## 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 >>

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

1 Alternative RE Approach Technical Support Document

1.1. Introduction

Renewable energy (RE) is a cost-effectiv e approach for reducing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGU s) 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 ca n be integrated into the Best System of Emission Reductions (BSER), tT he 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 Laboratory 1 (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 ge neration 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 th ird (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/.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 technica l 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 or der 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 redu ces the cost of new renewable builds. 3 The cost reduction in new RE is intended to represent the avoided cost of othe r actions that could be taken instead to reduce power
sector CO 2 , and to reflect continued reductions in RE technology costs . The state-level modeling results for this approach show RE deployment levels associ ated 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 CO 2 ). 4 The RE generation projections considered from this IPM scenario are supported by similar analysis from a recent NREL study using the Regiona l 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 woul d quantify target generation for most RE technologies as the lesser of that technology’s benchm ark rate multiplied by in-state technical potential,

3 IPM is EPA’s multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic lin ear 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 Po tential Scenario’ - can be found on the docket. 5 NREL, Draft ReEDS Modeling of the President’s 2020 RE Generation Goal, May 2014.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 developm ent 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 st ate 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 gene ration 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 inform ation (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]

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 st ate goal. In selecting the technology types that contribute to the RE target generation level, EPA co nsidered 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 ge neration 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 ut ility-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 faciliti es 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).

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

5 multiplied by in-state technical potential. Total benchmark generation for the states affected by the Alternative RE Approach is 33,981 GWh, comp ared 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 (u tility-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 th e 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 a nd 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 ener gy source and NREL’s technical potential estimates

8 Vermont is not subject to any RE requirement under BSER.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

6 for geothermal (hydrothermal). The average 2012 development rate for all 5 states with reported geothermal generation for 2012 was 3.6%. The benchm ark 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 hy droelectric 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/wate r/pdfs/doewater-11263.pdf. NREL’s technical potential estimate for hydropower also includes non-powered dams from the Nation al Hydropower Asset Assessment Program.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

7 the benchmark hydropower generation or the IPM-projected generation from existing hydropower resources in that state. This methodology prod uced 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 gene ration levels for 2020, 2025, and 2030. Interim generation targets for Option 1 are the average ta rget generation levels from 2020-2029; interim generation targets for Option 2 are the average from 20 20-2024. Final targets for Option 1 are represented

10 Refer to Goal Computation TSD. 11 Refer to Chapter 4 of the GHG Abatement Measures TS D for further detail on the calculation of RE growth factors for Alaska and Hawaii.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 Un der 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/.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 ener gy sources geothermal, hydroelectric conventional, other biomass, wood and wood derived fuel s, solar thermal and photovoltaic, and wind.

Table 1.2. State-Level Target Generation Levels Un der 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. EP A 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 excee d the amount of fossil fuel-fired generation reported for that state in 2012.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 percen tages 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.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 ener gy 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 Un der 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

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 Un der 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%

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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%

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

14 *Total electric power industry net generation for ener gy sources geothermal, hydroelectric conventional, other biomass, wood and wood derived fuel s, 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 Le vels 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%

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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

Appendix

Table 1.7. IPM-Projected RE Power Sector Ge neration 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

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 Ge neration 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

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 Ge neration from $30/MWh Reduced Cost Run, 2030 (Gigawatt-hours)

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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 Pote ntial 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.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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/.

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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

### I NTERAGENCY 

### W ORKING 

### C OMMENTS ON 

### D RAFT 

### L ANGUAGE UNDER 

### EO12866 I NTERAGENCY 

### R EVIEW 

### . S UBJECT TO 

### F URTHER 

### P OLICY 

### R EVIEW 

### .

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