1、ELECTRICITYMARKETS ERCOT: 19.9%; MISO: 8.5%; CAISO: 6.9%; PJM: 3.0%; ISO-NE: 2.9%; NYISO: 2.8% Texas3,938Texas28,871Iowa41.9%Kansas53.5% Iowa1,739Iowa10,201Kansas41.4%Iowa53.1% Illinois541Oklahoma8,173Oklahoma34.6%North Dakota51.1% South Dakota506Kansas6,128North Dakota26.8%Oklahoma45.3% Kansas475Ca

2、lifornia5,942South Dakota23.9%New Mexico27.4% North Dakota473Illinois5,350Maine23.6%Nebraska24.7% Michigan286Minnesota3,843Nebraska19.9%Wyoming24.1% New Mexico221Colorado3,762New Mexico19.4%South Dakota23.8% Oregon201North Dakota3,628Colorado19.2%Texas20.6% Minnesota167Oregon3,423Minnesota19.0%Maine

3、20.4% Nebraska160Washington3,085Texas17.5%Colorado19.4% California133Indiana2,317Vermont16.4%Minnesota17.0% Oklahoma100Michigan2,188Idaho16.1%Montana15.4% Pennsylvania90Nebraska2,132Oregon11.5%Oregon15.0% Colorado59New York1,987Wyoming9.8%Idaho11.2% New Hampshire29New Mexico1,953Montana8.5%Illinois1

4、0.1% Massachusetts10Wyoming1,589Illinois7.6%Washington8.6% Ohio9South Dakota1,525Washington7.3%Vermont7.1% Alaska1Pennsylvania1,459California6.8%Indiana6.4% Idaho973Indiana6.0%Hawaii6.3% Rest of U.S.0Rest of U.S.7,062Rest of U.S.1.1%Rest of U.S.1.6% Total9,137Total105,591Total7.2%Total8.0% Installed

5、 Capacity (MW)2019 Wind Generation as a Percentage of: Annual (2019)Cumulative (end of 2019)In-State GenerationIn-State Sales Source: AWEA WindIQ, EIA 13Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-energy-growthInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-energy-growth Online w

6、ind hybrid / co-located projects of various configurations 14 Sources: EIA 860 2019 Early Release, Berkeley Lab Online Wind Hybrid / Co-located Projects Data on subset of the hybrid / co-located project configurations: end of 2019 Sources: EIA 860 2019 Early Release, Berkeley Lab Note: Not included

7、in figure are 54 other hybrid / co-located projects with other configurations; details on those projects are provided in the underlying data file. Storage ratio defined as total storage capacity divided by total generation capacity within a type. Duration defined as total MWh of storage divided by t

8、otal MW of storage within a type. 15 Most wind hybrid / co-located projects are Wind+Storage (located in PJM and ERCOT), with storage having limited duration to serve ancillary services markets There are far fewer other wind hybrid / co-located configurations of significant size # projectsTotal capa

9、city (MW)Storage ratioDuration (hrs) WindPVFossilStorage PV+Storage40881.6169.119%2.6 Wind+Storage131,289.9183.614%0.6 Wind+PV+Storage2215.820.734.315%0.4 Fossil+Storage102,413.691.04%0.9 Wind+PV6535.3211.50.0n/an/a 050002500 Wind PV Fossil Storage Interactive data visualization: https:/e

10、mp.lbl.gov/online-hybrid-and-energy-storage-projectsInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/online-hybrid-and-energy-storage-projects Generator + storage hybrid / co-located projects at end of 2019: wind+storage, PV+storage, fossil+storage Wind+storage plants located primarily in ERCOT an

11、d PJM PV+storage plants located primarily in non-ISO West, ERCOT, and Southeast Fossil+storage plants located primarily in MISO and ISO-NE 16 Sources: EIA 860 2019 Early Release, Berkeley Lab Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/online-hybrid-and-energy-storage-projectsInteractive data

12、 visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/online-hybrid-and-energy-storage-projects Scope of transmission interconnection queue data Data compiled from interconnection queues for 7 ISOs and 30 utilities, representing 80% of all U.S. electricity load Projects that connect to the bulk power system Includes a

13、ll projects in queues through the end of 2019 Filtered to include only “active” projects: removed those listed as “online,” “withdrawn,” or “suspended” Hybrid / co-located projects identified via either of these two methods: “Generator Type” field includes multiple types for a single queue entry (ro

14、w) Two or more queue entries (of different gen. types) that share the same point of interconnection and sponsor, queue date, ID number, and/or COD Emphasis was placed on identification of wind+storage and solar+storage Other hybrid configurations are likely undercounted Note that being in an interco

15、nnection queue does not guarantee ultimate construction: majority of plants are not subsequently built 17 Generation capacity in 37 selected interconnection queues from 2014 to 2019, by resource type Note: Not all of this capacity will be built Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 1

16、8Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacityInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacity Wind power capacity within selected interconnection queues by region: cumulative total and 2019 additions Note: Not all

17、of this capacity will be built Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 19Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacityInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacity Hybrid / co-located capacity withi

18、n interconnection queues at end of 2019: 11 GW of wind proposed as hybrids, 102 GW of solar Notes: (1) Not all of this capacity will be built; (2) Hybrid plants involving multiple generator types (e.g., wind+PV+ storage, wind+PV) show up in all generator categories, presuming the capacity is known f

19、or each type. Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 20 Wind+Storage and Solar+Storage configurations are more common than other hybrid types1 1 Emphasis was placed on identification of wind+storage and solar+storage: other hybrid configurations are likely undercounted. Interactive da

20、ta visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacityInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacity Location of hybrid / co-located capacity within interconnection queues at end of 2019 Notes: (1) Not all of this capacity will be built

21、; (2) Hybrid plants involving multiple generator types (e.g., wind+PV+ storage, wind+PV) show up in all generator categories, presuming the capacity is known for each type; (3) Emphasis was placed on identification of wind+storage and solar+storage in queues: other hybrid / co-located projects are l

22、ikely undercounted. Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 21 As a proportion of proposed wind, solar, and natural gas in regional queues, proposed wind hybrids are more prevalent in CAISO; solar somewhat more evenly distributed WindSolarNat. Gas CAISO50%67%0% ERCOT3%13%0% SPP1%22%0%

23、MISO2%17%0% PJM0%17%1% NYISO1%5%4% ISO-NE6%0%0% West (non-ISO)6%50%0% Southeast (non-ISO)0%6%0% TOTAL4.8%27.7%0.6% Percentage of Proposed Generators Hybridizing in Each RegionRegion Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacityInteractive data visualizatio

24、n: https:/emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybrid-capacity Generator+storage hybrid / co-located projects and standalone storage in interconnection queues Source: Berkeley Lab review of interconnection queues 22 Note: Not all of this capacity will be built Average storage:generation capacity ratio

25、 for solar+storage (66%) is higher than for wind+storage (27%), in subset of ISO queues shown here: solar hybrids likely to install more storage capacity relative to generation capacity than wind hybrids Wind+StorageSolar+Storage CAISO25%78% ERCOT54%38% SPP23%38% NYISO7%49% Combined27%66% Storage:Ge

26、neration Capacity Ratio Region ELECTRICITYMARKETS see full report for the assumptions used to generate the figure. Source: Berkeley Lab analysis of data from USITC DataWeb: http:/dataweb.usitc.gov 28 Tracked wind equipment imports into the United States in 2019, by region Note: Tracked wind-specific

27、 equipment includes: wind-powered generating sets, towers, hubs and blades, wind generators and parts Source: Berkeley Lab analysis of data from USITC DataWeb: http:/dataweb.usitc.gov 29 Origins of U.S. imports of selected wind turbine equipment in 2019 Majority of imports of wind-powered generating

28、 sets come from Spain Generators and parts come from Europe and Asia Towers largely come from Asia, but also Canada Blades and hubs come from all four world regions Source: Berkeley Lab analysis of data from USITC DataWeb: http:/dataweb.usitc.gov 30 Approximate domestic content of major components i

29、n 2019 Figure reflects percentage of blades, towers, and nacelles that were installed in the U.S. in 2019 that were also manufactured / assembled domestically Imports occur in untracked trade categories not included below, including many nacelle internals; nacelle internals generally have lower dome

30、stic content of 5 MW are included. ELECTRICITYMARKETS as a result, prices do not reflect wind generation costs Also presented are Level10 Energy data on PPA offers; these are often for shorter contract durations, and levelization details are unclear Levelized cost of energy is calculated based on fo

31、llowing assumptions Project-level CapEx and capacity factor data presented elsewhere in this deck Levelized OpEx declines from $83/kW-yr in 1998 to $43/kW-yr in 2019 (2019$); project life increases from 20 years in 1998 to 29.6 years in 2019 (from previous LBNL research) Weighted average cost of cap

32、ital (WACC) based on 10% equity return over time; debt interest rate varies over time as shown earlier in deck; constant 65%/35% debt/equity ratio Combined income tax of 40% pre-2018 and 27% post-2017; 5-yr MACRS; no PTC; 2% inflation 61 Levelized wind PPA prices by PPA execution date and region (fu

33、ll sample) 62 Source: Berkeley Lab, FERC Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-pricesInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-prices Generation-weighted average levelized wind PPA prices by PPA execution date:

34、 national and region averages 63 Source: Berkeley Lab, FERC Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-pricesInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-prices Note: West = CAISO, West (non-ISO); Central = MISO, SPP,

35、ERCOT; East = PJM, NYISO, ISO-NE, Southeast (non-ISO) Levelized wind PPA prices by PPA execution date and region (recent sample) 64 Source: Berkeley Lab, FERC Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-pricesInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov

36、/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-prices Level10 Energy wind PPA price indices Source: Level10 Energy 65 Levelized cost of wind energy by commercial operation date Note: Yearly estimates reflect variations in installed cost, capacity factors, operational costs, cost of financing, and project life;

37、includes accelerated depreciation but exclude PTC. See full report for details. 66 Source: Berkeley Lab Interactive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/levelized-cost-wind-energyInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/levelized-cost-wind-energy 9477785857259484441393535 0 20

38、 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Commercial Operation Year Average and Project-level LCOE (2019 $/MWh) 100 MW Levelized cost of wind energy by region, over last five years 67 Source: Berkeley Lab Interacti

39、ve data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/levelized-cost-wind-energyInteractive data visualization: https:/emp.lbl.gov/levelized-cost-wind-energy Note: Total sample presented here includes 34 GW of installed wind capacity, but regional sample is especially small in ISO-NE (569 MW), CAISO (319 MW, no

40、 data in 2019), and NYISO (156 MW, no data in 2019) 0 30 60 90 2015 2017 2019 National $35/MWh 2019 Avg = 2015 2017 2019 ERCOT $32/MWh 2015 2017 2019 SPP $33/MWh 2015 2017 2019 MISO $36/MWh 2015 2017 2019 West $37/MWh 2015 2017 2019 PJM $44/MWh 2015 2017 2019 ISO-NE $76/MWh 2015 2017 2019 CAISO no d

41、ata 2015 2017 2019 NYISO no data Average LCOE (2019 $/MWh) Historical renewable energy certificate (REC) prices REC prices vary by: market type (compliance vs. voluntary); geographic region; specific design of state RPS policies. Source: Marex Spectron 68 ELECTRICITYMARKETS generalized flat block is

42、 24x7 average price across all pricing nodes in region Estimates of wind power integration costs, by region and wind penetration level Note: Because methods vary and a consistent set of operational impacts has not been included in each study, results from the different analyses presented here are no

43、t fully comparable. Nonetheless, in general, the balancing costs included in the above graphic are often additional to the market value and value factor results presented in previous slides. 78 Sources: see data file for details Integrating wind energy into power systems is manageable, but not free

44、of additional costs Miles of transmission projects completed, by year and voltage Source: FERC 79 New transmission build has been relatively modest in recent years ELECTRICITYMARKETS for projects installed from 2013 through 2017, confidential EIA Form 860 data were used extensively. Wind project O&M

45、 costs come primarily from two sources: EIA Form 412 data from 2001 to 2003 for private power projects and projects owned by publicly-owned utilities, and FERC Form 1 data for investor-owned utility projects. Power Sales Price and Levelized Cost Trends Wind power purchase agreement (PPA) price data

46、come from multiple sources, including prices reported in FERCs Electronic Quarterly Reports, FERC Form 1, avoided-cost data filed by utilities, pre-offering research conducted by bond rating agencies, and a Berkeley Lab collection of PPAs. Additional data come from Level10 Energy ( The levelized cos

47、t of wind energy estimated based on assumptions described on a later slide. REC prices come from Marex Spectron ( Price and Value Comparisons Data on solar PPA prices are based on the same sources as wind prices. Gas price projections come from EIAs Annual Energy Outlook (https:/www.eia.gov/outlooks

48、/aeo/). Details on the calculation of energy and capacity value are available in Wiser and Bolinger (2019): https:/emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/wtmr_final_for_posting_8-9-19.pdf. In brief, estimated hourly wind generation profiles are matched to hourly nodal real-time wholesale prices from ABBs V

49、elocity database. The capacity value of each plant is estimated based on the modeled wind profiles and ISO-specific rules for winds capacity credit and ISO-zone-specific capacity prices. Integration cost estimates derive from a Berkeley Lab review of the available published literature: see data-file for the full list of citations. Data on completed transmission lines come from FERC Infrastructure reports (https:/www.ferc.gov/industries-data/resources/staff-reports-and-papers). Conclusions Independent analys