July 2011

1



The WInd Power Paradox










|uIy 19, 2011



2




Contents
ConIenIs ................................................................................................................ 2
TabIe oI IIgures ................................................................................................... 3
I. LxecuIIve Summary ...................................................................................... S
II. InIroducIIon ............................................................................................... 7
Background ....................................................................................................... 8
DaIa ................................................................................................................... 10
III. WInd Becomes a SIgnIIIcanI ComponenI oI Ihe Power IIeeI........ 11
IV. SIudIes QuesIIon Ihe AssumpIIons UnderIyIng WInd Lnergy's
PoIIcy AppeaI ...................................................................................................... 1S
V. CycIIng ....................................................................................................... 18
VI. ImpacIs oI CycIIng .................................................................................. 24
VII. The WInd CeneraIIon Paradox ............................................................. 30
ModeI Approach ............................................................................................. 30
LmIssIon ReducIIon IIndIngs ...................................................................... 32
VIII. The CosIs oI WInd CeneraIIon ......................................................... 38
RenewabIe LIecIrIcIIy IederaI ProducIIon Tax CredII (PTC) ................ 38
ImpIIed CosIs oI SavIng CO
!
Ihrough WInd CeneraIIon ....................... 39
OIher WInd CeneraIIon CosI ComponenIs .............................................. 41
IX. ConcIusIon ................................................................................................ 46
X. Works CIIed .............................................................................................. 48
XI. APPLNDIX ................................................................................................. S2

3



Table of Figures
IIgure III1: U.S. InsIaIIed WInd CapacIIy..................................................... 11
IIgure III2: NRLL WInd Resource Map ......................................................... 12
IIgure III3: U.S. WInd CeneraIIon and WInd TurbIne CapacIIy ............. 14
IIgure V1: LRCOT CeneraIIon SIack Nov. S:12, 2008 .............................. 19
IIgure V2: LRCOT WInd CapacIIy & CoaI CycIIng LvenIs ....................... 20
IIgure V3: Average HourIy WInd CeneraIIon & Load In LRCOT, 2009 21
IIgure V4: MISO CeneraIIon SIack, AprII 1:8, 2009 ................................. 22
IIgure VS: BPA CeneraIIon SIack, SepIember 17:23, 2009 .................... 23
IIgure VI1: CIbbons Creek SIeam LIecIrIc SIaIIon (LRCOT), |anuary
8:9, 2009 .............................................................................................................. 2S
IIgure VI2: CIbbons Creek SIeam LIecIrIc SIaIIon (LRCOT), |anuary
8:9, 2009 LmIssIons RaIes ............................................................................... 26
IIgure VI3: WInd LvenI on PSCo SysIem (|uIy 2, 2008) ........................... 26
IIgure VI4: HourIoHour Change In CeneraIIon ...................................... 27
IIgure VIS: LmIssIons and CeneraIIon OuIpuI aI Cherokee on
7,2,2008 ............................................................................................................. 28
IIgure VII1: WInd CeneraIIon LmIssIon SavIngs per MWh by TerrIIory
vs. Average U.S. Power LmIssIons ................................................................. 32
IIgure VII2: WInd CeneraIIon LmIssIons SavIngs vs. CoaI CeneraIIon
MarkeI Share ....................................................................................................... 33
IIgure VII3: AcIuaI CO
2
LmIssIons SavIngs by SIaIe & ToIaI WInd
CeneraIIon, 2009 ............................................................................................... 3S
IIgure VII4: U.S. LmIssIons SavIngs per MWh oI WInd CeneraIIon vs.
Average U.S. Power LmIssIons ........................................................................ 36
IIgure VIIS: CO
2
LmIssIons RaIes oI CoaI and NaIuraI Cas ................... 37
IIgure VIII1: AnnuaI CosI oI IederaI ProducIIon Tax CredII Ior WInd
CeneraIIon ........................................................................................................... 39
IIgure VIII2: SocIaI CosI Io OIIseI 1 Ton oI CO
2
Ihrough WInd
CeneraIIon ........................................................................................................... 40
IIgure VIII3: LIecIrIcIIy PrIces and WInd CeneraIIon In LRCOT, May
2009 ...................................................................................................................... 43
IIgure VIII4: LRCOT WesI NegaIIve PrIce Irequency vs. InsIaIIed WInd
CapacIIy ............................................................................................................... 44
4





Table of Figures Continued
IIgure XI1: LRCOT WInd Days ....................................................................... S4

LquaIIon 1: LmIssIons ModeI .......................................................................... S4

TabIe 1: LmIssIons SavIngs per MWh oI WInd; CosI oI SavIng 1 Ton oI
CO
2
per RegIon ..................................................................................................... S
TabIe XI1: NRLL LsIImaIed PoIenIIaI WInd TurbIne CapacIIy &
UIIIIzaIIon RaIe .................................................................................................. S2
TabIe XI2: RenewabIe PorIIoIIo SIandards by SIaIe ................................. S3

QuesIIons7
ConIacI BrannIn McBee aI bmcbeeJbenIekenergy.com
or caII 303.988.1320.
5

!
I. Executive Summary


Ior years Ihe wInd energy IndusIry and a vasI array oI poIIIIcIans have
cIaImed IhaI IncreasIng Ihe use oI wInd power Io produce eIecIrIcIIy
wIII resuII In huge reducIIons In CO
2
and oIher emIssIons. These
cIaIms resI on Ihe resuIIs oI dIspaIch modeIs IhaI predIcI noI onIy
emIssIons, buI aIso IueI cosIs and generaIIon IeveIs Ior IndIvIduaI
uIIIIIIes and uIIIIIy grIds.
TIc Tnd Io\c Inndox IInds IhaI Ihese cIaIms are sIgnIIIcanIIy
oversIaIed. ThIs sIudy, Ihe IIrsI Io sysIemaIIcaIIy assess emIssIon
reducIIon perIormance based on acIuaI generaIIon and emIssIons daIa
across a varIeIy oI regIons, reveaIs IhaI acIuaI CO
2
reducIIons Ihrough
wInd generaIIon are eIIher so smaII as Io be InsIgnIIIcanI or Ioo
expensIve Io be pracIIcaI.
The sIudy resuIIs are summarIzed In TabIe 1. AcIuaI emIssIons daIa
reveaI a wIde range oI emIssIons reducIIons Irom wInd power
dependIng on Ihe regIon. SO
2
reducIIons range beIween 0.0 and 4.9
Ibs,MWh, NO
X
reducIIons are beIween 0.1 and 2.0 Ibs,MWh, and CO
2
reducIIons are beIween and 0.1 and 1.0 Ions,MWh dependIng on Ihe
regIon anaIyzed.
"#$%&'()'*+,--,./-'0#1,/2-'3&4'567'.8'6,/9:';.-<'.8'0#1,/2'('"./'
.8';=
!
'3&4'>&2,./

0=
!
'
?%$-@567A'
B=
C
'
?%$-@567A'
;=
!
'
?<./-@567A'
;=
!
'
?D@567@<./A'
*>;="' 1.2 0.7 0.S S71
EFG' 0.1 0.2 0.1 S420
;GH0=' 0.0 0.1 0.3 S114
5H0=' 4.9 2.0 1.0 S33
IJ0J'G12' 2.2 1.1 0.6 SS6
G6*G'
S.7 2.3 0.8 S42

6

The regIonaI dIIIerences reIIecI Ihe generaIIon source IhaI Is cycIed Io
accommodaIe wInd. In BPA and CAISO, wInd generaIIy dIspIaces eIIher
hydropower or naIuraI gasIIred generaIIon. Hydropower has no
assocIaIed emIssIons. NO
X
and CO
2
emIssIons Irom naIuraI gasIIred
power generaIIon are reIaIIveIy Iow and SO
2
are vIrIuaIIy nonexIsIenI.
In LRCOT, coaI generaIIon Is cycIed aIong wIIh naIuraI gas generaIIon,
and Ihus emIssIons savIngs are hIgher. CoaIIIred generaIIon provIdes
a much hIgher share oI IoIaI power producIIon In MISO, and as a
resuII, wInd power has a greaIer ImpacI on emIssIons In IhaI area. In
aII cases, however, Ihe reducIIons are Iower Ihan Ihe assumpIIons
used by AmerIcan WInd Lnergy AssocIaIIon (AWLA) and oIhers In
IradIIIonaI anaIyses based on dIspaIch modeIs. II Is aIso ImporIanI Io
noIe IhaI whIIe Ihe beneIIIs oI wInd generaIIon In MISO are greaIer
Ihan In Ihe oIher regIons, Ihey are IIkeIy Io dImInIsh over IIme as more
naIuraI gasIIred generaIIon Is InIroduced Io Ihe regIon Io dIspIace
Iess eIIIcIenI coaIIIred unIIs In response Io new LPA dIrecIIves.
TabIe 1 aIso IndIcaIes Ihe cosI oI savIng one Ion oI CO
!
In each regIon
II wInd energy cosIs are vaIued soIeIy on Ihe IederaI governmenI Iax
credII IhaI Is provIded Ior each MW oI eIecIrIcIIy generaIed by wInd.
1

Based on Ihe Ions oI CO
!
acIuaIIy avoIded as a resuII oI wInd
generaIIon, II does noI appear IhaI wInd power Is a cosIeIIecIIve
soIuIIon Ior reducIng CO
!
II carbon Is vaIued aI Iess Ihan S33 per Ion.
These resuIIs derIve Irom an anaIysIs oI deIaIIed daIa on wInd
generaIIon and emIssIons Irom pIanIs In Iour regIonaI power areas -
Ihe LIecIrIc ReIIabIIIIy CouncII oI Texas (LRCOT), BonnevIIIe Power
AdmInIsIraIIon (BPA PacIIIc NorIhwesI regIon), Ihe CaIIIornIa
IndependenI SysIem OperaIor (CAISO) and Ihe MIdwesI IndependenI
SysIem OperaIor (MISO). ThIs reporI esIImaIes Ihe reducIIon In SO
!
,
NO
X
and CO
2
due Io wInd generaIIon In Ihose IerrIIorIes, uIIIIzIng more
Ihan 300,000 IndIvIduaI hourIy observaIIons Ior Ihe years 2007
Ihrough 2009. The resuIIs Ior each regIon are compared Io Ihe savIngs
cIaImed by AWLA and Ihe average emIssIon raIe oI IhermaI generaIIon
unIIs across Ihe U.S.


1
Currently, the federal government tax credit for wind energy is $22 per MWh
pre-tax and $34 per MWh after-tax.
7

II. Introduction


Over Ihe pasI decade wInd has become Ihe "appIe pIe" oI energy
poIIcy. Many In Ihe U.S. and around Ihe worId have embraced wInd
energy as Ihe prIncIpaI renewabIe energy source by whIch mankInd
can sIay Ihe IwIn dragons oI hydrocarbon consumpIIon and
producIIon oI greenhouse gases (CHC).
Over Ihe pasI 18 years Ihe U.S. IederaI governmenI, many sIaIes and
some IocaI governmenIs have devIsed numerous programs Io
encourage Ihe deveIopmenI oI renewabIe energy. The IederaI
governmenI provIdes dIrecI IInancIaI subsIdIes Ior renewabIe
IechnoIogIes vIa producIIon Iax credIIs. Many sIaIes have adopIed a
more IndIrecI approach by ImpIemenIIng RenewabIe PorIIoIIo
SIandards (RPS), whIch requIre uIIIIIIes Io purchase varIous IeveIs oI
power generaIed Irom renewabIe energy sources. CaIIIornIa has Ihe
hIghesI RPS requIremenI - 33 by 2020 - and 32 oIher sIaIes have
ImpIemenIed IormaI RPS programs. SIxIeen oI Ihose sIaIes requIre
20 or more oI IoIaI power saIes Io come Irom eIecIrIcIIy generaIed
Irom renewabIe energy sources by 202S.
DurIng 2009 and 2010 Ihere were repeaIed dIscussIons In Congress
abouI esIabIIshIng a naIIonaI RPS, more evIdence IhaI wInd and soIar
energy remaIn aI Ihe IoreIronI oI U.S. energy poIIcy.
WInd energy has become Ihe mosI pervasIve oI Ihe renewabIe energy
IechnoIogIes. SInce 200S more Ihan 28,000 MW oI wInd generaIIon
capacIIy has been buIII In Ihe U.S. compared Io 2,000 MW Ior aII oIher
Iorms oI renewabIe energy. In 2010, abouI 92,277 CWh, or more Ihan
2 oI IoIaI U.S. generaIIon, came Irom wInd. WInd power aIso Is
dIsIrIbuIed IhroughouI mosI oI Ihe UnIIed SIaIes. IIve sIaIes have
more Ihan 2,000 MW oI wInd generaIIon capacIIy, and severaI regIonaI
IransmIssIon sysIems, coverIng muIIIpIe sIaIes, have sIgnIIIcanI wInd
power capacIIy as weII. WInd and soIar generaIIon have Iorced
hydrocarbonbased power resources oII Ihe generaIIon grId, and IhIs
has Ied researchers and poIIcymakers Io assume IhaI emIssIons have
decIIned accordIngIy.
8

CIven Ihe proIIIeraIIon oI wInd energy generaIIon IacIIIIIes, II Is IIme
Io IesI IhIs assumpIIon. AmpIe generaIIon and emIssIons daIa exIsI Io
IesI Ihe presumpIIon IhaI addIng wInd power Io Ihe U.S. energy
porIIoIIo wIII sIgnIIIcanIIy reduce emIssIons. Ior IhIs reporI,
"sIgnIIIcanI" Is deIIned as suIIIcIenI Io jusIIIy Ihe requIsIIe InvesImenI
oI pubIIc doIIars as vaIued by Ihe IederaI governmenI producIIon Iax
credII. In oIher words, Is Ihe cosI oI Ihe wInd energy Iax credII Io Ihe
Iaxpayer equaI Io or greaIer Ihan Ihe vaIue oI Ihe CO
2
emIssIons
reducIIon Irom wInd energy7 An examInaIIon oI acIuaI perIormance
daIa aIIows Ior an assessmenI oI Ihe acIuaI reducIIons oI S0
!
, NO
X
and
CO
!
IhaI resuIIed Irom Ihe addIIIon oI wInd generaIIon. II aIso
provIdes a sIarIIng poInI Ior assessIng wheIher acIuaI emIssIons
reducIIons are suIIIcIenI Io jusIIIy Ihe assocIaIed commIImenI oI
IederaI Iax doIIars Ihrough Ihe producIIon Iax credII.
AccordIngIy, Ihe objecIIve oI IhIs sIudy Is Io assess Ihe SO
!
, NO
X
and
CO
!
savIngs Irom wInd generaIIon IhaI have been achIeved In LRCOT,
BPA, CAISO and MISO. BLNTLK, In conjuncIIon wIIh Dr. DanIeI KaIIIne
Irom Ihe CoIorado SchooI oI MInes (CSM), deveIoped a reduced Iorm
economeIrIc modeI oI Ihe InIeracIIon among wInd, coaI and naIuraI
gasIIred generaIIon wIIhIn each regIon and Ihe resuIIIng change In
SO
!
, NO
X
and CO
!
emIssIons IhaI occurred as wInd energy generaIIon
Increased.
2
ThIs anaIysIs Is based on hourIy generaIIon daIa provIded
by Ihe IndependenI SysIem OperaIors (ISO) In each oI Ihe Iour areas
and acIuaI hourIy emIssIons daIa reporIed by uIIIIIIes Io Ihe U.S.
LnvIronmenIaI ProIecIIon Agency (LPA) Ihrough Ihe ConIInuous
LmIssIons MonIIory SysIem (CLMS).
Background
ThIs new anaIysIs IoIIows anoIher wInd sIudy reIeased by BLNTLK In
2010 IhaI IdenIIIIed cycIIng Issues In LRCOT and PubIIc ServIce
Company oI CoIorado's (PSCo) operaIIng area. ThaI reporI, IIIIed "How
Less Became More," concIuded IhaI emIssIons reducIIons IhoughI Io
be achIeved by wInd generaIIon In LRCOT and PSCo were eIIher
mInImaI or nonexIsIenI In Ihose IerrIIorIes. The reporI was Ihe IIrsI Io

2
Reduced-form models are used to simplify the complex relationships
between variables without making too many assumptions about those
relationships.

9

use deIaIIed empIrIcaI daIa raIher Ihan esIImaIes hypoIhesIzed In
varIous dIspaIch modeIs Io assess Ihe emIssIons ImpacI oI addIng
wInd power Io Ihese areas. The anaIysIs receIved a number oI
ImporIanI crIIIcIsms:
1) WhIIe Ihere Is ampIe wInd generaIIon daIa In LRCOT Io cIearIy
IInk wInd generaIIon Io cycIIng oI coaI unIIs, Ihe daIa In PSCo Is
InsuIIIcIenI because II Is IImIIed Io a Iew days; PSCo Is unwIIIIng
Io make hourIy wInd generaIIon daIa pubIIcaIIy avaIIabIe.
2) The sIudy compared emIssIons on a "wInd evenI" day Io
emIssIons on a "SIabIe Day." A "SIabIe Day" Is a day In whIch
generaIIon Is mosI sIabIe aI each coaI IacIIIIy. ThIs comparIson
was crIIIcIzed Ior oversIaIIng wInd generaIIondrIven emIssIons
esIImaIes.
3) The reporI was Iunded by IPAMS (now known as WesIern Lnergy
AIIIance), a Irade organIzaIIon Ior Ihe oII and gas IndusIry. The
reporI was dIsmIssed by some because oI IIs IundIng source.
4) The emIssIons ImpacIs resuIIIng Irom operaIIng wInd
generaIIon InsIead oI naIuraI gasIIred generaIIon were noI
addressed In Ihe reporI, as Ihe sIabIe day meIhodoIogy couId
noI be appIIed Io naIuraI gasIIred generaIIon. NaIuraI gas
generaIIon aImosI by deIInIIIon does noI have a "sIabIe day" as
II Is desIgned Io be IrequenIIy cycIed Ior many reasons.
ThIs Ieedback was IncorporaIed InIo Ihe currenI sIudy. ThIs reporI
addresses Ihese crIIIques In Ihe IoIIowIng manner:
1) AnaIysIs Is conducIed on areas In whIch IuII daIaseIs oI wInd
generaIIon and IhermaI emIssIons and generaIIon are avaIIabIe.
PSCo Is IargeIy dropped Irom IhIs anaIysIs, excepI In severaI
exampIes In whIch adequaIe daIa Is avaIIabIe.
2) The sIabIeday meIhodoIogy was repIaced wIIh a regressIon
based approach. In conjuncIIon wIIh Dr. KaIIIne, BLNTLK
deveIoped a regressIon meIhodoIogy Io deIermIne Ihe ImpacIs
oI wInd on emIssIons.
3) BLNTLK Iunded IhIs research wIIh IIs own resources.
4) The sIudy IncIudes Ihe InIeracIIon among wInd, coaI and naIuraI
gas generaIIon In Ihe assessmenI oI emIssIons ImpacIs.
The goaI oI IhIs reporI Is Io provIde IundamenIaI daIa and anaIysIs so
IhaI poIIcymakers and markeI parIIcIpanIs can make more InIormed
10

energy decIsIons, parIIcuIarIy reIaIed Io wInd power and more cosI
eIIecIIve ways Io reduce emIssIons Irom power generaIIon.
Data
MuIIIpIe daIa sources underIIe IhIs anaIysIs. ThermaI generaIIon and
emIssIons daIa Is sourced Irom Ihe LnvIronmenIaI ProIecIIon Agency's
(LPA) ConIInuous LmIssIon MonIIorIng SysIem (CLMS) program, a
reporIIng requIremenI oI Ihe CIean AIr AcI.
3
ThIs program
conIInuousIy monIIors boIIerIeveI hourIy emIssIons, generaIIon and
IueI consumpIIon aI every coaI, oII and naIuraI gas power pIanI In Ihe
UnIIed SIaIes IhaI Is more Ihan 2S MW In capacIIy (1,S42 IacIIIIIes,
4,921 boIIers). ThIs sampIe represenIs Ihe vasI majorIIy (In excess oI
96) oI eIecIrIcIIy generaIIon Irom IhermaI unIIs (excIudIng nucIear) In
Ihe naIIon. HourIy IemperaIure daIa aIso Is uIIIIzed Io capIure Ihe
IIucIuaIIons In demand IhroughouI Ihe day. ThIs daIa Is sourced Irom
NOAA and Is popuIaIIonweIghIed Ior each regIon In Ihe anaIysIs.
4

IInaIIy, hourIy wInd generaIIon daIa Is sourced Irom Ihe respecIIve
ISO baIancIng auIhorIIIes.
S

6

7

8




3
http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm
4
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
S
ERCOT: http://planning.ercot.com/data/hourly-windoutput/
6
MISO: http://www.midwestmarket.org/publish/Folder/25228f 10631e11216-
7fe30a48324a?rev=11
7
CAISO: http://www.caiso.com/1817/181783ae9a90.html
8
BPA: http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/windpower.html
11

III. Wind Becomes a Significant
Component of the Power Fleet


In 2000, wInd powered onIy a negIIgIbIe 0.1S oI IoIaI U.S. eIecIrIcIIy
demand. Today II provIdes more Ihan 2.0 oI IoIaI U.S. eIecIrIcIIy
demand, wIIh more Ihan 36,000 MW oI InsIaIIed wInd IurbIne capacIIy
and anoIher 6,000 MW In deveIopmenI.
K,2L4&'HHHM()'IJ0J'H/-<#%%&9'6,/9';#3#N,<O

In generaI, wInd Iarms are sIIed In areas where wInd energy can
acIuaIIy be capIured aI raIes IhaI are economIcaIIy vIabIe. IIgure III1
shows IhaI wInd generaIors have mosIIy been deveIoped In Ihe CreaI
PIaIns (IncIudIng Texas and OkIahoma), Ihe NorIhwesI, Ihe NorIheasI
and CaIIIornIa.
The NaIIonaI RenewabIe Lnergy LaboraIory (NRLL) has perIormed
exIensIve anaIysIs on U.S. wInd resources Io deIermIne Ihe besI areas
Ior wInd generaIIon. ThIs anaIysIs Iocuses on how wInd perIormed aI
Ihe 80meIer IeveI, approxImaIeIy Ihe heIghI oI mosI modern
commercIaI IurbInes. IIgure III2 Is a graphIcaI depIcIIon oI IhIs daIa.
12

The exIsIence oI Ihe purpIe and red shaded areas In Ihe MIdwesI
IndIcaIes Ihe IocaIIon oI Ihe sIrongesI and mosI avaIIabIe wInd
resources.
K,2L4&'HHHM!)'B>*P'6,/9'>&-.L4N&'5#3
Q


NoI surprIsIngIy, as Is reIIecIed In IIgure III1, Ihe hIghesI
concenIraIIon oI wInd generaIIon resources Is In Ihese areas.
NRLL aIso conducIed anaIysIs Io undersIand Ihe eIIIcIency oI wInd
IurbInes In each sIaIe. UsIng Ihe wInd resource daIa, NRLL IdenIIIIed
Ihe poIenIIaI InsIaIIed capacIIy Ior 80meIer wInd IurbInes and Ihe
uIIIIzaIIon raIes. ThIs IuII daIaseI Is presenIed In AppendIx A In TabIe
XI1. OveraII, NRLL esIImaIes Ihere Is Ihe poIenIIaI Ior nearIy
10,S00,000 MW oI wInd IurbIne capacIIy aI an average uIIIIzaIIon raIe
oI 40. The regIons wIIh Ihe hIghesI wInd resources aIso reIIecI Ihe
hIghesI uIIIIzaIIon raIes. Ior exampIe, NRLL esIImaIes IhaI Nebraska
wInd IacIIIIIes wIII have an esIImaIed 44 uIIIIzaIIon raIe compared Io
AIabama, wIIh an esIImaIed 32 uIIIIzaIIon raIe.
10

InsIaIIIng IhIs much wInd IurbIne capacIIy wouId represenI a
sIgnIIIcanI power generaIIon source Ior Ihe U.S. AI an average 40

9
(NREL, Wind Maps)
10
Utilization rate = actual energy generated / potential energy generated
13

uIIIIzaIIon raIe, 10,S00 CW oI wInd capacIIy wouId generaIe 4,21S CW
oI eIecIrIcIIy every hour, whIch Ihe Lnergy InIormaIIon AdmInIsIraIIon
(LIA) says Is nearIy 10 IImes Ihe average hourIy eIecIrIcIIy demand In
Ihe U.S.
11

SInce Ihe mIddIe parI oI Ihe pasI decade energy poIIcy has supporIed
wInd energy deveIopmenI. PoIIcy acIIon has Iaken pIace aI boIh Ihe
sIaIe and IederaI IeveI, and as a resuII, wInd generaIIon In 2009 meI
more Ihan 1 oI U.S. eIecIrIcIIy demand Ior Ihe IIrsI IIme.
LsIabIIshIng RenewabIe PorIIoIIo SIandards (RPS) Is Ihe prImary poIIcy
acIIon IhaI has been Iaken by sIaIes Io promoIe wInd energy
deveIopmenI, and 29 sIaIes had RPS obIIgaIIons aI Ihe end oI 2010.
These sIandards IypIcaIIy mandaIe IhaI uIIIIIIes operaIIng In Ihe sIaIe
obIaIn some percenIage oI IheIr energy saIes requIremenIs Irom
renewabIe sources. In some cases Ihe mandaIes specIIy renewabIe
energy Iypes, buI usuaIIy uIIIIIIes are Iree Io choose Irom whaIever
renewabIe source Ihey choose Io meeI Ihe sIandard.
The IederaI producIIon Iax credII Is Ihe prImary means used by Ihe
IederaI governmenI Io encourage wInd and oIher renewabIe power
deveIopmenI. WInd power has gaIned sIgnIIIcanI ground as a resuII oI
Ihese poIIcy encouragemenIs In parI because II Is a cheap and scaIabIe
renewabIe energy source (see IIgure III3).

11
Over the past 3 years, U.S. electricity demand has averaged 421 GW per
hour. (Energy, Retail Sales of Electricity to Ultimate Customers)
14

K,2L4&'HHHMR)'IJ0J'6,/9'S&/&4#<,./'#/9'6,/9'"L4$,/&';#3#N,<O
(!


BeIween 2001 and 2010, wInd IurbIne capacIIy Increased by 844
Irom 3,918 MW Io 36,998 MW. AcIuaI generaIIon Irom wInd IurbInes
Increased durIng Ihe pasI decade Irom 6,737 CWh In 2001 Io 70,761
CWh In 2009. The acceIeraIIon oI wInd generaIIon capacIIy
deveIopmenI In 200S2007 reIIecIed passage oI Ihe IederaI ProducIIon
Tax SubsIdy and RPS In CO, HI, MD, NY, RI, DC, NM and DL In addIIIon
Io major RPS revIsIons In NM, CT, MN, N|, NV, TX, PA, CA and AZ.
TabIe XI2 In Ihe appendIx capIures Ihe RPS enacIed by each sIaIe.
IurIher expansIon and uIIIIzaIIon oI wInd power conIInues Io be a
sIgnIIIcanI componenI oI mosI energy poIIcy debaIes. SIaIes are
pushIng RPS IeveIs Io new heIghIs (CaIIIornIa recenIIy Increased IIs
goaI Io 33 by 2020), and U.S. IegIsIaIors and poIIcymakers conIInue
Io dIscuss a naIIonaI RPS whIch wouId requIre each sIaIe Io meeI
renewabIe energy goaIs.





(!
(Energy, Electric Power Monthly 2009 - Monthly Data Tables), (Energy,
Electric Power Annual 2008 - State Data Tables)
0
3
10
13
20
23
30
33
40
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
!
a
n
-
0
1
S
e
p
-
0
1
M
a
y
-
0
2
!
a
n
-
0
3
S
e
p
-
0
3
M
a
y
-
0
4
!
a
n
-
0
3
S
e
p
-
0
3
M
a
y
-
0
6
!
a
n
-
0
7
S
e
p
-
0
7
M
a
y
-
0
8
!
a
n
-
0
9
S
e
p
-
0
9
M
a
y
-
1
0
!
"
#
!
"
$
#
lnsLalled Wlnd CapaclLy
Wlnd CeneraLlon
15

IV. Studies Question the
Assumptions Underlying Wind
Energys Policy Appeal


"TIc nodc: nnd tccInquc: nccdcd to :tud) tIc nnct: o
\nd ntcgnton nnd no\cd \nd :ccd occn:tng
nodc: nc :t cng dc\cocd.
13
- TIonn: A. Inc, VI
Connccn O:, Xcc Incg)
The aIIure oI wInd energy has been IargeIy drIven by Ihe beIIeI IhaI Ihe
resource oIIers emIssIonsIree eIecIrIcIIy. AIone, Ihe resource
produces no emIssIons when generaIIng a unII oI eIecIrIcIIy. II was
IhoughI IhaI InIroducIng IhIs resource wouId dramaIIcaIIy reduce
emIssIons Irom IradIIIonaI IhermaI resources (coaI, oII and naIuraI
gas). However, when InIegraIed InIo a sysIem oI oIher resources,
whIch are Iorced Io reacI Io Ihe varIabIIIIy oI wInd generaIIon, wInd
generaIIon creaIes sIresses on oIher unIIs IhaI dIrecIIy reduce Ihe
eIIIcIency oI operaIIon.
PrevIous research on InIegraIIng wInd generaIIon InIo Ihe power grId
used emIssIons esIImaIes based on Ihe average composIIIon oI U.S.
power generaIIon by IueI Iype. The U.S. power generaIIon mIx In 2010
resuIIed In 4.1 Ibs oI SO
2
, 1.7 Ibs oI NOx

and 0.9 Ions oI CO
2
Ior a gIven
MWh oI generaIIon. The modeIs IhaI were used assumed IhaI
InIroducIng 1 MWh oI wInd generaIIon Io Ihe sysIem wouId
accordIngIy reduce emIssIons by Ihese amounIs.
BLNTLK's anaIysIs IInds IhaI meIhodoIogy oversIaIes Ihe acIuaI
emIssIons savIngs raIes oI wInd, IargeIy due Io Ihe IacIors ouIIIned In
ChapIer VII.

13
(Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits of Thomas A. Imbler on Behalf of Public
Service Company of Colorado, 2008)
16

Research conducIed by Moore eI aI. (Moore, 2010) Iound IhaI In order
Io aIIrIbuIe emIssIons reducIIons Io wInd generaIIon, modeIs musI
IdenIIIy Ihe specIIIc generaIIon unIIs (and Ihe assocIaIed emIssIons oI
Ihose generaIIon unIIs) IhaI are acIuaIIy beIng oIIseI by wInd
generaIIon ouIpuI. Moore's IIndIngs were IurIher supporIed by CuIIen
(CuIIen, 2010), who used pIanIIeveI emIssIons daIa In LRCOT Io
esIImaIe Ihe emIssIon savIngs assocIaIed wIIh wInd generaIIon
beIween 200S and 2007. CuIIen Iound IhaI wInd generaIIon saved 3.1S
Ibs. oI SO
!
, 1.0S Ibs. oI NO
X
and 0.79 Ions oI CO
2
per MWh oI wInd
generaIIon. CuIIen's meIhodoIogy was based on Ihe assumpIIon IhaI
Ihe average emIssIons Irom Ihe power pIanIs IhaI were Iurned oII
durIng wInd power evenIs were eIImInaIed.
As ouIIIned In ChapIer VII, IhIs approach does noI capIure Ihe acIuaI
emIssIons savIngs on Ihe sysIem. The eIIIcIency oI generaIIon unIIs
degrades as Ihe unIIs are cycIed Io accommodaIe Ior wInd generaIIon.
LIIk eI aI. (LIIk, 2003) supporIs IhIs concIusIon, IIndIng IhaI
accommodaIIng wInd generaIIon Is emIssIonsInIensIve due Io Ihe
need Io cycIe IradIIIonaI generaIIon resources.
Two papers recenIIy pubIIshed IurIher supporI IhIs concIusIon. One
paper by CaIIaway and IowIIe (CaIIaway, 2009) and anoIher reporI by
Novan (Novan, 2010) IInd IhaI assumIng an average emIssIons
reducIIon raIe Is noI suIIIcIenI Io accuraIeIy capIure emIssIons
reducIIon Ihrough wInd generaIIon. AddIIIonaIIy, boIh papers IdenIIIy
IhaI uIIIIzIng dIspaIch modeIs Io assume whIch unIIs wouId reacI Io
wInd generaIIon Is InsuIIIcIenI Io esIImaIe wInd generaIIondrIven
emIssIons reducIIons.
A wIdeIy dIsIrIbuIed and uIIIIzed paper Irom Ihe NaIIonaI RenewabIe
Lnergy Lab's (NRLL) WesIern WInd InIegraIIon SIudy (WWIS),
commIssIoned by Ihe DeparImenI oI Lnergy (DOL), Iound IhaI
generaIIon sysIems couId IechnIcaIIy supporI Ihe InIegraIIon oI 30
wInd and S soIar. The NRLL anaIysIs does noI examIne Ihe acIuaI
operaIIng abIIIIIes oI power pIanIs In Ihe IooIprInI area (. 317 o
TTI5).
14
InIormaIIon IncIudIng Ihe acIuaI maxImum generaIIon ouIpuI
(capacIIy), IueI Iype, pIanI IocaIIon and IransmIssIon were noI parI oI
Ihe anaIysIs.

14
(National Renewable Energy Lab, 2010)
17

The anaIysIs assumed IhaI aII coaI, gas, oII, nucIear and hydro pIanIs
operaIe In Ihe same way In Ihe IooIprInI. ImpIIcIIIy, IhIs assumpIIon
aIso meanI IhaI NRLL uIIIIzed dIspaIch modeIs Ior IIs anaIysIs, a
concern IhaI boIh CaIIaway (CaIIaway, 2009) and Novan (Novan, 2010)
noIe In IheIr respecIIve sIudIes.
The anaIysIs In IhIs reporI addresses Ihe IIndIngs Irom Ihese sIudIes
and oIhers. II reIIes on uIIIIzIng acIuaI hourIy daIa poInIs Irom each
regIon Ior every hour oI power pIanI operaIIon. ThIs approach avoIds
assumpIIons assocIaIed wIIh dIspaIch modeIs and avoIds usIng
average emIssIons raIes.

18

V. Cycling


"Intcgntng ntcnttcnt, \ontc ccctct) nto tIc gd
cnn cnu:c n :ugc o n :ng tInt cnn cnd to o\nout: o
ncout:. 5o gd ocnto:, c Xcc Incg), nu:t nnncc
tIc \nd-gcncntcd ccctct) \tI ccctct) onnc, cnd)
nnd n\nnc to tIc :):tcn. In odc to do tInt, nnt: tInt
nc ncnd) ocntng nnd conncctcd to tIc gd nu:t
:uddcn) nnd nd) nccn:c o dcccn:c tIc outut to
nnntnn nnncc. In :onc cn:c:, tI: ncnn: tInt nnt:
tInt nc onc nu:t c ougIt onnc quc). TIc nd
:tnt: nnd :to: o nccn:c: nnd dcccn:c: n outut nc
cncd 'c)cng.'
15
- AtccI
The quoIe Irom a sIudy by ApIech, an engIneerIng consuIIancy
workIng Ior XceI Lnergy, descrIbes a phenomenon IhaI Is crIIIcaI Io
undersIandIng Ihe Irue ImpacI on emIssIons Irom wInd energy. ThIs
phenomenon Io daIe has been IargeIy mIssIng Irom wInd InIegraIIon
sIudIes.
The ApIech sIudIes aIIempIed Io esIImaIe Ihe emIssIons savIngs Irom
wInd generaIIon, buI overIooked or made assumpIIons regardIng
Issues reIaIed Io cycIIng. The sIudIes generaIIy assumed IhaI naIuraI
gas wouId absorb Ihe voIaIIIIIy Irom wInd generaIIon; naIuraI gas
IurbInes were assumed Io be Ihe prIncIpaI backup power source used
Io accommodaIe wInd energy.
In IacI, daIa Irom LRCOT reveaIs IhaI coaI unIIs aIso are IrequenIIy
cycIed Io accommodaIe wInd. IIgure V1 deIaIIs IoIaI generaIIon
ouIpuI by IueI source In Ihe LRCOT operaIIng area on a 1SmInuIe
basIs over a sevenday perIod. The purpIe area depIcIs wInd
generaIIon. The IoIaI oI generaIIon Irom aII sources equaIs demand In
LRCOT. IIgure V1 IndIcaIes IhaI, Ior Ihe mosI parI, wInd bIows In Ihe
earIy mornIng hours when IoIaI demand Is Iow (IndIcaIed by Ihe
cIrcIes). IIgure V1 aIso shows IhaI when Ihe wInd bIows In Ihese earIy

15
(Aptech)
19

mornIng hours, coaI generaIIon and naIuraI gas generaIIon are
reduced Io accommodaIe wInd. The sudden up or down IIucIuaIIon In
generaIIon wIII be reIerred Io as "cycIIng" IhroughouI Ihe remaInder oI
IhIs reporI.
K,2L4&'TM()'*>;="'S&/&4#<,./'0<#NU'B.1J'V)(!W'!XXY

The cycIIng oI coaI generaIIon shown In IIgure V1 IrequenIIy occurs
In LRCOT and Is deIIned quanIIIaIIveIy as a perIod durIng whIch IoIaI
coaIIIred generaIIon ouIpuI decIInes by more Ihan S houroverhour
aI Ihe begInnIng oI Ihese evenIs and cIImbs by more Ihan S hour
overhour aI Ihe end oI Ihese evenIs. SeveraI more charIs showIng
addIIIonaI exampIes oI IhIs Iype oI cycIIng are presenIed In Ihe
AppendIx under IIgure XI1.
HIsIorIcaIIy, coaI pIanIs were desIgned Io serve as baseIoad generaIIon
pIanIs, operaIIng mosI eIIIcIenIIy when run aI a reIaIIveIy consIanI
hIgh uIIIIzaIIon raIe (generaIIy greaIer Ihan 70). In LRCOT, however,
Ihe Irequency and magnIIude oI cycIIng has Increased dramaIIcaIIy
wIIh Ihe IncorporaIIon oI wInd generaIIon. CoaI cycIIng evenIs due Io
wInd generaIIon In LRCOT are quanIIIIed by IdenIIIyIng InsIances In
whIch IoIaI coaI generaIIon ouIpuI changed more Ihan S coIncIdenI
wIIh a sImIIar change In wInd generaIIon. IIgure V2 compares Ihe
growIh oI wInd generaIIon capacIIy In LRCOT and Ihe number oI coaI
cycIIng InsIances based on Ihe S IhreshoId. BegInnIng In 2006 when
20

wInd capacIIy reached Ihe 4,000 MW IeveI, cycIIng oI coaI unIIs spIked
upward and has conIInued Io Increase.
K,2L4&'TM!)'*>;="'6,/9';#3#N,<O'Z';.#%';ON%,/2'*1&/<-

ApIech perIormed an anaIysIs oI cycIIng Ior XceI Lnergy. IIs IIndIngs
were sImIIar Io BLNTLK's LRCOT anaIysIs. "When sIgnIIIcanI amounIs
oI unmanaged wIndgeneraIed eIecIrIcIIy are InIroduced InIo Ihe
sysIem, cycIIng evenIs wIII Increase aI baseIoad pIanIs,"
16
ApIech
sIaIed.
As wInd capacIIy Increased In LRCOT beIween 2003 and 2007, Ihe
amounI oI wInd generaIIon was noI sIgnIIIcanI enough Io dIp InIo Ihe
coaI generaIIon sIack aI nIghI. However, as wInd IurbIne capacIIy
surpassed roughIy S,000 MW, Ihe InsIances oI coaI cycIIng evenIs
Increased nearIy 400 Irom 2007 Io 2009. As more wInd Is added Io
Ihe sysIem, coaI cycIIng InsIances wIII IIkeIy Increase IurIher.
LRCOT coaI generaIIon Is cycIed In response Io wInd generaIIon due Io
Ihe InherenI naIure oI wInd paIIerns In Ihe area. WInd generaIIon
reaches peak ouIpuI durIng earIy mornIng hours, as deIaIIed In IIgure
V3.


16
(Aptech)
%
&%%
'%%
(%%
)%%
*%%
+%%
,%%
-%%
%
&.%%%
'.%%%
(.%%%
).%%%
*.%%%
+.%%%
,.%%%
-.%%%
/.%%%
&%.%%%
'%%( '%%) '%%* '%%+ '%%, '%%- '%%/
0
#
1
2
#
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
#
:
;
<
8
=
>
#
?
"
#
1
2
#
3
@
A
@
5
7
=
4
#
"78B#3@A@57=4
31@6#3456789#:;<8=>
21

K,2L4&'TMR)'G1&4#2&'[.L4%O'6,/9'S&/&4#<,./'Z'P.#9',/'*>;="W'
!XXQ
(\


On average, Ihere Is a nearIy 3S decIIne In wInd generaIIon ouIpuI
Irom Ihe nIghI hours Io Ihe mIddIe oI Ihe day. As wInd generaIIon Is
reachIng peak ouIpuI, IoIaI Ioad In LRCOT Is decIInIng Io IIs IowesI
IeveIs. The NeI Load IIne In IIgure V3 represenIs IoIaI Ioad neI oI
wInd generaIIon ouIpuI, capIurIng Ihe demand IeveI IhaI Ihe
remaInIng IueI sources are requIred Io IuIIIII.
WInd InIegraIIon sIudIes assume IhaI naIuraI gas unIIs wIII be Ihe
prImary generaIIon used Io absorb Ihe changes In wInd generaIIon
ouIpuI. In conIrasI Io sIandard coaIIIred baseIoad unIIs, gasIIred
generaIIon unIIs are desIgned Io meeI unpredIcIabIe and varIed
demand.
However, aI nIghI In LRCOT when Ihe wInd bIows, boIh naIuraI gas
combIned cycIe and combusIIon IurbIne unIIs are aIready aI reIaIIveIy
Iow generaIIon IeveIs because Ihey are reIaIIveIy more expensIve Io
operaIe Ihan coaI and nucIear pIanIs. In many cases, and especIaIIy In
Ihe shouIder season, naIuraI gas generaIIon sources are operaIIng aI
IeveIs beIow whIch Ihey cannoI be dIspaIched wIIhouI vIoIaIIng sysIem
reIIabIIIIy sIandards. AddIIIonaIIy, IransmIssIon consIraInIs oIIen
ImpacI Ihe unIIs IhaI wIII be cycIed.

17
(ERCOT)
-
3,000
10,000
13,000
20,000
23,000
30,000
33,000
40,000
43,000
-
300
1,000
1,300
2,000
2,300
3,000
0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 1011121314131617181920212223
C
1
@
B
#
?
"
$
#
"
7
8
B
#
?
"
$
#
D1EF#
Wlnd CeneraLlon
Load
neL Load
22

As shown In IIgure V1, In LRCOT boIh coaI and gas unIIs are cycIed In
order Io accommodaIe wInd generaIIon. IIgure V4 shows sImIIar
InIeracIIon In MISO Ior Ihe IIrsI eIghI days oI AprII 2009. The
reIaIIveIy smaII porIIon oI IoIaI generaIIon provIded by gas was cycIed
down Ior jusI over Iwo days Io accommodaIe wInd generaIIon, buI
even wIIh IhIs reducIIon, coaI unIIs had Io be cycIed as weII. CoaI
generaIIon In MISO has hIsIorIcaIIy been cycIed In a IoadIoIIowIng
capacIIy; Ihese coaI unIIs are desIgned Io IoadIoIIow more eIIIcIenIIy
Ihan coaI unIIs In LRCOT. However, IhermaI unIIs were sIIII cycIed In
order Io accommodaIe wInd generaIIon.
K,2L4&'TM])'5H0='S&/&4#<,./'0<#NUW'G34,%'()YW'!XXQ

CoaI cycIIng Is evIdenI In Ihe BPA IerrIIory. In conIrasI Io MISO, gas
IIred and hydro generaIIon accounIs Ior a much Iarger porIIon oI Ihe
generaIIon mIx, 10.8 and 4S.S on average, respecIIveIy.
18

AccordIngIy as shown In IIgure VS, when wInd generaIIon Is avaIIabIe,
gasIIred generaIIon decIInes. NeverIheIess, as shown Ior SepI. 19 and
20, Ihere are IImes when Ihe voIume oI wInd requIres BPA Io cycIe IIs
coaIIIred generaIIon. WhIIe Ihe IueI consumpIIon ImpacIs are
dIIIerenI, dIspaIchIng wInd generaIIon requIres IhermaI asseIs Io cycIe
In aII oI Ihe areas sIudIed.

18
(BPA, 2009)
23

K,2L4&'TMV)'EFG'S&/&4#<,./'0<#NUW'0&3<&+$&4'(\)!RW'!XXQ



24

VI. Impacts of Cycling


"TIc nn jo tI: :tud)] : to :Io\ tInt tIc uc cconon)
nnd cn::on: cducton n tIc o\c :):tcn: con::tng
nnn) o tIcnn o\c nnt: nc not ootonn \tI
tIc ccctct) oducton o \nd tunc:. Intcnton o
tIcnn o\c nnt: n tIc concn:nton o uctuntng
oducton o \ndn: cnnntc: n nn]o nt o tIc
cxcctcd o:t\c ccct o \nd cncg).
1
- I, Odnn,
Icc
WInd generaIIon Iorces IhermaI generaIIon unIIs Io cycIe, makIng Ihe
generaIIon sysIem Iess envIronmenIaIIy and operaIIonaIIy eIIIcIenI. AII
eIecIrIcIIy generaIIon IacIIIIIes are desIgned wIIh an abIIIIy Io Increase
and decrease generaIIon ouIpuI. The raIe aI whIch operaIors can
Increase or decrease generaIIon Irom a specIIIc unII Is caIIed Ihe
"ramp raIe." Lvery generaIIon unII has a desIgn ramp raIe. NaIuraI gas
pIanI ramp raIes are reIaIIveIy Iarge, more Ihan 80 oI capacIIy per
hour. CoaI unII ramp raIes are reIaIIveIy Iow, near 20 oI capacIIy per
hour. OpIImaI operaIIon oI Ihe unIIs requIres IhaI Ihe operaIor keep
Ihe cycIIng ImpacIs weII wIIhIn Ihe ramp raIe specIIIcaIIons oI each
unII.
To undersIand Ihe ImpacI oI cycIIng, IhInk oI an auIomobIIe. A car
obIaIns opIImaI gas mIIeage when II Is operaIed aI a consIsIenI speed.
When a car enIers sIopandgo IraIIIc, combusIIon eIIIcIency and IueI
use eIIIcIency decreases. ThermaI power pIanIs operaIe sImIIarIy.
The ImpacIs oI sIopandgo operaIIon are more sIgnIIIcanI aI coaI
IacIIIIIes Ihan aI naIuraI gas IacIIIIIes. Because mosI naIuraI gas
combIned cycIe and combusIIon IurbIne unIIs are desIgned Io
accommodaIe cycIIng, Ihe eIIIcIency degradaIIon on Ihese unIIs Is
mIIIgaIed. However, coaI IacIIIIIes have IypIcaIIy been desIgned as
baseIoad generaIors and are noI desIgned Io accommodaIe varIabIe
generaIIon requIremenIs. ChangIng Ihe way coaI pIanIs operaIe In

19
(O. Liik, 2003)
25

order Io accommodaIe wInd generaIIon has Ihe sImIIar eIIIcIency
ImpacI experIenced when operaIIng a car on Ihe hIghway versus a car
In Ihe cIIy. In Ihe cIIy, more IueI Is consumed per unII oI ouIpuI, and
IhereIore, eIIIcIency decIInes. CycIIng IhermaI IacIIIIIes In response Io
sIochasIIc varIaIIon In wInd generaIIon decreases Ihe eIIIcIency oI
Ihese IacIIIIIes.
The eIIIcIency degradaIIon due Io cycIIng Is wIdespread across
IhermaI IacIIIIIes In areas where sIgnIIIcanI amounIs oI wInd
generaIIon are InIegraIed. IIgure VI1 beIow capIures Ihe generaIIon
ouIpuI and heaI raIe oI Ihe CIbbons Creek coaIIIred generaIIon pIanI
In Texas durIng |anuary 2009.
K,2L4&'THM()'S,$$./-';4&&U'0<&#+'*%&N<4,N'0<#<,./'?*>;="AW'^#/L#4O'
Y)QW'!XXQ


When Ihe IacIIIIy was cycIed (generaIIon suddenIy IeII) In order Io
absorb changes In wInd generaIIon, Ihe heaI raIe (MMBIus oI energy
consumed per hour dIvIded by Ihe MWs produced) Increased by more
Ihan 20. The rIsIng heaI raIe negaIIveIy ImpacIs emIssIons raIes.
IIgure VI2 capIures Ihe changes In emIssIons raIes aI Ihe pIanI over
Ihe same IImeIrame. SO
!
, NO
X
and CO
!
emIssIons raIes aII Increased
durIng Ihe wInd evenI because Ihe heaI raIe aI Ihe pIanI changed.

26

K,2L4&'THM!)'S,$$./-';4&&U'0<&#+'*%&N<4,N'0<#<,./'?*>;="AW'^#/L#4O'
Y)QW'!XXQ'*+,--,./-'>#<&-

CycIIng oI coaI IacIIIIIes can cause a second, more sIgnIIIcanI Iype oI
IneIIIcIency Io occur. The IoIIowIng exampIe Is sourced Irom IraInIng
maIerIaIs dIsIrIbuIed InIernaIIy aI PSCo, a subsIdIary oI XceI Lnergy, Io
InIorm dIspaIchers oI poIenIIaI hazards assocIaIed wIIh wInd
generaIIon. IIgure VI3 Is a snapshoI oI one day on PSCo's sysIem
when wInd generaIIon adverseIy ImpacIed coaI generaIIon.
K,2L4&'THMR)'6,/9'*1&/<'./'F0;.'0O-<&+'?^L%O'!W'!XXYA

27

On |uIy 2, 2008, durIng Ihe mornIng hours, wInd generaIIon ramped
up Irom 1S0 MWh oI ouIpuI Io 800 MWh oI ouIpuI In Iess Ihan Iwo
hours. TypIcaIIy operaIors dIspaIch unIIs based on cosI oI operaIIon;
more expensIve unIIs are dIspaIched down beIore Iess expensIve
unIIs. However, gas generaIIon on PSCo's sysIem was aIready aI such a
Iow IeveI IhaI II couId noI be reduced wIIhouI sacrIIIcIng reIIabIIIIy -
IransmIssIon IImIIs aIso are a IImIIIng IacIor Ior avaIIabIIIIy oI unIIs Io
meeI changes In wInd generaIIon. ConsequenIIy, PSCo was Iorced Io
reduce coaI generaIIon Irom 2,S00 MWh Io 1,800 MWh In a very shorI
IImeIrame. As wInd generaIIon dropped Io roughIy 1S0 MWh by 8
a.m., coaI generaIIon was ramped back up Io 2,S00 MWh Io meeI
IncreasIng Ioad IeveIs on PSCo's sysIem.
CeneraIIon aI severaI coaI pIanIs was reduced In order Io
accommodaIe wInd generaIIon on Ihe sysIem. The hourIohour
change oI generaIIon ouIpuI aI Ihe IacIIIIIes operaIed by PSCo on |uIy
2, 2008, Is capIured In IIgure VI4.
K,2L4&'THM])'[.L4M<.M[.L4';7#/2&',/'S&/&4#<,./'
?^L%O'!W'!XXYA

The Cherokee, Comanche and Pawnee coaI IacIIIIIes provIded Ihe mosI
IIexIbIIIIy Ior PSCo on |uIy 2, 2008. CompIIcaIIons arose aI Ihe
Cherokee IacIIIIy hours aIIer Ihe cycIIng evenI, probIems aIIrIbuIed Io
wInd generaIIon (Ihe unII wouId noI have cycIed had wInd generaIIon
noI been presenI). IIgure VIS capIures emIssIons and generaIIon
ouIpuI aI Cherokee on |uIy 2, 2008.
28

K,2L4&'THMV)'*+,--,./-'#/9'S&/&4#<,./'=L<3L<'#<';7&4.U&&'./'
\@!@!XXY

BeIween Ihe hours oI 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. generaIIon ouIpuI aI Cherokee
was oIIseI by wInd generaIIon. There are assocIaIed IueI and
emIssIons savIngs wIIh Ihe Iower IeveI oI generaIIon IhroughouI IhIs
IImeIrame, as IndIcaIed by Ihe dIps In NO
X
, SO
!
and CO
!
In IIgure VIS.
However, compIIcaIIons aI Ihe IacIIIIy Ior hours aIIer Ihe cycIIng evenI
negaIed any SO
!
and NO
X
emIssIons savIngs. In IacI, SO
!
and NO
X

emIssIons ended up hIgher Ior Ihe day because Ihe unII was cycIed Io
accommodaIe wInd generaIIon.
AIIer Ihe cycIIng evenI, generaIIon IeveIs aI Cherokee seIIIed aI
roughIy 720 MWh, 7 hIgher Ihan prIor Io Ihe cycIIng evenI. However,
NO
X
IeveIs Increased 10 aIIer Ihe cycIIng evenI and SO
!'
IeveIs
Increased 90. CO
!
emIssIons remaIned sIeady aIIer Ihe cycIIng evenI.
These Iypes oI evenIs musI be accounIed Ior when quanIIIyIng
emIssIons reducIIons due Io wInd generaIIon and comparIng Ihem Io
oIher energy sources. CompIIcaIIons arose aI Cherokee on |uIy 2.
LIIorIs Io baIance Ihe boIIers usIng naIuraI gas ended up pIuggIng SO
!

reducIIon unIIs, Ihereby eIImInaIIng IheIr eIIecIIveness. RepaIrs were
made Io Ihe unIIs, buI Iook mosI oI Ihe day Io compIeIe, and
emIssIons spIked durIng Ihe InIerIm perIod.
CycIIng IhermaI IacIIIIIes degrades coaI pIanI eIIIcIency and Ihe
degradaIIon worsens under exIreme ramp raIe scenarIos. ArIhur
CampbeII oI MIT descrIbes Ihe phenomenon as IoIIows:
0
100
200
300
400
300
600
700
800
%
&.%%%
'.%%%
(.%%%
).%%%
*.%%%
+.%%%
,.%%%
% & ' ( ) * + , - / &% && &' &( &) &* &+ &, &- &/ '% '& '' '(
?
"
$
#
:
G
7
>
>
7
1
8
>
#
SC2 (lbs) nCx (lbs) CC2 (Lons) CeneraLlon (MWh)
29

"TIc countc\nng occ, \IcI nn) nccn:c cn::on:, nct:
tIougI n cInngc n tIc cccnt /cn:t co:t) nx o non-
cnc\nc gcncnton \Icn \nd o\dc: n ncton o
ccctct). I tI: nx n\o\c: noc CHC ntcn:\c gcncntng
tccInoogc: tIcn tI: \ nct to o:ct tIc cn::on gnn: duc to
tIc outut on \nd.
2

OIIseIIIng one MWh oI generaIIon aI a IhermaI IacIIIIy wIIh wInd
generaIIon does noI resuII In an equIvaIenI amounI oI emIssIons
savIngs when compared Io normaI, or average, emIssIons raIes aI a
parIIcuIar sIIe because oI Ihe sysIem InIegraIIon IneIIIcIencIes IhaI II
precIpIIaIes.


20
(Campbell, 2008)
30

VII. The Wind Generation Paradox


"TIcc : no c\dcncc tInt ndu:tn \nd o\c : c) to
In\c n :gncnnt nnct on cnon cn::on:. TIc
Iuocnn cxccncc : n:tuct\c. Icnnn, tIc \od':
no:t \nd-ntcn:\c nnton \tI noc tInn U, tunc:
gcncntng 1 o t: ccctct), In: )ct to co:c n :ngc
o:: uc nnt. It cquc: 5 noc con-gcncntcd
ccctct) to co\c \nd o\c': uncdctnt), nnd
outon nnd cnon doxdc cn::on: In\c :cn /) 3U
n 2U nonc).
21
- Tccoc
WInd generaIIon creaIes a paradox. WInd bIows naIuraIIy, and
causes no CO
2
, NO
X
, SO
2
or any oIher Iorm oI poIIuIIon excepI,
oI course, parIIcuIaIe poIIuIIon In Ihe Iorm oI dusI. II seems
enIIreIy IogIcaI IhaI, II one Ignores poIIuIIon creaIed In Ihe
process oI manuIacIurIng wInd generaIIon equIpmenI, addIng
wInd generaIIon Io a power generaIIon sysIem wouId reduce
sysIemwIde emIssIons sInce Ihe poIIuIanIemIIIIng coaI and
naIuraI gas unIIs wouId be run Iess oIIen.
ThIs Iheory, however, Is noI supporIed by IhIs anaIysIs. WInd
energy musI operaIe wIIhIn a compIex generaIIon sysIem,
comprIsed oI muIIIpIe generaIIon sources wIIh wIdeIy varyIng
IIexIbIIIIy. The InIermIIIenI naIure oI wInd causes cycIIng oI
oIher IhermaI power pIanIs on Ihe sysIem, makIng Ihem more
IneIIIcIenI. ThIs IneIIIcIency reduces Ihe overaII sysIemwIde
emIssIons beneIIIs aIIrIbuIabIe Io wInd. SysIemwIde emIssIons
reducIIons IaII weII shorI oI expecIaIIons. ThIs Is Ihe wInd
energy paradox.
Model Approach
To assess Ihe emIssIons savIngs Irom wInd generaIIon BLNTLK
esIImaIed emIssIons reducIIons due Io wInd generaIIon usIng a

21
(Trebilcock, 2009)
31

muIIIvarIaIe modeI IhaI IncorporaIes hourIy and pIanI specIIIc daIa on
wInd generaIIon, IhermaI power generaIIon, emIssIons and
IemperaIures. The modeI was appIIed Io Ihe CAISO, MISO, BPA and
LRCOT operaIIng areas.
In order Io IdenIIIy Ihe emIssIons reducIIons due Io wInd generaIIon
In each operaIIng area, Ihe exogenous, sIochasIIc varIaIIon In wInd
musI be examIned. The modeI beIow capIures Ihe sysIemaIIc response
oI IhermaI generaIIon emIssIons Io hourIy IIucIuaIIons In wInd
generaIIon. The modeI Is dIscussed In deIaII In Ihe appendIx under
LquaIIon 1: LmIssIons ModeI.
22

The modeI IdenIIIIes Ihe emIssIon reducIIon IhaI resuIIs Irom addIng
an IncremenIaI MWh oI wInd generaIIon Io Ihe sysIem. The modeI
IncorporaIes Ihe characIerIsIIcs oI Ihe acIuaI generaIIon sIack and
assocIaIed emIssIons, IocaI IemperaIures, day oI Ihe week, monIh and
year.

x L
IrI
= emIssIons oI poIIuIanI In regIon and IIme t
x AIpha
Ir
= consIanI regressIon Ierm Ior poIIuIanI In regIon
x BeIa
Ir
= Ihe change In emIssIons due Io a MWh change In wInd
generaIIon
x W
rI
= wInd generaIIon In MWh In regIon aI IIme t
x T
rI
= IemperaIure In degrees I In regIon aI IIme t /tI: : n ox)
o dcnnnd)
x e
IrI
= Ihe IdIosyncraIIc unobserved error Ierm
x X
I
= vecIor oI IImeconIroIIIng dummy varIabIes, represenIIng year,
monIh, day oI week and hour
The modeI resuIIs were sIaIIsIIcaIIy sIgnIIIcanI. TabIe XI3 In Ihe
appendIx reporIs Ihe summary sIaIIsIIcs ouIpuI oI each modeI across
Ihe baIancIng auIhorIIIes anaIyzed In IhIs sIudy.

22
Equation 1: Emissions Model, discussed in the Appendix
32

Emission Reduction Findings
BLNTLK esIImaIed emIssIon savIngs Ior Ihe LRCOT, BPA, CAISO and
MISO areas Ior 20082010. The resuIIs are shown In IIgure VII1 and
are compared Io Ihe asserIed savIngs IhaI wouId resuII Irom usIng
wInd IndusIry esIImaIes, whIch are generaIIy accepIed In Ihe poIIcy
communIIy.
K,2L4&'THHM()'6,/9'S&/&4#<,./'*+,--,./'0#1,/2-'3&4'567'$O'
"&44,<.4O'1-J'G1&4#2&'IJ0J'F._&4'*+,--,./-

WInd generaIIondrIven CO
!
emIssIon savIngs vary Irom 0.081 Ions per
MWh In BPA Io 1.02S Ions per MWh In MISO. NO
X
emIssIon savIngs are
beIween 0.17 pounds per MWH Io 1.99S pounds per MWh. LmIssIon
savIngs Ior SO
!
range Irom 0.008 pounds per MWh Io 4.89 pounds per
MWh. Compared Io wInd IndusIry esIImaIes, acIuaI emIssIon savIngs
are Iess Ihan expecIed.
IIgure VII1 Ieads Io Iwo overarchIng concIusIons: IIrsI, Ihe emIssIons
savIngs IhaI resuII Irom addIng an IncremenIaI MWh oI wInd vary
dependIng on Ihe power suppIy composIIIon oI Ihe servIce IerrIIory.
SavIngs are hIgher In Ihe MISO area where coaI consIIIuIes a very Iarge
porIIon oI Ihe generaIIon sIack (approxImaIeIy 80). ConverseIy, In
areas where coaI pIays a mInImaI generaIIon roIe (CAISO and BPA) an
IncremenI oI wInd generaIes very negIIgIbIe emIssIons savIngs.
4.9
2.0
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
3.7
2.3
0.8
4.1
1.7
0.9
SC2 (lbs) nCx (lbs) CC2 (Lons)
MlSC
L8CC1
CAlSC
8A
AWLA u.S. Savlngs LsLlmaLe
Average u.S. ower Lmlsslons
33

The second major concIusIon Is IhaI savIngs are reIaIIveIy smaII
compared Io oIher esIImaIes and accepIed poIIcy assumpIIons. AgaIn,
Ihe dIsparIIy Is Iess pronounced In areas such as MISO where coaI Is
more prevaIenI, buI even In MISO. SO
!
savIngs are 23 Iess Ihan
esIImaIed by Ihe AWLA approach whIIe CO
!
savIngs In MISO are
sIIghIIy hIgher Ihan expecIed usIng Ihe AWLA esIImaIIon meIhod.
The emIssIons savIngs vary sIgnIIIcanIIy Irom IerrIIory Io IerrIIory due
Io Ihe dIIIerences In Ihe generaIIon sIack beIween each IerrIIory.
IIgure VII2 pIoIs Ihe percenIage oI coaIgeneraIIon markeI share
agaInsI Ihe emIssIon savIngs Ior each IerrIIory.
K,2L4&'THHM!)'6,/9'S&/&4#<,./'*+,--,./-'0#1,/2-'1-J';.#%'
S&/&4#<,./'5#4U&<'07#4&

As Ihe percenIage oI coaI generaIIon markeI share Increases, so do Ihe
emIssIon savIngs. ThIs Is due Io more coaI generaIIon beIng oIIseI Io
aIIow Ior wInd generaIIon. However, IhIs InIeracIIon presenIs IIs own
probIems. As more coaI unIIs are cycIed, reIIabIIIIy Is degraded,
eIIIcIency decIInes and maInIenance cosIs rIse.
CoaIIIred generaIIon asseIs In Ihe MISO operaIIng area represenI 79
oI IoIaI generaIIon. WInd generaIIon mosIIy oIIseIs coaIIIred
generaIIon, whIch has hIgher emIssIons raIes Ihan naIuraI gas IIred
generaIIon. In comparIson, Ihere Is IIIIIe Io no coaIIIred generaIIon In
0
1
2
3
4
3
6
0 20 40 60 80 100
H
8
7
=
>
I
?
"
$
#
31@6#!<8<F@=718#?@FJ<=#K$@F<#
SC2
nCx
CC2
3
L
M
K
N
#
O
#
P
Q
L
#
:
R
3
N
S
#
?
M
K
N
#
34

Ihe CAISO or BPA operaIIng areas. NaIuraI gas and hydro generaIIon
unIIs are used Io accommodaIe wInd generaIIon. Due Io Ihe Iow
emIssIons raIes oI Ihese unIIs (no emIssIons In Ihe case oI hydro),
Ihere Is very IIIIIe emIssIons savIngs In BPA or CAISO. LRCOT has a
reIaIIveIy baIanced mIx oI naIuraI gas and coaI generaIIon asseIs,
whIch expIaIns why emIssIons savIngs In IhIs regIon IaII beIween Ihose
In BPA,CAISO and MISO.
WInd generaIIon emIssIon savIngs wIII IIkeIy IaII In coaIdomInaIed
areas such as MISO. LPA reguIaIIons coverIng Ihe reIease oI SO
2
, NO
X

and mercury wIII dIscourage Ihe use oI coaIIIred power pIanIs Ior
eIecIrIcIIy. ThIs InIeracIIon wIII resuII In Ihe reducIIon oI poIenIIaI
savIngs Ior wInd generaIIon as naIuraI gas unIIs are broughI onIIne Io
repIace coaIIIred generaIIon.
A suIIIcIenI amounI oI wInd generaIIon daIa Ior oIher baIancIng areas
Is unavaIIabIe. NeverIheIess, Ihe resuIIs Irom Ihe Iour regIons above
aIIow Ior a reIIabIe exIrapoIaIIon oI wIndInduced emIssIons savIngs
across Ihe remaInIng U.S. sIaIes. UnIIs oI emIssIons savIngs per MWh
are esIImaIed Ior each sIaIe usIng Ihe reIaIIonshIp deveIoped In IIgure
VII2 by usIng coaI markeI share as Ihe prImary InpuI.
23
ToIaI wInd
generaIIon daIa by sIaIe, whIch Is provIded by Ihe LIA, Is uIIIIzed In
order Io caIcuIaIe IoIaI emIssIons savIngs and emIssIons savIngs
raIes.
24

IIgure VII3 capIures Ihe acIuaI esIImaIed CO
!
emIssIons savIngs by
sIaIe durIng 2009 based on Ihe amounI oI wInd generaIIon and Ihe
coaI markeIshare reIaIIonshIp deveIoped In IIgure VII2. ThIs daIa
reIIecIs boIh capacIIy uIIIIzaIIon and wInd resource avaIIabIIIIy by
regIon.

23
E
SO2
= 6.809C
2
+ 0.769C + 0.034, E
NOX
= 2.450C
2
+ 0.134C + 0.36, E
CO2
=
0.666C
2
+ 0.537C + 0.19
24
(Department of Energy)
35

K,2L4&'THHMR)'GN<L#%';=
!
'*+,--,./-'0#1,/2-'$O'0<#<&'Z'".<#%'6,/9'
S&/&4#<,./W'!XXQ

SeveraI concIusIons can be drawn Irom IIgure VII3 where Ihe bIue
bars IndIcaIe Ihousand Ions oI CO
!
savIngs and Ihe red bars IndIcaIe
CWh oI wInd generaIIon by sIaIe In 2009. Lven Ihough IoIaI wInd
generaIIon In Iowa was 62 Iess Ihan Texas, IoIaI CO
!
savIngs were
onIy 24 Iess. ThIs Is due Io Ihe markeI share oI coaI In Iowa beIng
hIgher Ihan In Texas. The same IogIc appIIes Io CaIIIornIa and
CoIorado even Ihough Ihere Is nearIy IwIce as much wInd generaIIon
In CaIIIornIa Ihan In CoIorado, Ihe CO
!
savIngs In CaIIIornIa are haII
IhaI oI CoIorado.
UsIng Ihe approach Irom IIgure VII3 a U.S. CO
!
emIssIons savIngs raIe
can be derIved. The caIcuIaIIon sums Ihe IoIaI caIcuIaIed avoIded CO
!

emIssIons In IIgure VII3 and dIvIdes IhaI vaIue by IoIaI wInd
generaIIon across Ihe U.S. The ouIpuI oI IhIs caIcuIaIIon Is shown In
IIgure VII4.
0
3,000
10,000
13,000
20,000
23,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
3,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1
e
x
a
s
l
o
w
a
M
l
n
n
e
s
o
L
a
n
o
r
L
h

u
a
k
o
L
a
W
y
o
m
l
n
g
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
k
a
n
s
a
s
l
n
d
l
a
n
a
l
l
l
l
n
o
l
s
n
e
w

M
e
x
l
c
o
C
k
l
a
h
o
m
a
C
a
l
l
f
o
r
n
l
a
W
e
s
L

v
l
r
g
l
n
l
a
W
l
s
c
o
n
s
l
n
W
a
s
h
l
n
g
L
o
n
C
r
e
g
o
n
M
o
n
L
a
n
a
n
e
w

?
o
r
k

e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
l
a
M
l
s
s
o
u
r
l
n
e
b
r
a
s
k
a
M
l
c
h
l
g
a
n
S
o
u
L
h

u
a
k
o
L
a
!
"
$
#
1
2
#
"
7
8
B
#
!
<
8
<
F
@
=
7
1
8
#
S
1
8
>
#
1
2
#
3
N
'
#
K
@
;
7
8
9
>
#
CC2 Lmlsslons Savlngs
Wlndpower CapaclLy
36

K,2L4&'THHM])'IJ0J'*+,--,./-'0#1,/2-'3&4'567'.8'6,/9'S&/&4#<,./'1-J'
G1&4#2&'IJ0J'F._&4'*+,--,./-

These resuIIs ImpIy IhaI CO
!
, SO
!
and NO
C
esIImaIIons Irom some
prevIous sIudIes are Iar above Ihe acIuaI savIngs raIes. The naIIonaI
averages aIso mask Ihe IacI IhaI emIssIons savIngs vary wIdeIy by
regIon due Io Ihe Iype oI generaIIon In each regIon. LnvIronmenIaI
pIanners musI undersIand IhIs as pIans Io meeI emIssIons goaIs are
ouIIIned.
The CO
!
emIssIons reducIIon aspecIs oI IhIs sIudy suggesI IhaI goaIs
oI envIronmenIaI pIanners can be meI Ihrough currenI generaIIon
IechnoIogIes, IncIudIng repIacIng coaIIIred generaIIon wIIh naIuraI
gas. Based on acIuaI emIssIons Irom coaI and gas pIanIs across Ihe
U.S., IIgure VIIS capIures Ihe average CO
!
emIssIons raIe oI coaIIIred
generaIIon and naIuraI gasIIred combIned cycIe generaIIon.
2.2
1.1
0.6
3.7
2.3
0.8
4.1
1.7
0.9
SC2 (lbs) nCx (lbs) CC2 (Lons)
8Ln1Lk Savlngs LsLlmaLe
AWLA Savlngs LsLlmaLe
Average u.S. ower Lmlsslons
37

K,2L4&'THHMV)';=
!
'*+,--,./-'>#<&-'.8';.#%'#/9'B#<L4#%'S#-
;.+$,/&9';ON%&'S&/&4#<,./

The dIIIerence beIween Ihe CO
!
emIssIons raIe oI coaI and gas
combIned cycIe IacIIIIIes Is 0.6 Ions,MWh. RepIacIng coaIIIred
generaIIon wIIh naIuraI gas combIned cycIe generaIIon wouId resuII In
Ihe same CO
!
emIssIons savIngs raIe as Ihe naIIonaI average Ior wInd
generaIIon.










!

1.1
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Coal CeneraLlon
CC2 8aLe
Cas CC CeneraLlon
CC2 8aLe
S
1
8
>
I
?
"
$
#
38

VIII. The Costs of Wind Generation


"Tnd cncg) cn:) co:t: noc tInn t )cd:, not on) n
nonctn) tcn:, ut n:o n non-:u:tnnnc cncg) u:c
nnd tIu: t \ cn:) nccn:c ntIc tInn dcccn:c CO
!

cn::on:.
25
- I. dc Coot & C. c In
AIIhough Ihe emIssIons beneIIIs Irom wInd are quanIIIIabIe, Ihe cosIs
are more dIIIIcuII Io ascerIaIn. In Ihe end, raIepayers are payIng Ior
Ihese cosIs eIIher Ihrough IederaI or IocaI Iax mandaIes or eIecIrIcIIy
raIe Increases, oIIen boIh. These cosIs need Io be undersIood by
poIIcymakers who mandaIe Ihe use oI renewabIe energy and by Ihe
uIIIIIIes IhaI pIan Ior Ihe InIegraIIon oI Ihese asseIs. AccordIng Io Ihe
anaIysIs conducIed above, Ihe emIssIons savIngs IhaI resuII Irom
usIng wInd In Ihe BPA, CAISO, LRCOT and MISO are mInImaI. The
quesIIon addressed In IhIs chapIer Is wheIher Ihey are suIIIcIenI Io
jusIIIy IheIr cosIs sImpIy deIIned as Ihe underIyIng ProducIIon Tax
CredII oIIered by Ihe IederaI governmenI. Use oI wInd energy enIaIIs
many oIher cosIs and Ihese wIII be dIscussed In IhIs chapIer as weII.
However, concIusIve daIa on Ihese cosIs oIher Ihan Ihe ProducIIon
Tax CredII Is noI avaIIabIe aI IhIs IIme.
Renewable Electricity Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC)
IederaI mandaIes have encouraged Ihe growIh oI Ihe U.S. renewabIe
energy secIor Ihrough Iax breaks and subsIdIes. One oI Ihe mosI
InIIuenIIaI mandaIes Is Ihe RenewabIe LIecIrIcIIy IederaI ProducIIon
Tax CredII (PTC). LnacIed In 1992, IhIs Iax credII oIIers renewabIe
operaIors Iax credIIs Ior Ihe amounI oI eIecIrIcIIy generaIIon on a per
unII basIs. WInd, geoIhermaI and cIosedIoop bIomass generaIIon
IacIIIIIes receIve a Iax credII oI 2.2 cenIs per kWh generaIed
(S22,MWh). OIher eIIgIbIe IechnoIogIes receIve 1.1 cenIs per kWh. ThIs
credII appIIes Io boIh commercIaI and IndusIrIaI secIors. In order Io
be eIIgIbIe Ior Ihe Iax credII, operaIors musI have begun consIrucIIon
oI Ihe IacIIIIy beIore Dec. 31, 2013. OperaIors are compensaIed

25
(Pair, 2009)
39

Ihrough IhIs credII Ior Ihe IIrsI 10 years aIIer Ihe daIe Ihe IacIIIIy goes
InIo servIce.
26

MonIhIy wInd generaIIon daIa Irom Ihe LIA combIned wIIh Ihe Iax
credII aIIows Ior a hIghIeveI undersIandIng oI Ihe monIhIy cosI Io
subsIdIze wInd generaIIon across Ihe U.S. IIgure VIII1 shows IhIs daIa
on a monIhIy basIs In mIIIIons oI doIIars. SInce |anuary 2001, wInd
generaIIon operaIors have receIved a IoIaI oI more Ihan S11 bIIIIon In
IederaIIy subsIdIzed compensaIIon. In Ihe earIy sIages oI Ihe program,
monIhIy cosIs Io Ihe governmenI were IypIcaIIy beIow S20 mIIIIon and
on an average basIs ranged Irom S13 mIIIIon Io S22 mIIIIon. By 2010,
however, Ihe program cosI Increased wIIh a IoIaI annuaI expendIIure
oI S3.2 bIIIIon. II Is ImporIanI Io recognIze IhaI Ihese cosIs buIId upon
IhemseIves because Ihe subsIdy exIends Ior 10 years Irom Ihe daIe
Ihe pIanI becomes operaIIonaI.
K,2L4&'THHHM()'G//L#%';.-<'.8'K&9&4#%'F4.9LN<,./'"#`';4&9,<'8.4'6,/9'
S&/&4#<,./

Implied Costs of Saving CO
!
through Wind Generation
SeveraI IegIsIaIIve eIIorIs over Ihe pasI Iwo years have aIIempIed Io
IImII Ihe amounI oI CO
!
emIssIons Irom sIaIIonary sources and Io
creaIe a markeI In whIch CO
!
can be Iraded. RecenI eIIorIs IncIude Ihe
WaxmanMarkey bIII proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman (DCA) and Ld
Markey (DMA). The bIII was passed by Ihe U.S. House oI

26
(DSIRE, 2010)
$0
$300
$1,000
$1,300
$2,000
$2,300
$3,000
$3,300
?
7
6
6
7
1
8
>
#
40

RepresenIaIIves In |une 2009. AnoIher bIII was proposed by Sens. |ohn
Kerry (DMA) and |oe LIeberman (ICT). The goaI oI Ihese IegIsIaIIve
eIIorIs was Io reduce Ihe amounI oI carbon emIssIons In Ihe U.S. by
ImposIng addIIIonaI cosIs on carbonInIensIve IndusIrIes.
The cosI per Ion oI carbon dIoxIde was aIso IorecasIed In Ihese bIIIs.
LsIImaIes suggesIed IhaI one Ion oI CO
2
wouId IIkeIy be prIced
beIween S11S1S In 2012 and S22S28 In 202S. These raIes wouId
Increase Ihe cosI oI eIecIrIcIIy, buI wouId IIkeIy decrease Ihe amounI
oI CO
2
emIIIed annuaIIy by eIecIrIcIIy generaIors. Our anaIysIs shows
Ihe cosI Io reduce one Ion oI CO
!
Ihrough wInd generaIIon Is
sIgnIIIcanIIy hIgher Ihan Ihe cosIs sIIpuIaIed In Ihe capandIrade
IegIsIaIIve eIIorIs.
CurrenIIy, Ihe PTC oIIers a Iax credII oI S22 per MWh Io wInd
generaIIon operaIors. Because IhIs Is a Iax credII, Ihe Irue cosI oI Ihe
subsIdy shouId be evaIuaIed as preIax. To do IhIs Ihe S22,MWh vaIue
needs Io be dIvIded by one, mInus Ihe Iax raIe (3S), or 6S. The
resuIIIng preIax vaIue oI Ihe producIIon Iax credII Is ~S34 per MWh.
II wInd generaIIon oIIseIs 1 Ion oI CO
!
per MWh, Ihen Ihe cosI oI
reducIng CO
!
emIssIons by one Ion Is S34. In order Io esIImaIe Ihe
cosI Io reduce 1 Ion oI CO
!
wIIh wInd generaIIon, Ihe savIngs raIe oI
CO
!
emIssIons In each IerrIIory Is appIIed Io Ihe cosI oI Ihe PTC.
IIgure VIII2 capIures IhIs daIa Ior each regIon.
K,2L4&'THHHM!)'0.N,#%';.-<'<.'=88-&<'('"./'.8';X!'<74.L27'6,/9'
S&/&4#<,./

$42.30
$33.01
$36.44
$70.83
$113.71
$419.73
$-
$30
$100
$130
$200
$230
$300
$330
$400
$430
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
AWLA MlSC u.S. Avg L8CC1 CAlSC 8A
T
I
S
1
8
#
1
2
#
3
N
'
#
?
"
$
#
Wlnd CeneraLlon needed
41

The cosI Io reduce one Ion oI CO
!
emIssIons In LRCOT Ihrough wInd
generaIIon Is S70. ThIs drops Io S33 In MISO, Increases Io S114 In
CAISO and Iops ouI aI S420 In BPA. On average, Ihe cosI oI oIIseIIIng
CO
!
Ihrough Ihe producIIon Iax credII Is SS6 per Ion. These cosIs Iar
exceed Ihe cosIs per Ion oI CO
!
sIIpuIaIed by any oI Ihe recenI carbon
cap IegIsIaIIon.
ThIs anaIysIs IndIcaIes IhaI II Is noI cosIeIIecIIve Io reduce CO
!

emIssIons usIng wInd generaIIon II carbon Is vaIued aI Ihe raIes
proposed by Ihe WaxmanMarkey IegIsIaIIon. Carbon musI be vaIued
S0100 hIgher In MISO Ior wInd power Io be a cosIeIIecIIve
aIIernaIIve. In BPA, carbon musI be vaIued nearIy 13 IImes hIgher Ihan
Ihe 202S maxImum carbon prIce proposed In Waxman Markey Ior
wInd Io be cosI eIIecIIve.
Other Wind Generation Cost Components
SeveraI sIudIes have cIIed numerous addIIIonaI cosIs IhaI are noI
generaIIy quanIIIIed or dIscussed when caIcuIaIIng Ihe cosI oI wInd
generaIIon. The daIa Io properIy quanIIIy Ihese cosIs Is noI avaIIabIe
Io Ihe pubIIc, and uIIIIIIes are askIng Ior raIe Increases Io cover many
oI Ihese unexpecIed cosIs.
x H/N4&#-&9' 5#,/<&/#/N&' ;.-<-' aL&' <.' ;ON%,/2J' CycIIng coaI and
naIuraI gas power unIIs aIso ImpacIs maInIenance and oIher
operaIIng cosIs, In addIIIon Io eIIIcIency degradaIIon durIng
operaIIon. ThIs Is parIIcuIarIy damagIng Ior coaI pIanIs, whIch are
noI desIgned Io be cycIed aI a hIgh raIe and magnIIude. The cosIs
assocIaIed wIIh cycIIng power pIanIs In response Io varIabIe
generaIIon ouIpuI Irom wInd asseIs Is noI weII undersIood by
uIIIIIIes currenIIy InIegraIIng wInd generaIIon InIo IheIr generaIIon
porIIoIIos. II Is wIdeIy undersIood IhaI Ihere Is a posIIIve, IInear
reIaIIonshIp beIween sysIem cosIs and Ihe Irequency oI unII
cycIIng. The cosIs oI InIegraIIng wInd generaIIon due Io cycIIng
wIII conIInue Io rIse, and Ihe cosI wIII IIkeIy be passed on Io Ihe
raIepayer.

x KL&%' ;.-<-' aL&' <.' E#NUL3' S&/&4#<,./. Many sIudIes have noIed
Ihe necessIIy oI backup generaIIon sources Io aIIow Ior Ihe
unpredIcIabIe naIure oI wInd generaIIon. These backup sources
42

are IhermaI IacIIIIIes IhaI are kepI In sIandby mode In order Io
reacI wIIhIn seconds Io changes In wInd generaIIon. However, IueI
Is requIred Io keep Ihese resources avaIIabIe, Ihereby generaIIng
emIssIons Io aIIow Ior wInd generaIIon (BeensIock,
27
Puga
28
). As
wInd generaIIon capacIIy conIInues Io Increase, more backup
generaIIon asseIs wIII be needed Io keep Ihe grId In baIance. WhIIe
IhIs IIkeIy wIII be a IInear reIaIIonshIp, II Is an IncremenIaI cosI Io
wInd generaIIon.

x H/N4&+&/<#%'K%&`,$%&';#3#N,<O';.-<-J'IIexIbIe generaIIon capacIIy
Is a necessIIy Ior wInd generaIIon operaIors IhaI Iack access Io
exIernaI eIecIrIcIIy markeIs Io purchase power In an ondemand
scenarIo. PSCo In CoIorado Is IncreasIngIy IIndIng IIseII In IhIs
sIIuaIIon. In IesIImony gIven In |une 2008 Io Ihe CoIorado PubIIc
UIIIIIIes CommIssIon, Thomas ImbIer, presIdenI oI CommercIaI
OperaIIons Ior PSCo, noIed IhaI, "We may reach a saIuraIIon poInI
In whIch addIIIonaI wInd IurbInes exceed Ihe capacIIy oI our
IhermaI unIIs Io compensaIe Ior a rapId reducIIon In wInd
producIIon."
29
In order Io IncorporaIe sIgnIIIcanI amounIs oI wInd
generaIIon, PSCo beIIeves IhaI eIIher currenI generaIIon unIIs wIII
have Io be aIIered Io have hIgher rampIng capabIIIIIes or new
generaIIon asseIs wIIh hIgh rampIng abIIIIIes wIII have Io be buIII
In order Io compensaIe Ior Ihe varIabIIIIy In wInd generaIIon.

x B&2#<,1&' *%&N<4,N,<O' F4,N&-J' VoIaIIIe suppIy oI any commodIIy
creaIes voIaIIIe prIces. ThIs Is happenIng In Ihe WesI prIcIng zone
oI LRCOT as wInd generaIIon has been InIroduced. However, In
IhIs case, Ihere Is such oversuppIy IhaI eIecIrIcIIy prIces acIuaIIy
go negaIIve Ior Iong perIods oI IIme. IIgure VIII3 capIures
LRCOT's Iour prIcIng zones May 2123, 2009, and Ihe hourIy wInd
generaIIon IhaI accompanIed Ihe prIcIng scenarIos.

27
(Beenstock, 1995)
28
(Puga, 2010)
29
(Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits of Thomas A. Imbler on Behalf of Public
Service Company of Colorado, 2008)
43

K,2L4&'THHHMR)'*%&N<4,N,<O'F4,N&-'#/9'6,/9'S&/&4#<,./',/'*>;="W'5#O'
!XXQ

SuppIy oI wInd generaIIon on May 21 and May 22 was aI such
hIgh IeveIs IhaI II caused Ihe WesI LRCOT prIcIng poInI Io go
negaIIve. Ior hours aI a IIme prIces were susIaInabIy near
S30,MWh. AI one poInI on May 21, wInd generaIIon suppIy
subsIded, causIng prIces Io reIurn Io a normaI range. As wInd
generaIIon dIed IhroughouI May 22 and 23, WesI prIces reIurned
Io a normaI IeveI, prIced aI parIIy wIIh Ihe NorIh and SouIh zones
Ior Ihe remaInder oI Ihe IIme serIes.
PrIces go negaIIve because oI Ihe IederaI ProducIIon Tax CredII
IhaI operaIors receIve. NoIIce IhaI Ihe hourIy seIIIe prIce In Ihe
WesI does noI devIaIe Iar Irom S30,MWh, whIch Is Ihe IaxIree
adjusIed amounI IhaI wInd generaIIon operaIors receIve per
MWh.
The Irequency oI negaIIve prIcIng Increased as Ihe InsIaIIed
capacIIy oI wInd generaIIon rose beIween 2006 and 2010. IIgure
VIII4 pIoIs Ihe number oI hours when prIces averaged Iess Ihan
S0.00,MWh aI Ihe LRCOT WesI prIcIng poInI on an annuaI basIs.
InsIaIIed wInd generaIIon capacIIy In LRCOT Is aIso pIoIIed.
0
300
1,000
1,300
2,000
2,300
3,000
3,300
-$40
-$20
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
0 3 6 9 12131821 0 3 6 9 12131821 0 3 6 9 12131821
21 22 23
?
"
$
#
1
2
#
"
7
8
B
#
!
<
8
<
F
@
=
7
1
8
#
T
I
?
"
$
#
Wlnd CeneraLlon PousLon norLh SouLh WesL
44

K,2L4&'THHHM])'*>;="'6&-<'B&2#<,1&'F4,N&'K4&bL&/NO'1-J'H/-<#%%&9'
6,/9';#3#N,<O

As InsIaIIed wInd capacIIy rose beIween 2006 and 2010 so dId Ihe
Irequency oI negaIIve prIcIng occurrences. ThIs shouId conIInue
goIng Iorward and be more wIdespread because oI Ihe nodaI
markeI IhaI Is In pIace.
NegaIIve prIces do noI supporI compeIIIIve markeIs. QuanIIIyIng
Ihe cosI oI IhIs ImpacI Is dIIIIcuII as II aIIecIs Ihe enIIre LRCOT
power sysIem. LIecIrIcIIy prIces In generaI are sIgnaIs Io
consumers and InvesIors. LRCOT wIII be chaIIenged Io aIIracI
poIenIIaI generaIIon asseI InvesIors wIIh negaIIve prIces In Ihe
regIon. ThIs Is a sIgnaI Io boIh wInd Iarm and IhermaI pIanI
buIIders IhaI Ihe LRCOT markeI may noI be as proIIIabIe as once
IhoughI.
x "4#/-+,--,./' %,/&-J' TypIcaIIy, power generaIIon sources are
pIaced In areas where Ihe unIIs are abIe Io serve cerIaIn IocaI
demand. However, as LasI Shore ParIners noIes, "PrIme wInd
InsIaIIaIIon IocaIIons are aIso oIIen Iar away Irom Ioad cenIers
(consumpIIon areas), resuIIIng In maIerIaI IncremenIaI
IransmIssIon consIrucIIon cosIs Ior II Io be uIIIIzed (as opposed Io
repowerIng exIsIIng, oIder IacIIIIIes). AI S4SS mIIIIon per mIIe, or
more, IhIs represenIs a major IncremenIaI cosI IhaI wouId be
mosIIy avoIded II a uIIIIIy were abIe Io InsIead opI Ior repowerIng
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
"
7
8
B
#
!
<
8
<
F
@
=
7
1
8
#
3
@
A
@
5
7
=
4
#
U
?
"
V
#
W
<
9
@
=
7
;
<
#
Q
F
7
5
7
8
9
#
X
F
<
Y
E
<
8
5
4
#
lrequency
CapaclLy
lorecasL CapaclLy
45

exIsIIng generaIIon."
30
These cosIs wouId be massIve Ior regIons
requIred Io meeI renewabIe energy sIandards buI wIIh Iew
domesIIc resources avaIIabIe.
Lven In sIaIes such as Texas, whIch has proIIIIc wInd resources,
Ihere are IransmIssIon probIems. In a IransmIssIon sIudy
conducIed In 2007, LRCOT Iound IhaI, "The conIInued rapId
Increase In Ihe InsIaIIaIIon oI new wInd generaIIon In WesI Texas
Is expecIed Io resuII In congesIIon on muIIIpIe consIraInIs and
WesI Io NorIh IransIers unIII new buIk IransmIssIon IInes are
added beIween WesI Texas and Ihe resI oI Ihe LRCOT sysIem.
NearIy aII oI Ihe anIIcIpaIed congesIIon In Ihe WesI weaIher zone
Is assocIaIed wIIh Ihe massIve Increase In wInd generaIIon
capacIIy In LRCOT."
31
LsIImaIed cosIs Ior Ihe IransmIssIon
projecIs range beIween S2.9S bIIIIon Ior 12,0S3 MW oI wInd
generaIIon capacIIy and S6.38 bIIIIon Ior 24,8S9 MW oI wInd
generaIIon capacIIy.
32

The cosIs per MWh Ior Ihese IransmIssIon InsIaIIaIIons can be
caIcuIaIed. AssumIng IhaI Ihe uIIIIzaIIon raIe oI wInd In LRCOT Is
30 and Ihere Is a 20year IIIespan oI Ihe InsIaIIed capacIIy:
12,0S3 MW * 30 uIIIIzaIIon * 24 hours * 36S days * 20
years = 633,S0S,680 MWh oI wInd generaIIon
S2,9S0,000,000,633,S0S,680 MWh = S4.66,MWh oI
wInd
24,8S9 MW * 30 uIIIIzaIIon * 24 hours * 36S days * 20
years = 1,306,S89,040 MWh oI wInd generaIIon
6,380,000,000,1,306,S89,040 MWh = S4.88,MWh oI
wInd
BeIween Ihe Iow and hIgh case Ior wInd capacIIy and IransmIssIon
cosIs, Ihe IncremenIaI cosI oI wInd generaIIon due Io IransmIssIon
IInes aIone In LRCOT Is beIween S4.66,MWh and S4.88,MWh.



30
(East Shore Partners, Inc., 2010)
31
(ERCOT, 2007)
32
(ERCOT, 2008)
46

IX. Conclusion

The resuIIs oI IhIs sIudy suggesI IhaI wInd energy consIIIuIes a
sIgnIIIcanI paradox: CeneraIIon oI power Irom wInd, per se, yIeIds no
emIssIons. However, InIegraIIon oI wInd power InIo a number oI
compIex uIIIIIy sysIems has Ied Io IIIIIe or no emIssIons reducIIons on
Ihose sysIems, and has sIgnIIIcanIIy Increased cosIs Io power
producers, grId operaIors and eIecIrIcIIy consumers.
SeveraI specIIIc concIusIons can be drawn Irom IhIs research.
1. UIIIIIIes are Iorced Io cycIe coaI and naIuraI gasIIred generaIIon
capacIIy In order Io accommodaIe InIermIIIenI wInd generaIIon.
CycIIng sIgnIIIcanIIy decreases eIIIcIency aI Ihe IacIIIIIes,
Ihereby IncreasIng Ihe emIssIons raIes.
2. LmIssIons savIngs due Io wInd generaIIon vary by IerrIIory and
are heavIIy dependenI on whaI Iype oI IueI Is beIng oIIseI by
wInd generaIIon. In Ihe case oI BPA, hydro generaIIon Is oIIseI
by wInd generaIIon. As Ihere are no assocIaIed emIssIons wIIh
hydro, very IIIIIe emIssIons are saved Ihrough wInd generaIIon
In IhIs area. An operaIIng area where coaI IueIs a hIgher
proporIIon oI IIs generaIIon base, such as MISO, achIeves more
emIssIons savIngs beneIIIs by usIng more wInd.
3. II a Ion oI carbon Is vaIued aI Ihe IeveIs assocIaIed wIIh Ihe
IegIsIaIIon proposed by WaxmanMarkey and LIeberman, none oI
Ihe regIons observed In IhIs sIudy saved enough CO
2
by
subsIIIuIIng wInd generaIIon Ior hydrocarbon generaIIon Io
achIeve a posIIIve per Ion oI carbon reduced cosI. In aII regIons,
pIacIng a vaIue equaI Io Ihe ProducIIon Tax CredII oI S22 per
MWh produced on Ihe generaIIon needed Io save one Ion oI CO
!
,
yIeIds a IoIaI cosI oI carbon reducIIon weII In excess oI SS0 per
Ion.
4. The same CO
!
beneIIIs IhaI wInd generaIIon currenIIy achIeves
aIso can be meI by reIIrIng coaI IacIIIIIes wIIh naIuraI gas. The
dIIIerence In Ihe CO
!
emIssIons raIe beIween coaI and gasIIred
IacIIIIIes Is Ihe same as Ihe acIuaI emIssIons savIngs Irom
47

currenIIy InsIaIIed wInd power across Ihe naIIon, or abouI 0.6
Ions,MWh CO
!
. The economIcs and reIIabIIIIy oI naIuraI gas
IIred generaIIon suggesI IhaI achIevIng CO
!
emIssIons
reducIIons Ihrough reIIrIng coaI pIanIs wIIh naIuraI gas Is more
IavorabIe Ihan usIng wInd generaIIon. SwIIchIng Io gas avoIds
many oI Ihe cosIs assocIaIed wIIh wInd, IncIudIng IransmIssIon,
bIIIIons oI doIIars In Iax credIIs, maInIenance cosIs due Io
cycIIng and oIher varIabIes menIIoned above.
S. As naIuraI gas markeI share conIInues Io eaI away aI coaIIIred
generaIIon, Ihe poIenIIaI emIssIons savIngs due Io Increased
wInd generaIIon wIII decIIne. The convergence oI Iow, sIabIe
naIuraI gas prIces, IncreasIng coaI cosIs and ImpendIng LPA
envIronmenIaI IegIsIaIIon IhaI wIII IIghIen SO
!
, NO
X
, mercury
and oIher emIssIons wIII Increase Ihe markeI share oI naIuraI
gasIIred generaIIon across Ihe U.S. As IhIs happens, IoIaI power
generaIIonreIaIed emIssIons raIes wIII decIIne. As Ihe
generaIIon share assocIaIed wIIh gas Increases, Ihe CO
!
savIngs
assocIaIed wIIh an IncremenIaI MWh oI wInd wIII decIIne and
Ihe cosI oI usIng wInd Io achIeve Ihe savIngs wIII Increase. WInd
wIII become an IncreasIngIy expensIve way Io reduce emIssIons.
6. II appears IhaI many oI Ihe IederaI and sIaIe poIIcy eIIorIs Io
reduce CO
!
and oIher emIssIons Irom power pIanIs are based on
modeIs IhaI do noI presenI an accuraIe pIcIure oI Ihe cosI oI
wInd generaIIon. The InIermIIIenI naIure oI wInd energy causes
uIIIIIIes Io cycIe oIher hydrocarbonbased generaIIon unIIs,
Ihereby reducIng Ihe savIngs poIenIIaI Irom wInd. WInd can
onIy be an eIIecIIve IooI Io reduce emIssIons II II Is deveIoped
on a scaIe IhaI enabIes II Io become a baseIoad IechnoIogy, and
Ihus enabIes uIIIIIIes Io do away wIIh IheIr hydrocarbonIueIed
capacIIy whIIe producIng reIIabIe power Ior IheIr cusIomers.
PoIIcymakers musI reIy on resuIIs and anaIysIs oI acIuaI
emIssIons and oIher power daIa raIher Ihan on modeIed
esIImaIes and assumpIIons. MakIng poIIcy based on modeIed
daIa and assumpIIons hInders or prevenIs Ihe energy IndusIry
Irom aIIaInIng cIean aIr goaIs whIIe aIso raIsIng cosIs Ior energy
consumers and power companIes.
48

X. Works Cited

The works cIIed secIIon conIaIns pubIIcaIIons whIch were heIpIuI In
boIh IdenIIIyIng Ihe reIaIIonshIps presenIed hereIn and supporIIng
concIusIons drawn IhroughouI Ihe sIudy.

RebuIIaI TesIImony and LxhIbIIs oI Thomas A. ImbIer on BehaII oI PubIIc ServIce
Company oI CoIorado, 07A447L (PubIIc UIIIIIIes CommIssIon oI Ihe SIaIe oI
CoIorado 6 9, 2008).
AmerIcan WInd Lnergy AssocIaIIon. (2011). Tnd Tunc: nnd HcntI. ReIrIeved
4,12,2011, Irom awea.org:
hIIp:,,awea.org,IearnabouI,pubIIcaIIons,Ioader.cIm7csModuIe=securIIy,geII
IIe&PageID=4140
ApIech LngIneerIng. (2011). Co:t Ann):: nnd Co:t-n:cd Io\c Innt A::ct
Mnnngcncnt - TIcnn Io\c Innt C)cng Co:t:. ApIech LngIneerIng.
ApIech. (n.d.). Intcgntng Tnd: Co:t o C)cng Ann):: o Hnngton 5tnton Unt
3 IIn:c 1: To-Io\n Ann)::. ReIrIeved 10,26,2010, Irom
hIIp:,,www.bIanksIaIecommunIcaIIons.com,Images,ApIech
HarrIngIonSIaIIon.pdI
AWLA. (2009). 2 U.5. Tnd Indu:t) Annun Mnct Icot: Innng:. ReIrIeved
Irom AWLA:
hIIp:,,www.awea.org,pubs,IacIsheeIs,IndusIryRankIngsIacIsheeI.pdI
AWLA. (2010). Aout ATIA. ReIrIeved 11,22,2010, Irom AWLA:
hIIp:,,www.awea.org,IaabouIawea.cIm
AWLA. (2010). TInt nc tIc cn\onncntn cnct: o \nd o\c. ReIrIeved 10,24,
2010, Irom AWLA.org: hIIp:,,awea.org,Iaq,wwIenvIronmenI.hImI#WhaI are
Ihe envIronmenIaI beneIIIs oI wInd power
AWLA. (n.d.). Cnntc CInngc Inct 5Icct. ReIrIeved 11 24, 2010, Irom AWLA:
hIIp:,,www.awea.org,documenIs,IacIsheeIs,CIImaIeChange.pdI
BeensIock, M. (199S). The sIochasIIc economIcs oI wIndpower. Incg) Icononc: 17,
2737.
BPA. (2009). Inct Ioc:. ReIrIeved Irom bpa.gov:
hIIp:,,www.bpa.gov,corporaIe,abouIBPA,IacIs,IacIDocs,2009BPAIacIs.
pdI
49

CaIIaway, D. a. (2009). CovernmenI SupporI Ior InIermIIIenI RenewabIe CeneraIIon
TechnoIogIes. MIT Icntncnt o Icononc:, Tong Inc.
CampbeII, A. (2008, 11 21). Hot A? TIcn Co\cnncnt 5uot o Intcnttcnt
Icnc\nc TccInoogc: cnn Inccn:c In::on:. ReIrIeved 11 4, 2010, Irom
hIIp:,,www.wIndwaIch.org,documenIs,wpconIenI,upIoads,campbeIIhoI
aIr.pdI
CuIIen, |. (2010). TInt': o\cng \nd? Mcn:ung tIc cn\onncntn nttutc: o
\nd-gcncntcd ccctct). WorkIng Paper.
DanIeI KaIIIne, BrannIn McBee and |ozeI LIeskovsky. 'LmIssIons savIngs Irom wInd
power generaIIon: LvIdence Irom Texas, CaIIIornIa and Ihe Upper MIdwesI' , 2011.
DeparImenI oI Lnergy. (n.d.). IIA Icctc Io\c Annun Icot, IIA-U, IIA-2 nnd
IIA-23. ReIrIeved 1 S, 2011, Irom www.eIa.gov:
hIIp:,,www.eIa.gov,cneaI,eIecIrIcIIy,epa,epa sprdshIs.hImI
DSIRL. (2010, S 4). Icnc\nc Icctct) Ioducton Tnx Ccdt. ReIrIeved 11,3,2010,
Irom DaIabase oI SIaIe IncenIIves Ior RenewabIes & LIIIcIency:
hIIp:,,www.dsIreusa.org,IncenIIves,IncenIIve.cIm7IncenIIveCode=US13I&re
=1&ee=1
LasI Shore ParIners, Inc. (2010, 9 22). The HIdden CosI oI WInd CeneraIIon: II'II BIow
You Away. Hauppauge, NY, U.S.
Lnergy, D. o. (n.d.). Icctc Io\c Annun 2 - 5tntc Intn Tnc:. ReIrIeved 10,2S,
2010, Irom LIA:
hIIp:,,www.eIa.doe.gov,cneaI,eIecIrIcIIy,epa,epasprdshIs.hImI
Lnergy, D. o. (n.d.). Icctc Io\c MontI) 2 - MontI) Intn Tnc:. ReIrIeved
10,2S,2010, Irom LIA:
hIIp:,,www.eIa.doe.gov,cneaI,eIecIrIcIIy,epa,epasprdshIsmonIhIy.hImI
Lnergy, D. o. (n.d.). Ictn 5nc: o Icctct) to Utnntc Cu:tonc:. ReIrIeved 10,2S,
2010, Irom LIA: hIIp:,,www.eIa.doe.gov,cneaI,eIecIrIcIIy,epm,IabIeS1.hImI
Lnergy, D. o. (n.d.). 5tntc: \tI Icnc\nc Iotoo 5tnndnd:. ReIrIeved 10,2S,
2010, Irom Lnergy.Cov:
hIIp:,,apps1.eere.energy.gov,sIaIes,maps,renewabIeporIIoIIosIaIes.cIm#
map
LRCOT. (2007, December). 27 IICOT Tnn:n::on Con:tnnt: Nccd: Icot.
ReIrIeved 11,4,2010, Irom LRCOT:
hIIp:,,www.ercoI.com,news,presenIaIIons,2008,3S171LRCOT2007Trans
mIssIonConsIraInIsNeedsReporI.pdI
LRCOT. (2008, AprII 02). IICOT Ic: Tnd Tnn:n::on Oton: \tI Conn::on.
ReIrIeved 11,4,2010, Irom LRCOT:
hIIp:,,www.ercoI.com,news,pressreIeases,2008,nr040208
50

LRCOT. (n.d.). Icnnnd nnd Incg). ReIrIeved 10,26,2010, Irom LRCOT:
hIIp:,,pIannIng.ercoI.com,reporIs,demandenergy,
CaIbraIIh, K. (2008, |uIy 19). Tcxn: Ao\c: n 14.3 on Tnd-Io\c Io]cct.
ReIrIeved 11,2,2010 Irom The New York TImes:
hIIp:,,www.nyIImes.com,2008,07,19,busIness,19wInd.hImI
House oI RepresenIaIIves. (2009, AprII 22). Tc:tnon)odc. ReIrIeved 11,22,2010,
Irom energycommerce.house.gov:
hIIp:,,energycommerce.house.gov,Press111,20090422,IesIImonybode.pdI
LIIk, O. R. (2003). LsIImaIIon oI reaI emIssIons reducIIon caused by wInd generaIors.
Intcnntonn Incg) To:Io.
Moore, M. C. (2010). MarkeIs Ior renewabIe energy and poIIuIIon emIssIons:
LnvIronmenIaI cIaIms, emIssIonsreducIIon accounIIng, and producI
decoupIIng. Incg) Ioc).
NaIIonaI RenewabIe Lnergy Lab. (2010). Tc:tcn Tnd Intcgnton Icot. Denver:
NaIIonaI RenewabIe Lnergy Lab.
NCAR. (2010, S 11). Xcc Incg) Io]cct O\c\c\. ReIrIeved 11,2,2010 Irom
hIIp:,,raI.ucar.edu,projecIs,wIndenergyworkshop,presenIaIIons,XceILne
rgyProjecIOvervIew|ohnsonS.pdI
Novan, K. M. (2010). ShIIIIng wInd: The economIcs oI movIng subsIdIes Irom power
produced Io emIssIons avoIded. Tong Inc.
NRLL. (2007). NIII. ReIrIeved 12,S,2010, Irom WInd Lnergy and AIr LmIssIon
ReducIIon BeneIIIs: hIIp:,,www.nreI.gov,wInd,pdIs,42616.pdI
NRLL. (n.d.). Tnd Mn:. ReIrIeved 10,2S,2010, Irom WInd PowerIng AmerIca:
hIIp:,,www.wIndpowerIngamerIca.gov,wIndmaps.asp
NRLL. (n.d.). Tnd Iotcntn M. ReIrIeved 10,2S,2010, Irom WInd PowerIng
AmerIca:
hIIp:,,www.wIndpowerIngamerIca.gov,docs,wIndpoIenIIaI80m30percenI.
xIsx
O. LIIk, R. O. (2003, |une 2426). LsIImaIIon oI reaI emIssIons reducIIon caused by
wInd generaIors. Intcnntonn Incg) To:Io.
PaIr, K. D. (2009, 12 18). Hddcn uc co:t: o \nd gcncntcd ccctct). ReIrIeved
11,3,2010, Irom WIndWaIch: hIIp:,,www.wInd
waIch.org,documenIs,hIddenIueIcosIsoIwIndgeneraIedeIecIrIcIIy,
PubIIc UIIIIIy CommIssIon oI Texas. (2010, 3 30). Iuc Iotc: nnd tIc Ioc o
Conctton. ReIrIeved 2,11,2011, Irom Texas SIaIe PUC:
hIIp:,,www.puc.sIaIe.Ix.us,abouI,commIssIoners,smIIherman,presenI,pp,K
LMA033010.pdI
51

Puga, |. (2010). The ImporIance oI CombIned CycIe CeneraIIng PIanIs In InIegraIIng
Large LeveIs oI WInd Power CeneraIIon. TIc Icctct) ]ounn.
TrebIIcock, M. (2009). 5cnng TutI to Tnd Io\c. CD Howe InsIIIuIe.
XCLL Lnergy. (2008, 12 1). 2 TInd Intcgnton Tcnn Inn Icot. ReIrIeved 11,2,
2010, Irom XceI Lnergy:
hIIp:,,www.xceIenergy.com,SIIeCoIIecIIonDocumenIs,docs,CRPWIndInIegraI
IonSIudyIInaIReporI.pdI
!

52

XI. APPENDIX
"#$%&'CHM()'B>*P'*-<,+#<&9'F.<&/<,#%'6,/9'"L4$,/&';#3#N,<O'Z'I<,%,c#<,./'
>#<&
RR
'
(NRLL, WInd
PoIenIIaI
80M)'
;#3#N,<O'
?56A'
I<,%,c#<,
./'>#<&'
0<#<&' ;#3#N,<O'
?56A'
I<,%,c#<,.
/'>#<&'
AIabama 118 32 Nebraska 917,999 44
ArIzona 10,904 32 Nevada 7,247 33
Arkansas 9,200 33 New
HampshIre
2,13S 36
CaIIIornIa 34,110 3S New |ersey 132 32
CoIorado 387,220 38 New MexIco 492,083 38
ConnecIIcuI 27 31 New York 2S,781 33
DeIaware 10 31 NorIh
CaroIIna
808 34
IIorIda 0 32 NorIh
DakoIa
770,196 44
CeorgIa 130 33 OhIo S4,920 32
Idaho 18,076 33 OkIahoma S16,822 40
IIIInoIs 249,882 3S Oregon 27,100 34
IndIana 148,228 34 PennsyIvanI
a
3,307 33
Iowa S70,714 41 Rhode
IsIand
47 37
Kansas 9S2,371 44 SouIh
CaroIIna
18S 31
KenIucky 61 33 SouIh
DakoIa
882,412 44
LouIsIana 410 31 Tennessee 309 33
MaIne 11,2S1 34 Texas 1,901,S3
0
39
MaryIand 1,483 33 UIah 13,104 32
MassachuseII
s
1,028 37 VermonI 2,949 3S
MIchIgan S9,042 33 VIrgInIa 1,793 34
MInnesoIa 489,271 39 WashIngIon 18,479 34
MIssIssIppI 0 N,A WesI
VIrgInIa
1,883 3S
MIssourI 274,3SS 34 WIsconsIn 103,7S7 33
MonIana 944,004 32 WyomIng SS2,073 40
IJ0J'".<#%' (XW]VYWQ]V' ]Xd'



33
(NREL, Wind Potential 80M)
53

"#$%&'CHM!)'>&/&_#$%&'F.4<8.%,.'0<#/9#49-'$O'0<#<&
R]
'
0<#<&' G+.L/<' e&#4' 0<#<&' G+.L/<' e&#4'
ArIzona 1S 202S New |ersey 22.S0 2021
CaIIIornIa 33 2020 New MexIco 20 2020
CoIorado 20 2020 Nevada 20 201S
ConnecIIcuI 23 2020 New York 24 2013
DIsIrIcI oI
CoIumbIa
20 2020 NorIh
CaroIIna
12.S0 2021
DeIaware 20 2019 NorIh
DakoIa*
10 201S
HawaII 20 2020 Oregon 2S 202S
IIIInoIs 2S 202S PennsyIvanIa 8 2020
MassachuseIIs 1S 2020 Rhode
IsIand
16 2019
MaryIand 20 2022 SouIh
DakoIa*
10 201S
MaIne 40 2017 Texas 10,000
MW
202S
MIchIgan 10 201S UIah* 20 202S
MInnesoIa 2S 202S VermonI* 10 2013
MIssourI 1S 2021 VIrgInIa* 12 2022
MonIana 1S 201S WashIngIon 1S 2020
New
HampshIre
23.80 202S WIsconsIn 10 201S


34
(Energy, States with Renewable Portfolio Standards)
54

K,2L4&'CHM()'*>;="'6,/9'a#O-


*bL#<,./'()'*+,--,./-'5.9&%
!"#$#%&'()(*+,)$-#',.$+/$(0,&*#0$12,3$4(11+)#5$678##5$9+#/:,;/:<$=>?@@AB$
The modeI presenIed beIow capIures Ihe reIaIIonshIp beIween IoIaI
emIssIons !"#$% oI poIIuIanI In IerrIIory aI hour t agaInsI Ihe IoIaI
hourIy wInd generaIIon &#$% (In MWh), average hourIy IemperaIure '#$%
and IIs square '
!
#$, and a vecIor oI oIher conIroI varIabIes ($)

*"#, Ihe coeIIIcIenI oI InIeresI, capIures Ihe margInaI change In
emIssIons In each IerrIIory due Io wInd generaIIon. ThIs coeIIIcIenI
capIures Ihe amounI oI emIssIons reduces In pounds,pounds,Ions Ior
SO2, NOX and CO2 Ior each MWh oI wInd generaIIon In a gIven
IerrIIory.
OIher conIroI varIabIes need Io be InIroduced In order Io accounI Ior
ongoIng Irends IhroughouI Ihe sIudy perIod whIch, II IeII
unaccounIed, wouId resuII In an erroneous InIerpreIaIIon oI *"#.
TemperaIure Is a sIrong represenIaIIve oI IoIaI Ioad, whIch can ImpacI
55

Ihe amounI oI wInd generaIIon aIIowed onIo a sysIem. AddIIIonaIIy,
day oI week and monIhIy IIxed eIIecIs are InIroduced Io accounI Ior
changes oI whIch IemperaIure may represenI IoIaI Ioad. HourIy IIxed
eIIecIs are IncIuded Io represenI boIh dIIIerences oI Ioad durIng a
gIven day (aI a gIven IemperaIure) and Io accounI oI Ihe dIurnaI wInd
varIaIIon over Ihe course oI Ihe day. On average, wInd generaIIon Is
sIrongesI In Ihe earIy mornIng hours when eIecIrIcIIy demand and
emIssIons are IowesI.
MonIhyear IIxed eIIecIs are IncIuded Io accounI Ior changes In wInd
generaIIon capacIIy IhroughouI Ihe sIudy IImeIrame.

"#$%&'CHMR)'*-<,+#<,./'>&-L%<-'8.4'*+,--,./-'>&9LN<,./-'84.+'6,/9'
S&/&4#<,./'$O'"&44,<.4O'

1errlLory
olluLanL SC
2
(lbs) nCx (lbs) CC
2
(Lons) SC
2
(lbs) nCx (lbs) CC
2
(Lons) SC
2
(lbs) nCx (lbs) CC
2
(Lons) SC
2
(lbs) nCx (lbs) CC
2
(Lons)
Wlnd (MWh) 1.233** -0.739** -0.484** -4.8900** -1.993** -1.023** -0.008 -0.034* -0.299** -0.039* -0.170* -0.08**
(0.183) (0.042) (0.029) (0.924) (0.280) (0.103) (0.007) (0.027) (0.074) (0.008) (0.033) 0.026**
1emp (l) -814.1** 1226** -798.6** 3670** -1897** -810.8** -13.79** -126.7** -473.0** -11.3* -9.99* -32.8***
(94.42) (23.20) (12.98) (339.7) (134.0) (31.38) (6.747) (22.33) (47.00) 26.0 13.0 6.23***
1emp
2
6.364** 10.39** 6.692** 63.04** 19.00** 9.113** 0.122** 1.164** 4.213** 0.213* 0.124*' 0.320***
(0.742) (0.204) (0.107) (3.773) (1.301) (0.369) (0.047) (0.202) (0.424) (0.29) (0.13) 0.031***
Pour lL ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es
MonLh-?ear lL ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es
uCW lL ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es ?es
CbservaLlons 26280 26280 26280 13320 13320 13320 8760 8760 8760 17,464 17,464 17,464
8
2
0.63 0.82 0.92 0.87 0.93 0.88 0.12 0.43 0.8 0.08 0.72 0.83
L8CC1 MlSC CAlSC 8A
56

"#$%&'])'B#<,./#%'*+,--,./-'0#1,/2-'!XXQ

SC2 nCx CC2 SC2 nCx CC2
Alabama 0.39 0 1.338 0.776 0.499 0 0 0
Alaska 0.09 3,062 0.166 0.389 0.246 0 1 1
Arlzona 0.44 9,333 1.666 0.88 0.331 16 8 3
Arkansas 0.33 0 1.162 0.711 0.464 0 0 0
Callfornla 0.01 3,764,637 0.042 0.337 0.193 241 2,033 1,127
Colorado 0.63 2,942,133 3.179 1.398 0.787 9,334 4,113 2,313
ConnecLlcuL 0.08 0 0.136 0.381 0.236 0 0 0
uelaware 0.39 0 2.842 1.282 0.737 0 0 0
llorlda 0.23 0 0.642 0.339 0.364 0 0 0
Ceorgla 0.34 0 2.433 1.141 0.674 0 0 0
Pawall 0.14 213,224 0.263 0.419 0.276 36 89 39
ldaho 0.01 227,028 0.039 0.336 0.193 9 81 44
llllnols 0.46 2,761,132 1.836 0.943 0.383 3,126 2,609 1,609
lndlana 0.93 1,403,192 6.613 2.391 1.263 9,282 3,636 1,771
lowa 0.72 7,331,391 4.119 1.723 0.922 30,198 12,629 6,736
kansas 0.69 2,383,107 3.813 1.617 0.879 9,094 3,836 2,096
kenLucky 0.93 0 6.6 2.386 1.261 0 0 0
Loulslana 0.23 0 0.666 0.346 0.369 0 0 0
Malne 0 260,121 0.037 0.336 0.192 10 93 30
Maryland 0.33 0 2.332 1.173 0.689 0 0 0
MassachuseLLs 0.27 3,798 0.72 0.364 0.38 3 2 1
Mlchlgan 0.66 289,188 3.312 1.313 0.833 1,016 437 242
MlnnesoLa 0.36 4,936,987 2.388 1.193 0.698 12,830 3,922 3,460
Mlsslsslppl 0.26 0 0.72 0.364 0.38 0 0 0
Mlssourl 0.81 498,313 3.129 2.073 1.063 2,337 1,034 330
MonLana 0.38 810,813 2.808 1.27 0.731 2,277 1,030 394
nebraska 0.69 288,681 3.772 1.602 0.873 1,089 463 232
nevada 0.2 0 0.439 0.48 0.324 0 0 0
new Pampshlre 0.14 28,466 0.283 0.424 0.281 8 12 8
new !ersey 0.08 19,130 0.143 0.383 0.239 3 7 3
new Mexlco 0.73 1,343,713 4.263 1.773 0.943 6,384 2,737 1,436
new ?ork 0.1 2,238,904 0.17 0.39 0.248 383 882 339
norLh Carollna 0.33 0 2.313 1.169 0.687 0 0 0
norLh uakoLa 0.87 2,736,289 3.803 2.308 1.134 13,994 6,361 3,182
Chlo 0.84 13,474 3.429 2.178 1.104 84 34 17
Cklahoma 0.43 2,271,390 1.784 0.92 0.371 4,032 2,090 1,297
Cregon 0.06 3,372,284 0.098 0.37 0.222 332 1,249 730
ennsylvanla 0.48 921,137 1.973 0.983 0.602 1,819 907 333
8hode lsland 0 0 0.034 0.333 0.19 0 0 0
SouLh Carollna 0.34 0 1.103 0.692 0.434 0 0 0
SouLh uakoLa 0.39 392,308 1.384 0.783 0.304 343 308 198
1ennessee 0.32 31,747 2.292 1.093 0.632 119 37 34
1exas 0.33 19,330,879 1.141 0.703 0.46 22,070 13,611 8,909
uLah 0.82 64,497 3.193 2.093 1.072 333 133 69
vermonL 0 11,389 0.034 0.333 0.19 0 4 2
vlrglnla 0.37 0 1.223 0.731 0.473 0 0 0
WashlngLon 0.07 3,338,936 0.123 0.377 0.232 437 1,333 821
WesL vlrglnla 0.96 742,439 7.071 2.731 1.323 3,230 2,042 982
Wlsconsln 0.62 1,039,126 3.143 1.386 0.782 3,329 1,467 828
Wyomlng 0.91 2,213,820 6.39 2.313 1.233 14,147 3,363 2,729
unlLed SLaLes 0.44 70,760,936 2.242 1.086 0.612 138,649 76,838 43,318
Coal
Share
Wlnd Cen
(MWh)
1oLal Lmlsslon Savlngs Lmlsslon Savlngs 8aLe
57

!
About BENTEK Energy, LLC

BLNTLK Lnergy, LLC, Is Ihe IeadIng energy markeIs InIormaIIon
company. Based In Lvergreen, CoIorado, BLNTLK brIngs cusIomers Ihe
anaIyIIcaI IooIs and compeIIIIve InIeIIIgence needed Io make IIme
crIIIcaI, boIIomIIne decIsIons In Ioday's naIuraI gas and power
markeIs. AddIIIonaI InIormaIIon abouI BLNTLK Lnergy Is avaIIabIe on
Ihe Web aI www.benIekenergy.com. QuesIIons7 ConIacI BLNTLK
Lnergy aI 3039881320.

!"#$%&"'()*+ THIS RLPORT IS IURNISHLD ON AN "AS IS" BASIS.
BLNTLK DOLS NOT WARRANT THL ACCURACY OR CORRLCTNLSS OI
THL RLPORT OR THL INIORMATION CONTAINLD THLRLIN. BLNTLK
MAKLS NO WARRANTY, LXPRLSS OR IMPLILD, AS TO THL U.S.L OI
ANY INIORMATION CONTAINLD IN THIS RLPORT IN CONNLCTION
WITH TRADINC OI COMMODITILS, LQUITILS, IUTURLS, OPTIONS OR
ANY OTHLR U.S.L. BLNTLK MAKLS NO LXPRLSS OR IMPLILD
WARRANTILS AND LXPRLSSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTILS OI
MLRCHANTABILITY OR IITNLSS IOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSL.

)(%(&#(+ &,!+ %"'"-&-".,+ ./+ %"&0"%"-1: IN NO LVLNT SHALL
BLNTLK BL LIABLL IOR ANY DIRLCT, INDIRLCT, SPLCIAL,
INCIDLNTAL, OR CONSLQULNTIAL DAMACLS (INCLUDINC LOST
PROIIT) ARISINC OUT OI OR RLLATLD TO THL ACCURACY OR
CORRLCTNLSS OI THIS RLPORT OR THL INIORMATION CONTAINLD
THLRLIN, WHLTHLR BASLD ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT OR
ANY OTHLR LLCAL THLORY. !