NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

ReEDS Modeling of the 

President’s 2020 U.S. 

Renewable Electricity 

Generation Goal 

Owen Zinaman, Trieu Mai, 

Eric Lantz, Rachel Gelman, 

Gian Porro 

NREL/PR-6A20-62077 | May 2014
2

This analysis was conducted using the NREL ReEDS Model 

[www.nrel.gov/analysis/ReEDS]. The version of the model used is the 

NREL Base Model as of October 2013.

None of the scenarios presented are intended to be forecasts or 

predictions; rather, ReEDS provides a self-consistent framework to 

evaluate the potential impact of different technology, market and 

policy conditions. This analysis relies on extensive sensitivity analysis 

that considers a range of future renewable deployment scenarios out 

to 2020.

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

NOTICE 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor 

any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any 

information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial 

product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by 

the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Model Basis and Context
3

2020 U.S. Renewable Generation Goal

• Initial Generation Goal [est. 2008]

o Doubling of 2008 generation levels of grid-connected Wind, 

Solar, and Geothermal (WSG) by year-end 2011

– Goal: 144 TWh

• Revised Generation Goal [est. 2012]

o Quadrupling from 2008 generation levels of grid-connected 

WSG by 2020 (NREL interpretation*) 

– Goal: 288 TWh (used as basis for this analysis)

– ~7% – 8% of total generation

• Key Analysis Question: 

o Can the 288 TWh WSG generation goal be met, and if so, under 

what conditions?

*There may be other interpretations of the goal (e.g., doubling of 2012 year-end generation, or 340 TWh). See: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/15/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-blueprint-clean-and-secure-energy-future
4

Modeling Approach

• What is the ReEDS Model?

o A capacity expansion and dispatch 

model designed for long-term 

analysis that simulates the build- out and operation of generation 

and transmission capacity to meet 

demand from present day to 2050

o ReEDS’ algorithm is designed to 

economically optimize, in two- year solve increments, the 

generation and capacity mix while 

satisfying regional demand 

requirements and grid system 

adequacy, technology, resource 

and policy constraints (including 

state RPSs)

o High spatial resolution (134 

balancing areas, 356 renewable 

resource regions)

Regional Energy Deployment System 

(ReEDS) Model

Example ReEDS Outputs
5

Scenarios

• 21 scenarios were modeled assessing several sensitivities

• The 288 TWh goal is not required to be met within the model for any scenario

o The ReEDS model simulates the build-out and operation of the least-cost optimized U.S. electricity generation portfolio over 

time

• The effects of forthcoming or draft Environmental Protection Agency regulations are not modeled, 

including:

o Carbon pollution standards under the Clean Air Act

– Section 111(b) for new power plants

– Section 111(d) for existing power plants

o Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

o Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 
6

Limitations and Assumptions

• Limitations

• ReEDS two-year temporal resolution – cumulative or average deployment is a more 

robust, reliable indicator than discrete values for each solve-year

• Limited foresight – ReEDS does not make decisions based on any expectation of 

future market conditions

• No internal technology learning – cost reductions from “learning-by-doing” or 

manufacturing economies of scale are not explicitly modeled

• No internal treatment of distributed generation – deployment trajectories for 

distributed generation photovoltaic (DG-PV) systems are externally defined, relying 

on results from the DOE Sunshot Vision Study for all scenario configurations modeled

• Other deployment constraints not addressed – e.g., manufacturing scale-up, 

permitting, wildlife are not addressed in the optimization 

• Assumptions

• Projects deployed in a given solve-year are planned in the years leading up to 

construction

• Only planned/expected transmission projects can be built through 2020

• Distribution systems can accommodate (DG-PV) systems
7

Reference Scenario Description

Technology Cost and Performance

Wind Median Literature (NREL Internal Analysis,

October 2013)

Solar Sunshot 62.5% (Sunshot Vision Study, 2012)

Geothermal

Hydrothermal and in-field EGS supply curves with no 

cost reductions over time (Augustine 2013 and Mai et 

al. forthcoming). No near or deep field EGS are 

modeled in this analysis period.. 

Hydroelectric No new construction allowed

Conventionals AEO 2013 Reference

Market Conditions

Demand 

Growth AEO 2013 Reference

Fossil Fuel 

Costs AEO 2013 Reference

Conventional 

Retirements

Announced Retirements as of July 2013, 

Ventyx

Renewable Energy Policy

Federal Tax 

Incentives Existing law only

State RPSs Existing law in 29 States, including solar 

carve-outs and REC trading rules

Solar Treatment Notes

‘Sunshot 62.5%’ trajectory reduces from $4.0/W in 2010 to $1.5/W by 2020 for Utility PV.

DG-PV is exogenously input based on the corresponding cost reduction trajectory from Sunshot Vision Study

Concentrated Solar Power also follows the 62.5% cost reduction trajectory from Sunshot Vision Study
8

Reference Scenario Results

Historical generation data is a synthesis of the following sources: Larry Sherwood/IREC Solar Market Trends Reports, SEIA/GTM Solar Industry Year in Review Reports, Form EIA-923, 

EIA Electric Power Monthly Tables 1.1 and 1.1A. PV generation assumes a capacity factor of 18%; CSP assumes a capacity factor of 25%. 

Notes

Projected generation numbers for a given year are based on plants that are operational on January 1st of that year. PV includes both utility and DG-PV.

72 

170 

267

295

326 

368 

 -

 50

 100

 150

 200

 250

 300

 350

 400

2008 2012 2015 2017 2019 2021

[TWh]

Wind Geothermal PV CSP

288 TWh

Historical ReEDS

• The Administration goal is achieved in the Reference scenario by 2017
9

170 

267 

295 

326 

368 

170 

294 

328 

368 

429 

170 

252 271 

300 

328 

170 

277 

301 

333 

369 

170 

275 

383 

549 

761 

170 

308 

457 

681 

971 

 -

 100

 200

 300

 400

 500

 600

2012 2015 2017 2019 2021

WSG Generation [TWh] 

Reference Conditions

Reference Conditions, Reduced RE Technology Costs

Low Demand, Low Fuel Price, Flat DG-PV Deployment

Low Demand, Low Fuel Price, Flat DG-PV Deployment, Reduced RE Technology Costs

High Demand, High Fuel Price, Extended RE Tax Credits

High Demand, High Fuel Price, Extended RE Tax Credits, Reduced RE Technology Costs

Least Favorable Renewable 

Deployment Conditions

Bounding Scenario Modeling Results – Absolute Generation

• The Goal is met under all conditions shown below

• Under more favorable conditions, the goal is met as early as 2015

• Under unfavorable conditions modeled, the goal is met by 2019

Historical ReEDS

288 TWh = Goal

Most Favorable Renewable 

Deployment Conditions

(Least Favorable)

(Most Favorable)
10

4%

7% 7% 8% 9%

4%

8% 8% 9%

10%

4%

7% 7% 8% 8%

4%

7% 8% 8% 9%

4%

7%

9%

13%

18%

4%

8%

11%

16%

22%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2012 2015 2017 2019 2021

WSG Percentage of Total Generation [%] 

Reference Conditions

Reference Conditions, Reduced RE Technology Costs

Low Demand, Low Fuel Price, Flat DG-PV Deployment

Low Demand, Low Fuel Price, Flat DG-PV Deployment, Reduced RE Technology Costs

High Demand, High Fuel Price, Extended RE Tax Credits

High Demand, High Fuel Price, Extended RE Tax Credits, Reduced RE Technology Costs

Bounding Scenario Modeling Results – Percentage of Total Generation

• The Goal is satisfied when wind, solar and geothermal generation make up approximately 7%–8% of 

national annual generation (depending on the electricity demand trajectory assumed)

(Least Favorable)

(Most Favorable)

Denotes year that goal is achieved for each scenario

Historical ReEDS
11

Summary Findings (1/2)

• The 288 TWh Renewable Generation Goal is met under all modeled 

scenarios

o Reference scenario modeling results, which assume no tax policy extensions or accelerated 

research, development, demonstration and deployment (RD3) activities (e.g., DOE-EERE 

activities), show this goal is met in 2017

o Favorable conditions for WSG deployment (e.g., Reduced RE Technology Costs) may result in 

the goal being met as early as 2015

o Under unfavorable deployment conditions, modeling results indicate the goal is achieved by 

2019

o Modeling results indicate that under Reference conditions, state Renewable Portfolio Standard 

(RPS) requirements drive 45% of the required new generation for goal attainment in 2017

• Multiple technologies contribute to achieving the goal

o Wind (land-based) is the primary contributor to achieving the goal (e.g., 78% of required new 

generation in the Reference scenario)

– Wind: 70% increase from 2012 generation levels by 2017

o Geothermal (hydrothermal, in-field enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)) and Solar (utility PV, 

distributed PV, concentrated solar power (CSP)) generation provide significant contributions

– Geothermal: 94% increase from 2012 generation levels by 2017

– Solar: 115% increase from 2012 generation levels by 2017

– When these technologies are limited or completely excluded, Wind largely makes up the difference and the goal is still met in

2017
12

Summary Findings (2/2)

• In the 2014–2020 timeframe, projected WSG generation is sensitive to RE 

technology cost assumptions and policy extensions, but is relatively 

insensitive to the range of electricity demand and fuel prices considered 

in AEO 2013

• Cost reductions resulting from accelerated RE improvement activities 

(e.g., DOE-EERE RD3) accelerate generation additions by roughly 2 years

• Tax credit extensions have a substantial impact on increasing RE 

generation, particularly in concert with favorable market conditions

o In this analysis, wind is principally affected

• The combination of policy and RD3 activities is greater than the sum of 

the individual contributions of either one alone

• ReEDS results differ significantly from DOE-EIA Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO) 2014 Reference Case (284 TWh WSG generation in 2020)

o Divergence due to difference of renewable cost assumptions and treatment of 

variable generation
13

References

• Private Communication

 Augustine, C. (July, 2013). Internal memorandum. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.

• DOE. (2013). FY 2014 Congressional Budget Request. Volume 3. Accessed June 26, 2013: 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/Volume3_1.pdf. 

• DOE. (2012). SunShot Vision Study. Washington, DC: DOE. NREL Report No. BK-5200-47927; DOE/GO-102012-

3037. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/47927.pdf. 

• Hall D.G., Hunt R.T., Reeves S.R., Carroll G.R. (2003). Estimation of Economic Parameters of U.S. Hydropower 

Resources. INEEL/EXT-03-00662. Idaho Falls, ID: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 

• Mai, T., Mulcahy, D., Hand, M.M., Baldwin, S.F., 2014. Envisioning a renewable electricity future for the United 

States. Energy 65, 374–386. 

• Sherwood, L. (2013). U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012. Latham, NY: Interstate Renewable Energy Council. 

http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Solar-Rpt_Oct2013_FINAL.pdf.

• Short, W.; Sullivan, P.; Mai, T.; Mowers, M.; Uriarte, C.; Blair, N.; Heimiller, D.; Martinez, A. (2011). Regional Energy 

Deployment System (ReEDS). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-46534. 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/reeds/pdfs/reeds_documentation.pdf. 

• U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2010). Electric Power Annual 2008. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/archive/03482008.pdf 
Appendix A – Scenario and Key 

Input Descriptions
15

Scenario List

A1 – Reference [2017] 

A2 – Low Fuel Price [2019]

A3 – High Fuel Price [2017]

A4 – Bound – Low Demand Growth, Low Fuel Price, No DG-PV 

Deployment post-2014 [2019]

A5 – Bound – High Demand Growth, High Fuel Price, Extended 

Renewable Tax Credits [2017]

A6 – Bound – Reduced RE Technology Costs, Low Demand Growth, 

Low Fuel Price, No DG-PV Deployment post-2014 [2017]

A7 – Bound – Reduced RE Technology Costs, High Demand Growth, 

High Fuel Price, Extended Renewable Tax Credits [2015]

A8 – Reduced RE Technology Costs [2015]

A9 – Reduced RE Technology Costs, New Hydroelectric Construction 

Allowed [2015]

A10 – Extended Wind Tax Credits (to 2020) [2017]

A11 – Extended Solar Tax Credits (to 2020) [2017]

A12 – Extended Wind/Solar Tax Credits (to 2020) [2017] 

A13 – Low Demand Growth [2019]

A14 – High Demand Growth [2017]

A15 – No DG-PV Deployment post-2014 [2017]

A16 – New Hydroelectric Constructed Allowed [2019]

A17 – No New Geothermal Construction [2017]

A18 – Extended Wind Tax Credits (to 2016) [2017]

A19 – Reduced RE Technology Costs, Low Demand Growth [2015]

A20 – Reduced RE Technology Costs, Low Fuel Price [2017] 

A21 – Flat Technology Costs [2019]

Listed scenario attributes are those which deviate from Reference conditions

[Green text denotes the year in which the Goal is achieved for each scenario]

RE = Renewable Energy

DG-PV = Distributed Generation Photovoltaics
16

Scenario Inputs

Demand Trajectory Data Source

Low Demand Growth AEO 2013 Low Economic Growth

Reference AEO 2013 Reference Case

High Demand Growth AEO 2013 High Economic Growth

Fuel Price Data Source

Low Fuel Price AEO 2013 High Oil & Gas Resource, Low Coal Prices

Reference AEO 2013 Reference Case

High Fuel Price AEO 2013 Low Oil & Gas Resource, High Coal Prices

Technology Costs Data Source

Reference - Wind Median Literature (NREL Internal Analysis , October 2013)

Reduced RE Technology Costs – Wind High Cost Reduction (NREL Internal Analysis , October 2013)

Reference – Solar Sunshot 62.5% ($4.0/W in 2010 to $1.5/W by 2020 for Utility PV, 

associated Sunshot DG-PV trajectory) 

Reduced RE Technology Costs – Solar Sunshot 75.0% ($4.0/W in 2010 to $1.0/W by 2020 for Utility PV, 

associated Sunshot DG-PV trajectory)

Reference – Geothermal Augustine 2013 and Mai et al. forthcoming

Reduced RE Technology Costs – Geothermal Augustine 2013, Mat et al. forthcoming, and DOE FY 2014 

Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3.

Hydroelectric Hall D.G., Hunt R.T., Reeves S.R., and Carroll G.R. (2003)

Retirements Data Source

All Scenarios Ventyx, Announced Retirements as of July 2013 (57 GW Coal 2020)

AEO = Annual Energy Outlook
17

Electricity Demand Trajectories through 2030

• AEO 2013 High Economic 

Growth

o Average Annual Load Growth

– 2013 – 2020: 1.2%/yr

– 2021 – 2030: 1.0%/yr

• AEO 2013 Reference

o Average Annual Load Growth

– 2013 – 2020: 0.8%/yr

– 2021 – 2030: 0.8%/yr

• AEO 2013 Low Economic 

Growth

o Average Annual Load Growth

– 2013 – 2020: 0.4%/yr

– 2021 – 2030: 0.5%/yr

4,289 

4,755 

4,150 

4,477 

3,995 

4,200 

 3,800

 4,000

 4,200

 4,400

 4,600

 4,800

TWh

National Electricity Demand

AEO 2013 High Economic Growth AEO 2013 Reference AEO 2013 Low Economic Growth

*Y Axis does not begin at 0. 

* 
18

Natural Gas Prices through 2030 

$3.66

$4.15

$5.09

$6.29 $6.29

$7.87

 $-

 $1

 $2

 $3

 $4

 $5

 $6

 $7

 $8

 $9

 $10

 $11

 $12

2013 $ / MMBtu

Delivered Natural Gas Prices for Electric Power

AEO 2013 High Oil & Gas Resource AEO 2013 Reference AEO 2013 Low Oil & Gas Resource

Supply curves for the ReEDS model are developed using the above natural gas cost trajectories and corresponding electric sector usage projections (not pictured) from AEO 2013. 

Natural gas prices shown above do not directly reflect the output prices from ReEDS, which models price elasticity of demand for natural gas.

• AEO 2013 Low Oil & Gas 

Resource

o Increase from 2012 price by 

2020 / 2030: 82% / 128%

o 24% / 25% above Reference 

prices in 2020 / 2030

• AEO 2013 Reference

o Increase from 2012 price by 

2020 / 2030: 47% / 82%

• AEO 2013 High Oil & Gas 

Resource

o Increase from 2012 price by 

2020 / 2030 : 6% / 20%

o 28% / 34% below Reference 

prices in 2020 / 2030
Appendix B – Sensitivity 

Comparisons 
20

170 

267 254 274 295 279 302 

326 

310 

339 

368 

346 

396 

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3

2012 2015 2017 2019 2021

Generation [TWh]

Wind Geothermal PV CSP Total

Historical ReEDS 288 TWh = Goal

Sensitivity – Fuel Price Assumptions

• Continued low fuel prices may push back achievement of goal by 1–2 years

o Sensitivities primarily shift Wind-Gas economics

A1 – Reference 

A2 – Low Fuel Price

A3 – High Fuel Price
21

170 

267 264 268 295 284 297 

326 322 333 

368 354 

381 

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

A1 A13 A14 A1 A13 A14 A1 A13 A14 A1 A13 A14 A1 A13 A14

2012 2015 2017 2019 2021

Generation [TWh]

Wind Geothermal PV CSP Total

Historical ReEDS

Sensitivity – Demand Assumptions

• Low demand growth conditions push back goal achievement by ~1 year

o Demand impacts size of market for new capacity – primarily affects Wind deployment

A1 – Reference 

A13 – Low Demand Growth 

A14 – High Demand Growth

288 TWh = Goal
22

170 

267 267 265 262 295 294 284 292 

326 322 317 323 

368 360 353 365 

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

A1 A15 A16 A17 A1 A15 A16 A17 A1 A15 A16 A17 A1 A15 A16 A17 A1 A15 A16 A17

2012 2015 2017 2019 2021

Generation [TWh]

Wind Geothermal PV CSP Total

Historical ReEDS

Sensitivity – Presence of Other Technologies

• New hydro construction reduces projected wind generation, potentially delaying goal achievement by ~2 years

o New hydro construction displaces mostly non-RE generation (wind is only 20% of the total displaced)

• No other modeled technology restriction conditions delay goal achievement significantly

o When new DG-PV or geothermal are excluded in the future, wind largely makes up the difference

A1 – Reference 

A15 – No DG-PV Deployment post-2014

A16 – New Hydro Constructed Allowed

A17 – No New Geothermal Construction

288 TWh = Goal
23

170 

267 295 

336 

295 

336 336 326 

421 

329 

422 

361 368 

549 

368 

555 

403 

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

A1 A10 A11 A12 A18 A1 A10 A11 A12 A18 A1 A10 A11 A12 A18 A1 A10 A11 A12 A18 A1 A10 A11 A12 A18

2012 2015 2017 2019 2021

Generation [TWh]

Wind Geothermal PV CSP Total

Historical ReEDS

Sensitivity – Tax Credit Extensions

• Tax credit extensions increase wind and solar generation

o The impact of solar tax credits are understated, as we have not altered the DG-PV trajectory to reflect enhanced economics

o Tax credit extensions have a larger impact in out years 

A1 – Reference 

A10 – Extended Wind Tax Credits (to 2020) 

A11 – Extended Solar Tax Credits (to 2020)

A12 – Extended Wind/Solar Tax Credits (to 2020)

A18 – Extended Wind Tax Credits (to 2016)

288 TWh = Goal

In the ReEDS model, land-based wind projects are assumed to utilize the production tax credit (PTC). Offshore wind 

projects are assumed to utilize the investment tax credit (ITC). Solar projects are assumed to utilize the ITC. 

Geothermal projects are modeled to utilize a 10% ITC with no expiration, and therefore do not require an 

extension scenario. 
24

170 

267 

245 

294 292 292 281 

295 

268 

328 319 323 311 

326 

301 

368 356 358 

342 

368 

335 

429 

413 414 

392 

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

A1 A21 A8 A9 A19A20 A1 A21 A8 A9 A19A20 A1 A21 A8 A9 A19A20 A1 A21 A8 A9 A19A20 A1 A21 A8 A9 A19A20

2012 2015 2017 2019 2021

Generation [TWh]

Wind Geothermal PV CSP Total

Sensitivity – Renewable Technology Cost Assumptions

• When reduced RE technology costs are assumed, the goal may be met in 2015

o Exception: ‘Low Fuel Price’ sensitivity – Goal may be met in 2017

• With no WSG cost reductions after 2014, the goal may still be met by 2019

A1 – Reference

A21 – Flat Costs 

A8 – Reduced RE Technology Costs

A9 – Reduced RE Technology Costs, New Hydro Construction Allowed

A19 – Reduced RE Technology Costs, Low Demand Growth

A20 – Reduced RE Technology Costs, Low Fuel Price 

Historical ReEDS 288 TWh = Goal
Appendix C – Long Term Results 

for ‘Reference’ and ‘Reduced 

RE Technology Costs’ 

Scenarios 
26

National Installed Capacity through 2030

 -

 200

 400

 600

 800

 1,000

 1,200

 1,400

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

Cumulative Installed Capacity [GW]

Reference

 -

 200

 400

 600

 800

 1,000

 1,200

 1,400

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

Cumulative Installed Capacity [GW]

Reduced RE Technology Costs
27

National Annual Generation through 2030

 -

 500

 1,000

 1,500

 2,000

 2,500

 3,000

 3,500

 4,000

 4,500

 5,000

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

National Annual Generation [TWh]

Reference

 -

 500

 1,000

 1,500

 2,000

 2,500

 3,000

 3,500

 4,000

 4,500

 5,000

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

National Annual Generation [TWh]

Reduced RE Technology Costs
Appendix D – State Level 

Results for ‘Reference’ and 

‘Reduced RE Technology 

Costs’ Scenarios
29

Disclaimer 

Future state-level capacity and generation results are highly uncertain, 

sensitive to model assumptions, and do not present predictions or projections 

from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Department of Energy, 

or the U.S. Government. The results presented in the following slides are 

derived from a modeling exercise that employs simplifications including model 

decision-making that is necessarily different from real-world decisions. In 

particular, the ReEDS modeling framework used in this analysis implicitly 

assumes broad-based, national coordination and optimization of the 

electricity sector. In practice, however, the electricity sector today is greatly 

impacted by state policy and regulation, and by regional decision-making. 

Consequently, the state-level deployment results presented may differ 

significantly from future deployment. In addition, while the multiple scenarios 

analyzed cover a range of possible futures, other alternative futures are 

certainly possible and could drive the geographic deployment distributions 

differently than what is presented. 
30

2020 State Renewable Generation

‘Reference’ Scenario

Wind-Solar-Geothermal Generation

St TWh %2020 %2012 St TWh %2020 %2012

AL 0.0 0.0% 0.0% NC 6.4 5.1% 6.0%

AR 0.0 0.0% 0.0% ND 6.3 16.6% 17.3%

AZ 6.5 6.6% 6.7% NE 1.6 3.7% 3.6%

CA 78.5 29.5% 33.3% NH 0.5 3.7% 2.5%

CO 9.4 19.3% 20.5% NJ 11.7 16.9% 16.8%

CT 5.7 13.2% 15.3% NM 12.8 33.5% 42.2%

DE 0.2 4.1% 4.3% NV 9.6 26.8% 27.5%

FL 0.5 0.2% 0.3% NY 6.1 4.6% 4.4%

GA 0.1 0.1% 0.1% OH 20.4 12.7% 12.8%

IA 15.4 24.0% 23.9% OK 21.5 30.0% 30.2%

ID 4.0 22.9% 22.3% OR 8.9 18.1% 19.7%

IL 11.9 6.4% 6.8% PA 4.8 2.3% 2.0%

IN 7.0 5.6% 8.2% RI 0.1 6.8% 3.6%

KS 15.4 33.7% 50.2% SC 0.1 0.1% 0.1%

KY 0.0 0.0% 0.0% SD 1.8 19.0% 20.4%

LA 0.6 0.7% 0.7% TN 0.1 0.1% 0.2%

MA 7.8 20.2% 23.2% TX 36.5 8.6% 9.2%

MD 2.7 5.4% 5.6% UT 2.4 5.2% 5.2%

ME 0.6 4.0% 3.8% VA 0.1 0.1% 0.1%

MI 8.9 7.1% 7.7% VT 0.5 23.0% 7.0%

MN 9.1 16.0% 15.3% WA 8.5 7.3% 7.5%

MO 5.6 6.5% 7.2% WI 9.7 13.2% 12.8%

MS 0.0 0.0% 0.0% WV 1.7 1.7% 2.6%

MT 2.2 7.7% 15.2% WY 3.8 15.1% 16.7%

Wind-Solar-Geothermal –Biomass Generation

St TWh %2020 %2012 St TWh %2020 %2012

AL 6.9 6.4% 5.9% NC 11.9 9.6% 11.1%

AR 0.1 0.1% 0.1% ND 6.3 16.6% 17.3%

AZ 6.7 6.8% 7.0% NE 1.6 3.8% 3.7%

CA 82.9 31.1% 35.2% NH 1.2 8.6% 5.7%

CO 9.5 19.5% 20.7% NJ 12.4 17.9% 17.8%

CT 6.6 15.4% 18.0% NM 12.9 33.7% 42.4%

DE 0.2 4.8% 5.1% NV 9.6 26.9% 27.5%

FL 3.8 1.8% 1.9% NY 8.9 6.7% 6.4%

GA 4.4 2.8% 3.6% OH 20.8 13.0% 13.1%

IA 15.4 24.1% 24.0% OK 21.5 30.1% 30.2%

ID 4.1 23.7% 23.1% OR 9.5 19.3% 21.0%

IL 12.6 6.8% 7.2% PA 7.8 3.8% 3.3%

IN 7.3 5.8% 8.5% RI 0.1 11.6% 6.2%

KS 15.4 33.7% 50.3% SC 1.5 1.5% 1.7%

KY 0.1 0.1% 0.1% SD 1.8 19.0% 20.4%

LA 1.7 2.1% 2.2% TN 0.2 0.2% 0.2%

MA 9.1 23.3% 26.8% TX 38.3 9.1% 9.6%

MD 3.3 6.6% 6.8% UT 2.5 5.2% 5.3%

ME 3.4 21.5% 20.6% VA 1.6 2.8% 2.2%

MI 11.1 8.9% 9.6% VT 1.0 49.1% 15.0%

MN 11.7 20.5% 19.5% WA 9.9 8.5% 8.8%

MO 6.2 7.3% 8.1% WI 11.5 15.6% 15.1%

MS 0.5 0.7% 0.8% WV 1.7 1.7% 2.6%

MT 2.2 7.7% 15.2% WY 3.8 15.1% 16.7%

 TWh = generation in TWh. %2020 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2020 in-state generation. %2012 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2012 in-state generation. 

Percent generation metrics utilize at-the-generator generation data. 2012 in-state generation is calculated in ReEDS. Transmission and distribution losses are not included in percent calculations, nor are Canadian 

imports. Variable renewable energy (VRE) curtailments are subtracted from wind and solar outputs to reflect the modelled VRE quantities off-taken to the bulk power sector. Biomass generation consists of the 

aggregate contributions from dedicated biomass-fueled power plants, landfill gas generation facilities, and biomass co-fired in coal power plants.
31

2024 State Renewable Generation

‘Reference’ Scenario

Wind-Solar-Geothermal Generation

St TWh %2024 %2012 St TWh %2024 %2012

AL 0.0 0.0% 0.0% NC 7.5 5.4% 7.0% 

AR 0.0 0.1% 0.1% ND 6.4 16.5% 17.4% 

AZ 8.2 8.3% 8.6% NE 1.7 3.9% 3.8% 

CA 123.1 42.1% 52.2% NH 0.6 3.5% 2.5% 

CO 10.5 21.6% 22.8% NJ 13.5 17.2% 19.3% 

CT 5.8 14.0% 15.8% NM 13.2 34.3% 43.4% 

DE 0.3 5.5% 6.0% NV 11.5 36.3% 33.1% 

FL 1.8 0.8% 0.9% NY 7.1 5.5% 5.1% 

GA 0.4 0.3% 0.4% OH 27.5 16.3% 17.2% 

IA 16.1 24.9% 25.1% OK 21.9 29.2% 30.7% 

ID 5.3 29.3% 29.6% OR 9.1 17.9% 20.1% 

IL 18.1 9.4% 10.3% PA 5.3 2.6% 2.3% 

IN 8.7 6.8% 10.2% RI 0.2 8.3% 8.9% 

KS 15.7 30.7% 51.4% SC 0.2 0.2% 0.2% 

KY 0.1 0.1% 0.0% SD 2.1 21.1% 24.2% 

LA 0.9 1.1% 1.1% TN 0.2 0.2% 0.3% 

MA 9.9 22.2% 29.3% TX 38.8 8.9% 9.8% 

MD 2.9 5.7% 6.0% UT 2.5 5.4% 5.4% 

ME 0.7 4.1% 4.1% VA 0.2 0.4% 0.3% 

MI 10.9 8.6% 9.4% VT 0.5 24.0% 7.4% 

MN 9.8 17.2% 16.3% WA 9.3 8.0% 8.3% 

MO 9.0 9.9% 11.7% WI 9.9 13.2% 13.1% 

MS 0.0 0.0% 0.0% WV 1.7 1.7% 2.6% 

MT 6.1 18.4% 42.2% WY 6.6 22.8% 29.1% 

Wind-Solar-Geothermal –Biomass Generation

St TWh %2024 %2012 St TWh %2024 %2012

AL 8.7 7.6% 7.4% NC 13.4 9.7% 12.5% 

AR 0.1 0.2% 0.2% ND 6.4 16.5% 17.4% 

AZ 8.4 8.5% 8.8% NE 1.7 4.0% 3.9% 

CA 127.5 43.6% 54.1% NH 1.3 8.3% 5.9% 

CO 10.6 21.8% 23.0% NJ 14.1 18.1% 20.2% 

CT 6.8 16.1% 18.3% NM 13.2 34.4% 43.6% 

DE 0.3 6.2% 6.8% NV 11.5 36.4% 33.1% 

FL 5.3 2.3% 2.7% NY 9.9 7.7% 7.1% 

GA 9.8 6.2% 8.0% OH 27.9 16.5% 17.5% 

IA 16.3 25.1% 25.4% OK 21.9 29.2% 30.7% 

ID 5.4 30.1% 30.4% OR 9.6 19.1% 21.3% 

IL 18.8 9.7% 10.7% PA 8.3 4.0% 3.5% 

IN 8.9 7.0% 10.5% RI 0.3 10.8% 11.5% 

KS 15.7 30.7% 51.5% SC 1.6 1.5% 1.8% 

KY 0.1 0.1% 0.1% SD 2.1 21.1% 24.2% 

LA 2.0 2.4% 2.6% TN 0.3 0.3% 0.4% 

MA 11.1 24.9% 32.9% TX 40.6 9.3% 10.2% 

MD 3.5 6.9% 7.2% UT 2.6 5.5% 5.5% 

ME 3.6 22.0% 22.2% VA 1.8 3.0% 2.5% 

MI 13.1 10.4% 11.3% VT 1.1 49.8% 15.4% 

MN 12.3 21.7% 20.6% WA 10.7 9.2% 9.5% 

MO 9.6 10.6% 12.5% WI 11.7 15.5% 15.4% 

MS 0.5 0.8% 0.8% WV 1.7 1.8% 2.6% 

MT 6.1 18.4% 42.2% WY 6.6 22.8% 29.1% 

 TWh = generation in TWh. %2024 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2024 in-state generation. %2012 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2012 in-state generation. 

Percent generation metrics utilize at-the-generator generation data. 2012 in-state generation is calculated in ReEDS. Transmission and distribution losses are not included in percent calculations, nor are Canadian 

imports. Variable renewable energy (VRE) curtailments are subtracted from wind and solar outputs to reflect the modelled VRE quantities off-taken to the bulk power sector. Biomass generation consists of the 

aggregate contributions from dedicated biomass-fueled power plants, landfill gas generation facilities, and biomass co-fired in coal power plants.
32

2030 State Renewable Generation 

‘Reference’ Scenario 

Wind-Solar-Geothermal Generation

St TWh %2030 %2012 St TWh %2030 %2012

AL 0.2 0.2% 0.2% NC 8.2 5.4% 7.7% 

AR 0.1 0.1% 0.2% ND 6.7 17.4% 18.4% 

AZ 11.7 11.3% 12.2% NE 4.8 10.5% 11.2% 

CA 201.2 63.7% 85.3% NH 0.6 3.8% 2.8% 

CO 11.9 23.7% 25.9% NJ 14.2 17.2% 20.4% 

CT 6.7 16.1% 18.1% NM 15.1 37.3% 49.6% 

DE 0.4 8.0% 9.0% NV 12.9 36.1% 37.1% 

FL 6.4 2.5% 3.2% NY 10.7 8.4% 7.7% 

GA 1.3 0.8% 1.0% OH 27.6 16.5% 17.3% 

IA 17.6 26.6% 27.4% OK 23.3 30.2% 32.8% 

ID 5.4 29.3% 30.4% OR 11.0 22.6% 24.4% 

IL 18.8 9.5% 10.7% PA 6.3 2.9% 2.7% 

IN 11.1 8.7% 12.9% RI 0.4 14.5% 18.7% 

KS 16.7 30.7% 54.7% SC 0.4 0.3% 0.4% 

KY 0.2 0.2% 0.1% SD 2.4 22.2% 26.7% 

LA 1.1 1.3% 1.4% TN 0.6 0.7% 0.8% 

MA 12.9 29.3% 38.2% TX 58.4 12.6% 14.7% 

MD 3.5 6.7% 7.2% UT 14.6 25.8% 31.2% 

ME 0.8 4.8% 5.2% VA 1.0 1.5% 1.3% 

MI 11.5 8.8% 9.9% VT 0.5 25.3% 7.9% 

MN 11.3 19.1% 18.9% WA 11.1 9.3% 9.8% 

MO 9.8 9.9% 12.7% WI 10.2 13.2% 13.4% 

MS 0.1 0.1% 0.1% WV 1.9 1.9% 2.9% 

MT 13.4 32.9% 93.4% WY 12.3 34.1% 54.6% 

Wind-Solar-Geothermal –Biomass Generation

St TWh %2030 %2012 St TWh %2030 %2012

AL 9.1 7.1% 7.8% NC 14.8 9.8% 13.8% 

AR 0.2 0.3% 0.3% ND 6.7 17.4% 18.4% 

AZ 11.9 11.5% 12.4% NE 4.8 10.6% 11.2% 

CA 205.6 65.1% 87.2% NH 1.4 8.7% 6.5% 

CO 12.0 23.9% 26.1% NJ 14.9 18.0% 21.3% 

CT 7.6 18.3% 20.6% NM 15.1 37.4% 49.7% 

DE 0.4 8.7% 9.8% NV 12.9 36.1% 37.1% 

FL 10.9 4.2% 5.4% NY 13.5 10.5% 9.7% 

GA 10.6 6.5% 8.6% OH 28.0 16.7% 17.6% 

IA 17.8 26.9% 27.7% OK 23.3 30.2% 32.8% 

ID 5.6 30.0% 31.2% OR 11.6 23.8% 25.7% 

IL 19.5 9.9% 11.1% PA 9.2 4.2% 3.9% 

IN 11.3 8.8% 13.2% RI 0.5 16.5% 21.3% 

KS 16.8 30.8% 54.8% SC 1.9 1.7% 2.0% 

KY 0.2 0.2% 0.2% SD 2.4 22.2% 26.7% 

LA 2.2 2.6% 2.8% TN 0.6 0.7% 0.9% 

MA 14.1 32.0% 41.8% TX 61.2 13.2% 15.4% 

MD 4.1 7.9% 8.5% UT 14.7 25.8% 31.3% 

ME 4.3 24.9% 26.5% VA 2.5 4.0% 3.5% 

MI 13.6 10.5% 11.8% VT 1.1 50.6% 15.9% 

MN 13.9 23.5% 23.2% WA 12.4 10.4% 11.0% 

MO 10.4 10.5% 13.5% WI 11.8 15.3% 15.6% 

MS 0.6 0.8% 0.9% WV 1.9 2.0% 2.9% 

MT 13.4 32.9% 93.4% WY 12.3 34.1% 54.7% 

 TWh = generation in TWh. %2030 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2030 in-state generation. %2012 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2012 in-state generation. 

Percent generation metrics utilize at-the-generator generation data. 2012 in-state generation is calculated in ReEDS. Transmission and distribution losses are not included in percent calculations, nor are Canadian 

imports. Variable renewable energy (VRE) curtailments are subtracted from wind and solar outputs to reflect the modelled VRE quantities off-taken to the bulk power sector. Biomass generation consists of the 

aggregate contributions from dedicated biomass-fueled power plants, landfill gas generation facilities, and biomass co-fired in coal power plants.
33

2030 State Renewable Generation

‘Reference’ Scenario 
34

2020 State Renewable Generation 

‘Reduced RE Technology Costs’ Scenario

Wind-Solar-Geothermal Generation

St TWh %2020 %2012 St TWh %2020 %2012

AL 0.0 0.0% 0.0% NC 7.1 5.8% 6.7% 

AR 0.0 0.0% 0.0% ND 14.6 31.8% 39.9% 

AZ 6.5 6.8% 6.8% NE 1.6 3.7% 3.6% 

CA 110.6 40.8% 46.9% NH 0.5 3.8% 2.5% 

CO 14.1 26.6% 30.7% NJ 11.7 17.0% 16.8% 

CT 5.7 13.6% 15.5% NM 15.4 38.2% 50.7% 

DE 0.2 4.3% 4.5% NV 10.9 36.2% 31.2% 

FL 0.7 0.4% 0.4% NY 6.3 4.7% 4.5% 

GA 0.3 0.1% 0.2% OH 20.6 12.7% 12.9% 

IA 15.4 24.0% 23.9% OK 27.2 36.3% 38.2% 

ID 4.0 23.0% 22.3% OR 8.9 18.9% 19.7% 

IL 11.9 6.5% 6.8% PA 4.8 2.3% 2.1% 

IN 5.2 4.2% 6.1% RI 0.1 14.4% 4.3% 

KS 16.6 37.3% 54.1% SC 0.1 0.1% 0.1% 

KY 0.0 0.0% 0.0% SD 1.8 19.5% 20.4% 

LA 0.6 0.8% 0.8% TN 0.2 0.2% 0.2% 

MA 7.8 20.2% 23.2% TX 36.9 8.7% 9.3% 

MD 3.0 5.9% 6.1% UT 2.4 5.2% 5.2% 

ME 0.6 4.0% 3.8% VA 0.1 0.2% 0.1% 

MI 9.4 7.6% 8.2% VT 0.5 23.2% 7.1% 

MN 9.1 16.0% 15.3% WA 8.7 7.6% 7.7% 

MO 6.0 7.0% 7.8% WI 10.1 13.8% 13.4% 

MS 0.0 0.0% 0.0% WV 1.7 1.7% 2.6% 

MT 2.2 7.8% 15.4% WY 7.0 25.1% 31.2% 

Wind-Solar-Geothermal –Biomass Generation

St TWh %2020 %2012 St TWh %2020 %2012

AL 6.4 6.2% 5.5% NC 12.7 10.3% 11.8% 

AR 0.1 0.1% 0.1% ND 14.6 31.8% 39.9% 

AZ 6.8 7.1% 7.1% NE 1.6 3.8% 3.7% 

CA 115.0 42.4% 48.8% NH 1.3 8.6% 5.7% 

CO 14.2 26.8% 30.9% NJ 12.4 17.9% 17.8% 

CT 6.6 15.8% 18.0% NM 15.4 38.3% 50.9% 

DE 0.2 5.0% 5.3% NV 10.9 36.2% 31.3% 

FL 4.0 2.0% 2.0% NY 9.0 6.7% 6.4% 

GA 4.6 2.6% 3.7% OH 21.0 13.0% 13.1% 

IA 15.4 24.1% 24.0% OK 27.2 36.3% 38.2% 

ID 4.1 23.8% 23.1% OR 9.5 20.1% 21.0% 

IL 12.6 6.9% 7.2% PA 7.8 3.8% 3.3% 

IN 5.5 4.4% 6.4% RI 0.2 23.2% 6.9% 

KS 16.6 37.4% 54.2% SC 1.6 1.5% 1.7% 

KY 0.1 0.1% 0.1% SD 1.8 19.5% 20.4% 

LA 1.7 2.1% 2.2% TN 0.2 0.2% 0.3% 

MA 9.1 23.3% 26.8% TX 38.7 9.2% 9.7% 

MD 3.6 7.0% 7.4% UT 2.5 5.3% 5.3% 

ME 3.4 21.5% 20.7% VA 1.7 2.8% 2.3% 

MI 11.6 9.4% 10.0% VT 1.0 49.3% 15.1% 

MN 11.7 20.5% 19.5% WA 10.0 8.8% 8.9% 

MO 6.2 7.3% 8.1% WI 11.9 16.1% 15.7% 

MS 0.5 0.7% 0.8% WV 1.7 1.8% 2.6% 

MT 2.2 7.8% 15.4% WY 7.0 25.1% 31.2% 

 TWh = generation in TWh. %2020 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2020 in-state generation. %2012 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2012 in-state generation. 

Percent generation metrics utilize at-the-generator generation data. 2012 in-state generation is calculated in ReEDS. Transmission and distribution losses are not included in percent calculations, nor are Canadian 

imports. Variable renewable energy (VRE) curtailments are subtracted from wind and solar outputs to reflect the modelled VRE quantities off-taken to the bulk power sector. Biomass generation consists of the 

aggregate contributions from dedicated biomass-fueled power plants, landfill gas generation facilities, and biomass co-fired in coal power plants.
35

2024 State Renewable Generation

‘Reduced RE Technology Costs’ Scenario

Wind-Solar-Geothermal Generation

St TWh %2024 %2012 St TWh %2024 %2012

AL 0.1 0.1% 0.1% NC 11.5 8.5% 10.8% 

AR 0.1 0.1% 0.1% ND 14.7 31.4% 40.1% 

AZ 9.7 9.9% 10.1% NE 1.7 4.0% 3.9% 

CA 197.2 65.4% 83.7% NH 0.6 3.9% 2.7% 

CO 16.1 29.4% 35.1% NJ 13.8 18.6% 19.7% 

CT 6.2 14.9% 16.7% NM 17.8 41.8% 58.5% 

DE 0.4 7.5% 8.5% NV 12.2 47.3% 35.2% 

FL 13.3 6.0% 6.6% NY 7.9 6.0% 5.7% 

GA 1.1 0.6% 0.9% OH 23.2 14.2% 14.6% 

IA 16.2 25.0% 25.2% OK 30.3 40.1% 42.6% 

ID 4.0 24.2% 22.4% OR 10.3 23.5% 22.8% 

IL 15.0 8.0% 8.5% PA 6.1 2.9% 2.6% 

IN 7.3 5.7% 8.5% RI 0.3 12.1% 13.8% 

KS 19.9 40.0% 65.1% SC 1.9 1.7% 2.0% 

KY 0.1 0.1% 0.1% SD 1.9 19.3% 21.5% 

LA 1.1 1.4% 1.4% TN 0.4 0.4% 0.5% 

MA 9.9 22.8% 29.3% TX 58.0 13.3% 14.6% 

MD 6.7 12.4% 13.8% UT 13.2 24.6% 28.3% 

ME 0.7 4.5% 4.4% VA 0.5 0.8% 0.7% 

MI 10.0 8.0% 8.6% VT 0.5 25.2% 7.9% 

MN 10.0 17.6% 16.7% WA 9.6 8.3% 8.5% 

MO 9.5 10.7% 12.3% WI 10.6 14.2% 13.9% 

MS 0.1 0.1% 0.1% WV 1.7 1.8% 2.7% 

MT 2.4 8.0% 16.4% WY 7.8 25.9% 34.4% 

Wind-Solar-Geothermal –Biomass Generation

St TWh %2024 %2012 St TWh %2024 %2012

AL 8.7 7.8% 7.4% NC 17.4 12.8% 16.3% 

AR 0.1 0.2% 0.2% ND 14.7 31.4% 40.1% 

AZ 9.9 10.2% 10.3% NE 1.7 4.0% 4.0% 

CA 201.6 66.9% 85.6% NH 1.3 8.7% 6.1% 

CO 16.2 29.6% 35.3% NJ 14.4 19.5% 20.7% 

CT 7.1 17.1% 19.2% NM 17.8 41.9% 58.7% 

DE 0.4 8.2% 9.3% NV 12.2 47.4% 35.2% 

FL 16.8 7.6% 8.4% NY 10.6 8.1% 7.6% 

GA 10.5 6.0% 8.5% OH 23.6 14.4% 14.8% 

IA 16.3 25.2% 25.5% OK 30.3 40.1% 42.6% 

ID 4.1 25.0% 23.2% OR 10.9 24.8% 24.1% 

IL 15.8 8.3% 9.0% PA 9.0 4.3% 3.8% 

IN 7.5 5.9% 8.8% RI 0.4 14.4% 16.4% 

KS 20.0 40.0% 65.2% SC 3.3 3.1% 3.6% 

KY 0.2 0.2% 0.2% SD 1.9 19.3% 21.5% 

LA 2.3 2.7% 2.9% TN 0.4 0.5% 0.6% 

MA 11.1 25.6% 32.9% TX 59.7 13.7% 15.1% 

MD 7.3 13.5% 15.1% UT 13.3 24.7% 28.3% 

ME 3.7 22.6% 22.5% VA 2.1 3.5% 2.8% 

MI 12.2 9.8% 10.5% VT 1.1 50.5% 15.9% 

MN 12.6 22.0% 21.0% WA 11.0 9.5% 9.7% 

MO 9.7 11.0% 12.7% WI 12.2 16.4% 16.0% 

MS 0.5 0.8% 0.8% WV 1.7 1.8% 2.7% 

MT 2.4 8.0% 16.4% WY 7.8 26.0% 34.4% 

 TWh = generation in TWh. %2024 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2024 in-state generation. %2012 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2012 in-state generation. 

Percent generation metrics utilize at-the-generator generation data. 2012 in-state generation is calculated in ReEDS. Transmission and distribution losses are not included in percent calculations, nor are Canadian 

imports. Variable renewable energy (VRE) curtailments are subtracted from wind and solar outputs to reflect the modelled VRE quantities off-taken to the bulk power sector. Biomass generation consists of the 

aggregate contributions from dedicated biomass-fueled power plants, landfill gas generation facilities, and biomass co-fired in coal power plants.
36

2030 State Renewable Generation 

‘Reduced RE Technology Costs’ Scenario 

Wind-Solar-Geothermal Generation

St TWh %2030 %2012 St TWh %2030 %2012

AL 0.7 0.5% 0.6% NC 14.4 10.0% 13.5%

AR 0.3 0.5% 0.5% ND 15.1 32.1% 41.4%

AZ 15.0 16.1% 15.7% NE 4.4 9.7% 10.2%

CA 234.2 74.3% 99.3% NH 1.4 9.2% 6.5%

CO 18.8 35.3% 41.0% NJ 15.4 20.5% 22.0%

CT 7.8 18.7% 21.2% NM 31.1 55.9% 102.4%

DE 0.7 12.6% 15.9% NV 53.2 85.8% 153.1%

FL 22.4 8.8% 11.2% NY 15.8 12.0% 11.3%

GA 3.0 1.7% 2.5% OH 24.0 14.7% 15.1%

IA 17.9 27.1% 28.0% OK 32.0 42.6% 44.9%

ID 5.6 32.4% 31.5% OR 24.2 45.9% 53.6%

IL 19.8 10.0% 11.2% PA 8.3 3.8% 3.5%

IN 7.7 6.2% 9.0% RI 0.8 24.3% 35.2%

KS 21.3 40.8% 69.6% SC 2.5 2.2% 2.7%

KY 0.4 0.4% 0.4% SD 3.5 30.4% 39.4%

LA 1.6 1.9% 2.0% TN 2.1 2.4% 2.9%

MA 12.9 30.8% 38.2% TX 97.6 21.1% 24.6%

MD 7.9 13.9% 16.3% UT 15.2 31.8% 32.4%

ME 3.2 17.7% 19.7% VA 5.1 7.6% 7.0%

MI 11.1 8.7% 9.6% VT 1.7 50.5% 25.0%

MN 12.1 20.3% 20.1% WA 11.3 9.8% 10.0%

MO 11.1 11.5% 14.4% WI 14.2 18.6% 18.7%

MS 0.3 0.5% 0.5% WV 4.2 4.3% 6.6%

MT 9.7 29.1% 67.2% WY 14.6 38.6% 64.7%

Wind-Solar-Geothermal –Biomass Generation

St TWh %2030 %2012 St TWh %2030 %2012

AL 9.6 7.9% 8.2% NC 21.0 14.5% 19.6%

AR 0.4 0.6% 0.7% ND 15.1 32.1% 41.4%

AZ 15.3 16.3% 16.0% NE 4.4 9.7% 10.2%

CA 238.5 75.7% 101.2% NH 2.2 14.4% 10.2%

CO 18.9 35.4% 41.2% NJ 16.1 21.4% 23.0%

CT 8.7 20.8% 23.7% NM 31.1 56.0% 102.6%

DE 0.8 13.2% 16.7% NV 53.2 85.9% 153.2%

FL 26.4 10.4% 13.2% NY 18.5 14.1% 13.3%

GA 12.4 7.0% 10.1% OH 24.4 15.0% 15.3%

IA 18.1 27.4% 28.2% OK 32.0 42.6% 44.9%

ID 5.8 33.2% 32.3% OR 24.7 47.0% 54.9%

IL 20.5 10.4% 11.6% PA 11.3 5.2% 4.8%

IN 7.9 6.4% 9.3% RI 0.9 26.1% 37.8%

KS 21.3 40.8% 69.7% SC 4.0 3.5% 4.3%

KY 0.5 0.5% 0.5% SD 3.5 30.4% 39.4%

LA 2.7 3.2% 3.5% TN 2.2 2.4% 2.9%

MA 14.1 33.7% 41.8% TX 100.4 21.7% 25.3%

MD 8.5 15.0% 17.6% UT 15.2 31.9% 32.5%

ME 6.7 36.9% 41.1% VA 6.7 10.0% 9.1%

MI 13.3 10.4% 11.5% VT 2.2 66.2% 32.8%

MN 14.6 24.6% 24.4% WA 12.7 11.0% 11.3%

MO 11.3 11.8% 14.8% WI 15.8 20.7% 20.9%

MS 0.8 1.2% 1.2% WV 4.2 4.3% 6.6%

MT 9.7 29.1% 67.2% WY 14.6 38.6% 64.7%

 TWh = generation in TWh. %2030 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2030 in-state generation. %2012 = in-state renewable generation as a percent of total 2012 in-state generation. 

Percent generation metrics utilize at-the-generator generation data. 2012 in-state generation is calculated in ReEDS. Transmission and distribution losses are not included in percent calculations, nor are Canadian 

imports. Variable renewable energy (VRE) curtailments are subtracted from wind and solar outputs to reflect the modelled VRE quantities off-taken to the bulk power sector. Biomass generation consists of the 

aggregate contributions from dedicated biomass-fueled power plants, landfill gas generation facilities, and biomass co-fired in coal power plants.
37

2030 State Renewable Generation 

‘Reduced RE Technology Costs’ Scenario 
Please direct questions and comments to:

energy.analysis@NREL.gov