docid
stringlengths 25
45
| url
stringlengths 14
987
| title
stringlengths 0
45k
| headings
stringlengths 1
259k
| segment
stringlengths 2
10k
| start_char
int64 0
9.96k
| end_char
int64 2
10k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665325050#9_2440522375
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/colorado/
|
Colorado - IER
|
Colorado
Colorado
|
Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] H.B. 10-1001 (Colo. 2010), http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/47C157B801F26204872576AA00697A3F?Open&file=1001_enr.pdf. [ii] Energy Information Administration, Colorado, Apr. 1, 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CO. [iii] Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO36R&re=0&ee=1. [iv] H.B. 09-1149 (Colo. 2009), http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/56DAD78B9D26BD5187257539006E7FF9?Open&file=1149_01.pdf. [v] S.B. 07-51 (Colo. 2007), http://www.colorado.gov/energy/images/uploads/pdfs/SB0751.pdf. [vi] H.B. 08-1207 (Colo. 2008), http://www.colorado.gov/energy/images/uploads/pdfs/HB1207.pdf.
| 5,231 | 6,371 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665331728#0_2440523751
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/georgia/
|
Georgia - IER
|
Georgia
Georgia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Georgia - IER
Georgia
DOWNLOAD PDF
Select Economic and Energy Data †
Value
State Rank
Real Gross Domestic Product, per capita
$34,017
21st lowest
Unemployment
10.5%
14th highest
Gasoline Price, per gallon
$2.70
10th lowest
Electricity Price, per kWh
8.76¢
25th lowest
Georgia has below average electricity prices. More than 50 percent of the state’s electricity is generated from coal and the state’s two nuclear power plants provide about a quarter of Georgia’s electricity. Georgia is considered to have substantial hydroelectric potential and is one of the top hydroelectric power producers east of the Rocky Mountains, but hydroelectric provides a minimal portion of the state’s electricity. Georgia has no fossil fuel resources, so the state imports the coal and natural gas that together provide about 70 percent of the state’s electricity. Georgia imports coal from Wyoming, Kentucky, and Virginia, and receives natural gas through interstate pipelines and its liquefied natural gas terminal at Elba Island. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Georgia’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect the cost of energy or the cost of using energy.
| 0 | 1,846 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665331728#1_2440525932
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/georgia/
|
Georgia - IER
|
Georgia
Georgia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Georgia’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. Fortunately for the citizens of Georgia, the state has not implemented many regulations. Georgia does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Georgia is not a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Georgia does not require utilities to sell a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. Georgia does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels.
| 1,014 | 2,234 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665331728#2_2440527436
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/georgia/
|
Georgia - IER
|
Georgia
Georgia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Fortunately for the citizens of Georgia, the state has not implemented many regulations. Georgia does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Georgia is not a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Georgia does not require utilities to sell a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. Georgia does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. Georgia does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Georgia requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. The state imposes the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with state-specific supplements and amendments. [ i] The IECC, developed by the International Code Council, is a model code that mandates certain energy efficiency standards. Georgia does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards.
| 1,847 | 2,806 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665331728#3_2440528680
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/georgia/
|
Georgia - IER
|
Georgia
Georgia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Georgia does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Georgia requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. The state imposes the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with state-specific supplements and amendments. [ i] The IECC, developed by the International Code Council, is a model code that mandates certain energy efficiency standards. Georgia does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards. Georgia does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release:
| 2,234 | 3,130 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665331728#4_2440529875
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/georgia/
|
Georgia - IER
|
Georgia
Georgia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Georgia does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010);
| 2,806 | 3,447 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665331728#5_2440530814
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/georgia/
|
Georgia - IER
|
Georgia
Georgia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] Georgia State Supplements and Amendments to the International Energy Conservation Code (2006 ed.),
| 3,131 | 3,924 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665331728#6_2440531891
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/georgia/
|
Georgia - IER
|
Georgia
Georgia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] Georgia State Supplements and Amendments to the International Energy Conservation Code (2006 ed.), http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2008-227.pdf.
| 3,448 | 3,971 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#0_2440532693
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Montana - IER
Montana
DOWNLOAD PDF
Select Economic and Energy Data †
Value
State Rank
Real Gross Domestic Product, per capita
$28,170
4th lowest
Unemployment
6.9%
8th lowest
Gasoline Price, per gallon
$2.86
14th highest
Electricity Price, per kWh
7.44¢
14th lowest
Montana has low electricity prices (25 percent lower than the national average) and relies on coal for almost 60 percent of its electricity production. Hydroelectricity contributes another third of Montana’s electricity production, while wind and petroleum provide smaller amounts of electricity. Montana is home to more than a quarter of the country’s estimated recoverable coal reserves, as well as large deposits of oil and natural gas. Montana provides about 4 percent of the nation’s coal production and exports coal to more than 15 states. In addition, the state accounts for about 2 percent of oil production in the nation. Montana also has substantial hydroelectric potential from rivers flowing out of the Rocky Mountains and is one of the top hydroelectric producers in the country. Six of the state’s ten largest generating plants run on hydroelectric power. Montana exports large amounts of electricity to nearby states. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly.
| 0 | 1,468 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#1_2440534486
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Montana also has substantial hydroelectric potential from rivers flowing out of the Rocky Mountains and is one of the top hydroelectric producers in the country. Six of the state’s ten largest generating plants run on hydroelectric power. Montana exports large amounts of electricity to nearby states. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Montana’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. Montana has thus far avoided some of the costly energy policies other states are implementing. Montana does not cap greenhouse gas emissions.
| 896 | 2,171 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#2_2440536050
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Montana’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. Montana has thus far avoided some of the costly energy policies other states are implementing. Montana does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Montana is a member of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a regional agreement among some American governors and Canadian premiers to target greenhouse gas reductions. The central component of this agreement is the eventual enactment of a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Montana has a de facto ban on new coal-fired power plants. House Bill 25, passed in 2007, prohibits regulatory pre-approval of new coal plants that do not sequester 50 percent of carbon dioxide. [ i] This is a de facto prohibition on pre-approval of all new coal-fired power plants, because such sequestration technology is not yet commercially available.
| 1,469 | 2,862 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#3_2440537728
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Montana is a member of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a regional agreement among some American governors and Canadian premiers to target greenhouse gas reductions. The central component of this agreement is the eventual enactment of a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Montana has a de facto ban on new coal-fired power plants. House Bill 25, passed in 2007, prohibits regulatory pre-approval of new coal plants that do not sequester 50 percent of carbon dioxide. [ i] This is a de facto prohibition on pre-approval of all new coal-fired power plants, because such sequestration technology is not yet commercially available. Montana requires utilities to sell a certain percent of electricity from renewable sources. The state’s renewable portfolio standard requires utilities to provide 15 percent of their retail electricity sales from renewable sources by 2015 and each year thereafter. [ ii]
Montana requires gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. Senate Bill 293, passed in 2005, requires that all non-premium gasoline must contain 10 percent ethanol. [ iii] Also, Montana requires the Missoula area to use oxygenated gasoline during the winter. [
| 2,171 | 3,392 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#4_2440539236
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Montana requires utilities to sell a certain percent of electricity from renewable sources. The state’s renewable portfolio standard requires utilities to provide 15 percent of their retail electricity sales from renewable sources by 2015 and each year thereafter. [ ii]
Montana requires gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. Senate Bill 293, passed in 2005, requires that all non-premium gasoline must contain 10 percent ethanol. [ iii] Also, Montana requires the Missoula area to use oxygenated gasoline during the winter. [ iv]
Montana does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Montana requires new residential and commercial buildings to be certified as energy-efficient. Residential and commercial buildings must comply with the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Commercial building codes must also meet ASHRAE 90.1-2001. [ v] The IECC (developed by the International Code Council) and ASHRAE (developed by the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) are model codes that mandate certain energy efficiency standards.
| 2,862 | 4,053 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#5_2440540721
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
iv]
Montana does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Montana requires new residential and commercial buildings to be certified as energy-efficient. Residential and commercial buildings must comply with the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Commercial building codes must also meet ASHRAE 90.1-2001. [ v] The IECC (developed by the International Code Council) and ASHRAE (developed by the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) are model codes that mandate certain energy efficiency standards. Senate Bill 49, passed in 2009, creates energy efficiency standards for new or renovated state-owned and state-leased buildings. The energy efficiency of these buildings must exceed the 2006 IECC by “20 percent or to the extent that is cost-effective over the life of the building or major renovation.” [ vi]
Montana does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards. Montana does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas.
| 3,392 | 4,668 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#6_2440542305
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Senate Bill 49, passed in 2009, creates energy efficiency standards for new or renovated state-owned and state-leased buildings. The energy efficiency of these buildings must exceed the 2006 IECC by “20 percent or to the extent that is cost-effective over the life of the building or major renovation.” [ vi]
Montana does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards. Montana does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment:
| 4,054 | 4,869 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#7_2440543426
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
† Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html;
| 4,668 | 5,280 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#8_2440544326
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] H.B. 25 (Mont. 2007), http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0025.htm. [ii] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-154e.pdf. [iii] S.B. 293 (Mont. 2005), http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2005/billhtml/SB0293.htm.
| 4,870 | 5,761 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665336021#9_2440545501
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/montana/
|
Montana - IER
|
Montana
Montana
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] H.B. 25 (Mont. 2007), http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0025.htm. [ii] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-154e.pdf. [iii] S.B. 293 (Mont. 2005), http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2005/billhtml/SB0293.htm. [iv] Energy Information Administration, Montana, Apr. 1, 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=MT. [v] Building Codes Assistance Project, Code Status: Montana, http://bcap-energy.org/node/122. [vi] S.B. 49 (Mont. 2009), http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/SB0049.htm.
| 5,281 | 6,065 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#0_2440546564
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
Nevada - IER
Nevada
DOWNLOAD PDF
Select Economic and Energy Data †
Value
State Rank
Real Gross Domestic Product, per capita
$39,687
14th highest
Unemployment
13.2%
2nd highest
Gasoline Price, per gallon
$2.92
9th highest
Electricity Price, per kWh
10.35¢
15th highest
Nevada has moderately expensive energy prices, 5 percent above the national average. More than two-thirds of Nevada’s electricity is generated from natural gas, contributing to the state’s moderately expensive prices. Coal, an inexpensive energy source, provides about one fifth of Nevada’s electricity production and helps to moderate statewide prices. Despite the state’s solar power potential, solar contributes negligibly to the state’s electricity supply. Nevada has few fossil fuel resources. The state uses natural gas delivered from Utah and other Rocky Mountain states and coal imported from Arizona and Utah. Nevada is one of the few states that produce electricity from geothermal with its production second to that of California. Hoover Dam on the Colorado River also provides hydroelectric power, as the second largest operating power plant in Nevada. Hydroelectricity and geothermal power together supply over 10 percent of the state’s electricity. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs.
| 0 | 1,390 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#1_2440548294
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
The state uses natural gas delivered from Utah and other Rocky Mountain states and coal imported from Arizona and Utah. Nevada is one of the few states that produce electricity from geothermal with its production second to that of California. Hoover Dam on the Colorado River also provides hydroelectric power, as the second largest operating power plant in Nevada. Hydroelectricity and geothermal power together supply over 10 percent of the state’s electricity. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Nevada’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect increase the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. Nevada has thus far avoided some of the costly energy policies other states are implementing.
| 767 | 2,164 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#2_2440549985
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Nevada’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect increase the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. Nevada has thus far avoided some of the costly energy policies other states are implementing. Nevada: Nevada does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Nevada is an observer of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a regional agreement among some American governors and Canadian premiers to target greenhouse gas reductions. The central component of this agreement is the eventual enactment of a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. As an observer of the WCI, Nevada would not be bound to agreements made by WCI members.
| 1,391 | 2,644 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#3_2440551527
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
Nevada: Nevada does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Nevada is an observer of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a regional agreement among some American governors and Canadian premiers to target greenhouse gas reductions. The central component of this agreement is the eventual enactment of a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. As an observer of the WCI, Nevada would not be bound to agreements made by WCI members. Nevada requires utilities to provide 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025. [ i] In 2005, Assembly Bill 3 amended Nevada’s renewable portfolio standard to allow efficiency as a method of compliance. [ ii] The contribution from energy efficiency measures is capped at one-quarter of the total standard. Nevada does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. However, Nevada requires the Las Vegas metropolitan areas to use a “Clean Burning Gasoline Blend” and both the Las Vegas and Reno metropolitan areas to use oxygenated motor fuels during the winter months. [
| 2,164 | 3,237 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#4_2440552900
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
Nevada requires utilities to provide 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025. [ i] In 2005, Assembly Bill 3 amended Nevada’s renewable portfolio standard to allow efficiency as a method of compliance. [ ii] The contribution from energy efficiency measures is capped at one-quarter of the total standard. Nevada does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. However, Nevada requires the Las Vegas metropolitan areas to use a “Clean Burning Gasoline Blend” and both the Las Vegas and Reno metropolitan areas to use oxygenated motor fuels during the winter months. [ iii]
Nevada does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Nevada requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. Residential and commercial buildings must comply with the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) in jurisdictions that have not adopted another standard. [ iv] The IECC, developed by the International Code Council, is a model code that mandates certain energy efficiency standards. State executive agencies are required to reduce grid-based energy purchases for state-owned buildings by 20 percent by 2015. [
| 2,644 | 3,916 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#5_2440554480
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
iii]
Nevada does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Nevada requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. Residential and commercial buildings must comply with the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) in jurisdictions that have not adopted another standard. [ iv] The IECC, developed by the International Code Council, is a model code that mandates certain energy efficiency standards. State executive agencies are required to reduce grid-based energy purchases for state-owned buildings by 20 percent by 2015. [ v]
Nevada does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards, but does impose efficiency standards for general purpose lights. Assembly Bill 178, enacted in 2007, requires lights to provide 25 lumens per watt of electricity from 2012 to 2015, with a more stringent standard to be developed and implemented by 2016. [ vi]
Nevada does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources:
| 3,237 | 4,497 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#6_2440556050
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
v]
Nevada does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards, but does impose efficiency standards for general purpose lights. Assembly Bill 178, enacted in 2007, requires lights to provide 25 lumens per watt of electricity from 2012 to 2015, with a more stringent standard to be developed and implemented by 2016. [ vi]
Nevada does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010);
| 3,916 | 4,788 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#7_2440557229
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data:
| 4,498 | 5,122 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#8_2440558142
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-154e.pdf. [ii] A.B. 3 (Nev. 2005), http://www.leg.state.nv.us/22ndSpecial/bills/AB/AB3_EN.pdf. [iii] Energy Information Administration, Nevada, Apr. 8, 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NV. [iv] Building Codes Assistance Project, Code Status:
| 4,789 | 5,669 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665342424#9_2440559306
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/nevada/
|
Nevada - IER
|
Nevada
Nevada
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Nevada:
|
Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-154e.pdf. [ii] A.B. 3 (Nev. 2005), http://www.leg.state.nv.us/22ndSpecial/bills/AB/AB3_EN.pdf. [iii] Energy Information Administration, Nevada, Apr. 8, 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NV. [iv] Building Codes Assistance Project, Code Status: Nevada, http://bcap-energy.org/node/81. [v] Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Nevada State Energy Reduction Plan, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NV13R&re=0&ee=1. [vi] Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Nevada Luminous Efficacy Standards for General Purpose Lights, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NV14R&re=0&ee=1.
| 5,123 | 6,099 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665348876#0_2440560566
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/south-carolina/
|
South Carolina - IER
|
South Carolina
South Carolina
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
South Carolina - IER
South Carolina
DOWNLOAD PDF
Select Economic and Energy Data †
Value
State Rank
Real Gross Domestic Product, per capita
$28,364
5th lowest
Unemployment
12.5%
4th highest
Gasoline Price, per gallon
$2.63
3rd lowest
Electricity Price, per kWh
8.28¢
21st lowest
South Carolina has below average electricity prices (16 percent lower) and the third lowest gasoline prices in the United States. More than half of South Carolina’s electricity is generated by nuclear power plants and another 35 percent comes from coal-fired power plants. Natural gas supplies most of the remainder, with gas supplied by pipeline from the Gulf coast. South Carolina is one of the top nuclear power producers in the United States. The state currently has four nuclear power plants, and plans for two new reactors are underway if licensing is approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As part of a new wave of proposed nuclear projects, these power plants could be among the first nuclear facilities constructed in the United States in more than 30 years. South Carolina has no coal deposits of its own, so its coal is primarily imported from Kentucky, with some coal originating in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Tennessee. Renewable resources, primarily hydroelectric power and wood, supply almost 4 percent of the state’s generation. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly.
| 0 | 1,607 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665348876#1_2440562516
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/south-carolina/
|
South Carolina - IER
|
South Carolina
South Carolina
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
As part of a new wave of proposed nuclear projects, these power plants could be among the first nuclear facilities constructed in the United States in more than 30 years. South Carolina has no coal deposits of its own, so its coal is primarily imported from Kentucky, with some coal originating in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Tennessee. Renewable resources, primarily hydroelectric power and wood, supply almost 4 percent of the state’s generation. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about South Carolina’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. South Carolina has thus far avoided many of the costly energy policies other states are implementing. South Carolina does not cap greenhouse gas emissions.
| 884 | 2,331 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665348876#2_2440564280
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/south-carolina/
|
South Carolina - IER
|
South Carolina
South Carolina
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about South Carolina’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. South Carolina has thus far avoided many of the costly energy policies other states are implementing. South Carolina does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. South Carolina is not a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions. South Carolina does not require utilities to sell a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. South Carolina does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. South Carolina does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. South Carolina requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards.
| 1,608 | 2,875 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665348876#3_2440565864
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/south-carolina/
|
South Carolina - IER
|
South Carolina
South Carolina
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
South Carolina is not a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions. South Carolina does not require utilities to sell a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. South Carolina does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. South Carolina does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. South Carolina requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. House Bill 3550, enacted in 2009, requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). [ i] The IECC, developed by the International Code Council, is a model code that mandates certain energy efficiency standards. All major state construction projects must meet the silver LEED standard or an equivalent standard. [ ii] The silver LEED standard is one level of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. Also, the state has a goal to reduce energy use by 20 percent from 2000 level by July 1, 2020. [
| 2,331 | 3,494 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665348876#4_2440567345
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/south-carolina/
|
South Carolina - IER
|
South Carolina
South Carolina
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
House Bill 3550, enacted in 2009, requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). [ i] The IECC, developed by the International Code Council, is a model code that mandates certain energy efficiency standards. All major state construction projects must meet the silver LEED standard or an equivalent standard. [ ii] The silver LEED standard is one level of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. Also, the state has a goal to reduce energy use by 20 percent from 2000 level by July 1, 2020. [ iii]
South Carolina does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards. South Carolina does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008:
| 2,876 | 3,861 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665348876#5_2440568661
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/south-carolina/
|
South Carolina - IER
|
South Carolina
South Carolina
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
iii]
South Carolina does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards. South Carolina does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices:
| 3,494 | 4,143 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665348876#6_2440569638
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/south-carolina/
|
South Carolina - IER
|
South Carolina
South Carolina
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls.
| 3,862 | 4,595 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665348876#7_2440570683
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/south-carolina/
|
South Carolina - IER
|
South Carolina
South Carolina
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] Building Codes Assistance Project, Code Status: South Carolina, http://bcap-energy.org/node/93. [ii] Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, South Carolina State Building Energy Standards http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=SC07R&re=0&ee=1. [iii] Energy Information Administration, South Carolina, Apr. 8, 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=SC.
| 4,144 | 5,024 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665354242#0_2440571870
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/tennessee/
|
Tennessee - IER
|
Tennessee
Tennessee
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Tennessee - IER
Tennessee
DOWNLOAD PDF
Select Economic and Energy Data †
Value
State Rank
Real Gross Domestic Product, per capita
$33,825
20th lowest
Unemployment
10.7%
13th highest
Gasoline Price, per gallon
$2.68
6th lowest
Electricity Price, per kWh
8.66¢
24th lowest
Tennessee has below average electricity prices (12 percent below the national average). The majority of Tennessee’s electricity is produced by coal. Tennessee is one of the top hydroelectric-generating states east of the Rocky Mountains, producing 12 percent of its electricity from hydroelectric power. Tennessee generates over 30 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Tennessee does not have large energy reserves. It has minor coal reserves but primarily uses coal imported from Kentucky, Wyoming, West Virginia, Virginia, Illinois, and Colorado. The state is one of the leading nuclear power states in the country, with two nuclear power plants. The Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant, which began commercial operation in 1996, is the newest nuclear reactor in the country. Non-hydroelectric renewables, primarily wood and wind, together contribute just over one percent of the state’s generation. Tennessee also produces ethanol and has the second highest production in the south behind Texas.
| 0 | 1,273 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665354242#1_2440573465
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/tennessee/
|
Tennessee - IER
|
Tennessee
Tennessee
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
It has minor coal reserves but primarily uses coal imported from Kentucky, Wyoming, West Virginia, Virginia, Illinois, and Colorado. The state is one of the leading nuclear power states in the country, with two nuclear power plants. The Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant, which began commercial operation in 1996, is the newest nuclear reactor in the country. Non-hydroelectric renewables, primarily wood and wind, together contribute just over one percent of the state’s generation. Tennessee also produces ethanol and has the second highest production in the south behind Texas. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Tennessee’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect examples of regulations that will likely increase the cost of energy or the cost of using energy.
| 697 | 2,157 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665354242#2_2440575222
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/tennessee/
|
Tennessee - IER
|
Tennessee
Tennessee
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Tennessee’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect examples of regulations that will likely increase the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. Tennessee has thus far avoided many of the costly energy policies other states are implementing. Tennessee does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Tennessee is not a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Tennessee does not require utilities to generate from renewable sources a certain percentage of the electricity that they sell. Tennessee does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels.
| 1,273 | 2,584 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665354242#3_2440576825
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/tennessee/
|
Tennessee - IER
|
Tennessee
Tennessee
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Tennessee has thus far avoided many of the costly energy policies other states are implementing. Tennessee does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Tennessee is not a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Tennessee does not require utilities to generate from renewable sources a certain percentage of the electricity that they sell. Tennessee does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. Tennessee does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Tennessee does not require new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. Tennessee does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards. However, Senate Bill 2300, enacted in 2009, requires state agencies to purchase Energy Star-qualified office equipment, appliances, lighting, and heating and cooling products and systems in the future. [ 1]
Tennessee does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas.
| 2,158 | 3,232 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665354242#4_2440578203
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/tennessee/
|
Tennessee - IER
|
Tennessee
Tennessee
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Tennessee does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Tennessee does not require new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. Tennessee does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards. However, Senate Bill 2300, enacted in 2009, requires state agencies to purchase Energy Star-qualified office equipment, appliances, lighting, and heating and cooling products and systems in the future. [ 1]
Tennessee does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm;
| 2,584 | 3,557 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665354242#5_2440579484
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/tennessee/
|
Tennessee - IER
|
Tennessee
Tennessee
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices:
| 3,233 | 3,792 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665354242#6_2440580340
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/tennessee/
|
Tennessee - IER
|
Tennessee
Tennessee
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [1] S.B. Bill 2300 (Tenn. 2009), http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Chapter/PC0529.pdf.
| 3,558 | 4,235 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#0_2440581309
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Virginia - IER
Virginia
DOWNLOAD PDF
Select Economic and Energy Data †
Value
State Rank
Real Gross Domestic Product, per capita
$41,769
8th highest
Unemployment
7.2%
12th lowest
Gasoline Price, per gallon
$2.72
17th lowest
Electricity Price, per kWh
8.95¢
23rd highest
Virginia has below average electricity prices (10 percent below the national average). Coal provides over 37 percent of Virginia’s electricity, while two nuclear power plants meet almost 40 percent of the state’s demand. Natural gas generates most of the state’s remaining electricity. Virginia has some coal and other energy resources. Virginia produces more than 5 percent of America’s coal production east of the Mississippi River and exports much of that coal to Georgia and Tennessee. Most of Virginia’s natural gas production comes from coalbed methane, but most of the state’s natural gas supply comes from the Gulf Coast via pipeline. Resource assessments show that Virginia’s offshore waters could contain substantial natural gas resources, but a combination of presidential and congressional bans on offshore exploration kept these resources off limits until 2008. Reviews by the federal government are underway to access these resources. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly.
| 0 | 1,488 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#1_2440583141
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Most of Virginia’s natural gas production comes from coalbed methane, but most of the state’s natural gas supply comes from the Gulf Coast via pipeline. Resource assessments show that Virginia’s offshore waters could contain substantial natural gas resources, but a combination of presidential and congressional bans on offshore exploration kept these resources off limits until 2008. Reviews by the federal government are underway to access these resources. Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
Although affordable energy is a vital component of a healthy economy, regulations frequently increase energy costs. Regulations imposed in the name of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are especially costly. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Virginia’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. Virginia has thus far avoided some of the costly energy policies other states are implementing. Virginia does not cap greenhouse gas emissions.
| 759 | 2,194 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#2_2440584879
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the combustion of all carbon-containing fuels, such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, wood, and other organic materials. Today, there is no cost-effective way to capture the carbon dioxide output of the combustion of these fuels, so any regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions will either limit the use of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, or dramatically increase their prices. Below are some facts about Virginia’s regulatory environment that are likely to affect the cost of energy or the cost of using energy. Virginia has thus far avoided some of the costly energy policies other states are implementing. Virginia does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Virginia is not a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Virginia does not require that utilities generate from renewable sources a certain percentage of the electricity that they sell. However, the state has enacted a non-binding renewable portfolio goal to generate 15 percent of base year (2007) electricity sales from renewables by 2025. [ i]
Virginia does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. However, the state requires the use of reformulated motor gasoline blended with ethanol in the Washington D.C., Richmond, and Norfolk-Hampton Roads metropolitan areas. [
| 1,489 | 2,804 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#3_2440586484
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Virginia is not a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Virginia does not require that utilities generate from renewable sources a certain percentage of the electricity that they sell. However, the state has enacted a non-binding renewable portfolio goal to generate 15 percent of base year (2007) electricity sales from renewables by 2025. [ i]
Virginia does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. However, the state requires the use of reformulated motor gasoline blended with ethanol in the Washington D.C., Richmond, and Norfolk-Hampton Roads metropolitan areas. [ ii]
Virginia does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Virginia requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. Residential and commercial buildings must meet the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). [ iii] The IECC, developed by the International Code Council, is a model code that mandates certain energy efficiency standards. Localities are responsible for enforcing the state code.
| 2,194 | 3,354 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#4_2440587936
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
ii]
Virginia does not impose automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Virginia requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. Residential and commercial buildings must meet the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). [ iii] The IECC, developed by the International Code Council, is a model code that mandates certain energy efficiency standards. Localities are responsible for enforcing the state code. In addition, Governor Tim Kaine issued Executive Order 48 in 2007, which requires newly constructed or renovated state buildings to meet the silver LEED standard or an equivalent standard. [ iv] The silver LEED standard is one level of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. Executive Order 48 also gives preference for state leases to private buildings that meet the same efficiency standards. Virginia requires that state agencies purchase energy-efficient appliances. Governor Kaine’s Executive Order 48 requires state agencies to purchase Energy Star products whenever they are available. [
| 2,804 | 4,011 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#5_2440589444
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
In addition, Governor Tim Kaine issued Executive Order 48 in 2007, which requires newly constructed or renovated state buildings to meet the silver LEED standard or an equivalent standard. [ iv] The silver LEED standard is one level of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. Executive Order 48 also gives preference for state leases to private buildings that meet the same efficiency standards. Virginia requires that state agencies purchase energy-efficient appliances. Governor Kaine’s Executive Order 48 requires state agencies to purchase Energy Star products whenever they are available. [ v]
Virginia does not allow electric utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity, but does allow natural gas utilities to decouple revenue from the sale of gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release:
| 3,355 | 4,410 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#6_2440590810
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
v]
Virginia does not allow electric utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity, but does allow natural gas utilities to decouple revenue from the sale of gas. Some states decouple revenue from actual sales, allowing utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. † Data Sources: Real GDP per capita 2008: Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010);
| 4,011 | 4,727 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#7_2440591830
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
GDP by State (June 2, 2009), http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_ state/gsp_newsrelease.htm; Unemployment: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment–February 2010 (Mar. 10, 2010); Gasoline Prices: American Automobile Association, AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report (Mar. 30, 2010); Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] Va. Code § 56-585.2 (2007), http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+56-585.2.
| 4,411 | 5,195 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#8_2440592907
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
Electricity Prices: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B., Average Retail Price of Electricity, (March 15, 2010), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html; Electricity Generation Data: Energy Information Administration, Electricity Generation 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state_mon.xls. [i] Va. Code § 56-585.2 (2007), http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+56-585.2. [ii] Energy Information Administration, Virginia, Apr. 8, 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=VA. [iii] Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Virginia State Building Energy Code, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=VA09R&re=1&ee=1. [iv] Va. Exec. Order No. 48 (2007), http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/StateAgencyProgs/EO48.pdf.
| 4,728 | 5,603 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665358792#9_2440594070
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/virginia/
|
Virginia - IER
|
Virginia
Virginia
Regulatory Impediments to Affordable Energy
|
[ii] Energy Information Administration, Virginia, Apr. 8, 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=VA. [iii] Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Virginia State Building Energy Code, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=VA09R&re=1&ee=1. [iv] Va. Exec. Order No. 48 (2007), http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/StateAgencyProgs/EO48.pdf. [v] Id.
| 5,195 | 5,611 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665364758#0_2440594768
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/energy-subsidies-study/
|
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source - IER
|
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
No Evidence of Excessive Speculation Exists
Interior Department Initiates New Offshore Drilling Plan
|
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source - IER
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
By IER
by Mary Hutzler
American taxpayers footed a $16.6 billion bill for energy subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees, and the like in 2007 alone, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That’s more than double the Federal subsidy level from eight years earlier. In fact, on an energy fuel basis, Congress has increased subsidies for renewable fuels considerably, from 17 percent of total subsidies and support in 1999 to 29 percent in 2007. Conversely, natural gas and petroleum-related subsidies declined from 25 percent to 13 percent during the same period, and coal and nuclear subsidy shares remained roughly constant. A large portion of the increase in subsidies for renewable fuels is due to ethanol and biofuels production, which represented two-thirds of the renewable subsidies in FY 2007. For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour. Renewable lobbies complain that they don’t get their fair share of the subsidy pie, despite the data that suggests otherwise.
| 0 | 1,420 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665364758#1_2440596681
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/energy-subsidies-study/
|
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source - IER
|
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
No Evidence of Excessive Speculation Exists
Interior Department Initiates New Offshore Drilling Plan
|
Conversely, natural gas and petroleum-related subsidies declined from 25 percent to 13 percent during the same period, and coal and nuclear subsidy shares remained roughly constant. A large portion of the increase in subsidies for renewable fuels is due to ethanol and biofuels production, which represented two-thirds of the renewable subsidies in FY 2007. For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour. Renewable lobbies complain that they don’t get their fair share of the subsidy pie, despite the data that suggests otherwise. The industry justifies its requests for larger levels of taxpayer support by arguing that subsidies per unit of energy produced are always higher at the early stage of development, before large scale production can occur. But here’s the problem: wind power has been subsidized for more than a decade. The production tax credit (PTC) for wind, for example, was first introduced as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The PTC for wind is currently slated to expire on December 31, 2008, if Congress does not extend it before then.
| 585 | 1,952 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665364758#2_2440598539
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/energy-subsidies-study/
|
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source - IER
|
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
No Evidence of Excessive Speculation Exists
Interior Department Initiates New Offshore Drilling Plan
|
The industry justifies its requests for larger levels of taxpayer support by arguing that subsidies per unit of energy produced are always higher at the early stage of development, before large scale production can occur. But here’s the problem: wind power has been subsidized for more than a decade. The production tax credit (PTC) for wind, for example, was first introduced as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The PTC for wind is currently slated to expire on December 31, 2008, if Congress does not extend it before then. However, even with these subsidies, wind represented less than 1 percent of total net electricity generation in the United States in 2007. By contrast, nuclear and natural gas, both representing about 20 percent of net electricity generation in 2007, and coal, representing almost 50 percent, are subsidized less than wind by factors ranging from 15 for nuclear to 93 for natural gas. The bottom line: traditional fuels continue to be more efficient and cost-effective than renewable fuels, which is why EIA forecasts show them representing 91 percent of energy consumption in 2030. See also:
| 1,421 | 2,545 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665364758#3_2440600150
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/energy-subsidies-study/
|
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source - IER
|
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
No Evidence of Excessive Speculation Exists
Interior Department Initiates New Offshore Drilling Plan
|
However, even with these subsidies, wind represented less than 1 percent of total net electricity generation in the United States in 2007. By contrast, nuclear and natural gas, both representing about 20 percent of net electricity generation in 2007, and coal, representing almost 50 percent, are subsidized less than wind by factors ranging from 15 for nuclear to 93 for natural gas. The bottom line: traditional fuels continue to be more efficient and cost-effective than renewable fuels, which is why EIA forecasts show them representing 91 percent of energy consumption in 2030. See also: Record Profits for Oil Companies, Record Revenue for Taxpayers
*all data courtesy of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). July 2008
No Evidence of Excessive Speculation Exists
July 2008
Interior Department Initiates New Offshore Drilling Plan
| 1,953 | 2,801 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665368018#0_2440601484
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies - IER
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Tags
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies - IER
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
By IER
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) produces forecasts of energy supply and demand for the next 20 years using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) [1]. These forecasts are updated annually and published in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). [ 2] All sectors of the energy system are represented in NEMS, including the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution system. To meet electricity demand, the EIA represents existing generating plants, retires those that have come to the end of their economic life, and builds additional plants to meet projected demand from the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors. As a result, EIA must represent a slate of technologies, their capital and operating costs, their availability and capacity factors, the financial structure and subsidies, the time to construct the plant, the utilization of the plant, and expected future cost changes, including fuel input for fossil and nuclear plants. To determine the most economic technology for the type of demand (base, intermediate, or peaking load) for which new capacity is needed, NEMS competes the technologies using their levelized costs as one measure of competitiveness. Levelized costs represent the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over its financial life, converted to equal annual payments and amortized over expected annual generation from an assumed duty cycle. The first table below provides the average national levelized costs for the generating technologies represented in the AEO2013 reference case. [ 3] The values shown in the table do not include financial incentives such as state or federal tax credits, which impact the cost and the competitiveness of the technology. These incentives, however, are incorporated in the evaluation of the technologies in NEMS based on current laws and regulations in effect at the time of the modeling exercise, as well as regional differences in the cost and performance of the technology, such as labor rates and availability of wind or sun resources.
| 0 | 2,218 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665368018#1_2440604133
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies - IER
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Tags
|
To determine the most economic technology for the type of demand (base, intermediate, or peaking load) for which new capacity is needed, NEMS competes the technologies using their levelized costs as one measure of competitiveness. Levelized costs represent the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over its financial life, converted to equal annual payments and amortized over expected annual generation from an assumed duty cycle. The first table below provides the average national levelized costs for the generating technologies represented in the AEO2013 reference case. [ 3] The values shown in the table do not include financial incentives such as state or federal tax credits, which impact the cost and the competitiveness of the technology. These incentives, however, are incorporated in the evaluation of the technologies in NEMS based on current laws and regulations in effect at the time of the modeling exercise, as well as regional differences in the cost and performance of the technology, such as labor rates and availability of wind or sun resources. Due to the regional differences in the cost of labor, fuel, and other factors that affect the levelized generation cost, a second table is provided below that gives the range of levelized costs based on these differences. The levelized cost for each generation technology are calculated based on a 30-year cost recovery period, using a real after tax weighted average cost of capital of 6.6 percent. In the AEO2013 reference case, a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas intensive technologies such as coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology and coal-to-liquids plants. The 3-percentage point adjustment is similar to a $15 per ton carbon dioxide emissions fee when investing in a new coal plant without CCS technology. This adjustment represents the implicit hurdle being added to greenhouse gas intensive projects to account for the possibility that they may need to purchase allowances or invest in other greenhouse gas emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions in the future.
| 1,112 | 3,321 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665368018#2_2440606771
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies - IER
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Tags
|
Due to the regional differences in the cost of labor, fuel, and other factors that affect the levelized generation cost, a second table is provided below that gives the range of levelized costs based on these differences. The levelized cost for each generation technology are calculated based on a 30-year cost recovery period, using a real after tax weighted average cost of capital of 6.6 percent. In the AEO2013 reference case, a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas intensive technologies such as coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology and coal-to-liquids plants. The 3-percentage point adjustment is similar to a $15 per ton carbon dioxide emissions fee when investing in a new coal plant without CCS technology. This adjustment represents the implicit hurdle being added to greenhouse gas intensive projects to account for the possibility that they may need to purchase allowances or invest in other greenhouse gas emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions in the future. Thus, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are likely higher than most current coal project costs. The levelized cost for each technology is evaluated based on the capacity factor indicated, which generally corresponds to the maximum availability of each technology. However, some technologies, such as a conventional combined cycle turbine, that may look relatively expensive at its maximum capacity factor may be the most economic option when evaluated at a lower capacity factor associated with an intermediate load rather than base load facility. [ 4]
Simple combustion turbines (conventional or advanced technology) are typically used for peak load, and are thus evaluated at a 30 percent capacity factor. Intermittent renewable resources, e.g. wind and solar, are not operator controlled, but dependent on the weather or the sun shining.
| 2,219 | 4,188 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665368018#3_2440609171
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies - IER
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Tags
|
Thus, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are likely higher than most current coal project costs. The levelized cost for each technology is evaluated based on the capacity factor indicated, which generally corresponds to the maximum availability of each technology. However, some technologies, such as a conventional combined cycle turbine, that may look relatively expensive at its maximum capacity factor may be the most economic option when evaluated at a lower capacity factor associated with an intermediate load rather than base load facility. [ 4]
Simple combustion turbines (conventional or advanced technology) are typically used for peak load, and are thus evaluated at a 30 percent capacity factor. Intermittent renewable resources, e.g. wind and solar, are not operator controlled, but dependent on the weather or the sun shining. Since the availability of wind or solar is dependent on forces outside of the operator’s control, their levelized costs are not directly comparable to those for other technologies although the average annual capacity factor may be similar. Because intermittent technologies do not provide the same contribution to system reliability as technologies that are operator controlled and dispatched, they may require additional system investment as back-up power that are not included in the levelized costs shown below. EIA warns against the direct comparison of the levelized costs across technologies as the sole measure of economic competitiveness because of differences in resource mix, capacity values, and utilization rates across regions. Rather, the agency suggests that the levelized avoided cost, which measures the cost to the grid to generate the electricity that is being displaced by the new generation project, also be used, but is not provided. According to EIA, “The economic decisions regarding capacity additions in EIA’s long-term projections reflect these concepts rather than simple comparisons of levelized project costs across technologies.”
| 3,322 | 5,349 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665368018#4_2440611649
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies - IER
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Tags
|
Since the availability of wind or solar is dependent on forces outside of the operator’s control, their levelized costs are not directly comparable to those for other technologies although the average annual capacity factor may be similar. Because intermittent technologies do not provide the same contribution to system reliability as technologies that are operator controlled and dispatched, they may require additional system investment as back-up power that are not included in the levelized costs shown below. EIA warns against the direct comparison of the levelized costs across technologies as the sole measure of economic competitiveness because of differences in resource mix, capacity values, and utilization rates across regions. Rather, the agency suggests that the levelized avoided cost, which measures the cost to the grid to generate the electricity that is being displaced by the new generation project, also be used, but is not provided. According to EIA, “The economic decisions regarding capacity additions in EIA’s long-term projections reflect these concepts rather than simple comparisons of levelized project costs across technologies.” What EIA is expressing is that dispatchable technology costs should not be compared to non-dispatchable technology costs because the latter technologies only supply electricity generation when the resource (e.g. wind or sun) is available, but they do not supply capacity that can be relied on to provide electricity. IER reported on one analysis that attempts to measure the “levelized avoided cost” of wind, for example. In this paper, the hidden costs of wind (e.g. the cost of back-up power) added to the levelized cost of wind totals 15.1 cents per kilowatt-hour if natural gas is used as the back-up power and 19.2 cents per kilowatt-hour if coal is used as the back-up power. It is important that readers, especially policy makers, understand this aspect of non-dispatchable power. Since non-dispatchable power cannot be counted on to produce power when the consumer needs it, it is, in a sense, an unconventional electricity source.
| 4,189 | 6,289 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665368018#5_2440614208
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies - IER
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Tags
|
What EIA is expressing is that dispatchable technology costs should not be compared to non-dispatchable technology costs because the latter technologies only supply electricity generation when the resource (e.g. wind or sun) is available, but they do not supply capacity that can be relied on to provide electricity. IER reported on one analysis that attempts to measure the “levelized avoided cost” of wind, for example. In this paper, the hidden costs of wind (e.g. the cost of back-up power) added to the levelized cost of wind totals 15.1 cents per kilowatt-hour if natural gas is used as the back-up power and 19.2 cents per kilowatt-hour if coal is used as the back-up power. It is important that readers, especially policy makers, understand this aspect of non-dispatchable power. Since non-dispatchable power cannot be counted on to produce power when the consumer needs it, it is, in a sense, an unconventional electricity source. Because our electrical system must respond to consumer demand instantaneously, non-dispatchable power is in essence superfluous to our needs. The requirement that dispatchable power back-up non-dispatchable power to make sure electricity is there when needed is not a luxury, but a necessity. The more that non-dispatchable power is used, the more the electrical system requires investments in dispatchable generation forms to back up its increased use. Government policies that promote the use of non-dispatchable power are equivalent to requiring consumers to buy and care for two vehicles: one that works when you need it and another that works when it feels like it.
| 5,349 | 6,960 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665368018#6_2440616257
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies - IER
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Tags
|
Because our electrical system must respond to consumer demand instantaneously, non-dispatchable power is in essence superfluous to our needs. The requirement that dispatchable power back-up non-dispatchable power to make sure electricity is there when needed is not a luxury, but a necessity. The more that non-dispatchable power is used, the more the electrical system requires investments in dispatchable generation forms to back up its increased use. Government policies that promote the use of non-dispatchable power are equivalent to requiring consumers to buy and care for two vehicles: one that works when you need it and another that works when it feels like it. The hidden costs of non-dispatchable power are substantial and should not be overlooked as part of the public policy discussion. Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013,
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
[1] Energy Information Administration, NEMS documentation, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html
[2] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html
[3] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
[4] Base load plants are facilities that operate almost continuously, generally at annual utilization rates of 70 percent or higher. Intermediate load plants are facilities that operate less frequently than base load plants, generally at annual utilization rates between 25 and 70 percent. Peaking plants are facilities that only run when the demand for electricity is very high, generally at annual utilization rates less than 25 percent.
| 6,290 | 8,014 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665368018#7_2440618415
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies - IER
|
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies
Tags
|
The hidden costs of non-dispatchable power are substantial and should not be overlooked as part of the public policy discussion. Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013,
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
[1] Energy Information Administration, NEMS documentation, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html
[2] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html
[3] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
[4] Base load plants are facilities that operate almost continuously, generally at annual utilization rates of 70 percent or higher. Intermediate load plants are facilities that operate less frequently than base load plants, generally at annual utilization rates between 25 and 70 percent. Peaking plants are facilities that only run when the demand for electricity is very high, generally at annual utilization rates less than 25 percent. Tags
AEO,
Annual Energy Outlook,
EIA,
levelized cost,
NEMS
| 6,961 | 8,073 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665376520#0_2440619966
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/offshore-oil-production-estimate-illustrates-flaws-in-eia-forecasting/
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting - IER
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Citations
Better Off Doing Nothing
Bogus Lease Claims in "Use It or Lose It" Proposal Stymie Real Energy Security
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting - IER
IER
. Studies & Data
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
By IER
Politicians have a knack for citing statistics that support their positions. Those who are opposed to increasing domestic supplies of energy are especially adept at citing statistics that make it seem as though it is “not worth it.” Government reports, while not all wrong, can be rife with such statistics. Recently, for example, some have pointed an Energy Information Administration (EIA) report that estimated the amount of oil we could produce on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) if the drilling ban were lifted. EIA estimated this to be approximately 200,000 barrels per day. 1
Unfortunately, this figure – and the data it was based on – is fatally flawed. For example: 200,000 barrels per day is roughly equal to the daily production rate of just one new offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The Thunder Horse oil production facility, which will be on line this year, is designed to produce 250,000 barrels per day.
| 0 | 1,093 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665376520#1_2440621672
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/offshore-oil-production-estimate-illustrates-flaws-in-eia-forecasting/
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting - IER
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Citations
Better Off Doing Nothing
Bogus Lease Claims in "Use It or Lose It" Proposal Stymie Real Energy Security
|
EIA estimated this to be approximately 200,000 barrels per day. 1
Unfortunately, this figure – and the data it was based on – is fatally flawed. For example: 200,000 barrels per day is roughly equal to the daily production rate of just one new offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The Thunder Horse oil production facility, which will be on line this year, is designed to produce 250,000 barrels per day. 2 The Atlantis oil platform currently producing in the Gulf of Mexico has a production capacity of 200,000 barrels per day. 3
Despite these facts, the EIA projects that lifting the bans that prevent production on 85 percent of the OCS acreage surrounding the lower 48 states will yield an amount equal to that which can be produced from just one of these platforms. Obviously, the projections are flawed. The EIA assumed that technically recoverable undiscovered oil resources in off-limits areas of the OCS total 18.2 billion barrels, based on the Department of Interior’s Mineral Management Service’s Report to Congress (February 2006). 4 But technically recoverable resources are based on current technology and economics.
| 685 | 1,819 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665376520#2_2440623417
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/offshore-oil-production-estimate-illustrates-flaws-in-eia-forecasting/
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting - IER
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Citations
Better Off Doing Nothing
Bogus Lease Claims in "Use It or Lose It" Proposal Stymie Real Energy Security
|
2 The Atlantis oil platform currently producing in the Gulf of Mexico has a production capacity of 200,000 barrels per day. 3
Despite these facts, the EIA projects that lifting the bans that prevent production on 85 percent of the OCS acreage surrounding the lower 48 states will yield an amount equal to that which can be produced from just one of these platforms. Obviously, the projections are flawed. The EIA assumed that technically recoverable undiscovered oil resources in off-limits areas of the OCS total 18.2 billion barrels, based on the Department of Interior’s Mineral Management Service’s Report to Congress (February 2006). 4 But technically recoverable resources are based on current technology and economics. Historically, technological improvements and on-site exploration and development have increased technically recoverable resource estimates. For example, world proved oil reserves were estimated to be 521 billion barrels in 1971 when oil was $1.25 per barrel ($6.61 in 2007 dollars) and are estimated under present technology to be 1,317 billion barrels at an average price per barrel in 2007 of $67. 5
EIA’s analysis is based on crude oil prices averaging around $50 per barrel in 2005 dollars 6 (or around $80 per barrel in 2030 assuming a 2 percent per year inflation rate), well below the current price of around $120 per barrel. EIA’s analysis assumes that exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS are based on data from fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size.
| 1,094 | 2,740 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665376520#3_2440625675
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/offshore-oil-production-estimate-illustrates-flaws-in-eia-forecasting/
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting - IER
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Citations
Better Off Doing Nothing
Bogus Lease Claims in "Use It or Lose It" Proposal Stymie Real Energy Security
|
Historically, technological improvements and on-site exploration and development have increased technically recoverable resource estimates. For example, world proved oil reserves were estimated to be 521 billion barrels in 1971 when oil was $1.25 per barrel ($6.61 in 2007 dollars) and are estimated under present technology to be 1,317 billion barrels at an average price per barrel in 2007 of $67. 5
EIA’s analysis is based on crude oil prices averaging around $50 per barrel in 2005 dollars 6 (or around $80 per barrel in 2030 assuming a 2 percent per year inflation rate), well below the current price of around $120 per barrel. EIA’s analysis assumes that exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS are based on data from fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Since the majority of the resources under moratoria (55 percent) are off the coast of California, the analysis should have used data from the Santa Barbara Channel, which would have provided more realistic assumptions and higher production levels. EIA’s analysis assumes that leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Yet, off the coast of California, some of these resources have already been leased. A report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratoria were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored.
| 1,819 | 3,441 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665376520#4_2440627902
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/offshore-oil-production-estimate-illustrates-flaws-in-eia-forecasting/
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting - IER
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Citations
Better Off Doing Nothing
Bogus Lease Claims in "Use It or Lose It" Proposal Stymie Real Energy Security
|
Since the majority of the resources under moratoria (55 percent) are off the coast of California, the analysis should have used data from the Santa Barbara Channel, which would have provided more realistic assumptions and higher production levels. EIA’s analysis assumes that leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Yet, off the coast of California, some of these resources have already been leased. A report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratoria were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. 7 Further, Department of Interior Secretary Kempthorne announced in July a new 5 year plan that will allow leasing to start 2 years earlier, in 2010, implying production from currently unleased areas could begin as early as 2015. This new 5 year plan includes the areas under Federal moratoria. 8
Citations
1. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, February 2007, page 51, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/0383 (2007).pdf.
| 2,741 | 3,937 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665376520#5_2440629695
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/offshore-oil-production-estimate-illustrates-flaws-in-eia-forecasting/
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting - IER
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Citations
Better Off Doing Nothing
Bogus Lease Claims in "Use It or Lose It" Proposal Stymie Real Energy Security
|
Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. 7 Further, Department of Interior Secretary Kempthorne announced in July a new 5 year plan that will allow leasing to start 2 years earlier, in 2010, implying production from currently unleased areas could begin as early as 2015. This new 5 year plan includes the areas under Federal moratoria. 8
Citations
1. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, February 2007, page 51, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/0383 (2007).pdf. 2. Thunder Horse: No Ordinary Project, http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9004519&contentId=7009088. 3. Atlantis Platform, Gulf of Mexico, USA, http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/atlantisplatform/.
4.
| 3,442 | 4,159 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665376520#6_2440631005
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/offshore-oil-production-estimate-illustrates-flaws-in-eia-forecasting/
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting - IER
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Citations
Better Off Doing Nothing
Bogus Lease Claims in "Use It or Lose It" Proposal Stymie Real Energy Security
|
2. Thunder Horse: No Ordinary Project, http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9004519&contentId=7009088. 3. Atlantis Platform, Gulf of Mexico, USA, http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/atlantisplatform/.
4. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, February 2007, page 51, Table 10, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/0383 (2007).pdf. 5. EIA, Annual Energy Review 2007, Tables 5.19 and 11.4, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html. 6. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, February 2007, Table A12, page 158, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/0383 (2007).pdf.
| 3,937 | 4,526 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665376520#7_2440632184
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/offshore-oil-production-estimate-illustrates-flaws-in-eia-forecasting/
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting - IER
|
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Offshore Oil Production Estimate Illustrates Flaws in Forecasting
Citations
Better Off Doing Nothing
Bogus Lease Claims in "Use It or Lose It" Proposal Stymie Real Energy Security
|
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, February 2007, page 51, Table 10, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/0383 (2007).pdf. 5. EIA, Annual Energy Review 2007, Tables 5.19 and 11.4, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html. 6. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, February 2007, Table A12, page 158, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/0383 (2007).pdf. 7. Article by Larry Kudlow, July 15, 2008, http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyNDljNTQ5MThjNWE3YTAzYWYzMmZmNDVmMjA0ZWY
8. Department of Interior Press Release, http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080730a.html. August 2008
Better Off Doing Nothing
August 2008
Bogus Lease Claims in "Use It or Lose It" Proposal Stymie Real Energy Security
| 4,160 | 4,878 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#0_2440633498
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
IER
. Studies & Data
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
By IER
PDF (869 KB)
Coal-fired electricity generation is far cleaner today than ever before. The popular misconception that our air quality is getting worse is wrong, as shown by EPA’s air quality data. Modern coal plants, and those retrofitted with modern technologies to reduce pollution, are a success story and are currently providing about 50% of our electricity. Undoubtedly, pollution emissions from coal-fired power plants will continue to fall as technology improves. Executive Summary
America’s improving air quality is an untold success story. Even before Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, air quality had been improving for decades. [ i] And since 1970, the six so-called criteria pollutants have declined significantly, even though the generation of electricity from coal-fired plants has increased by over 180 percent. [ ii] (The “criteria pollutants” are carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide [SO 2 ], nitrogen oxides [NO x ], ground-level ozone, and particulate matter [PM]. They are called “criteria” pollutants because the EPA sets the criteria for permissible levels. [
| 0 | 1,245 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#1_2440635533
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
Executive Summary
America’s improving air quality is an untold success story. Even before Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, air quality had been improving for decades. [ i] And since 1970, the six so-called criteria pollutants have declined significantly, even though the generation of electricity from coal-fired plants has increased by over 180 percent. [ ii] (The “criteria pollutants” are carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide [SO 2 ], nitrogen oxides [NO x ], ground-level ozone, and particulate matter [PM]. They are called “criteria” pollutants because the EPA sets the criteria for permissible levels. [ iii]) Total SO 2 emissions from coal-fired plants were reduced by about 40 percent between 1970 and 2006, and NO x emissions were reduced by almost 50 percent between 1980 and 2006. On an output basis, the percent reduction is even greater, with SO 2 emissions (in pounds per megawatt-hour) almost 80 percent lower, and NO x emissions 70 percent lower. Figure 1 below shows the increases in Gross Domestic Product, vehicle miles traveled, energy consumption, and population since 1980, and it compares them to the decline in the aggregate emissions of criteria pollutants. Today, we produce more energy, drive further, and live more comfortably than we did in the past, all the while enjoying a cleaner environment. Figure 1:
| 615 | 1,970 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#2_2440637669
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
iii]) Total SO 2 emissions from coal-fired plants were reduced by about 40 percent between 1970 and 2006, and NO x emissions were reduced by almost 50 percent between 1980 and 2006. On an output basis, the percent reduction is even greater, with SO 2 emissions (in pounds per megawatt-hour) almost 80 percent lower, and NO x emissions 70 percent lower. Figure 1 below shows the increases in Gross Domestic Product, vehicle miles traveled, energy consumption, and population since 1980, and it compares them to the decline in the aggregate emissions of criteria pollutants. Today, we produce more energy, drive further, and live more comfortably than we did in the past, all the while enjoying a cleaner environment. Figure 1: EPA’s Comparison of Air Quality, Emissions, and Societal Trend
Source: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/images/comparison.jpg
One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NO x by 86 percent, SO 2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls [xv]. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology.
| 1,245 | 2,762 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#3_2440639962
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
EPA’s Comparison of Air Quality, Emissions, and Societal Trend
Source: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/images/comparison.jpg
One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NO x by 86 percent, SO 2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls [xv]. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology. Today, coal-fired electricity generation produces nearly half of the electricity generation in America and provides many jobs. For example, Prairie State Energy Campus, a 1,600-megawatt coal plant under construction in southern Illinois, provides 1,200 people with jobs in around-the-clock construction. Between its power plant, coal mine, and other assets, the campus will inject some $2.8 billion into the Illinois economy, creating 2,300 to 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent positions, while emitting 80 percent less in pollutants than most existing power plants. [ iv] When completed, the power plant will deliver electricity to 2.4 million homes in at least nine states. Background
Even before Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, creating the Environmental Protection Agency, air quality was improving.
| 1,971 | 3,605 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#4_2440642374
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
Today, coal-fired electricity generation produces nearly half of the electricity generation in America and provides many jobs. For example, Prairie State Energy Campus, a 1,600-megawatt coal plant under construction in southern Illinois, provides 1,200 people with jobs in around-the-clock construction. Between its power plant, coal mine, and other assets, the campus will inject some $2.8 billion into the Illinois economy, creating 2,300 to 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent positions, while emitting 80 percent less in pollutants than most existing power plants. [ iv] When completed, the power plant will deliver electricity to 2.4 million homes in at least nine states. Background
Even before Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, creating the Environmental Protection Agency, air quality was improving. Prior to 1970, business saw certain types of pollution as waste, and worked to reduce them through technological improvements in order to increase efficiency. Furthermore, state and local policymakers worked to reduce pollution. [ v]
The Clean Air Act, last modified in 1990, requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards to control pollutants considered harmful to public health or the environment: these are the so-called criteria pollutants. Two of these pollutants, SO 2 and NO x are the principal pollutants that cause acid precipitation (colloquially known as acid rain).
| 2,762 | 4,233 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#5_2440644602
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
Prior to 1970, business saw certain types of pollution as waste, and worked to reduce them through technological improvements in order to increase efficiency. Furthermore, state and local policymakers worked to reduce pollution. [ v]
The Clean Air Act, last modified in 1990, requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards to control pollutants considered harmful to public health or the environment: these are the so-called criteria pollutants. Two of these pollutants, SO 2 and NO x are the principal pollutants that cause acid precipitation (colloquially known as acid rain). SO 2 and NO x emissions react with water vapor and other chemicals in the air to form acids that fall back to earth. Prior to controlling for these emissions, power plants produced most (about two-thirds) of the SO 2 emissions in the United States. The majority (about 50 percent) of NO x emissions came from cars, buses, trucks, and other forms of transportation, with power plants contributing about 25 percent. The remainder came from other sources, such as industrial and commercial boilers. [ vi]
The 1990 changes to the Clean Air Act introduced a permanent cap on the total amount of SO 2 emissions that may be emitted by electric power plants nationwide, thereby reducing the level of these emissions in the atmosphere.
| 3,606 | 4,959 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#6_2440646713
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
SO 2 and NO x emissions react with water vapor and other chemicals in the air to form acids that fall back to earth. Prior to controlling for these emissions, power plants produced most (about two-thirds) of the SO 2 emissions in the United States. The majority (about 50 percent) of NO x emissions came from cars, buses, trucks, and other forms of transportation, with power plants contributing about 25 percent. The remainder came from other sources, such as industrial and commercial boilers. [ vi]
The 1990 changes to the Clean Air Act introduced a permanent cap on the total amount of SO 2 emissions that may be emitted by electric power plants nationwide, thereby reducing the level of these emissions in the atmosphere. The approach used was a cap-and-trade program with a steadily declining cap through 2010. In order to comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, electric utilities could either switch to low sulfur coal, add equipment (e.g., scrubbers) to existing coal-fired power plants in order to remove SO 2 emissions, purchase permits from other utilities that exceeded the reductions needed to comply with the cap, or use any other means of reducing emissions below the cap, such as operating high-sulfur units at a lower capacity utilization. EPA devised a two-phased strategy to cut NO x emissions from coal-fired power plants. The first phase, finalized in a rulemaking in 1995, aimed to reduce NO x emissions by over 400,000 tons per year between 1996 and 1999. The second phase began in 2000, and it aimed to reduce NO x emissions by over 2 million tons per year.
| 4,234 | 5,825 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#7_2440649060
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
The approach used was a cap-and-trade program with a steadily declining cap through 2010. In order to comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, electric utilities could either switch to low sulfur coal, add equipment (e.g., scrubbers) to existing coal-fired power plants in order to remove SO 2 emissions, purchase permits from other utilities that exceeded the reductions needed to comply with the cap, or use any other means of reducing emissions below the cap, such as operating high-sulfur units at a lower capacity utilization. EPA devised a two-phased strategy to cut NO x emissions from coal-fired power plants. The first phase, finalized in a rulemaking in 1995, aimed to reduce NO x emissions by over 400,000 tons per year between 1996 and 1999. The second phase began in 2000, and it aimed to reduce NO x emissions by over 2 million tons per year. The second phase reduction goal was exceeded, owing in part to additional state-initiated NO x reductions in the Northeast. [ vii]
In 1998, EPA issued a rule that required 21 states and the District of Columbia to further reduce NO x emissions through the use of newer, cleaner control strategies. The rule gave each affected state a NO x emission target and let the state determine how to reduce its emissions. The goal was to reduce total emissions of NO x by 1 million tons in the affected states by 2007. Most states were required to begin reductions in 2004. [
| 4,960 | 6,390 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#8_2440651246
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
The second phase reduction goal was exceeded, owing in part to additional state-initiated NO x reductions in the Northeast. [ vii]
In 1998, EPA issued a rule that required 21 states and the District of Columbia to further reduce NO x emissions through the use of newer, cleaner control strategies. The rule gave each affected state a NO x emission target and let the state determine how to reduce its emissions. The goal was to reduce total emissions of NO x by 1 million tons in the affected states by 2007. Most states were required to begin reductions in 2004. [ viii]
EPA issues air pollution control standards under the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970. These standards are called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). EPA’s NSPS require all power plants for which construction commenced after February 28, 2005, to not exceed 1.0 lb/megawatt hour (0.11 lb/million Btu) of NO x, 1.4 lb/megawatt hour (0.15 lb/million Btu) of SO 2, and 0.14 lb/megawatt hour (0.015 lb/million Btu) of particulate matter (PM). [ ix] However, as can be seen below, most new plants are built to more stringent criteria. Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Of the 328,720 megawatts of coal-fired capacity reporting their control technologies to the Energy Information Administration in 2005, 48 percent (158,493 megawatts) have cooling towers, 31 percent (101,338 megawatts) have flue gas desulfurization equipment (scrubbers), and 100 percent have particulate collectors. [
| 5,826 | 7,280 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#9_2440653465
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
viii]
EPA issues air pollution control standards under the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970. These standards are called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). EPA’s NSPS require all power plants for which construction commenced after February 28, 2005, to not exceed 1.0 lb/megawatt hour (0.11 lb/million Btu) of NO x, 1.4 lb/megawatt hour (0.15 lb/million Btu) of SO 2, and 0.14 lb/megawatt hour (0.015 lb/million Btu) of particulate matter (PM). [ ix] However, as can be seen below, most new plants are built to more stringent criteria. Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Of the 328,720 megawatts of coal-fired capacity reporting their control technologies to the Energy Information Administration in 2005, 48 percent (158,493 megawatts) have cooling towers, 31 percent (101,338 megawatts) have flue gas desulfurization equipment (scrubbers), and 100 percent have particulate collectors. [ x]
The following graph compares the SO 2 and NO x emissions from coal-fired power plants divided by the fuel consumed by these plants from 1970 to 2006. Between 1970 and 2006, SO 2 emissions in lbs per million Btu were reduced by almost 80 percent and NO x emissions in lbs per million Btu were reduced by over 70 percent. Between 1970 and 2006, total SO 2 emissions were reduced by about 40 percent. Between 1980 and 2006, NO x emissions were reduced by almost 50 percent. A study by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) compared the emission rates from pulverized coal plants and integrated gasification combined cycle plants based on the environmental regulations that would apply to plants built in 2010 using technology designs from several vendors, including General Electric Energy (GEE), ConocoPhillips (CoP), and Shell.
| 6,390 | 8,120 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#10_2440655959
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
x]
The following graph compares the SO 2 and NO x emissions from coal-fired power plants divided by the fuel consumed by these plants from 1970 to 2006. Between 1970 and 2006, SO 2 emissions in lbs per million Btu were reduced by almost 80 percent and NO x emissions in lbs per million Btu were reduced by over 70 percent. Between 1970 and 2006, total SO 2 emissions were reduced by about 40 percent. Between 1980 and 2006, NO x emissions were reduced by almost 50 percent. A study by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) compared the emission rates from pulverized coal plants and integrated gasification combined cycle plants based on the environmental regulations that would apply to plants built in 2010 using technology designs from several vendors, including General Electric Energy (GEE), ConocoPhillips (CoP), and Shell. These rates are provided in Table 1 for three criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (PM). [ xi] The rates range from .0105 to .0848 lbs/million Btu for SO 2, .055 to .07 lbs/million Btu for NO x, and .0071 to .013 lbs/million Btu for PM, depending on technology type. These emission rates are 43 to 93 percent lower than the current NSPS for SO 2, 36 to 50 percent lower than the current NSPS for NO x, and 13 to 53 percent lower than the current NSPS for PM. Integrated gasification units have lower criteria pollutants than pulverized coal plants.
| 7,280 | 8,708 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#11_2440658144
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
These rates are provided in Table 1 for three criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (PM). [ xi] The rates range from .0105 to .0848 lbs/million Btu for SO 2, .055 to .07 lbs/million Btu for NO x, and .0071 to .013 lbs/million Btu for PM, depending on technology type. These emission rates are 43 to 93 percent lower than the current NSPS for SO 2, 36 to 50 percent lower than the current NSPS for NO x, and 13 to 53 percent lower than the current NSPS for PM. Integrated gasification units have lower criteria pollutants than pulverized coal plants. According to NETL, for a new pulverized coal plant (subcritical) built in 2008, pollution controls reduce NO x emissions 86 percent, SO 2 emissions by 98 percent, and PM by 99.8 percent when compared with a similar plant with no pollution controls. The target emission level for NO x is 0.070 lb/MMBtu, for SO 2 is 0.085 lb/MMBtu, and for PM is 0.013 lb/MMBtu. Without control technologies, a subcritical coal plant would emit 0.5 lb/MMBtu of NO x, 4.35 lb/MM Btu of SO 2, and 6.5 lb/MM Btu of PM. [ xii] The figure below graphically depicts the criteria pollutants from a new controlled plant vs. a new uncontrolled plant. Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
According to the EIA, the costs of adding flue gas desulfurization (FGD) equipment to remove sulfur dioxide are, in 2006 dollars, $301/KW for a 300 MW plant, $230/KW for a 500 MW plant, and $190/KW for a 700 MW plant.
| 8,121 | 9,585 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665382009#12_2440660366
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants - IER
|
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Facts About Air Quality and Coal-Fired Power Plants
Executive Summary
Background
Coal Industry Emissions Reduction
Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
Cap-and-Trade: “Acid Rain” versus Greenhouse Gases
In España, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program “Has Cost Many Jobs”
Renewable Electricity Mandate: Pay More For Less
|
According to NETL, for a new pulverized coal plant (subcritical) built in 2008, pollution controls reduce NO x emissions 86 percent, SO 2 emissions by 98 percent, and PM by 99.8 percent when compared with a similar plant with no pollution controls. The target emission level for NO x is 0.070 lb/MMBtu, for SO 2 is 0.085 lb/MMBtu, and for PM is 0.013 lb/MMBtu. Without control technologies, a subcritical coal plant would emit 0.5 lb/MMBtu of NO x, 4.35 lb/MM Btu of SO 2, and 6.5 lb/MM Btu of PM. [ xii] The figure below graphically depicts the criteria pollutants from a new controlled plant vs. a new uncontrolled plant. Cost Factors in Emission Reductions
According to the EIA, the costs of adding flue gas desulfurization (FGD) equipment to remove sulfur dioxide are, in 2006 dollars, $301/KW for a 300 MW plant, $230/KW for a 500 MW plant, and $190/KW for a 700 MW plant. The costs for selective catalytic reduction (SCR) equipment to remove nitrogen dioxides are $124/KW for a 300 MW plant, $108/KW for a 500 MW plant, and $98/KW for a 700 MW plant. The costs per megawatt of capacity decline with plant size. FGD units are assumed to remove 95 percent of the SO 2 and SCR units are assumed to remove 90 percent of the NO x. [xiii]
The NETL study provides estimates of both the capital
| 8,708 | 10,000 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665401758#0_2440662416
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/coal/
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market - IER
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Forecasts of Coal vs. Natural Gas Generation
EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Plants
Conclusion
[i] Gas Generation Takes Beating, Falling 7.7% Because Coal Generation Jumps 8%, April 29, 2013, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2013/04/gas-generation-takes-beating-falling-77.html
Tags
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market - IER
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
By IER
The tide may be turning somewhat for coal and natural gas generation with coal regaining some of the market that it lost in 2012 due to low natural gas prices. Natural gas prices delivered to the electric power sector averaged $3.52 per thousand cubic feet in 2012, 62 percent less than in 2008 when it reached $9.26 per thousand cubic feet. For the first 2 months of 2013, they are higher on average by a slightly more than $1.00 per thousand cubic feet. This allowed coal to increase its share of electric generation to 40 percent for the first 2 months of 2013, compared to 37 percent during the first 2 months of last year, while the natural gas share of the generation market fell from 28 percent to 26 percent during the same time period. This change, however, will not be a coal renaissance in the electric power sector since new and pending regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will ensure no new coal-fired plants are built and older coal-fired plants will find it uneconomic to continue operating because of increasingly-stringent EPA regulations. Forecasts of Coal vs. Natural Gas Generation
Some analysts are forecasting that coal may supply 40 percent of the power market for this entire year, up from 37 percent last year, while natural gas will supply 25 percent, down from 30 percent last year. [ i] The Energy Information Administration in its Short Term Energy Outlook is agreeing with the coal share of 40 percent for 2013, but its forecast for natural gas generation is higher at 28 percent, although still lower than the 30 percent natural gas share achieved last year in the generation market. EIA does not see a renaissance to coal’s almost 50 percent share attained not long ago, forecasting a continuation of the 40 percent share of the generation market for 2014. [ ii] That’s most likely due to EPA regulations, which reflect President Obama’s promise in 2008 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and his later pledge to “look for other means” to control such emissions. EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Obama Administration’s EPA has promulgated new regulations that will result in the demise of the domestic coal generating industry.
| 0 | 2,308 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665401758#1_2440665432
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/coal/
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market - IER
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Forecasts of Coal vs. Natural Gas Generation
EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Plants
Conclusion
[i] Gas Generation Takes Beating, Falling 7.7% Because Coal Generation Jumps 8%, April 29, 2013, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2013/04/gas-generation-takes-beating-falling-77.html
Tags
|
Forecasts of Coal vs. Natural Gas Generation
Some analysts are forecasting that coal may supply 40 percent of the power market for this entire year, up from 37 percent last year, while natural gas will supply 25 percent, down from 30 percent last year. [ i] The Energy Information Administration in its Short Term Energy Outlook is agreeing with the coal share of 40 percent for 2013, but its forecast for natural gas generation is higher at 28 percent, although still lower than the 30 percent natural gas share achieved last year in the generation market. EIA does not see a renaissance to coal’s almost 50 percent share attained not long ago, forecasting a continuation of the 40 percent share of the generation market for 2014. [ ii] That’s most likely due to EPA regulations, which reflect President Obama’s promise in 2008 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and his later pledge to “look for other means” to control such emissions. EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Obama Administration’s EPA has promulgated new regulations that will result in the demise of the domestic coal generating industry. The new rules target mercury from coal-fired power plants ( the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards ), which many call Utility MACT because the rule requires “Maximum Achievable Control Technology” for mercury at coal-fired power plants. These technologies must be installed over a tight 3-year period between 2012 and 2015, raising the cost of generating power from existing coal-fired plants where the economics make sense to install the technology, or force plants to retire or to convert to natural gas where the economics of adding the additional environmental technology are not favorable. The National Economic Research Associates found compliance costs to be $21 billion per year and lost jobs to amount to 183,000 per year. Because the increased costs will be passed to consumers through higher electricity rates, businesses will be forced to reduce jobs as well. Studies project that retail electricity prices will increase between 10 and 20 percent in most of the country and over 20 percent in the coal-dependent states in the Midwest. [
| 1,192 | 3,354 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665401758#2_2440668311
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/coal/
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market - IER
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Forecasts of Coal vs. Natural Gas Generation
EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Plants
Conclusion
[i] Gas Generation Takes Beating, Falling 7.7% Because Coal Generation Jumps 8%, April 29, 2013, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2013/04/gas-generation-takes-beating-falling-77.html
Tags
|
The new rules target mercury from coal-fired power plants ( the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards ), which many call Utility MACT because the rule requires “Maximum Achievable Control Technology” for mercury at coal-fired power plants. These technologies must be installed over a tight 3-year period between 2012 and 2015, raising the cost of generating power from existing coal-fired plants where the economics make sense to install the technology, or force plants to retire or to convert to natural gas where the economics of adding the additional environmental technology are not favorable. The National Economic Research Associates found compliance costs to be $21 billion per year and lost jobs to amount to 183,000 per year. Because the increased costs will be passed to consumers through higher electricity rates, businesses will be forced to reduce jobs as well. Studies project that retail electricity prices will increase between 10 and 20 percent in most of the country and over 20 percent in the coal-dependent states in the Midwest. [ iii]
EIA announced that plant owners and operators expect to retire about 27 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity by 2016 — four times the 6.5 gigawatts of capacity retired between 2007 and 2011 mostly because of the new regulations imposed by the EPA. In 2012, electric generators are expected to retire 9 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity, the largest amount of retirements in a single year in America’s history. The 27 gigawatts of retiring capacity is 8.5 percent of total coal-fired capacity (318 gigawatts). The 2012 record retirements are expected to be exceeded in 2015 when nearly 10 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity are expected to retire. [ iv] Most of the units retiring are located in the Mid-Atlantic, Ohio River Valley, and Southeastern United States as shown in the map below.
| 2,309 | 4,140 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665401758#3_2440670834
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/coal/
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market - IER
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Forecasts of Coal vs. Natural Gas Generation
EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Plants
Conclusion
[i] Gas Generation Takes Beating, Falling 7.7% Because Coal Generation Jumps 8%, April 29, 2013, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2013/04/gas-generation-takes-beating-falling-77.html
Tags
|
iii]
EIA announced that plant owners and operators expect to retire about 27 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity by 2016 — four times the 6.5 gigawatts of capacity retired between 2007 and 2011 mostly because of the new regulations imposed by the EPA. In 2012, electric generators are expected to retire 9 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity, the largest amount of retirements in a single year in America’s history. The 27 gigawatts of retiring capacity is 8.5 percent of total coal-fired capacity (318 gigawatts). The 2012 record retirements are expected to be exceeded in 2015 when nearly 10 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity are expected to retire. [ iv] Most of the units retiring are located in the Mid-Atlantic, Ohio River Valley, and Southeastern United States as shown in the map below. EIA’s numbers are based on current utility expectations. The Edison Electric Institute expects a larger number of forced retirements—about 48 gigawatts of coal-fired units at 231 plants—between 2010 and 2022, or about 15 percent of the coal fleet. [ v]
Further, pending greenhouse gas regulations will require all new coal-fired plants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions even though there is no cost effective way to do so. This is essentially a ban on new coal-fired plants because the technology does not exist commercially for them to meet natural gas carbon dioxide levels that are required by the EPA regulation. The coal industry has already taken action to improve air quality and new coal plants are cleaner than ever before.
| 3,354 | 4,879 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665401758#4_2440673057
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/coal/
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market - IER
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Forecasts of Coal vs. Natural Gas Generation
EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Plants
Conclusion
[i] Gas Generation Takes Beating, Falling 7.7% Because Coal Generation Jumps 8%, April 29, 2013, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2013/04/gas-generation-takes-beating-falling-77.html
Tags
|
EIA’s numbers are based on current utility expectations. The Edison Electric Institute expects a larger number of forced retirements—about 48 gigawatts of coal-fired units at 231 plants—between 2010 and 2022, or about 15 percent of the coal fleet. [ v]
Further, pending greenhouse gas regulations will require all new coal-fired plants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions even though there is no cost effective way to do so. This is essentially a ban on new coal-fired plants because the technology does not exist commercially for them to meet natural gas carbon dioxide levels that are required by the EPA regulation. The coal industry has already taken action to improve air quality and new coal plants are cleaner than ever before. Pollution control technologies such as flue gas desulfurization, selective catalytic reducers, fabric filters, and dry sorbent injection have greatly reduced coal plant emissions. These advances in technology have enabled large improvements in air quality. Since 1970, the total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have declined by 68 percent, even though energy consumption has increased by 45 percent and the economy has grown by 212 percent. [ vi] (The “criteria pollutants” are carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ground-level ozone, and particulate matter.) The following chart from EPA shows the increase in economic measures compared to the decrease in pollution emissions. [
| 4,140 | 5,586 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665401758#5_2440675199
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/coal/
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market - IER
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Forecasts of Coal vs. Natural Gas Generation
EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Plants
Conclusion
[i] Gas Generation Takes Beating, Falling 7.7% Because Coal Generation Jumps 8%, April 29, 2013, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2013/04/gas-generation-takes-beating-falling-77.html
Tags
|
Pollution control technologies such as flue gas desulfurization, selective catalytic reducers, fabric filters, and dry sorbent injection have greatly reduced coal plant emissions. These advances in technology have enabled large improvements in air quality. Since 1970, the total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have declined by 68 percent, even though energy consumption has increased by 45 percent and the economy has grown by 212 percent. [ vi] (The “criteria pollutants” are carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ground-level ozone, and particulate matter.) The following chart from EPA shows the increase in economic measures compared to the decrease in pollution emissions. [ vii]
Conclusion
Two factors have and are affecting coal-fired generation: natural gas prices and new and pending regulations from the EPA. Recent data have shown the effect that these factors have on the generation market. The higher prices of natural gas at around $4.50 per thousand cubic feet delivered to electric utilities this year is making coal more cost competitive compared to natural gas, but new and pending EPA regulations are likely placing a ceiling on the amount of generation one can expect to get from coal– at around a 40 percent share. [i] Gas Generation Takes Beating, Falling 7.7% Because Coal Generation Jumps 8%, April 29, 2013, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2013/04/gas-generation-takes-beating-falling-77.html
[ii] Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/tables/pdf/7dtab.pdf
[iii] Washington Times, Chance to block Obama’s war on coal, June 19, 2012, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/19/chance-to-block-obamas-war-on-coal/
[iv] Energy Information Administration, 27 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity to retire over next five years, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7290
[v] Politico, Who is killing the coal-fired power plant?,
| 4,880 | 6,822 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665401758#6_2440677838
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/coal/
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market - IER
|
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Coal and Gas Fight Over Electric Generation Market
Forecasts of Coal vs. Natural Gas Generation
EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Plants
Conclusion
[i] Gas Generation Takes Beating, Falling 7.7% Because Coal Generation Jumps 8%, April 29, 2013, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2013/04/gas-generation-takes-beating-falling-77.html
Tags
|
vii]
Conclusion
Two factors have and are affecting coal-fired generation: natural gas prices and new and pending regulations from the EPA. Recent data have shown the effect that these factors have on the generation market. The higher prices of natural gas at around $4.50 per thousand cubic feet delivered to electric utilities this year is making coal more cost competitive compared to natural gas, but new and pending EPA regulations are likely placing a ceiling on the amount of generation one can expect to get from coal– at around a 40 percent share. [i] Gas Generation Takes Beating, Falling 7.7% Because Coal Generation Jumps 8%, April 29, 2013, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2013/04/gas-generation-takes-beating-falling-77.html
[ii] Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/tables/pdf/7dtab.pdf
[iii] Washington Times, Chance to block Obama’s war on coal, June 19, 2012, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/19/chance-to-block-obamas-war-on-coal/
[iv] Energy Information Administration, 27 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity to retire over next five years, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7290
[v] Politico, Who is killing the coal-fired power plant?, December 6, 2011, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69922_Page2.html
[vi] Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Trends, January 5, 2012, http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
[vii] Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Trends, http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html. The specific graphic is available here: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/images/comparison70.jpg
Tags
Coal,
fracking,
hydraulic fracturing
| 5,586 | 7,255 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665409744#0_2440680198
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/fossil-fuels/
|
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies - IER
|
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies
Fossil Fuel vs. Non-Fossil Fuel Production and Subsidies
Conclusion
Tags
|
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies - IER
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies
By IER
At the request of the Secretary of Energy, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, evaluated the energy-related subsidies that the federal government provided in fiscal year 2016, updating a study that it did for fiscal years 2013 and 2010. Federal subsidies to support non-fossil fuels (renewable energy and nuclear power) in fiscal year 2016 totaled $7.047 billion (in 2016 dollars), while those for fossil fuels totaled $489 million—higher by over a factor of 14, despite much higher production by fossil fuel producers. The EIA noted that those subsidies do not include state and local subsidies, mandates, or incentives that in many cases are quite substantial, especially for renewable energy. For example, about three fifths of the states have “renewable portfolio standards” which are actually mandated levels of renewable energy production. Many states also waive tax payments specifically for renewable energy or offer other sweeteners for renewable energy production. These incentives are provided due to years of lobbying by renewable energy interests. Readers can see just exactly what their state offers renewable energy providers, and what it may be costing them, by reviewing this site. Fossil Fuel vs. Non-Fossil Fuel Production and Subsidies
In FY 2016, 93 percent of federal energy fuel subsidies were associated with renewable and nuclear energy while only 7 percent were associated with fossil fuels. Yet, most of the energy produced in the United States in fiscal year 2016 was supplied by fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal)—78 percent compared to 22 percent for non-fossil fuels. ( See pie charts below.)
| 0 | 1,913 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665409744#1_2440682746
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/fossil-fuels/
|
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies - IER
|
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies
Fossil Fuel vs. Non-Fossil Fuel Production and Subsidies
Conclusion
Tags
|
These incentives are provided due to years of lobbying by renewable energy interests. Readers can see just exactly what their state offers renewable energy providers, and what it may be costing them, by reviewing this site. Fossil Fuel vs. Non-Fossil Fuel Production and Subsidies
In FY 2016, 93 percent of federal energy fuel subsidies were associated with renewable and nuclear energy while only 7 percent were associated with fossil fuels. Yet, most of the energy produced in the United States in fiscal year 2016 was supplied by fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal)—78 percent compared to 22 percent for non-fossil fuels. ( See pie charts below.) Of the non-fossil fuel share of production, nuclear power contributed 10 percent, followed by biomass at 5.9 percent, hydroelectric at 2.9 percent, wind at 2.4 percent, solar at 0.6 percent, and geothermal at 0.2 percent. Of total federal energy fuel subsidies provided in fiscal year 2016, biofuels received the largest share of 37 percent, followed by solar energy at 30 percent, and wind energy at 17 percent. ( See chart below.) Biofuel subsidies totaled $2.8 billion in FY 2016 while wind subsidies totaled $1.3 billion and solar subsidies totaled $2.2 billion. Both wind and solar continue to be eligible for tax credits—production tax credit for wind and the investment tax credit for solar.
| 1,259 | 2,611 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665409744#2_2440684724
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/fossil-fuels/
|
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies - IER
|
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies
Fossil Fuel vs. Non-Fossil Fuel Production and Subsidies
Conclusion
Tags
|
Of the non-fossil fuel share of production, nuclear power contributed 10 percent, followed by biomass at 5.9 percent, hydroelectric at 2.9 percent, wind at 2.4 percent, solar at 0.6 percent, and geothermal at 0.2 percent. Of total federal energy fuel subsidies provided in fiscal year 2016, biofuels received the largest share of 37 percent, followed by solar energy at 30 percent, and wind energy at 17 percent. ( See chart below.) Biofuel subsidies totaled $2.8 billion in FY 2016 while wind subsidies totaled $1.3 billion and solar subsidies totaled $2.2 billion. Both wind and solar continue to be eligible for tax credits—production tax credit for wind and the investment tax credit for solar. In FY 2016, tax expenditures accounted for 80 percent of total renewable energy subsidies. In FY 2016, federal subsidies and support for fossil fuels totaled $489 million. In FY 2016, certain tax provisions related to oil and natural gas yielded positive revenue flow for the government, resulting in a negative net subsidy of $773 million for oil and natural gas, based on estimates from the U.S. Department of Treasury. Federal subsidies and support for coal totaled $1.26 billion in FY 2016. Conclusion
Fossil fuels provide the yeoman share of U.S. energy production, but non-fossil fuels, particularly renewable energy, receive the major share of federal subsidies and support.
| 1,913 | 3,293 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665409744#3_2440686723
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/fossil-fuels/
|
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies - IER
|
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies
Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Production, But Receive a Small Percentage of Federal Fuel Subsidies
Fossil Fuel vs. Non-Fossil Fuel Production and Subsidies
Conclusion
Tags
|
In FY 2016, tax expenditures accounted for 80 percent of total renewable energy subsidies. In FY 2016, federal subsidies and support for fossil fuels totaled $489 million. In FY 2016, certain tax provisions related to oil and natural gas yielded positive revenue flow for the government, resulting in a negative net subsidy of $773 million for oil and natural gas, based on estimates from the U.S. Department of Treasury. Federal subsidies and support for coal totaled $1.26 billion in FY 2016. Conclusion
Fossil fuels provide the yeoman share of U.S. energy production, but non-fossil fuels, particularly renewable energy, receive the major share of federal subsidies and support. For more information on EIA’s subsidy report see this related blog. Tags
100 percent renewable,
biofuels,
Coal,
Department of Energy,
DOE,
Domestic Energy Production,
EIA,
energy mandates,
energy production,
energy subsidies,
federal spending,
Fossil Fuels,
geothermal,
hydroelectric,
mandates,
natural gas,
renewable energy,
Renewable energy mandates,
Solar,
Solar subsidies,
subsidies,
wind power,
wind subsidies
| 2,612 | 3,708 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665414078#0_2440688461
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/natural-gas/
|
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints - IER
|
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints
The Changing Energy Market in the Northeast
Conclusion
Tags
Did Wind Really Save Texas from Rolling Outages?
GAO Misses the Elephant in the Room on Interior’s Oil & Gas Fiscal System
|
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints - IER
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints
By IER
Very cold weather increased the demand for natural gas used for home heating and for gas-fired electric generators in the Northeast, causing a spike in prices earlier this month. Prices spiked because of the increased demand for natural gas and because constrained gas pipelines could not handle the additional volume. Natural gas for all uses is increasing in the Northeast, and is expected to continue, as the EPA implements policies drastically reducing the use of coal fired generation and nuclear plants are being retired. The Northeastern states has been reducing their fuel diversity, but it is unclear whether decision makers are giving adequate consideration to the demands on natural gas–their replacement fuel of choice. New and expanded pipelines, more local production of natural gas and other means of obtaining abundant and reliable supplies are needed in the Northeast lest even more dramatic price shocks should occur due to inadequate supplies. The recent cold wave should serve as an early warning signal to the people of the Northeast and their political leadership. On Monday, January 6, natural gas prices more than doubled in New England and almost quadrupled in New York. Electricity prices also spiked. On Tuesday, January 7, a megawatt-hour of electricity on the wholesale market, which normally sells for $40 or $50 was selling for $500 to $1,000 in New Jersey, Delaware and areas of Pennsylvania and Maryland. In parts of New England, the wholesale electricity prices were over $200.
| 0 | 1,670 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665414078#1_2440690775
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/natural-gas/
|
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints - IER
|
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints
The Changing Energy Market in the Northeast
Conclusion
Tags
Did Wind Really Save Texas from Rolling Outages?
GAO Misses the Elephant in the Room on Interior’s Oil & Gas Fiscal System
|
The recent cold wave should serve as an early warning signal to the people of the Northeast and their political leadership. On Monday, January 6, natural gas prices more than doubled in New England and almost quadrupled in New York. Electricity prices also spiked. On Tuesday, January 7, a megawatt-hour of electricity on the wholesale market, which normally sells for $40 or $50 was selling for $500 to $1,000 in New Jersey, Delaware and areas of Pennsylvania and Maryland. In parts of New England, the wholesale electricity prices were over $200. While in New York City, wholesale electricity prices were under $200 because electric utilities substituted oil for natural gas—oil, which is normally too expensive to burn as a generation fuel, was more economic than natural gas when the spike occurred. [ i]
In New York, the higher natural gas prices caused a stir because New York has a moratorium on producing natural gas from the Marcellus shale formation using hydraulic fracturing. ( Vermont and New Jersey also have prohibitions on fracking, though there is little shale availability in these states geologically.) As a result, New York is not letting its natural gas and electricity consumers benefit from local shale gas production. While New York will not let natural gas be produced within the state using hydraulic fracturing, it does use shale gas produced from the Marcellus formation in Pennsylvania, whose consumers benefit from its production.
| 1,121 | 2,580 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665414078#2_2440692880
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/natural-gas/
|
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints - IER
|
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints
Natural Gas Prices in Northeast Spike Due To Cold & Pipeline Constraints
The Changing Energy Market in the Northeast
Conclusion
Tags
Did Wind Really Save Texas from Rolling Outages?
GAO Misses the Elephant in the Room on Interior’s Oil & Gas Fiscal System
|
While in New York City, wholesale electricity prices were under $200 because electric utilities substituted oil for natural gas—oil, which is normally too expensive to burn as a generation fuel, was more economic than natural gas when the spike occurred. [ i]
In New York, the higher natural gas prices caused a stir because New York has a moratorium on producing natural gas from the Marcellus shale formation using hydraulic fracturing. ( Vermont and New Jersey also have prohibitions on fracking, though there is little shale availability in these states geologically.) As a result, New York is not letting its natural gas and electricity consumers benefit from local shale gas production. While New York will not let natural gas be produced within the state using hydraulic fracturing, it does use shale gas produced from the Marcellus formation in Pennsylvania, whose consumers benefit from its production. According to the Energy Information Administration, natural gas prices in Pennsylvania in 2013 were only 11 percent higher than in 2012 due to continued growth in production from the Marcellus shale compared to price increases of 61 percent in New York and 75 percent in New England – states that must import natural gas from other states, Canada, or from aboard as liquefied natural gas. [ ii]
Source: Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14491&src=email
The Changing Energy Market in the Northeast
The natural gas drilling boom in shale fields due to the use of hydraulic fracturing coupled with horizontal drilling led to a plunge in gas prices that caused an increase in natural gas-fired generation and a shift from heating oil to natural gas in the Northeast. Natural gas generated less than 30 percent of New England’s electricity in 2001, but provides more than 50 percent today. Natural gas pipelines are able to handle the increased demand during the summer months, but the pipelines become constrained in the winter due to the added demand for heating, particularly in very cold weather.
| 1,671 | 3,723 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.