From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 5:50 PM 

To: Culligan, Kevin; Stenhouse, Jeb; Harvey, Reid 

Cc: Elman, Barry; Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: RE: RE TSD -- Interagency Comments 

Related comments on the preamble are as follows: 

Change all reference of “economic potential” to “market potential”, and include a request for 

comment on alternative methods to calculate RE BSER based on economic or market potential. 

Page 216 

“...which is consistent with the cost range of $10 to $40 per metric ton of avoided CO2.” Add “not a 

carbon price” so it reads “...which is not a carbon price but is consistent with the cost range of $10 

to $40 per metric ton of avoided CO2.” 

Page 217: 

"Under this alternative RE approach... or the IPM-modeled technical and economic potential for 

that specific technology." Strike "technical and" since economic by definition includes technical. 

The use of both terms is confusing and implies the technical approach describe has also been 

incorporated into determining the economic potential. 

"If the IPM-modeled technical and economic potential for solar...” Same as above. 

From: Higgins, Cortney 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 5:48 PM 

To: Culligan, Kevin (Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov); Stenhouse, Jeb 

(Stenhouse.Jeb@epa.gov); Harvey.reid@Epa.gov 

Cc: Elman, Barry (Elman.Barry@epa.gov); 'Wayland, Robertj' 

Subject: RE TSD -- Interagency Comments 

Hi all, 

Attached is the RE TSD with the line edits discussed earlier today. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

<< Alternative RE Approach TSD_052914_v3 

redlineINTERAGENCYCOMMENTSunderEO12866.docx >> 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

1 

Alternative RE Approach Technical Support Document 

1.1. Introduction 

Renewable energy (RE) is a cost-effective approach for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 

from fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs) through the substitution of electricity generated 

from renewable resources. The portfolio of available RE sources encompasses a wide variety of 

technologies from utility-scale RE plants to smaller-scale distributed generation sited at residential, 

commercial, or industrial facilities. RE technologies are fueled by the sun, wind, water, organic matter, 

and other resources regularly replenished by physical and biological cycles. To assist in evaluating how 

the rapidly increasing and evolving portfolio of RE can be integrated into the Best System of Emission 

Reductions (BSER), tThe EPA has developed an Alternative RE Approach that relies on the technical and 

economic market potential of new RE to determine how the rapidly increasing and evolving portfolio of 

RE can be integrated into the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER). 

1.2. Alternative RE Approach Methodology 

As part of its effort to evaluate the potential for incremental RE as part of BSER, EPA developed 

an Alternative RE Approach that is based on the technical and economic market potential of RE by state. 

To establish technical potential by state, the Alternative RE Approach compares each state’s RE 

technical potential against its existing RE generation. For this purpose, EPA has utilized technical 

potential as measured by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory1

 (NREL) and existing RE 

generation as reported by EIA for 2012.2

 The comparison of RE technical potential to existing RE net 

generation yields - for each state and for each selected RE technology - a proportion of achieved 

renewable generation from technical potential, which can be represented as an RE development rate. For 

example, if a given state had 5,000 MWh of solar generation in 2012 and a solar generation technical 

potential of 50,000 MWh, then that state’s solar RE development rate is 10%. In the Alternative RE 

Approach, the average development rate of the top third (16) of states is designated a benchmark RE 

 

1

 Lopez et al., NREL, “U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis,” (July 2012). 

Available at http://www.nrel.gov/gis/re_potential.html. 

2

 Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source (forms EIA-906, EIA-920, and EIA-923). 

Available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/. 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

2 

development rate for each technology type. The benchmark rate is then applied to each state’s technical 

potential to calculate the benchmark generation for each technology type. 

While the benchmark RE development rate offers a useful metric to quantify the proportion of RE 

generation consistent with what has been demonstrably achieved in practice by the top third of states, 

EPA recognizes that a metric based solely on technical potential has limitations. For example, technical 

potential data is typically unconstrained by grid limitations, costs associated with development, quality of 

resource, and may overstate electricity production potential because a given site cannot produce RE 

simultaneously from multiple technology types. In order to address these limitations, the Alternative RE 

Approach pairs the benchmark RE development rates described above with Integrated Planning Model 

(IPM) runs of RE deployment that reduces the cost of new renewable builds.3

 The cost reduction in new 

RE is intended to represent the avoided cost of other actions that could be taken instead to reduce power 

sector CO2, and to reflect continued reductions in RE technology costs. The state-level modeling results 

for this approach show RE deployment levels associated with a cost reduction of up to $30 per MWh, 

which is not a carbon price but is consistent with the estimated cost of the proposed approach (up to $40 

per metric ton of CO2).4

The RE generation projections considered from this IPM scenario are supported by similar 

analysis from a recent NREL study using the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model, a 

capacity expansion and dispatch model with detailed assumptions regarding renewable technologies and 

associated power infrastructure. NREL modeled RE generation potential under lower cost assumptions 

for renewable technologies, based on DOE’s RE cost and performance targets. similar to the IPM 

modeling scenario described above. Under the respective assumptions for each model, The results show 

that IPM projects more RE generation in 2020 (582 TWh in IPM versus 484 TWh in ReEDS), while 

ReEDS projects more RE generation than IPM in 2030 (821 TWh in IPM versus 923 TWh in ReEDS). 

The regional distribution of generation across the models are comparable (regional RE generation 

projections are within 7% of each other). Overall, both sets of modeling projections indicate a broad 

range of economic market potential for RE generation that can be developed in each state.5

Under the Alternative RE Approach, EPA would quantify target generation for most RE 

technologies as the lesser of that technology’s benchmark rate multiplied by in-state technical potential, 

 

3

 IPM is EPA’s multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S. electric power sector.

Refer to RIA Chapter 3 for additional detail on the IPM platform. Full documentation of IPM, including cost and 

performance assumptions for new generating resources can be accessed at 

http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/. 

4

 For further discussion on the cost of RE, refer to Chapter 4 of the GHG Abatement Measures TSD. Full IPM run 

results for this scenario – the ‘RE Economic Potential Scenario’ - can be found on the docket. 5

 NREL, Draft ReEDS Modeling of the President’s 2020 RE Generation Goal, May 2014. 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

3 

or the IPM-projected economic market potential for that specific technology at a reduced cost of up to 

$30/MWh. For example, if the benchmark RE development rate for solar generation is determined to be 

10%, and this state possesses solar generation technical potential of 5,000 MWh, then the benchmark RE 

development level of generation for that state would be 500 MWh. If the IPM-projected economic 

market potential for solar generation at a cost reduction of up to $30/MWh in that state were 750 MWh, 

then this approach would quantify target generation for solar as the benchmark RE development level 

(500 MWh) because it is the lesser amount of those two measures. 

The methodology for quantifying target generation levels by technology type under the 

Alternative RE Approach is presented in Section 1.3 below.

Additionally, EPA is soliciting comment on other alternative approaches to quantification of 

renewable generation to support BSER. Unlike the proposed scenario described above, another 

methodology could rely on a state-by-state assessment of RE economic potential. One such possible 

approach would compare the estimated cost of new renewable energy to the avoided cost of energy from 

implementing renewable energy generation, by comparing the total cost of generation for each renewable 

energy technology by region to the estimated fuel, operating, and capital costs avoided by adding that 

generation. This calculation can be carried out at a high level of granularity when data is available, and 

then aggregated to the state or regional level. 

This general economic potential approach can be summarized in three steps:

Step 1: Use best available regional information (with areas excluded due to physical 

features and other exclusions), including technical renewable energy potential in a given 

area and data on current technology costs and regional construction cost differences to 

estimate a total cost of clean energy for each location. Note this can include an adder for 

potential new transmission or pipeline needs. The result of this is a clean energy supply 

curve at many locations, with the cost and available generation for that region.

Step 2: Estimate the avoided energy cost. This is calculated based on the particular 

generation mix by region, providing information about the generation that would be 

displaced by the clean energy technology. This is composed of avoided fuel and 

operating costs, avoided capital costs, and a range of costs for avoided environmental 

externalities.

Step 3: For each resource area, compare the cost of new clean generation (found in step 

1) to the avoided costs (found in step 2). If the costs are lower than avoided cost, include 

the generation and capacity available in this region in the “cost-effective potential”. Sum 

the supply curve for each state and region to estimate cost-effective potential at those 

scales. 

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: First

line: 0.5", Line spacing: 1.5 lines

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font:

Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Complex Script Font: Times New

Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font:

Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Complex Script Font: Times New

Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font:

Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Complex Script Font: Times New

Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font:

Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Complex Script Font: Times New

Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font:

Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font:

Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font:

Times New Roman

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Before: 

1", Line spacing: 1.5 lines

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Complex Script Font: Times New

Roman

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New

Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font:

Times New Roman

Formatted ... [1]

Formatted ... [2]
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

4 

EPA welcomes comment on this or other potential methodologies to set RE BSER based on a 

state’s renewable energy economic potential. 

1.3. RE Target Generation Methodology by Technology Type 

This section describes the methodology employed to produce target generation levels for each 

state by technology type. The RE technology types that contribute to each state’s target generation level 

are utility-scale solar, onshore wind, conventional geothermal (hydrothermal), hydropower, and select 

existing biopower capacity types.6

 EPA notes that RE target generation levels are used solely to inform 

each state’s goal calculation and are not prescriptive of any RE compliance outcome – either in sum or by 

technology type.7 Consequently, whether or not any particular RE technology is considered in this 

Alternative RE Approach does not have any bearing on what types of RE generation a state may consider 

in developing its state plan for complying with its state goal. In selecting the technology types that 

contribute to the RE target generation level, EPA considered the availability of 2012 net generation data, 

technical potential estimates, and the ability to project economic market deployment within the IPM 

modeling framework. For example, distributed generation RE technologies were omitted from the RE 

Alternative Approach because their economic market potential cannot be tested in the current IPM 

framework. Similarly, offshore wind was not considered under this methodology because there are 

currently no operational offshore wind facilities in the United States from which to calculate a benchmark 

development rate. 

Solar 

 The solar development rate for each state was calculated utilizing EIA 2012 total electric power 

industry net generation for the solar thermal and photovoltaic energy source and NREL’s technical 

potential estimates for urban utility-scale PV, rural utility-scale PV, and concentrated solar power (CSP). 

The average 2012 development rate for the top 16 states was 0.009%. The benchmark generation is 

defined as the greater of each state’s reported 2012 solar generation or the benchmark rate of 0.009% 

 

6 Existing dedicated biomass and landfill gas facilities contribute to RE target generation levels. 7

 Refer to the Goal Computation TSD for additional detail. 

Formatted: Normal, Indent: First line: 0"

Comment [A1]: Does EPA have a list of 

those types of RE generation that would 

qualify, however? 

Roof top solar and other distributed generation 

and offshore wind would qualify and could be 

used by states to achieve the RE targets? 

Perhaps worth mentioning at the end of this 

paragraph for clarity (especially since offshore 

wind and distributed generation are called out).
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

5 

multiplied by in-state technical potential. Total benchmark generation for the states affected by the 

Alternative RE Approach is 33,981 GWh, compared to 2012 net generation of 4,317 GWh.8

 As part of the modeling that reduced the cost of new RE technologies by up to $30/MWh, IPM 

projected total solar generation (utility-scale PV and CSP) of 20,153 GWh in 2020, increasing to 23,635 

and 27,531 by 2025 and 2030, respectively. 

 The solar target generation for each state is the lesser of the benchmark solar generation or IPMprojected solar generation. This methodology produced a total solar generation target across all affected 

states of 8,477 GWh in 2020, 8,493 GWh in 2025, and 8,722 GWh in 2030. 

Wind 

 The wind development rate for each state was calculated utilizing EIA 2012 total electric power 

industry net generation for the wind energy source and NREL’s technical potential estimates for onshore 

wind. The average 2012 development rate for the top 16 states was 9%. The benchmark generation is 

defined as the greater of each state’s reported 2012 wind generation or the benchmark rate of 9% 

multiplied by in-state technical potential. Total benchmark generation for the states affected by the 

Alternative RE Approach is 2,841,650 GWh, compared to 2012 net generation of 140,229 GWh. 

 As part of the modeling that reduced the cost of new RE technologies by up to $30/MWh, IPM 

projected total onshore wind generation of 220,593 GWh in 2020, increasing to 296,720 and 442,417 by 

2025 and 2030, respectively. 

 The wind target generation for each state is the lesser of the benchmark wind generation or IPMprojected onshore wind generation. This methodology produced a total wind generation target across all 

affected states of 189,687 GWh in 2020, 259,534 GWh in 2025, and 384,826 GWh in 2030. 

Geothermal 

 The geothermal development rate for each state was calculated utilizing EIA 2012 total electric 

power industry net generation for the geothermal energy source and NREL’s technical potential estimates 

 

8

 Vermont is not subject to any RE requirement under BSER. 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

6 

for geothermal (hydrothermal). The average 2012 development rate for all 5 states with reported 

geothermal generation for 2012 was 3.6%. The benchmark generation is defined as the greater of each 

state’s reported 2012 geothermal generation or the benchmark rate of 3.6% multiplied by in-state 

technical potential. Total benchmark generation for the states affected by the Alternative RE Approach is 

18,054 GWh, compared to 2012 net generation of 15,301 GWh. 

 As part of the modeling that reduced the cost of new RE technologies by up to $30/MWh, IPM 

projected total geothermal generation of 32,609 GWh in 2020, increasing to 40,429 and 42,640 by 2025 

and 2030, respectively. 

 The geothermal target generation for each state is the lesser of the benchmark geothermal 

generation or IPM-projected geothermal generation. This methodology produced a total geothermal 

generation target across all affected states of 16,516 GWh in all years. 

Hydropower 

 Due to the unique nature of the hydropower technical potential data, EPA has used a different 

procedure for quantifying hydropower target generation under this alternative RE approach. In contrast 

with other RE technology types, the study that formed the basis of NREL’s hydropower technical 

potential estimate applied a full set of feasibility criteria to the development opportunities for new low 

power and small hydroelectric plants.9

 The feasibility criteria include site accessibility, load or 

transmission proximity, and environmental concerns that may hinder development efforts. EPA believes 

that the application of feasibility criteria represent a refinement to the technical potential data and thus 

obviates the need for EPA to identify a benchmark development rate for hydropower generation. 

Therefore, the benchmark hydropower generation for each state is defined as the greater of each state’s 

reported 2012 conventional hydroelectric generation, or the feasible hydropower development potential 

identified by NREL. Total benchmark generation for the states affected by the Alternative RE Approach 

is 354,119 GWh, compared to 2012 conventional hydroelectric net generation of 273,441 GWh. 

 IPM is not currently configured to project the economic market deployment of new hydropower 

resources in the United States. Therefore, the hydropower target generation for each state is the greater of 

 

9

 Paper available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/pdfs/doewater-11263.pdf. NREL’s technical potential 

estimate for hydropower also includes non-powered dams from the National Hydropower Asset Assessment 

Program.
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

7 

the benchmark hydropower generation or the IPM-projected generation from existing hydropower 

resources in that state. This methodology produced a total hydropower generation target across all 

affected states of 358,665 GWh in all years. 

Total Target Generation 

The total RE target generation level for each state is simply the sum of all of the technologyspecific target levels, which are inclusive of existing generation. The total RE target generation level 

informs the calculation of each state’s goal.10 State-level results for RE target generation levels are 

provided in Section 1.4. 

Alaska and Hawaii 

 In order to quantify technical and economic market potential for RE generation in Alaska and 

Hawaii (which are often not included in power sector capacity expansion models like IPM), the 

Alternative RE Approach adopts annual growth factors for each state based on the difference between 

each state’s 2002 and 2012 RE generation. These annual growth factors are calculated as 11.4% for 

Alaska and 7.9% for Hawaii.11 Based on the application of these annual growth factors, EPA has derived 

a 2020 RE target level for Alaska of 1,637 GWh in 2020, increasing to 1,681 GWh and 1,738 GWh in 

2025 and 2030, respectively. 2012 RE net generation in Alaska was 1,615 GWh. EPA has derived a 

2020 RE target level for Hawaii of 1,368 GWh, increasing to 1,948 GWh and 2,600 GWh in 2025 and 

2030, respectively. 2012 RE net generation in Hawaii was 1,039 GWh. 

1.4. State-Level Results 

This section contains state-level RE target generation levels for 2020, 2025, and 2030. Interim 

generation targets for Option 1 are the average target generation levels from 2020-2029; interim 

generation targets for Option 2 are the average from 2020-2024. Final targets for Option 1 are represented 

 

10 Refer to Goal Computation TSD. 

11 Refer to Chapter 4 of the GHG Abatement Measures TSD for further detail on the calculation of RE growth 

factors for Alaska and Hawaii. 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

8 

by the 2030 target generation levels; final targets for Option 2 are equivalent to the 2025 levels. 12 

Results are presented both with existing hydropower included as part of RE (Tables 1.1 and 1.2) and 

without (Tables 1.3 and 1.4). RE target generation levels for Alaska and Hawaii are presented both with 

and without existing hydropower in Tables 1.5 and 1.6, respectively. IPM projections, technical resource 

estimates, and 2012 net generation levels are available in the Appendix to this TSD. 

Table 1.1. State-Level Target Generation Levels Under the Alternative RE Approach (Gigawatt-hours) 

State 2012 

RE*

RE Alternate Methodology Target Generation (GWh)

2020 2024 2029 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

AL 10,212 8,117 8,117 8,117 8,117 8,117 8,117 8,117 

AZ 8,415 10,034 10,034 10,035 10,034 10,035 10,034 10,034 

AR 3,859 6,246 6,247 6,255 6,248 6,255 6,246 6,247 

CA 56,804 57,776 59,027 57,821 58,410 57,821 58,276 59,027 

CO 7,689 16,499 17,116 19,136 17,335 19,136 16,746 17,116 

CT 979 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 

DE 131 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 

FL 4,674 2,700 2,701 2,690 2,698 2,690 2,700 2,701 

GA 5,515 3,759 3,780 3,783 3,774 3,783 3,767 3,780 

ID 13,455 21,492 21,513 21,551 21,514 21,551 21,500 21,513 

IL 8,484 18,447 23,485 23,817 22,040 23,817 20,462 23,485 

IN 3,980 13,285 22,384 22,384 19,654 22,384 16,924 22,384 

IA 14,950 16,644 21,378 30,806 21,844 30,806 18,538 21,378 

KS 5,263 11,271 22,486 50,905 24,805 50,905 15,757 22,486 

KY 2,695 4,392 4,395 4,395 4,394 4,395 4,393 4,395 

LA 3,110 2,503 2,503 2,503 2,503 2,503 2,503 2,503 

ME 7,831 8,356 8,356 8,210 8,327 8,210 8,356 8,356 

MD 2,555 2,446 2,446 2,446 2,446 2,446 2,446 2,446 

MA 2,756 1,767 1,767 1,723 1,758 1,723 1,767 1,767 

MI 5,000 11,340 11,864 12,077 11,749 12,077 11,550 11,864 

MN 10,015 12,498 15,585 19,208 15,384 19,208 13,733 15,585 

MS 1,509 2,506 2,506 2,506 2,506 2,506 2,506 2,506 

MO 2,013 12,789 12,789 12,789 12,789 12,789 12,789 12,789 

MT 12,545 16,516 17,285 21,489 17,895 21,489 16,824 17,285 

NE 2,604 4,791 9,632 22,431 10,740 22,431 6,727 9,632 

NV 5,409 6,087 6,092 6,297 6,132 6,297 6,089 6,092 

 

12 It is typical for power sector models to group calendar years into a single run year to reduce model size. In the 

IPM runs that support the Alternative RE Approach, the relevant model run years are 2020 (2019 – 2022), 2025 

(2023-2027), and 2030 (2029 – 2033). The 2024 and 2029 results presented above are taken from IPM projections 

for the 2025 and 2030 run years, respectively. For further detail on the use of model run years in IPM, please refer 

to http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/. 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

9 

State 2012 

RE*

RE Alternate Methodology Target Generation (GWh)

2020 2024 2029 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

NH 2,671 2,931 2,951 2,904 2,935 2,904 2,939 2,951 

NJ 1,291 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 

NM 2,797 4,735 7,058 16,664 8,282 16,664 5,664 7,058 

NY 29,845 31,433 31,970 31,970 31,809 31,970 31,648 31,970 

NC 6,432 6,211 6,211 6,211 6,211 6,211 6,211 6,211 

ND 7,757 8,729 11,257 17,339 11,715 17,339 9,740 11,257 

OH 2,153 10,372 15,200 15,200 13,752 15,200 12,303 15,200 

OK 9,666 13,432 16,705 25,404 17,463 25,404 14,741 16,705 

OR 46,617 47,512 47,606 47,606 47,578 47,606 47,550 47,606 

PA 6,701 11,892 11,892 11,892 11,892 11,892 11,892 11,892 

RI 106 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 

SC 3,564 2,825 2,825 2,825 2,825 2,825 2,825 2,825 

SD 8,896 9,394 13,154 25,137 14,423 25,137 10,898 13,154 

TN 9,132 8,420 8,423 8,423 8,422 8,423 8,421 8,423 

TX 34,601 39,527 51,965 79,022 53,645 79,022 44,502 51,965 

UT 1,848 4,728 4,729 4,731 4,729 4,731 4,728 4,729 

VA 3,402 6,731 6,731 6,541 6,693 6,541 6,731 6,731 

WA 97,679 97,500 97,512 97,512 97,508 97,512 97,505 97,512 

WV 2,728 5,705 5,705 5,705 5,705 5,705 5,705 5,705 

WI 4,745 6,899 6,974 7,476 7,052 7,476 6,929 6,974 

WY 5,263 8,570 8,570 8,695 8,595 8,695 8,570 8,570 

Total 490,344 602,680 673,799 797,506 677,205 797,506 631,128 673,799 

*Total electric power industry net generation for energy sources geothermal, hydroelectric conventional, 

other biomass, wood and wood derived fuels, solar thermal and photovoltaic, and wind. 

Table 1.2. State-Level Target Generation Levels Under the Alternative RE Approach (Percent of 2012 

Generation) 

State 2012 RE Alternate Methodology Target Generation (% of 2012 Generation)13

 

13 This alternative approach may yield, at the individual state level, increases in RE generation that exceed the 

amount of generation reported in that state in 2012. EPA has invited comment on this topic in the preamble, 

focusing on whether this approach should be modified such that the difference between the RE target and the state’s 

2012 level of corresponding RE generation does not exceed the amount of fossil fuel-fired generation reported for 

that state in 2012. 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

10 

RE* 2020 2024 2029 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

AL 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

AZ 9% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 

AR 6% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 

CA 28% 29% 30% 29% 29% 29% 29% 30% 

CO 15% 31% 33% 36% 33% 36% 32% 33% 

CT 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

DE 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

FL 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

GA 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

ID 87% 139%14 139% 139% 139% 139% 139% 139% 

IL 4% 9% 12% 12% 11% 12% 10% 12% 

IN 3% 12% 20% 20% 17% 20% 15% 20% 

IA 26% 29% 38% 54% 39% 54% 33% 38% 

KS 12% 25% 51% 115% 56% 115% 35% 51% 

KY 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

LA 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

ME 54% 58% 58% 57% 58% 57% 58% 58% 

MD 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 

MA 8% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

MI 5% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 

MN 19% 24% 30% 37% 29% 37% 26% 30% 

MS 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

MO 2% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 

MT 45% 59% 62% 77% 64% 77% 61% 62% 

NE 8% 14% 28% 66% 31% 66% 20% 28% 

NV 15% 17% 17% 18% 17% 18% 17% 17% 

NH 14% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 

NJ 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

NM 12% 21% 31% 73% 36% 73% 25% 31% 

NY 22% 23% 24% 24% 23% 24% 23% 24% 

NC 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

ND 21% 24% 31% 48% 32% 48% 27% 31% 

OH 2% 8% 12% 12% 11% 12% 9% 12% 

OK 12% 17% 21% 33% 22% 33% 19% 21% 

OR 77% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 

PA 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

RI 1% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

SC 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

SD 74% 78% 109% 209% 120% 209% 91% 109% 

TN 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 

TX 8% 9% 12% 18% 12% 18% 10% 12% 

 

14 Values greater than 100% are possible, as these percentages represent RE generation divided by 2012 total instate generation, not in-state consumption. Furthermore, electricity and renewable energy credits are very regularly 

traded over state lines, so electricity generated in one state can be used to meet demand in another.
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

11 

State 2012 

RE* 

RE Alternate Methodology Target Generation (% of 2012 Generation)13

2020 2024 2029 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

UT 5% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 

VA 5% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 

WA 84% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 

WV 4% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 

WI 7% 11% 11% 12% 11% 12% 11% 11% 

WY 11% 17% 17% 18% 17% 18% 17% 17% 

Total 12% 15% 17% 20% 17% 20% 16% 17% 

*Total electric power industry net generation for energy sources geothermal, hydroelectric conventional, 

other biomass, wood and wood derived fuels, solar thermal and photovoltaic, and wind. 

Table 1.3. State-Level Target Generation Levels Under the Alternative RE Approach, Excluding Existing 

Hydropower (Gigawatt-hours) 

State 2012 

RE*

RE Alternate Methodology Target Generation, Excluding Existing 

Hydropower (GWh)

2020 2024 2029 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

AL 2,777 682 682 682 682 682 682 682 

AZ 1,698 3,317 3,317 3,318 3,317 3,318 3,317 3,317 

AR 1,660 4,047 4,049 4,057 4,050 4,057 4,048 4,049 

CA 29,967 30,938 32,189 30,983 31,573 30,983 31,439 32,189 

CO 6,192 15,002 15,618 17,639 15,838 17,639 15,249 15,618 

CT 667 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 

DE 131 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 

FL 4,524 2,549 2,550 2,540 2,548 2,540 2,549 2,550 

GA 3,279 1,522 1,544 1,547 1,538 1,547 1,531 1,544 

ID 2,515 10,552 10,572 10,611 10,574 10,611 10,560 10,572 

IL 8,373 18,335 23,374 23,706 21,929 23,706 20,351 23,374 

IN 3,546 12,851 21,951 21,951 19,221 21,951 16,491 21,951 

IA 14,183 15,878 20,612 30,040 21,077 30,040 17,772 20,612 

KS 5,253 11,261 22,475 50,895 24,795 50,895 15,747 22,475 

KY 333 2,030 2,033 2,033 2,032 2,033 2,031 2,033 

LA 2,430 1,823 1,823 1,823 1,823 1,823 1,823 1,823 

ME 4,099 4,624 4,624 4,477 4,594 4,477 4,624 4,624 

MD 898 790 790 790 790 790 790 790 

MA 1,843 855 855 810 846 810 855 855 

MI 3,785 10,126 10,649 10,862 10,535 10,862 10,335 10,649 

MN 9,454 11,937 15,024 18,647 14,823 18,647 13,172 15,024 

MS 1,509 2,506 2,506 2,506 2,506 2,506 2,506 2,506 

MO 1,299 12,075 12,075 12,075 12,075 12,075 12,075 12,075 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

12 

State 2012 

RE*

RE Alternate Methodology Target Generation, Excluding Existing 

Hydropower (GWh)

2020 2024 2029 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

MT 1,262 5,233 6,001 10,206 6,612 10,206 5,540 6,001 

NE 1,347 3,534 8,375 21,174 9,482 21,174 5,470 8,375 

NV 2,969 3,646 3,652 3,856 3,691 3,856 3,649 3,652 

NH 1,381 1,641 1,661 1,615 1,646 1,615 1,649 1,661 

NJ 1,281 1,361 1,361 1,361 1,361 1,361 1,361 1,361 

NM 2,574 4,512 6,835 16,441 8,059 16,441 5,441 6,835 

NY 5,192 6,781 7,317 7,317 7,156 7,317 6,995 7,317 

NC 2,704 2,483 2,483 2,483 2,483 2,483 2,483 2,483 

ND 5,280 6,251 8,779 14,862 9,237 14,862 7,263 8,779 

OH 1,739 9,958 14,786 14,786 13,338 14,786 11,889 14,786 

OK 8,521 12,287 15,560 24,259 16,317 24,259 13,596 15,560 

OR 7,207 8,102 8,196 8,196 8,168 8,196 8,139 8,196 

PA 4,459 9,650 9,650 9,650 9,650 9,650 9,650 9,650 

RI 102 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 

SC 2,143 1,405 1,405 1,405 1,405 1,405 1,405 1,405 

SD 2,915 3,413 7,173 19,156 8,442 19,156 4,917 7,173 

TN 836 124 128 128 127 128 126 128 

TX 34,017 38,942 51,380 78,438 53,060 78,438 43,917 51,380 

UT 1,100 3,980 3,981 3,983 3,981 3,983 3,981 3,981 

VA 2,358 5,687 5,687 5,497 5,649 5,497 5,687 5,687 

WA 8,214 8,036 8,047 8,047 8,044 8,047 8,040 8,047 

WV 1,297 4,274 4,274 4,274 4,274 4,274 4,274 4,274 

WI 3,223 5,377 5,452 5,954 5,530 5,954 5,407 5,452 

WY 4,369 7,677 7,677 7,801 7,702 7,801 7,677 7,677 

Total 216,903 329,238 400,358 524,065 403,763 524,065 357,686 400,358

*Total electric power industry net generation for energy sources geothermal, other biomass, wood and 

wood derived fuels, solar thermal and photovoltaic, and wind. 

Table 1.4. State-Level Target Generation Levels Under the Alternative RE Approach, Excluding Existing 

Hydropower (Percent of 2012 Generation) 

State 2012 

RE* 

Target Generation, Excluding Existing Hydropower (% of 2012 

Generation) 

2020 2024 2029 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

AL 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

AZ 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

AR 3% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 

CA 15% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

13 

State 2012 

RE* 

Target Generation, Excluding Existing Hydropower (% of 2012 

Generation) 

2020 2024 2029 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

CO 12% 29% 30% 34% 30% 34% 29% 30% 

CT 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

DE 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

FL 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

GA 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

ID 16% 68% 68% 68% 68% 68% 68% 68% 

IL 4% 9% 12% 12% 11% 12% 10% 12% 

IN 3% 11% 19% 19% 17% 19% 14% 19% 

IA 25% 28% 36% 53% 37% 53% 31% 36% 

KS 12% 25% 51% 115% 56% 115% 35% 51% 

KY 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

LA 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

ME 28% 32% 32% 31% 32% 31% 32% 32% 

MD 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

MA 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

MI 3% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 

MN 18% 23% 29% 36% 28% 36% 25% 29% 

MS 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

MO 1% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 

MT 5% 19% 22% 37% 24% 37% 20% 22% 

NE 4% 10% 24% 62% 28% 62% 16% 24% 

NV 8% 10% 10% 11% 10% 11% 10% 10% 

NH 7% 9% 9% 8% 9% 8% 9% 9% 

NJ 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

NM 11% 20% 30% 72% 35% 72% 24% 30% 

NY 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

NC 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

ND 15% 17% 24% 41% 26% 41% 20% 24% 

OH 1% 8% 11% 11% 10% 11% 9% 11% 

OK 11% 16% 20% 31% 21% 31% 17% 20% 

OR 12% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 

PA 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

RI 1% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

SC 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

SD 24% 28% 60% 159% 70% 159% 41% 60% 

TN 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

TX 8% 9% 12% 18% 12% 18% 10% 12% 

UT 3% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 

VA 3% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 

WA 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 

WV 2% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 

WI 5% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 

WY 9% 15% 15% 16% 16% 16% 15% 15% 

Total 5% 8% 10% 13% 10% 13% 9% 10% 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

14 

*Total electric power industry net generation for energy sources geothermal, hydroelectric conventional, 

other biomass, wood and wood derived fuels, solar thermal and photovoltaic, and wind. 

Table 1.5. Alaska and Hawaii Target Generation Levels Under the Alternative RE Approach 

State 2012 

RE 

RE Target Generation (GWh) 

2020 2025 2030 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

Alaska 1,615 1,637 1,681 1,738 1,680 1,738 1,652 1,670 

Hawaii 1,039 1,368 1,948 2,600 1,922 2,600 1,582 1,814 

RE Target Generation (% of 2012 Generation)

Alaska 23% 24% 24% 25% 24% 25% 24% 24% 

Hawaii 10% 13% 19% 25% 18% 25% 15% 17% 

Table 1.6. Alaska and Hawaii Target Generation Levels Under the Alternative RE Approach, Excluding 

Existing Hydropower 

State 2012 

RE 

RE Target Generation (GWh) 

2020 2024 2029 Option 1 

Interim 

Option 1 

Final 

Option 2 

Interim 

Option 2 

Final 

Alaska 40 62 106 163 105 163 77 95 

Hawaii 925 1,254 1,833 2,303 1,807 2,485 1,468 1,699 

RE Target Generation (% of 2012 Generation)

Alaska 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

15 

Hawaii 9% 12% 18% 22% 17% 24% 14% 16% 

Appendix 

Table 1.7. IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Generation from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 2020 

(Gigawatt-hours) 

State

IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Generation from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 

2020 (GWh)

Solar Wind Biomass 

(Existing)* Geothermal Hydropower Total 

AL - - 304 - 7,814 8,117

AR - 0 152 - 3,815 3,967

AZ 2,217 456 240 - 7,221 10,135

CA 8,124 15,147 2,883 25,178 31,102 82,433

CO 283 8,361 67 - 1,891 10,601

CT - 17 22 - 475 514

DE 48 24 52 - - 125 

FL 276 - 1,741 - 186 2,203 

GA 7 - 1,016 - 2,736 3,759

IA - 13,716 110 - 925 14,751

ID 19 2,438 207 70 10,318 13,053

IL 50 12,271 1,243 - 141 13,705

IN 36 10,510 344 - 422 11,313

KS - 8,719 44 - 35 8,799

KY 4 - 133 - 3,269 3,405

LA - - 79 - 1,056 1,135

MA 58 1,673 285 - 1,068 3,084

MD 1,205 2,779 120 - 1,946 6,049

ME - 5,921 1,844 - 3,846 11,611

MI 2 8,211 1,820 - 1,308 11,340

MN 1,132 9,573 737 - 699 12,141

MO 500 4,939 188 - 1,558 7,186

MS - - 295 - - 295

MT - 1,911 58 - 10,192 12,161

NC 2,845 1,343 1,430 - 4,226 9,843

ND 0 6,251 - 145 1,731 8,128

NE - 1,598 50 - 570 2,218

NH 47 2,349 669 - 1,526 4,592

NJ 611 418 489 - 27 1,546

NM 439 2,470 - 835 264 4,008
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

16 

State

IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Generation from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 

2020 (GWh)

Solar Wind Biomass 

(Existing)* Geothermal Hydropower Total 

NV 809 408 82 3,369 2,116 6,785

NY 143 3,835 1,607 - 25,858 31,443

OH 54 6,838 434 - 427 7,754

OK - 10,416 - - 2,949 13,365

OR 4 10,943 1,103 2,000 34,676 48,726

PA 102 7,717 1,342 - 2,822 11,983

RI - 102 370 - 9 481

SC 889 384 657 - 1,788 3,718

SD - 3,413 - - 4,506 7,919

TN 23 66 35 - 7,702 7,827

TX 217 34,552 1,752 - 1,148 37,669

UT 8 671 56 1,012 794 2,541

VA 0 3,795 2,660 - 1,366 7,821

WA 0 7,107 1,436 - 78,087 86,630

WI - 3,444 1,168 - 1,683 6,295

WV - 1,680 11 - 1,520 3,211

WY - 4,125 - - 965 5,090

*Dedicated biomass and landfill gas facilities. 

Table 1.8. IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Generation from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 2025 

(Gigawatt-hours) 

State

IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Generation from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 

2025 (GWh)

Solar Wind Biomass 

(Existing)* Geothermal Hydropower Total 

AL - - 304 - 7,814 8,117

AR - 2 152 - 3,815 3,968

AZ 2,217 456 240 - 7,221 10,135

CA 9,033 19,049 4,134 30,566 31,102 93,884

CO 283 8,977 67 - 1,891 11,217

CT - 17 22 - 475 514

DE 48 24 52 - - 125 

FL 276 - 1,742 - 186 2,204 

GA 7 3 1,034 - 2,736 3,780

IA - 18,450 110 - 925 19,485

ID 19 2,443 222 70 10,318 13,073

IL 50 17,309 1,243 - 141 18,743
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

17 

State

IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Generation from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 

2025 (GWh)

Solar Wind Biomass 

(Existing)* Geothermal Hydropower Total 

IN 36 19,610 344 - 422 20,412

KS - 19,934 44 - 35 20,013

KY 4 3 133 - 3,269 3,409

LA - - 79 - 1,056 1,135

MA 58 1,673 285 - 1,068 3,084

MD 1,205 2,779 120 - 1,946 6,049

ME - 7,080 1,844 - 3,846 12,770

MI 2 8,720 1,834 - 1,308 11,864

MN 1,169 12,705 691 - 699 15,265

MO 755 4,939 188 - 1,558 7,441

MS - - 295 - - 295

MT - 2,680 58 - 10,192 12,930

NC 5,109 1,373 1,430 - 4,226 12,137

ND 0 8,779 - 145 1,731 10,656

NE - 6,439 50 - 570 7,059

NH 47 2,349 689 - 1,526 4,612

NJ 611 418 489 - 27 1,546

NM 451 4,782 - 1,482 264 6,979

NV 814 409 82 4,581 2,116 8,002

NY 143 4,371 1,607 - 25,858 31,979

OH 54 12,817 437 - 427 13,736

OK - 13,689 - - 2,949 16,638

OR 4 10,962 1,197 2,000 34,676 48,839

PA 102 7,717 1,342 - 2,822 11,983

RI - 102 370 - 9 481

SC 889 384 657 - 1,788 3,718

SD - 7,173 - - 4,506 11,679

TN 23 73 35 - 7,702 7,833

TX 217 47,053 1,688 - 1,148 50,107

UT 8 672 56 1,583 794 3,113

VA 0 3,795 2,660 - 1,366 7,821

WA 0 7,119 1,447 - 78,087 86,654

WI - 3,583 1,104 - 1,683 6,370

WV - 1,680 11 - 1,520 3,211

WY - 4,125 - - 965 5,090

*Dedicated biomass and landfill gas facilities. 

Table 1.9. IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Generation from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 2030 

(Gigawatt-hours) 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

18 

State

IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Generation from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 

2030 (GWh)

Solar Wind Biomass 

(Existing)* Geothermal Hydropower Total 

AL - - 304 - 7,814 8,117

AR - 10 152 - 3,815 3,976

AZ 2,217 457 240 - 7,221 10,136

CA 10,608 37,296 2,928 31,619 31,102 113,553

CO 283 10,997 67 - 1,891 13,237

CT - 17 22 - 475 514

DE 48 24 52 - - 125 

FL 276 - 1,732 - 186 2,194 

GA 7 6 1,034 - 2,736 3,783

IA - 27,878 110 - 925 28,913

ID 19 2,482 222 70 10,318 13,112

IL 50 17,641 1,243 - 141 19,075

IN 36 19,610 344 - 422 20,412

KS - 48,353 44 - 35 48,432

KY 4 3 133 - 3,269 3,409

LA - - 79 - 1,056 1,135

MA 58 1,673 241 - 1,068 3,040

MD 1,205 2,779 120 - 1,946 6,049

ME - 7,437 1,697 - 3,846 12,980

MI 2 9,137 1,630 - 1,308 12,077

MN 1,203 16,480 540 - 699 18,922

MO 814 4,939 188 - 1,558 7,500

MS - - 295 - - 295

MT - 6,884 58 - 10,192 17,134

NC 7,107 1,398 1,430 - 4,226 14,161

ND 0 14,862 - 145 1,731 16,738

NE - 19,239 50 - 570 19,859

NH 48 2,349 643 - 1,526 4,566

NJ 611 418 489 - 27 1,546

NM 478 14,360 - 1,482 264 16,584

NV 1,015 412 82 5,740 2,116 9,365

NY 143 4,371 1,607 - 25,858 31,979

OH 54 14,327 437 - 427 15,246

OK - 22,388 - - 2,949 25,337

OR 4 11,071 1,197 2,000 34,676 48,948

PA 102 7,717 1,342 - 2,822 11,983

RI - 102 370 - 9 481

SC 889 384 657 - 1,788 3,718

SD - 19,156 - - 4,506 23,662

TN 23 75 35 - 7,702 7,836

TX 217 74,034 1,765 - 1,148 77,164

UT 8 674 56 1,583 794 3,115

VA 0 3,795 2,470 - 1,366 7,631

WA 0 7,273 1,447 - 78,087 86,808
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

19 

State

IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Generation from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 

2030 (GWh)

Solar Wind Biomass 

(Existing)* Geothermal Hydropower Total 

WI - 3,977 1,212 - 1,683 6,872

WV - 1,680 11 - 1,520 3,211

WY - 4,250 - - 965 5,214

*Dedicated biomass and landfill gas facilities. 

Table 1.10. NREL Renewable Energy Technical Potential by Selected Technology Type (Gigawatthours)15

State

NREL Renewable Energy Technical Potential by Selected Technology Type (GWh)

Utility-Scale Solar 

(PV and CSP) Onshore Wind Geothermal (Hydrothermal) Hydropower 

AL 3,742,689 283 - 4,103 

AZ 24,533,333 26,036 8,330 1,303 

AR 5,015,349 22,892 - 6,093 

CA 17,592,841 89,862 130,921 30,024 

CO 19,436,079 1,096,036 8,954 7,789 

CT 27,344 62 - 922 

DE 287,189 22 - 31 

FL 5,210,493 1 - 682 

GA 5,535,350 323 - 1,988 

ID 7,462,920 44,320 17,205 18,758 

IL 8,194,537 649,468 - 4,883 

IN 4,975,001 377,604 - 2,394 

IA 7,021,251 1,723,588 - 2,818 

KS 22,506,111 3,101,576 - 2,508 

KY 1,850,491 147 - 4,255 

LA 4,170,275 935 - 2,423 

ME 1,103,543 28,743 - 3,916 

MD 614,500 3,632 - 814 

MA 99,674 2,827 - 1,197 

MI 5,266,485 143,908 - 1,181 

MN 10,826,184 1,428,525 - 1,255 

MS 5,007,619 - - 2,211 

MO 5,365,818 689,519 - 7,198 

 

15 Please refer to data file at http://www.nrel.gov/gis/re_potential.html. 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

20 

State

NREL Renewable Energy Technical Potential by Selected Technology Type (GWh)

Utility-Scale Solar 

(PV and CSP) Onshore Wind Geothermal (Hydrothermal) Hydropower 

MT 9,739,000 2,746,272 6,548 14,547 

NE 14,126,640 3,011,253 - 3,142 

NV 16,935,101 17,709 45,321 846 

NH 61,154 5,706 - 1,741 

NJ 484,081 317 - 549 

NM 33,202,248 1,399,157 12,933 1,363 

NY 1,545,369 63,566 - 6,711 

NC 4,301,136 2,037 - 3,037 

ND 9,775,369 2,537,825 - 347 

OH 3,712,677 129,143 - 3,046 

OK 14,459,998 1,521,652 - 3,016 

OR 6,578,388 68,767 18,200 18,184 

PA 609,518 8,231 - 8,368 

RI 15,424 130 - 59 

SC 2,788,808 428 - 1,889 

SD 11,643,106 2,901,858 - 1,047 

TN 2,276,233 766 - 5,745 

TX 62,075,015 5,552,400 - 3,006 

UT 10,282,917 31,552 12,982 3,528 

VA 1,909,919 4,589 - 3,657 

WA 1,933,554 47,250 2,547 27,249 

WV 55,718 4,952 - 4,408 

WI 5,097,198 255,266 - 2,287 

WY 11,140,864 1,653,857 1,373 4,445 

Total 390,594,517 31,394,989 265,313 230,965 

Table 1.11. EIA 2012 Net Generation by RE Capacity Type (Gigawatt-hours)16

State

EIA 2012 Net Generation by RE Capacity Type (GWh)

Solar Thermal and 

Photovoltaic Wind Geothermal Hydroelectric Conventional 

AL - - - 7,435 

AZ 955 532 - 6,717 

AR - - - 2,198 

 

16 Please refer to data file at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/. 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

21 

State

EIA 2012 Net Generation by RE Capacity Type (GWh)

Solar Thermal and 

Photovoltaic Wind Geothermal Hydroelectric Conventional 

CA 1,382 9,754 12,519 26,837 

CO 165 5,969 - 1,497 

CT - - - 312 

DE 23 4 - - 

FL 194 - - 151 

GA 3 - - 2,236 

ID - 1,891 75 10,940 

IL 31 7,727 - 111 

IN 0 3,210 - 434 

IA - 14,032 - 766 

KS - 5,195 - 10 

KY - - - 2,362 

LA - - - 680 

ME - 887 - 3,733 

MD 22 322 - 1,657 

MA 30 90 - 912 

MI - 1,132 - 1,215 

MN - 7,615 - 561 

MS - - - - 

MO - 1,245 - 714 

MT - 1,262 - 11,283 

NE - 1,284 - 1,257 

NV 473 129 2,347 2,440 

NH - 209 - 1,289 

NJ 304 12 - 11 

NM 334 2,226 - 223 

NY 53 2,992 - 24,652 

NC 139 - - 3,728 

ND - 5,275 - 2,477 

OH 37 985 - 414 

OK - 8,158 - 1,146 

OR 6 6,343 26 39,410 

PA 32 2,129 - 2,242 

RI - 1 - 4 

SC - - - 1,420 

SD - 2,915 - 5,981 

TN 12 47 - 8,296 

TX 118 32,214 - 584 

UT 2 704 335 748 

VA - - - 1,044 

WA 1 6,600 - 89,464 

WV - 1,286 - 1,431 

WI - 1,558 - 1,522 

WY - 4,369 - 893 
INTERAGENCY WORKING COMMENTS ON DRAFT LANGUAGE UNDER EO12866

INTERAGENCY REVIEW. SUBJECT TO FURTHER POLICY REVIEW.

22 
Page 3: [1] Formatted Author 

Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font: Times New Roman 

Page 3: [2] Formatted Author 

Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic, Complex Script Font: Times New Roman