### NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by th e 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 Sta tes 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 accu rac y, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Ref erence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply it s e ndorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily sta te 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 se veral sensitivities

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

o 

## T he 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

- ye ar 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

– c ost reductions from “learning

- by

- doing” or manufacturing economies of scale are not explicitly modeled

• No internal treatment of distributed generation
– de ployment 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 no t addressed
– e.g ., manufacturing scale

- up, permitting, wildlife are not addressed in the optimization

• 

# Assumptions

• Projects deployed in a given solve

- ye ar 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 1 st 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 2021WSG 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 u nfavorable 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 2021WSG 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

sc enarios

o 

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

research, development, demonstration and deployment (RD 3 

# ) 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 f rom 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

– W hen 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 RD 3 

# ) accelerate generation additions by roughly 2 years

• Tax credit extensions have a substantial impact on increasing RE

g e neration, particularly in concert with favorable market conditions

o 

# In this analysis, wind is principally affected



# • The combination of policy and RD 3 

# activities is greater than the sum of

the individual contributions of either one alone

• ReEDS results differ significantly from D O E

- 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). F Y 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

Gr owth

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 4,800TWh 

# 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 $122013 $ / 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 sect or 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

Re source

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

Re source

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 2021Generation [TWh]



# Wind Geothermal PV CSP Total 288 TWh = Goal 

# Historical ReEDS 

# Sensitivity – Fuel Price Assumptions

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

– 2 yea rs

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 2021Generation [TWh]



# Wind Geothermal PV CSP Total Historical ReEDS 

# Sensitivity – Demand Assumptions

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

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 2021Generation [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 2021Generation [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 A19 A20 A1 A21 A8 A9 A19 A20 A1 A21 A8 A9 A19 A20 A1 A21 A8 A9 A19 A20 A1 A21 A8 A9 A19 A20

2012 2015 2017 2019 2021Generation [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 2030Cumulative Installed Capacity [GW] 

## Reference

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030Cumulative 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 2030National 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 2030National AnnualGeneration [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 qua ntities 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 qua ntities 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 qua ntities 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 qua ntities 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 qua ntities 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 qua ntities 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