National Wind Generation Picture

Outline1. US energy today2. Legislative landscape3. The future4. Long-term national planning5. Conclusions

1. US energy today: Existing US resource mix by capacity

3Source: AWEA 2009 Annual Wind Report

1. US energy today: Retail Prices - 2007

4

1. US energy today: US wind capacity historical growth

5Source: AWEA 2009 Annual Wind Report

1. US energy today: Wind capacity by state

6Source: AWEA Website: www.awea.org

1. US energy today: Wind capacity and 2008 growth by state

7

State ExistingTexas 8,361Iowa 3,043California 2,787Minnesota 1,805Washington 1,575Oregon 1,408New York 1,264Colorado 1,068Kansas 1,014Illinois 915Oklahoma 831Wyoming 816North Dakota 714Indiana 531New Mexico 497Pennsylvania 463Wisconsin 449West Virginia 330Missouri 309South Dakota 288

State In construction Rank by CapacityTexas 1,096 1Illinois 703 10Indiana 505 14Oregon 426 6Iowa 409 2Washington 405 5Pennsylvania 356 16North Dakota 345 13Wyoming 269 12Utah 204 29Oklahoma 200 11Colorado 174 8Missouri 150 19Montana 104 21West Virginia 101 18New Mexico 100 15Maine 92 25Arizona 63 37Nebraska 42 22Minnesota 40 4

?

?

?

?

?

?

Source: AWEA Website: www.awea.org

1. US energy today: Wind % capacity by state

8Source: AWEA 2009 Annual Wind Report

1. US energy today: Market share of total US wind fleet

9Source: AWEA 2009 Annual Wind Report

1. US energy today: Market share of 2008 wind installations

10Source: AWEA 2009 Annual Wind Report

1. US energy today: Ownership by company and by utility

11Source: AWEA 2009 Annual Wind Report

1. US energy today: Power purchase agreements+ownership

12Source: AWEA 2009 Annual Wind Report

1. US energy today: Wind plant size

13Source: AWEA 2009 Annual Wind Report

2. Legislative landscape: Renewable portfolio standards (on energy)

29 states, differing in % (10-40), timing (latest is 2030), eligible technologies/resources (all include wind)

14

State renewable portfolio standard

State renewable portfolio goal

Solar water heating eligible *† Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewables

Includes non-renewable alternative resources

WA: 15% by 2020*

CA: 33% by 2020

☼ NV: 25% by 2025*

☼ AZ: 15% by 2025

☼ NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)

10% by 2020 (co-ops)

HI: 40% by 2030

☼ Minimum solar or customer-sited requirement

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015

UT: 20% by 2025*

☼ CO: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)

10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)*

MT: 15% by 2015

ND: 10% by 2015

SD: 10% by 2015

IA: 105 MW

MN: 25% by 2025(Xcel: 30% by 2020)

☼ MO: 15% by 2021

WI: Varies by utility;

10% by 2015 goal

MI: 10% + 1,100 MW by 2015*

☼ OH: 25% by 2025†

ME: 30% by 2000New RE: 10% by 2017

☼ NH: 23.8% by 2025☼ MA: 15% by

2020+ 1% annual increase(Class I Renewables)RI: 16% by 2020

CT: 23% by 2020

☼ NY: 24% by 2013

☼ NJ: 22.5% by 2021

☼ PA: 18% by 2020†

☼ MD: 20% by 2022

☼ DE: 20% by 2019*

☼ DC: 20% by 2020

VA: 15% by 2025*

☼ NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs)

10% by 2018 (co-ops & munis)

VT: (1) RE meets any increase in retail sales by

2012; (2) 20% RE & CHP by 2017

29 states &

DC have an RPS

6 states have goals

KS: 20% by 2020

☼ OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities)*

5% - 10% by 2025 (smaller utilities)

☼ IL: 25% by 2025

WV: 25% by 2025*†

2. Legislative landscape: Tax incentives

15

• Federal Incentives:• Renewed incentives Feb 2009 through 12/31/12, via ARRA• 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour PTC,or 30% investment tax credit (ITC)

• State incentives:• IA: 1.5¢/kWhr, small wind, Utah, Oklahoma, • Various other including sales & property tax reductions

2. Legislative landscape: Federal, congressional bills

16

Waxman-Markey (House, passed) Kerry-Boxer (Senate)

2012 renewables target 6% of electric energy renewableIn separate bill (Bingaman)2020 renewables target 20%

2012 emissions target Cuts by 3% (2005 baseline)

2020 Emissions target Cuts by 17% Cuts by 20% (2005 baseline)

2030 Emissions target 42% 42%

2050 Emissions target 83% 83%

See http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-03-waxman-markey-bill-breakdown/

17

$60 billion AEP plan

Joint Coordinated System Plan (20%wind). Cost: $82 billion (2024 $)

2. Legislative LandscapeBuilding Transmission

2. Legislative LandscapeBuilding Transmission

•Multi-state transmission is very difficult• FERC’s authority – national interest corridors• Regional efforts

• 2008: Uppr Mdwst Trns Dvlpmnt Initiative: MN,ND,SD,IA,WI• 2008: Joint Coord Sys Planning: MISO, PJM, SPP, TVA, MAPP• 2010: DOE transmission planning grants:

Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative: PJM, NYISO, ISO-NE, MISO, SoCo, TVA, MAPP, Entergy WECC: Most of the western companies

• Will FERC mandate if a state rejects T-plans?

18

3. The future: US wind potential by state

19Source: Xi Lua, M. McElroya, and J. Kiviluomac, “Global potential for wind-generated electricity,” Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009, www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0904101106.

Annual wind energy potential (1012 w-hrs)

Annual wind energy potential R= ------------------------------------------

2006 state annual retail sales

States with high production and R-ratio have high export potential

(Montana, Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas)Analysis assumes (a) only sites having capacity factor > 20% included; (a) loss of 20%

and 10% of potential power for onshore and offshore, respectively, caused by interturbine interference, (c) offshore siting distance within 50 nm (92.6 km) of nearest shoreline.

3. The future: US wind potential

20Source: Xi Lua, M. McElroya, and J. Kiviluomac, “Global potential for wind-generated electricity,” Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009, www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0904101106.

Contiguous US annual wind energy potential , 1015 wh

Multiples of 2008 Total US Energy Consumption*

Onshore 62 2.12

Offshore, 0-20 meter 1.2 .041

Offshore, 20-50 m 2.1 .072

Offshore, 50-200 m 2.2 .075

Total 68 2.321

•Total 2008 US Energy consumption across all sectors is 100 Quads:

whEkwh

wh

BTU

kwh

Q

BTUEQ 153.29

1000

3413

151100

Long-term national planning:How wind fits in

Energy system: Electric, Fuels, TransportationLIQUID FUEL

Interstate Pipelines

Legend

Intrastate PipelinesTexas

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Kentucky

Mississippi

Alabama

Louisiana

Delaware

Maryland

ConnecticutNew JerseyPennsylvania

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Vermont

Maine

New York

Kansas

Wyoming

New Mexico

Florida

South Dakota

IowaOhio

Virginia

North Carolina

Georgia

South Carolina

Tennessee

Michigan

Indiana

Illinois

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Colorado

Missouri

Arizona

Nebraska

North DakotaMontana

Idaho

California

Nevada

Washington

Oregon

Utah

West Virginia

NATURAL GAS

ELECTRIC

RAIL

AIR Interstate

22

Energy system: Today

US ENERGY USE IS 69% ELECTRIC & TRANSPORTATION

US CO2 EMISSIONS IS 74% ELECTRIC & TRANSPORTATION

GREENING ELECTRIC & TRANSPORTATION ENERGY SOLVES THE EMISSIONS PROBLEM

23

Energy system: Today

Solar, 0.09

Nuclear, 8.45

Hydro, 2.45

Wind, 0.51

Geothermal 0.35

Natural Gas 23.84

Coal22.42

Biomass 3.88

Petroleum37.13

26.33

8.58

27.39

20.9

Unused Energy (Losses)

57.07

Electric Generation

39.97

12.68

Used Energy42.15

Residential11.48

Commercial8.58

Industrial23.94

Trans-portation

27.86

8.45

6.82

20.54

6.95

24

LightDuty: 17.12QFreight: 7.55QAviation: 3.19Q

Energy System: Transport goes electric!

Warren Buffet's MidAmerican Energy Holdings bought 9.9%

of BYD for $232 million.

World's first all-electric locomotive has over 1,000

batteries, runs 24 hours on a single charge.

A modified French high-speed train has set a new world

speed record for a train on conventional rails of 357 mph.

Solar, 1.0

Nuclear, 15

Hydro, 2.95

Wind, 8.1

Geothermal 3.04

Natural Gas 23.84

Old Coal10.42

Biomass 3.88

Petroleum15.13

26.33

8.58

25.7

8.5

Unused Energy (Losses)

43.0

Electric Generation

49.72

12.68

Used Energy42.15

Residential11.48

Commercial8.58

Industrial23.94

Trans-portation

15.5

15

6.82

20.54

6.95

A possible future

INCREASE Non-CO2

12Q to 30Q

USE 11Q

Electric for transportation

4.5Q

26

IGCC, 3

RE

DU

CE

CO

AL

21Q

TO

12Q

REDUCE PETROLEUM 37Q15Q LightDuty: 8.56QFreight: 3.75QAviation: 3.19Q

Infrastructure planning: Environmental Impacts

22Quads Petroleum reduction×156.4lbs/MBTU*0.4535 =1560 MMT CO2

12Q Old Coal reduction×212.7lbs/MBTU*0.4535 =1157 MMT CO2

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL CO2 REDUCTION= 2717 MMT CO2

If we achieve this worldwide by 2035, there is a 75% chance of not exceeding the 2 degree guardrail.

%3.377282

2717%100

Total US 2007 GHG

27

Infrastructure planning: Unit Costs

28

Technology Overnight cost $/kW Prod cost $/MWhr(Fuel costs +

environmental cost*)Solar thermal 5021 0

Solar PV 6038 0

Nuclear 3318 2.00

Wind onshore 1923 0

Wind offshore 3851 0

Geothermal 4000 0

Coal conventional 2058 2.95

Clean coal (IGCC+seq) 3500 4.50

*Environmental cost s assumed to be $1.5/MWhr, for nuclear, $3/MWhr for conventional coal, and $1.5/MWhr for clean coal.

Infrastructure planning: Solution Cost

29

Technology Additional capacity, GW

Trillion dollars

Overnight cost Change in annual fuel cost

Solar thermal 65.5 0.329 0

Solar PV 58.9 0.356 0

Nuclear 60.9 0.202 +0.0038

Wind onshore 630 1.211 0

Wind offshore 80 0.307 0

Geothermal 106 0.181 0

Coal conventional Reduced 0 -0.0053

Clean coal (IGCC+seq) 29.5 0.103 +0.0010

Elec. Transprt. - 1.0 -0.264

TOTALS 1031 3.7 -0.264

Infrastructure planning: Solution explanation

Why do we reduce production cost and emissions?

30

Because we reduced the use of combustion!

Co

al-f

ired

p

ow

er p

lan

tsIn

tern

al

com

bu

stio

n

eng

ines

NUCLEAR

Infrastructure planning: more questions

GEOTHERMALSOLAR

WindBIOMASS

CLEAN-FOSSIL

Where, when, & how to interconnect?

31

Conclusions

32

1. Wind resource not large player today.2. Legislative landscape intent on changing that.3. US wind energy potential: could supply 2ב08

total (100Q) energy consumption.4. Wind must be a major player in economic

solutions to global warming.5. 710 GW of wind by 2035, plus a little of all

other non-CO2 resources, represents US contribution towards a feasible solution to global warming.