SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges

•
•
R
Richard Bowers

This document provides a summary of a study on the challenges and opportunities for developing offshore wind energy projects in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. It finds that key barriers include regulatory hurdles at the state level relating to renewable portfolio goals and zoning. Technically, developing offshore wind farms faces challenges relating to construction costs, grid integration, and environmental impacts. However, the region has strong wind resources that could help states meet renewable goals in a cost-effective manner if these barriers are successfully addressed. The study evaluates various offshore wind project scenarios and finds some may be economically viable if costs continue to decline and states implement policies supporting offshore wind.

1 of 213
Download to read offline
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overcoming the Challenges Prepared by: Daniel F. Ancona III Vice President for Renewable Energy Kathryn E. George Senior Financial Analyst Richard P. Bowers Intern and Dr. Lynn Sparling Atmospheric Scientist, Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County Bruce C. Buckheit Regulatory Consultant Daniel LoBue Power Market Consultant May 31, 2012 Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 550 Rockville, MD 20852 Contract Information: Contract No.: DE-EE0000513 US Department of Energy, Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program Sponsored by: US Department of Energy and Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overcoming the Challenges Prepared by: Daniel F. Ancona III Vice President for Renewable Energy Kathryn E. George Senior Financial Analyst Richard P. Bowers Intern and Dr. Lynn Sparling Atmospheric Scientist, Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County Bruce C. Buckheit Regulatory Consultant Daniel LoBue Power Market Consultant May 31, 2012 Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 550 Rockville, MD 20852 Contract Information: Contract No.: DE-EE0000513 US Department of Energy, Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program Sponsored by: US Department of Energy and Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Front Cov at a 9 km warmer co Research Princeton Daniel F. Vice Pres Kathryn E Senior Fin Richard P Intern, Pr University Dr. Lynn Atmosphe Consultan Bruce C. B Policy and Daniel Lo Power Ma Sponsors: United St Golden Fi 1617 Cole Golden, C Maryland 580 Taylo Annapolis ver: Early eve horizontal re olors indicatin h Team: Energy Reso Ancona III: ident for Ren E. George: nancial Analy P. Bowers: rinceton Ener y of Maryland Sparling: eric Scientist, nts: Buckheit: d Regulatory oBue: arket Consult : ates Departm ield Office e Boulevard Colorado 8040 d Department or Avenue s, Maryland 2 ening low-lev solution using ng stronger m ources Interna ewable Energ yst, Princeton rgy Resources d, Baltimore C Department o Consultant tant, Competi ment of Energy 01 of Natural Re 21401 el jet at 140 m g the Mellor-Y mean wind spe ational (PERI) gy, Princeton n Energy Reso s Internationa County: of Physics, U itive Energy C y esources meters compu Yamada-Janj eeds. ): Energy Reso ources Interna al, LLC University of M Consulting Inc uted with Wea ic (MYJ) bou ources Interna ational, LLC Maryland Bal c. ather Researc undary layer s ational, LLC; ltimore Count ch Forecast M scheme, with ; ty 1 Model
1.0 Execu 1.1 Prim 1.2 Pol 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.3 Pol 1.3. 1.3. 1.4 Win 1.5 Bus 1.6 Pub 2.0 Introd 3.0 Goals 4.0 Regio 4.1 Mid 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.2 Ene 4.3 Eur 4.4 Iner 5.0 Power 5.1 Reg 5.1. 5.1. 5.1. 5.1. 6.0 Projec they Mean 6.1 Met 6.1. 6.1. 6.1. 6.1. 6.1. 6.2 Eco Energy utive Summar mary Barriers icy and Regu .1  RPS and .2  RPGs are .3  RPS-RPG .4  Restrictiv .5  State Sup icy Changes o .1  Emphasis .2  State Ene nd Resource U siness and Ec blic Interest Is duction.......... and Objectiv onal Energy S d-Atlantic Wi .1  Ridgeline .2  Coastal P .3  Bay and S .4  Offshore ergy Situation ropean Offsho rtia toward O r Transmissio gional Whole .1  Power Pr .2  Energy P .3  Capacity .4  Pricing S ct Economic R n .................. thodology, C .1  Forward P .2  Four Win .3  A Mercha .4  50% Deb .5  Financial onomic Analy y Plants ......... ry.................. s and Mitigati ulatory Issues RPGs are Ine e Treated as C Gs Face Indire ve State Statu pported Studie or Mitigation s on Offshore ergy Programs Uncertainty.. onomic Issue ssues............. ..................... ves ................ ituation - Rip ind Energy M e Sites........... Plain Sites ..... Sound Sites.. Ocean Sites. n in the Mid-A ore Project Co cean Applica on and Pricing sale Power Pr ricing Model – ricing........... Pricing ........ ummary....... Results and C ..................... ost and Perfo Pricing vs. Ca nd Market Seg ant Power Fin bt Fraction..... l Figures of M ysis Results, u ..................... ..................... ion Measures ..................... effective........ Caps .............. ect Constraint tes and Local es.................. n Options....... e Wind Power s emphasize s ..................... es................... ..................... ..................... ..................... pe for Wind M Market Segmen ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Atlantic State ost Trends .... ations in U.S. g.................... ricing............ – Methodolog ..................... ..................... ..................... Conclusions - ..................... ormance Estim alculated COE gments and F nancial Case w ..................... Merit to Evalu under Current ..................... ...................... ..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ts .................. l Zoning and N ...................... ...................... r Developmen small scale pr ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... Market Develo nts ................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... s ................... ...................... ..................... ...................... ...................... gy ................. ...................... ...................... ...................... Financial Re ...................... mates, and Fin E .................. our Plants..... with BB-Rate ...................... uate a Project. t, Likely Fina ...................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Noise Ordina ..................... ..................... nt.................. rojects .......... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... opment......... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... sults of the C ..................... nancial Assum ..................... ..................... ed Debt. ....... ..................... ..................... ancing, for Mi ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ances............. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Cash Flow An ..................... mptions......... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... id-Atlantic W ..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... nalysis and W ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... Wind ...................... i .......1  .......1  .......2  .......2  .......2  .......3  .......3  .......3  .......4  .......4  .......5  .......5  .......7  .......8  .....10  .....11  .....12  .....13  .....13  .....14  .....15  .....18  .....20  .....20  .....24  .....25  .....26  .....26  .....29  .....32  .....34  What .....37  .....37  .....38  .....38  .....38  .....39  .....39  .....40 
ii 6.2. 6.2. 6.2. 6.2. 6.2. 6.3 Eco 6.3. 6.4 Fin 6.4. 6.4. 6.4. 6.4. 6.4. 7.0 Projec Expenses, 7.1 Pow 7.1. 7.1. 7.1. 7.1. 7.2 PJM 7.3 Cap 7.4 Sou 7.5 Per 7.6 Ope 7.7 Fin 7.7. 7.7. 7.7. 7.7. 8.0 Regul 8.1 Vir 8.1. 8.1. 8.1. 8.1. 8.2 Nor 8.2. 8.2. 8.2. 8.2. .1  DPL-ODE .2  Cloverda .3  Calvert C .4  Fentress, .5  Summary onomic Analy .1  Summary dings and Co .1  Land-Bas .2  Ridgeline .3  Shallow W .4  Ocean Pla .5  Final Com ct Economic I , and Financia wer Plant Proje .1  PJM Forw .2  Calculate .3  Three Set .4  Three Me M Forward Pr pital Costs for urces of Fund formance (Pla erating Expen ancial Assum .1  Project Fi .2  Debt Feat .3  Equity Fe .4  Property latory and Pol ginia ............ .1  Renewab .2  Appalach .3  Zoning O .4  Virginia M rth Carolina.. .1  North Ca .2  North Ca .3  Zoning O .4  The North EC Coastal P le Ridgeline. Cliffs Shallow Ocean.......... y of Findings ysis Results, u y of Findings mments........ sed Plants..... e Plants Show Water Bay Pl ants .............. mments......... Inputs and As al Assumptio ect Discounted ward Pricing. ed COE......... ts of Analysis easures of CO ricing Forecas r the Wind En s................... ant Capacity nses for the W mptions for cu inance .......... tures, includin eatures.......... Taxes........... licy Issues.... ..................... le Portfolio G hian Power Co Ordinances .... Marine Resou ..................... rolina RPS D rolina Mount Ordinances .... h Carolina Ut Plains............. ..................... w Bay............. ..................... ..................... under Favorab ..................... ..................... ..................... w the Best Eco lants.............. ..................... ..................... ssumptions – ns................. d Cash Flow – ..................... ..................... s per Node/Pl OE ................. sts – Energy a nergy Plants.. ..................... Factors) for t Wind Energy P urrent likely an ..................... ng Rating and ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Goal (RPG) P ompany (APC ..................... urces Commi ..................... Design............ tain Ridge Pro ..................... tilities Comm ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ble Financing ...................... ...................... ...................... onomics........ ...................... ...................... ...................... Financial Me ...................... – Return on In ...................... ...................... lant Location. ...................... and Capacity ...................... ...................... the Wind Ene Plants............ nd favorable ...................... d Interest Rat ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... rogram Desig CO) State Cor ...................... ssion Report. ...................... ...................... otection Act.. ...................... mission........... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... g, for Mid-Atl ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ethodology, P ..................... nvestment Met ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Payments .... ..................... ..................... ergy Plants.... ..................... financing of t ..................... te .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... gn................. rporation Com ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... lantic Wind E ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Plant Capital C ..................... thodology ..... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... the Wind Ene ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... mmission De ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... Energy Plants ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... Costs, Operat ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ergy Plants.... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... cision ........... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .....40  .....41  .....45  .....45  .....46  . ...47  .....50  .....51  .....51  .....52  .....52  .....53  .....54  ting .....57  .....57  .....58  .....58  .....59  .....59  .....60  .....62  .....69  .....71  .....72  .....74  .....74  .....74  .....76  .....83  .....87  .....87  .....89  .....90  .....91  .....92  .....97  .....98  .....99  ...100  ...101 
8.2. 8.2. 8.3 Mar 8.3. 8.3. 8.3. 8.4 Del 8.4. 8.4. 8.5 Dis 9.0 Mid-A 9.1 Eas 9.2 Win 9.3 The 9.4 Win 10.0 Envi 10.1 No 10.2 Ri 10.3 At 10.4 Eu 10.5 Ae 10.6 Ra 11.0 Conc 11.1 Po 11.2 Fe 11.3 Ec 11.4 Te 11.5 Pu 12.0 Bibli Appendix participan Appendix Appendix Appendix .5  North Ca .6  Other Pot ryland.......... .1  Maryland .2  State App .3  Zoning O laware .......... .1  State App .2  Delaware trict of Colum Atlantic Wind stern Wind In nd measurem e Mid-Atlanti nd Resource P ironmental Co on-Governme isks to Birds a tmospheric Em utrophication esthetics and adar.............. clusions........ olicy and Reg ederal Empha conomic Asse echnical Unce ublic Interest iography ...... x A: Interview nts)................ x B: Economic x C: Power M x D: Examples rolina Studies tential Barrier ..................... d RPS Design proval Proces Ordinances .... ..................... proval Proces e RPS Design mbia.............. d Resource.... tegration Stud ents and com c low level je Potential and onsiderations ental Organiz and Bats Rela mission Disp of Regional W Public Attitu ..................... ..................... gulatory Issue sis on Offsho essment Resu ertainties....... ..................... ..................... w and Discuss ..................... c Model Run arket Trading s of Coastal S s ................... rs.................. ..................... n .................... ss................... ..................... ..................... ss................... n .................... ..................... ..................... dy (EWITS) . mparisons with et as a potenti Uncertainties ..................... ation Worksh ative to Altern lacement ...... Waters.......... de................. ..................... ..................... s ................... ore Projects ... lts................. ..................... ..................... ..................... sion Meetings ..................... Examples.... g Model Resu Sites that coul ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... h EWITS....... ial wind resou s.................... ...................... hop ................ natives .......... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... s (ground rule ...................... ...................... ults for the 20 ld be evaluate ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... urce .............. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... es, questions, ..................... ..................... 012 Mid-Atlan ed for Wind P ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... , contacts and ..................... ..................... ntic Wind En Power Genera ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... d NGO meetin ...................... ...................... ergy Plants ... ation.............. iii ...101  ...102  ...103  ...104  ...106  ...106  ...107  ...107  ...108  ...108  ...111  ...111  ...115  ...120  ...122  ...123  ...123  ...125  ...126  ...127  ...129  ...131  ...133  ...133  ...134  ...135  ...135  ...136  ...137  ng ...141  ...147  ...167  ...189 
iv Table of F Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 height of Figure 1-3 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 (300 km l Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5 90m Hub Figure 4-6 Figure 4-7 Figure 4-8 Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2 Figure 5-3 Figure 6-1 (2013 Do Figure 6-2 (2013 Do Figure 6-3 Figure 6-4 (2013 Do Figure 7-1 Figure 7-2 Figure 8-1 Figure 8-2 Figure 8-3 Figure 8-4 Figure 8-5 Figure 8-6 Figure 8-7 Figure 9-1 Figure 9-2 Figure 9-3 Figure 9-4 Figure 9-5 Figure 9-6 Figure 9-7 Figure 9-8 Figures 1 Near-shore 2 The Weathe 312m above g 3. COEs of Fo 1. Mid-Atlant 2. DELMARV line is to indic 3. Location of 4. Onshore & 5. Mid-Atlant Height - ...... 6. Offshore E 7. Offshore E 8. Tall met to 1. PJM region 2. Example co 3. PJM interc 1. COEs for F llars)............ 2. COE Resul llars)............ 3. COEs of Fo 4. COE Resul llars)............ 1 Average PJM 2. Offshore w 1. VMRC Rep 2. VMRC “M 3. VMRC “M 4. VMRC “Le 5. Boone N.C 6. UNC Revie 7. Maryland E 1. Measureme 2. Seasonal an 3. Diurnal var 4. Seasonal an 5. Annual Me 6. Seasonal an 7. Vertical pro 8. Monthly m wind plant in er Research M ground level. our Plants wit tic States Win VA-Jutland C cate scale) .... f NOAA Buo & Offshore Pla tic Bight Reg ..................... EU Wind Plan EU Wind Plan wer near a tu nal operation ontour map w onnection no Four Plants w ..................... lts for Four P ..................... our Plants wit lts of Four Pla ..................... M Energy Pri wind turbine p port Excluded Major Conflict Moderate Conf esser Conflict C. DOE/NASA ew of Coastal Energy Admin ent sites for se nd Diurnal Ch riability in W nd diurnal var ean Wind Spe nd Diurnal Va ofiles of wind mean wind at N n Denmark - p Model simulat ..................... th Favorable nd Plant Mark Comparison w ..................... oys................. ants in Denma ional Offshor ..................... nt Cost vs. Dis nt Cost vs. Wa urbine in Denm area.............. with locationa de locations s with Current, L ..................... lants with Cu ..................... th Favorable ants with Fav ..................... ices by Seaso platform desig d Areas......... ts”................. flicts”............ t Areas”........ A 2 MW Exp l and Offshor nistration: Co elected PJM n haracteristics Wind Power de riability in wi eed at Each A ariability of th d speed at Ab NOAA/NOS produces elec tion of low le ...................... Financing us ket Areas....... where 2,400 M ...................... ...................... ark, Circa 199 re Lease Bloc ...................... stance from S ater Depth in mark. ............ ...................... l marginal pr selected for th Likely Financ ...................... urrent, Likely ...................... Financing us vorable Financ ...................... on .................. gns for shallow ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... erimental Wi re Wind Powe ounties with W nodes............ of the 100m ensity (WPD) ind speed at E Anemometer L he Difference berdeen, MD.. Buoy BISM2 ctricity and se evel jets on Au ..................... sing PJM Forw ..................... MW of land-b ..................... ..................... 96................. cks and Wind ..................... Shore and Dat Sheltered vs. ..................... ..................... rice (LMP) di he four wind cing using PJM ..................... Financing us ..................... sing PJM Forw cing using Ca ..................... ..................... w bays and o ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... indmill Built er Developme Wind Ordinan ..................... Wind from th ) for each mon EWITS......... Level............. e in Wind Spe ..................... 2 (Bishop’s H erves as aids t ug 3, 2007 at ..................... ward Prices (2 ..................... based wind pla ..................... ..................... ..................... d Resources at ..................... te of Construc . Open Water ..................... ..................... fferential on t market applic M Forward Pr ..................... sing Calculate ..................... ward Prices (2 alculated COE ..................... ..................... cean applicat ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... in 1979......... ent Potential . nces .............. ..................... he EWITS.... nth of 2004... ..................... ..................... eed between ..................... Head, MD)..... o navigation . 1:00 am at a ...................... 2013 Dollars) ...................... ants are opera ...................... ...................... ...................... t ...................... ction ............. r..................... ...................... ...................... typical day. .. cations. ......... rices ...................... ed COE ...................... 2013 Dollars) E ...................... ...................... tions.............. ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 110 and 49 m ...................... ...................... .......4  .......6  ). ....8  .....12  ating .....14  .....17  .....18  .....19  .....23  .....23  .....24  .....25  .....27  .....28  .....46  .....46  ). ..50  .....50  .....61  .....62  .....94  .....95  .....95  .....96  .....99  ...102  ...106  ...113  ...114  ...115  ...116  ...117  m. 118  ...119  ...119 
Figure 9-9 Figure 9-1 Figure 10 Figure 10 Figure 10 Figure 10 Figure 10 9. Annual me 10. The Aug 2 -1. NGO Mee -2. Bird Fligh -3. Atlantic F -4. Chesapeak -5. Survey of ean wind at se 2, 2007 low l eting Agenda ht Path Mappi Flyway.......... ke Bay Dead f Anticipated everal NOS lo evel jet at acr a .................... ing at Nysted ..................... Zones .......... Tourist React ocations in De ross-rotor heig ...................... d Wind Farm, ...................... ...................... tion to a Hyp elmarva........ ghts 60, 99 an ..................... Denmark .... ..................... ..................... othetical Win ..................... nd 140m AGL ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... nd Farm ........ ...................... L................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... v ...120  ...121  ...124  ...125  ...126  ...129  ...130 
vi Table of T Table 4-1 potential s Table 4-2 Table 4-3 analysis) . Table 5-1 Table 5-2 energy va Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 6-1 Table 6-2 Table 7-1 Table 7-2 Table 7-3 Table 7-4 Table 7-5 Wind Ene Table 7-6 Table 7-7 Table 7-8 Table 7-9 Table 7-1 Table 7-1 Table 7-1 Table 7-1 Tables DOE Estima sites in bays a . Metocean as . The future p ..................... . Differential PJM Forwar aluation estim . Monthly Av . Energy Prod . Cash Flow A . Cash Flow A . Analysis Me . PJM Power . PJM Capaci . Fully Loade . Fully Loade ergy Plants. .. . Sources of F . Sources of F . just gives on . Methodolog 0. Performan 1. Classic Lo 2. Financial A 3. Property T ates of land-ba and sounds).. ssumptions u projects and th ..................... Energy Price rd Pricing Mo mation, betwee verage Capaci duction Estim Analysis Resu Analysis Resu ethod per Nod Prices (Cents ity Payments ed Capital Co ed Capital Co ..................... Funds for 201 Funds for 201 ne capacity fa gy for Estimat nce and Annua ong-Term Sen Assumptions Taxes for Win ased and offs ..................... sed for bay, s heir announce ..................... e Adders for F odel Sample O en 2012 and 2 ity Factors.... mates and Cap ults for 2012 ults for 2012 de/Plant Site. s/kWh) by Se ..................... sts or Uses of sts or Uses of ..................... 12 100 MW W 12 100 MW W actor per seas ting Wind En al Operating E nior Debt Rati for 2012 100 nd Energy Pla hore wind en ...................... sound and oce ed capital cos ...................... Four Nodes R Output – Calv 2014, with the ...................... pacity Factors Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic ...................... eason and by N ...................... f Funds for th f Funds with ...................... Wind Energy Wind Energy on, and skips nergy Plant Op Expenses for ings............... MW Wind E ants in the Mid nergy potentia ..................... ean lease bloc sts (data colle ..................... Relative to We vert Cliffs nod e full data ext ..................... s (assume 100 c 100 MW Wi c 100 MW Wi ..................... Node............ ..................... he 2012 100 M Favorable Fin ..................... Plants. ......... Plants. ......... s over on-peak perating Expe 2012 Wind E ..................... Energy Plants d-Atlantic Sta al by 2030 (bu ..................... ck application ected, but not ..................... estern Hub ($ de, showing m tending to 203 ..................... 0m hub height ind Energy P ind Energy P ..................... ..................... ..................... MW Wind En nancing. for t ..................... ..................... ..................... k vs. off-peak enses ............ Energy Plants ..................... s. ................... ates............... ut not countin ...................... ns. ................. used in the ...................... $/MWh) ........ monthly wind 37 ................. ...................... t)................... lants. ............ lants. ............ ...................... ...................... ...................... nergy Plants. . the 2012 100 ...................... ...................... ...................... k.................... ...................... s..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ng .....13  .....16  .....22  .....31  d .....32  .....33  .....35  .....42  .....48  .....59  .....61  .....61  .....64  MW .....67  .....69  .....69  .....71  .....72  .....73  .....75  .....78  .....84 
AEP AGL AOE APCO AWEA bp BNEF BOEM BOS BWEA CAA CBF CF COE Cp CPCN db DCF-R DELM DNR DOE DOI Domin DPL-O DSIRE EIA EPC EPRI EU EWIT FCR FERC GW GHG HAP HURD HVDC ICC IEC IPPs IRR Abbreviation O A F M A N ROI MARVA nion ODEC E TS C DAT C ns An Ab An Ap Am Ba Blo Bu Oc Ba Bri Cle Ch Ca Co Co Ce De Dis De Ma U.S U.S Do De Da En En Ele Eu Ea Fix Fed Gig Gr Ha Hu Hig Ins Int Ind Int nnual energy p bove Ground L nnual operatin ppalachian Po merican Wind asis point oomberg New ureau of Ocean cean Energy M alance of statio itish Wind En ean Air Act hesapeake Bay apacity factor ost of energy oefficient of p rtificate of Pu ecibel scounted Cas elaware-Mary aryland Depar S. Departmen S. Departmen ominion Elect elmarva Powe atabase of Stat nergy Informa ngineering pro ectric Power R uropean Union stern Wind In xed charge rat deral Energy gawatts eenhouse Gas azardous Air P urricane Datab gh-voltage di stalled capital ternational Ele dependent pow ternal Rate of production Level ng expenses ower Compan d Energy Asso w Energy Fina n Energy Ma Management, on nergy Associa y Foundation performance ublic Conven h Flow - Retu yland-Virginia rtment of Nat nt of Energy nt of the Interi tric Power Co er and Light - te Incentives ation Adminis ocurement and Research Inst n ntegration Stu te Regulatory C s Pollutant base rect current l cost ectrotechnica wer producer f Return Definition ny ociation ance anagement (fo Regulation a ation nience and Ne urn on Investm a Peninsula tural Resourc ior ompany Old Dominio for Renewab stration d construction titute udy Commission al Commissio rs ormerly the D and Enforcem ecessity ment ces on Electric Co ble Energy and n n DOI Bureau of ment) ompany d Efficiency vii f
viii ITC Km kWh LCOE LDA LIBO LLJ LMP m m/s MAA MAC MAR MRPA MW MWh NCUC NGO Nm NOS NOX NREL NUG O&M PACE PERI PJM PPA PSC PTC PUC REC RGGI RPS/R SOX SPP TVA UMB VCER WPD WRF E R AC T CS A h C L M E I RPG C RC Inv Kil Kil Lev Lo Lo Lo Lo Me Me Mi Ma Mo Mo Me Me No No Na Na Nit Na No Op Pro Pri Pen Pow Pub Pro Pub Re Re Re Su Sou Ten Un Vir Wi We vestment Tax lometers lowatt-hour velized Cost cational Deliv ndon Interban w Level Jet cational Marg eters eters per seco id-Atlantic Ar aximum Achi odified accele ountain Ridge egawatt egawatt-hour orth Carolina U on-Governmen autical Mile ational Ocean trogen oxides ational Renew on-Utility Gen perations and operty-Assess inceton Energ nnsylvania-Je wer purchase blic Service C oduction tax c blic Utility C newable ener gional Green newable Port lfur Oxides uthwest Powe nnessee Valle niversity of M rginia Coasta ind Power De eather Resear Credit of energy verability Are nk offered rat ginal Pricing nd rea Council ievable Contr erated cost rec e Protection A Utilities Com nt Organizati Service s wable Energy nerator Maintenance sed Clean Ene gy Resources ersey-Marylan e agreement Commission credit Commission rgy certificate nhouse Gas In tfolio Standar er Pool ey Authority Maryland Balti al Energy Res ensity rch and Forec ea te rol Technolog covery system Act mmission ion Laboratory e ergy International nd Interconne e nitiative rds or Goals imore County earch Consor cast gy m l, LCC ection y rtium
1.0 Exe The Mid-A Columbia to date. Th demand fo Appalach and Chesa this report wind and there are n developm To addres region are team inclu analyst, at or “report means tha stakeholde followed b mitigation wind resou This proc the region the likelih identified developm barriers, b measures 1.1 Prim The prima categories interest. T resources in the wes on the con of the reg although i the marke state or lo and avian economic suitable re to a substa developm ecutive Su Atlantic regio a, has areas w he absence of or electricity ian mountain apeake Bays, t is being wri terrain condit no new utility ment is continu ss this deficien e analyzed and uding: a wind tmospheric sc ed” barriers a at go beyond “ ers and policy by objective q n options to ov urces in regio ess identified n. Individually hood that deve several majo ment of wind e both major an to overcome mary Barrie ary barriers to s; policy and r These issues in in the region stern portion o ntinental shel ion is general it is possible t et. Many of th ocal governme n species colli c uncertainty c esources are a antial degree, ment for onsho ummary on, including ith excellent w f wind energy that is among n ridgeline site Albemarle an tten, construc tions similar t y-scale wind p uing in the mi ncy, the actual d are presente energy engin cientist, and en at face value, r “literature rev y makers, and quantitative an vercome the c on is explored d a number of y, these lesser elopers will in or barriers to w energy in thos nd minor, and these barriers ers and Mit o wind develo regulatory iss n these catego n are limited p of the region, f in the Atlan lly considered that local terr he potential ri ents concerne sion issues. C constrains win available. Stat , developmen ore and shallo Delaware, M wind energy p y projects for g the highest i es, on the coa nd Pamlico S ction is comm to ridgeline s power plant p id-west and w l, as opposed d along with r neer, power m nvironmental rather to inves iews” includin ground truthi nalysis and un challenges. In and factored f minor challe r barriers alon nvest in comm wind energy d se areas where provides reco s. tigation Me opment outlin sues, wind res ories are not w primarily to fo , Coastal land ntic Ocean. T d to be inadeq rain may prov dgeline sites ed with the po Coastal wind r nd power dev te-level suppo nt of potential ow water wind Maryland, Nort potential yet bulk power g in the nation. astal plains, at ounds, and at mencing on ye ites in our stu projects under west, but not i to theoretical reduction mec arket expert, a engineer. The stigate in dept ng, but not lim ing of all unde nbiased report addition, criti into the local nges and barr ne may not de mercial scale development e they exist. T ommendation easures ned in this rep source uncert wholly indepe our areas – Ri d areas, shallo he wind resou quate to suppo vide usable sit in the area ha otential advers resources hav velopment in t ort for wind p offshore win d power deve rth Carolina, V has only two generation con Ample wind t shallow shel t deeper water et another win udy area. Yet rway. The que in the Mid-At , barriers to w chanisms or m a regulatory a e team approa th by personne mited to, in de erlying assum ting along wit ical new techn wind market riers to the de erail wind ene wind farms i which will ef This section s ns to possible port can be gro tainty, busines endent of eac idgeline sites ow Bays and S urce in the ce ort commerci tes for “low w ave been deter se impact on ve not been ad those areas al power varies w nd resources h lopment. Virginia, and utility scale p ntinues despit resources are ltered water s r sites off the nd plant in Pe in the Mid-A estion is why tlantic region wind energy de mitigation mea and policy exp ach was not to el experience epth interview mptions. This i th possible res nical informat projections. evelopment of ergy developm in the region. ffectively pre summarizes th solutions or ouped into fo ss/ economic ch other and d in the Appala Sounds in the entral plain th ial scale wind wind speed” t rmined to be view sheds in dequately cha lthough recen widely within has eclipsed s the District o projects insta te a growing e available at sites in Delaw e Atlantic coa ennsylvania - Atlantic States y wind power . evelopment in asures. The PE pert, financial o accept theore d in the field b ws of key investigation w sponses or tion concernin f wind energy ment, but less The review a clude he identified mitigation our general issues, and p do interact. W achian Moun e east, and off hat makes up m d developmen turbines comi “off limits” b n the region, n aracterized an nt data indicat n the region a tate policy 1 of alled ware st. As in s n this ERI etical by was ng the y in sen also public Wind ntains fshore most nt, ng on by noise, nd, so, tes and,
2 One of the Uncertain economic the overri 1.2 Poli In each St developm and tax in these prog defined ca renewable to levels t developm power dev Attorney ridgeline r 1.2.1 R As Renew provide th Certificate system an fulfilled la and would installed i wastes (kn RECs be l in-state so reached le power pro to extend It is likely effective i in other st to new ren 1.2.2 R In Virgini renewable minimum agreemen statute. Th supported currently that the pr e largest, and nties facing re c, technical (e ding uncertai cy and Reg tate in the reg ment of wind a ncentives. A r grams current ategories of “ e resources. T that would pro ment. Certain l velopment in General and t resources. RPS and RPG wable Energy he intended in es (RECs) req nd there is no argely with “a d operate any in the early 19 nown as black limited to fac ources. The N evels sufficien oject in North the Federal S y that as the N in incentivizin tates in the re newable sour RPGs are tre ia the State C e energy sold m target to be m nts (PPA) for n he Commissio d under the pr applicable go roject would b d most difficul egional wind p .g., relating to inty regarding gulatory Is gion, policies and other form eview of the d tly transfer pa renewable res Tax incentives ovide a signif local zoning a those jurisdic the Public Uti Gs are Ineffe Portfolio Sta ncentive for d quired to fulfi requirement f anyway” cred yway for reaso 900s for econ k liquor) for e cilities deploy North Carolina nt to incentivi h Carolina has Section 45 Pro North Carolina ng in-state ren gion are unlik ces and that a eated as Cap orporation Co under the Co met or exceed new wind pow on determined ogram and th oal was not pr be used to me lt, barriers to project develo o grid interco g the future of ssues and programs ms of renewab detailed struc ayments from sources,” and s are generally ficant incentiv and noise ordi ctions and in N ility Commis fective andards and G development o fill the mandat for creating n dits. Many cre ons other than nomic reasons energy needs. yed after the R a RPS require ize commerci s recently bee oduction Tax a requirement newable ener kely to be eff a portion, say ps ommission ru ommonwealth ded. The Com wer generatio d that the goa hat any new re rudent. The C eet the renewa wind develop opers fall into nnection capa f the Section 4 s are in place ble energy thr cture of RPS p m ratepayers to d do not provi y limited in s ve for onshor inances have North Carolin sion chills de Goals (RPS/RP of wind and o tes are allowe new facilities. edits are gene n RPS/RPG. T s and pulp mil . North Carol RPS law was p ements escala ial wind powe en suspended Credit. ts become mo rgy, including fective unless 75 percent, o uled that the p h’s renewable mmission was on were “reaso als of the RPG enewable gen Commission ap able goal esta pment in the M o several categ acity) and env 45 Federal Pr that nominal rough renewa programs in e o pre-existing ide an incenti scope and amo re commercial been enacted na, the interpr evelopment of PG) are curre other renewab ed to come fro . Consequentl erated from fa These facilitie lls that have f lina is an exce passed and th ate gradually o er developme because of th ore stringent o g wind power and until they of RECs origi portfolio goal e portfolio pro asked to dete onable and pr G were caps o neration that w pplied this te ablished for la Mid-Atlantic gories: wind vironmental. roduction Tax lly are intende able portfolio each jurisdicti g facilities tha ive for the dev ount and do n l scale wind p d that effectiv retation of a s f almost all of ently structure bles. Renewab om anywhere ly REC requir acilities that w es include hyd for decades co eption. Its RP hat 75 percent over time, and ent. A propose he failure of th over time, the . However, th y require that inate in-state. shall be treat ogram, rather ermine if two rudent” as req on the amount was not neede st even thoug ater years. Th is uncertainty resources, Of course the x Credit. ed to support mandates (R ion reveals th at fall into bro velopment of not generally power vely bar wind state stature b f that state’s ed, they do no ble Energy e in the PJM rements are b were built lon dropower pla ombusted pul PS requires tha t must come f d have not ye ed coastal win he U.S. Cong e program wi he RPS progra t RECs be lim ted as a ceilin than as a power purch quired by the t of renewabl ed to meet the gh it was asser he Commissio y. ere is the RPS) hat oadly f new rise by the ot being ng ago ants lping at from et nd gress ll be ams mited ng for hase RPG les e rted on
also sugge method of One legisl successfu face simil 1.2.3 R Maryland Convenie CPCN is a including outcome i projects le clearly de 1.2.4 R North Car condomin statute wa State PUC contrary v valuable w In North C effectively ordinance activities shown a w instances ordinance such as on adopted. S interests a authority 1.2.5 S Environm region. Ge preclude t available financial b facilitate d baseline s wind deve detail. ested that if lo f compliance lative attempt l. It is also no lar issues. RPS-RPGs F d State law req nce and Nece a formal adju technical, ec is uncertain. I ess than 100 M efined process Restrictive St rolina’s Ridge niums on high as informally C has adopted view. The resu wind resource Carolina and y bar develop e. Developers that can have willingness to it appears tha es have been a ne ordinance Several of the and have pass of local gove State Suppor mental permitt enerally envir the use of env in the region. barrier, espec development studies that ca elopment prog ow cost REC than new win t has been ma ot clear wheth Face Indirect quires that a w essity (CPCN udicatory proc onomic and e In Virginia, th MW. These li s and consequ tate Statutes eline Protecti h ridgeline site interpreted by d the interpret ulting uncerta es. Virginia, seve pment in those of wind farm e local impact o work with lo at the siting o adopted that b that bars deve e states in the sed statutes se rnments. rted Studies ting has not b ronmental iss vironmentally . However, th cially for smal of such proje an identify sen gram, but no s generated b nd plants, then ade to correct her other state t Constraints wind plant gre ) from the Pu cess that invol environmenta he “permit-by imits and inco uently are not s and Local Z on Act was en es and specifi y the North C tation of the A ainty is a sign eral counties e jurisdiction ms should reco ts. For the mo ocal communi f wind plants bear no reason elopment of a region have r etting out mod een shown to sues can be de y sensitive site he cost of con ller projects t ects, the states nsitive areas. state in the st y pre-existing n they should this situation es with regula s eater than 70 ublic Service C lves public pa l issues. This y-rule” projec onsistencies b barriers to de Zoning and nacted to bar fically exclude Carolina Attor Attorney Gene nificant barrie have adopted s. One county ognize that co ost part, devel ities to strike has acquired nable relation a wind farm w recognized th del noise and be a barrier t efined, and av es, but adequa ducting basel hat might be s in the region New Jersey h tudy region h g sources wer d be utilized. n, but it is not ated utilities, s MW must ob Commission articipation an process can b ct approval pr between state evelopment. Noise Ordin development es “windmills rney General eral, but seve er to developm d zoning and/ y in Maryland ommercial sca lopers have ac the appropria d a political ca nship to the po within one mi he need to pro zoning restri to the develop voided or miti ate “non-sens line environm more appropr n could condu has conducted has conducted re available a t yet clear wh such as North btain a Certifi (PSC). The is nd addresses be lengthy, ex ocess applies s may be dete nances t of unsightly s” from its ter as applying t eral counties h ment of North or noise ordin d is considerin ale wind plan ccepted this n ate balance. H ast and local r otential impa ile of a school operly balance ictions and lim pment of win igated. These sitive” areas a mental studies riate in some uct broad env d such a study d such a study as a lower cos hether it will b h Carolina, wi icate of Public ssuance of a all relevant is xpensive and s to “small” w errents but are y resort rms. However to wind farms have adopted h Carolina’s m nances that ng a similar nts are industr notion and hav However, in s restrictive ct of a wind f l, have been e competing miting the nd power in th e issues can appear reason can pose a areas. To vironmental y for its offsh y in sufficient 3 t be ill c ssues, the wind e r, this s. The a most rial ve some farm, he nably hore
4 An overly the legisla of leasing resources, consider t result was determine Bay. This discussed state, whe scale proj 1.3 Poli 1.3.1 E In recent y applicatio Managem The Natio enhanced blocks in proposals significan (nm) limit This large considerat Sounds, a created a b Our study bays and s costs are s hurricane in the oce Based on cost of en estimated installatio installatio eventually $0.063 pe These esti offshore p detailed e early in th There are in the bay y broad and in ature directed g state-owned , the VMRC r the economic s a widely dis ed that existin s report effect later in this r ere state suppo ects. cy Change Emphasis on years the atte ons to offshore ment (BOEM) onal Offshore commercial i the Atlantic O and has com nt impact.” Al t in federal w e emphasis on tion of possib and from land barrier to ons y team reexam sounds. Wind significantly h generated wa ean than for th detailed econ nergy (in 2013 at $0.091 per on vs. $0.167 ons. Under po y the COEs (i er kWh Bay an imates appear project cost tr ngineering st he Federal Wi issues associ ys and sounds nsufficiently r d the Virginia bottomlands report provide value of poss sseminated an ng competing ively ended f report, this iss orted research es or Mitiga Offshore W ntion of state e in Federal w has kindled m Wind Strateg interest in off Ocean off the mpleted necess ll this effort h waters. n offshore oce ble sites in an -based sites a shore and Bay mined the prev d resources ap higher, due p aves up to 20 hose in the ba nomic analysi 3 constant dol r kWh (kilow per kWh for o ssible favorab in 2013 const nd $0.119 per r to be consist rends in Europ udies comple ind Program. iated with dep but these hav resourced stud Marine Reso in the Chesap ed only a sup sible wind sit nd quoted repo uses ruled ou further consid sue also arises h could remov ation Optio Wind Power D governments waters. The U much of this i gy prepared b fshore wind d coast of Dela sary environm has created sub ean applicatio d near the De along the Atla y wind develo viously over l ppear to be m artly to the pl m height. Op ays. COE resu is, the levelize llars) was watt-hour) for ocean ble financing ant dollars) a r kWh Ocean tent with pe and with eted by DOE ploying turbin ve been resolv dy can, howe ources Commi peake Bay an erficial exam tes and possib ort, in which ut any comme deration of thi s in the conte ve an econom ons Developmen s in the Mid-A U.S. Departme interest from by U.S. Depar development. aware, Maryl mental assessm bstantial inter ons has drawn elaware and C antic coast. Co opment. looked applic arginally bett latform cost in perations and ults are describ ed bay , re n. nes ved Figure 1 electricit ever, do more ission (VMR nd its environs mination of po ble compatible it was reporte ercial scale w is resource in ext of mappin mic barrier to nt Atlantic regio ent of Interior the states and rtment of Ene BOEM has d land, and Virg ments with fav rest for projec n attention and Chesapeake B onsequently, cations in the ter offshore c n the ocean fo maintenance bed below wi 1-1 Near-shore w ity and serves a harm than go RC) to determi s. In the absen otential issues e uses of bott ed that the Co ind farms in t the Common ng the wind re the developm on has shifted r, Bureau of O d potential pro ergy in consor defined three p ginia, solicite avorable resul cts beyond th d resources aw Bays, Albemar offshore win shallow shelt ompared to b for deeper wat e expense are ith Figure 1-3 wind plant in D s aids to naviga ood. In Virgin ine the feasib nce of adequa and did not tom land. The ommission ha the Chesapea nwealth. As esources of th ment of smalle d from land-ba Ocean Energy oject develop rt with BOEM potential leas ed project ts showing “n he 12 nautical way from rle and Pamli d developmen tered waters o bays, but capit ter and surviv higher for pla 3. Denmark - prod ation nia, ility ate e ad ake e er ased y pers. M e no mile ico nt has of tal val in ants duces
in Europe concerns m coal minin by focusin feasible co navigation areas of p Large sha similar are environm 1.3.2 S All of the energy im at residen but not in because th are popula In Delawa Greenhou 10% from on each st to the stat have been This sourc All states District of generated conduct n help all po 1.4 Win There is a referenced (EWITS) Maryland modeling measured wind mea estimate t areas. Res Four of th came from Administr Together e and we belie must be addre ng and therm ng on offshor ost. While set n aids, rather otential shall allow bays and eas in Europe ental analysis State Energy Mid-Atlantic mports by deve tial applicatio others. All st hey benefit m ar although th are and Mary use Gas Initiat m power plant tate’s individu tes to be inves n held. Maryla ce of funding should consi f Columbia, V d from RGGI’ needed wind r otential comm d Resourc a paucity of w d data consist [1]. To exam d and Virginia for each of th data sources asurements fo the average di sults were com he measured w m NASA’s W ration program these seven d eve can be ov essed and bal al power plan re wind, it is n tback from sh than obstacle ow water win d sounds are a e that have no s is needed to y Programs e c State energy eloping indig ons along with tates are strap more individua hey result in o land, money i tive (RGGI), s by 2019. RG ual CO2 limit sted in consum and has receiv g is available o der adding em Virginia, and s periodic car resource meas mercial develo ce Uncertai wind resource ts of modeled mine the accur a were obtaine he four wind available tha r one or more iurnal and sea mpared to mo wind sites wer Wallops Island m); and NOA data sets were ercome here. lanced against nt emissions. W not clear whet hipping chann es. See Figure nd sites that ar a unique reso ow been large quantify and emphasize s y plans mentio genous resourc h property an pped for fundi als. Funding i overall small is available fo a ten-state ca GGI operates ts and cycles a mer programs ved $188,828 only to states mphasis on pr North Carolin rbon credit au surements and opers. inty data suitable d estimates of racy of these w ed and review market areas at included hu e years at mul asonal averag odeled estima re described i d site; Crisfiel AA measurem e used to estim Environment t the benefits While it may ther offshore nels is require e 1.1. The Mi re sheltered f ource area in t ly built out. A d recognize th small scale p on policies fa ces. There are nd sales tax an ing these prog is small, but c energy contri or renewable ap-and-trade p carbon tradin a portion of th s and clean en 8,931 and Del that are RGG romoting com na should rec uctions are lik d baseline env for planning f wind speed f wind resource wed. These da that will be d ub height of gr ltiple heights ge wind speed tes from EWI in detail in th d, Maryland ( ments from Ch mate the avera tal issues, suc to bay water y be politically wind can be ed, turbines in id-Atlantic St from the chall the Mid-Atlan Additional tec his unique opp projects avoring renew e a variety of nd property w grams. Small can be easily l ibutions. energy progr program mean ng auctions qu he revenue ge nergy develop laware $25,41 GI members. mmercial wind consider joinin kely to increa vironmental s utility-scale w from Eastern e estimates, d ata were also u discussed late reater than 70 were compile ds for a typica ITS. e Tall Tower (collected und hesapeake Lig age wind spee ch as birds, ba and air quali y tempting to developed at nstalled on sh tates all have lenging condi ntic. They are chnical, econo portunity. wable energy f grant program wavers availab projects tend limited. How rams from the nt to reduce C quarterly for th enerated from pment. To dat 12,511 in cum d plant develo ng the RGGI. ase in value an studies and ot wind plant. C Wind Integra data from seve used as input er. These sites 0 meters in th ed. This data al site in each Study [2]. A der a Marylan ght off the Vir eds in each of ats and view s ity from reduc avoid those i an economic hoals can serv access to vas itions in the o e much larger omic and and reducing ms aimed ma ble in some st d to be favore wever, the prog e Regional CO2 emission hese states ba m the auction b te 15 auctions mulative proce opment. The . Revenues nd could serv ther actions th Commonly ation Study en sites in to the econom s were the onl he region. The was used to of the marke dditional data nd Energy rginia coast. f the four mar 5 shed ced issues cally e as st ocean. r than ainly tates ed grams s ased back s eeds. e to hat mic ly e t a rket
6 areas. The off-peak e collected Significan The Ridge measured conclusio least one w The rever wind spee to be stati An additio Mid-Atlan months. T Midwest a productio Many fact lack of lon the land-s an inadeq Figure 1-2 Aug 3, 2007 ese data were energy output during the sam nt differences eline data win at 100 meter n that average wind power c rse is true on t ed offshore w istically and e onal wind res ntic region. L These jets are as shown but n. tors contribut ng-term, hub sea boundary, quate resource The Weather R 7 at 1:00 am at used to estim t as well as m me years. were noted b nd speeds and r (m) hub heig e onshore coa class. the ocean. Th were about 15% economically source uncerta LLJ may signi powerful win with differen te to uncertain height or abo and the prese e, this uncerta Research Model a height of 312 mate average w monthly and se between the m d capacity fac ght and above astal area win he analysis sho % higher than significant. ainty is eviden ificantly incre nds that arise nt drivers, yet nty regarding ove wind mea ence of low le ainty is a poten l simulation of l 2m above groun wind speeds a easonal differ measured wind ctors were sim e on the Delm nd speeds at th owed that the n estimates in nce of the pre ease wind plan from large sc they can sign the regional asurements, th evel jets. For ntial barrier f low level jets on nd level. and plant cap rences. Unfort d strength an milar. But look marva at Wallo hose heights m e EWITS estim this study. T esence of Low nt production cale topograp surface western season to a no plain. T that oc layer c summe sunset night. T charact shows night o state-o Foreca resolut m heig that da dramat turbine data is location occur in known nificantly incr wind resourc he atmospheri areas where c for developers n pacity factors tunately not a d the EWITS king at the hig ops and Eastv may be under mates for ave These differen w Level Jets ( n during sprin hic/thermal fo e cooling of th n region durin . This forcing octurnal LLJ o The LLJ is a s curs under sta onditions at n er months. It b and persists f To illustrate t teristics of the a model simu on August 2, 2 f-the-art Wea ast (WRF) mo tion. This mod ght but direct m ate show the je tically increas e rotor height. needed to de ns and freque n the Mid-Atl to occur freq rease wind pl ce characterist ic complexity current lower s. for on-peak a all of the data S model result gh wind shea ville leads to t restimated by erage seasona nces are consid (LLJ) across t ng and summe forcing due to he elevated ng the warm g often gives r over the coast sheet of fast w able boundary night during t begins around for most of th the spatial e LLJ, Figure ulation for on 2007 using th ather Research odel at 9 km del run was a measurement ets can se wind speed . Much additi termine the s ency that LLJ lantic. LLJs a quently in the lant energy tics including y and variabil r level data sh and a was ts. ar the y at l dered the er o rise tal wind y the d he e 1.2 ne he h and at 312 ts on ds at ional cale, are g: the lity at how
1.5 Bus Economic are capita available power. Pu above, we used data built and o considere European team foun near shore depth and commissi applicatio The study region and Penn-Jers Mid-Atlan connectio projects, D projects, C Using the plant at ea different P conservat 2015 Add interstate implemen large fract PERI then project str likely fina (PPA) or ran the mo coverage, Another m with a sat meets tho Energy (C The land- could also offer pote iness and c issues pose l intensive; th wind resourc ublished data ere used to ev from NREL operating to e d due to the u offshore proj nd that most e e. As these “e d 25 km from oning and ma ons for this pr y team then pr d actual futur ey-Maryland ntic States an n points repre Delmarva Pow Calvert Cliffs measured wi ach node, the PJM forward ive estimate g der Prices, wh transport stan nted. Of cours tion of region n performed d ructure and fi ancing, with d other well-gu odel to calcul which demon method of ana isfactory IRR se requiremen COEs), where based plants w o work financ ential, but ther Economic other barriers he viability of e, on operatin on land-based valuate the eco and other sou evaluate bay a uncertain natu ject costs wer early projects easy” sites we shore. The Eu aintenance we oject. repared a forw res pricing tra Interconnect d certain near esenting each wer and Ligh s for Bay proj ind characteri value of elec pricing scena given recent f hich assumes E ndards, requir se these stand nal generation discounted ca nancing were debt rated one uaranteed sale late after-tax I nstrates ease alysis, to bette R and debt cov nts. From this e the latter fig were found to cially. The oce re are technic c Issues s to wind deve f such project ng expenses, a d turbine proj onomics of po urces that wer and ocean bas ure of such es re analyzed to were built in ere built out, p uropean expe ere factored in ward pricing m aded on the NY tion, which is rby areas. Fou h of the wind m t – Old Domi ects, and Fen istics (on-pea ctricity was de arios were use fuel and powe EPA Utility M ring additiona dards will not n. ash flow-retur e employed: ( e level below es with favora IRR, which is of repayment er compare th verage, and th s, we calculat ure excludes o be economi ean projects s cal and econom elopment. Alt ts depends on and on projec ject costs and otential coast re based on ac sed projects. N timates. o determine p very shallow project develo eriences on pr nto wind plan model based o YMEX comm the Regional ur existing no market areas, inion Electric ntress for Ocea k, off-peak an etermined by ed, including er forecasts, a Maximum Ac al pollution co change costs rn on investm (1) merchant p investment-g able financing s the rate of r t for lenders. he projects, PE hen using the ted levelized n inflation. cally viable a show a broad mic problems though wind n initial cost, o cted demand a d local wind s tal and ridgeli ctual costs for No “proposed possible trend w sheltered wa opment shifte rices for foun nt cost estima on historical w modities tradi l Transmissio odes were sele , namely Clov c Company (D an projects. nd seasonal) f extrapolating 2.5% price e and another, h chievable Con ontrols on coa for natural g ment (DCF-RO power sales w grade and (2) g, and debt rat return for equ ERI performe model to calc nominal-dolla and with favo gap over mar s to solve. If S plants run on on the amoun and price paid trength estim ine projects in r European pr d” project cos s in project pr aters less than ed to deeper w dations, insta ates for bay an wholesale pri ing exchange. on Organizatio ected on the P verdale node DPL-ODEC) f for a simulate g forward for scalation, wh higher-priced ntrol Technol al-fired plants as or nuclear OI) analysis. T with current (f Power Purch ted at investm ity investors, ed a DCF-RO culate the rev ar and consta orable financin rket prices. T Shallow Bay n “free fuel”, t nt and timing o d for the proje mates, discusse n the region. W rojects that w sts were rices. The stu n 15 m deep a water, up to 30 allation, nd ocean ices in the PJM . PJM refers t on (RTO) for PJM system a for Ridgeline for Coastal ed 100 MW w 25 years. Tw hich is a scenario term logy (MACT) s, are plants that ar Two types of first half 2012 hase Agreeme ment-grade. P and debt OI analysis sta venue stream ant-dollar Cos ng the bay pla The Ocean pla plants were b 7 they of the ect’s ed We were udy and 0 m M to the r the as e wind wo med ) and re a 2), ent PERI arting that sts of ant ants built
8 first, draw Figure 1- Figure There are lows, whi system. T issue facin past. Second, th the energy (MAPP) a backbone In conclus term deve of bays an Ridgeline environm 1.6 Pub Public op addressed Mountain state. Rea controver began bef wing on lesson -3 shows the f e 1-3. COEs of F two other po ich some obse This has reduc ng wind and o he study team y from the 10 are assumed t . sion, the leve elopment in th nd sounds due e sites are low ental factors m lic Interest inion of wind d properly in t n Ridge Protec asonable zonin sial. Model z fore model or ns learned in favorable fina Four Plants wit otential barrier ervers forecas ced PJM’s wh other renewab m assumed tha 00 MW plants to be available lized cost of e he Mid-Atlant e to proximity west cost, but t must be consi t Issues d energy plays the project pla ction Act has ng ordinances oning policie dinances wer Europe, the f ancing COEs. h Favorable Fin rs. First, the p st to stay low holesale powe bles but has n at required tra s. Transmissio e. We did not energy from p tic. Next mos y to load and the distance to idered. s a key role in anning proces effectively b s can go a lon s are availabl re ready. field experien . nancing using P price of natura for up to five er prices, beca not been a bar ansmission lin on line projec t evaluate the potential coas st attractive po because the w o load centers n wind develo ss. In North C locked all win ng way to add le and in use e ce gained wo PJM Forward P al gas has fall e years till exc ause PJM is a rrier preventin nes will be av cts like the Mi potential imp stal sites appe otential sites wind resource s, associated t opment. It can Carolina a jud nd developme dress siting iss except in a fe ould benefit O Prices (2013 Do len in recent y cess capacity a spot market. ng wind deve vailable when id-Atlantic Po pact from the ears to be attr are in shelter es are probabl transmission n become a ba dicial interpre ent in the wes sues before pr ew communiti Ocean plants. ollars). years to recor is absorbed b This is a rece elopment in th n needed to ha ower Pathway proposed off ractive for nea red shallow w ly underestim issues and arrier if it is n tation of the stern part of t rojects becom ies where pro rd by the ent he andle y fshore ar- waters mated. not the me ojects
Generally environm ways shou Noise and benefits fr the “dead doing so i barrier to y environment entally sensit uld be avoide d aesthetics ar rom wind pow zones” in the is possible. H wind energy tal issues can tive sites but a d. Bats issues re issues that wer that resul e bay and oce However, beca development be defined, a are not consid s can largely b can generally lt from reduci ean. Although ause of potent t for the purpo avoided or mi dered a barrie be avoided by y be handled t ing coal and o h changing pu tial initial opp oses of this re itigated. Thes er to developm y raising the t through open other fossil fu ublic opinion c position, publ eport. se can preclud ment. Bird san turbine cut-in dialog citing uel burning, an can be a chall lic interest is c de the use of nctuaries and n wind speed. g the value and nd from shrin lenging task, considered a 9 fly d nking
10 2.0 Intr This repor in respons barrier red 09GO990 (DNR). Princeton Baltimore wind and and federa included: regulatory consultan environm physics, d and wind where he a senior m in the elec conventio The team’ be impedi value, but limited to, assumptio along with technical i wind mark Benefits o of the Mid term powe Conseque identified barriers to Results w groups in regional e roduction rt presents res se to the U.S. duction progr 009. Cost shar Energy Reso e County (UM other renewa al and state en Dr. Lynn Spa y issues, and D ts have exper ental and regi dynamics, and power genera served as sen manager in the ctric power bu onal power pla ’s approach w iments to win t rather investi , in depth inte ons. This inves h possible resp information c ket projection of wind energ d-Atlantic Sta er price stabil ently these ben and discusse o wind develo were communi regional busi environmental sults of work Department ram, competit red funding su ources Interna MBC) and the able energy pl nergy policy p arling Atmosp Dan Lobue on rience in wind ional power g d air pollution ation policy is nior counsel a e Environmen usiness has he ants and for w was to identify nd energy dev igated in dept erviews of key stigation was ponses or mit oncerning the ns. gy are widely ates include w lity, reduced e nefits will no ed. However, opment. icated in meet iness, governm l groups and N conducted by of Energy, “2 tive Funding O upport came f ational (PERI) Chesapeake lant design, co planning and pheric Physic n regional tra d energy and a generation iss n transport. M ssues in this c at the Justice D ntal Protection elped in struc wind power pr y and investig velopment. W th by means th y stakeholders followed by o tigation option e wind resourc recognized. R wind energy, a energy impor t be discussed this report is tings and pres ments and un Non-Governm y Princeton E 20% Wind by Opportunity A from the Mar ) organized a Bay Foundat onventional p management cist from UMB ansmission org also bring det sues. Dr. Spar Mr. Buckheit h country and a Department’s n Agency’s a cturing and op rojects. gate technical e did not acce hat go beyond s and policy m objective quan ns to overcom ces in the regi Renewable Po acknowledgin rts, job creatio d here. Regio more specific sentations at r niversities. In mental Organ Energy Resour y 2030: Topic Announceme ryland Depart a team includi tion (CBF). PE power plant im t. In addition BC, Bruce C. ganizational c tailed and bro rling is a prom has consulted abroad since r s Environmen air program. M ptimizing tran l, business and ept theoretical d “literature re makers, and gr ntitative analy me the challeng ion was expos ortfolio Stand ng its value in on and reduce onally specific cally focused regional work addition the C nizations (NG rces Internati c2A Wind Pow ent Number: D tment of Natu ing the Unive ERI staff are mplementatio to PERI staff . Buckheit, ad consideration oad perspectiv minent scienti on a number retiring from t ntal Enforcem Mr. Lobue wit nsmission agr d regulatory i l or “reported eviews” includ round truthing ysis and unbia ges. In additio sed and factor dards or Goals n terms of sus ed air and wa c or unique m on defining a kshops, semin CBF hosted a GOs). onal, LLC (P wering Ameri DE-PS36- ural Resource ersity of Mary experienced on, project fin f, key consult ddressing ns. These ves on ist on atmosph of fossil fuel the governme ment Section a th his experie reements for issues that co d” barriers at f ding, but not g of all underl ased reporting on, critical new red into the lo s (RPS/RPG) stainability, lo ater pollution. market drivers and overcomi nars and direc a meeting of PERI), ica” s yland in nance, ants heric l-fired ent and as ence uld face lying g w ocal in all ong- are ing ctly to
3.0 Goa The objec developm mitigating Specific o to define s to analyze characteri environm Our goal w include: 1. “T 2. “P 3. “W 4. “C 5. “C als and Ob ctive of this st ment of wind e g those barrie objectives are specific techn e the economi istics and unc ental conside was also to di The only usef Population de Wind resourc Coastal wind Competing us bjectives tudy is to defi energy in the M rs. : 1) to refine nical, busines ic factors that certainties in t rations in per ispel or reduc ful winds are ensity is too h ce is not suffic power canno ses rule out m ine technical, Mid-Atlantic the understan s, and regulat t may impact the local wind rspective with ce myths abou at ridgeline s high on coasta cient in coasta ot compete wi most of the oth economic an region and to nding of the n tory barriers a project devel d resource pot h other power ut Mid-Atlant sites and most al plains.” al plains, bay ith stronger of herwise availa nd policy issu o identify mec nature of the r along with op lopment decis tential and 5) r generation te tic wind powe t of those are y(s) and sound ffshore wind able bottomla ues that have b chanisms for regional wind ptions for ove sions, 4) to qu ) to put wind e echnologies. er markets. T on protected ds.” strengths.” and.” been impedin overcoming d energy mark ercoming them uantify energy hese myths land.” 11 ng the or ket, 2) m, 3)
12 4.0 Reg The regio Columbia resources, potential. different d As shown mountains Delaware over the C Figure 4-1. To quanti National R Energy (D wind reso individual Chesapeak again not Carolina 8 data are su These exc sounds. T can be ov If fully de megawatt 1 NREL esti 50 m height gional Ene n chosen for a, generally ha , growing dem For purposes development n in Figure 4- s, 2) Coastal – and Chesape Continental sh Mid-Atlantic S fy these mark Renewable En DOE) titled 20 ource potentia l state are: M ke Bay), Dela including De 807 MW on a ummarized in clusions could The potential c ercome. eveloped, assu t-hours (MWh imated an averag t. See Table B-10 ergy Situa this study: De as similar win mand for elec s of this study issues and po -1, the market – on the plain eake Bays, Al helf off the At States Wind Pla kets , the auth nergy Labora 0% Wind Ene al by 2030 at 1 aryland 1,483 aware 9.5 MW elaware Bay, V and offshore p n Table 4-1 th d be reconside capacity could uming an ave h) annually. T ge capacity facto 0 in reference 1. ation - Rip elaware, Mary nd energy ma ctricity and ye y, the wind en otential t segments are ns east of the lbemarle and tlantic coast. ant Market Are hors of this rep atory (NREL) ergy by 2030. 16 to 43 thou 3 MW onshor W onshore (lik Virginia 1,79 potential large hat also descri ered but more d equal the of rage 35% cap That amount o or of 35% in 201 pe for Win yland, North rket character et almost no d nergy market i e: 1) Ridgelin Piedmont, 3) Pamlico Soun as port expanded in preparing This report e sand megawa re and 53,782 kely underest 3 on land and er than the oth ibes land area e important is ffshore estima pacity factor 1 , of electricity i 10 increasing to d Market Carolina, Vir ristics. These development o is divided int ne - along the Sheltered W nds, and 4) O d on the data their study fo estimated the atts (MW) [3] 2 offshore (no timated) and d 94,448 offsh her Mid-Atla as that were e s the omission ates provided , wind could is equivalent 38% by 2030 fo Developm rginia, and th e include: reas of the availab to four segme e tops of Appa Waters – in the Ocean – offsho and models u or the U.S. D usable Mid-A ]. DOE’s estim ot counting po similar to Ma hore plus the antic States co excluded from n of possible s d potential env supply at leas to 15% of the or Class 3 wind r ment e District of sonably good ble wind energ ents each with alachian shallow wate ore in deeper used by the epartment of Atlantic regio mates for otential sites i aryland offsho Bay, and Nor ombined. The m consideratio sites in bays o vironmental i st 50 million e current five resource measure wind gy h ers in water onal n the ore rth ese on. or ssues -state ed at
Barrier Mitigat potentia misinfor consumpt this report Table 4-1 D bays and so The wind turbine ca estimated maps draw Class 3 an higher alti estimates. could dram 4.1 Mid- 4.1.1 R Ridgeline 120 MW some loca projects o notable th the 790 M new ridge Mehoopan had alread plants ope in Pennsy Pennsylva county. T familiarity State Maryland North Caroli Delaware Virginia r – Visual imp tion Option – al wind power rmation abou tion, based on t will show th DOE Estimates ounds). resource data apacity being as Class 2 or wn at 50 mete nd excluded e itudes, indica . The basis fo matically incr -Atlantic W Ridgeline Site e sites have en in two wind p al governmen or caused them hat in nearby P MW of wind p eline projects ny beginning dy been dama erating, and re ylvania. Altho ania Departm his was aimed y wind turbin Total (km 2 ) Ex 567.7 ina 1,155.60 36.6 1,567.20 1 Windy La pact from ridg – Support dem r plant sites in ut noise and vi n Energy Info hat potential e of land-based a a available at located either r below were er (50 m) heig except ridgelin ate that Mid-A or new higher rease the wind Wind Energ es ncountered se plants have be ts and in Nor m to be aband Pennsylvania plants in Penn are being bui in June of 20 aged by strip m ecognizing th ough in some ment of Enviro d at educating nes through sm xcluded (km 2 ) Available (km 2 ) 271.1 296.6 994.1 161.5 34.7 1.9 ,208.50 358.7 and Area ≥ 30% G geline sites. monstration pr n an effort to isual impact. rmation Adm electricity pro and offshore win the time of th r on ridgeline considered to ght that were nes [5]. More Atlantic coasta wind resourc d energy pote gy Market S rious opposit een built in M th Carolina th doned. These i a, wind develo nsylvania at th ilt this year in 012. In some c mining, later heir economic cases there is onment had a g the public a mall projects. e Available % of State % L 1.18% 0.13% 0.04% 0.35% Gross Capacity Fac rojects with tu increase techn ministration (E oduction from nd energy poten he DOE study es or at offsho oo “marginal” used in the st e recent wind al areas may b ce estimates is ential for land Segments tion in Maryla Maryland. Opp he “Mountain issues are dis opment is pro he end of 201 ncluding a 13 cases the initi other ridges a c and environm s still organize policy to supp and winning g This leads to % of Total Windy Land Excluded I 47.80% 86.00% 94.80% 77.10% ctor at 80 m urbines instal nology accep EIA) data from m wind may be ntial by 2030 (b y resulted in n ore ocean site ” to be consid tudy, virtually resource mea be several po s discussed in d-based sites. and, Virginia position from n Ridge Protec scussed in det oceeding well 1 are currentl 1 MW plant t ial projects w and farm land mental benefi ed opposition port wind dem general accept o a possible so Installed Capacity (MW) 1,483 807 9.5 1,793 Land-Based Wi lled in commu ptance and to m 2010 [4]. A e substantially but not counting nearly all of t es. In the DOE dered. Lookin y all of the lan asurements, s ower classes h n detail later i and North Ca m some memb ction Act,” ha tail later in thi on similar te ly located on that began ins were placed on ds were emplo fits, has helped n, several year monstration p tance based o olution in the y Annual Generat (GWh) 4,269 2,395 26 5,395 ind Energy Potenti unities near overcome Analysis later y underestim g potential sites the projected w E study, sites ng at wind res nd area was b ome measure higher than ea in this report a arolina, altho ers of the pub ave delayed is report but i rrain. Nearly ridgelines. Fi stallation in n mountains t oyed. Seeing d to open mar rs ago the projects in eve on increased target states. Offshore Po tion Estimated C (MW) 53,782 Very La Similar to M 94,448 ial 13 in ated. s in wind ource below ed at arlier and ugh blic, it is all of ive that wind rkets ery otential apacity ) 2 arge Maryland 8
14 4.1.2 C This study energy de coast. As usable giv Populatio million pe highway c from ridge For persp (DELMA Germany 4-2. Both Wind reso average m estimated Wind Atla enough en during low Sweden a periods in Figure 4-2. to indicate Coastal Plain y concludes th evelopment. T mentioned pr ven better win n high density eople live in t corridors. How eline areas an ective, the co ARVA) penins to the norther regions are m ources are com measured at 50 Class 3 resou as). In 2010, J nergy to meet w demand per and Germany. n Denmark [7 DELMARVA- scale) n Sites he plains east Terrain varies reviously, the nd measureme y is often cite the five-state wever, the hig nd agricultura oastal plain in sula. The Dan rn tip. DELM mainly agricul mparable with 0 m above gro urce of 6.4 to Jutland had m t 100% of the riods at night Electric pow ]. -Jutland Compa t of the Appal from rolling e wind resourc ents and mod ed as a reason Region, main gh density urb al areas along Denmark can nish Jutland P MARVA has s ltural with so h open plains ound level [6 7.0 m/s at 50 more than 2,40 Danish elect when actuall wer was later r arison where 2, lachian Moun hills in the w ces once thou dern turbines w n for lack of re nly in urban a ban areas in t the coast that n be compare eninsula is ap similar dimen me urban and in Denmark ]. This is only 0 m height (th 00 MW of lan trical load. Hi ly much of th returned from 400 MW of lan ntains contain west to large re ught to be mar with taller tow egional wind and suburban the region are t have stronge ed to the Dela pproximately nsions and top d industrial ar reported at 6 y slightly bett he standard he nd-based win ighest wind g he wind energy m other genera nd-based wind p n many sites s elatively flat rginal are now wers and larg development areas along th e generally mo er wind resou aware – Maryl 300 km from pography, as s reas. .5 to 7.5 m/s ter than DELM eight used in t nd plants prod generation pen y was exporte ating sources plants are opera suitable for w areas near the w considered er rotors. t. In fact, 25 he Interstate ore than 50 m urces. land – Virgin m the border w shown in Figu average annu MARVA with the European ducing at time netration occu ed to Norway during low w ating (300 km li ind e miles nia with ure ual h an n es urred y, wind ine is
4.1.3 B The poten has receiv on 100 m concluded based inst That initia driven req metocean and it sho including maximum and Atmo ocean nea blocks. Th shown in Wind, wa the Ameri for design gusts are t criteria ne extrapolat This will l detailed di the admitt studies. D Madison U For major of over 30 depths of continenta wave heig waves in s the maxim the bays s maximum 2 Metocean and turbulen 3 Miles, J.J. 4 Australian http://cawcr 5 NOAA Na one-third of Bay and Soun ntial value of ved little atten towers in off d that the cost tallations. As al study focus quirements di 2 assumptions ould be noted Alaska. Of m m winds, wave ospheric Adm ar Chesapeake he location of Figure 4-3. ave and curren ican Ship Bui n and structur to be based on ed to be modi ing surface wi likely overesti iscussion of th edly limited d ata for the Oc University at a r tropical cycl 0 m in deep w approximatel al shelf. Data ght or 0.22 x d shallow water mum possible sheltered from m wave height is a term coined nce at different h et al., “Offshore n Bureau of mete r.gov.au/bmrc/pu ational Data Buo f the waves, as m nd Sites installations i ntion. Early in fshore applica t of energy fro a result that p sed on ocean ctated much o s used by We that their assu more direct rel e heights and ministration (N e Light House f NOAA mea nt characterist ilders. This st al load predic n recognized te fied to apply t ind speed up t imate the wind his issue). Con data recorded b ean applicatio a meeting of th lones of Saffi water as descri ly 20 m and " from measur depth (varies r is, to a first wave height m ocean swell t of 3.8 m. d recently to inclu heights above the e Wind Advance eorology Researc ubs/tcguide/ch4/ oy Center definit measured from th in the shallow n the Federal ations was com om offshore a path of resear based applica of the cost dif estinghouse an umptions are levance in the currents. Me NOAA) on tw e (CHLV2) n surement site tics are descri tandard requir ction. Long-te echniques and to Bay applica to turbine hub d speed and co nsequently the by NOAA, yet on are also con he Virginia Of ir-Simpson ca ibed in the W "feel" the ocea rements from by location). approximatio is 22 to 30 m l and surge, th ude meteorologi e water, sea state ed Technology D ch Centre, The C /ch4_3.htm tion: “Significan he trough to the c w sheltered wa wind program mpleted by W applications w rch was dropp ations where w fference betw nd their marin for open ocea e Mid-Atlanti asurement da o buoys locat ear one of De es near Point L ibed in standa res the use of erm and extrem clearly descri ations. Also th height is base onsequently th assumptions t are considere nsistent with th ffshore Wind D ategory 3 or h Westinghouse r an bottom at m Germany in t Theoretical w on, about 75% m for lease blo he measured s ical and oceanog e and currents. Demonstration S Centre for Austra nt wave height, is crest of the wave aters of bays m, a detailed s Westinghouse was two to thr ped in 1980. water depth a ween land and ne contractors an application ic are the mor ata shown are ted in the Che epartment of I Lookout, Stin ards for offsh f the so called me-value pred ibed in the des he wind shear ed on the 1/7 P he structural lo used here are ed reasonable he extreme wi Development higher, it is no report. Howe much greater the North Sea wave models % of the local ocks ranging i significant5 w graphic character ite Developmen alian Weather an s approximately es”. and sounds in study of 6.5 t Electric Com ree times high and extreme w d sea based ins s are summar ns around the re recent mea by National esapeake Bay Interior’s win ngray Point an hore wind turb d “100-year st dictions for sus sign documen used in standa Power Law. oads (see Sect qualitative ad for prelimina ind estimates p Authority (VO ot unusual to f ever these wav r depths, well a indicate 8-1 predict the m oceanic dept in depth from waves are 2.2 m ristics including nt”, 15 February nd Climate Rese equal to the ave n the Mid-Atl o 10 MW turb mpany [8]. It her than land weather and w stallations. Th rized in Table e U.S. coast asurements of Oceanograph y and one in th nd energy leas nd near CHLV bines develop torm” as the b stained and wi nt, however the ard for tion 9 for more djustments bas ary economic presented by J OWDA)3 . find wave hei ves break in w offshore alon 1m maximum maximum heig th 4 . Conseque m 30 to 40 m. m with the g wind speed, dir 2012. earch, erage of the high 15 lantic bines wave he e 4-2 f hic he se V2 is ped by basis ind ese e sed on James ights water ng the m ght of ently For rection, hest
16 Table 4-2. M Wo for o Me Chesap 100-Y W (troug Worst-c for o 100-Y 100-Y Refereences and N 4. National Data 5. Kinsman, Blair 6. Estimate of wa Potomac Buoy, h 7. SCRIPPS Instit http://cdip.u 8. Chesapeake Ba 9. Reeds Nautical 10. IEC 61400-1 11. JMU presenta W (100-ye Bay 3. Kilar, L.A., De Volume IV - Mete C 2. NOAA definiti 1. Kilar, L.A., De Volume II - Appa Metocean assum p orst-case pen-ocean asured at peake Light Year Storm Waves gh to crest) ase extremes pen-ocean Year Storm Year Storm Notes: Buoy Center, NOAA, ht r (1984), Wind Waves: th ave height in sheltered wa http://buoybay.noaa.gov/o tute of Oceanography, C ucsd.edu/?nav=historic&s ay Interpretive Buoy Sys Alminac, East Coast Ed for Class I assumes extre ation to VA Offshore Wi Wind ear storm) on and Ocean M R S CH (E wa M R S D esign Study and Econom eorological and Oceanog urrent ion -Significant wave hei esign Study and Econom aratis Designs and Costs, mptions used fo y, ttp://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/ heir Generation and Prop waters - NOAA Chesapeak observations/data-graphi Coastal Data Information sub=data&stn=147&stre stem (CBIBS), NOAA, h dition, 2008 eem wind of 50 m/s at hu ind Development Autho Location Units Maximum Design L Requiremnts for Oc urvival all US regio HLV @ 43.3 m hei 1996 -2010 Design for surviva Extreme Wave in 3 water depth) 5 Design for significa aves in ocean opera 2, 3 Maximum Design L Requiremnts for Oc urvival all US regio Location Units Design max @hub. 1 ic Assessment of Multi-U graphic Surveys, WASH Location Design for ocean operation Units Design for Surviva (Extreme) ight is calculated as the a ic Assessment of Multi-U WASH-2330-78/4(Vol. or bay, sound an Estimated M (Kno 104. (@ 10 72 Ocean Desi Hgt. in 1 Storm (m) 30.5 15.6 22.5 Ocean D (m/s 1.8 2.2 /station_history.php?sta pagation on the Ocean S ke Bay Interpretive Buoy ing-tool.html n Program (CDIP), am=p1&xyrmo=200806 http://buoybay.noaa.gov/l ub in 50-year storm but n rity 15 January 2012. oad ean ons 1 ight 4 al 0 m - ant ation oad ean ons 1 10, 11 Unit Offshore Wind Energ -2330-78/4(Vol. 4), We n al verage of the highest on Unit Offshore Wind Energ . 2), Westinghouse Elect nd ocean lease b Maximum Es Sustain m Hu ots) (Kno .2 0 m) 21 ign Wave 100-yr. m 3, 7 ) 5 6 5 esign 3 s) 8 2 ation=chlv2 Surface , Dover Publicati y System (CBIBS) operat 6&xitem=product33 locations/potomac.html not category 3 hurricane Meas C 36.6 gy Conversion Systems Ap stinghouse Electric Corp Meas ne-third of all of the wave gy Conversion Systems Ap ric Corporation, June 14 block applicatio pp t. Max ned @ 100 ub Height Es Sus 100 H ots or m/s) 5.0 kts 37.0 ions, ISBN 0-486-49511 ting since 2007, es. 6.7 4.7 sured Max. Ocean ape Henry Buoy 4 2008 - 2011 (m) (IEC 10 ) pplication, poration, June 14, 1979. sured Max. @ Ca Buoy 44099 2008 - 2011 - (m/s) - e heights during the 20-m pplication, 4, 1979. ons. st. Max tained @ 0 m Hub Height Ma (m/s) (K 110.5 2 - Ba Su Ma Ba Su Ma (m -6. n Wave @ 44099 56.0 ape Henry minute sampling period. ax Gust Max G Hu Heig Knots) (m/ 275.0 141 ay Est. rvival ax. 6, 8 Bay Me off Stin Poi (m) (m 3.0 2.2 4.0 3. ay Est. rvival ax. 6, 8, 9 Bay Me off Stin Poi m/s) (m/ 1.0 0. 1.5 1. 69. Gust @ ub ght /s) 1.4 asured ngray int m) 2 8 asured ngray int /s) 7 1 .7
Figure 4-3. The availa associated Regardles an installa offshore i The cost b Europe. T slightly m Denmark Agency (I had risen depth, wit more chal this report Location of NO able NOAA m d with an extr ss, significant ation in the sh n the ocean. T benefit of dep The first sea-b more costly tha in 1996 are s IEA) regardin to $3.88 mill th most early llenging cond t. OAA Buoys measurements reme 100-yea t wave height hallow waters This differenc ployments in s based plants w an land-based shown in Figu ng offshore ap ion per MW ( plants less th ditions in the N s are short ter ar storm that w s and extreme s of bays and ce is reflected shallow shelte were located n d installations ure 4-4 along pplications. B (double land- han 10 km fro North Sea [7] rm (less than would be need e waves are a sounds that a d in the cost st ered waters c near shore in v s. The land-ba g with comme By 2009, Denm -based costs) m shore. Late ]. These cost t five years) an ded to update a factor of 8-1 are sheltered f tudies later in can be seen fro very shallow ased and offsh ent reported to mark reported as projects w er projects we trends are ana nd do not incl e the Westingh 10 higher offs from extreme n this report. om initial off sheltered wat hore plant loc o the Internati d that offshor were built in up ere built furth alyzed in mor lude condition house estimat shore compare conditions fshore project ters, and were cations in ional Energy re installation p to 15 m wat her from shore re detail later 17 ns tes. ed to ts in e cost ter e in in
18 Figure 4-4. 4.1.4 O There are waters, wh continenta the Mid-A DOE in co the Burea lease bloc completin growth of described Onshore & Of Offshore Oce vast areas of here large wi al shelf is up Atlantic Bight onsort with D au of Ocean E cks in Federal ng a regional e f a commercia in the Nation ffshore Plants in ean Sites ffshore along nd power pla to 200 nautic t, see Figure Department of Energy Manag l water for wi environmenta al offshore wi nal Offshore W n Denmark, Cir the East coas ants can be dep al miles (nm) 4-5. f Interior’s Bu gement, Regu nd energy pro al assessment ind industry i Wind Strategy rca 1996 t and elsewhe ployed. This ) wide with re ureau of Ocea ulation and En oject develop [9]. These ef n the U.S. Th y, which is de ere in the U.S includes the o elatively shall an Energy Ma nforcement) a pment by acce fforts are desi he intent of th esigned to dra S., in both stat ocean area wh low 30 to 60 m anagement (B are aggressive epting lease o igned to prom hese federal e aw on lessons te and federal here the m water dept BOEM) (form ely working to ffers and mote and acce efforts are s learned from l th in merly o lerate m the
extensive more cost Figure 4-5. BOEM-NOA DE, MD and The Natio that are ho (PTC) inc still techn Offshore W more turb Other pos developm waters tha detail late 6 http://www Viewer/Inde offshore dep t-effective tur Mid-Atlantic B AA Multipurpos d VA are shown onal Offshore opefully supp centive that is nical and econ Wind Techno bines in the wa ssible paths ar ment risk. One at are not exp er in this repor w.boem.gov/Oil- ex.aspx loyment in Eu rbines. A goal Bight Regional O se Marine Cadas n. NC has yet to b Wind Energy ported by cont currently set nomic uncerta ology Demon ater and opera re discussed h scenario cou osed to the ex rt. -and-Gas-Energy urope and mo l is to have in Offshore Lease stre6 Using NRE be allocated by B y Strategy inc tinuation of th t to expire in t ainties and con stration Proje ating by 2014 here to help ov uld be to deplo xtreme condit y-Program/Mapp ove on directl nstalled 10 GW Blocks and Wi EL Wind Speed D BOEM. cludes extensi he essential fe the end of 20 ncerns that ar ects have been 4. vercome tech oy the first bl tions of the op ping-and-Data/M ly to the next W at $0.10 pe ind Resources a Data at 90m Hub ive research a federal Section 12. Assuming re described i n fast tracked hnical and eco locks of mach pen ocean. Th Multi-Purpose-M generation of er kWh by 20 at 90m Hub Hei b Height, April 2 and demonstr n 45 Producti g the PTC is e in this report. d with a plan t onomic barrie hines (possibl his option is d Marine-Cadastre- f larger hopef 20 [10]. ight - 2012. Lease bloc ration program ion Tax Credi extended, the The DOE to have one or ers by reducin ly 500 MW) i discussed in m -Map- 19 fully cks for ms it re are r ng in more
20 4.2 Ene The Mid-A in the nati 3.2%. All renewable promoting not proven region. As a resul RECs from located in project co The energ There is c old plants plants pla Wind reso the inevita 4.3 Euro NREL rep (depth of projects w minimize Since 200 projects in to 45 km d data was c from publ [12]. Data on fu capital co trends ass Table whe further fro Barrier from co Mitigat measure and soun rgy Situati Atlantic State ion. Accordin of the Sates h e energy from g local job cre n to be suffic lt, all of the M m pre-World n other states. onstruction job gy supply sho currently only s supplying ne anned, and all ources can wo able decomm opean Offs ported, “Of th 30 m or less) were construct development 07, other Euro n deeper wate distance to sh compiled from lished data fo uture projects sts are listed sociated with ere similar siz om shore in w r – Federal an astal and shel tion Option – ements, econo nds. ion in the M es have seen c ng to EIA, ann have energy p m in-state sour eation. Howev ient to encour Mid-Atlantic S War II hydro This has the bs elsewhere. rtfall will be y one new 600 early half of t but three of t ork well to ac missioning of t shore Proje he 50 installed and an avera ted in sheltere t cost and risk opean Union ( er further from hore, costs hav m NREL’s da r a total of 36 s was collecte in Table 4-3. increasing wa ze projects sh water up to 22 nd Mid-Atlant ltered water a – State and Fe omic/regulato Mid-Atlanti continuing gr nual growth in plans and goa rces, reducing ver state polic rage significa States are incr oelectric and o effect of crea . complicated b 0 MW coal pl that state’s ele the units in th ct, along with these outdated ect Cost T d and propose age depth is 1 ed waters in N k. (EU) countrie m shore. As p ve increased ata base used 6 projects that ed but not use . In examining ater depth and howed cost im 2 m depth. Co tic State progr applications th ederal program ory analysis, a ic States owth in dema n power dem als that place g Greenhouse cies and incen ant wind or ot reasing electr old industrial ating equipme by planned ph lant under con ectricity gene he eight existi combined cy d coal plants. rends ed projects in 2.9 m.” As m Nordic countr es have entere projects now h substantially in the Offsho t had been bu d in the analy g this data, it d distance fro mpact of an ad onsequently, l ram emphasis hat will be les ms can be exp and environm and for electri mand in the fiv importance o e Gas (GHG) ntives needed ther renewabl ricity imports plants or from ent manufactu hase out of ag nstruction in V erated. In Mar ing coal plant ycle natural ga the [NREL] mentioned prev ries. This was ed the offshor have foundati to over $6 m ore Barriers an uilt and comm ysis. The proj appears clear om shore. Fou dditional 16 to ater in this re s is on offsho ss costly. panded to emp mental assessm icity that is am ve states range on increasing and other em d to achieve th le energy dep and are buyi m renewable uring and rene ging thermal p Virginia and ryland there a ts are over 40 as units, as a r dataset, 48 ar viously, many s intended and re wind marke ions in 30 m w million /MW in nd Opportuni missioned for o ects and their r that there ar ur cases are hi o 40% as a re eport a 30% co ore, drawing a mphasize wind ments for coas mong the hig es from 2.0 to the use of missions, and hese goals ha ployment in th ng a majority energy projec ewable energy power plants. there are a do are no new co years old. replacement f re in shallow y of these init d did effectiv et with larger water depth a n some cases. ities report an operation [11 r announced re significant ighlighted on esult of buildin ost increase w attention away d resources stal areas, bay hest o ave he y of cts y . ozen al for water tial vely r and up . Cost nd ] cost n the ng was y ys
assumed f compared Cost trend constructi were less than 10 km successfu More rece operating conditions typically i Clearly fo economic for offshore to d to bay applic ds were analy ion. Results a costly regard m from shore l. This is cons ent European conditions ar s than what c in 30 m of wa oundations an c analysis late ower foundat cations. See S yzed by countr are shown in F dless of plant e. These initia sidered to be projects were re more diffic an be expecte ater depth and nd turbines can r in this repor tion costs alon Section 6 and ry, project siz Figure 4-6 an size since mo al projects, bo an important e primarily in cult. These sit ed at offshore d are exposed n be built for rt. ng with increa d Section 7 of ze, water dept nd Figure 4-7 ost were in she th large and s lesson that c n exposed site tes are still co e BOEM lease d to severe con these conditi ased operatio f this report. th and distanc 7. Projects bui eltered water small had sim an be drawn f es in the North onsidered to b e sites in the U nditions in th ions but the a ons and mainte ce from shore ilt between 19 rs less than 15 milar cost per from Europea h Sea where c be substantiall U.S. where fo he North Atlan added costs ar enance costs e and date of 990 and 2006 5 m deep and MW and wer an experience construction a ly less challen oundations are ntic Ocean. re included in 21 6 less re e. and nging e n the
22 Table 4-3. TThe future projjects and their aannounced capiital costs (data ccollected, but nnot used in the aanalysis)
Figure 4-6. Figure 4-7. Some EU materials macro-eco Offshore EU W Offshore EU W studies attrib (steel, copper onomic condi Wind Plant Cost Wind Plant Cost bute the cost i r, cement, etc itions [13]. Th t vs. Distance fr t vs. Water Dep increases for r c.) and the inc hese studies a rom Shore and pth in Sheltered recent offshor creased deman also project th Date of Constr d vs. Open Wate re plants to in nd for land-ba hat stronger w ruction er ncreasing cos ased machine winds and larg ts for raw es plus other ger turbines d 23 double
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges
Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges

Recommended

Adrenalina extrema
Adrenalina extremaAdrenalina extrema
Adrenalina extremaCarla Toala
 
MAOWIT_Final.Technical.Report-April-2016
MAOWIT_Final.Technical.Report-April-2016MAOWIT_Final.Technical.Report-April-2016
MAOWIT_Final.Technical.Report-April-2016Richard Bowers
 
Curriculum Vitae
Curriculum VitaeCurriculum Vitae
Curriculum VitaeElizabeth Brickland
 
PORTAFOLIO_abril16
PORTAFOLIO_abril16PORTAFOLIO_abril16
PORTAFOLIO_abril16Alejandro Cejudo Dueñas
 
Adrenalina extrema
Adrenalina extremaAdrenalina extrema
Adrenalina extremaCarla Toala
 
Inflamaciones e infecciones oculares
Inflamaciones e infecciones ocularesInflamaciones e infecciones oculares
Inflamaciones e infecciones ocularesliasgm2016
 
Text and Data Mining - FutureTDM Knowledge Café
Text and Data Mining - FutureTDM Knowledge CaféText and Data Mining - FutureTDM Knowledge Café
Text and Data Mining - FutureTDM Knowledge CaféSteven Claeyssens
 
Accounting for Productivity and Spillover Effects in Emerging Energy Technolo...
Accounting for Productivity and Spillover Effects in Emerging Energy Technolo...Accounting for Productivity and Spillover Effects in Emerging Energy Technolo...
Accounting for Productivity and Spillover Effects in Emerging Energy Technolo...Richard Bowers
 

Recommended

Adrenalina extrema
Adrenalina extremaAdrenalina extrema
Adrenalina extremaCarla Toala
 
MAOWIT_Final.Technical.Report-April-2016
MAOWIT_Final.Technical.Report-April-2016MAOWIT_Final.Technical.Report-April-2016
MAOWIT_Final.Technical.Report-April-2016Richard Bowers
 
Curriculum Vitae
Curriculum VitaeCurriculum Vitae
Curriculum VitaeElizabeth Brickland
 
PORTAFOLIO_abril16
PORTAFOLIO_abril16PORTAFOLIO_abril16
PORTAFOLIO_abril16Alejandro Cejudo Dueñas
 
Adrenalina extrema
Adrenalina extremaAdrenalina extrema
Adrenalina extremaCarla Toala
 
Inflamaciones e infecciones oculares
Inflamaciones e infecciones ocularesInflamaciones e infecciones oculares
Inflamaciones e infecciones ocularesliasgm2016
 
Text and Data Mining - FutureTDM Knowledge Café
Text and Data Mining - FutureTDM Knowledge CaféText and Data Mining - FutureTDM Knowledge Café
Text and Data Mining - FutureTDM Knowledge CaféSteven Claeyssens
 
Accounting for Productivity and Spillover Effects in Emerging Energy Technolo...
Accounting for Productivity and Spillover Effects in Emerging Energy Technolo...Accounting for Productivity and Spillover Effects in Emerging Energy Technolo...
Accounting for Productivity and Spillover Effects in Emerging Energy Technolo...Richard Bowers
 
Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housing
Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military HousingPromoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housing
Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housingrogernauth
 
Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology Assessment
Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology AssessmentRole of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology Assessment
Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology AssessmentMarcellus Drilling News
 
Geothermal Heat Pumps study.pdf
Geothermal Heat Pumps study.pdfGeothermal Heat Pumps study.pdf
Geothermal Heat Pumps study.pdfmozartblue
 
Doer biomass emissions & safety regulations
Doer biomass emissions & safety regulationsDoer biomass emissions & safety regulations
Doer biomass emissions & safety regulationsCarlos Mendes
 
37358
3735837358
37358dungsp4
 
APPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXES
APPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXESAPPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXES
APPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXESFranco Moriconi
 
Advanced metering-initiatives
Advanced metering-initiativesAdvanced metering-initiatives
Advanced metering-initiativesDiego Fettermann
 
ORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary Applications
ORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary ApplicationsORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary Applications
ORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary ApplicationsUCSD-Strategic-Energy
 
LE0393finalreport
LE0393finalreportLE0393finalreport
LE0393finalreportMan (Jennifer) Gao
 
Innovations In Wind And Solar Pv Financing
Innovations In Wind And Solar Pv FinancingInnovations In Wind And Solar Pv Financing
Innovations In Wind And Solar Pv FinancingGlenn Klith Andersen
 
Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5Monika Somogyi
 
Electric motor performance testing and reliability assessment
Electric motor performance testing and reliability assessmentElectric motor performance testing and reliability assessment
Electric motor performance testing and reliability assessmentLeonardo ENERGY
 
Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5Monika Somogyi
 
Nrel western wind study
Nrel western wind studyNrel western wind study
Nrel western wind studyTCLABZ.com
 
chp_critical_facilities_final
chp_critical_facilities_finalchp_critical_facilities_final
chp_critical_facilities_finalgdillin
 
Design and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power Bank
Design and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power BankDesign and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power Bank
Design and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power Bankijtsrd
 
Irena 2017 power_costs_2018
Irena 2017 power_costs_2018Irena 2017 power_costs_2018
Irena 2017 power_costs_2018Irina Breniuc
 
Solar Charge Controller
Solar Charge ControllerSolar Charge Controller
Solar Charge ControllerBharat Biyani
 
Alternative Energy Market pt 3
Alternative Energy Market pt 3Alternative Energy Market pt 3
Alternative Energy Market pt 3Monika Somogyi
 
Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System
Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System
Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System Power System Operation
 

More Related Content

Similar to Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges

Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housing
Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military HousingPromoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housing
Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housingrogernauth
 
Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology Assessment
Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology AssessmentRole of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology Assessment
Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology AssessmentMarcellus Drilling News
 
Geothermal Heat Pumps study.pdf
Geothermal Heat Pumps study.pdfGeothermal Heat Pumps study.pdf
Geothermal Heat Pumps study.pdfmozartblue
 
Doer biomass emissions & safety regulations
Doer biomass emissions & safety regulationsDoer biomass emissions & safety regulations
Doer biomass emissions & safety regulationsCarlos Mendes
 
APPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXES
APPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXESAPPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXES
APPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXESFranco Moriconi
 
Advanced metering-initiatives
Advanced metering-initiativesAdvanced metering-initiatives
Advanced metering-initiativesDiego Fettermann
 
ORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary Applications
ORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary ApplicationsORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary Applications
ORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary ApplicationsUCSD-Strategic-Energy
 
Innovations In Wind And Solar Pv Financing
Innovations In Wind And Solar Pv FinancingInnovations In Wind And Solar Pv Financing
Innovations In Wind And Solar Pv FinancingGlenn Klith Andersen
 
Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5Monika Somogyi
 
Electric motor performance testing and reliability assessment
Electric motor performance testing and reliability assessmentElectric motor performance testing and reliability assessment
Electric motor performance testing and reliability assessmentLeonardo ENERGY
 
Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5Monika Somogyi
 
Nrel western wind study
Nrel western wind studyNrel western wind study
Nrel western wind studyTCLABZ.com
 
chp_critical_facilities_final
chp_critical_facilities_finalchp_critical_facilities_final
chp_critical_facilities_finalgdillin
 
Design and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power Bank
Design and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power BankDesign and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power Bank
Design and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power Bankijtsrd
 
Irena 2017 power_costs_2018
Irena 2017 power_costs_2018Irena 2017 power_costs_2018
Irena 2017 power_costs_2018Irina Breniuc
 
Solar Charge Controller
Solar Charge ControllerSolar Charge Controller
Solar Charge ControllerBharat Biyani
 
Alternative Energy Market pt 3
Alternative Energy Market pt 3Alternative Energy Market pt 3
Alternative Energy Market pt 3Monika Somogyi
 
Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System
Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System
Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System Power System Operation
 

Similar to Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges (20)

Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housing
Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military HousingPromoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housing
Promoting Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency in Military Housing
 
Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology Assessment
Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology AssessmentRole of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology Assessment
Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology Assessment
 
Geothermal Heat Pumps study.pdf
Geothermal Heat Pumps study.pdfGeothermal Heat Pumps study.pdf
Geothermal Heat Pumps study.pdf
 
Doer biomass emissions & safety regulations
Doer biomass emissions & safety regulationsDoer biomass emissions & safety regulations
Doer biomass emissions & safety regulations
 
37358
3735837358
37358
 
APPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXES
APPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXESAPPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXES
APPENDICES California Energy Commission 500-2013-134-APPENDIXES
 
Advanced metering-initiatives
Advanced metering-initiativesAdvanced metering-initiatives
Advanced metering-initiatives
 
ORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary Applications
ORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary ApplicationsORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary Applications
ORNL econ analysis of repurposed EV batteries for Stationary Applications
 
LE0393finalreport
LE0393finalreportLE0393finalreport
LE0393finalreport
 
Innovations In Wind And Solar Pv Financing
Innovations In Wind And Solar Pv FinancingInnovations In Wind And Solar Pv Financing
Innovations In Wind And Solar Pv Financing
 
Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 1 of 5
 
Electric motor performance testing and reliability assessment
Electric motor performance testing and reliability assessmentElectric motor performance testing and reliability assessment
Electric motor performance testing and reliability assessment
 
Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5
Waste to Energy pt 2 of 5
 
Nrel western wind study
Nrel western wind studyNrel western wind study
Nrel western wind study
 
chp_critical_facilities_final
chp_critical_facilities_finalchp_critical_facilities_final
chp_critical_facilities_final
 
Design and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power Bank
Design and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power BankDesign and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power Bank
Design and Construction of a 20 000 Mah Wind Power Bank
 
Irena 2017 power_costs_2018
Irena 2017 power_costs_2018Irena 2017 power_costs_2018
Irena 2017 power_costs_2018
 
Solar Charge Controller
Solar Charge ControllerSolar Charge Controller
Solar Charge Controller
 
Alternative Energy Market pt 3
Alternative Energy Market pt 3Alternative Energy Market pt 3
Alternative Energy Market pt 3
 
Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System
Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System
Maintaining Reliability in the Modern Power System
 

Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overing the Challenges

  • 1. Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overcoming the Challenges Prepared by: Daniel F. Ancona III Vice President for Renewable Energy Kathryn E. George Senior Financial Analyst Richard P. Bowers Intern and Dr. Lynn Sparling Atmospheric Scientist, Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County Bruce C. Buckheit Regulatory Consultant Daniel LoBue Power Market Consultant May 31, 2012 Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 550 Rockville, MD 20852 Contract Information: Contract No.: DE-EE0000513 US Department of Energy, Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program Sponsored by: US Department of Energy and Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • 2.
  • 3. Mid-Atlantic Wind - Overcoming the Challenges Prepared by: Daniel F. Ancona III Vice President for Renewable Energy Kathryn E. George Senior Financial Analyst Richard P. Bowers Intern and Dr. Lynn Sparling Atmospheric Scientist, Department of Physics, University of Maryland Baltimore County Bruce C. Buckheit Regulatory Consultant Daniel LoBue Power Market Consultant May 31, 2012 Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 550 Rockville, MD 20852 Contract Information: Contract No.: DE-EE0000513 US Department of Energy, Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program Sponsored by: US Department of Energy and Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • 4. Front Cov at a 9 km warmer co Research Princeton Daniel F. Vice Pres Kathryn E Senior Fin Richard P Intern, Pr University Dr. Lynn Atmosphe Consultan Bruce C. B Policy and Daniel Lo Power Ma Sponsors: United St Golden Fi 1617 Cole Golden, C Maryland 580 Taylo Annapolis ver: Early eve horizontal re olors indicatin h Team: Energy Reso Ancona III: ident for Ren E. George: nancial Analy P. Bowers: rinceton Ener y of Maryland Sparling: eric Scientist, nts: Buckheit: d Regulatory oBue: arket Consult : ates Departm ield Office e Boulevard Colorado 8040 d Department or Avenue s, Maryland 2 ening low-lev solution using ng stronger m ources Interna ewable Energ yst, Princeton rgy Resources d, Baltimore C Department o Consultant tant, Competi ment of Energy 01 of Natural Re 21401 el jet at 140 m g the Mellor-Y mean wind spe ational (PERI) gy, Princeton n Energy Reso s Internationa County: of Physics, U itive Energy C y esources meters compu Yamada-Janj eeds. ): Energy Reso ources Interna al, LLC University of M Consulting Inc uted with Wea ic (MYJ) bou ources Interna ational, LLC Maryland Bal c. ather Researc undary layer s ational, LLC; ltimore Count ch Forecast M scheme, with ; ty 1 Model
  • 5. 1.0 Execu 1.1 Prim 1.2 Pol 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.3 Pol 1.3. 1.3. 1.4 Win 1.5 Bus 1.6 Pub 2.0 Introd 3.0 Goals 4.0 Regio 4.1 Mid 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.1. 4.2 Ene 4.3 Eur 4.4 Iner 5.0 Power 5.1 Reg 5.1. 5.1. 5.1. 5.1. 6.0 Projec they Mean 6.1 Met 6.1. 6.1. 6.1. 6.1. 6.1. 6.2 Eco Energy utive Summar mary Barriers icy and Regu .1  RPS and .2  RPGs are .3  RPS-RPG .4  Restrictiv .5  State Sup icy Changes o .1  Emphasis .2  State Ene nd Resource U siness and Ec blic Interest Is duction.......... and Objectiv onal Energy S d-Atlantic Wi .1  Ridgeline .2  Coastal P .3  Bay and S .4  Offshore ergy Situation ropean Offsho rtia toward O r Transmissio gional Whole .1  Power Pr .2  Energy P .3  Capacity .4  Pricing S ct Economic R n .................. thodology, C .1  Forward P .2  Four Win .3  A Mercha .4  50% Deb .5  Financial onomic Analy y Plants ......... ry.................. s and Mitigati ulatory Issues RPGs are Ine e Treated as C Gs Face Indire ve State Statu pported Studie or Mitigation s on Offshore ergy Programs Uncertainty.. onomic Issue ssues............. ..................... ves ................ ituation - Rip ind Energy M e Sites........... Plain Sites ..... Sound Sites.. Ocean Sites. n in the Mid-A ore Project Co cean Applica on and Pricing sale Power Pr ricing Model – ricing........... Pricing ........ ummary....... Results and C ..................... ost and Perfo Pricing vs. Ca nd Market Seg ant Power Fin bt Fraction..... l Figures of M ysis Results, u ..................... ..................... ion Measures ..................... effective........ Caps .............. ect Constraint tes and Local es.................. n Options....... e Wind Power s emphasize s ..................... es................... ..................... ..................... ..................... pe for Wind M Market Segmen ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Atlantic State ost Trends .... ations in U.S. g.................... ricing............ – Methodolog ..................... ..................... ..................... Conclusions - ..................... ormance Estim alculated COE gments and F nancial Case w ..................... Merit to Evalu under Current ..................... ...................... ..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ts .................. l Zoning and N ...................... ...................... r Developmen small scale pr ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... Market Develo nts ................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... s ................... ...................... ..................... ...................... ...................... gy ................. ...................... ...................... ...................... Financial Re ...................... mates, and Fin E .................. our Plants..... with BB-Rate ...................... uate a Project. t, Likely Fina ...................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Noise Ordina ..................... ..................... nt.................. rojects .......... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... opment......... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... sults of the C ..................... nancial Assum ..................... ..................... ed Debt. ....... ..................... ..................... ancing, for Mi ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ances............. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Cash Flow An ..................... mptions......... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... id-Atlantic W ..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... nalysis and W ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... Wind ...................... i .......1  .......1  .......2  .......2  .......2  .......3  .......3  .......3  .......4  .......4  .......5  .......5  .......7  .......8  .....10  .....11  .....12  .....13  .....13  .....14  .....15  .....18  .....20  .....20  .....24  .....25  .....26  .....26  .....29  .....32  .....34  What .....37  .....37  .....38  .....38  .....38  .....39  .....39  .....40 
  • 6. ii 6.2. 6.2. 6.2. 6.2. 6.2. 6.3 Eco 6.3. 6.4 Fin 6.4. 6.4. 6.4. 6.4. 6.4. 7.0 Projec Expenses, 7.1 Pow 7.1. 7.1. 7.1. 7.1. 7.2 PJM 7.3 Cap 7.4 Sou 7.5 Per 7.6 Ope 7.7 Fin 7.7. 7.7. 7.7. 7.7. 8.0 Regul 8.1 Vir 8.1. 8.1. 8.1. 8.1. 8.2 Nor 8.2. 8.2. 8.2. 8.2. .1  DPL-ODE .2  Cloverda .3  Calvert C .4  Fentress, .5  Summary onomic Analy .1  Summary dings and Co .1  Land-Bas .2  Ridgeline .3  Shallow W .4  Ocean Pla .5  Final Com ct Economic I , and Financia wer Plant Proje .1  PJM Forw .2  Calculate .3  Three Set .4  Three Me M Forward Pr pital Costs for urces of Fund formance (Pla erating Expen ancial Assum .1  Project Fi .2  Debt Feat .3  Equity Fe .4  Property latory and Pol ginia ............ .1  Renewab .2  Appalach .3  Zoning O .4  Virginia M rth Carolina.. .1  North Ca .2  North Ca .3  Zoning O .4  The North EC Coastal P le Ridgeline. Cliffs Shallow Ocean.......... y of Findings ysis Results, u y of Findings mments........ sed Plants..... e Plants Show Water Bay Pl ants .............. mments......... Inputs and As al Assumptio ect Discounted ward Pricing. ed COE......... ts of Analysis easures of CO ricing Forecas r the Wind En s................... ant Capacity nses for the W mptions for cu inance .......... tures, includin eatures.......... Taxes........... licy Issues.... ..................... le Portfolio G hian Power Co Ordinances .... Marine Resou ..................... rolina RPS D rolina Mount Ordinances .... h Carolina Ut Plains............. ..................... w Bay............. ..................... ..................... under Favorab ..................... ..................... ..................... w the Best Eco lants.............. ..................... ..................... ssumptions – ns................. d Cash Flow – ..................... ..................... s per Node/Pl OE ................. sts – Energy a nergy Plants.. ..................... Factors) for t Wind Energy P urrent likely an ..................... ng Rating and ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Goal (RPG) P ompany (APC ..................... urces Commi ..................... Design............ tain Ridge Pro ..................... tilities Comm ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ble Financing ...................... ...................... ...................... onomics........ ...................... ...................... ...................... Financial Me ...................... – Return on In ...................... ...................... lant Location. ...................... and Capacity ...................... ...................... the Wind Ene Plants............ nd favorable ...................... d Interest Rat ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... rogram Desig CO) State Cor ...................... ssion Report. ...................... ...................... otection Act.. ...................... mission........... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... g, for Mid-Atl ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ethodology, P ..................... nvestment Met ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Payments .... ..................... ..................... ergy Plants.... ..................... financing of t ..................... te .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... gn................. rporation Com ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... lantic Wind E ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Plant Capital C ..................... thodology ..... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... the Wind Ene ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... mmission De ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... Energy Plants ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... Costs, Operat ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ergy Plants.... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... cision ........... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .....40  .....41  .....45  .....45  .....46  . ...47  .....50  .....51  .....51  .....52  .....52  .....53  .....54  ting .....57  .....57  .....58  .....58  .....59  .....59  .....60  .....62  .....69  .....71  .....72  .....74  .....74  .....74  .....76  .....83  .....87  .....87  .....89  .....90  .....91  .....92  .....97  .....98  .....99  ...100  ...101 
  • 7. 8.2. 8.2. 8.3 Mar 8.3. 8.3. 8.3. 8.4 Del 8.4. 8.4. 8.5 Dis 9.0 Mid-A 9.1 Eas 9.2 Win 9.3 The 9.4 Win 10.0 Envi 10.1 No 10.2 Ri 10.3 At 10.4 Eu 10.5 Ae 10.6 Ra 11.0 Conc 11.1 Po 11.2 Fe 11.3 Ec 11.4 Te 11.5 Pu 12.0 Bibli Appendix participan Appendix Appendix Appendix .5  North Ca .6  Other Pot ryland.......... .1  Maryland .2  State App .3  Zoning O laware .......... .1  State App .2  Delaware trict of Colum Atlantic Wind stern Wind In nd measurem e Mid-Atlanti nd Resource P ironmental Co on-Governme isks to Birds a tmospheric Em utrophication esthetics and adar.............. clusions........ olicy and Reg ederal Empha conomic Asse echnical Unce ublic Interest iography ...... x A: Interview nts)................ x B: Economic x C: Power M x D: Examples rolina Studies tential Barrier ..................... d RPS Design proval Proces Ordinances .... ..................... proval Proces e RPS Design mbia.............. d Resource.... tegration Stud ents and com c low level je Potential and onsiderations ental Organiz and Bats Rela mission Disp of Regional W Public Attitu ..................... ..................... gulatory Issue sis on Offsho essment Resu ertainties....... ..................... ..................... w and Discuss ..................... c Model Run arket Trading s of Coastal S s ................... rs.................. ..................... n .................... ss................... ..................... ..................... ss................... n .................... ..................... ..................... dy (EWITS) . mparisons with et as a potenti Uncertainties ..................... ation Worksh ative to Altern lacement ...... Waters.......... de................. ..................... ..................... s ................... ore Projects ... lts................. ..................... ..................... ..................... sion Meetings ..................... Examples.... g Model Resu Sites that coul ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... h EWITS....... ial wind resou s.................... ...................... hop ................ natives .......... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... s (ground rule ...................... ...................... ults for the 20 ld be evaluate ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... urce .............. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... es, questions, ..................... ..................... 012 Mid-Atlan ed for Wind P ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... , contacts and ..................... ..................... ntic Wind En Power Genera ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... d NGO meetin ...................... ...................... ergy Plants ... ation.............. iii ...101  ...102  ...103  ...104  ...106  ...106  ...107  ...107  ...108  ...108  ...111  ...111  ...115  ...120  ...122  ...123  ...123  ...125  ...126  ...127  ...129  ...131  ...133  ...133  ...134  ...135  ...135  ...136  ...137  ng ...141  ...147  ...167  ...189 
  • 8. iv Table of F Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 height of Figure 1-3 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 (300 km l Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5 90m Hub Figure 4-6 Figure 4-7 Figure 4-8 Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2 Figure 5-3 Figure 6-1 (2013 Do Figure 6-2 (2013 Do Figure 6-3 Figure 6-4 (2013 Do Figure 7-1 Figure 7-2 Figure 8-1 Figure 8-2 Figure 8-3 Figure 8-4 Figure 8-5 Figure 8-6 Figure 8-7 Figure 9-1 Figure 9-2 Figure 9-3 Figure 9-4 Figure 9-5 Figure 9-6 Figure 9-7 Figure 9-8 Figures 1 Near-shore 2 The Weathe 312m above g 3. COEs of Fo 1. Mid-Atlant 2. DELMARV line is to indic 3. Location of 4. Onshore & 5. Mid-Atlant Height - ...... 6. Offshore E 7. Offshore E 8. Tall met to 1. PJM region 2. Example co 3. PJM interc 1. COEs for F llars)............ 2. COE Resul llars)............ 3. COEs of Fo 4. COE Resul llars)............ 1 Average PJM 2. Offshore w 1. VMRC Rep 2. VMRC “M 3. VMRC “M 4. VMRC “Le 5. Boone N.C 6. UNC Revie 7. Maryland E 1. Measureme 2. Seasonal an 3. Diurnal var 4. Seasonal an 5. Annual Me 6. Seasonal an 7. Vertical pro 8. Monthly m wind plant in er Research M ground level. our Plants wit tic States Win VA-Jutland C cate scale) .... f NOAA Buo & Offshore Pla tic Bight Reg ..................... EU Wind Plan EU Wind Plan wer near a tu nal operation ontour map w onnection no Four Plants w ..................... lts for Four P ..................... our Plants wit lts of Four Pla ..................... M Energy Pri wind turbine p port Excluded Major Conflict Moderate Conf esser Conflict C. DOE/NASA ew of Coastal Energy Admin ent sites for se nd Diurnal Ch riability in W nd diurnal var ean Wind Spe nd Diurnal Va ofiles of wind mean wind at N n Denmark - p Model simulat ..................... th Favorable nd Plant Mark Comparison w ..................... oys................. ants in Denma ional Offshor ..................... nt Cost vs. Dis nt Cost vs. Wa urbine in Denm area.............. with locationa de locations s with Current, L ..................... lants with Cu ..................... th Favorable ants with Fav ..................... ices by Seaso platform desig d Areas......... ts”................. flicts”............ t Areas”........ A 2 MW Exp l and Offshor nistration: Co elected PJM n haracteristics Wind Power de riability in wi eed at Each A ariability of th d speed at Ab NOAA/NOS produces elec tion of low le ...................... Financing us ket Areas....... where 2,400 M ...................... ...................... ark, Circa 199 re Lease Bloc ...................... stance from S ater Depth in mark. ............ ...................... l marginal pr selected for th Likely Financ ...................... urrent, Likely ...................... Financing us vorable Financ ...................... on .................. gns for shallow ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... erimental Wi re Wind Powe ounties with W nodes............ of the 100m ensity (WPD) ind speed at E Anemometer L he Difference berdeen, MD.. Buoy BISM2 ctricity and se evel jets on Au ..................... sing PJM Forw ..................... MW of land-b ..................... ..................... 96................. cks and Wind ..................... Shore and Dat Sheltered vs. ..................... ..................... rice (LMP) di he four wind cing using PJM ..................... Financing us ..................... sing PJM Forw cing using Ca ..................... ..................... w bays and o ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... indmill Built er Developme Wind Ordinan ..................... Wind from th ) for each mon EWITS......... Level............. e in Wind Spe ..................... 2 (Bishop’s H erves as aids t ug 3, 2007 at ..................... ward Prices (2 ..................... based wind pla ..................... ..................... ..................... d Resources at ..................... te of Construc . Open Water ..................... ..................... fferential on t market applic M Forward Pr ..................... sing Calculate ..................... ward Prices (2 alculated COE ..................... ..................... cean applicat ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... in 1979......... ent Potential . nces .............. ..................... he EWITS.... nth of 2004... ..................... ..................... eed between ..................... Head, MD)..... o navigation . 1:00 am at a ...................... 2013 Dollars) ...................... ants are opera ...................... ...................... ...................... t ...................... ction ............. r..................... ...................... ...................... typical day. .. cations. ......... rices ...................... ed COE ...................... 2013 Dollars) E ...................... ...................... tions.............. ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 110 and 49 m ...................... ...................... .......4  .......6  ). ....8  .....12  ating .....14  .....17  .....18  .....19  .....23  .....23  .....24  .....25  .....27  .....28  .....46  .....46  ). ..50  .....50  .....61  .....62  .....94  .....95  .....95  .....96  .....99  ...102  ...106  ...113  ...114  ...115  ...116  ...117  m. 118  ...119  ...119 
  • 9. Figure 9-9 Figure 9-1 Figure 10 Figure 10 Figure 10 Figure 10 Figure 10 9. Annual me 10. The Aug 2 -1. NGO Mee -2. Bird Fligh -3. Atlantic F -4. Chesapeak -5. Survey of ean wind at se 2, 2007 low l eting Agenda ht Path Mappi Flyway.......... ke Bay Dead f Anticipated everal NOS lo evel jet at acr a .................... ing at Nysted ..................... Zones .......... Tourist React ocations in De ross-rotor heig ...................... d Wind Farm, ...................... ...................... tion to a Hyp elmarva........ ghts 60, 99 an ..................... Denmark .... ..................... ..................... othetical Win ..................... nd 140m AGL ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... nd Farm ........ ...................... L................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... v ...120  ...121  ...124  ...125  ...126  ...129  ...130 
  • 10. vi Table of T Table 4-1 potential s Table 4-2 Table 4-3 analysis) . Table 5-1 Table 5-2 energy va Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 6-1 Table 6-2 Table 7-1 Table 7-2 Table 7-3 Table 7-4 Table 7-5 Wind Ene Table 7-6 Table 7-7 Table 7-8 Table 7-9 Table 7-1 Table 7-1 Table 7-1 Table 7-1 Tables DOE Estima sites in bays a . Metocean as . The future p ..................... . Differential PJM Forwar aluation estim . Monthly Av . Energy Prod . Cash Flow A . Cash Flow A . Analysis Me . PJM Power . PJM Capaci . Fully Loade . Fully Loade ergy Plants. .. . Sources of F . Sources of F . just gives on . Methodolog 0. Performan 1. Classic Lo 2. Financial A 3. Property T ates of land-ba and sounds).. ssumptions u projects and th ..................... Energy Price rd Pricing Mo mation, betwee verage Capaci duction Estim Analysis Resu Analysis Resu ethod per Nod Prices (Cents ity Payments ed Capital Co ed Capital Co ..................... Funds for 201 Funds for 201 ne capacity fa gy for Estimat nce and Annua ong-Term Sen Assumptions Taxes for Win ased and offs ..................... sed for bay, s heir announce ..................... e Adders for F odel Sample O en 2012 and 2 ity Factors.... mates and Cap ults for 2012 ults for 2012 de/Plant Site. s/kWh) by Se ..................... sts or Uses of sts or Uses of ..................... 12 100 MW W 12 100 MW W actor per seas ting Wind En al Operating E nior Debt Rati for 2012 100 nd Energy Pla hore wind en ...................... sound and oce ed capital cos ...................... Four Nodes R Output – Calv 2014, with the ...................... pacity Factors Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic ...................... eason and by N ...................... f Funds for th f Funds with ...................... Wind Energy Wind Energy on, and skips nergy Plant Op Expenses for ings............... MW Wind E ants in the Mid nergy potentia ..................... ean lease bloc sts (data colle ..................... Relative to We vert Cliffs nod e full data ext ..................... s (assume 100 c 100 MW Wi c 100 MW Wi ..................... Node............ ..................... he 2012 100 M Favorable Fin ..................... Plants. ......... Plants. ......... s over on-peak perating Expe 2012 Wind E ..................... Energy Plants d-Atlantic Sta al by 2030 (bu ..................... ck application ected, but not ..................... estern Hub ($ de, showing m tending to 203 ..................... 0m hub height ind Energy P ind Energy P ..................... ..................... ..................... MW Wind En nancing. for t ..................... ..................... ..................... k vs. off-peak enses ............ Energy Plants ..................... s. ................... ates............... ut not countin ...................... ns. ................. used in the ...................... $/MWh) ........ monthly wind 37 ................. ...................... t)................... lants. ............ lants. ............ ...................... ...................... ...................... nergy Plants. . the 2012 100 ...................... ...................... ...................... k.................... ...................... s..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ng .....13  .....16  .....22  .....31  d .....32  .....33  .....35  .....42  .....48  .....59  .....61  .....61  .....64  MW .....67  .....69  .....69  .....71  .....72  .....73  .....75  .....78  .....84 
  • 11. AEP AGL AOE APCO AWEA bp BNEF BOEM BOS BWEA CAA CBF CF COE Cp CPCN db DCF-R DELM DNR DOE DOI Domin DPL-O DSIRE EIA EPC EPRI EU EWIT FCR FERC GW GHG HAP HURD HVDC ICC IEC IPPs IRR Abbreviation O A F M A N ROI MARVA nion ODEC E TS C DAT C ns An Ab An Ap Am Ba Blo Bu Oc Ba Bri Cle Ch Ca Co Co Ce De Dis De Ma U.S U.S Do De Da En En Ele Eu Ea Fix Fed Gig Gr Ha Hu Hig Ins Int Ind Int nnual energy p bove Ground L nnual operatin ppalachian Po merican Wind asis point oomberg New ureau of Ocean cean Energy M alance of statio itish Wind En ean Air Act hesapeake Bay apacity factor ost of energy oefficient of p rtificate of Pu ecibel scounted Cas elaware-Mary aryland Depar S. Departmen S. Departmen ominion Elect elmarva Powe atabase of Stat nergy Informa ngineering pro ectric Power R uropean Union stern Wind In xed charge rat deral Energy gawatts eenhouse Gas azardous Air P urricane Datab gh-voltage di stalled capital ternational Ele dependent pow ternal Rate of production Level ng expenses ower Compan d Energy Asso w Energy Fina n Energy Ma Management, on nergy Associa y Foundation performance ublic Conven h Flow - Retu yland-Virginia rtment of Nat nt of Energy nt of the Interi tric Power Co er and Light - te Incentives ation Adminis ocurement and Research Inst n ntegration Stu te Regulatory C s Pollutant base rect current l cost ectrotechnica wer producer f Return Definition ny ociation ance anagement (fo Regulation a ation nience and Ne urn on Investm a Peninsula tural Resourc ior ompany Old Dominio for Renewab stration d construction titute udy Commission al Commissio rs ormerly the D and Enforcem ecessity ment ces on Electric Co ble Energy and n n DOI Bureau of ment) ompany d Efficiency vii f
  • 12. viii ITC Km kWh LCOE LDA LIBO LLJ LMP m m/s MAA MAC MAR MRPA MW MWh NCUC NGO Nm NOS NOX NREL NUG O&M PACE PERI PJM PPA PSC PTC PUC REC RGGI RPS/R SOX SPP TVA UMB VCER WPD WRF E R AC T CS A h C L M E I RPG C RC Inv Kil Kil Lev Lo Lo Lo Lo Me Me Mi Ma Mo Mo Me Me No No Na Na Nit Na No Op Pro Pri Pen Pow Pub Pro Pub Re Re Re Su Sou Ten Un Vir Wi We vestment Tax lometers lowatt-hour velized Cost cational Deliv ndon Interban w Level Jet cational Marg eters eters per seco id-Atlantic Ar aximum Achi odified accele ountain Ridge egawatt egawatt-hour orth Carolina U on-Governmen autical Mile ational Ocean trogen oxides ational Renew on-Utility Gen perations and operty-Assess inceton Energ nnsylvania-Je wer purchase blic Service C oduction tax c blic Utility C newable ener gional Green newable Port lfur Oxides uthwest Powe nnessee Valle niversity of M rginia Coasta ind Power De eather Resear Credit of energy verability Are nk offered rat ginal Pricing nd rea Council ievable Contr erated cost rec e Protection A Utilities Com nt Organizati Service s wable Energy nerator Maintenance sed Clean Ene gy Resources ersey-Marylan e agreement Commission credit Commission rgy certificate nhouse Gas In tfolio Standar er Pool ey Authority Maryland Balti al Energy Res ensity rch and Forec ea te rol Technolog covery system Act mmission ion Laboratory e ergy International nd Interconne e nitiative rds or Goals imore County earch Consor cast gy m l, LCC ection y rtium
  • 13. 1.0 Exe The Mid-A Columbia to date. Th demand fo Appalach and Chesa this report wind and there are n developm To addres region are team inclu analyst, at or “report means tha stakeholde followed b mitigation wind resou This proc the region the likelih identified developm barriers, b measures 1.1 Prim The prima categories interest. T resources in the wes on the con of the reg although i the marke state or lo and avian economic suitable re to a substa developm ecutive Su Atlantic regio a, has areas w he absence of or electricity ian mountain apeake Bays, t is being wri terrain condit no new utility ment is continu ss this deficien e analyzed and uding: a wind tmospheric sc ed” barriers a at go beyond “ ers and policy by objective q n options to ov urces in regio ess identified n. Individually hood that deve several majo ment of wind e both major an to overcome mary Barrie ary barriers to s; policy and r These issues in in the region stern portion o ntinental shel ion is general it is possible t et. Many of th ocal governme n species colli c uncertainty c esources are a antial degree, ment for onsho ummary on, including ith excellent w f wind energy that is among n ridgeline site Albemarle an tten, construc tions similar t y-scale wind p uing in the mi ncy, the actual d are presente energy engin cientist, and en at face value, r “literature rev y makers, and quantitative an vercome the c on is explored d a number of y, these lesser elopers will in or barriers to w energy in thos nd minor, and these barriers ers and Mit o wind develo regulatory iss n these catego n are limited p of the region, f in the Atlan lly considered that local terr he potential ri ents concerne sion issues. C constrains win available. Stat , developmen ore and shallo Delaware, M wind energy p y projects for g the highest i es, on the coa nd Pamlico S ction is comm to ridgeline s power plant p id-west and w l, as opposed d along with r neer, power m nvironmental rather to inves iews” includin ground truthi nalysis and un challenges. In and factored f minor challe r barriers alon nvest in comm wind energy d se areas where provides reco s. tigation Me opment outlin sues, wind res ories are not w primarily to fo , Coastal land ntic Ocean. T d to be inadeq rain may prov dgeline sites ed with the po Coastal wind r nd power dev te-level suppo nt of potential ow water wind Maryland, Nort potential yet bulk power g in the nation. astal plains, at ounds, and at mencing on ye ites in our stu projects under west, but not i to theoretical reduction mec arket expert, a engineer. The stigate in dept ng, but not lim ing of all unde nbiased report addition, criti into the local nges and barr ne may not de mercial scale development e they exist. T ommendation easures ned in this rep source uncert wholly indepe our areas – Ri d areas, shallo he wind resou quate to suppo vide usable sit in the area ha otential advers resources hav velopment in t ort for wind p offshore win d power deve rth Carolina, V has only two generation con Ample wind t shallow shel t deeper water et another win udy area. Yet rway. The que in the Mid-At , barriers to w chanisms or m a regulatory a e team approa th by personne mited to, in de erlying assum ting along wit ical new techn wind market riers to the de erail wind ene wind farms i which will ef This section s ns to possible port can be gro tainty, busines endent of eac idgeline sites ow Bays and S urce in the ce ort commerci tes for “low w ave been deter se impact on ve not been ad those areas al power varies w nd resources h lopment. Virginia, and utility scale p ntinues despit resources are ltered water s r sites off the nd plant in Pe in the Mid-A estion is why tlantic region wind energy de mitigation mea and policy exp ach was not to el experience epth interview mptions. This i th possible res nical informat projections. evelopment of ergy developm in the region. ffectively pre summarizes th solutions or ouped into fo ss/ economic ch other and d in the Appala Sounds in the entral plain th ial scale wind wind speed” t rmined to be view sheds in dequately cha lthough recen widely within has eclipsed s the District o projects insta te a growing e available at sites in Delaw e Atlantic coa ennsylvania - Atlantic States y wind power . evelopment in asures. The PE pert, financial o accept theore d in the field b ws of key investigation w sponses or tion concernin f wind energy ment, but less The review a clude he identified mitigation our general issues, and p do interact. W achian Moun e east, and off hat makes up m d developmen turbines comi “off limits” b n the region, n aracterized an nt data indicat n the region a tate policy 1 of alled ware st. As in s n this ERI etical by was ng the y in sen also public Wind ntains fshore most nt, ng on by noise, nd, so, tes and,
  • 14. 2 One of the Uncertain economic the overri 1.2 Poli In each St developm and tax in these prog defined ca renewable to levels t developm power dev Attorney ridgeline r 1.2.1 R As Renew provide th Certificate system an fulfilled la and would installed i wastes (kn RECs be l in-state so reached le power pro to extend It is likely effective i in other st to new ren 1.2.2 R In Virgini renewable minimum agreemen statute. Th supported currently that the pr e largest, and nties facing re c, technical (e ding uncertai cy and Reg tate in the reg ment of wind a ncentives. A r grams current ategories of “ e resources. T that would pro ment. Certain l velopment in General and t resources. RPS and RPG wable Energy he intended in es (RECs) req nd there is no argely with “a d operate any in the early 19 nown as black limited to fac ources. The N evels sufficien oject in North the Federal S y that as the N in incentivizin tates in the re newable sour RPGs are tre ia the State C e energy sold m target to be m nts (PPA) for n he Commissio d under the pr applicable go roject would b d most difficul egional wind p .g., relating to inty regarding gulatory Is gion, policies and other form eview of the d tly transfer pa renewable res Tax incentives ovide a signif local zoning a those jurisdic the Public Uti Gs are Ineffe Portfolio Sta ncentive for d quired to fulfi requirement f anyway” cred yway for reaso 900s for econ k liquor) for e cilities deploy North Carolina nt to incentivi h Carolina has Section 45 Pro North Carolina ng in-state ren gion are unlik ces and that a eated as Cap orporation Co under the Co met or exceed new wind pow on determined ogram and th oal was not pr be used to me lt, barriers to project develo o grid interco g the future of ssues and programs ms of renewab detailed struc ayments from sources,” and s are generally ficant incentiv and noise ordi ctions and in N ility Commis fective andards and G development o fill the mandat for creating n dits. Many cre ons other than nomic reasons energy needs. yed after the R a RPS require ize commerci s recently bee oduction Tax a requirement newable ener kely to be eff a portion, say ps ommission ru ommonwealth ded. The Com wer generatio d that the goa hat any new re rudent. The C eet the renewa wind develop opers fall into nnection capa f the Section 4 s are in place ble energy thr cture of RPS p m ratepayers to d do not provi y limited in s ve for onshor inances have North Carolin sion chills de Goals (RPS/RP of wind and o tes are allowe new facilities. edits are gene n RPS/RPG. T s and pulp mil . North Carol RPS law was p ements escala ial wind powe en suspended Credit. ts become mo rgy, including fective unless 75 percent, o uled that the p h’s renewable mmission was on were “reaso als of the RPG enewable gen Commission ap able goal esta pment in the M o several categ acity) and env 45 Federal Pr that nominal rough renewa programs in e o pre-existing ide an incenti scope and amo re commercial been enacted na, the interpr evelopment of PG) are curre other renewab ed to come fro . Consequentl erated from fa These facilitie lls that have f lina is an exce passed and th ate gradually o er developme because of th ore stringent o g wind power and until they of RECs origi portfolio goal e portfolio pro asked to dete onable and pr G were caps o neration that w pplied this te ablished for la Mid-Atlantic gories: wind vironmental. roduction Tax lly are intende able portfolio each jurisdicti g facilities tha ive for the dev ount and do n l scale wind p d that effectiv retation of a s f almost all of ently structure bles. Renewab om anywhere ly REC requir acilities that w es include hyd for decades co eption. Its RP hat 75 percent over time, and ent. A propose he failure of th over time, the . However, th y require that inate in-state. shall be treat ogram, rather ermine if two rudent” as req on the amount was not neede st even thoug ater years. Th is uncertainty resources, Of course the x Credit. ed to support mandates (R ion reveals th at fall into bro velopment of not generally power vely bar wind state stature b f that state’s ed, they do no ble Energy e in the PJM rements are b were built lon dropower pla ombusted pul PS requires tha t must come f d have not ye ed coastal win he U.S. Cong e program wi he RPS progra t RECs be lim ted as a ceilin than as a power purch quired by the t of renewabl ed to meet the gh it was asser he Commissio y. ere is the RPS) hat oadly f new rise by the ot being ng ago ants lping at from et nd gress ll be ams mited ng for hase RPG les e rted on
  • 15. also sugge method of One legisl successfu face simil 1.2.3 R Maryland Convenie CPCN is a including outcome i projects le clearly de 1.2.4 R North Car condomin statute wa State PUC contrary v valuable w In North C effectively ordinance activities shown a w instances ordinance such as on adopted. S interests a authority 1.2.5 S Environm region. Ge preclude t available financial b facilitate d baseline s wind deve detail. ested that if lo f compliance lative attempt l. It is also no lar issues. RPS-RPGs F d State law req nce and Nece a formal adju technical, ec is uncertain. I ess than 100 M efined process Restrictive St rolina’s Ridge niums on high as informally C has adopted view. The resu wind resource Carolina and y bar develop e. Developers that can have willingness to it appears tha es have been a ne ordinance Several of the and have pass of local gove State Suppor mental permitt enerally envir the use of env in the region. barrier, espec development studies that ca elopment prog ow cost REC than new win t has been ma ot clear wheth Face Indirect quires that a w essity (CPCN udicatory proc onomic and e In Virginia, th MW. These li s and consequ tate Statutes eline Protecti h ridgeline site interpreted by d the interpret ulting uncerta es. Virginia, seve pment in those of wind farm e local impact o work with lo at the siting o adopted that b that bars deve e states in the sed statutes se rnments. rted Studies ting has not b ronmental iss vironmentally . However, th cially for smal of such proje an identify sen gram, but no s generated b nd plants, then ade to correct her other state t Constraints wind plant gre ) from the Pu cess that invol environmenta he “permit-by imits and inco uently are not s and Local Z on Act was en es and specifi y the North C tation of the A ainty is a sign eral counties e jurisdiction ms should reco ts. For the mo ocal communi f wind plants bear no reason elopment of a region have r etting out mod een shown to sues can be de y sensitive site he cost of con ller projects t ects, the states nsitive areas. state in the st y pre-existing n they should this situation es with regula s eater than 70 ublic Service C lves public pa l issues. This y-rule” projec onsistencies b barriers to de Zoning and nacted to bar fically exclude Carolina Attor Attorney Gene nificant barrie have adopted s. One county ognize that co ost part, devel ities to strike has acquired nable relation a wind farm w recognized th del noise and be a barrier t efined, and av es, but adequa ducting basel hat might be s in the region New Jersey h tudy region h g sources wer d be utilized. n, but it is not ated utilities, s MW must ob Commission articipation an process can b ct approval pr between state evelopment. Noise Ordin development es “windmills rney General eral, but seve er to developm d zoning and/ y in Maryland ommercial sca lopers have ac the appropria d a political ca nship to the po within one mi he need to pro zoning restri to the develop voided or miti ate “non-sens line environm more appropr n could condu has conducted has conducted re available a t yet clear wh such as North btain a Certifi (PSC). The is nd addresses be lengthy, ex ocess applies s may be dete nances t of unsightly s” from its ter as applying t eral counties h ment of North or noise ordin d is considerin ale wind plan ccepted this n ate balance. H ast and local r otential impa ile of a school operly balance ictions and lim pment of win igated. These sitive” areas a mental studies riate in some uct broad env d such a study d such a study as a lower cos hether it will b h Carolina, wi icate of Public ssuance of a all relevant is xpensive and s to “small” w errents but are y resort rms. However to wind farms have adopted h Carolina’s m nances that ng a similar nts are industr notion and hav However, in s restrictive ct of a wind f l, have been e competing miting the nd power in th e issues can appear reason can pose a areas. To vironmental y for its offsh y in sufficient 3 t be ill c ssues, the wind e r, this s. The a most rial ve some farm, he nably hore
  • 16. 4 An overly the legisla of leasing resources, consider t result was determine Bay. This discussed state, whe scale proj 1.3 Poli 1.3.1 E In recent y applicatio Managem The Natio enhanced blocks in proposals significan (nm) limit This large considerat Sounds, a created a b Our study bays and s costs are s hurricane in the oce Based on cost of en estimated installatio installatio eventually $0.063 pe These esti offshore p detailed e early in th There are in the bay y broad and in ature directed g state-owned , the VMRC r the economic s a widely dis ed that existin s report effect later in this r ere state suppo ects. cy Change Emphasis on years the atte ons to offshore ment (BOEM) onal Offshore commercial i the Atlantic O and has com nt impact.” Al t in federal w e emphasis on tion of possib and from land barrier to ons y team reexam sounds. Wind significantly h generated wa ean than for th detailed econ nergy (in 2013 at $0.091 per on vs. $0.167 ons. Under po y the COEs (i er kWh Bay an imates appear project cost tr ngineering st he Federal Wi issues associ ys and sounds nsufficiently r d the Virginia bottomlands report provide value of poss sseminated an ng competing ively ended f report, this iss orted research es or Mitiga Offshore W ntion of state e in Federal w has kindled m Wind Strateg interest in off Ocean off the mpleted necess ll this effort h waters. n offshore oce ble sites in an -based sites a shore and Bay mined the prev d resources ap higher, due p aves up to 20 hose in the ba nomic analysi 3 constant dol r kWh (kilow per kWh for o ssible favorab in 2013 const nd $0.119 per r to be consist rends in Europ udies comple ind Program. iated with dep but these hav resourced stud Marine Reso in the Chesap ed only a sup sible wind sit nd quoted repo uses ruled ou further consid sue also arises h could remov ation Optio Wind Power D governments waters. The U much of this i gy prepared b fshore wind d coast of Dela sary environm has created sub ean applicatio d near the De along the Atla y wind develo viously over l ppear to be m artly to the pl m height. Op ays. COE resu is, the levelize llars) was watt-hour) for ocean ble financing ant dollars) a r kWh Ocean tent with pe and with eted by DOE ploying turbin ve been resolv dy can, howe ources Commi peake Bay an erficial exam tes and possib ort, in which ut any comme deration of thi s in the conte ve an econom ons Developmen s in the Mid-A U.S. Departme interest from by U.S. Depar development. aware, Maryl mental assessm bstantial inter ons has drawn elaware and C antic coast. Co opment. looked applic arginally bett latform cost in perations and ults are describ ed bay , re n. nes ved Figure 1 electricit ever, do more ission (VMR nd its environs mination of po ble compatible it was reporte ercial scale w is resource in ext of mappin mic barrier to nt Atlantic regio ent of Interior the states and rtment of Ene BOEM has d land, and Virg ments with fav rest for projec n attention and Chesapeake B onsequently, cations in the ter offshore c n the ocean fo maintenance bed below wi 1-1 Near-shore w ity and serves a harm than go RC) to determi s. In the absen otential issues e uses of bott ed that the Co ind farms in t the Common ng the wind re the developm on has shifted r, Bureau of O d potential pro ergy in consor defined three p ginia, solicite avorable resul cts beyond th d resources aw Bays, Albemar offshore win shallow shelt ompared to b for deeper wat e expense are ith Figure 1-3 wind plant in D s aids to naviga ood. In Virgin ine the feasib nce of adequa and did not tom land. The ommission ha the Chesapea nwealth. As esources of th ment of smalle d from land-ba Ocean Energy oject develop rt with BOEM potential leas ed project ts showing “n he 12 nautical way from rle and Pamli d developmen tered waters o bays, but capit ter and surviv higher for pla 3. Denmark - prod ation nia, ility ate e ad ake e er ased y pers. M e no mile ico nt has of tal val in ants duces
  • 17. in Europe concerns m coal minin by focusin feasible co navigation areas of p Large sha similar are environm 1.3.2 S All of the energy im at residen but not in because th are popula In Delawa Greenhou 10% from on each st to the stat have been This sourc All states District of generated conduct n help all po 1.4 Win There is a referenced (EWITS) Maryland modeling measured wind mea estimate t areas. Res Four of th came from Administr Together e and we belie must be addre ng and therm ng on offshor ost. While set n aids, rather otential shall allow bays and eas in Europe ental analysis State Energy Mid-Atlantic mports by deve tial applicatio others. All st hey benefit m ar although th are and Mary use Gas Initiat m power plant tate’s individu tes to be inves n held. Maryla ce of funding should consi f Columbia, V d from RGGI’ needed wind r otential comm d Resourc a paucity of w d data consist [1]. To exam d and Virginia for each of th data sources asurements fo the average di sults were com he measured w m NASA’s W ration program these seven d eve can be ov essed and bal al power plan re wind, it is n tback from sh than obstacle ow water win d sounds are a e that have no s is needed to y Programs e c State energy eloping indig ons along with tates are strap more individua hey result in o land, money i tive (RGGI), s by 2019. RG ual CO2 limit sted in consum and has receiv g is available o der adding em Virginia, and s periodic car resource meas mercial develo ce Uncertai wind resource ts of modeled mine the accur a were obtaine he four wind available tha r one or more iurnal and sea mpared to mo wind sites wer Wallops Island m); and NOA data sets were ercome here. lanced against nt emissions. W not clear whet hipping chann es. See Figure nd sites that ar a unique reso ow been large quantify and emphasize s y plans mentio genous resourc h property an pped for fundi als. Funding i overall small is available fo a ten-state ca GGI operates ts and cycles a mer programs ved $188,828 only to states mphasis on pr North Carolin rbon credit au surements and opers. inty data suitable d estimates of racy of these w ed and review market areas at included hu e years at mul asonal averag odeled estima re described i d site; Crisfiel AA measurem e used to estim Environment t the benefits While it may ther offshore nels is require e 1.1. The Mi re sheltered f ource area in t ly built out. A d recognize th small scale p on policies fa ces. There are nd sales tax an ing these prog is small, but c energy contri or renewable ap-and-trade p carbon tradin a portion of th s and clean en 8,931 and Del that are RGG romoting com na should rec uctions are lik d baseline env for planning f wind speed f wind resource wed. These da that will be d ub height of gr ltiple heights ge wind speed tes from EWI in detail in th d, Maryland ( ments from Ch mate the avera tal issues, suc to bay water y be politically wind can be ed, turbines in id-Atlantic St from the chall the Mid-Atlan Additional tec his unique opp projects avoring renew e a variety of nd property w grams. Small can be easily l ibutions. energy progr program mean ng auctions qu he revenue ge nergy develop laware $25,41 GI members. mmercial wind consider joinin kely to increa vironmental s utility-scale w from Eastern e estimates, d ata were also u discussed late reater than 70 were compile ds for a typica ITS. e Tall Tower (collected und hesapeake Lig age wind spee ch as birds, ba and air quali y tempting to developed at nstalled on sh tates all have lenging condi ntic. They are chnical, econo portunity. wable energy f grant program wavers availab projects tend limited. How rams from the nt to reduce C quarterly for th enerated from pment. To dat 12,511 in cum d plant develo ng the RGGI. ase in value an studies and ot wind plant. C Wind Integra data from seve used as input er. These sites 0 meters in th ed. This data al site in each Study [2]. A der a Marylan ght off the Vir eds in each of ats and view s ity from reduc avoid those i an economic hoals can serv access to vas itions in the o e much larger omic and and reducing ms aimed ma ble in some st d to be favore wever, the prog e Regional CO2 emission hese states ba m the auction b te 15 auctions mulative proce opment. The . Revenues nd could serv ther actions th Commonly ation Study en sites in to the econom s were the onl he region. The was used to of the marke dditional data nd Energy rginia coast. f the four mar 5 shed ced issues cally e as st ocean. r than ainly tates ed grams s ased back s eeds. e to hat mic ly e t a rket
  • 18. 6 areas. The off-peak e collected Significan The Ridge measured conclusio least one w The rever wind spee to be stati An additio Mid-Atlan months. T Midwest a productio Many fact lack of lon the land-s an inadeq Figure 1-2 Aug 3, 2007 ese data were energy output during the sam nt differences eline data win at 100 meter n that average wind power c rse is true on t ed offshore w istically and e onal wind res ntic region. L These jets are as shown but n. tors contribut ng-term, hub sea boundary, quate resource The Weather R 7 at 1:00 am at used to estim t as well as m me years. were noted b nd speeds and r (m) hub heig e onshore coa class. the ocean. Th were about 15% economically source uncerta LLJ may signi powerful win with differen te to uncertain height or abo and the prese e, this uncerta Research Model a height of 312 mate average w monthly and se between the m d capacity fac ght and above astal area win he analysis sho % higher than significant. ainty is eviden ificantly incre nds that arise nt drivers, yet nty regarding ove wind mea ence of low le ainty is a poten l simulation of l 2m above groun wind speeds a easonal differ measured wind ctors were sim e on the Delm nd speeds at th owed that the n estimates in nce of the pre ease wind plan from large sc they can sign the regional asurements, th evel jets. For ntial barrier f low level jets on nd level. and plant cap rences. Unfort d strength an milar. But look marva at Wallo hose heights m e EWITS estim this study. T esence of Low nt production cale topograp surface western season to a no plain. T that oc layer c summe sunset night. T charact shows night o state-o Foreca resolut m heig that da dramat turbine data is location occur in known nificantly incr wind resourc he atmospheri areas where c for developers n pacity factors tunately not a d the EWITS king at the hig ops and Eastv may be under mates for ave These differen w Level Jets ( n during sprin hic/thermal fo e cooling of th n region durin . This forcing octurnal LLJ o The LLJ is a s curs under sta onditions at n er months. It b and persists f To illustrate t teristics of the a model simu on August 2, 2 f-the-art Wea ast (WRF) mo tion. This mod ght but direct m ate show the je tically increas e rotor height. needed to de ns and freque n the Mid-Atl to occur freq rease wind pl ce characterist ic complexity current lower s. for on-peak a all of the data S model result gh wind shea ville leads to t restimated by erage seasona nces are consid (LLJ) across t ng and summe forcing due to he elevated ng the warm g often gives r over the coast sheet of fast w able boundary night during t begins around for most of th the spatial e LLJ, Figure ulation for on 2007 using th ather Research odel at 9 km del run was a measurement ets can se wind speed . Much additi termine the s ency that LLJ lantic. LLJs a quently in the lant energy tics including y and variabil r level data sh and a was ts. ar the y at l dered the er o rise tal wind y the d he e 1.2 ne he h and at 312 ts on ds at ional cale, are g: the lity at how
  • 19. 1.5 Bus Economic are capita available power. Pu above, we used data built and o considere European team foun near shore depth and commissi applicatio The study region and Penn-Jers Mid-Atlan connectio projects, D projects, C Using the plant at ea different P conservat 2015 Add interstate implemen large fract PERI then project str likely fina (PPA) or ran the mo coverage, Another m with a sat meets tho Energy (C The land- could also offer pote iness and c issues pose l intensive; th wind resourc ublished data ere used to ev from NREL operating to e d due to the u offshore proj nd that most e e. As these “e d 25 km from oning and ma ons for this pr y team then pr d actual futur ey-Maryland ntic States an n points repre Delmarva Pow Calvert Cliffs measured wi ach node, the PJM forward ive estimate g der Prices, wh transport stan nted. Of cours tion of region n performed d ructure and fi ancing, with d other well-gu odel to calcul which demon method of ana isfactory IRR se requiremen COEs), where based plants w o work financ ential, but ther Economic other barriers he viability of e, on operatin on land-based valuate the eco and other sou evaluate bay a uncertain natu ject costs wer early projects easy” sites we shore. The Eu aintenance we oject. repared a forw res pricing tra Interconnect d certain near esenting each wer and Ligh s for Bay proj ind characteri value of elec pricing scena given recent f hich assumes E ndards, requir se these stand nal generation discounted ca nancing were debt rated one uaranteed sale late after-tax I nstrates ease alysis, to bette R and debt cov nts. From this e the latter fig were found to cially. The oce re are technic c Issues s to wind deve f such project ng expenses, a d turbine proj onomics of po urces that wer and ocean bas ure of such es re analyzed to were built in ere built out, p uropean expe ere factored in ward pricing m aded on the NY tion, which is rby areas. Fou h of the wind m t – Old Domi ects, and Fen istics (on-pea ctricity was de arios were use fuel and powe EPA Utility M ring additiona dards will not n. ash flow-retur e employed: ( e level below es with favora IRR, which is of repayment er compare th verage, and th s, we calculat ure excludes o be economi ean projects s cal and econom elopment. Alt ts depends on and on projec ject costs and otential coast re based on ac sed projects. N timates. o determine p very shallow project develo eriences on pr nto wind plan model based o YMEX comm the Regional ur existing no market areas, inion Electric ntress for Ocea k, off-peak an etermined by ed, including er forecasts, a Maximum Ac al pollution co change costs rn on investm (1) merchant p investment-g able financing s the rate of r t for lenders. he projects, PE hen using the ted levelized n inflation. cally viable a show a broad mic problems though wind n initial cost, o cted demand a d local wind s tal and ridgeli ctual costs for No “proposed possible trend w sheltered wa opment shifte rices for foun nt cost estima on historical w modities tradi l Transmissio odes were sele , namely Clov c Company (D an projects. nd seasonal) f extrapolating 2.5% price e and another, h chievable Con ontrols on coa for natural g ment (DCF-RO power sales w grade and (2) g, and debt rat return for equ ERI performe model to calc nominal-dolla and with favo gap over mar s to solve. If S plants run on on the amoun and price paid trength estim ine projects in r European pr d” project cos s in project pr aters less than ed to deeper w dations, insta ates for bay an wholesale pri ing exchange. on Organizatio ected on the P verdale node DPL-ODEC) f for a simulate g forward for scalation, wh higher-priced ntrol Technol al-fired plants as or nuclear OI) analysis. T with current (f Power Purch ted at investm ity investors, ed a DCF-RO culate the rev ar and consta orable financin rket prices. T Shallow Bay n “free fuel”, t nt and timing o d for the proje mates, discusse n the region. W rojects that w sts were rices. The stu n 15 m deep a water, up to 30 allation, nd ocean ices in the PJM . PJM refers t on (RTO) for PJM system a for Ridgeline for Coastal ed 100 MW w 25 years. Tw hich is a scenario term logy (MACT) s, are plants that ar Two types of first half 2012 hase Agreeme ment-grade. P and debt OI analysis sta venue stream ant-dollar Cos ng the bay pla The Ocean pla plants were b 7 they of the ect’s ed We were udy and 0 m M to the r the as e wind wo med ) and re a 2), ent PERI arting that sts of ant ants built
  • 20. 8 first, draw Figure 1- Figure There are lows, whi system. T issue facin past. Second, th the energy (MAPP) a backbone In conclus term deve of bays an Ridgeline environm 1.6 Pub Public op addressed Mountain state. Rea controver began bef wing on lesson -3 shows the f e 1-3. COEs of F two other po ich some obse This has reduc ng wind and o he study team y from the 10 are assumed t . sion, the leve elopment in th nd sounds due e sites are low ental factors m lic Interest inion of wind d properly in t n Ridge Protec asonable zonin sial. Model z fore model or ns learned in favorable fina Four Plants wit otential barrier ervers forecas ced PJM’s wh other renewab m assumed tha 00 MW plants to be available lized cost of e he Mid-Atlant e to proximity west cost, but t must be consi t Issues d energy plays the project pla ction Act has ng ordinances oning policie dinances wer Europe, the f ancing COEs. h Favorable Fin rs. First, the p st to stay low holesale powe bles but has n at required tra s. Transmissio e. We did not energy from p tic. Next mos y to load and the distance to idered. s a key role in anning proces effectively b s can go a lon s are availabl re ready. field experien . nancing using P price of natura for up to five er prices, beca not been a bar ansmission lin on line projec t evaluate the potential coas st attractive po because the w o load centers n wind develo ss. In North C locked all win ng way to add le and in use e ce gained wo PJM Forward P al gas has fall e years till exc ause PJM is a rrier preventin nes will be av cts like the Mi potential imp stal sites appe otential sites wind resource s, associated t opment. It can Carolina a jud nd developme dress siting iss except in a fe ould benefit O Prices (2013 Do len in recent y cess capacity a spot market. ng wind deve vailable when id-Atlantic Po pact from the ears to be attr are in shelter es are probabl transmission n become a ba dicial interpre ent in the wes sues before pr ew communiti Ocean plants. ollars). years to recor is absorbed b This is a rece elopment in th n needed to ha ower Pathway proposed off ractive for nea red shallow w ly underestim issues and arrier if it is n tation of the stern part of t rojects becom ies where pro rd by the ent he andle y fshore ar- waters mated. not the me ojects
  • 21. Generally environm ways shou Noise and benefits fr the “dead doing so i barrier to y environment entally sensit uld be avoide d aesthetics ar rom wind pow zones” in the is possible. H wind energy tal issues can tive sites but a d. Bats issues re issues that wer that resul e bay and oce However, beca development be defined, a are not consid s can largely b can generally lt from reduci ean. Although ause of potent t for the purpo avoided or mi dered a barrie be avoided by y be handled t ing coal and o h changing pu tial initial opp oses of this re itigated. Thes er to developm y raising the t through open other fossil fu ublic opinion c position, publ eport. se can preclud ment. Bird san turbine cut-in dialog citing uel burning, an can be a chall lic interest is c de the use of nctuaries and n wind speed. g the value and nd from shrin lenging task, considered a 9 fly d nking
  • 22. 10 2.0 Intr This repor in respons barrier red 09GO990 (DNR). Princeton Baltimore wind and and federa included: regulatory consultan environm physics, d and wind where he a senior m in the elec conventio The team’ be impedi value, but limited to, assumptio along with technical i wind mark Benefits o of the Mid term powe Conseque identified barriers to Results w groups in regional e roduction rt presents res se to the U.S. duction progr 009. Cost shar Energy Reso e County (UM other renewa al and state en Dr. Lynn Spa y issues, and D ts have exper ental and regi dynamics, and power genera served as sen manager in the ctric power bu onal power pla ’s approach w iments to win t rather investi , in depth inte ons. This inves h possible resp information c ket projection of wind energ d-Atlantic Sta er price stabil ently these ben and discusse o wind develo were communi regional busi environmental sults of work Department ram, competit red funding su ources Interna MBC) and the able energy pl nergy policy p arling Atmosp Dan Lobue on rience in wind ional power g d air pollution ation policy is nior counsel a e Environmen usiness has he ants and for w was to identify nd energy dev igated in dept erviews of key stigation was ponses or mit oncerning the ns. gy are widely ates include w lity, reduced e nefits will no ed. However, opment. icated in meet iness, governm l groups and N conducted by of Energy, “2 tive Funding O upport came f ational (PERI) Chesapeake lant design, co planning and pheric Physic n regional tra d energy and a generation iss n transport. M ssues in this c at the Justice D ntal Protection elped in struc wind power pr y and investig velopment. W th by means th y stakeholders followed by o tigation option e wind resourc recognized. R wind energy, a energy impor t be discussed this report is tings and pres ments and un Non-Governm y Princeton E 20% Wind by Opportunity A from the Mar ) organized a Bay Foundat onventional p management cist from UMB ansmission org also bring det sues. Dr. Spar Mr. Buckheit h country and a Department’s n Agency’s a cturing and op rojects. gate technical e did not acce hat go beyond s and policy m objective quan ns to overcom ces in the regi Renewable Po acknowledgin rts, job creatio d here. Regio more specific sentations at r niversities. In mental Organ Energy Resour y 2030: Topic Announceme ryland Depart a team includi tion (CBF). PE power plant im t. In addition BC, Bruce C. ganizational c tailed and bro rling is a prom has consulted abroad since r s Environmen air program. M ptimizing tran l, business and ept theoretical d “literature re makers, and gr ntitative analy me the challeng ion was expos ortfolio Stand ng its value in on and reduce onally specific cally focused regional work addition the C nizations (NG rces Internati c2A Wind Pow ent Number: D tment of Natu ing the Unive ERI staff are mplementatio to PERI staff . Buckheit, ad consideration oad perspectiv minent scienti on a number retiring from t ntal Enforcem Mr. Lobue wit nsmission agr d regulatory i l or “reported eviews” includ round truthing ysis and unbia ges. In additio sed and factor dards or Goals n terms of sus ed air and wa c or unique m on defining a kshops, semin CBF hosted a GOs). onal, LLC (P wering Ameri DE-PS36- ural Resource ersity of Mary experienced on, project fin f, key consult ddressing ns. These ves on ist on atmosph of fossil fuel the governme ment Section a th his experie reements for issues that co d” barriers at f ding, but not g of all underl ased reporting on, critical new red into the lo s (RPS/RPG) stainability, lo ater pollution. market drivers and overcomi nars and direc a meeting of PERI), ica” s yland in nance, ants heric l-fired ent and as ence uld face lying g w ocal in all ong- are ing ctly to
  • 23. 3.0 Goa The objec developm mitigating Specific o to define s to analyze characteri environm Our goal w include: 1. “T 2. “P 3. “W 4. “C 5. “C als and Ob ctive of this st ment of wind e g those barrie objectives are specific techn e the economi istics and unc ental conside was also to di The only usef Population de Wind resourc Coastal wind Competing us bjectives tudy is to defi energy in the M rs. : 1) to refine nical, busines ic factors that certainties in t rations in per ispel or reduc ful winds are ensity is too h ce is not suffic power canno ses rule out m ine technical, Mid-Atlantic the understan s, and regulat t may impact the local wind rspective with ce myths abou at ridgeline s high on coasta cient in coasta ot compete wi most of the oth economic an region and to nding of the n tory barriers a project devel d resource pot h other power ut Mid-Atlant sites and most al plains.” al plains, bay ith stronger of herwise availa nd policy issu o identify mec nature of the r along with op lopment decis tential and 5) r generation te tic wind powe t of those are y(s) and sound ffshore wind able bottomla ues that have b chanisms for regional wind ptions for ove sions, 4) to qu ) to put wind e echnologies. er markets. T on protected ds.” strengths.” and.” been impedin overcoming d energy mark ercoming them uantify energy hese myths land.” 11 ng the or ket, 2) m, 3)
  • 24. 12 4.0 Reg The regio Columbia resources, potential. different d As shown mountains Delaware over the C Figure 4-1. To quanti National R Energy (D wind reso individual Chesapeak again not Carolina 8 data are su These exc sounds. T can be ov If fully de megawatt 1 NREL esti 50 m height gional Ene n chosen for a, generally ha , growing dem For purposes development n in Figure 4- s, 2) Coastal – and Chesape Continental sh Mid-Atlantic S fy these mark Renewable En DOE) titled 20 ource potentia l state are: M ke Bay), Dela including De 807 MW on a ummarized in clusions could The potential c ercome. eveloped, assu t-hours (MWh imated an averag t. See Table B-10 ergy Situa this study: De as similar win mand for elec s of this study issues and po -1, the market – on the plain eake Bays, Al helf off the At States Wind Pla kets , the auth nergy Labora 0% Wind Ene al by 2030 at 1 aryland 1,483 aware 9.5 MW elaware Bay, V and offshore p n Table 4-1 th d be reconside capacity could uming an ave h) annually. T ge capacity facto 0 in reference 1. ation - Rip elaware, Mary nd energy ma ctricity and ye y, the wind en otential t segments are ns east of the lbemarle and tlantic coast. ant Market Are hors of this rep atory (NREL) ergy by 2030. 16 to 43 thou 3 MW onshor W onshore (lik Virginia 1,79 potential large hat also descri ered but more d equal the of rage 35% cap That amount o or of 35% in 201 pe for Win yland, North rket character et almost no d nergy market i e: 1) Ridgelin Piedmont, 3) Pamlico Soun as port expanded in preparing This report e sand megawa re and 53,782 kely underest 3 on land and er than the oth ibes land area e important is ffshore estima pacity factor 1 , of electricity i 10 increasing to d Market Carolina, Vir ristics. These development o is divided int ne - along the Sheltered W nds, and 4) O d on the data their study fo estimated the atts (MW) [3] 2 offshore (no timated) and d 94,448 offsh her Mid-Atla as that were e s the omission ates provided , wind could is equivalent 38% by 2030 fo Developm rginia, and th e include: reas of the availab to four segme e tops of Appa Waters – in the Ocean – offsho and models u or the U.S. D usable Mid-A ]. DOE’s estim ot counting po similar to Ma hore plus the antic States co excluded from n of possible s d potential env supply at leas to 15% of the or Class 3 wind r ment e District of sonably good ble wind energ ents each with alachian shallow wate ore in deeper used by the epartment of Atlantic regio mates for otential sites i aryland offsho Bay, and Nor ombined. The m consideratio sites in bays o vironmental i st 50 million e current five resource measure wind gy h ers in water onal n the ore rth ese on. or ssues -state ed at
  • 25. Barrier Mitigat potentia misinfor consumpt this report Table 4-1 D bays and so The wind turbine ca estimated maps draw Class 3 an higher alti estimates. could dram 4.1 Mid- 4.1.1 R Ridgeline 120 MW some loca projects o notable th the 790 M new ridge Mehoopan had alread plants ope in Pennsy Pennsylva county. T familiarity State Maryland North Caroli Delaware Virginia r – Visual imp tion Option – al wind power rmation abou tion, based on t will show th DOE Estimates ounds). resource data apacity being as Class 2 or wn at 50 mete nd excluded e itudes, indica . The basis fo matically incr -Atlantic W Ridgeline Site e sites have en in two wind p al governmen or caused them hat in nearby P MW of wind p eline projects ny beginning dy been dama erating, and re ylvania. Altho ania Departm his was aimed y wind turbin Total (km 2 ) Ex 567.7 ina 1,155.60 36.6 1,567.20 1 Windy La pact from ridg – Support dem r plant sites in ut noise and vi n Energy Info hat potential e of land-based a a available at located either r below were er (50 m) heig except ridgelin ate that Mid-A or new higher rease the wind Wind Energ es ncountered se plants have be ts and in Nor m to be aband Pennsylvania plants in Penn are being bui in June of 20 aged by strip m ecognizing th ough in some ment of Enviro d at educating nes through sm xcluded (km 2 ) Available (km 2 ) 271.1 296.6 994.1 161.5 34.7 1.9 ,208.50 358.7 and Area ≥ 30% G geline sites. monstration pr n an effort to isual impact. rmation Adm electricity pro and offshore win the time of th r on ridgeline considered to ght that were nes [5]. More Atlantic coasta wind resourc d energy pote gy Market S rious opposit een built in M th Carolina th doned. These i a, wind develo nsylvania at th ilt this year in 012. In some c mining, later heir economic cases there is onment had a g the public a mall projects. e Available % of State % L 1.18% 0.13% 0.04% 0.35% Gross Capacity Fac rojects with tu increase techn ministration (E oduction from nd energy poten he DOE study es or at offsho oo “marginal” used in the st e recent wind al areas may b ce estimates is ential for land Segments tion in Maryla Maryland. Opp he “Mountain issues are dis opment is pro he end of 201 ncluding a 13 cases the initi other ridges a c and environm s still organize policy to supp and winning g This leads to % of Total Windy Land Excluded I 47.80% 86.00% 94.80% 77.10% ctor at 80 m urbines instal nology accep EIA) data from m wind may be ntial by 2030 (b y resulted in n ore ocean site ” to be consid tudy, virtually resource mea be several po s discussed in d-based sites. and, Virginia position from n Ridge Protec scussed in det oceeding well 1 are currentl 1 MW plant t ial projects w and farm land mental benefi ed opposition port wind dem general accept o a possible so Installed Capacity (MW) 1,483 807 9.5 1,793 Land-Based Wi lled in commu ptance and to m 2010 [4]. A e substantially but not counting nearly all of t es. In the DOE dered. Lookin y all of the lan asurements, s ower classes h n detail later i and North Ca m some memb ction Act,” ha tail later in thi on similar te ly located on that began ins were placed on ds were emplo fits, has helped n, several year monstration p tance based o olution in the y Annual Generat (GWh) 4,269 2,395 26 5,395 ind Energy Potenti unities near overcome Analysis later y underestim g potential sites the projected w E study, sites ng at wind res nd area was b ome measure higher than ea in this report a arolina, altho ers of the pub ave delayed is report but i rrain. Nearly ridgelines. Fi stallation in n mountains t oyed. Seeing d to open mar rs ago the projects in eve on increased target states. Offshore Po tion Estimated C (MW) 53,782 Very La Similar to M 94,448 ial 13 in ated. s in wind ource below ed at arlier and ugh blic, it is all of ive that wind rkets ery otential apacity ) 2 arge Maryland 8
  • 26. 14 4.1.2 C This study energy de coast. As usable giv Populatio million pe highway c from ridge For persp (DELMA Germany 4-2. Both Wind reso average m estimated Wind Atla enough en during low Sweden a periods in Figure 4-2. to indicate Coastal Plain y concludes th evelopment. T mentioned pr ven better win n high density eople live in t corridors. How eline areas an ective, the co ARVA) penins to the norther regions are m ources are com measured at 50 Class 3 resou as). In 2010, J nergy to meet w demand per and Germany. n Denmark [7 DELMARVA- scale) n Sites he plains east Terrain varies reviously, the nd measureme y is often cite the five-state wever, the hig nd agricultura oastal plain in sula. The Dan rn tip. DELM mainly agricul mparable with 0 m above gro urce of 6.4 to Jutland had m t 100% of the riods at night Electric pow ]. -Jutland Compa t of the Appal from rolling e wind resourc ents and mod ed as a reason Region, main gh density urb al areas along Denmark can nish Jutland P MARVA has s ltural with so h open plains ound level [6 7.0 m/s at 50 more than 2,40 Danish elect when actuall wer was later r arison where 2, lachian Moun hills in the w ces once thou dern turbines w n for lack of re nly in urban a ban areas in t the coast that n be compare eninsula is ap similar dimen me urban and in Denmark ]. This is only 0 m height (th 00 MW of lan trical load. Hi ly much of th returned from 400 MW of lan ntains contain west to large re ught to be mar with taller tow egional wind and suburban the region are t have stronge ed to the Dela pproximately nsions and top d industrial ar reported at 6 y slightly bett he standard he nd-based win ighest wind g he wind energy m other genera nd-based wind p n many sites s elatively flat rginal are now wers and larg development areas along th e generally mo er wind resou aware – Maryl 300 km from pography, as s reas. .5 to 7.5 m/s ter than DELM eight used in t nd plants prod generation pen y was exporte ating sources plants are opera suitable for w areas near the w considered er rotors. t. In fact, 25 he Interstate ore than 50 m urces. land – Virgin m the border w shown in Figu average annu MARVA with the European ducing at time netration occu ed to Norway during low w ating (300 km li ind e miles nia with ure ual h an n es urred y, wind ine is
  • 27. 4.1.3 B The poten has receiv on 100 m concluded based inst That initia driven req metocean and it sho including maximum and Atmo ocean nea blocks. Th shown in Wind, wa the Ameri for design gusts are t criteria ne extrapolat This will l detailed di the admitt studies. D Madison U For major of over 30 depths of continenta wave heig waves in s the maxim the bays s maximum 2 Metocean and turbulen 3 Miles, J.J. 4 Australian http://cawcr 5 NOAA Na one-third of Bay and Soun ntial value of ved little atten towers in off d that the cost tallations. As al study focus quirements di 2 assumptions ould be noted Alaska. Of m m winds, wave ospheric Adm ar Chesapeake he location of Figure 4-3. ave and curren ican Ship Bui n and structur to be based on ed to be modi ing surface wi likely overesti iscussion of th edly limited d ata for the Oc University at a r tropical cycl 0 m in deep w approximatel al shelf. Data ght or 0.22 x d shallow water mum possible sheltered from m wave height is a term coined nce at different h et al., “Offshore n Bureau of mete r.gov.au/bmrc/pu ational Data Buo f the waves, as m nd Sites installations i ntion. Early in fshore applica t of energy fro a result that p sed on ocean ctated much o s used by We that their assu more direct rel e heights and ministration (N e Light House f NOAA mea nt characterist ilders. This st al load predic n recognized te fied to apply t ind speed up t imate the wind his issue). Con data recorded b ean applicatio a meeting of th lones of Saffi water as descri ly 20 m and " from measur depth (varies r is, to a first wave height m ocean swell t of 3.8 m. d recently to inclu heights above the e Wind Advance eorology Researc ubs/tcguide/ch4/ oy Center definit measured from th in the shallow n the Federal ations was com om offshore a path of resear based applica of the cost dif estinghouse an umptions are levance in the currents. Me NOAA) on tw e (CHLV2) n surement site tics are descri tandard requir ction. Long-te echniques and to Bay applica to turbine hub d speed and co nsequently the by NOAA, yet on are also con he Virginia Of ir-Simpson ca ibed in the W "feel" the ocea rements from by location). approximatio is 22 to 30 m l and surge, th ude meteorologi e water, sea state ed Technology D ch Centre, The C /ch4_3.htm tion: “Significan he trough to the c w sheltered wa wind program mpleted by W applications w rch was dropp ations where w fference betw nd their marin for open ocea e Mid-Atlanti asurement da o buoys locat ear one of De es near Point L ibed in standa res the use of erm and extrem clearly descri ations. Also th height is base onsequently th assumptions t are considere nsistent with th ffshore Wind D ategory 3 or h Westinghouse r an bottom at m Germany in t Theoretical w on, about 75% m for lease blo he measured s ical and oceanog e and currents. Demonstration S Centre for Austra nt wave height, is crest of the wave aters of bays m, a detailed s Westinghouse was two to thr ped in 1980. water depth a ween land and ne contractors an application ic are the mor ata shown are ted in the Che epartment of I Lookout, Stin ards for offsh f the so called me-value pred ibed in the des he wind shear ed on the 1/7 P he structural lo used here are ed reasonable he extreme wi Development higher, it is no report. Howe much greater the North Sea wave models % of the local ocks ranging i significant5 w graphic character ite Developmen alian Weather an s approximately es”. and sounds in study of 6.5 t Electric Com ree times high and extreme w d sea based ins s are summar ns around the re recent mea by National esapeake Bay Interior’s win ngray Point an hore wind turb d “100-year st dictions for sus sign documen used in standa Power Law. oads (see Sect qualitative ad for prelimina ind estimates p Authority (VO ot unusual to f ever these wav r depths, well a indicate 8-1 predict the m oceanic dept in depth from waves are 2.2 m ristics including nt”, 15 February nd Climate Rese equal to the ave n the Mid-Atl o 10 MW turb mpany [8]. It her than land weather and w stallations. Th rized in Table e U.S. coast asurements of Oceanograph y and one in th nd energy leas nd near CHLV bines develop torm” as the b stained and wi nt, however the ard for tion 9 for more djustments bas ary economic presented by J OWDA)3 . find wave hei ves break in w offshore alon 1m maximum maximum heig th 4 . Conseque m 30 to 40 m. m with the g wind speed, dir 2012. earch, erage of the high 15 lantic bines wave he e 4-2 f hic he se V2 is ped by basis ind ese e sed on James ights water ng the m ght of ently For rection, hest
  • 28. 16 Table 4-2. M Wo for o Me Chesap 100-Y W (troug Worst-c for o 100-Y 100-Y Refereences and N 4. National Data 5. Kinsman, Blair 6. Estimate of wa Potomac Buoy, h 7. SCRIPPS Instit http://cdip.u 8. Chesapeake Ba 9. Reeds Nautical 10. IEC 61400-1 11. JMU presenta W (100-ye Bay 3. Kilar, L.A., De Volume IV - Mete C 2. NOAA definiti 1. Kilar, L.A., De Volume II - Appa Metocean assum p orst-case pen-ocean asured at peake Light Year Storm Waves gh to crest) ase extremes pen-ocean Year Storm Year Storm Notes: Buoy Center, NOAA, ht r (1984), Wind Waves: th ave height in sheltered wa http://buoybay.noaa.gov/o tute of Oceanography, C ucsd.edu/?nav=historic&s ay Interpretive Buoy Sys Alminac, East Coast Ed for Class I assumes extre ation to VA Offshore Wi Wind ear storm) on and Ocean M R S CH (E wa M R S D esign Study and Econom eorological and Oceanog urrent ion -Significant wave hei esign Study and Econom aratis Designs and Costs, mptions used fo y, ttp://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/ heir Generation and Prop waters - NOAA Chesapeak observations/data-graphi Coastal Data Information sub=data&stn=147&stre stem (CBIBS), NOAA, h dition, 2008 eem wind of 50 m/s at hu ind Development Autho Location Units Maximum Design L Requiremnts for Oc urvival all US regio HLV @ 43.3 m hei 1996 -2010 Design for surviva Extreme Wave in 3 water depth) 5 Design for significa aves in ocean opera 2, 3 Maximum Design L Requiremnts for Oc urvival all US regio Location Units Design max @hub. 1 ic Assessment of Multi-U graphic Surveys, WASH Location Design for ocean operation Units Design for Surviva (Extreme) ight is calculated as the a ic Assessment of Multi-U WASH-2330-78/4(Vol. or bay, sound an Estimated M (Kno 104. (@ 10 72 Ocean Desi Hgt. in 1 Storm (m) 30.5 15.6 22.5 Ocean D (m/s 1.8 2.2 /station_history.php?sta pagation on the Ocean S ke Bay Interpretive Buoy ing-tool.html n Program (CDIP), am=p1&xyrmo=200806 http://buoybay.noaa.gov/l ub in 50-year storm but n rity 15 January 2012. oad ean ons 1 ight 4 al 0 m - ant ation oad ean ons 1 10, 11 Unit Offshore Wind Energ -2330-78/4(Vol. 4), We n al verage of the highest on Unit Offshore Wind Energ . 2), Westinghouse Elect nd ocean lease b Maximum Es Sustain m Hu ots) (Kno .2 0 m) 21 ign Wave 100-yr. m 3, 7 ) 5 6 5 esign 3 s) 8 2 ation=chlv2 Surface , Dover Publicati y System (CBIBS) operat 6&xitem=product33 locations/potomac.html not category 3 hurricane Meas C 36.6 gy Conversion Systems Ap stinghouse Electric Corp Meas ne-third of all of the wave gy Conversion Systems Ap ric Corporation, June 14 block applicatio pp t. Max ned @ 100 ub Height Es Sus 100 H ots or m/s) 5.0 kts 37.0 ions, ISBN 0-486-49511 ting since 2007, es. 6.7 4.7 sured Max. Ocean ape Henry Buoy 4 2008 - 2011 (m) (IEC 10 ) pplication, poration, June 14, 1979. sured Max. @ Ca Buoy 44099 2008 - 2011 - (m/s) - e heights during the 20-m pplication, 4, 1979. ons. st. Max tained @ 0 m Hub Height Ma (m/s) (K 110.5 2 - Ba Su Ma Ba Su Ma (m -6. n Wave @ 44099 56.0 ape Henry minute sampling period. ax Gust Max G Hu Heig Knots) (m/ 275.0 141 ay Est. rvival ax. 6, 8 Bay Me off Stin Poi (m) (m 3.0 2.2 4.0 3. ay Est. rvival ax. 6, 8, 9 Bay Me off Stin Poi m/s) (m/ 1.0 0. 1.5 1. 69. Gust @ ub ght /s) 1.4 asured ngray int m) 2 8 asured ngray int /s) 7 1 .7
  • 29. Figure 4-3. The availa associated Regardles an installa offshore i The cost b Europe. T slightly m Denmark Agency (I had risen depth, wit more chal this report Location of NO able NOAA m d with an extr ss, significant ation in the sh n the ocean. T benefit of dep The first sea-b more costly tha in 1996 are s IEA) regardin to $3.88 mill th most early llenging cond t. OAA Buoys measurements reme 100-yea t wave height hallow waters This differenc ployments in s based plants w an land-based shown in Figu ng offshore ap ion per MW ( plants less th ditions in the N s are short ter ar storm that w s and extreme s of bays and ce is reflected shallow shelte were located n d installations ure 4-4 along pplications. B (double land- han 10 km fro North Sea [7] rm (less than would be need e waves are a sounds that a d in the cost st ered waters c near shore in v s. The land-ba g with comme By 2009, Denm -based costs) m shore. Late ]. These cost t five years) an ded to update a factor of 8-1 are sheltered f tudies later in can be seen fro very shallow ased and offsh ent reported to mark reported as projects w er projects we trends are ana nd do not incl e the Westingh 10 higher offs from extreme n this report. om initial off sheltered wat hore plant loc o the Internati d that offshor were built in up ere built furth alyzed in mor lude condition house estimat shore compare conditions fshore project ters, and were cations in ional Energy re installation p to 15 m wat her from shore re detail later 17 ns tes. ed to ts in e cost ter e in in
  • 30. 18 Figure 4-4. 4.1.4 O There are waters, wh continenta the Mid-A DOE in co the Burea lease bloc completin growth of described Onshore & Of Offshore Oce vast areas of here large wi al shelf is up Atlantic Bight onsort with D au of Ocean E cks in Federal ng a regional e f a commercia in the Nation ffshore Plants in ean Sites ffshore along nd power pla to 200 nautic t, see Figure Department of Energy Manag l water for wi environmenta al offshore wi nal Offshore W n Denmark, Cir the East coas ants can be dep al miles (nm) 4-5. f Interior’s Bu gement, Regu nd energy pro al assessment ind industry i Wind Strategy rca 1996 t and elsewhe ployed. This ) wide with re ureau of Ocea ulation and En oject develop [9]. These ef n the U.S. Th y, which is de ere in the U.S includes the o elatively shall an Energy Ma nforcement) a pment by acce fforts are desi he intent of th esigned to dra S., in both stat ocean area wh low 30 to 60 m anagement (B are aggressive epting lease o igned to prom hese federal e aw on lessons te and federal here the m water dept BOEM) (form ely working to ffers and mote and acce efforts are s learned from l th in merly o lerate m the
  • 31. extensive more cost Figure 4-5. BOEM-NOA DE, MD and The Natio that are ho (PTC) inc still techn Offshore W more turb Other pos developm waters tha detail late 6 http://www Viewer/Inde offshore dep t-effective tur Mid-Atlantic B AA Multipurpos d VA are shown onal Offshore opefully supp centive that is nical and econ Wind Techno bines in the wa ssible paths ar ment risk. One at are not exp er in this repor w.boem.gov/Oil- ex.aspx loyment in Eu rbines. A goal Bight Regional O se Marine Cadas n. NC has yet to b Wind Energy ported by cont currently set nomic uncerta ology Demon ater and opera re discussed h scenario cou osed to the ex rt. -and-Gas-Energy urope and mo l is to have in Offshore Lease stre6 Using NRE be allocated by B y Strategy inc tinuation of th t to expire in t ainties and con stration Proje ating by 2014 here to help ov uld be to deplo xtreme condit y-Program/Mapp ove on directl nstalled 10 GW Blocks and Wi EL Wind Speed D BOEM. cludes extensi he essential fe the end of 20 ncerns that ar ects have been 4. vercome tech oy the first bl tions of the op ping-and-Data/M ly to the next W at $0.10 pe ind Resources a Data at 90m Hub ive research a federal Section 12. Assuming re described i n fast tracked hnical and eco locks of mach pen ocean. Th Multi-Purpose-M generation of er kWh by 20 at 90m Hub Hei b Height, April 2 and demonstr n 45 Producti g the PTC is e in this report. d with a plan t onomic barrie hines (possibl his option is d Marine-Cadastre- f larger hopef 20 [10]. ight - 2012. Lease bloc ration program ion Tax Credi extended, the The DOE to have one or ers by reducin ly 500 MW) i discussed in m -Map- 19 fully cks for ms it re are r ng in more
  • 32. 20 4.2 Ene The Mid-A in the nati 3.2%. All renewable promoting not proven region. As a resul RECs from located in project co The energ There is c old plants plants pla Wind reso the inevita 4.3 Euro NREL rep (depth of projects w minimize Since 200 projects in to 45 km d data was c from publ [12]. Data on fu capital co trends ass Table whe further fro Barrier from co Mitigat measure and soun rgy Situati Atlantic State ion. Accordin of the Sates h e energy from g local job cre n to be suffic lt, all of the M m pre-World n other states. onstruction job gy supply sho currently only s supplying ne anned, and all ources can wo able decomm opean Offs ported, “Of th 30 m or less) were construct development 07, other Euro n deeper wate distance to sh compiled from lished data fo uture projects sts are listed sociated with ere similar siz om shore in w r – Federal an astal and shel tion Option – ements, econo nds. ion in the M es have seen c ng to EIA, ann have energy p m in-state sour eation. Howev ient to encour Mid-Atlantic S War II hydro This has the bs elsewhere. rtfall will be y one new 600 early half of t but three of t ork well to ac missioning of t shore Proje he 50 installed and an avera ted in sheltere t cost and risk opean Union ( er further from hore, costs hav m NREL’s da r a total of 36 s was collecte in Table 4-3. increasing wa ze projects sh water up to 22 nd Mid-Atlant ltered water a – State and Fe omic/regulato Mid-Atlanti continuing gr nual growth in plans and goa rces, reducing ver state polic rage significa States are incr oelectric and o effect of crea . complicated b 0 MW coal pl that state’s ele the units in th ct, along with these outdated ect Cost T d and propose age depth is 1 ed waters in N k. (EU) countrie m shore. As p ve increased ata base used 6 projects that ed but not use . In examining ater depth and howed cost im 2 m depth. Co tic State progr applications th ederal program ory analysis, a ic States owth in dema n power dem als that place g Greenhouse cies and incen ant wind or ot reasing electr old industrial ating equipme by planned ph lant under con ectricity gene he eight existi combined cy d coal plants. rends ed projects in 2.9 m.” As m Nordic countr es have entere projects now h substantially in the Offsho t had been bu d in the analy g this data, it d distance fro mpact of an ad onsequently, l ram emphasis hat will be les ms can be exp and environm and for electri mand in the fiv importance o e Gas (GHG) ntives needed ther renewabl ricity imports plants or from ent manufactu hase out of ag nstruction in V erated. In Mar ing coal plant ycle natural ga the [NREL] mentioned prev ries. This was ed the offshor have foundati to over $6 m ore Barriers an uilt and comm ysis. The proj appears clear om shore. Fou dditional 16 to ater in this re s is on offsho ss costly. panded to emp mental assessm icity that is am ve states range on increasing and other em d to achieve th le energy dep and are buyi m renewable uring and rene ging thermal p Virginia and ryland there a ts are over 40 as units, as a r dataset, 48 ar viously, many s intended and re wind marke ions in 30 m w million /MW in nd Opportuni missioned for o ects and their r that there ar ur cases are hi o 40% as a re eport a 30% co ore, drawing a mphasize wind ments for coas mong the hig es from 2.0 to the use of missions, and hese goals ha ployment in th ng a majority energy projec ewable energy power plants. there are a do are no new co years old. replacement f re in shallow y of these init d did effectiv et with larger water depth a n some cases. ities report an operation [11 r announced re significant ighlighted on esult of buildin ost increase w attention away d resources stal areas, bay hest o ave he y of cts y . ozen al for water tial vely r and up . Cost nd ] cost n the ng was y ys
  • 33. assumed f compared Cost trend constructi were less than 10 km successfu More rece operating conditions typically i Clearly fo economic for offshore to d to bay applic ds were analy ion. Results a costly regard m from shore l. This is cons ent European conditions ar s than what c in 30 m of wa oundations an c analysis late ower foundat cations. See S yzed by countr are shown in F dless of plant e. These initia sidered to be projects were re more diffic an be expecte ater depth and nd turbines can r in this repor tion costs alon Section 6 and ry, project siz Figure 4-6 an size since mo al projects, bo an important e primarily in cult. These sit ed at offshore d are exposed n be built for rt. ng with increa d Section 7 of ze, water dept nd Figure 4-7 ost were in she th large and s lesson that c n exposed site tes are still co e BOEM lease d to severe con these conditi ased operatio f this report. th and distanc 7. Projects bui eltered water small had sim an be drawn f es in the North onsidered to b e sites in the U nditions in th ions but the a ons and mainte ce from shore ilt between 19 rs less than 15 milar cost per from Europea h Sea where c be substantiall U.S. where fo he North Atlan added costs ar enance costs e and date of 990 and 2006 5 m deep and MW and wer an experience construction a ly less challen oundations are ntic Ocean. re included in 21 6 less re e. and nging e n the
  • 34. 22 Table 4-3. TThe future projjects and their aannounced capiital costs (data ccollected, but nnot used in the aanalysis)
  • 35. Figure 4-6. Figure 4-7. Some EU materials macro-eco Offshore EU W Offshore EU W studies attrib (steel, copper onomic condi Wind Plant Cost Wind Plant Cost bute the cost i r, cement, etc itions [13]. Th t vs. Distance fr t vs. Water Dep increases for r c.) and the inc hese studies a rom Shore and pth in Sheltered recent offshor creased deman also project th Date of Constr d vs. Open Wate re plants to in nd for land-ba hat stronger w ruction er ncreasing cos ased machine winds and larg ts for raw es plus other ger turbines d 23 double