solar and sn their annual
ver from custom
s and fe TVA tives
PJM m
pacity W and ms
nergy. h
ower
As lable, s, ine
e
am
over, so cent
swine l
mers.
reports, twbut not ot 8.2.2 N As in mangovernmeresort thatpartially wRidge Prothat the “mstructuresalso cited condominMRPA exor commuU.S. DOE“ridgelineexplicitly the MPRAHoward Kslender an
62 Wind turbnickname apin impact to63 Appalach64 http://wwhttp://www.
Barrierplants Mitigat
wo utilities haherwise.
North Carolin
ny other statesents in North t was built onwithdrew the otection Act (Mmodernistic” , as such a prpotential diff
niums and thexempts water,unications or bE funding, whe” location (Hlisted “windm
A. It should bKnob wind mind less costly
bine towers are spplied to the Sug
o a transmission lhian State Univer
ww.time.com/tim.carolinacorner.c
r - RECs need
tion Options
ave indicated
na Mountain
s, local zoninCarolina. How
n Sugar Top Mdelegation ofMRPA). Whidesign of the
rovision woulficulties in pr
e potential infr, radio and telboth.62 It also
hat was then thHoward Knob)mills” as amoe noted that till as shown itubular tower
similar in size togar Top Resort).line that will necrsity in Boone, N
me/magazine/articcom/attractions/b
d to be structu
– Restructure
that they anti
Ridge Prote
ng and land uswever, in resp
Mountain in Af zoning authoile the major presort was ugd be difficult oviding sanit
fringement of levision toweo exempts “strhe largest win) at Appalach
ong the “structhe turbines inn Figure 8.5.rs.
Figure 8-51979
Some havdifferent that timewas a comwind turbBoone, Nwas beinwindmillevidencelegislaturirrigate fiThere is nfor techn
o the other exemp Moreover, a wicessarily have a NC. cle/0,9171,92418boone-becomes-
ured to empha
e RPS/RPG
icipate difficu
ection Act
se decisions hponse to publ
Avery Countyority to countpublic opposigly; the legislto enforce. Ration and firewater rights ors and any eqructures of a rndmill (2 MWhian State Unitures of a rela
n use today no. These design
5. Boone N.C. D
ve argued thathan the type the legislaturmmon term fobines or wind
NC, windmill ng considered l in the news ae to suggest thre of a need to
fields or provino specific re
nical reasons,
pt structures andind farm is used number of assoc
82,00.html; http-windmill-city.ht
asize in-state p
ulty in meetin
have traditionlic oppositiony, the North Cties when it adition to the relature did not
Rather, the lege protection foof those livin
quipment for trelatively slen
W) in the worliversity63 (Figatively slendeo longer havens have been
DOE/NASA 2 M
at the term “we of structure re was develo
for what we nd power gener
was frequentand was consaccounts of th
hat any consido exempt farmide water for eference to suit is unlikely
d entirely dissimfor the transmis
ciated supporting
://tvnews.vandertm
projects invo
ng the swine w
ally been the n to a high-risCarolina Genedopted the 19esort was baset attempt to bagislative findior these ten-st
ng at lower elethe transmissinder nature.” ld had been ingure 8-5) – aner nature” thae heavy truss t
superseded b
MW Experiment
windmill” refeat Howard K
oping the MRow also referrating facilitietly in the newsistently referhe day.64 In cderation was gm-based windlivestock on h
uch structuresthat mechani
milar in shape to tssion of electricitg structures.
rbilt.edu/program
lving, new re
waste set asid
province of le condominiu
eral Assembly983 Mountained on argumean “ugly” ings for the Mtory high riseevations. Theion of electricIn 1978, und
nstalled at a nd the MPRA
at are exempttowers of the
by even more
tal Windmill Bu
ers to somethiKnob. HoweveRPA, “windmir to as windmies. Moreover,
ws when the Mrred to as a
contrast, theregiven by the Ndmills used tohigh ridge top in the statuteical farm
the “Sugar Cubety and is not diss
m.pl?ID=29072
enewable ener
99
des,
local um y n ents
MRPA e e city
der
A from
uilt in
ing er, at ill” ills, , the
MRPA
e is no NC
o ps. e, and
e” (the similar
1
rgy
100
windmillsdevice thawork. Thuof the winspecificityexempt on However,MPRA exin rural coconclusioexpressedthis statemNorth Car However,a proposeAttorney introducedgovernmeadopted bbill was acommerciamended Represent As a consof the winremain soGeneral apromptingareas. Whwell adopdeveloperdevelopmimpact of 8.2.3 Z The MRPcounty anreasonabllarge (>10ordinanceimpose a would nee 65 The Tennprotection s66 http://ww67 There arefor commer
s would commat extracts eneus, a windmilndmill’s bladey of the Sugarnly single tow
, in a 2002 letxemption as oommunities.” n. There is no
d in a letter anment is entitlerolina Departm
, the NC Stated wind farm iGeneral as a sd in the State ents to opt outby those govermended to ovial-scale ridgebill passed thtatives.
equence of thnd resource ofo for the foresnd the PUC’sg a reintroduchile a landownpt such a coursrs will simply
ment of availabf the MRPA o
Zoning Ordin
PA is an excepnd city officiae setback, flic00 kW) wind es that incorpo199-foot heiged to be lighte
nessee Attorney Gtatute. w.windaction.or some sites that cial wind develo
monly be placergy from a fll is a turbine,es is turning tr Top Resort
wer farm wind
tter to Tennesonly applying
The 2002 leto administratind was not pubed to, and repoment of Justic
e Utilities Comin North Carosignificant baSenate to cla
t of the MRPArnments. Howverride the pree line wind po
he State Senat
he NC PUC’sf western Noreeable futures reliance on tction of the 20ner whose prose of action a
y look elsewheble wind reso
or prompt judi
ances
ption to Northls. North Carocker, noise anenergy facilit
orate the provght restrictioned under Fede
General also rea
rg/news/c88/?sormay be outside
opment.
ced on high elluid flow (a g irrespective
the shaft of a wissue, it is rea
dmills, it coul
ssee officials, to “the tradit
tter did not citive record to eblished as a fortedly, the Ace.65
mmission hasolina.66 In 200arrier to the dearify and correA ban once lo
wever, as it preference of loower was, indte by a wide m
reliance on trth Carolina i. A developerthat letter in a009 Senate Bioperty value iat some point,ere for viableurces have taicial resolutio
h Carolina lanolina has dev
nd other regulties. Ashe Co
visions of the n for other areeral Aviation
ached the opposit
rt=title of the protected
levation ridgegas, steam or wof whether thwater pump oasonable to asld have found
the North Cational, solitaryte any additioexamine as thformal interprAttorney Gene
s relied on thi09, a State Coevelopment oect the matterocal zoning anroceeded throocal governmedeed, banned margin, but w
the informal cs excluded fror could challea court proceeill explicitly bis reduced by it is reasonab projects. How
aken actions (don of the issue
nd use law thaveloped a modlation of smalounty, in West
MRPA for “peas in the coun
Administrati
te conclusion wh
areas of the MR
e lines. A “turwater) and tu
he mechanicalor the shaft ofssume that, ifd the specific
arolina Attorny farm windmonal reasoninghe Attorney Gretation. It is neral’s conclus
is view to oppommission idof wind powerr. The bill wond other regu
ough the legisents on the isas interpreted
was not taken u
conclusion of om commerc
enge the 2002eding, but thebanning commthe inability
ble to assumewever, some discussed latee.
at generally ddel zoning ordll (< 20 kW); tern North Caprotected areanty to bar conion (FAA) reg
hen evaluating a
RPA, but it is not
rbine” is a roturns it into usel work providf a generator. f the Legislatulanguage to d
ney General inmill which hasg or authority
General’s viewnot clear whasion differed f
pose at least odentified the 2r in the state,
ould have alloulation of winlative process
ssue and clarifd by the Attorup by the NC
f the Attorneycial wind deve2 letter from the developer wmercial wind to develop w
e that commerwestern coun
er) that may d
defers land usedinance that pmedium (20-
arolina, has aas” under thatnstruction of tgulations. In c
an identical Tenn
t clear if any of t
tary mechaniceful mechanicded by the rot
Finally, giveure had meantdo so.
nterpreted thes long been iny for its w was merelyat legal deferefrom that of t
one applicatio2002 letter of
and a bill waowed local nd farms had bs the “pro-winfy that rney General.
C House of
y General, muelopment andhe Attorney
would then riskfarms in ridg
wind power mircial wind farnties that favodirectly limit
e decisions toprovides for -100 kW) anddopted zonint statute and turbines that contrast,
nessee ridge line
those sites are su
cal cal tation en the t to
e n use
y ence the
on for the
as
been nd”
. The
uch67 d may
k geline ight rm or the
o
d g
e
uitable
neighboriuses. Watdetermineexempt frturbines” interpretat A numberCarolina Mnoise limimore strinallowed hdeveloper 8.2.4 T As in Virgfuture genadequate rexternalizfired geneunless andsources, threcovery –the North sponsored However,new, in-stforecasts fyear to 14generatorsthe RPS inapproximefficiencyare assumbiomass favailable assumes tMW of nestate sourceconomicRPS provthe utility8.2.5 N
68 Electric cmanagemen69 Qualifyin
ng Madison Ctauga County ed that wind prom the MRPAmay be permtions of the M
r of coastal coModel Zoningitation rather ngent setback height (550 fer has proposed
The North Ca
ginia, the Norneration resoureliable electr
zed costs, sucheration or the d until new where is a subs– unless it is oCarolina REP
d by North Ca
, unlike the sitate renewablfor North Car
40,000 GWh ps is projected ncreases fromately 7,500 G
y programs in med to occur ufuels to existinfuel is likely
that biomass aew wind powces.69 This fig
cally availablevides a cap ony’s obligation North Carolin
ooperatives and
nt and may use lang out of state so
County has ad(which inclu
power is in thA and that lar
mitted by the CMRPA will be
ounties have ag regulation, than the 60 drequirement;
et) this requird to build 100
arolina Utilitie
rth Carolina Uurce options “ric service anh as environmpotential for
wind power gestantial risk thotherwise reqPS serve as tharolina regula
tuation in Vire sources, thirolina call forper year fromto increase fr
m 4 percent toGWh per year
2021. Energyup to the maxing coal-fired to be constrai
and wind powered generatigure is reasone in North Car
the amount oto comply is
na Studies
municipal utilit
arge hydropowerurces of RECs a
dopted an orddes Boone, Ne public interrge wind enerCounty. It is ue resolved.
adopted zoninalthough som
db more comm; six times theres a setback 0 MW wind f
es Commiss
Utilities Comm“that can be od other legal
mental or publvery high dis
eneration is lohat all or part quired by law.he de facto ceated utilities.
rginia, becauss limitation d
r energy suppm 2012 to 202from 35,000 Go 12.5 percent
of electric gey efficiency pimum allowedplants is likelined, as is the
wer are emploon would be n
nably close torolina – incluof compliancenot limited by
ies may meet ther to meet up to 3are limited to sm
dinance that trNC; the home rest, that “singrgy systems cunclear how, w
ng ordinancesme counties prmonly found. e height of theof more than
farm in Carter
sion
mission (NCUbtained at theobligation.” Alic health cos
sposal costs asower in directof the cost of. Thus, for theeiling for new
se most of thedoes not appealied by the th1; while Nort
GWh per yeart (10 percent beneration musprograms are d under the prly to be the nee ability of cooyed equally tneeded, 75 pe the current e
uding westerne costs that my cost.
eir entire obligat30 percent of the
mall hydropower
reats commerof the origina
gle wind powcomprised of swhen or whet
s that are generovide for a mCarteret Coune tower plus rone-half mile
ret County.
UC) is constre least cost to At this time, tsts that may bssociated witht costs than nef new generate near term, t
w wind power
e RECs used far to be a sign
hree IOUs to ith Carolina elr to 40,000 GWby 2018 for mst be from renlikely to be throgram (25 pext lowest co
oal-fired plantto meet the RPercent of whi
estimates of lan North Carolimay be passed
tion by energy eeir obligation. and new renewa
rcial wind farmal DOE wind
wer turbines” (such “single wther these con
erally patternmore stringentunty provides rotor tip. At the. Notwithsta
ained by law ratepayers cothe NCUC doe associated wh nuclear powew generationtion will be dithe mandatorygeneration o
for compliancnificant barrieincrease fromlectricity fromWh per year. municipal gennewable genehe lowest cos
percent in 202ost option, butts to use biomPS, slightly mch would neeand-based winina resources on to the util
efficiency and de
ables.
ms as conditid turbine) also(of any size) awind power nflicting
ned on the Nort 55 decibels for a substanthe maximum
anding this lim
to approve thonsistent withoes not considwith fossil fuewer. Accordinn from these isallowed in cy requirementwned or
ce must be froer. Energy use
m 120,000 GWm municipal
During this pnerators).68 Thration or ener
st option, and 21). Adding t the amount o
mass. If one more than 2,50ed to be from nd power and, while th
lity’s custome
emand side
101
onal o has are
rth (db) tially
m mit, a
hose h der el-ngly,
cost ts of
om e
Wh per
period hus, rgy so
of
00 in-
he ers,
102
As in Virgdevelopmsubstantiathan wereinclude ofinput fromgeologic, (Figure 8consideratto the VirSound be power devdevelopmnot suppo
Figure 8-6.
8.2.6 O It is not unto delay ostatutes, adelayed bSpecies Abeen a nuassertionsan Incidenadverse im
ginia, the Norment of wind pally more resoe employed inffshore wind pm 24 named cwind resourc
8-6). As in thetion rather thaginia review, utilized for a
velopment. Thment of wind ported by this re
UNC Review o
Other Potenti
ncommon foror prevent the and indeed, thy lawsuits all
Act, failure to mber of occa
s. However, thntal Take Permmpact, or con
rth Carolina lpower in stateources were an the Virginia power develo
contributors ance and constrae Virginia studan being identhe UNC Co
a wind power he UNC Coas
power in the Peview.
of Coastal and O
ial Barriers
r those who oproject by fil
here have beenleging such viconduct envisions where ahe remedy comit under theduct a more t
egislature come-owned wateapplied to this
review of theopment in Fednd generated aint mapping dy, areas with
ntified as areaastal Wind Stdemonstratiostal Wind StuPamlico Soun
Offshore Wind
ppose a commling a lawsuitn a number ofiolations. Theronmental assa court has demmonly orde
e Endangered thorough asse
mmissioned ars in Pamlico effort, condue issue and thderal waters. Ta 368 page fiand identificah competing mas warranting tudy recomm
on project andudy identifiednd when comp
Power Develop
mercial or indt alleging a vif proposed wiese lawsuits osessments or
etermined thatered by the coSpecies Act)
essment of im
a study to exao and Albemaucted by the Uhe scope of theThe UNC Coinal report, wation of potenmilitary uses further invest
mended that thd considered fd only modestpared to offsh
pment Potential
dustrial enterpiolation of fedind farms in t
often allege viviolation of nt the plaintiff
ourts is to obt), implement m
mpacts – rather
amine the potearle Sounds [3University of e study was e
oastal Wind Swhich includedntial areas forwere simply tigation. How
he remaining afor commercit cost savings hore wind pow
l
prise for otherderal or state the United Staiolations of thnoise ordinanfs were correcain the necessmeasures to mr than a prohi
ential for 36]. HoweverNorth Carolin
expanded to tudy involved
d detailed r developmenteliminated fr
wever, in contareas in Pamlial scale windassociated w
wer, a conclu
r reasons to senvironmentaates that havehe Endangere
nces. There hact in their sary permit (omitigate the ibition on the
r, na,
d
t om trast lico d with
sion
seek al e been ed ave
often
developmbarrier to on the conobjection other goal There is liissue is falawsuit anrequiremeprocess - benterprisebusiness, authoritiewhich comshould recrooted in Several wproposed windmill reports thuenvironm 8.3 Mary MarylandpotentiallyAs discusChesapeakare being support fodevelopmcap-and-trdesigned tapproxim Marylandcommerciincreases increases technologmillion ovfrom real clean enersystems. Mpower formodel zon
70 http://ww71 http://ww
ment of the resdevelopment
ntent of the unis to the use ols and on wha
ittle one can dar broader thand associated ents and a canbefore signifi
e, compliance in the same ms and local enmpliance withcognize that mconcern over
wind power prprojects, issustrikes have bus far indicatental obligati
yland
d possesses dey in coastal arsed elsewhereke Bay. Two pursued by d
or developmement. Marylan
rade programto reduce COately 10 perce
d has establishial customers annually untiover time to r
gies. State lawver a five-yeaproperty, perrgy grant progMaryland hasr individual syning or noise
ww.newsobserverww.newsobserver
source. Develt of wind pownderlying envof frivolous laat they claim
do to constrain environmenpermitting de
ndid assessmeicant costs arewith applicab
manner as comnvironmental h environmenmuch of socieenvironment
rojects are undues related to pbeen raised. Te that the issuions pose a sig
evelopable wireas on the Eae in this reporwind farms a
developers. Thnt of wind pod is a particip
m meant to redO2 emissions fr
ent by 2019.
hed an RPS thbe from rene
il it reaches 2reach 2 perce
w also providear period and rsonal propertgram of up tos promulgatedystems up to 2ordinances fo
r.com/2012/05/2r.com/2011/12/0
opers occasiower. However,vironmental sawsuits to intare unnecessa
in the litigiountal law and belays can be ment of the enve invested in ble environmmpliance withorganizations
ntal requiremeeties’ willingntal interests.
der developmprotection of
This should noues are being gnificant barr
ind resources astern Shore rt, there also iare currently ohe State of Mower althoughpant in the Reduce CO2 emifrom the electr
hat requires thewable source0 percent by 2
ent by 2020 wes a personal aa 100 percentty and sales tao 50 percent od reasonable i2 MW, with aor wind powe
22/v-print/2083103/1686603/envi
onally compla, closely examtatute or permterpose enviroary delays in
us tendency ofbeyond the scminimized byironmental sua particular lo
mental laws shh the tax codes can go a lonents is a true bness to pay a p
ment in coastalbirds - bald e
ot be an unexaddressed. N
rier to the dev
in its westernof the state neis a potentialloperating in waryland is pro
h much of thaegional Greenssions from ericity generat
hat a portion oes. The portio2022. The pro
with balance aland corporatet exemption faxes. Marylanof the cost of iinterconnectioa 1,500 MW aer systems.
81/wind-farm-coronmental-group
ain that the prmined, those cmit obligationonmental objeprocessing pe
f our culture ocope of this rey proper up frouitability of a ocation. As w
hould be consie. Early consung way towarbarrier. Indeepremium pric
l North Caroleagles70 and mxpected develoNeither of thesvelopment of
n and north ceear the Chesaly developablwestern Maryoviding signifat effort is focnhouse Gas Inelectric generation in the par
of the electricon that must bogram includllocated to wie tax credit offor wind powend also has a installing resion standards aaggregate cap
ould-harm-the-sps-fight-wind.ht
rospect of succomplaints arn. Rather, the ections as a taermits.
or the creativieview. The risont attention
a proposed sitewith any otheridered a normultation with prds minimizined, wind powece for renewa
lina, and in atmigrating snoopment in a cse reports sugwind power i
entral ridgelinapeake Bay anle resource in
yland, and a nficant technic
cused on offshnitiative (RGGating units (Erticipating sta
city sold to rebe from renewdes a separate ind and otherf $0.0085 per er equipment PACE financidential-scaleand mandatespacity limit, b
states.html tml
ch lawsuits is re rarely premdevelopers
actic to achiev
ity of the bar.sk of a frivoloto environmee early in the r industrial mal part of thepermitting
ng the extent ter developers
able energy is
t least two of wbirds71- from
coastal area angests that in North Caro
ne areas and nd Atlantic O
n state waters number of othcal and financhore wind GI), a ten stateEGUs). RGGIates by
sidential and wable sources
solar RPS thr Tier I kWh, up to $and generatio
cing program e wind power s net meteringbut has not ad
103
a mised
ve
. This ous ental
e
to
these m nd
olina.
Ocean. of the ers
cial
e I is
at
$2.5 on and a
g of dopted
104
8.3.1 M MarylandRECs inclgeothermaTier I RPSThe Tier I2018. Tieobligationcells of anMarylandas parts ofto acquirethe state. Tdifferentiacomplianc$350 per Mcommencincreasingthe ACP dfor new sothe ACP wmulti-yearrevisit theintended p The ACP likely servit is substasufficient category iMWh ($0REC obligobligation Marylandsources – Instead, Mresult, thewas $2.13Service Cwhich inclist includcan be saisources th 72 Electricityexemption. were subjec73 While thebe expected74 These fiv
Maryland RP
d’s RPS providlude electricital, small hydrS for 2012 is II REC obligar II sources ar
n may also beny vintage andd accepts RECf Michigan. Me the required The ACP for al for wind ance.73 For TierMWh in 2015
cing in 2017 thg annually thedeclines fromolar generatiowill no longerr planning an
e 2017 ACP bpurpose.
for Tier II REve as a signifiantially largerto provide an
is phased out 0.004 per kWhgations. Thesns, and essent
d does not estafound in the
Maryland accee Maryland RP3 per MWh ($
Commission recluded an idendes only a relaid to have inflhat generated
y sold to large inThere were appr
ct to RPS compliese payments do d to be reduced oe sources provid
PS Design
des for three ty generated fropower, and 6.4 percent oation is 2.5 pere limited to l satisfied by Td residential s
Cs generated bMaryland prov
RECs in a coTier I RECs
nd biomass ger I Solar RECs5. These levelhe program pereafter from
m $350 to $200on have been r serve as a cr
nd permitting before the end
ECs is $15 peicant incentivr than currentn incentive foin 2018. The
h); declining te levels are c
tially amount
ablish the preVirginia progepts RECs genPS is met at v
$0.00213 per ecently publisntification of tatively small pfluenced the dmore than 10
ndustrial processroximately 65.6 iance, and 1.5 mnot increase wit
over time. ded 47 percent of
separate categfrom solar, wpoultry litterf electricity sercent in 2012large hydroelTier I RECs. solar hot wateby sources locvides for an Aompliance peris $40 per MWenerated elects the ACP is cls also shouldrovides for a 0.55 percent 0, $150, $100falling in receredible incenthorizon for n
d of 2015 to d
er MWh ($0.0ve for the const REC prices r utilities to aACP for sma
to $2 per MWlearly insufficto a legislativ
ference for “agram, but the nerated by ex
very low cost.kWh); but at shed its Renewthe sources opercentage of
decision to em00,000 RECs
s load customersmillion MWh oillion MWh werth inflation, the p
f the RECs need
gories of RECwind, qualifyinr and waste-tosold at retail in2 and remainsectric plants oTier I Solar Rer heating syscated in the PAlternate Comriod. ACP recWh ($0.04 petricity and shocurrently $40
d be sufficientsignificant into 0.9, 1.2, 1.
0 and finally (ent years. Hotive for new s
new commercidetermine if th
015 per kWh)struction of nfrom existing
acquire the neall industrial p
Wh ($0.002 pecient to ensurve determinat
anyway” credMaryland RP
xisting source. The averagean even lowewable Energyf the RECs thf “new” renew
mploy the renein Maryland
(> 300 million Kf total retail elec
re exempt. price differential
ded for Tier I com
Cs – Tier I, Tng biomass, lao-energy electn the state ans at that level of greater thaRECs may bestems commis
PJM service armpliance Penaceipts are useer kWh). Thisould provide
00 per MWh (t during this tncreases in th.5, 1.85, and 2(post 2022) to
owever, there solar installatiial-scale solarhe level that h
). At this levenew large hydg large hydropecessary Tier process load (er kWh) for bre compliancetion to exemp
dits - RECs gePS does not rees that have noe cost of comper cost effectiy Portfolio Stahat were usedwable electricewable resourhighlights the
Kwh/yr) is exemctricity sales in M
al between fossil-
mpliance in 2010
Tier I Solar anandfill gas (mtric generatin
nd rises to 20 puntil the obli
an 30 MW, bue generated frossioned in fisrea, which exalty (ACP) fo
ed to fund rens amount is laa reasonable ($0.40 per kWtime frame. He Solar REC 2.0 percent. Do $50 per MWis a reasonabions at some p
ar installationshas been set w
el, the Tier II Rdropower genepower sourceII RECs for t(IPL) custom
both solar ande, especially wpt those IPL sa
enerated by pequire that REo need of anypliance with tiveness. The Mandard Repor
d for compliancity where therce. A reviewe issue.74 Two
mpt. This is a relMaryland for 20
-fueled electricit
0.
nd Tier II. Tiemethane), ng facilities. Tpercent by 20igation expireut the Tier II om photovoltcal 2012 or la
xtends as far wor sources thatewable projec
arger than the incentive for
Wh); decliningHowever,
obligation, During this timWh. Installed pble probabilitypoint. Given s, Maryland s
will serve its
REC price wieration. Howe
es and should the period unt
mers is set at $d non-solar Tiwith solar REales from the
pre-existing ECs be additiy incentive. Athe MarylandMaryland Pubrt of 2012, [3nce in 2010. Te Maryland R
w of the five o of the sourc
latively narrow 10: 64.1 million
ty and renewable
r I
The 022.72 es in
taic ater. west t fail cts in cost
g to
me, prices y that, the
should
ill not ever, be til the 4 per
ier I EC
RPS.
onal. As a d RPS blic 7]
That RPS
ces
n MWh
es can
were hydr1912; whi1984. With no futo have exsources to Pulp and presidues, cwaste matblack liqumill. Accofor industToday, nerecovery. energy sothe countrpulp and p1940s andprovided The issue “renewabexisting sis a wasteto provideactually uthey serveREC mark It has beenrenewableHowever,maximumRPS and nunknown existing reprogram teffectivendeterminingeneration
8.3.2 S Marylandterms of aMW must 75 http://ww
ropower plantile the Trento
fuel costs and xtremely low o be dispatche
paper mills gecommonly knterial to publi
uor contains mordingly, sinctrial processesearly all blackSince black lurce. Becausery it is not surpaper mills. Td would be buan additional
we raise herele” energy, buources, such a
e of the rate pae a windfall reundermines the to drive the ket is of no us
n argued thate generation w, there is no w
m, and if so, wnot all states aand may be aenewable souto exclude preness of its prong whether itn from existin
State Approv
d’s electricity a PPA in Maryt obtain a Cer
ww.babcock.com/
ts. The Bleweon, NY hydrop
with the majvariable oper
ed and have n
enerate substanown as blackic waters is himore than halfce 1935 pulp as and electricik liquor generliquor is derive substantial qrprising that tThese mills, twurning these mrevenue strea
e is not whethut whether RPas 100-year oayers’ moneyevenue stream
he value of themarket price se in stimulat
this problemwill be absorbway to know wwhen the RPS allow pre-exia large percenurces to partice-existing sougram, while c
t had met its gng sources tha
val Process
market is deryland. Howevrtificate of Pu
/about/history.ht
ett hydropowepower plant c
or capital cosrating costs. Eno need for the
antial quantitk liquor, are highly restrictef of the energand paper mility, and to recrated in pulp aved from wooquantities of tthe other threewo in Virginimill wastes foam from its R
her hydropowPS programs
old hydropowy, since, as them that does noe program. Siof RECs dow
ting new rene
m may be self-bed into the sywhether this swill begin tosting generati
ntage of the tacipate. If it churces from gencontinuing to goal for renewat was “additi
regulated, andver, State law
ublic Conveni
tml
er plant in Nocommenced o
sts amortizedExisting hydroe subsidy pro
ies of the resihighly toxic toed under Fedegy content of tlls have been cover the chemand paper milody materials this waste aree very large sia and one in Por energy as thRPS.
wer or black lishould permier facilities oe Maryland Rot incentivizeince these prewn to the poinwable energy
-correcting, siystem and newsaturation wil serve a position to be usedarget for thoseooses to addrnerating saleacount the pre
wable generational” to that
d so there is nw specifies tha
ence and Nec
orth Carolina operations in 1
long ago, theopower plant
ovided by the
idues from tho aquatic lifeeral and state the wood fed combusting bmicals emplolls is concentrit is technica
e generated atsources of MaPennsylvaniahey have for y
quor-fired geit the use of “
or 50-year oldReport shows, e new investme-existing sount (currently $y developmen
ince at some pw renewable l occur at levtive purpose. d, the availabe states that hress this problable RECs ane-existing rention. Marylanoccurring at
no requiremenat a wind-gencessity (CPCN
commenced 1901 and was
ese hydropowts are routinelRPS.
he pulping proand so the dienvironmentinto the digeblack liquor75
oyed in the purated and bur
ally consideredt pulp and paparyland’s RECa, date back toyears, whethe
eneration shou“anyway” credd paper mills, almost all of
ment. Moreoveurces generate$0.002 per kWnt.
point all of thgeneration w
vels below a stSince not all
ble pool of “anhave an RPS alem, Marylan
nd thereby imnewable energnd could also ithe start of its
nt that the PSCnerating facilitN) from the P
operations ins refurbished
wer plants are ly among the
ocess. These scharge of thal laws. Howster of a kraft5to generate s
ulping processrned for energd a “renewabper mills acroCs are pre-exio the 1930s aner or not Mary
uld be considedits. Allowingto generate R
f the money ger, this practic
e RECs at no cWh) where the
he pre-existingwill be needed
tate’s RPS states have an
nyway creditsand allow prend could revis
mprove the cosgy in Marylaninclude any ns program.
C approve thety greater than
PSC. The issu
105
n in
likely first
is wever,
t pulp steam s. gy le”
oss isting nd yland
ered g pre-
RECs goes ce cost, e
g d.
n s” is e-se its st-nd in new
e n 70
uance
106
of a CPCNissues, incwind farmstatute exefarms recethat will b 8.3.3 Z Many of Mresidentiahave mostwill have wind farmthat requirpropertiesbut has deproject. Apursuing aapplicableauthorizatthree addicomment 400 foot hproposed ordinance
Figure 8-7.
There maycommunitzoning or$4.1milliokW wind
76 Comment77 The count
N is a formal cluding enviro
m and has not empting windeived PSC apbe the path co
Zoning Ordin
Maryland’s coal-scale systemt of Marylanda significant
m was proposered a minimus on the Natioetermined tha
A majority of ta modificatioe to unincorpotion and a buiitional wind fon a propose
high turbine) projects, such
e is adopted as
Maryland Ene
y be greater lties. Somersedinance that son grant fromturbine.
ts are due on Junty is considering
adjudicatory onmental anddenied any ap
d farms of lespproval and haommonly purs
ances
ounties have m. Allegany ad’s ridgeline wimpact on theed to be locat
um setback of onal Registry at the project wthe elected con of the restriorated areas. ilding permit.farms are propd zoning ordifor new windh a requiremes proposed.
ergy Administra
ocal acceptanet County, thespecifies a 75
m the Marylan
ne 15, 2012 g a proposal to in
process that id noise relatedpplications. Hs than 70 MWave been conssued by Mary
adopted windand Garrett Cowind resourcee likely develted in Alleganf 2,000 feet froof Historic Plwas not viablommission ofiction. GarretIn order to in. Garrett Counposed in the cinance that w
d farms in the ent would pre
ation: Counties
nce for comme southernmos50 foot setbacd Department
ncrease the requi
includes publd issues. The However, subW from the CPstructed in M
yland wind far
d power zoninounties are the. For this realopment of mony County, coom the neareslaces. The dee under the C
fficials have st County doe
nstall wind turnty is home tocounty. Garretould establishCounty. It is clude develop
with Wind Ord
mercial scale wst county on Mk77 and the Ct of Energy, i
irement to 1,000
lic participatioMaryland PS
bsequent to thePCN formal a
Maryland. It carm developer
ng ordinanceshe two westernason, zoning countain wind
ounty authoritst residence aveloper has r
County’s restrince been reps not currentlrbines, develoo the Backbott County offh a 5:1 setbac not clear whpment, but th
dinances
wind power inMaryland’s ea
City of Crisfielis preparing to
0 feet.
on and addresSC has issued e amendmentadjudicative pan be reasonabrs.
s, most of whirnmost counticonstraints in
d resources in ties adopted aand 5,000 feetreceived a CPrictions and haplaced and thely have zoninopers need onne Mountain
ficials are currck requiremenhether, given this is likely to
n Maryland’s astern shore hld in Somerseo construct a
sses all relevaa CPCN for o
t to the Marylprocess, two wbly anticipate
ich only applyes in the statethose countieMaryland. A
a zoning ordint from school
PCN from the as suspended e developer is
ng ordinances nly grid
wind farm anrently76 solicint (2,000 feet the layout of tbe the result
coastal has adopted aet County, wi300 foot tall,
ant one land wind ed
y to e and es
After a nance ls and PSC, the
s
nd iting for a
the if the
a ith a 750
8.4 Dela Delaware areas withresource hDelawaredevelopm Delaware resources leading wgenerationGovernorcurrent preffective i Delawaregeneratorsnet meteriownership100kW foauthorizedstandard iresidentiaincentives 8.4.1 S Delawareare subjeca PPA bethigher thalegislaturestates (e.gpromulgatstatute speRequireminstall a sifor the mowhich no 8.4.2 D DelawareThe desigcompeting 78 Developm(PTC) and t79 Under thlines and thelocation alo
aware
has a long cohin a reasonabhas been the s’s modest, bu
ment of wind tu
has providedin Federal w
wind power resn. Based on s, the Delawar
rices.78 Delawin encouragin
’s utilities offs larger than 5ing with excep of the assocor farm customd aggregate cinterconnectioal wind turbins for wind pow
State Approv
’s electricity ct to review btween NRG Ban for fossil fue. The PSC hag., Pennsylvanted reasonablecifically prec
ments for largeingle large (2ost analogousheight restric
Delaware RP
’s RPS is comgn of the RPS g interests.
ment of this projethe DOE Renewae Delaware statue noise limit is nng the property
oastline alongble distance osubject of signut still potentiurbines desig
d significant paters off the Dsearch institupecific directre PSC approv
ware is also a mng the develop
fer small wind500 watts, up
ess generationciated REC. Inmers on residapacity limit on requiremenes, but has nower generatio
val Process
market is regy the Delawa
Bluewater anduel-fired geneas approved pnia, Marylandle siting and ncludes local ger systems hav2 MW) turbines structure in tction was auth
PS Design
mplex and hasrecognizes th
ect is currently sable Energy andute the minimumno more than 5 dline.
g the Atlantic of the coast annificant discually valuable
gned to operat
political, technDelaware coa
utions and is dtion from the ved the first Pmember of Rpment of new
d rebate progrp to maximumn compensatedndividual systential rates anfor this progrnts and has prot addressed lon or equipme
ulated and thare Public Serd Delmarva Peration. Howepurchases of wd) as needed tnoise requiremgovernments fve not yet beee at its camputhe city’s codhorized.
s been modifihe anyway cre
suspended becaud Energy Efficienm setback is 1.0 tdecibels above av
Ocean and thnd in the Delaussion, there h
coastal resoute in lower wi
nical and econast. The Univedeeply involveDelaware leg
PPA for offshGGI and has
w renewables.
rams of $0.30m incentive of d at the retail tem limits arend 2 MW for ram is five peromulgated mlarge scale insent purchases
erefore contrarvice CommisPower for offsever, this deciwind power bto meet Delawments for resifrom adoptingen developedus in Lewes, cde – an electri
ied a number edit issue and
use of the pendinncy Loan Guarantimes the height verage existing n
he Delaware Baware Bay itsehas been relaturces. Howevind ranges.
nomic supporersity of Delaed in efforts t
gislature and whore wind powadopted a hy
0 to $1.25 perf $2,500 per in
rate for the ge set at 25 kWcommercial o
ercent of peakmandatory setbstallations. Des.
acts for the pussion (PSC). Tshore wind poision was effe
by Delmarva Pware RPS requidential wind g more restric. When the Ucity officials tic transmissio
of times sincd provides a c
ng expiration of tntee Program (Lof the turbine (b
noise level up to
Bay and relatelf. While thetively limited er, his may ch
rt for the devaware is one oto advance ofwith the suppwer substantiaybridized RPS
r watt of instanstallation. Thgenerator, whW for resident
or industrial ck demand. Thback and noiselaware does
urchase of renThe Delawareower at pricesectively madePower from f
quirements. Dpower units.7ctive requirem
University of Dtreated the ap
on line suppor
e its initial adcomplicated re
the Section 45 PLGP). base to tip of a bo a maximum of
ively undevele offshore wininterest to da
hange with th
elopment of wof the nation’sffshore wind pport of the ally greater th
S that should b
alled capacityhe state mando retains
tial customerscustomers. The state has adse standards fnot offer tax
newable enere PSC did apps substantiallye by the facilities in otelaware has 79 The Delawments. Delaware soupplication as ort structure –
doption in 200esolution of
Production Tax C
blade) from prop60 decibels at an
107
loped nd ate in he
wind s power
han be
y for dates
s, he
dopted for
rgy prove y
ther
ware
ught to one for
05.
Credits
erty ny
108
At this timcomply wSales to inescalatingrequiremeobligationcurrently The statutschedule gschedule iin the schmonthly b2013, for state instarenewablecustomer- While ACRPS. The the scheduinitially pthe ACP fMWh ($030 percenby retail ethe requirin servicefor complthan 5 per 8.5 Dist The Distridevelopmresidentiasuch as itsenergy. Tprogram ifund, intesaving mewind proj The DistriRPS has ssolar RECannually u
80 Early vers81 The requi82 These req
me all IOUs, rwith the RPS ondustrial custg scale similarent is 20 percen to 25 percenare set at 0.40
te provides thgiven certain if program coedule if progrbill. The progin-state instal
allations with e energy gene-sited wind ge
CPs serve littlDelaware AC
ule has becomay $25 per Mfor that suppli0.08 per kWh)nt) use of ACPelectric supplirement that no before Janualiance can be rcent of RECs
trict of Colu
ict of Columbment of commeal wind powers PACE progrhe District’s iincludes electnded to raise easures in lowects in remot
ict does enforseparate schedC schedules esuntil it reache
sions of the RPSirements apply oquirements are pa
retail electric or, for the lattomers with a r to other statent. Recent rent in 2025. W0 percent and
hat, commencmarket condi
osts exceed thram costs resuram includes llations wherea 75 percent
erators withinenerator can a
e purpose in sCP is intendedme too stringe
MWh of shortfier increases t). However, ifPs for compliaiers, the PSC o more than oary 1, 1998. Fgenerated by s may be gene
umbia
bia does not hercial scale wr developmenram, PSC incinterconnectiotric and naturaapproximatel
w income home locations.
rce a RPS thadules for Tierscalate over tes 20 percent
S had allowed thon a mid-year (Juart of, not in add
suppliers, muter suppliers, apeak load of es in the regioevisions extenithin those pe
d rise over tim
ing with the 2itions. The sta
hree percent oult in an increcompliance m
e 50 percent oin-state work
n PJM and adjalso generate
several state pd to strongly ent. Suppliersfall into Delawto $50 per MWf, notwithstanance for a permay relax the
one percent ofFor 2012, this
sources that erated by suc
have sufficienwind power annt. Accordinglcentives, and bon standards al gas bill surly $20 million
mes and comm
at is similar inr I, Tier II andime. The Tierin 2020. Tier
ese suppliers to une 30) basis rathdition to, the bas
unicipal utilitia comparable
f more than 1,on. The currend the programercentages are
me to 3.50 perc
2014 scheduleatute authorizf retail electriease of four pmultipliers foof the equipm
k force. Whilejoining servicRECs, but on
programs, theincentivize co who fail to sware’s renewaWh and after
nding these hiriod of three ye RPS scheduf each year’s rmeans that nwere placed ih older sourc
nt wind resournd the area is ly, most of thbusiness enertheoretically
rcharges that fn per year com
mercial buildi
n many respecd solar RPS. Ar I requiremenr II includes m
opt out of the prher than on a calic requirement.
ties and rural e RPS comme500 kW are e
ent requiremenm out to 2025e minimum “ccent in 2025.
e; the PSC mzes a discretioicity costs in
percent or moror in-state winment is manufe RECs can gece areas, energnly if the syst
ey are a key compliance an
secure sufficieable energy f
r the second yigh ACPs, theyears and a shule. Additionaretail sales m
no more than 1in service prio
ces.
rces or availatoo densely p
he District’s rergy rebate proapply to windfund a sustainmmencing in ings in the Di
cts to the “stanAs in Virginiant is 5.0 perce
municipal soli
rogram. lendar year basi
electric coopeencing in 201exempt. The Rnt is 8.5 perc5-202681 and carve outs” fo82
may accelerate onary freeze ia year and a mre in the aver
nd turbines infactured in Deenerally be sugy sold or distem is sited in
component of nd to serve as ent RECs for fund. After thyear it increasere is widesprhowing of adeally concerns
may be met by 12 percent of or to 1998; fo
able land to supopulated for enewable eneograms are limd power instanable energy 2012, focuse
strict rather th
andard” RPS da and other stent for 2012 aid waste and l
s.
eratives must3.80 RPS establishent and the 20increase the
or solar PV th
or deceleratein the compliamandatory fre
rage customerstalled beforeelaware and foupplied by splaced by a n Delaware.
f the Delawarean indicator tcompliance me first year ofes to $80 per read (greater tequate planniare addressedresources pla
f the RECs neor 2020 no mo
upport significant
ergy programsmited to solar allations. The trust fund. Th
es on energy-han investing
design. The Dtates, the Tierand increaseslarge hydropo
t
hes an 020
hat
e the ance eeze r’s e for in-
e that must f use,
than ing d by aced eded ore
s,
D.C. his
g in
D.C. r I and s ower
sources. Tcategory iannually uobligationRPS for thmotivate cshould engenerationlevels ($0 The D.C. The progrdefinitioncosts are lprovidingnew renew
The Tier II REis phased out until it reachen of 20 percenhe Tier I obligcompliance w
ncourage compn. As in the M
0.05 per kWh)
RPS, like somram provides
n of renewablelow, most of t
g additional rewables.
EC obligationby 2020. A s
es 2.50 percennt renewable agation is $50
with the standapliance with t
Maryland RPS) that may not
me others discno limitation
es that includethe payments
evenues to exi
n is currently 2olar REC req
nt in 2023. Thand not in addper MWh ($0ard. For Tier the standard bS, the solar ACt be sufficient
cussed hereinn on the age ofe source categ by District raisting sources
2.5 percent ofquirement, curhe solar REC dition to that 0.05 per kWhII obligations
but will not seCP is initiallyt to support n
n, does not attf the sources gories discussatepayers unds rather than p
f sales and is rrently 0.50 pcarve out is prequirement.
h), a level thats the ACP is $erve to incenty high ($0.50new solar gene
tempt to addreof the renewased earlier. Ader the D.C. Rproviding an i
reduced eachpercent of salepart of the ove The ACP prot should be su$10 per MWhtivize new larper kWh), bueration.
ess the issue oables and inco
Accordingly, wRPS program incentive to th
h year until thes, increases erall RPS ovided by theufficient to h, a level thatrge hydropowut then declin
of anyway crorporates a brwhile program
are simply he developme
109
he
e D.C.
t wer nes to
edits. road
m
ent of
9.0 Mid The compBays, Pamsea thermare orientewarm seamore prom The Mid-Aresource ato surfacelocal windfeatures su The wind Study (EWfew long-temporal vany, data wind resoThis may could be astable noc The occurcyclones iscope of tstudy [41]maintaineexcess of that the Eoffshore mcharacteri In this repplain; 3) sregion as addition, eshallow bawhich the the wind r 9.1 East This sectiWind Inteassimilatithe wind ronshore si
d-Atlantic
plexity of the mlico sound a
mal contrasts aed nearly perpson wind direminent warm
Atlantic geogacross the rege cooling of thd features areuch as the Be
resource anaWITS) [1] andterm anemomvariations in on the vertica
ource [39] [40be valid unde
a poor approxcturnal bound
rrence of veryin the Mid-Atthis report to e] of near-coas
ed by the Nati115 kt (59 mast Coast can
must survive wistics shown p
port we distinshallow bays a whole, thusemphasis in Mays and soundlower capital
resource assess
tern Wind
on presents aegration Studyon system tharesource at seites chosen fo
Wind Res
Mid-Atlanticand other smaand abrupt chapendicular toection is moreseason role.
graphic variabgion. A warm he elevated w the large sca
ermuda High.
alysis here is bd partly on wi
meter measureatmospheric sal wind profil0] have been mer neutrally stximation in thdary layer ove
y high wind vtlantic are alsestimate risksstal east coastional Hurrican
m/s) in only 4 on expect 103 kworst case evpreviously in
guish 4 main and sound an
s we focus onMid-Atlantic wds and coastal r
costs are offsesment and loc
Integration
an overview oy (EWITS) [1at combines aelected onshoror detailed an
source
c shoreline anall inlets resultanges in surfa the prevailin
e southerly an
bility introducseason phenoestern region
ale winds due
based partly oind observatioements at hubstability and tle at fixed offmade by extratable conditio
he bays and soer both land an
velocities assoo important cs for offshore t tropical cyclne Center covout of 106 yekt hurricane wvents so it is pTable 4.1.
geographic rnd 4) offshoren the shallow bwind has thusregions are laret by weaker w
cations of wind
n Study (E
f the Mid-Atl1] for the threa high resolutire and coastalalysis in that
d local featurts in small scaace roughnessng cool seasonnd local topog
ces complex somenon know after sunset [to the prevail
on the model rons from tall
b height and litheir impact ofshore locationapolating buoyons that are coounds and likend sea.
ociated with wconsiderations
wind turbinelones was basvering the yeaars, and using
winds once evprudent to des
regions: 1) the ocean. Therebays and souns far been on rgely unexplorwinds is invesd measuremen
WITS)
lantic wind reee-year periodion mesoscalel locations anstudy were th
res such as theale local winds. The Appalan westerly wigraphic featur
seasonal and dwn as the noct[38]. Superimling synoptic
results from ttowers, rawinittle information the verticans. Several rey data to hub ommon in theely underestim
weather events for wind dees associated wsed on the Huars 1899-2004g an extreme very 10 years.sign them to s
e western, elee is a lack of wnds where talridgeline andred as a poten
stigated elsewhnts used is giv
esource usingd 2004-2006. e model with
nd several thohose that were
e Chesapeaked circulationsachian mountnd direction, res such as va
diurnal variatturnal low lev
mposed on the weather syst
the Eastern Wnsondes and bion about the
al wind profileecent estimateheight using
e marine bounmates the win
ts such as norvelopment, bwith these ev
urricane Datab4. The study fvalue analysi Wind turbin
survive 100-y
evated region;wind measurell tower data id offshore regntial wind resohere in this rep
ven in Table 9
g the recent NThe study uswind measur
ousand offshore free from co
e and Delawas driven by lanains to the wehowever the
alleys likely p
tions in the wvel jet (LLJ) iese regional atems and clim
Wind Integratibuoys. There spatial and e. There is littes of the offsha log-law rel
ndary layer, bnd resource in
r’easters or trobut it is beyonvents. A recenbase (HURDAfound winds iis they estimaes installed
year storm
; 2) the coastaements for this available. Ingions, while inource. The exteport. A summ-1.
REL Eastern ed a data rements to assre locations. Tonflict with o
111
re nd-est
play a
wind is due
and matic
ion are
tle, if hore lation. but it n the
opical nd the nt AT) in ated
al e n nland ent to
mary of
sess The
other
112
interests (wind resohighlandscoastal pla Table 9-1. S
EWITS win Figure 9-100m for that are recoast/bays
Aberdeen3
Crisfield
Bay ApplicaScaled (alphaEastville
Newport New
Wallops
Coastal Plai
Chesapeake
Ocean ApplScaled (alphaRidgeline
Ridgeline AScaled (alpha
Model DataRidgeCoastalOcean
Measur
6. Alpha = 0.25
[1] Giovanni Gcoastal locatio
References:
Notes:1. Height Abo2. PJM - Day O3. Aberdeen d
4. Wind Shear5. Scaled per A
(navigation, mource. The stus, along the coain, nor in oth
Summary of the
nd resource estim
-1 shows the Ethe years 200
epresentative s/sounds, and
Jan0
Oct0
ation Extra = 0.08)5
Jun0
ws Aug
Sep0
in ApplicationInter
Light 1985
licationa = 0.08)5
Dec
Applicationa = 0.25)6
a EWITS2004
red Data D
5; Hilly, Forested Terr
Gualtier and Sauro Secons in Southern Italy,"
ve Ground (meters)On-Peak = 0700 - 2300ata collect from sonde
r: U2 = U1 * (z2 / z1)Alp
ASME with Alpha = 0
military, etc.),udy provides aoast, and offshher possible h
e Wind Resourc
mates were provi
EWITS locati04-2006. Alsoof the range o
d offshore that
08-Jun10 50m100m150m
08-Oct09 76m
rapolated 100m
06-May08 49m75m110m
g06-Dec07 51m85m97m
09-Feb10 46m76m91m
rpolated 100m
5-2010 43m
100m
c09-Nov10 80m
100m
4-2006 100m
DatesHeight
(m)1
rain [1]
cci, "Wind Shear Coef" Renewable Energy,
0; Night Off-Peak 2301es between 6-7 am ESha
0.04 to 0.08 over open
and in this sea baseline estihore. EWITShigh resource
ce Assessment a
ided only at 80 a
ions, the locato shown in theof geographict have been se
On-Peak2 Off-P
D4.94 -D5.8 -D6.5 -D8.2 N8.
D8.3 N8.
D5.5 N5.D6.0 N6.D7.2 N8.D6.1 N6.D6.7 N7.D6.9 N7.D7.3 N7.D9.1 N9.D9.8 N9.
D7.1 N7.
D8.1 N8.
D8.6 N9.
D8.7 N8.
D9.2 N9.
D9.4 N9.4D7.4 N8.0D9.9 N9.9
Mid-Atlant DJF
fficients, roughness levol. 36, pp. 1081-1094
-0659ST
sea with light - moder
ense EWITS imate of the wdid not evalulocations alo
and Locations o
and 100m AGL (
tion symbols e figure is a sc conditions inelected for fu
eak2 On-Peak OffD4.7D5.7D6.6
.6 D7.4 N
.7 D7.5 N
.8 D5.8 N
.5 D6.2 N
.0 D7.3 N
.4 D6.5 N
.2 D6.9 N
.6 D7.0 N
.3 -
.1 -
.8 -
.8 D7.2 N
.5 D7.6 N
.1 D8.1 N
.8 D6.9 N
.3 D7.3 N
D7.5 N7D6.6 N7D9.6 N9
ntic WindsMAM
ength and energy yiel4, 2011.
rate Class 3 winds
gives a realiswind resourceuate the wind ong the coast a
of Wind Measu
(above ground le
are colored asubset of EWIn the mountai
urther detailed
f-Peak On-Peak O- D3.8- D4.7- D5.3
N8.1 D5.9
N8.6 D6.1
N5.6 D3.9N6.3 D4.3N7.7 D4.8N5.9 D5.5N6.6 D5.6N6.9 D5.1
- -- -- -
N7.6 D4.7
N7.9 D5.8
N8.5 D6.2
N7.0 D5.6
N7.4 D5.9
.7 D5.6 N
.5 D5.1 N
.9 D7.6 N
JJA
lds over
stic evaluatione in the Mid-A
d resource in tand in the bay
urements
evel) heights.
according to tITS locationsins, along the
d study in this
Off-Peak On-Peak- D5.3- D6.2- D6.8
N6.1 D7.2
D6.2 D7.2
N3.8 D4.5N4.3 D5.1N5.2 D5.9N4.8 D5.5N5.2 D5.9N5.0 D5.3
- D6.7- D8.3- D9.0
N5.1 D5.8
N6.0 D6.9
N6.4 D7.4
N5.9 D7.1
N6.2 D7.5
N6.2 D6.9N6.5 D6.0N8.1 D8.3
A S
n of the availaAtlantic westethe Mid-Atlanys and sounds
the mean winds, numbered 1e s report. The
k Off-Peak---
N7.1
N7.3
N4.6N5.3N6.5N5.3N5.9N5.5N6.4N6.4N8.8
N6.4
N7.3
N7.8
N7.2
N7.6
N7.6N7.0N8.4
SON
able ern ntic s.
d at 1-25,
EWITS orange 0.40
Figure 9-1. The numberMountain: 1study. Additand the Sou
Figure 9-combinedshown areequal to th> about 7 during thein late afteup after suthe order about 6-7 the west a
ffshore wind 0-0.45, for the
Measurement red sites are a su1-8, Coast: 9-16 tional offshore m
unds in North Ca
-2 summarized, and for the e local time (Ehe fraction ofm/s for exam
e summer in ternoon. For thunset. Offshoof 1-2 m/s. Tm/s in the co
and 8.5-9 m/s
resource evale offshore loc
sites for selecteubset chosen to re
Offshore: 17-25measurements ararolina.
s the seasonaseparate mouEST). The aref time that themple occur abothe early to mhe mountain s
ore winds > 9 he results fro
oastal and bay(class 6-7) o
luation indicacations.
d PJM nodes. epresent the rang
5. Sites are colorre not shown ind
l and diurnal untain, coastalea between we wind has a vout 1/3 of the
mid-morning insites, cool seam/s occurs abm the EWITS
y/sound regionffshore (beyo
ates wind spee
ge of conditionsed according to
dividually. There
variability inl and offshore
wind contours,value in the rae time for the n all regions bason (DJFMAbout half the tS study indicans (class 3), 7
ond 3 nm).
eds of 8-9m/s
s along the Appa100m annual me
e are no location
n the wind spee subsets defi, as a fractionange boundedcoastal sites. but at slightly
A) winds decrtime. Overallate annual me7-8 m/s (class
s, with capaci
alachians, coastliean wind speed
ns in the Delawar
eed at 100 m fned in Figure
n of the total ad by the conto
The lowest wy different timrease in the afl, the diurnal vean wind spees 4-5) in the e
ity factors in t
ine and offshorefrom the EWITSre, Chesapeake B
for the 3 yeare 1. All times area of the ploours. Wind spwind speeds omes, and increfternoon and pvariations areeds at 100m oelevated regio
113
the
. S Bays
rs
ot, is peeds occur ease pick e on of on to
114
Figure 9-2. Study for 20Contours ar
A detailedis shown i(mountain“coastal”)averaged reduction WPD variThe middindicate suover a mo
Seasonal and D004-2006. All yee wind speed in
d view of the in Figure 9-3n, coast, offsh). The other yover each moin intermitten
ies substantiaday minimum ubstantial var
onth.
Diurnal Characears and all numm/s, colored con
seasonal and 3. This shows hore) and the vyears are similonth. The thicncy of the WP
ally across thesurvives the
riations in the
cteristics of the mbered locations
ntour spacing is
diurnal variathe variabilit
variability aclar. Each plot
ck black line iPD for the regese 25 sites, baveraging bec
e hourly WPD
100m Wind frofor each of the gevery 0.5 m/s.
ability in the wty from site toross the subse
t is the mean Wis the mean Wgion as a whout is clearly rcause it is a b
D, which varie
om the EWITS.geographic subse
wind power do site within eets. (“Bays/soWPD at each
WPD (total Wole. The diurnreduced whenbroad regionaes also with lo
ets defined in Fi
density (WPDeach geographounds” in the
h site for each WPD per site),
nal variabilityn the total powl characteristiocation, even
gure 1 are comb
D) for the yearhical subset figure legendhour of day, and shows th
y in the availawer is consideic. These resu
n when averag
bined.
r 2004
d =
he able ered. ults ged
Figure 9-3. Each graph
9.2 Win The left plocations Anemomemeasuremmodel/datmeasured
Diurnal variabcorresponds to o
d measure
panels in Figufor the most reter data for a
ments are showta comparisonwinds and th
bility in Wind Pone of the numb
ements and
ure 9-4 show trecent year (2available yearwn in Table 9ns are not timheir variability
Power density (Wered locations sh
d comparis
the seasonal/d2006) that arers between 209.1. With the
me-coincident,y. The two m
WPD) for each hown in Figure 1
sons with
diurnal variab closest to wi
006-2009. Theexception of , but they neviddle left pan
month of 2004.1. Model output
EWITS
bility at 100mind measureme on-peak andthe Chesapea
vertheless givenels correspon
. taken from EW
m for individuments. The rigd off-peak timake Light Towe an idea of thnd to EWITS
WITS.
ual EWITS ght panels shome periods forwer data, the he actual locations on
115
ow r the
the
116
Eastern Shshow overterrain. This most likroughness
Figure 9-4. Locations (lanemometerMD, NPTNCHLT2=Chanemometer
hore (numberrall weaker whe winds on tkely due to ths of the Bay a
Seasonal and dleft panel), that ar data at Chesap=Newport News
hesapeake Light rs.
rs 12 & 13 in winds. This is the Eastern Shhe larger openallows the we
diurnal variabilare closest to buoeake Light Towes, VA, WALL=WTower(43m). Bl
Figure 9-1) tpartly due to
hore are stronn water fetch osterly or south
lity in wind speeoys and availabler (two bottom pWallops, VA. NBlue squares: EW
that are closeinterannual v
nger relative toof the Chesapherly winds t
ed at EWITS. le tall tower datapanels). The dataBDC stations: B
WITS locations; g
e to the Crisfievariability, oro the wind at
peake Bay to tto accelerate a
a (right panel) ana time periods arBISM2, TCBM2green dots: buoy
eld (CRSF) tor to the influent Newport Newthe west; the as they traver
nd a comparison re given in Table2(10m), WAHV2ys; orange triangl
ower (76m), bnce of the locws (NPTN). Tsmaller surfa
rse the Bay.
of EWITS and e__. CRSF=Cris2, KPTV2(6.4mles: tall tower
but cal This
ace
sfield, m),
It is not cldue to intemeasured wind meaanemomeis approprin the diurspring/earmid-summcould perhlogarithmthat the di As previovertical wbuoy or 5neutral boboundary layer becaassumptiofor exampconditionswith largeA plot of how rapidcirculationEastville, operation
Figure 9-5. Eastville (E
Figure 9-strong seain simplifboundarie
lear whether terannual variand EWITS
asurements weeter is at 43m,riate for openrnal cycle. Thrly summer, amer that are nhaps be due to
mic rescaling oiurnal cycle c
ously mentionwind profile at
0m winds comoundary layer
layer. Modelause the intermon of neutral sple when cools over land. Ter increases atthe annual m
dly the wind ins could be cMD (ESTV) is the instant
Annual Mean WSTV), Newport
-6 is a contourasonal and diufied estimates es.
the differenceations, or to dwinds at Cheere missing in and the data
n sea, for purphe measuremea mid-afternoonot reproducedo real differen
of the wind spcan vary signi
ned, there exist heights 50-1mmonly use aand likely un
l simulations mittency of thstratification iler continentaThe change int night relativean wind at thncreases withontributing torelative to N
taneous wind
Wind Speed at News (NPTN) a
r plot of the durnal variabiliof higher lev
es in the measdifferences inesapeake Lighn 2005, so thihas been scal
poses of compents show a pon decrease ind in the modences in the wipeed from 43 ficantly from
sts at present 50 m that are
a power law mnderestimatescontinue to hhe turbulenceis reasonable
al air moves on wind speed wve to day, andhe anemometh height on avo the dramaticewport Newsshear.
Each Anemom
and Wallops (WA
difference in tity in the win
vel winds from
sured winds an the local terrht Tower (CHis year has beled to 100m u
parison .Theseprominent winn the wind anel. These diffeind that are nto 100m. Eas
m 50-100m.
little informae important fomodel, but this the wind, espave difficulty is not easily ; examples ar
over the warmwith height is is likely to bter vertical levverage and hoc increase wits, VA (NPTN
meter Level. ALL) locations
the wind betwnd shear is appm near surface
at Eastville (Erain. The bott
HLT2) for the en excluded iusing a wind e plots show snd maximum nd an extendeerences in the
not taken into stville tower d
ation anywheror wind turbinis approximatpecially in thy accurately sparameterize
re the marine mer ocean wats also stronglybe highly variavels shown inow that differsth height at W
N). More relev
shown.
ween heights 1parent and thie measureme
ESTV) and Crtom two paneyears 2004 anin this plot). Tshear exponeseveral modefrom 4-8 pm
ed period of we phasing of thaccount with
data (not show
re in the Mid-nes. Extrapolation is strictlye stably stratiimulating the
ed. Under somboundary lay
ter or under cy dependent oable at coastan Figure 9-5 gs between the
Wallops, VA (vant, however
110 and 49 mis underscore
ents, especiall
risfield (CRSFels compare nd 2006 (somThe CHLT ent of 0.08, whel/data differe
during late weak winds duhe diurnal cyc
h the uniform wn) also indic
-Atlantic abouations from 10y valid for theified nocturnae stable boundme conditionsyer during timonvective on time of dayal locations. gives a sense e sites. Sea br(WALL) and r, for turbine
m at Eastville. s the uncertaily near land/se
117
F) are
me
hich nces
uring cle
cate
ut the 0m e al dary , the
mes
y,
of reeze
The inty ea
118
Figure 9-6. Data based
Another vmeasuremlevel) rawthe Chesaspeed acrorange 5-7 is that thethe resultsstrengths
83 Wind meMid-Atlanti
Seasonal and Don anemometer
view of the vements used forwinsondes launapeake Bay duoss the rotor. m/s and incre
e standard NWs as these are at typical hub
asurement data fic Tall Tower Re
Diurnal Variabidata at Eastville
ertical wind pr this plot are nched at Abeuring the yearWith the excease to 7-9 m
WS launch timtypically tran
b height could
from Eastville aneport [2]
ility of the Diffee, MD.
rofile and its high verticalrdeen Provingrs 2008-20108
ception of the m/s at rotor topmes are 0 UTCnsition periodd be underesti
nd New Port Ne
erence in Wind
seasonal depresolution (s
g Ground (AP83. This data amonths of Au
p (150m). TheC (7pm EST) ds. Although dimated by a fu
ws, Virginia and
Speed between
endence can bsampling rougPGD) locatedallows an estiugust and Sepe disadvantagand 12 UTC
data is very lifull wind pow
d Aberdeen, Mar
n 110 and 49 m.
be seen in Figghly every 3 md along the noimate of the cptember, 50 mge in using the(7am EST), w
imited it is power class.
ryland are discu
.
gure 9-7. Them above grouorthern reachechange in winm winds are ine rawinsondewhich could b
ossible that wi
ussed in detail in
e und es of nd n the data bias ind
the
Figure 9-7. High vertica
In order tointerannuastation BIabout 4-6 the increaother yearunderestimmean winthe tip of relative to
Figure 9-8. Anemomete
Vertical profileal resolution raw
o put these noal variability ISM2, which m/s and the y
ase in wind sprs, then this sumated for win
nd speed at oththe Delmarva
o the coastal l
Monthly meaner height is 10m.
es of wind speedwinsondes used. S
on-time-coincfor the years is close to theyears considepeed with heiguggests that thnd energy proher buoy locaa Peninsula; wocations.
n wind at NOAA.
d at Aberdeen, Standard launch
cident compar2006-2011 u
e EWITS andered for this anght at Eastvillhe wind resou
oduction. Figuations; annualwinds over lan
A/NOS Buoy BI
MD. h times are 0 and
risons in perspsing NBDC N
d Eastville locnalysis appeale for the avaiurce at locatioure 9-9 showsl mean wind snd in the cent
ISM2 (Bishop’s
d 12 UTC (7am a
pective, in FiNOS (Nationacations. The 1ar similar withilable year 20ons such as Es the interannspeeds similartral region of
s Head, MD).
and 7pm local).
igure 9-8 we al Ocean Serv10m winds typh respect to th007-2008 is reEastville couldnual variabilitr to BISM2 athe Delmarva
look at the vice) buoy dapically range he annual meaepresentative d be significanty in the annuare also founda are much w
119
ata at from an. If for ntly
ual d at weaker
120
Figure 9-9.
9.3 The The Mid-Aare howevsurface cowind enerplain. Thesummer mTo illustra2007 usinleft panelsdevelopedrotor spanextendingoffshore. further no
Annual mean w
Mid-Atlant
Atlantic coasver some poteooling of the ergy potential. e LLJ is a stromonths. It begate the spatial
ng the state-ofs show the LLd LLJ pattern n at heights 14g west to apprIn this examp
orth off the co
wind at several
tic low level
tal plain is geential wind reelevated westThis forcing
ong band of fagins after sunsl characteristif-the-art WeatLJ as it beginsat 11pm EST
40, 99 and 60roximately theple, winds at 7oast of New Je
NOS locations
l jet as a pot
enerally not coesources that atern region duoften gives ri
ast wind that set, persists foics of the LLJther Researchs to form at ab
T. The top, mi0m AGL. Thee 350m elevat7pm are greatersey.
in Delmarva.
tential wind
onsidered as aarise from laruring the warmise to a noctuoccurs under or most of theJ, Figure 9-10h and Forecasbout 7pm lociddle and bottLLJ covers a
tion contour (ter than 13 m/
d resource
an important rge scale topom season that
urnal low lever stable PBL ce night, and is0 shows a most WRF modecal time; the rtom panels sha significant p(not shown), /s in the Ches
wind resourcographic/thermt could signifiel jet (LLJ) [4conditions at ns strongest at odel simulatioel [44] at resolright panels shhow the windportion of theand east to thsapeake and D
ce region. Themal forcing duficantly increa2]in the coastnight during tabout 1am [4
on on August lution 9km. Thow the fully
d across a typie coastal plainhe coast and Delaware Bay
ere ue to ase tal the 43]. 2,
The
ical n,
ys and
Figure 9-10Left panels:horizontal reother station
The Mid-Acommon odue to theoccurs. Nlocal time
0. The Aug 2, 20 7pm, EST; Rigesolution, using ns.
Atlantic LLJ occurrence due lack of suitaWS rawinson
e) and so are o
007 low level jetght panels: 11pmthe MYJ bound
as a potentialuring the warmable multi-decndes, for examout of phase w
t at across-rotom EST. Winds wdary layer schem
l wind resourcm season [43
cadal wind dample, are launwith the night
r heights 60, 99ere computed we. Results were v
ce is not yet c] [42], howev
ata that samplenched at the stttime jet maxi
9 and 140m AGwith the Weather
validated with m
clear. There aver the climate the jet at thetandard timesimum.
GL Research Forec
measurements at
are indicationstology of the e time and hes 00 and 12 U
ast Model at a 9Beltsville, MD
s that it is a faLLJ is uncert
eight at whichUTC (7am and
121
km and
fairly tain h it d 7pm
122
9.4 Win The analyno means non-tempTable 9.1EWITS loentries arebe a reasoseason. Thyears 200buoys andcoastal regvariabilitymeasure tvariabilitygiven locaanemomevariability The exteneastward esummer iscoast, to ssampling LLJ. But taverage w
Barrierconsequacross thclasses ocould be Mitigatspatial, t
d Resourc
ysis presentedcomprehensiorally coincid
1 presents a suocations showe the mean wionable approxhe available m4-2010. Anal
d for limited tgions. The chy of the land-sthe wind acroy in the Mid-Aation from lim
eter data reveay and highligh
nt to which theextent, and ins uncertain. Tsunrise and suis also coincithe jets do oc
wind speed est
r - Wind resouuently there ishe rotor suggeover the coaste overestimat
tion Option –temporal, sea
ce Potentia
d here has useive due to thedent data recoummary of sewn in Figure 9ind speeds (in
ximation for thmodel and oblysis of wind time periods shallenges in a sea boundaryss the nominaAtlantic windmited time (i.eal some signifht the need fo
e LLJ is an imn particular wThe standard Wunset transitioidentally out occur over largetimates to a h
urce measurems a high degreests that windtal areas inclued.
– A coordinateasonal and ver
al and Unce
d a multi-plate lack of suitabords. Each dateasonal/diurna9.1, and for thn m/s) averaghe PJM 7am-servational dameasurementsuggest that throbust resour
y, the sparse saal rotor span, d, and it is diffe. single year)ficant differen
or more extens
mportant resohether the onWMO launchon periods whof phase withe areas in the
higher wind po
ment data is see of uncertaind resources muding Delmar
ed regional wrtical (shear)
ertainties
tform wind obble wind obseta source cleaal variability fhe wind meas
ged separately-11pm day usata is unfortuts from the fehe wind resource assessmenampling and tfrom 50-150ficult to draw) sampling. Cnces with respsive tall towe
urce for the cnset of the LLJh times of 0UThere atmospheh the time of o
Mid-Atlanticower class.
severely lackinty. However
may be undererva and the ba
wind measuremwind characte
bservation anervations, thearly has its owfor the coastasurements disy for day (8amed in Section
unately not timew available taurce may be unt in these regthe cost of talm. There is s
w conclusions Comparisons opect to the over and offshor
coastal plains J coincides wTC and 12 UTeric stability ioccurrence of c and are ener
ing for the Mr, limited dataestimated by aays and sound
ment campaigeristics.
nalysis that wee sparse spatiawn problems aal, mountain ascussed in secm-8pm which n 5 of this repme-coincidentall towers, rawunderestimategions derive fll tower platfosubstantial intabout the win
of the EWITSverall resourcere wind measu
during the suwith the high lTC corresponis changing. Tf the warm seargetic and cou
id-Atlantic rea at turbine huat least one wds. Offshore w
gn could prov
e recognize isal sampling, aand advantagand offshore ction 9.2. The
is consideredort), night, ant and spans thwinsondes aned by models from the forms that canterannual nd resource aS data with e and its diurnurements.
ummer, its load period innd, on the eastThis temporalason nocturnauld increase
egion, and ub height and
wind power wind resource
vide needed
s by and es.
e table d to nd he nd in
n
at a
nal
n the t l al
d
es
10.0 En In order toMarylandconsiderinfrom regioideas for ameeting ainclude: tusulfur oxitowards wbroader enresulting w 10.1 No A key stakgroups. Trepresentaenvironmwere discuThe sixtee100,000 sFigures 1
nvironmen
o form a comd Department ng environmeonal environmaddressing en
and numerousurbine effectsdes (SOx) dis
wind power; anvironmentalwater and air
n-Governm
keholder meehe meeting watives from seental issues reussed along wen participantscale topograp10-1. A list of
ntal Consi
mplete picture of Natural Re
ental issues sumental groupsnvironmental s one-to-one ds on bird and splacement; euand radar inter issues, i.e. copollution from
mental Org
eting was conwas hosted by even Non-Govelating to winwith mitigatiots participatedphic maps andf participating
iderations
of barriers to esources (DNurrounding wis. A workshopissues that co
discussions, enbat populatioutrophicationrference. Discomparing winm burning fo
ganization
ducted with rCBF, on Marvernmental Ond and other eon measures ad in an exercid on marine ng organization
s
wind energyNR) and the C
ind energy, bup, hosted by t
ould be barriernvironmental
ons; greenhoun of regional wcussion also fnd energy to dssil fuels and
Workshop
representativerch 1, 2011, a
Organizations energy sourceand offsetting se by placing
navigation chans is included
y PERI not onhesapeake Baut also took ithe CBF, wasrs to wind del topics of pri
use gases (GHwaters; noise;focused on thdamage from
d uranium min
p
es from regionat their office (NGOs) to o
es. Barriers tobenefits com
g 100 MW winarts. The agen in Appendix
nly partnered way Foundationnto considera
s held to obtaievelopment. Time importanc
HG), nitrogen ; aesthetics an
he importancemountain top
ning for maki
nal and nationin Richmond
obtain informao wind projectmpared to othe
nd plant blocnda for the mx A.
with both then (CBF) in ation concernin insights an
Through this ce emerged. Toxides (NOx)
nd public attite of looking atp coal miningng electricity
nal environmed, VA with ation on t developmener energy optiks on regiona
meeting is show
123
s nd
These ), and tude t
g, y.
ental
nt ions. al 1: wn in
124
Figure 10-11. NGO Meetingg Agenda
10.2 Ris Collisionsenvironmpath of thcomparedbe mitigatoffshore smigratingillustratesaround thshow thos
Figure 10-2
The additiportion cokm. At suMassachuecologicalincreased exist conchas the poestuaries a Although through pthe birds bobservatioStudies ha
84 A single o
sks to Bird
s involving biental risks wie wind farm.
d to other enerted by avoidinsite in sheltereg birds were in the radar imae wind farm, se birds that f
2. Bird Flight P
ional flight diompared to thech a low risk
usetts estimatelly significantuse of the ren
cern with the Mossibility to realong the shor
collision riskroper wind fabecoming attrons of nocturnave shown tha
oil platform in th
ds and Bats
irds and bats iith wind turbiHowever, thergy sources anng sites on med water, conn danger of coagery obtainethose that fly
fly over or und
ath Mapping at
stance needede total migratiof collision, m
ed 260 bird fatt threat to birdnewable energMid-Atlantic rsult in a higheres of the Delm
k for bird specarm design anracted to the lnal birds circlat this circling
he Gulf of Mexic
s Relative
into turbines ines. Wind ture data shows nd only create
migratory routecluded that onollision, defined during the y through the wder the sweep
t Nysted Wind F
d to detour theion episode exmodels for protalities annual
d species relatgy in the area bregion being aer number of cmarva Peninsu
cies is minimand placement.lighting used ling brightly lg behavior in
co causes approx
to Alternat
are a commonrbines create that bird collie a relatively es. A study donly 0.9 percen
ned as flying <study and showind farm are
p area of the t
Farm, Denmark
ese wind farmxperienced byoposed U.S. olly across all sive to the benby the Massacat the heart ofcollisions durula should be
al, further mit The greater ron the turbinlighted offsho
ncreases the ri
ximately 50 bird
tives
n public concan obstacle foisions are notsmall risk fo
one at Nystednt of night m< 50 m to a tuows that a mae over-inflateturbines.
k
ms is approximy many specieoffshore projecspecies. This h
nefits receivedchusetts Auduf the Atlantic ring the migrae excluded fro
tigation can trisk comes fr
nes at night, siore oil platforisk of collisio
d deaths for colli
cern when obfor migrating t a major concr migrating sp
d wind farm inmigrating and 0
urbine [45]. Fajority of miged since Figur
mately 0.5 km,es, which can cts like Cape has been deem
d from said spubon Society flyway (see F
ation season. Cm wind plant
theoretically brom nocturnalimilar to the crms in the Gu
on [47]. By sw
isions annually [
serving potenbirds flying incern when pecies which n Denmark, a0.6 percent of
Figure 10-2 grating birds fre 10-2 does
, a very small reach up to 1,Wind in
med to pose npecies from
[46]. There dFigure 10-3) wConsequently t development
be achieved l collisions, dcurrent ulf of Mexico8
witching from
[47]
125
ntial n the
can an f day
fly not
,400
no
does which
t.
due to
84. m
126
continuouphenomenrecommennight whe
Figure 10-3
Bird colliwind turbresearch ithese find Since batsturbine stathe turbinrisk to batmigrate ovThis need 10.3 Atm Displaceman inevitametric tonlifespan oemissionsemissionsinstall 24. If offshordisplacemelectricitysecond be
us illuminationnon could be ndations incluen high migra
3. Atlantic Flyw
sions have beines and birds ongoing. Ba
dings have occ
s feed primariartup wind sp
ne is idle durints by 85 percever water at t
ds further stud
mospheric
ment of Greenable benefit frns of CO2 annof around 20 ys or more duris are estimated.4 GW and co
e capacity is iment would acy from coal anehind nuclear
n on oil rigs tavoided and rude allowing ation intensity
way
een well docus. Bat collisioat carcasses hcurred sporad
ily at night onpeed slightly cng times of loent with only imes, but it is
dy [48] but sh
c Emission
nhouse Gas emrom wind pownually relativeyears, one sucing its lifespad to be avoideonsequently d
included, the ctually be highnd coal is the in Virginia.
to intermittenreduce the risfor migration
y is forecasted
umented and pons, however,have been foudically and ev
n flying inseccan dramaticaow wind speed
2.6 percent los not conclusi
hould not be a
Displacem
missions (GHwer. Accordine to the currench turbine couan. Under 20%ed. Under the
displace 66 mi
emission redher since the primary fuel
nt flash of strosk of nocturnan corridors bed.
provide a gen, have not bee
und at the baseven at turbines
ts when the wally reduce bad. One study oss in energy ive as to the ea blocking issu
ment
HG), nitrogenng to NREL, ant average U.uld displace a% Wind by 20e DOE 2030 sillion tons or
duction share iDOE nationafor generatio
obe lights maral collisions. Otween wind f
eral idea abouen as highly de of all U.S. ls which are no
wind speed is at mortality. Restimated thioutput [5]. It
exact cause ofue.
oxides (NOXa single 1.5 MS. fuel mix. S
as much as 54030, 825 milliscenario, the M8.02 percent
increases to 1al scenario is bon in North Ca
rking a wind Other risk mifarms and turn
ut the risks asdocumented, bland-based wiot in operatio
less than 6 mRaising the tus mitigation mt is understoof bat interacti
X), and sulfur MW turbine diSince these tu4,000 metric toion metric tonMid-Atlantic of the US CO
12.1 percent. based on 18 parolina and M
farm, the circitigation ning off turbi
ssociated withbut current ind farms, but
on.
m/s, raising theurbine speed mmeasure redu
od that some bon with turbin
oxides (SOX)isplaces 2,700
urbines have aons of CO2 ns of CO2 States could
O2 emissions.
The emissionpercent of
Maryland and
cling
nes at
h
t
e means ced
bats nes.
are 0 a
n
A reductioeutrophicaclimate chreduction power pla In additioThis savinstart naturgas consurelative unhave bann Low cost energy. Hfollowed b Wind enecan be fou2007, but Trade mar However states on tDelawareRGGI opelimits andin consummaintainsregulate eAtlantic reorder to re$188,828, 10.4 Eut Eutrophicnutrients, removes ldecomposover the plife and deeconomiceconomie The three suburban industrial to limit th
on of power pation of regiohange. Besidein atmospher
ants.
n some reducng will be dimral gas fired tu
umption decrenknown, but hned fracking d
fossil fuels arHowever, price
by tomorrow
rgy is eligibleund. Prices fohave done porket at the Ch
the Regional the East Coas, Maine, Marerates carbon d the cycles amer programs
a revenue stremissions propegion. Those eceive the rev,931 and Dela
trophicatio
cation is the pnamely nitrat
large amountsses and inputspast 40 + yearestroy the aqu
c impacts, names and make sh
largest sourclands; secondwaste water i
hese sources.
plant emissiononal rivers, baes reductions ric emissions
ction is likely minished as thurbine genera
eases the needhave been sugdue to similar
re sometimeses for conven’s shortage. W
e to sell carboor carbon credoorly in recenhicago Climat
Greenhouse st including thyland, Massatrading aucti
a portion of thand clean ene
ream to invesperly. Only Dstates that do
venue stream.aware $25,41
on of Regio
rocess wheretes and phosps of oxygen frs more nutrienrs, leading to uatic ecosystemely “fish-kilhellfish from
ces of excessivd is agriculturincluding dum
ns is paramouays and soundin CO2 emissof lead, merc
in the demanhe penetrationators to balancd for frackingggested to por concerns.
considered antional fossil fWind offers a
on credits for dits at marketsnt years due tote Exchange c
Gas Initiativehe Mid-Atlantachusetts, Newons quarterly
he revenue genergy developmt into further
Delaware and o not participa To date 15 a2,511 in cum
onal Water
a body of frephorous, whicrom the bodynts into the eclarge portionsem. Eutrophicls” that are crthose areas to
ve nitrogen lore run-off lademping of raw
unt in solvingds; respiratoryions, displace
cury, arsenic,
nd for natural n of wind powce the variatio, for which loison aquifers
a barrier to acfuels tend to rhedge agains
renewable ens like the Chio an excess ofclosed in late
e (RGGI) currtic region. Cow Hampshire,y for these statnerated from ment. In partiCO2 reductioMaryland pa
ate lose the diauctions have
mulative proce
rs
esh water acquch causes exce of water. Thcosystem. This of the bay bcation has botreated in deadoxic for huma
oading are cheen with animasewage and h
g numerous pry health issuesement of coalchromium an
gas as a viabwer increases ons in wind pong term envi
and cause ea
cruing the enrise and fall inst oscillating f
nergy power picago Climatef carbon cred2010.
rently managomprised of n, New York, Rtes based on ethe auction b
icipation of thons and therefarticipate in thirect incentivebeen held. M
eeds.
quires a high cessive algae ge problem is is process has
becoming death immense nd-zone which an consumpti
emical fertilizal waste; and human waste
roblems inclus like asthmal-fire powerednd selenium p
ble energy altethe need for a
plant output. Rironmental imarthquakes. Fr
nvironmental bn cycles, so tofossil fuel pri
production if e Exchange indits. In fact the
es carbon tradnine states; CoRhode Islandeach state’s inback to the stahese auctions fore has a direhese auctions e to manage C
Maryland has r
concentrationgrowth whichcompounded s plagued the
ad zones whicnegative ecoloh then hurt locion.
zers from farmd third is Mun. There are a
uding , acid rain andd electricity yproduced by s
ernative to coadditional quiReduced natu
mpacts are stilrance and Bul
benefits of woday’s glut isices.
a carbon marncreased untile Carbon Cap
ding among sonnecticut, d, and Vermonndividual COates to be inveeach state
ect incentive in the Mid-
CO2 emissionreceived
n of inorganic h then in turn when the alg Chesapeake
ch inhibit aquaogical and cal fishing
m, urban and nicipal and
range of prog
127
d yields such
oal. ick
ural ll lgaria
ind s
rket l p and
some
nt, O2
ested
to
ns in
gae Bay atic
grams
128
Atmosphelivestock the five stnitrogen lremoval) carbonace Similar tobay will cand mobilorganizatimore strindifferent a Eutrophicgood winddisturbingwind farmthe turbincontinue tturbine plimpact of
eric sources cand fertilizedtudy states emoading from pand fuel trans
eous fuels, reg
o the displacemcome as a direle sources. Alions like the Cngent regulatiaspect of the e
cation has caud resources. Tg currently exms (see wind rnes which wouto reduce nitratforms can a
f disturbing th
contribute abod soil, and elecmitted 136,297power plants sport. One opgardless of its
ment of Greenect result of wlthough, nitroChesapeake Bions on all soueutrophicatio
used large deaThese dead zoxisting ecosystresource map uld in turn be ogen run-off act as artificiahe ecosystem
out one-third octric power p7 metric tons in surroundin
ption could bes source.
nhouse Gaseswind energy taogen run-off fBay Foundatiources of nitron problem tha
ad zones in thones provide ttems, and alsin Figure 4-part of the soand the size o
al reefs and beduring install
of the nitrogelant emissionof nitrogen o
ng states, mine to add a carb
s (GHGs), theaking the placfrom agricultuon and Sierra gen run-off inat has previou
e bay area (sethe ideal locao are located 5) These locaolution to solvof dead zonesenefit the ecolation.
en loading andns. EIA reportoxides during ning operationbon tax on ele
e displacemence of combusture continues Club are mak
nto the bay. Wusly been low
een in Figureation for turbin
in some of thations would sve the issue os in the bay deosystem, all w
d include vehted that powe2010. In add
ns (including ectricity gene
nt of nitrogention of fossil to be the prim
king strides inWind turbineswer priority.
e 10-4) that hane installation
he more feasibserve as insta
of dead-zonesecrease, these
without the ini
hicles, gases frer plants locatdition there is
mountain toperated from
n discharge infuel fired plamary issue, n fighting fors would attack
appen to be nn without woble locations
allation groun. As efforts e submerged itial negative
from ted in
p coal
nto the ants
r k a
near orry of
for nd for
Figure 10-4
10.5 Ae Visual imThe highemore windhomes andback requdiscussed Despite thVirginia ayears. Thethey choo790 MW Mehoopanbeen damwith the wbenefits, halso been Beach andSince the installatio
4. Chesapeake B
sthetics an
mpacts produceer visibility ofd plants are bd can become
uirements and in the Sectio
hese mitigatioand North Carese delays and
ose sites elsewof wind plantny in June 20
maged by strip wind plants arhas helped to helpful in red
d mountain toproposed off
on of turbines
Bay Dead Zones
nd Public A
ed by wind tuf ridgeline an
built. Aerodyne barriers to pnoise limits t
on 8 of this rep
on measures, rrolina. Publicd associated l
where. For exats located mai
012.. In some mining. Also
re perceived aopen markets
ducing oppos
ourism plays afshore wind pr
would have a
s
Attitude
urbines are imd offshore incnamic and maprojects. One that communport.
ridgeline sitesc media, law slegal costs beample in nearinly on ridgelcases the init
o the coal busas beneficial. s in Pennsylvition.
a major role iroject in Masa negative eff
mportant consicreases initialachinery sounsolution is usities can use t
s have encounsuits and regucome econom
rby Pennsylvalines with anotial projects wsiness has beeSeeing wind
vania. Public e
in many local ssachusetts, thfect on tourism
iderations in pl concerns bu
nds from turbising model orto minimize t
ntered seriousulatory procesmic barriers foania wind devother 131 MWwere placed onen declining, splants operat
education thro
l economies ohere has existm as the sight
project plannut these tend toines can be anrdinances withthese issues. T
s opposition isses have delaor developersvelopment is pW beginning in mountains tso the local joting, along wiough stakeho
of the Mid-Atted a strong ct of turbines o
ning and sitingo diminish asnnoying to neh reasonable These are
in Maryland, ayed projects s and consequproceeding winstallation inthat had alreaobs associatedith their econolder groups h
lantic region.concern that thoff the coast w
129
g. s earby set
for uently with n ady d omic
has
he would
130
take awaybeen obseresidents oimplemenMaryland The studysupport foshore. Thodecreasing
Figure 10-5
Differencthat 66 pesurveyed leaves theoffshore win additionproposed constructi Public perstudy, Unopponentsocean areaevery oneCape Winactually eopinion mlocal stakeprojects pturbines wprograms.
y from the aeserved at Europof Mid-Atlan
ntation of offsd and Delawar
y conducted foor offshore wiose surveyed g support the
5. Survey of Ant
es were notedercent of out-oclaimed that t
e option for sewind power an to local eco600 MW offs
ion and manu
rception of wniversity of Des. Depending a residents’ fa
e opposed [52nd Project in Mffects of offsh
must be taken eholders is cr
planned by thewill likely serv.
sthetic beautypean beaches
ntic States andshore wind turre to determin
or Delaware pind farms, bugreatly suppocloser the hy
ticipated Touri
d in response of-state beachthey were likequential tripsctually boosts
onomy boosts shore project
ufacturing and
wind farms impelaware reseaon where the
favored 3:1 an]. These resulMassachusetthore wind insinto account
ritical, but it ce U.S. DOE inve to reduce t
y of the horizothat installed
d out-of-state rbines. Studiene public opin
produced mixut the support orted offshore
ypothetical wi
st Reaction to a
from local vshgoers surveyely to visit a bs after the firss local economseen from thin Maryland
d then maintai
proved with iarchers found ey live, responnd inland residlts are dramatts although attstallations on in considerin
cannot be the n 2014–2017 these concern
on [49]. Althod offshore wintourists poses
es were condunion and feasi
xed results. Thwas stronger e turbine projind farm got t
a Hypothetical W
s. out-of-stateyed and 84 perbeach with tust. This is conmies in terms
he additional jwould create in 80 jobs on
increased outrthat in the St
ndents with adents’ favoredtically more ftitudes in Newlocal residentg installation sole decidingwill help add
ns as was the c
ough no negatnd farms, currs a barrier to ucted by the Uibility of offsh
he study concfor wind farm
jects 22 km anto shore, as ill
Wind Farm
e tourist grouprcent of Dela
urbines 10 kmnsistent with es of tourism. Tjobs created f 500 jobs initan ongoing b
reach to staketate supporteran impacted vd 5:1, that is favorable thanw England se
nts and tourismn projects, andg factor. The odress these uncase on earlie
tive effects onrent public opthe most costUniversity of hore wind tur
cluded that thms that are nond further outlustrated by F
ps. The study aware residentm offshore at levidence in EThese boosts for turbine instially in the fibasis [51].
eholder grouprs significantl
view favored afive favors ofn similar surveem to be impm is still ambid open commuoffshore windncertainties aner DOE demo
n tourism havpinion of botht-effective f Delaware forrbines [50] [5
here is favorabot visible fromt. They showeFigure 10-5 [
also concludt beachgoers least once, wh
Europe that in tourism ar
stallation. A irst two years
ps. In a separaly out numbera project 2:1, ffshore plantsveys done for proving. The iguous. Publiunication witd demonstratind seeing actuonstration
ve h
r both 51].
ble m the ed [50].
ded
hich
re also
for
ate r
s for the
ic th ion ual
Aestheticsplants canthat carefumodel ord 10.6 Ra There are weather raAdministralong the techniquesufficientlmulti-rada Radar hasradar signA wind faweather raair traffic Despite thof wind tutechnologbut also ameasures The Uniteand other studies fohardware,the Westeinterferen Radar issudetailed afeasibilityin the vicipossible cequipmen Wind turbenergy imof air and The nationPTC and Igeneratedhave turnemanufactuadded].
s can becomen also encountul attention todinances and
dar
significant coadars. This is ration (FAA).Mid-Atlantic
es involving thly tested undear environmen
s been studied nals. Results sharm located cloadar software control softw
hese difficultiurbine interfergies of wind tucknowledgedthat are based
ed Kingdom cstakeholders und that som, filtering softern U.S. have nce to civilian
ues have beenand thorough ay of wind enerinity [36]. In bchanges to trant modified to
bines also havemports can redu
sea space to fi
nal importancIowa's renew
d jobs and helped the wind puring base, cr
e barriers espeter barriers bao early and opdemonstration
oncerns that wespecially im
. The nationalc coast. Althouhe use of signer operationalnt.
and FAA hashow that windose to a bordecould misinte
ware could tem
ies, there is norence. A studurbines and ra
d that our agind on digital si
conducted sevregarding poe level of the tware, or gap-experienced aircraft and n
n well documanalysis of issrgy in the Pamboth studies c
aditional or pro accommodat
e national secuuce the need fofind compatibl
ce of wind enable-power cped wind-rela
power industryreate jobs, low
ecially for higased mainly open communin projects can
wind turbinesmportant for thl security impugh mitigatio
nal processingl conditions o
s conducted fid power planter could createerpret the high
mporarily lose
o fundamentady for US Depadar can coexng radar systeignal processi
veral years of otential effects
interference -filling radar siting delays nearby militar
ented in Mid-sues [55]. Unmlico and Albconflicting usreexisting opete both the wi
urity implicatior some securle operation of
nergy was expommitments ated businessey into “an Amwer energy co
gh visibility rion cost and “Ncation can fren reduce these
s can interferehe Navy, Coaplications of ron measures hg techniques ton the U.S. wi
ield tests to des interfere wite a blind zoneh turbulence athe tracks of a
al physical conpartment of Hxist.” A varietem may not being capabiliti
f study and inis on radar sysfrom wind tusystems [54].as the result ory installation
-Atlantic reginiversity of Nobemarle Sounses were citederations and toind turbines a
ons that are ofity operationsf wind turbine
pressed recenthave broughtes prosper in merican succeosts and streng
idgeline projeNot-in-my-beequently mitige obstacles.
e with surveilast Guard, andradar interferehave been useto reduce grouith full-scale t
etermine effecth the radar tre for detectingat the blade tipaircraft flying
nstraint preveHomeland Secty of mitigatioe able to use ties.
itiated collabostems and miturbines can be. Most recentof concerns rns.
ional studies. orth Carolina
nds considerind. However, lio what could and other uses
ften overlookes. We need to res alongside pr
tly by Iowa Gt in billions ofthe state.” B
ess story that gthen our ene
ects in touristeach-view” issgate these iss
lance, navigad Federal Avience are obvied successfullund-clutter, thturbines in an
cts of operatinracking of aircg intruding airps as a possibg over wind fa
enting detecticurity [53] conon measures wthe most prom
oration betwetigation stratee mitigated wtly, some landregarding pote
University ofa did a paralleng extensive mittle attentionbe curtailed,
s.
ed. Reducing revise current reexisting ope
Governor, Terf dollars of in
Branstad addedis helping us ergy security
t areas. Offshosues. Data shues. Reasona
ation, and Dopiation ous, especiallly in Europe,hese have notn operational
ng turbines oncraft and weatrcraft; current le tornado; cuarms.
ion and mitigancluded that, were suggestemising mitiga
een the militaegies. These ith improved
d-based projecential radar
f Maryland diel study on themilitary opera
n was given torelocated or
our dependenthinking and
erations.
rry Branstad, “nvestment, d, those policbuild our
y,” [emphasis
131
ore hows able
ppler
ly like t been
n ther.
urrent
ation “The ed
ation
ary
radar cts in
id a e ations o
ce on usage
“The
cies
s
11.0 CoThroughothe Mid-Awind enerknown andevelopmAtlantic. Timportant
There is pregion andtwo utilitywind eneramong theavailable Delaware Atlantic c
The primatypes; PolInterest. T 11.1 Po Although Renewablbuilt. Sevprograms.Renewablprovided jPennsylvafulfilled laand wouldliquor waregardlessactivities Despite threquireme An issue iresources,operationbeneficialPortfolio p Another imet or excagreemenstatute. Thnew reneweven if it w
onclusionout this reportAtlantic have rgy developmnd potential w
ment which, unThe Executivt barriers and
potential for od several timey scale projecrgy projects foe highest in that Appalachiaand Chesape
coast.
ary barriers tolicy-RegulatoThe properties
licy and Re
all Mid-Atlanle Energy Poreral issues we. First, in mosle Energy Cerjust over 3 peania, Virginiaargely with “ad operate anystes in facilitis of RPS/RPGdeployed afte
hese enlightenents are not ye
in Virginia is , supplemente. Tier II RECl than Tier I sprograms.
ssue in Virginceeded. The S
nts (PPA) for nhe Commissiowable generatwould be nee
s , numerous isbeen identifie
ment, but in cowind resourcesnless overcom
ve Summary inoptions for th
over 4,000 MWes that offshocts installed infor bulk powerhe nation, incan mountain reake Bays, Al
o wind develoory Issues, Wis of these typo
egulatory I
ntic States acrtfolio Standaere identified st cases fulfillrtificates (REercent of the Ta and 11 otheranyway” cred
yway. These inies installed inG. North Caroer the RPS lawned RPS provet sufficient.
that the goalsed as necessars are generateources and th
nia is that porState Corporanew wind powon determinedtion that was eded to meet t
ssues, impedimed. Individualombination ths in the regionme, will continn this report dheir resolution
W of land-basre. All states
n Maryland anr generation c
creasing up toridgeline siteslbemarle and
opment outlinind Resource ologies are no
Issues
knowledge thards or Goals
as critical shlment is allow
ECs) may be gTier 1 RECs rr States as fardits. Many crenclude large hn the early 19
olina is an excw was passedvisions, no wi
s have been mry by the purced by sourcesheir use is con
rtfolio goals aation Commiswer generatiod that the goanot needed to
the goal estab
ments and bally, many of t
hey become ban. There also nue to constradescribes the n or mitigatio
sed wind enerhave signific
nd none elsewcontinues, des 3.2 percent as, on the coasPamlico Soun
ned in this repTechnical Un
ot mutually in
he importance(RPS/RPG) i
hortcomings inwed from facigenerated anyretired in 201r away as Micedits are genehydropower p900s. Both typception, requid and that 75 pnd plants hav
met largely thchase of Tier s that are genenstrained or pr
are treated as ssion was askeon were “reasoals of the RPGo meet the curblished for late
arriers to the dthese issues aarriers prevenexist several ain wind enertechnical app
on.
rgy plants thrcant wind enewhere in the rspite a growinannually. Amstal plains, at nds, and at de
port can be grncertainty, Ecndependent an
e of wind in thin place, theren the Mid-Atlilities that pre
ywhere in the 0. The rest of
chigan. Seconerated from faplants and plapes of facilitiiring that RECpercent must ve been deplo
hrough existinII RECs from
erally considerohibited in a
ceilings ratheed to determionable and pr
G were not mirrently applicer years. The
development oalone are not enting the utilizmajor barrier
rgy developmproach used to
roughout the Mrgy potential
region to dateng demand fo
mple wind resoshallow shelteeper water si
rouped into thconomic Viabnd do interact
heir energy pe have been olantic State Redated the porPJM system. f the RECs cand, REC requiacilities that wants burning pes would opeCs be generatcome from in
oyed as the esc
ng in-state hydm pre-existingered less envia number of R
er than minimination if tworudent”, as reinimums, but
cable goal wasCommission
of wind energenough to derzation of bothrs to wind ene
ment in the Mio define the m
Mid-Atlantic yet there are. The absence
or electricity tources are tered water siites off the
hree categoricbility and Pubt.
plans and haveonly two projeRPS/RPG rtfolio laws anMaryland
ame from irements are b
were built lonpaper plant blerate anyway ted from new n-state sourcecalating
dropower g facilities anironmentally Renewable
mum targets to power purch
equired by thet caps and thas not prudent
n also noted th
133
gy in rail h ergy id-most
only e of that is
tes in
al blic
e ects
nd
being ng ago lack
es.
d
o be hase e RPG at any , hat
134
Tier II RElegislativetoday, disNorth Carmuch of t All of the energy immainly at states but from the Rreduce CO Delaware effective ofor coastathe local uCommissi 11.2 Fed In recent yoffshore i(BOEM) apotential pAtlantic Oproposals “no signifoffshore afederal wa This largeconsideratfrom landonshore a Our studywaters of wind resoocean for operation the levelizinstallatiooffshore pthe Federasounds. Ebalanced aplant emis
ECs, where the efforts in Visregarding enerolina, the curhe state’s ridg
Mid-Atlanticmports by deve
residential apnot in others
Regional GreO2 emissions.
has an effectoffshore wind
al and bay winutility, Delmaion are recept
deral Emp
years the atten Federal watand U.S. Depproject develo
Ocean off the have been so
ficant impact.applications. Aaters.
e emphasis ontion of possib
d-based sites aand bay wind
y team attempbays and sou
ources appear deeper waterand maintena
zed cost of enon vs. $0.167 project cost tral Wind Prog
Environmentalagainst the bessions.
hey are availabirginia to incrergy plans to rrent interpretgeline resourc
c State energyeloping indigpplications alo. In Delawareenhouse Gas
tive RPS progd energy reseand resources tarva Power antive to wind a
hasis on O
ntion in the Mters. The U.S
partment of Enopers. BOEMcoast of Dela
olicited and an” DOE has soAll this effort
n offshore oceble sites in Dealong the coasdevelopment
pted to reexamunds. Based on
to be marginr and survivalance expensenergy (in 2013per kWh for o
rends in Europgram. Of courl issues, such enefits to bay
ble as a lowerrease and streincrease use tation of the sces “off limits
y plans mentiogenous resourcong with prop
e and MarylanInitiative (RG
gram and the Uarch, teachingthat could be nd Light, ownand renewable
Offshore Pr
Mid-Atlantic S. Departmentnergy (DOE)
M has identifieaware, Marylan environmenolicited majort has created s
ean applicatioelaware and Cst. Consequen.
mine the applin analysis of ally better offl in hurricane , favored app3 constant doocean installape and with dse there are isas birds, batswater and air
r cost methodengthen the RPof wind and ostate’s Mounts” to develop
on policies faces. There areperty and salend money is aGGI), the ten-
University ofg and public edeveloped wh
ned by Pepco e energy.
rojects
States has shit of Interior, Bhave kindled
ed lease blockand, Virginia ntal assessmenr research andsubstantial int
ons has drawnChesapeake Bntly offshore w
ications on thtall tower (>7fshore compagenerated walication in thellars) was estations. These detailed enginssues associats and view shr quality from
d of complianRPG have faileother renewabtain Ridge Pro
pment.
avoring renewe also a varietes tax and proavailable for r-state cap-and
f Delaware haeducation prohile offshore Holdings, an
ifted from lanBureau of Oced much of thisks for offshorand possibly
nt completed d technology terest for proj
n attention andBays, Albemar
wind develop
he coastal plai70 m height) wared to bays, baves of up to e bays. Basedtimated at $0.estimates app
neering studieted with deplo
hed concerns,m reduced coa
nce, they musted in favor ofbles in the Cootection Act h
wable energy ty of grant property waversrenewable ened-trade progra
as implementeogram. There
research contnd the Delawa
nd-based applean Energy Ms interest fromre three of why later North C
with favorabdemonstratiojects beyond
d resources awrle and Pamlipment has cre
in and in the swind data, webut the platfor30 m height p
d on detailed e091 per kWhpear to be cons completed boying turbinemust be addr
al mining and
t be used. Sevf least-cost-poommonwealthhas served to
and reducing ograms aimeds available in ergy programam meant to
ed a strong anare opportunitinues. In add
are Public Ser
ications to Management m the states anhich are in theCarolina. Projble results shoon projects forthe 12 nm lim
way from ico Sounds, aeated a barrier
shallow sheltee concluded trm cost in theplus added economic ana
h for bay nsistent with by DOE earlyes in the bays ressed and d thermal pow
veral ower-h. In rule
d some
ms
nd ities
dition, rvice
nd e ject
owing r mit in
nd r to
ered that e
alysis,
y in and
wer
11.3 Eco This studyplains, shaviable todterm deveof bays an Ridgelineenvironmrequire sigand/or an on analysiusing 1.5 assumptio 11.4 Tec A barrier planning uusing meahub heighindicates tpower cla Significanthe DOE, were simiDelmarvaunderestimthat the Ein this stubarrier to An additio(LLJ) acroand summforcing dujets begin Lack of gfactors coterm, hub boundary,developer One otherrequired tTransmissFurther, w
onomic As
y looked at thallow bays an
day. The levelelopment in thnd sounds due
e sites are lowental factors mgnificant reduattractive lonis of modeledMW turbines
ons for costs,
chnical Un
is the uncertautility-scale wasurement froht (100 m) andthat existing w
ass and may o
nt differencesEastern Wind
ilar. But lookia at Wallops amated by at leWITS estima
udy. These difany develope
onal uncertainoss the Mid-A
mer months. Tue to surface c
n around sunse
ood wind chaontribute to un
height or abo, extreme evers and for thei
r technical bartransmission lsion line proje
we did not eva
ssessment
he economic vnd sounds, anlized cost of ehe Mid-Atlante to proximity
west cost. Howmust be cost muctions in riskng-term Powed PJM forwars on land and performance,
ncertainties
ainty about wiwind plant. Thom seven sitesd above. Resuwind maps un
overestimate th
were noted id Integration ing at the highand Eastville least one windates for averagfferences are cer.
nty and potenAtlantic regioThese jets are cooling of theet and are hig
aracteristics dncertainty regove wind meaents (hurricaneir debt and eq
rrier could belines will be aects like the Maluate the pot
t Results
viability of fod offshore ocenergy from ptic. Next mosy to load and
wever, the distmust be consks, more confer Purchase Ad pricing and5 MW turbin, and financin
s
ind resourceshere is substas showed thatult from the mnderestimate the wind offsh
n comparing Study (EWITh wind shear leads to the c
d power class.ge seasonal wconsidered to
ntially valuabln. LLJ may spowerful wine elevated we
ghest during th
data is considegarding the regasurements, thes) and the pr
quity investors
e limitations oavailable wheMid-Atlantic ential impact
ur different aceans. Three opotential coasst attractive pobecause the w
tance to load idered The O
fidence in winAgreement (PPd cash-flow mnes in Bay andng, are detaile
s. There is a pntial data avat wind resourc
multi-year winthe wind resohore.
the actual winTS). The Ridgmeasured at onclusion tha. The reverse
wind speed offo be very sign
le finding is eignificantly in
nds that arise estern region dhe PJM off-pe
ered to be a mgional wind rhe atmospherresence of lows.
on the existingen needed to hPower Pathwfrom the pro
applications oof these markstal sites appeotential sites wind resource
centers and aOcean project nd resources, PA) to be viab
model results cd Ocean applied in the repor
paucity of winailable at or bce increased snd velocity anource over the
nd measuremgeline data wi100 m hub heat average coais true on thefshore were a
nificant and re
evidence of thncrease windfrom large scduring the waeak period at
major barrier tresource. Theric complexityw level jets. T
g transmissiohandle the ene
way (MAPP) aoposed offsho
of wind plantskets appear to ears to be attraare in shelter
es are probabl
associated tranis more challreductions inble. These fincomparing 10ications. Undrt for eight di
nd resource daelow 50 m hesubstantially nd shear mease coastal plain
ments with moind speeds aneight and aboastal plain wine ocean. The aabout 15% higesulting uncer
he presence od plant produccale topographarm season. Unight.
to wind develse include they and variabilThis uncertain
on grid. This sergy from theare assumed tre backbone.
s; ridgeline, cobe economic
active for neared shallow wly underestim
nsmission andenging and w
n risk premiumndings are bas00 MW plantsderlying ifferent cases.
ata suitable foeight but reseat large turbinsurements ns by one win
odel results frnd capacity fave on the nd speeds maanalysis showgher than estimrtainty would
f Low Level Jction during shic/thermal
Unfortunately
lopment. Mane lack of longlity at the landnty is a barrier
study assumede 100 MW plato be availabl
135
oastal ally
ar-waters mated.
d would ms sed s
.
or arch ne
nd
om actors
ay be wed
mates be a
Jets pring
the
ny g-d-sea r for
d that ants. e.
136
11.5 Pu Public opbarriers atplanning pProtectionreasonablare availaready. Generallyenvironmways shouNoise andbenefits fr“dead zonBecause oare not a b
blic Interes
inion of windt this time. Thprocess as is tn Act has effee zoning ordible and in use
y environmententally sensituld be avoided aesthetics arrom wind pownes” in the bayof this, currenbarrier to win
st
d energy and ehese can becothe case in No
ectively blockinances can goe except in a f
tal issues can tive sites but ad. Bats issuesre issues that wer that resuly and ocean.
ntly public intnd energy dev
environmentaome block issuorth Carolina
ked all wind do a long way few commun
be defined, aare not consids can largely bcan generally
lt from reduciPublic opinio
terest and envvelopment.
al issues are imues if they are
a. There a judidevelopment i
to prevent issities where pr
avoided or midered a barriebe avoided by
y be handled ting coal and oon is generallyvironmental is
mportant but e not addressicial interpretin the westernsues before throjects began
itigated. Theser to developmy raising the tthrough open other fossil fuy favorable tossues are cons
are not consied properly intation of the Rn part of the shey start. Modn before mode
se can precludment. Bird santurbine cut-indialog citing
uel burning anoward wind insidered critica
dered to be n the project Ridgeline state. Howevedel zoning poel ordinances
de the use of nctuaries and n wind speed. g the value andnd shrinking tn the Mid-Atlally importan
er olicies were
fly
d the lantic.
nt but
12.0 Bi
[1] EnerEner
[2] DanColl
[3] DOECon
[4] EIA[5] NRE
http:ution
[6] "Eur[7] IEA [8] Wes
Offs[9] Bure
ActivAsse
[10] DOEUnit
[11] W Mof B
[12] 4C Oswed
[13] HassCapihttp:
[14] ToddCou
[15] PJM[16] Rich
Tran[17] Hug
Sque[18] Ira S
Fort[19] U.S.
Ener[20] Whi
http:[21] Gest
Farm[22] Publ
Stati
bliograph
rNex Corporargy Labatory,iel F. Anconalection," PrincE (U.S. Departribution to U. (2010) State
EL. (2009, Fe://www.nrel.gn/MidAtlanticropean Wind Wind, "IEA
stinghouse Eleshore Wind Eeau of Ocean vities on the Aessment., JanuE/DOI, A Natted States., Fe
Musial and B RBarriers and OOffshore. [Onden-se06.htmsan Garrad. (2ital Costs for ://www.bwead Edwards, "Rncil of State G
M, "Transmisshard Schmalennsport Rule," ghes Wayne, Feezed in the VShavel and Bahcoming Util. Energy Inforrgy Informatiite Constructi://www.whitetamp Wind. (m of 50 MW. lic Service Coions in the Sta
hy
ation, "Eastern, Knoxville, Ta III, Josh Bowceton Energy rtment of Ene
U.S. Electricite Electric Poweb) Dynamic Mgov/gis/cfm/dc_Regional_WAtlas," RoskiWind Energyectric Corpornergy ConverEnergy Mana
Atlantic Contuary 2012. tional Offshorebruary 2011.Ram. (2010)
Opportunities. nline]. http://w
ml 2009) UK Ofthe Next Five
a.com/pdf/pubRegional TranGovernmentsion Expansionsee and RobExcelon Corp
Francois D. BVice of EPA Rarclay Gibbs, lity MACT," rmation Admion Administron. (2010, De
econstruction.2011, Novem[Online]. http
ommission of Mate of Marylan
n Wind IntegTN, NREL/SRwman, and LyResources In
ergy). (2008) y Supply. [On
wer ProductioMaps, GIS Da
data/GIS_DataWind_High_Rilde, Denmarky: 2009 Annuration, "Desigrsion System agement DOIinental Shelf
re Wind Strat. Large-Scale O[Online]. http
www.4coffsho
ffshore Wind:e Years. [Onlblications/ExSnmission Org
s, Atlanta, Geon Advisory C
bert N. Stavinporation, 201
Broquin, and SRegulation; W"A ReliabilitCharles River
ministration , "ration, Washinecember) Rot.com/featured
mber ) Gestamp://gestamp.pMaryland, "An
nd," Public Ser
gration and TrR-5500-47078ynn Sparling,
nternational, L20% Wind Enline]. http://w
on. [Online]. hata & Analytia_TechnologyResolution.zipk., 1989 (web
ual Report," ISgn Study and E
Application,I, CommerciaOffshore NJ,
tegy: Creating
Offshore Winp://www.nrelore.com/wind
Charting theline]. Summary.pdfganztion Preseorgia, 2004.
Committee," Pns, "A Guide t1.
Saurabh SinghWho Wins andty Assessmenr Associates,
"Annual Enerngton, D.C., Dth Rock Windd-projects/list
mp Wind Dediprd.dri.pt/es/nnnual Report orvice Commis
ransmission S8, 2011. , "Mid-AtlantLLC, Rockvil
Energy by 203www.nrel.gohttp://www.eiic Toold. [Ony_Specific/Up b update 9.12SBN 0-97863Economic As" East Pittsbu
al Wind LeaseDE, MD, and
g an Offshore
nd Power in thl.gov/wind/pddfarms/vindpa
e Right Cours
f ence and Acti
PJM, 2010. to Economic
h, "U.S. Utilid Who Loses
nt of EPAs ProWashington,
rgy Outlook 2DOE/EIA-03
d Farm. [Onlints/featured-proication Cerem
node/1804 on the Status o
ssion of Maryl
Study," Nation
tic Tall Towelle, MD, 201130: Increasingv/docs/fy08oia.gov/electricnline].
United_States/
.2011). 383-4-4, 2010ssessment of Murgh, PA, 197e Issuance andd VA Final E
e Wind Energy
he United Stadfs/40745.pdfark-vanern-ga
e: Scenarios f
ivities in Sou
and Policy A
ities: Coal-Fir?," Bernstein oposed Trans, D.C., 2010. 2012: Early R383ER (2012)ne]. ojects/roth-ro
mony for Roth
of Wind-Powland, Baltimor
nal Renewabl
er Resource D1. g Wind Energosti/41869.pdfcity/state/
Wind/High_R
0. Multi-Unit
79. d Site Assessm
Environmantal
gy Industry in
ates: Assessmf asslingegrund
for Offshore
uthern States,"
Analysis of EP
red GnerationResearch, 20
sport Rule and
Release," U.S. ), 2012.
ock-wind-farmh Rock a Win
er Generatingre, Maryland,
137
le
Data
gy's f
Resol
ment l
the
ment
d-
" The
PA's
n is 010. d
m nd
g 2009.
138
[23] "Ges[24] K G
Cost[25] Univ
Renekilow
[26] "Com[27] Virg
Ener[28] State[29] Virg
Virg[30] Virg[31] Virg
Rich[32] Virg
Terr[33] Tom
Wouhttp:first-
[34] AndInnefor I
[35] La Ca ReCom
[36] UnivStudOff t
[37] PublPubl
[38] J. R.pp. 1
[39] W. KSyno7240
[40] B. SwindEner
[41] T. HState
[42] D. LSeas
[43] W. FMar
stamp and SyGeorge and T S
t of Energy," versity of Ricewable Energwatt-hour/ mmonwealth ginia Electric rgy Portfolio e Corporationginia Departmginia Departmginia Code §6ginia Local Gohmond, Virginginia Marine Rritorial Waters
m Pelton. (201uld Raise Mor://cbf.typepad-wind-farm-o
drew Blohm eection Points, Integrative EnCapra Associaenewable Portmmission, 200versity of Nordy of the Feasthe North Carlic Service Colic Service Co. Holton, "Th199-205, 196Kempton, F. Moptic-Scale In0-7245. heridan, S. Dd power resourgy, vol. 43, p
H. Jagger and es," Climate,
L. Zhang, S. Zson ClimatoloF. Ryan, "Theyland Departm
ynergics CloseSchweizer, "PNREL, Gold
chmond Law Rgy Portfolio S
Energy Policand Power CStandard Por
n Commissionment of Air Qument of Air Qu67-103, 2011. overnment Ounia, 2012. Resources Cos," 2010.
10, October) Cre than 40 Sto
d.com/bay_daon-naval-acadt al., "MarylaInvestment M
nvironmental ates, Inc.; GDtfolio Standar06. rth Carolina asibility of Winrolina Coast,"ommission ofommission ofe diurnal bou7. M. Pimenta, Dnterconnectio
D. Baker, N. Surce: Robust app. 224-233, 2J. B. Elsner, "vol. 19, pp. 3
Zhang, and S. ogy and a Case Low-Level-ment of the E
e Roth Rock WPrimer: The Den, Co, NRELReview. (200
Standard. [Onl
cy," Va. Codeompany, "Ap
rgram Pursuann, "Order Denuality, "Modeuality, 2012.
utreach Grou
ommision, "O
Chesapeake Bories Tall.Butaily/2010/10/tdemy-propertyand Offshore WModel, and SeResearch, 20
DS Associatesrd for the Stat
at Chapel Hillnd Turbines in" University of Maryland, "Rf Maryland, Bundary layer w
D. E. Veron, an," in Procee
S. Pearre, J. Fiassessment m2012. "Climatology
3220-3236, 20J. Weaver, "L
se Study," JouJet in Maryla
Environment,
Wind Deal," PDOE Wind EnL/SR-500-37
09, January) Mline]. http://la
e 67-102,. pplication for nt to VA Codnying Applicael Ordinance U
up, "Model Or
Opportunities f
Bay Foundatiot Project has Qthe-constructiy-next-to-annWind Develoelected Confli010. , Inc.; Sustainte of North C
l, "Coastal Wn Pamlico anof North CaroRenewable E
Baltimore, Mawind oscillatio
and B. A. Coedings of the N
irestone, and methods applie
y Models for E006. Low-level Jeturnal of Appliand: profiler O2004.
Project Finannergy Program653, 2008.
My Two Centawreview.rich
Approval to de 4 56-585.2ation," Case NUtility-Scale
rdinance Utili
for Offshore W
on: Bay DailyQuestion Marion-of-what-c
napolis-harboropment: Reguict Areas," U
nable Energy arolina," Nor
Wind: Energy fnd Albemarle olina at ChapeEnergy Portfolaryland, 2012on above slop
lle, "Electric National Acad
W. Kemptoned to the U.S.
Extreme Hurr
ts over the Mied Meterolog
Observations
nce Magazinem's Approach
ts per Kilowathmond.edu/m
Participate in," 2009. No. PUE-200Energy Proje
ity-Scale Proj
Wind Energy
y: Bay's First rks. [Online].could-be-the-cr.html
ulatory EnvrioUniversity of M
Advantage, Lrth Carolina U
for North CarSounds and iel Hill, 2009. lio Standard R
2. ping terrain,"
Power from Odemy of Scien
n, "Calculating. Atlantic Coa
ricane Winds
id-Atlantic Stgy, vol. 45, ppand Prelimin
e, August 201h to Calculatin
tt-Hour: Virgmy-two-cents-p
n a Renewable
9-00102, 201ect in Virginia
jects in Virgin
y in State
Wind Farm chesapeake-b
onment, PotenMaryland: Cen
LCC, "AnalyUtilites
rolina's Futurein Ocean Wat
Report of 201
Tellus, vol. 1
Offshore Winnces, 2010, pp
g the offshoreast," Renewab
near the Unit
tates: Warm-p. 194-209, 2ary Climatolo
11. ng
ginia's per-
e
10. a,"
nia,"
bays-
ntial nter
sis of
e: A ters
12,"
19,
nd via p.
e ble
ted
2006. ogy,"
[44] W. CTech
[45] M D1, no
[46] NatiNRE
[47] R RuNort
[48] P CrJour
[49] J FirEner
[50] M LTour
[51] J FirUniv
[52] J FirDev
[53] M BSecu
[54] MarKen
[55] CentReguArea
C. Skamarockhnical Note.
Desholm and Jo. 3, pp. 296-2ional RenewaEL, Golden, Cussell, "Interathern Gulf of ryan and R Barnal of Mammrestone and Wrgy Policy, vo
Lilley, J Firestrism," Energirestone, W Keversity of Delrestone and Welopment Thr
Brenner, "Winurity, JSR-08-ico Marine, "tish Flats Offter for Integraulatory Enviras," Universit
k et al., A Des
J Kahlert, "Av298, Septemb
able Energy LCo, NREL/TPactions betweMexico," Wa
arclay, "Causmalogy, vol. 9W Kempton, "ol. 35, pp. 183tone, and W Kies, vol. 3, ppempton, B Shlaware's Cent
W Kempton, "rough Time,"
nd Farms and -125, 2008. Investigation
fshore Wind Fative Environronment, Potety of Marylan
scription of th
vian Collisionber 2005.
Laboratory, "LP-500-40745, een Migratingashington, DCses of Bat Fata90, no. 6, pp. Public Opinio3-202, 2007.Kempton, "Thp. 1-22, Januarheridan, and Ster for CarbonMapping Pub University oRadar," MIT
n of TechnicalFarm," Britishnmental Reseaential Interconnd, 2008.
he Advanced
n Risks at an
Large-Scale O2010.
g Birds and OfC, 2005. alities at Win1330-1340, 2on About Lar
he Effects of Wry 2010.
S Baker, "Marn-free Power Iblic Perceptiof Delware, R/RE Corporati
l and Operatioh Wind Energarch, "Marylannection Poin
Reseach WR
Offshore Win
Offshore Wind
ffshore Oil an
nd Turbines: H2009. rge Offshore W
Wind Power
ryland's OffshIntegration, 2
ons and PreferR/CT-6, 2011.
ion for US De
onal Effect ongy Associatioand Offshore Wnts, Investmen
RF Version 3,
nd Farm," Bio
d Power in th
nd Gas Platfo
Hypothesises
Wind: Under
Installations o
hore Wind Po2010. rences Towar
epartment of
n Marine Radn, 2007. Wind Develont Model, and
2008, NCAR
ology Letters,
he United Stat
orms in the
and Predictio
rlying Factors
on Coastal
ower Potentia
rds Wind Pow
Homeland
dar Close to
opment: d Select Confl
139
R
, vol.
tes,"
ons,"
s,"
al,"
wer
flict
Append(ground Interviewrules, que Program James MaAtlantic W Southern Atlantic W AmericanPaper title James MaPresentati InformatNGO meeagenda an
dix A: Interd rules, que
ws - with numestions and int
Progress Re
adison UniverWind: Overco
Application RWind – overco
n Wind Energe: Redefining
adison Univerions B. Buck L. Sparl D. Anco
tion Exchangeting hosted bnd meeting pa
rview and Destions, co
merous industrterview form.
eview Presen
rsity, Virginiaoming the Bar
Regional Winoming the Ch
y Associationg Offshore – M
rsity, Virginiakheit, “Policy ling, “Variabiona, “Offshor
ge meeting wby Chesapeakarticipants.
Discussionontacts an
ry stakeholder.
ntations
a Wind Collabrriers”
nd Institute Mhallenges – Ec
n, Offshore WMid-Atlantic
a Wind Energand Regulatoility in Mid-Are Wind – Va
ith Non-Govke Bay Found
n Meetingsd NGO me
rs at conferen
borative, Harr
Meeting, Washconomic Issue
Wind ConferenBays and Sou
gy Symposiumory Barriers –Atlantic Windalue in Shallow
vernmental Oation, Richmo
s eeting part
nces and meet
rrisonburg, VA
hington, DC, 2es”
nce, Baltimorunds an Over
m, Harrisonbu– Next Steps”d from Measuw Sheltered W
Organizationond, VA, 1 M
icipants)
tings – see fo
A, 17 June 20
26 October 2
re, MD, 15 Aurlooked Oppo
urg, VA, 20-
urements” Waters.”
ns (NGOs) March 2011 –
llowing groun
010 – “Mid-
011, “Mid-
ugust 2011 –ortunity?
-21 June 2012
see meeting
141
nd
2 –
142
BackgrouThe mid-ColumbiaThe absenthe highe1) Appalawaters ofthe contin Princeton(DOE), thdevelopmDOE granResourceChesapea Followingpossible p Issue QuGeneral
1. W2. W
3. W
4. Pobe
5. Thgrre
Defin
und Atlantic regioa, has excellence of wind e
est in the natioachian mountf Delaware annental shelf o
n Energy Resohrough an ope
ment in this regnt, DE-EE000s (DNR), for
ake Bay Foun
g are interviewprovide docum
uestions:
What comes toWhat are the p
a. In Delab. In Distrc. In Maryd. In Norte. In Virgf. What a
What barriers da. Appalab. Coastalc. Shelter
Soundsd. Deeper
owerful low le verified andhe DOE suppround level. ecent 80 m wi
Mid-Atlning and Ove
on, includingent wind energenergy projecon. Ample wtain ridgelinend Chesapeakoff the Atlanti
ources Internaen competitivgion and to de00315.000, inwind resourcdation agreed
w starter quesmentation to
o mind as the primary adminaware? rict of Columyland? th Carolina? ginia? are the primardo you see fo
achian mountal planes, i.e. Dred shallow ws? r water sites olevel wind jetd documentedported anemoHow should ind resource m
lantic Wind –ercoming the
g Delaware, Mgy potential b
cts continues dwind resourceses, 2) Coastal ke Bays, Albeic coast.
ational (PERIve process, to etermined bar
ncluded a costce assessment d to assist in th
stions but othillustrate spec
primary barrnistrative/lega
mbia?
ry reasons foror the distinctain ridgelinesDelmarva Pen
waters of Dela
off the Atlantts have been id for the windometer loan pradditional memaps?
– Overcomine Technical, E
Maryland, Nobut no utility despite a grows are availablplanes, i.e. D
emarle and Pa
) was selectedlead a study trrier reductiont share supporthrough Univ
he analysis of
ers may get tocific barriers.
rier to mid-Atal barriers to
r slow wind et markets: s? ninsula? aware and Ch
ic coast? identified in cd industry andrograms haveeasurements u
ng the ChalleEconomic an
rth Carolina, scale projectwing demandle at sites in f
Delmarva Penamlico Sound
d by United Sto identify barn mechanismrted by the Mversity of Marf environment
o root causes . We can insu
tlantic wind?project devel
energy develo
hesapeake Bay
coastal areas.d other stakehe been at 50 –up to 200 m A
enges nd Legal Issu
Virginia, ands have been i
d for electricitfour distinct aninsula, 3) Shds, and 4)Dee
States Departmrriers to winds or mitigatio
Maryland Deparyland Baltimtal issues.
for stalled deure anonymit
lopment:
opment in the
ys, Albemarle
. How shouldholders? – 60 meter heAGL be obtai
ues
d District of installed to daty that is amo
application areltered shallo
eper water site
ment of Energd energy on measures. Tartment of Namore County.
evelopment. Wty if necessar
region?
e and Pamlic
d this informa
ights above ined to valida
ate. ong eas:
ow es on
gy
The atural
Where ry
o
ation
ate
Project A1. W
sh2. W
pr3. W
of Cost or P
4. R15Nscpu
5. Hm
6. Hpo
7. PJ(wInet
8. H
Intercon9. H10. H
to11. In
sypl
Environm
12. H
13. O Other Iss
Approval ProWhat are the rehallow water
What parts of trojects? How
What is your ef community
Price Residential ele
5.12 in MD, 9New England, cale wind devursued by pub
How could tranmeet state portHow could loc
olicy decisionJM pegs the cwith old style ncluding carbtc.?
How can Rene
nection Have grid connHow could exio enhance the n Germany, thystem, not thelants?
mental How should en
a. Mountab. Dead zc. Impactd. Not-In-
bays/soOthers
sues?
ocess easons that wsites in protethe approval p
w can the procexperience wieducation pro
ectricity price9.99 in NC, 1Alaska and H
velopment. Wblic utility consportation ctfolio standarcal job creation making? capacity valuturbines). Hoon reduction,
ewable Energ
nection approisting dams (ivalue of win
he cost of trane project. Ho
nvironmental ain top removones in the bas on birds and-My Back-Yaounds vs. mor
wind installaticted waters oprocess take ess be changeith communitograms woul
es increased s10.66 in VA aHawaii. Thes
What are the rommissions? ost of renewads?
on, along with
ue at 13% whiow could the , health benef
y Certificates
ovals been ani.e. 548 MW
nd energy? nsmission lin
ow could the t
issues be balval coal mininays vs. view d bats from aard (NIMBY)re expensive
ons in the Atof regional bathe most timeed to streamlty education ad reduce barr
ignificantly iand 13.50 in Dse prices coulreasons that th
able energy b
h state and lo
ile actual captrue value be
fits, dead zon
s (RECs) for
n obstacle? ExConowingo o
nes bringing ththis be done i
lanced and cong vs. ridgelished concern
acid rain vs. b) concerns fordeep water si
tlantic Ocean ays and sounde to completeine approvalsand acceptancriers in comm
n 2009, averaDC, among thld be stabilizehese options a
be factored int
cal tax revenu
acity factors e factored intones due reduce
wind be best
xample? or dams in TV
he grid to a pin US for land
ompared. Forne wind mini
ns? blade strikes?r ridgeline vsites?
appear to be ds. e and/or ultims and accept mce of wind pr
munities?
aging 14.16 che highest in ed and reduceare not yet ag
to credits/cert
ues be factore
for WV planto the price foed nitrogen lo
used?
VA) or pump
project is bornd-based plant
r example: ing?
s. farmlands v
favored over
mately stops more projectsrojects? Wha
cents/kWh in the nation beed with local ggressively
tificates need
ed into the en
ts average 25or power? oading on bay
ed storage be
ne by the powts? For offsh
vs. shallow w
143
r
s? at type
DE, ehind large
ded to
nergy
5-29%
ys,
e used
wer hore
water
144
InterviewDate/PlaName: __CompanAddress:
__Phone: _ Issue QuGeneral
1. Pr
2. Ad
3. M
4. W
5. Va
6. Ot
wee: _______ce: ___________________y: _________: _____________________
____________
uestions:
rimary barrier?
dministrative/le
a. In Delaw
b. In Distri
c. In Maryl
d. In North
e. In Virgin
f. Regiona
Market specific:
a. Mountai
b. Coastal p
c. Sheltered
d. Ocean?
Wind resources an
alue of anemom
ther?
Mid-AtlNotes
_____________________________________________________________________________
egal:
ware?
ct of Columbia?
land?
h Carolina?
nia?
l?
in ridgelines?
planes?
d shallow water
nd low level jet
meter loan progra
lantic Wind –– Interviewe
______________________________________________________________________________
?
rs?
ts?
ams?
– Overcominer _________
__ Business__ __ __ __ __ __
ng the Challe___________
s Card:
enges ___
Project Ap
1. Pu
2. At
3. St
4. Co
5. Ot
Cost or Pr
6. Po
7. Jo
8. PJ
9. Re
10. Ot
Interconne
11. Tr
12. Gr
13. Hy
14. Ot
Environme
15. Ba
16. Ot
Other Issu
pproval Process
ublic Service Co
tlantic Ocean vs
treamlining appr
ommunity accep
thers?
rice
ower pricing? W
ob creation?
JM capacity valu
enewable Energ
thers?
ection
ransmission line
rid connection a
ydro storage?
ther?
ental
alancing environ
thers
ues?
Mid-AtlantiNotes
s
ommission level
s. bay and sound
rovals?
ptance?
Wheeling cost?
ue vs. capacity f
gy Certificates (R
e connection cos
approvals?
nmental issues?
ic Wind – Ov– Interviewe
l? Local level?
ds?
factor?
REC) value?
st?
?
vercoming ther _________
he Challenge___________
es (Cont.) ___
145
146
Hosted
Participant AppalachiMike McCTom CormPhone 434Appalachiprofit focucentral and ChesapeakMike GereCapitol Pla1108 E. MSuite 1600RichmondPhone 804Chesapeakspeaks on strong andworking inbusinesses ChesapeakChelsea HBeth KempPhone 804Phone 804Chesapeakglobal warWashingtograssroots Macaulay Hunter W.The Branc1015 East RichmondPhone: 804Macaulay focuses ongovernmen
Regional End by Chesapea
ts:
ian Voices Coy mons 4.293.6373 ian Voices is anusing on reducid southern App
ke Bay Foundael ace
Main Street 0 d, Virginia 2324.780.1392 ke Bay Foundabehalf of the b
d effective lawsn partnership ws, and citizens.
ke Climate ActHarnish mpler 4.767.8983 (C. 4.335.0915 (B. ke Climate Actrming in Marylon D.C. througmovements.
& Burtch, PC . Jamerson ch Building Main Street
d, Virginia 2324.649.0985 & Burtch is a
n employment ant affairs and r
Meetin
vironmental Gake Bay Foun
n environmentaing coal’s impapalachian regio
ation
19-3539
ations sets agenbay while fights and regulatio
with governmen
tion Network
Harnish) Kemplar)
tion Network filand, Virginia,
gh mobilization
C
19-3527
Richmond lawand labor law, regulatory litig
ng on Mid-AtW
Groups and Nndation and Pr
Richmond1 Marc
al non-act on the on.
nda and ting for ons while nt,
ights , and n of
w firm that
ation.
lantic Wind Eith
Non-Governmerinceton Enerd, Virginia ch 2011
Piedmont Daniel HoRobert Ma45 HornerWarrentonPhone 540Phone 571Piedmont organizatiplanning inot limited Sierra CluGlen BesaIvy Main V422 East FSuite 302RichmondPhone 804Phone 703 Eileen LevVirginia BPhone 757Sierra Cluorganizaticommunit Virginia CNathan Lo422 East FSuite 303RichmondPhone 804Virginia Cthan 100 nthrough pueducation,organizati
Energy
ent Organizatrgy Resources
Environmentaolmes armet r Streetn, Virginia 2010.347.2334 (D.1.213.4250 (R.Environmentaon with over 4
in environmentd to renewable
ub a (Chair, VirginVice-Chair VirFranklin Street
d, Virginia 2324.387.6001 (G.3.448.7618 (I. M
vandoskiBeach, Virginia7.277.8537 ub is a grassrooon which workties, wild place
Conservation Nott Franklin Street
d, Virginia 2324.644.0283 Conservation Nnonprofits and ublic policy res, and capacity bons.
tions (NGOs) International
al Council
186 . Holmes) Marmet)
al Council is an40 years of stratal issues inclue energy and lan
nia Chapter) rginia Chapter)
219 . Besa) Main)
a
ots environmenks to protect es, and the plan
Network
219
Network represecommunity grsearch, advocabuilding for its
l, LLC
n ategic uding but nd use.
)
ntal
net itself.
ents more oups
acy, s member
Append Two caseCalvert Cequity. ThRidgelineequity. For each cpages of c First CasUnder curForward P
dix B: Econ
s are presenteliffs Shallow he second is, ue, using Calcu
case, includedcash flows, an
se rrent (first halPricing using
nomic Mod
ed. The first isBay, with PJ
under currentulated COEs th
d are two pagnd a one-page
lf 2012), likel2015 Adder P
del Run Ex
s, under curreJM Forward Pt (first half 20hat meet targ
ges of summare graph.
ly financing, Prices, at 50%
amples
ent (first half Pricing using 012), likely finet IRR and de
ry and input i
case number % debt to 50%
2012), likely 2015 Adder Pnancing, caseebt coverage
information, t
8, Calvert Cl% equity.
financing, caPrices, at 50%e number 6, Climits, at 50%
three pages of
liffs Shallow
ase number 8,% debt to 50%Cloverdale % debt to 50%
f earnings, th
Bay, with PJM
147
, %
%
ree
M
1 148
149
1 150
151
1 152
153
1 154
155
1 156
Append Under curCOEs tha
dix B – Sec
rrent (first halat meet target
cond Case
lf 2012), likelIRR and debt
ly financing, t coverage lim
case number mits, at 50% d
6, Cloverdaledebt to 50% e
e Ridgeline, uequity.
using Calcula
157
ated
1 158
159
1 160
161
1 162
163
1 164
165
1
166
AppendEnergy Four caseShallow Bthe years In organiz
1. SA
2. O Mth M S
3. HL
*=
4. In“sSu
dix C: PowePlants
s are presenteBay, and Fent2012 through
zing the tradin
easons are deAug.
On-Peak vs. O
Mon-Fri: Hourhrough 7:00 a
Mon-Fri: Hour
at-Sun and ho
Holidays are: Labor Day - fir
= if this holid
n the USA, Dsprings forwaunday, when
er Market T
ed. These are tress Ocean. Ph 2035. Five p
ng model resu
efined as: Fal
Off-Peak Hour
rs ending 010am);
rs ending 080
olidays are of
New Year's Drst Mon, Sept
day date is Su
aylight Savinard” to lose onthe clock “fa
Trading Mo
DPL-ODEC Pricing, capacpages of data
ults, the follow
ll: Sept-Nov,
rs, are defined
00 through 07
00 to the hour
ff-peak.
Day - Jan 1*; t; Thanksgivi
unday, then tak
ngs Time begine hour. Dayl
alls back” to a
odel Resul
Coastal Plaincity factor, anare presented
wing definitio
Winter: Dec-
d by PJM, on
00 and the ho
ending 23:00
Memorial Dang - fourth Th
ke Monday.
ins in March, light Savings add one hour.
lts for the
ns, Cloverdalend hours are pd for each cas
ons were emp
-Feb, Spring:
a wholesale b
our ending 24
0 are on-peak
ay - last Monhurs, Nov; Ch
on the seconTime ends in
2012 Mid-A
e Ridgeline, Cpresented on ae.
ployed.
Mar-May, an
basis, as:
400 are off-pe
k (7:01 am thr
n, May; Indephristmas - De
nd Sunday, whn November,
Atlantic W
Calvert Cliffsa monthly bas
nd Summer: J
eak (11:01 pm
rough 11:00 p
endence - Julec 25*.
hen the clock on the first
167
ind
s sis for
June-
m
pm);
ly 4*;
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
AppendGenerat North Car
North Car
dix D: Examtion
rolina phosph
rolina Camp L
mples of C
hate mining fa
Lejuene
oastal Site
acility on Pam
es that cou
mlico River
uld be evaluated for WWind Powe
189
er
190
Pamlico S
Marine A
Sound & Hyd
ir Station –Ch
de County NC
herry Hill NC
C (10 mile refe
C
erence line addded
Farmland
Carteret, N
, near Curritu
North Carolin
uck Sound, NC
na
C
191
192
Virginia B
Virginia B
Beach farmlan
Beach farmlan
nd encroachin
nd encroachin
ng on wetland
ng on wetland
d
d (n. end Currrituck Sound))
Mixed use
Norfolk, N
e area – Virgi
Naval Supply
inia Beach
y Center in cen
nter/lower lefft of photo
193
194
Virginia:
Virginia:
Chesapeake B
Chesapeake B
Bay Bridge T
Bay Bridge T
Tunnel
Tunnel Toll Pllaza
North end
Virginia –
d, Chesapeake
– Sunken Libe
e Bay Bridge
erty Ships at K
tunnel
Kiptopeke
195
196
Delmarva
Matthews
a peninsula oc
s, VA
cean side farmmland
Wallops I
Tangier S
Island, VA
Sound, VA
197
198
Lower De
New Jerse
elaware Bay (
ey prison adja
(10 mile line a
acent to the D
added for refe
Delaware Bay
erence
Nuclear p
Delaware
power plant on
farmland acr
n Delaware B
ross Bay from
Bay
m nuclear plannt
199
200
Air Liquid
New Jerse
de Chemical P
ey property ac
Plant, DE
cross Del. Baay from Air Liquide plant
Delaware
Agricultu
City, entranc
ral property o
ce to C&D ca
on Delaware B
anal
Bay, Bowers,, DE
201