20% Wind Energy by 2030 

Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to 

U.S. Electricity Supply

DOE/GO-102008-2578 • December 2008 

More information is available on the web at: 

www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf

December 2008 
 

GRATEFUL APPRECIATION TO PARTNERS 

The U.S. Department of Energy would like to acknowledge the in-depth analysis and 

extensive research conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and 

the major contributions and manuscript reviews by the American Wind Energy 

Association and many wind industry organizations that contributed to the production 

of this report. The costs curves for energy supply options and the WinDS modeling 

assumptions were developed in cooperation with Black & Veatch. The preparation of 

this technical report was coordinated by Energetics Incorporated of Washington, DC 

and Renewable Energy Consulting Services, Inc. of Palo Alto, CA. 

NOTICE 

This report is being disseminated by the Department of Energy. As such, the 

document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) 

and information quality guidelines issued by the Department of Energy. Further, this 

report could be "influential scientific information" as that term is defined in the Office 

of Management and Budget's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin). 

This report has been peer reviewed pursuant to section II.2 of the Bulletin. 

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. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 1 

Executive Summary & Overview 

INTRODUCTION AND COLLABORATIVE APPROACH

Energy prices, supply uncertainties, and 

environmental concerns are driving the 

United States to rethink its energy mix 

and develop diverse sources of clean, 

renewable energy. The nation is 

working toward generating more energy 

from domestic resources—energy that 

can be cost-effective and replaced or 

“renewed” without contributing to 

climate change or major adverse 

environmental impacts. 

In 2006, President Bush emphasized the 

nation’s need for greater energy 

efficiency and a more diversified energy 

portfolio. This led to a collaborative 

effort to explore a modeled energy 

scenario in which wind provides 20% of 

U.S. electricity by 2030. Members of 

this 20% Wind collaborative (see 20% 

Wind Scenario sidebar) produced this 

report to start the discussion about 

issues, costs, and potential outcomes 

associated with the 20% Wind Scenario. 

A 20% Wind Scenario in 2030, while 

ambitious, could be feasible if the 

significant challenges identified in this 

report are overcome.

This report was prepared by DOE in a 

joint effort with industry, government, 

and the nation’s national laboratories 

(primarily the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory and Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory).1

 The 

report considers some associated 

challenges, estimates the impacts, and 

discusses specific needs and outcomes in the areas of technology, manufacturing and 

employment, transmission and grid integration, markets, siting strategies, and 

potential environmental effects associated with a 20% Wind Scenario. 

In its Annual Energy Outlook 2007, the U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) estimates that U.S. electricity demand will grow by 39% from 2005 to 2030, 

 

1

 This is the executive summary of the full report entitled 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind 

Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply, available at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf. 

Chapters and appendices referenced herein can be found in the full report. 

20% Wind Scenario: 

Wind Energy Provides 20% of 

U.S. Electricity Needs by 2030 

Key Issues to Examine:

• Does the nation have sufficient wind energy 

resources? 

• What are the wind technology requirements? 

• Does sufficient manufacturing capability exist? 

• What are some of the key impacts? 

• Can the electric network accommodate 20% wind? 

• What are the environmental impacts? 

• Is the scenario feasible? 

Assessment Participants:

• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

− Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE), Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability (OE), and Power Marketing 

Administrations (PMAs) 

− National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

− Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley 

Lab) 

− Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) 

• Black & Veatch engineering and consulting firm 

• American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

− Leading wind manufacturers and suppliers 

− Developers and electric utilities 

− Others in the wind industry 
 

 

2 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

reaching 5.8 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) by 2030. To meet 20% of that demand, 

U.S. wind power capacity would have to reach more than 300 gigawatts (GW) or 

more than 300,000 megawatts (MW). This growth represents an increase of more 

than 290 GW within 23 years.2

 

The data analysis and model runs for this report were concluded in mid-2007. All 

data and information in the report are based on wind data available through the end 

of 2006. At that time, the U.S. wind power fleet numbered 11.6 GW and spanned 34 

states. In 2007, 5,244 MW of new wind generation were installed.3

 With these 

additions, American wind plants are expected to generate an estimated 48 billion 

kilowatt-hours (kWh) of wind energy in 2008, more than 1% of U.S. electricity 

supply. This capacity addition of 5,244 MW in 2007 exceeds the more conservative 

growth trajectory developed for the 20% Wind Scenario of about 4,000 MW/year in 

2007 and 2008. The wind industry is on track to grow to a size capable of installing 

16,000 MW/year, consistent with the latter years in the 20% Wind Scenario, more 

quickly than the trajectory used for this analysis. 

SCOPE

This report examines some of the costs, challenges, and key impacts of generating 

20% of the nation’s electricity from wind energy in 2030. Specifically, it 

investigates requirements and outcomes in the areas of technology, manufacturing, 

transmission and integration, markets, environment, and siting. 

The modeling done for this report estimates that wind power installations with 

capacities of more than 300 gigawatts (GW) would be needed for the 20% Wind 

Scenario. Increasing U.S. wind power to this level from 11.6 GW in 2006 would 

require significant changes in transmission, manufacturing, and markets. This report 

presents an analysis of one specific scenario for reaching the 20% level and contrasts 

it to a scenario of no wind growth beyond the level reached in 2006. Major 

assumptions in the analysis have been highlighted throughout the document and 

have been summarized in the appendices. These assumptions may be considered 

optimistic. In this report, no sensitivity analyses have been done to estimate the 

impact that changes in the assumptions would have on the information presented 

here. As summarized at the end of this chapter, the analysis provides an overview of 

some potential impacts of these two scenarios by 2030. This report does not 

compare the Wind Scenario to other energy portfolio options, nor does it outline an 

action plan. 

To successfully address energy security and environmental issues, the nation needs 

to pursue a portfolio of energy options. None of these options by itself can fully 

address these issues; there is no “silver bullet.” This technical report examines one 

potential scenario in which wind power serves as a significant element in the 

portfolio. However, the 20% Wind Scenario is not a prediction of the future. Instead, 

it paints a picture of what a particular 20% Wind Scenario could mean for the 

nation. 

 

2

 AEO data from 2007 were used in this report. AEO released new data in March of 2008, which were 

not incorporated into this report. While the new EIA data could change specific numbers in the report, 

it would not change the overall message of the report. 

3

 According to AWEA’s 2007 Market Report of January 2008, the U.S. wind energy industry installed 

5,244 MW in 2007, expanding the nation's total wind power generating capacity by 45% in a single 

calendar year and more than doubling the 2006 installation of 2,454 MW. Government sources for 

validation of 2007 installations were not available at the time this report was written. 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 3 

CONTRIBUTORS

Report contributors include a broad 

cross section of key stakeholders, 

including leaders from the nation’s 

utility sector, environmental 

communities, wildlife advocacy 

groups, energy industries, the 

government and policy sectors, 

investors, and public and private 

businesses. In all, the report reflects 

input from more than 50 key energy 

stakeholder organizations and 

corporations. Appendix D contains a 

list of contributors. Research and 

modeling was conducted by experts 

within the electric industry, 

government, and other organizations. 

This report is not an authoritative 

expression of policy perspectives or 

opinions held by representatives of 

DOE. 

ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCESS

To establish the groundwork for this 

report, the engineering company 

Black & Veatch (Overland Park, 

Kansas) analyzed the market 

potential for significant wind energy 

growth, quantified the potential U.S. 

wind supply, and developed cost 

supply curves for the wind resource. 

In consultation with DOE, NREL, 

AWEA, and wind industry partners, 

future wind energy cost and 

performance projections were 

developed. Similar projections for 

conventional generation technologies 

were developed based on Black & 

Veatch experience with power plant 

design and construction (Black & 

Veatch 2007). 

To identify a range of challenges, 

possible solutions, and key impacts 

of providing 20% of the nation’s 

electricity from wind, the 

stakeholders in the 20% Wind 

Scenario effort convened expert task 

forces to examine specific areas 

critical to this endeavor: Technology 

and Applications, Manufacturing and 

Wind Energy Deployment System Model 

Assumptions (See Appendices A and B) 

• The assumptions used for the WinDS model were obtained from a 

number of sources, including technical experts (see Appendix D), the 

WinDS base case (Denholm and Short 2006), AEO 2007 (EIA 

2007), and a study performed by Black & Veatch (2007). These 

assumptions include projections of future costs and performance for 

all generation technologies, transmission system expansion costs, 

wind resources as a function of geographic location within the 

continental United States, and projected growth rates for wind 

generation. 

• Wind energy generation is prescribed annually on a national level in 

order to reach 20% wind energy by 2030: 

− A stable policy environment supports accelerated wind 

deployment. 

− Balance of generation is economically optimized with no policy 

changes from those in place today (e.g., no production tax credit 

[PTC] beyond 12/31/08). 

− Technology cost and performance assumptions as well as electric 

grid expansion and operation assumptions that affect the direct 

electric system cost. 

• Land-based and offshore wind energy technology cost reductions 

and performance improvements are expected by 2030 (see tables A1, B-10, and B-11). Assumes that capital costs would be reduced by 

10% over the next two decades and capacity factors would be 

increased by about 15% (corresponding to a 15% increase in annual 

energy generation by a wind plant) 

• Future environmental study and permit requirements do not add 

significant costs to wind technology. 

• Fossil fuel technology costs and performance are generally flat 

between 2005 and 2030 (see tables A-1 and B-13). 

• Nuclear technology cost reductions are expected by 2030 (see tables 

A-1 and B-13). 

• Reserve and capacity margins are calculated at the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) region level, and new 

transmission capacity is added as needed (see sections A.2.2 and 

B.3). 

• Wind resource as a function of geographic location from various 

sources (see Table B-8). 

• Projected electricity demand, financing assumptions, and fuel prices 

are based on Annual Energy Outlook (EIA 2007; see sections B.1, 

B.2, and B.4.2). 

• Cost of new transmission is generally split between the originating 

project, be it wind or conventional generation, and the ratepayers 

within the region. 

• Ten percent of existing grid capacity is available for wind energy. 

• Existing long-term power purchase agreements are not implemented 

in WinDS. The model assumes that local load is met by the 

generation technologies in a given region. 

• Assumes that the contributions to U.S. electricity supplies from other 

renewable sources of energy would remain at 2006 levels in both 

scenarios.
 

 

4 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

Materials, Environmental and Siting Impacts, Electricity Markets, Transmission and 

Integration, and Supporting Analysis. These teams conducted in-depth analyses of 

potential impacts, using related studies and various analytic tools to examine the 

benefits and costs. (See Appendix D for the task force participants.) 

NREL’s Wind Deployment System (WinDS) model4

 was employed to create a 

scenario that paints a “picture” of this level of wind energy generation and evaluates 

some impacts associated with wind. Assumptions about the future of the U.S. 

electric generation and transmission sector were developed in consultation with the 

task forces and other parties. Some assumptions in this analysis could be considered 

optimistic. Examples of assumptions used in this analysis are listed in the “Wind 

Energy Deployment System Model Assumptions” text box and are presented in 

detail in Appendices A and B. For comparison, the modeling team contrasted the 

20% Wind Scenario impacts to a reference case characterized by no growth in U.S. 

wind capacity or other renewable energy sources after 2006. 

In the course of the 20% Wind Scenario process, two workshops were held to define 

and refine the work plan, present and discuss preliminary results, and obtain relevant 

input from key stakeholders external to the report preparation effort. 

REPORT STRUCTURE

The 20% Wind Scenario in 2030 would require improved turbine technology to 

generate wind power, significant changes in transmission systems to deliver it 

through the electric grid, and large expanded markets to purchase and use it. In turn, 

these essential changes in the power generation and delivery process would involve 

supporting changes and capabilities in manufacturing, policy development, and 

environmental regulation. As shown in Figure ES-1, the chapters of this report 

address some of the requirements and impacts in each of these areas. Detailed 

discussions of the modeling process, assumptions, and results can be found in 

Appendices A through C. 

Figure ES-1. Report chapters 

 

4

 The model, developed by NREL’s Strategic Energy Analysis Center (SEAC), is designed to address 

the principal market issues related to the penetration of wind energy technologies into the electric 

sector. For additional information and documentation, see text box entitled “Wind Energy Deployment 

System Model Assumptions,” Appendices A and B, and http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/winds/. 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 5 

SETTING THE CONTEXT: TODAY’S U.S. WIND INDUSTRY

After experiencing strong growth in the mid-1980s, the U.S. wind industry hit a 

plateau during the electricity restructuring period in the 1990s and then regained 

momentum in 1999. Industry growth has since responded positively to policy 

incentives when they are in effect (see Figure ES-2). Today, the U.S. wind industry 

is growing rapidly, driven by sustained production tax credits (PTCs), rising 

concerns about climate change, and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or goals in 

roughly 50% of the states. 

U.S. turbine technology has 

advanced steadily to offer 

improved performance, and 

these efforts are expected to 

continue (see “Initiatives to 

Improve Wind Turbine 

Performance” sidebar). In 2006 

alone, average turbine size 

increased by more than 11% 

over the 2005 level to an 

average size of 1.6 MW. In 

addition, average capacity 

factors have improved 11% 

over the past two years. To 

meet the growing demand for 

wind energy, U.S. 

manufacturers have expanded their capacity to produce and assemble the essential 

components. Despite this growth, U.S. components continue to represent a relatively 

small share of total turbine and tower materials, and U.S. manufacturers are 

struggling to keep pace with rising demand (Wiser & Bolinger 2007). 

Figure ES-2. Cumulative U.S. wind capacity, by year 

(in megawatts [MW])

Initiatives to Improve Wind Turbine Performance 

Avoid problems before installation 

• Improve reliability of turbines and components 

• Full-scale testing prior to commercial introduction 

• Development of appropriate design criteria, specifications, and standards 

• Validation of design tools 

Monitor performance 

• Monitor and evaluate turbine and wind-plant performance 

• Performance tracking by independent parties 

• Early identification of problems 

Rapid deployment of problem resolution 

• Develop and communicate problem solutions 

• Focused activities with stakeholders to address critical issues (e.g., Gearbox 

Reliability Collaborative)
 

 

6 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

In 2005 and 2006, the United States led the world in new wind installations. By 

early 2007, global wind power capacity exceeded 74 GW, and U.S. wind power 

capacity totaled 11.6 GW. This domestic wind power has been installed across 35 

states and delivers roughly 0.8% of the electricity consumed in the nation (Wiser 

and Bolinger 2007). 

A Brief History of the U.S. Wind Industry 

The U.S. wind industry got its start in California during the 1970s, when the oil shortage 

increased the price of electricity generated from oil. The California wind industry benefited 

from federal and state ITCs as well as state-mandated standard utility contracts that 

guaranteed a satisfactory market price for wind power. By 1986, California had installed 

more than 1.2 GW of wind power, representing nearly 90% of global installations at that time. 

Expiration of the federal ITC in 1985 and the California incentive in 1986 brought the growth 

of the U.S. wind energy industry to an abrupt halt in the mid-1980s. Europe took the lead in 

wind energy, propelled by aggressive renewable energy policies enacted between 1974 and 

1985. As the global industry continued to grow into the 1990s, technological advances led to 

significant increases in turbine power and productivity. Turbines installed in 1998 had an 

average capacity 7 to 10 times greater than that of the 1980s turbines, and the price of windgenerated electricity dropped by nearly 80% (AWEA 2007). By 2000, Europe had more than 

12,000 MW of installed wind power, versus only 2,500 MW in the United States, and 

Germany became the new international leader. 

With low natural gas prices and U.S. utilities preoccupied 

by industry restructuring during the 1990s, the federal 

production tax credit (PTC) enacted in 1992 (as part of the 

Energy Policy Act [EPAct]) did little to foster new wind 

installations until just before its expiration in June 1999. 

Nearly 700 MW of new wind generation were installed in the 

last year before the credit expired—more than in any previous 

12-month period since 1985. After the PTC expired in 1999, 

it was extended for two brief periods, ending in 2003. 

It was then reinstated in late 2004. Although this 

intermittent policy support led to sporadic growth, business 

inefficiencies inherent in serving this choppy market 

inhibited investment and restrained market growth. 

To promote renewable energy systems, many states began requiring electricity suppliers to 

obtain a small percentage of their supply from renewable energy sources, with percentages 

typically increasing over time. With Iowa and Texas leading the way, more than 20 states 

have followed suit with RPSs, creating an environment for stable growth. 

After a decade of trailing Germany and Spain, the United States reestablished itself as the 

world leader in new wind energy in 2005. This resurgence is attributed to increasingly 

supportive policies, growing interest in renewable energy, and continued improvements in 

wind technology and performance. The United States retained its leadership of wind 

development in 2006 and, because of its very large wind resources, is likely to remain a major 

force in the highly competitive wind markets of the future. 

Energy Policy Act of 

1992 

The PTC gave power 

producers 1.5 cents 

(increased annually with 

inflation) for every 

kilowatt-hour (kWh) of 

electricity produced 

from wind during the 

first 10 years of 

operation. 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 7 

SCENARIO DESCRIPTION

The 20% Wind Scenario presented here would require U.S. wind power capacity to 

grow from 11.6 GW in 2006 to more than 300 GW over the next 23 years (see 

Figure ES-3). This ambitious growth could be achieved in many different ways, with 

varying challenges, impacts, and 

levels of success. The 20% Wind 

Scenario would require an installation 

rate of 16 GW per year after 2018 

(see Figure ES-4). This report 

examines one particular scenario for 

achieving this dramatic growth and 

contrasts it to another scenario that—

for analytic simplicity—assumes no 

wind growth after 2006. The authors 

recognize that U.S. wind capacity is 

currently growing rapidly (although 

from a very small base) and that wind 

energy technology will be a part of 

any future electricity generation 

scenario for the United States. At the 

same time, a great deal of uncertainty 

remains about the level of contribution that wind could or is likely to make. In the 

2007 Annual Energy Outlook (EIA 2007), an additional 7 GW beyond the 2006 

installed capacity of 11.6 GW is forecast by 2030.5

 Other organizations are 

projecting higher capacity additions, and it would be difficult to develop a “most 

likely” forecast given today’s uncertainties. The analysis presented here sidesteps 

these uncertainties and contrasts some of the challenges and impacts of producing 

20% of the nation’s electricity from wind with a scenario in which no additional 

wind is added after 2006. This results in an estimate, expressed in terms of 

parameters, of the impacts associated with increased reliance on wind energy 

generation under 

given assumptions. 

The analysis was 

also simplified by 

assuming that the 

contributions to U.S. 

electricity supplies 

from other 

renewable sources of 

energy would remain 

at 2006 levels in 

both scenarios (see 

Figure A-6 for 

resource mix). 

The 20% Wind 

Scenario has been 

carefully defined to 

provide a base of 

 

5

 AEO data from 2007 were used in this report. AEO released new data in March 2008, which were not 

incorporated into this report. While new EIA data could change specific numbers in this report, it 

would not change the overall message of the report. 

Figure ES-3. Required growth in 

 U.S. capacity (GW) to implement the 

20% Wind Scenario

Figure ES-4. Annual and cumulative wind installations by 2030 
 

 

8 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

common assumptions for detailed analysis of all impact areas. Broadly stated, this 

20% scenario is designed to consider incremental costs while recognizing realistic 

constraints and considerations (see the “Considerations in the 20% Wind Scenario” 

sidebar in Appendix A). Specifically, the scenario describes the mix of wind 

resources that would need to be captured, the geographic distribution of wind power 

installations, estimated land needs, the required utility and transmission 

infrastructure, manufacturing requirements, and the pace of growth that would be 

necessary. 

WIND GEOGRAPHY

The United States possesses abundant wind resources. As shown in Figure ES-5, 

current “bus-bar” energy costs for wind (based on costs of the wind plant only, 

excluding transmission and integration costs and the PTC) vary by type of location 

(land-based or offshore) and by class of wind power density (higher classes offer 

greater productivity). Transmission and integration will add additional costs, which 

are discussed in Chapter 4. The nation has more than 8,000 GW of available landbased wind resources (Black & Veatch 2007) that industry estimates can be captured 

economically. NREL periodically classifies wind resources by wind speed, which 

forms the basis of the Black & Veatch study. See Appendix B for further details. 

Electricity must be transmitted from where it is generated to areas of high electricity 

demand, using the existing transmission system or new transmission lines where 

necessary. As shown in Figure ES-6, the delivered cost of wind power increases 

when costs associated with connecting to the existing electric grid are included. The 

assumptions used in this report are different than EIA’s assumptions and are 

documented in Appendices A and B. The cost and performance assumptions of the 

20% Wind Scenario are based on real market data from 2007. Cost and performance 

for all technologies either decrease or remain flat over time. The data suggest that as 

Figure ES-5. Supply curve for wind energy—current bus-bar energy costs 

Note: See Appendix B for wind technology cost and performance projections; PTC and transmission and integration 

costs are excluded. 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 9 

much as 600 GW of wind resources could be available for $60 to $100 per 

megawatt-hour (MWh), including the cost of connecting to the existing transmission 

system. Including the PTC reduces the cost by about $20/MWh, and costs are further 

reduced if technology improvements in cost and performance are projected. In some 

cases, new transmission lines connecting high-wind resource areas to load centers 

could be cost-effective, and in other cases, high transmission costs could offset the 

advantage of land-based generation, as in the case of large demand centers along 

wind-rich coastlines. 

 

NREL’s WinDS model estimated the overall U.S. generation capacity expansion 

that is required to meet projected electricity demand growth through 2030. Both 

wind technology and conventional generation technology (i.e., coal, nuclear) were 

included in the modeling, but other renewables were not included. Readers should 

refer to Appendices A and B to see a more complete list of the modeling 

assumptions. Wind energy development for the 20% Wind Scenario optimized the 

total delivered costs, including future reductions in cost per kilowatt-hour for wind 

sites both near to and remote from demand sites from 2000 through 2030.6

 Chapter 2 

presents additional discussion of wind technology potential. Of the 293 GW that 

would be added, the model specifies more than 50 GW of offshore wind energy (see 

Figure ES-7), mostly along the northeastern and southeastern seaboards. 

 

6

 The modeling assumptions prescribed annual wind energy generation levels that reached 20% of 

projected demand by 2030 so as to demonstrate technical feasibility and quantify costs and impacts. 

Policy options that would help induce this growth trajectory were not included. It is assumed that a 

stable policy environment that recognizes wind’s benefits could lead to growth rates that would result 

in the 20% Wind Scenario. 

Figure ES-6. Supply curve for wind energy—energy costs including 

connection to 10% of existing transmission grid capacity 

Note: See Appendix B for wind technology cost and performance projections. Excludes PTC, includes transmission 

costs to access existing electric transmission within 500 miles of wind resource. 
 

 

10 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

Based on this least-cost 

optimization algorithm 

(which incorporates 

future cost per kilowatthour of wind and cost of 

transmission), the 

WinDS model estimated 

the wind capacity needed 

by state by 2030. As 

shown in Figure ES-8, 

most states would have 

the opportunity to 

develop their wind 

resources. Total land 

requirements are 

extensive, but only about 

2% to 5% of the total 

would be dedicated 

entirely to the wind 

installation. In addition, 

the visual impacts and other siting concerns of wind energy projects must be taken 

into account in assessing land requirements. Chapter 5 contains additional discussion 

of land use and visual impacts. Again, the 20% Wind Scenario presented here is not 

a prediction. Figure ES-8 simply shows one way in which a 20% wind future could 

evolve. 

Figure ES-7. 20% cumulative installed wind power capacity required to 

produce 20% of projected electricity by 2030 

Figure ES-8. 46 states would have substantial wind development by 2030

Wind capacity levels in each state depend on a variety of assumptions and the national optimization of electricity generation expansion. 

Based on the perspectives of industry experts and near-term wind development plans, wind capacity in Ohio was modified and offshore 

wind development in Texas was included. In reality, each state’s wind capacity level will vary significantly as electricity markets evolve 

and state policies promote or restrict the energy production of electricity from wind and other renewable and conventional energy sources. 

The 20% Wind Scenario 

envisions 251 GW of 

land-based and 54 GW 

of shallow offshore wind 

capacity to optimize 

delivered costs, which 

include both generation 

and transmission. 

Land Requirements 

Altogether, new landbased installations 

would require 

approximately 50,000 

square kilometers (km2

) 

of land, yet the actual 

footprint of land-based 

turbines and related 

infrastructure would 

require only about 1,000 

to 2,500 km2

 of 

dedicated land—slightly 

less than the area of 

Rhode Island. 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 11 

WIND POWER TRANSMISSION AND INTEGRATION

Development of 293 GW of new wind capacity would require expanding the U.S. 

transmission grid in a manner that not only accesses the best wind resource regions 

of the country but also relieves current congestion on the grid, including new 

transmission lines to deliver wind power to electricity consumers. Figure ES-9 

conceptually illustrates the optimized use of wind resources within the local areas as 

well as the transmission of wind-generated electricity from high-resource areas to 

high-demand centers. This data was generated by the WinDS model (given 

prescribed constraints). The figure does not represent proposals for specific 

transmission lines. 

Figure ES-10 displays transmission needs in the form of one technically feasible 

transmission grid as a 765 kV overlay. A complete discussion of transmission issues 

can be found in Chapter 4. 

Until recently, concerns had been prevalent in the electric utility sector about the 

difficulty and cost of dealing with the variability and uncertainty of energy 

production from wind plants and other weather-driven renewable technologies. But 

utility engineers in some parts of the United States now have extensive experience 

with wind plant impacts, and their analyses of these impacts have helped to reduce 

these concerns. As discussed in detail in Chapter 4, wind’s variability is being 

accommodated, and given optimistic assumptions, studies suggest the cost impact 

could be as little as the current level—10% or less of the value of the wind energy 

generated. 

Figure ES-9. All new electricity generation including wind energy would require 

expansion of U.S. transmission by 2030 
 

 

12 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

ELECTRICAL ENERGY MIX

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that U.S. electricity 

demand will grow by 39% from 2005 to 2030, reaching 5.8 billion MWh by 2030. 

The 20% Wind Scenario would require delivery of nearly 1.16 billion MWh of wind 

energy in 2030, altering U.S. electricity generation as shown in Figure ES-11. In this 

scenario, wind would supply enough energy to displace about 50% of electric utility 

natural gas consumption and 18% of coal consumption by 2030. This amounts to an 

11% reduction in natural gas across all industries. (Gas-fired generation would 

probably be displaced first, because it typically 

has a higher cost.) 

The increased wind development in this scenario 

could reduce the need for new coal and combined 

cycle natural gas capacity, but would increase the 

need for additional combustion turbine natural gas 

capacity to maintain electric system reliability. 

These units, though, would be run only as 

needed.7

 

PACE OF NEW WIND INSTALLATIONS

Manufacturing capacity would require time to 

ramp up enough to support rapid growth in new 

U.S. wind installations. The 20% Wind Scenario 

 

7

 Appendix A presents a full analysis of changes in the capacity mix and energy generation under the 

20% Wind Scenario. 

Figure ES-10. Conceptual transmission plan to 

accommodate 400 GW of wind energy (AEP 2007) 

Figure ES-11. U.S. electrical energy mix 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 13 

estimates that the installation rate 

would need to increase from installing 

3 GW per year in 2006 to more than 16 

GW per year by 2018 and to continue 

at roughly that rate through 2030, as 

seen in Figure ES-4. This increase in 

installation rate, although quite large, is 

comparable to the recent annual 

installation rate of natural gas units, 

which totaled more than 16 GW in 

2005 alone (EIA 2005). 

The assumptions of the 20% Wind 

Scenario form the foundation for the 

technical analyses presented in the 

remaining chapters. This overview is 

provided as context for the potential 

impacts and technical challenges 

discussed in the next sections. 

IMPACTS

The 20% Wind Scenario presented 

here offers potentially positive impacts 

in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

reductions, water conservation, and 

energy security, as compared to the 

base case of no wind growth in this 

analysis. However, tapping this 

resource at this level would entail large 

front-end capital investments to install 

wind capacity and expanded 

transmission systems. The impacts 

described in this section are based 

largely on the analytical tools and 

methodology discussed in detail in 

Appendices A, B, and C. 

Wind power would be a critical part of 

a broad and near-term strategy to 

substantially reduce air pollution, water 

pollution, and global climate change 

associated with traditional generation 

technologies (see “Wind vs. 

Traditional Electricity Generation” 

sidebar). As a domestic energy 

resource, wind power would also stabilize and diversify national energy supplies. 

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS

Supplying 20% of U.S. electricity from wind could reduce annual electric sector 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 825 million metric tons by 2030.

20% Wind Scenario: Projected Impacts 

• Environment: Avoids air pollution and reduces GHG 

emissions; reduces electric sector CO2 emissions by 

825 million metric tons annually

• Water savings: Reduces cumulative water use in the 

electric sector by 8% (4 trillion gallons) 

• U.S. energy security: Diversifies electricity portfolio 

and represents an indigenous energy source with stable 

prices not subject to fuel volatility 

• Energy consumers: Potentially reduces demand for 

fossil fuels, in turn reducing fuel prices and stabilizing 

electricity rates 

• Local economics: Creates new income source for rural 

landowners and tax revenues for local communities in 

wind development areas 

• American workers: Generates well-paying jobs in 

sectors that support wind development, such as 

manufacturing, engineering, construction, transportation, 

and financial services; new manufacturing will cause 

significant growth in wind industry supply chain (see 

Appendix C) 

Wind vs. Traditional Electricity Generation 

Wind power avoids several of the negative effects of 

traditional electricity generation from fossil fuels: 

• Emissions of mercury or other heavy metals into the air 

• Emissions associated with extracting and transporting 

fuels 

• Lake and streambed acidification from acid rain or 

mining 

• Water consumption associated with mining or electricity 

generation 

• Production of toxic solid wastes, ash, or slurry 

• Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
 

 

14 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

The threat of climate change and the 

growing attention paid to it are helping 

to position wind power as an 

increasingly attractive option for new 

power generation. U.S. electricity 

demand is growing rapidly, and cleaner 

power sources (e.g., renewable energy) 

and energy-saving practices (i.e., energy 

efficiency) could help meet much of the 

new demand while reducing GHG 

emissions. Today, wind energy 

represents approximately 35% of new 

capacity additions (AWEA 2008). 

Greater use of wind energy, therefore, 

presents an opportunity for reducing 

emissions today as the nation develops 

additional clean power options for 

tomorrow. 

Concerns about climate change have spurred many industries, policy makers, 

environmentalists, and utilities to call for reductions in GHG emissions. Although 

the cost of reducing emissions is uncertain, the most affordable near-term strategy 

likely involves wider deployment of currently available energy efficiency and clean 

energy technologies. Wind power is one of the potential 

supply-side solutions to the climate change problem 

(Socolow and Pacala 2006). 

Governments at many levels have enacted policies to 

actively support clean electricity generation, including the 

renewable energy PTC and state RPS. A growing number 

of energy and environmental organizations are calling for 

expanded wind and other renewable power deployment to 

try to reduce society’s carbon footprint. 

According to EIA, The United States annually emits 

approximately 6,000 million metric tons of CO2. These 

emissions are expected to increase to nearly 7,900 million 

metric tons by 2030, with the electric power sector accounting for approximately 

40% of the total (EIA 2007). As shown in Figure ES-12, based on the analysis 

completed for this report, generating 20% of U.S. electricity from wind could avoid 

approximately 825 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in the electric sector in 

2030. The 20% Wind Scenario would also reduce cumulative emissions from the 

electric sector through that same year by more than 7,600 million metric tons of CO2

(2,100 million metric tons of carbon equivalent).8

 See Figures ES-12 and ES-13 . In 

general, CO2 emission reductions are not only a wind energy benefit but could be 

achieved under other energy-mix scenarios. 

The Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Environment Program and 

World Meteorological Organization’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) notes that “Renewable energy generally has a positive effect on energy 

 

8

 CO2 can be converted to carbon equivalent by multiplying by 12/44. Appendix A presents results in 

carbon equivalent, not CO2. Because it assumes a higher share of coal-fired generation, the WinDS 

model projects higher CO2 emissions than the EIA model.

GHG Reduction 

Under the 20% Wind Scenario, a 

cumulative total of 7,600 million 

metric tons of CO2 emissions would 

be avoided by 2030, and more than 

15,000 million metric tons of CO2

emissions would be avoided through 

2050. 

20% Wind Scenario: Major Challenges 

• Investment in the nation’s transmission system, so that 

the power generated is delivered to urban centers that 

need the increased supply; 

• Larger electric load balancing areas, in tandem with 

better regional planning, so that regions can depend on a 

diversity of generation sources, including wind power; 

• Continued reduction in wind capital costs and 

improvement in turbine performance through technology 

advancement and improved manufacturing capabilities; 

and 

• Addressing potential concerns about local siting, 

wildlife, and environmental issues within the context of 

generating electricity. 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 15 

security, employment, and air quality. Given costs relative to other supply options, 

renewable electricity can have a 30% to 35% share of the total electricity supply in 

2030. Deployment of low-GHG (greenhouse gas) emission technologies would be 

required for achieving stabilization and cost reductions” (IPCC 2007). 

More than 30 U.S. states have created climate action plans. In addition, the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a 10-state collaborative in the Northeast to 

address CO2 emissions. All of these state and regional efforts include wind energy as 

part of a portfolio strategy to reduce overall emissions from energy production 

(RGGI 2006). 

Figure ES-12. Annual CO2 emissions avoided (vertical bars) 

would reach 825 million metric tons by 2030 

Figure ES-13. CO2 emissions from the electricity sector 

The cumulative 

avoided 

emissions by 

2030 would 

total 7,600 

million metric 

tons.
 

 

16 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

Because wind turbines typically have a service life of at least 20 years and 

transmission lines can last more than 50 years, investments in achieving 20% wind 

power by 2030 could continue to supply clean energy through at least 2050. As a 

result, the cumulative climate change impact of achieving 20% wind power could 

grow to more than 15,000 million metric tons of CO2 emissions avoided by midcentury (4,182 million metric tons of carbon equivalent). 

The 20% Wind Scenario constructed here would displace a significant amount of 

fossil fuel generation. According to the WinDS model, by 2030, wind generation is 

projected to displace 50% of electricity generated from natural gas and 18% of that 

generated from coal. The displacement of coal is of particular interest because it 

provides a comparatively higher carbon emissions reduction opportunity. 

Recognizing that coal power will continue to play a major role in future electricity 

generation, a large increase in total wind capacity could potentially defer the need to 

build some new coal capacity, avoiding or postponing the associated increases in 

carbon emissions. Current DOE projections anticipate construction of approximately 

140 GW of new coal plant capacity by 2030 (EIA 2007); the 20% Wind Scenario 

could avoid construction of more than 80 GW of new coal capacity.9

Wind energy that displaces fossil fuel generation can also help meet existing 

regulations for emissions of conventional pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, and mercury. 

WATER CONSERVATION

The 20% scenario would potentially reduce cumulative water consumption in the 

electric sector by 8% (or 4 trillion gallons) from 2007 through 2030—significantly 

reducing water consumption in the arid states of the interior West. In 2030, annual 

water consumption in the electric sector would be reduced by 17%. 

Water scarcity is a significant problem in many parts of the 

United States. Even so, few U.S. citizens realize that 

electricity generation accounts for nearly 50% of all water 

withdrawals in the nation, with irrigation withdrawals 

coming in second at 34% (USGS 2005). Water is used for 

the cooling of natural gas, coal, and nuclear power plants 

and is an increasing part of the challenge in developing those 

resources. 

Although a significant portion of the water withdrawn for 

electricity production is recycled back through the system, 

approximately 2% to 3% of the water withdrawn is 

consumed through evaporative losses. Even this small fraction adds up to 

approximately 1.6 to 1.7 trillion gallons of water consumed for power generation 

each year. 

As additional wind generation displaces fossil fuel generation, each megawatt-hour 

generated by wind could save as much as 600 gallons of water that would otherwise 

 

9

 Carbon mitigation policies were not modeled in either the 20% Wind or No New Wind Scenarios, 

which results in conventional generation mixes typical of current generation capacity. Under carbon 

mitigation scenarios, additional technologies could be implemented to reduce the need for conventional 

generation technology (see Appendix A). 

Wind Reduces Vulnerability 

Continued reliance on natural gas for 

new power generation is likely to put 

the United States in growing 

competition in world markets for 

liquefied natural gas (LNG)—some of 

which will come from Russia, Qatar, 

Iran, and other nations in less-thanstable regions. 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 17 

be lost to fossil plant cooling.10 Because wind energy generation uses a negligible 

amount of water, the 20% Wind Scenario would avoid the consumption of 4 trillion 

gallons of water through 2030, a cumulative reduction of 8%, with annual reductions 

through 2030 shown in Figure ES-14. The annual savings in 2030 is approximately 

450 billion gallons. This savings would reduce the expected annual water 

consumption for electricity generation in 2030 by 17%. The projected water savings 

are dependent on a future generation mix, which is discussed further in Appendix A. 

Based on the WinDS modeling results, nearly 30% of the projected water savings 

from the 20% Wind Scenario would occur in western states, where water resources 

are particularly scarce. The Western Governors Association (WGA) highlights this 

concern in its Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, which recognizes increased 

water consumption as a key challenge in accommodating rapid growth in electricity 

demand. In its 2006 report on water needs, the WGA states that “difficult political 

choices will be necessary regarding future economic and environmental uses of 

water and the best way to encourage the orderly transition to a new equilibrium” 

(WGA 2006). 

ENERGY SECURITY AND STABILITY

There is broad and growing recognition that the nation should diversify its energy 

portfolio so that a supply disruption affecting a single energy source will not 

significantly disrupt the national economy. Developing domestic energy sources 

with known and stable costs would significantly improve U.S. energy stability and 

security. 

When electric utilities have a Power Purchase Agreement or own wind turbines, the 

price of energy is expected to remain relatively flat and predictable for the life of the 

wind project, given that there are no fuel costs and assuming that the machines are 

well maintained. In contrast, a large part of the cost of coal- and gas-fired electricity 

is in the fuel, for which prices are often volatile and unpredictable. Fuel price risks 

reduce security and stability for U.S. manufacturers and consumers, as well as for 

the U.S. economy as a whole. Even small reductions in the amount of energy 

available or changes in the price of fuel can cause large economic disruptions across 

the nation. This capacity to disrupt was clearly illustrated by the 1973 embargo 

imposed by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (the “Arab oil 

embargo”); the 2000–2001 California electricity market problems; and the gasoline 

 

10 See Appendix A for specific assumptions. 

Figure ES-14. National water savings from the 20% Wind Scenario 
 

 

18 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

and natural gas shortages and price spikes that followed the 2005 hurricane damage 

to oil refinery and natural gas processing facilities along the Gulf Coast. 

Using wind energy increases security and stability by diversifying the national 

electricity portfolio. Just as those investing for retirement are advised to diversify 

investments across companies, sectors, and stocks and bonds, diversification of 

electricity supplies helps distribute the risks and stabilize rates for electricity 

consumers. 

Wind energy reduces reliance on foreign energy sources from politically unstable 

regions. As a domestic energy source, wind requires no imported fuel, and the 

turbine components can be either produced on U.S. soil or imported from any 

friendly nation with production capabilities. 

Energy security concerns for the electric industry will likely increase in the 

foreseeable future as natural gas continues to be a leading source of new generation 

supply. With declining domestic natural gas sources, future natural gas supplies are 

expected to come in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imported on tanker 

ships. U.S. imports of LNG could quadruple by 2030 (EIA 2007). Almost 60% of 

uncommitted natural gas reserves are in Iran, Qatar, and Russia. These countries, 

along with others in the Middle East, are expected to be major suppliers to the global 

LNG market. Actions by those sources can disrupt international energy markets and 

thus have indirect adverse effects on our economy. Additional risks arise from 

competition for these resources caused by the growing energy demands of China, 

India, and other developing nations. According to the WinDS model results, under 

the 20% Wind Scenario, wind energy could displace approximately 11% of natural 

gas consumption, which is equivalent to 60% of expected LNG imports in 2030.11

This displacement would reduce the nation’s energy vulnerability to uncertain 

natural gas supplies. See Appendix A for gas demand reduction assumptions and 

calculations. 

Continued reliance on fossil energy sources exposes the nation to price risks and 

supply uncertainties. Although the electric sector does not rely heavily on petroleum, 

which represents one of the nation’s biggest energy security threats, diversifying the 

electric generation mix with increased domestic renewable energy would still 

enhance national energy security by increasing energy diversity and price stability. 

COST OF THE 20% WIND SCENARIO 

The overall economic cost of the 20% Wind Scenario accrues mainly from the 

incremental costs of wind energy relative to other generation sources. This is 

impacted by the assumptions behind the scenario, listed in Table A-1. Also, some 

incremental transmission would be required to connect wind to the electric power 

system. This transmission investment would be in addition to the significant 

investment in the electric grid that will be needed to serve continuing load growth, 

whatever the mix of new generation. The market cost of wind energy remains higher 

than that of conventional energy sources in many areas across the country. In 

addition, the transmission grid would have to be expanded and upgraded in windrich areas and across the existing system to deliver wind energy to many demand 

centers. An integrated approach to expanding the transmission system would need to 

include furnishing access to wind resources as well as meeting other system needs. 

 

11 Compared to consumption of the high price scenario of EIA (2007), used in this report. 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 19 

Compared to other generation sources, the 20% Wind Scenario entails higher initial 

capital costs (to install wind capacity and associated transmission infrastructure) in 

many areas, yet offers lower ongoing energy costs for operations, maintenance, and 

fuel. Given the optimistic cost and performance assumptions of wind and 

conventional energy sources (detailed in Appendix B), the 20% Wind Scenario 

could require an incremental investment of as little as $43 billion net present value 

(NPV) more than the base-case scenario involving no new wind power generation 

(No New Wind Scenario). This would represent less than 0.06 cents (6 onehundredths of 1 cent) per kilowatt-hour of total generation by 2030, or roughly 50 

cents per month per household. Figure ES-15 shows this cost comparison. The basecase costs are calculated under the assumption of no major changes in fuel 

availability or environmental restrictions. In this scenario, the cost differential would 

be about 2% of a total NPV expenditure exceeding $2 trillion. 

 

This analysis is intended to identify the incremental cost of pursuing the 20% Wind 

Scenario. In regions where the capital costs of the 20% Wind Scenario exceed those 

of building little or no additional wind capacity, the differential could be offset by 

the operating costs and benefits discussed earlier. For example, even though 

Figure ES-15 shows that under optimistic assumptions, the 20% Wind Scenario 

could increase total capital costs by nearly $197 billion, most of those costs would 

be offset by the nearly $155 billion in decreased fuel expenditures, resulting in a net 

incremental cost of approximately $43 billion in NPV. These monetary costs do not 

reflect other potential offsetting positive impacts. 

As estimated by the NREL WinDS model, given optimistic assumptions, the specific 

cost of the proposed transmission expansion for the 20% Wind Scenario is $20 

billion in NPV. The actual required grid investment could also involve significant 

costs for permitting delays, construction of grid extensions to remote areas with 

wind resources, and investments in advanced grid controls, integration, and training 

to enable regional load balancing of wind resources. 

The total installed costs for wind plants include costs associated with siting and 

permitting of these plants. It has become clear that wind power expansion would 

Figure ES-15. Incremental investment cost of 20% wind is modest; 

a difference of 2%
 

 

20 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

require careful, logical, and fact-based consideration of local and environmental 

concerns, allowing siting issues to be addressed within a broad risk framework. 

Experience in many regions has shown that this can be done, but efficient, 

streamlined procedures will likely be needed to enable installation rates in the range 

of 16 GW per year. Chapter 5 covers these issues in more detail. 

CONCLUSION

There are significant costs, challenges, and impacts associated with the 20% Wind 

Scenario presented in this report. There are also substantial positive impacts from 

wind power expansion on the scale and pace described in this chapter that are not 

likely to be realized in a business-as-usual future. Achieving the 20% Wind Scenario 

would involve a major national commitment to clean, domestic energy sources with 

minimal emissions of GHGs and other environmental pollutants. 

REFERENCES AND OTHER SUGGESTED READING

AEP 2007. Interstate Transmission Vision for Wind Integration. American Electric 

Power Transmission. 

http://www.aep.com/about/i765project/technicalpapers.asp.

AWEA 2007. American Wind Energy Association Web site, Oct.1, 2007: 

http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html. 

AWEA 2008. 2007 Market Report. January 2008 

http://www.awea.org/projects/pdf/Market_Report_Jan08.pdf. 

Black & Veatch 2007. Twenty Percent Wind Energy Penetration in the United 

State: A Technical Analysis of the Energy Resource. Walnut Creek, CA. 

BTM Consult. 2007. International Wind Energy Development, World Market 

Update 2006. Ringkøbing, Denmark: BTM. 

Denholm, P., and W. Short. 2006. Documentation of WinDS Base Case. Version 

AEO 2006 (1). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL). http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/winds/pdfs/winds_data.pdf. 

Edmonds, J.A., M.A. Wise, J.J. Dooley, S.H. Kim, S.J. Smith, P.J. Runci, L.E. 

Clarke, E.L. Malone, and G.M. Stokes. 2007. Global Energy Technology 

Strategy: Addressing Climate Change. Richland, WA: Global Energy 

Strategy Technology Project. 

http://www.pnl.gov/gtsp/docs/gtsp_2007_final.pdf

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2005. Electric Power Annual. 

Washington, DC: EIA. Table 2.6. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p6.html. 

EIA. 2007. Annual Energy Outlook. Washington, DC: EIA. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: 

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

change. PCC Report presented at 8th session of Working Group II of the 

IPCC, April 2007, Brussels, Belgium. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-

wg2.htm 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 21 

Johnston, L., E. Hausman, A. Sommer, B. Biewald, T. Woolf, D. Schlissel, A. 

Roschelle, and D. White. 2006. Climate Change and Power: Carbon 

Dioxide Emissions Costs and Electricity Resource Planning. Cambridge, 

MA: Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 

RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative). 2006. “About RGGI.” 

http://www.rggi.org/about.htm. 

Socolow, R.H., and S.W. Pacala. 2006. “A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check,” 

Scientific American, September. 

Teske, S., A. Zervos, and O. Schafer. 2007. Energy [R]evolution: A Blueprint for 

Solving Global Warming, USA National Energy Scenario. Amsterdam: 

Greenpeace International. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/presscenter/reports4/energy-r-evolution-introduc.pdf

USCAP (U.S. Climate Action Partnership). 2007. A Call for Action. http://www.uscap.org/USCAPCallForAction.pdf

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2005. Estimated Use of Water in the United States 

in 2000. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/figure01.html 

WGA (Western Governors’ Association). 2006. Water Needs and Strategies for a 

Sustainable Future, p. 4. http://www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/Water06.pdf

Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger. 2007. Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, 

Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006. DOE/GO - 102007-2433. Golden, 

CO: NREL. 

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id

=908214

Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, and M. St. Clair. 2005. Easing the Natural Gas Crisis: 

Reducing Natural Gas Prices through Increased Deployment of Renewable 

Energy and Energy Efficiency. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Lab. Report No. 

LBNL-56756. http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP/reports/56756.pdf

Wood Mackenzie. 2007. Impact of a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard. 

Edinburgh, Scotland: Wood Mackenzie. 
 

 

22 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 

LEAD AUTHORS, REVIEWERS AND OTHER CONTRIBUTORS

The U.S. Department of Energy would like to acknowledge the authors and 

reviewers listed below. Their contributions and support were important 

throughout the development of this report. The final version of this document 

was prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy. Overall report reviewers 

included the U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, American Wind Energy Association, and other selected National 

Laboratory staff. 

Report Lead Editors and Coordinators

Steve Lindenberg, U.S. Department of Energy, Brian Smith and Kathy O’Dell, 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Ed DeMeo, Renewable Energy Consulting 

Services*

 and Bonnie Ram, Energetics Incorporated*

Lead chapter authors and technical advisors are listed below. A full list of 

contributors can be found in Appendix D of the complete report. 

Brent Alderfer, Community Energy 

Jeff Anthony, American Wind Energy Association 

Corneliu Barbu, GE Energy (formerly) 

Lori Bird, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Sandy Butterfield, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Lisa Daniels, Windustry 

Paget Donnelly, Energetics Incorporated 

Larry Flowers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Trudy Forsyth, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Robert Gough, Intertribal Council on Utility Policy 

Robert Gramlich, American Wind Energy Association 

Jim Greene, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Maureen Hand, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Laurie Jodziewicz, American Wind Energy Association 

Ronald L. Lehr, American Wind Energy Association 

Walter Musial, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

David Olsen, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies 

Kevin Rackstraw, Clipper Windpower 

Bonnie Ram, Energetics Incorporated 

Roby Robichaud, U.S. Department of Energy 

Michael Robinson, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Elizabeth Salerno, American Wind Energy Association 

Alison Silverstein, Consultant 

Susan Sloan, American Wind Energy Association 

J. Charles Smith, Utility Wind Integration Group 

Robert Thresher, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Paul Veers, Sandia National Laboratories 

James Walker, enXco 

Wayne Walker, Horizon Wind Energy 

Lawrence Willey, GE Energy 

Tom Wind, Wind Utility Consulting

 

*

 Support provided under subcontract to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 
20% Wind Energy by 2030: Executive Summary 23 

Lead Authors for the Technical Appendices and Supporting Analysis for the 

WinDS and JEDI Models include: 

Nate Blair, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Mark Bolinger, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Dennis Elliott, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Ray George, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Marshall Goldberg, MRG Associates 

Maureen Hand, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Donna Heimiller, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Tracy Hern, Western Resource Advocates 

Bart Miller, Western Resource Advocates 

Ric O’Connell, Black & Veatch 

Marc Schwartz, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Suzanne Tegen, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Ryan Wiser, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Members of the following advisory group supplied strategic guidance: 

Rashid Abdul Mitsubishi Power Systems 

Stan Calvert U.S. Department of Energy 

Edgar DeMeo* Renewable Energy Consulting Services, Inc. 

Robert Gates Clipper Windpower 

Robert Gramlich American Wind Energy Association 

Thomas O. Gray American Wind Energy Association 

Steven Lindenberg U.S. Department of Energy 

James Lyons GE Global Research 

Brian McNiff McNiff Light Industries 

Bentham Paulos Energy Foundation 

Bonnie Ram* Energetics Incorporated 

Janet Sawin Worldwatch Institute 

Brian Smith National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

J. Charles Smith Utility Wind Integration Group 

Randall Swisher American Wind Energy Association 

Robert Thresher National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

James Walker enXco 

 

*

 Support provided under subcontract to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.