developing nevada's clean energy resources

8/8/2019 Developing Nevada's Clean Energy Resources

1/24

1

DEVELOPING NEVADAS CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES


2/24

2

FORWARD

This analysis was prepared by Clean Energy Project using McKinseys US Low Carbon Economics Tool, which is a neutral, analytic setof interlinked models that estimates potential economic implications of various policies using assumptions defined by Clean EnergyProject. The policy scenarios, input assumptions, conclusions, recommendations and opinions are the sole responsibility of Clean EnergyProject and are not validated or endorsed by McKinsey. McKinsey takes no position on the merits of these assumptions and scenarios oron associated policy recommendations.

More background about McKinsey's US Low Carbon Economics Tool is available here:

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/sustainability/low_carbon_economics_tool.asp
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/sustainability/low_carbon_economics_tool.asphttp://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/sustainability/low_carbon_economics_tool.asphttp://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/sustainability/low_carbon_economics_tool.asp


3/24

3

Developing Nevadas Clean Energy Resources

October 2010

1. Executive summary

Nevada currently imports nearly all of its fuel for energy, whether in the form ofnatural gas, coal, petroleum or electricity. However, the state has vast domestic energyresources in the form of renewables and energy efficiency. Nevada has an opportunityto save over $300 million dollars per year by 2025 due to decreased energy importsand increased electricity exports if the state aggressively pursues the development ofits clean energy resources. In this scenario of an clean energy export plan, Nevadacould increase its GDP by $540 million and create over 9,000 clean energy jobsdirectly supporting the new clean energy infrastructure by 20251.This report explores the path we are currently on for clean energy development in

Nevada and the opportunity in Nevada to build a stronger clean energy economy inmore detail. It presents plausible pathways to capturing the value at stake, quantifiesthe impact of these pathways on Nevada ratepayers, jobs, and GDP, describes likelybarriers to achieving the opportunity, and discusses potential policy and other measuresthat could help overcome these barriers.

2. The opportunity for developing clean energy in Nevada

Nevada imports nearly all of the fuel required to generate electricity for the statesconsumers and businesses. In 2008, almost 90% of the electricity generated in Nevada

was from out-of-state fuel sources (Figure 1). This power was produced using $1.7billion of imported fossil fuel: $1.3 billion of natural gas and $400 million of coal. Inaddition, Nevada imported 1.2 million MWh of electricity (3.4% of its electricity,worth approximately $60 million) from out-of-state generators.

1This accounts for green jobs associated with building and operating renewable energy facilities and transmission lines, and retrofitting buildings. Does not account for job losses in other industries


4/24

4

Hydro*

Coal

Gas

Renewables*

Imports

2008

36.3

7.8

24.0

1.81.5

1.2

* Small hydro is included in total hydro, not renewables

SOURCE: Energy Information Administration; SNL Financial Database; SEC Form 10-K

Nevada generation mix in 2008

TWhAssociated Fuel Costs

$Millions

Coal

1,300

400

Gas

All gas importedfrom other states

Figure 1: 2008 generation mix and costs

However, Nevada has large and high-quality renewable energy resources and significant energy efficiency potential. The combination ofenergy efficiency and renewable power could reduce Nevadas energy imports, increase its exports of electrical power and stimulate alocal clean energy industry.

Renewables

Nevada has among the best geothermal resources in the country. Geothermal energy could theoretically supply between 1,500 and 3,000MW of baseload generation capacity (1020 million MWh of energy per year, or 30-60% of Nevadas total demand), a potential secondonly to California. Much of the state, particularly the north, contains known or potential geothermal resources (Figure 2). In addition,geothermal power generation is a mature technology with an established track record.

In 2008 almost 90% of theelectricity generated in Nevada

was from out-of-state fuel sources(Figure 1). This power was

produced using $1.7 billion ofimported fossil fuel: $1.3 billion of

natural gas and $400 million ofcoal. In addition, Nevada

imported 1.2 million MWh ofelectricity (3.4% of its electricity,worth approximately $60 million)

from out-of-state generators.


5/24


6/24

6

Figure 3: Nevada has among the best solar PV resources in the US

SOURCE: National Renewable Energy Lab


7/24

7

Figure 4: Nevada has among the best solar thermal resources in the US

SOURCE: National Renewable Energy Lab

Other renewable resources in Nevada include wind, distributed generation (mostly solar photovoltaic) and solar hot water heaters. Nevadahas between 15,000 and 20,000 MW of wind resources. There is several hundred MW of distributed solar PV potential on homes andcommercial buildings, which could provide hundreds of thousands of MWh of energy per year (a few percent of total demand). Finally,solar hot water heaters could reduce electricity demand by displacing electric water heaters, potentially saving 1.21.5 million MWh (3-4% of total demand) per year (and removing the need for ~350 MW of generating capacity).2

Energy efficiency

A report published in 2009 by McKinsey & Company examined in detail the potential for greater efficiency in non-transportation uses ofenergy, including the effect of measures such as retrofitting homes, installing more efficient appliances and lighting and constructingmore energy-efficient new buildings.3 It found that the U.S. could save up to 23 percent of projected energy demand in the residential,commercial and industrial sectors. These measures, if put in place, would cost $520 million but save a total of $1.2 trillion in energy costs.

2 Department of Energy (EnergyStar)3

Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, McKinsey, 2009

It found that the U.S. couldsave up to 23 percent of

projected energy demandin the residential,commercial and industrialsectors. These measures, ifput in place, would cost$520 million but save atotal of $1.2 trillion in

energy costs.


8/24

8

This large net savings could be obtainedbecause the cost of energy efficiencymeasures is usually significantly lowerthan the cost of energy. For example, gasgeneration costs 5-7 cents/KWh, whereassaving a KWh of energy through efficiency

costs on average about 3 cents/KWh.4

In Nevada, the total economic (NPV-positive) energy efficiency potential inbuildings and industry using knowntechnologies is 153 trillion BTUs in 2025,or 26% of Nevadas estimated energy

usage in those sectors (Figure 5). Althoughthis potential savings opportunity is large,capturing it in practice would be very

difficult, given multiple barriers thatimpede the deployment of energyefficiency measures. Most energy efficiency programs are expected to capture lessthan a third of the total economic potential. The barriers to capturing energyefficiency, and ways to overcome them, will be discussed in Section 5.

The largest energy efficiency opportunity is in residential and commercial buildings,where measures such as retrofitting homes (improving insulation, sealing ducts,replacing windows, etc.), using more efficient appliances and lights and adhering tostrict building codes could save about 30% of energy use in these sectors.

Electricity savings specifically are of interest for this report. Energy efficiencymeasures could save up to 13 million MWh of electricity (33% of total electricity

demand in 2025), removing the need for about 3,000 MW of generating capacity, or 30% oftodays capacity.

4

K. Gillingham, et. al., Energy Efficiency Policies: A Retrospective Examination,Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 2006.

Electricity savingsspecifically are of interestfor this report. Energy

efficiency measures could

save up to 13 millionMWh of electricity (33%of total electricity demand

in 2025), removing theneed for about 3,000 MWof generating capacity, or

30% of todays capacity.


9/24


10/24

10

3. The economics of renewables and efficiency

Renewables.

There are multiple economic impacts from building renewable generation. Primary effects include the following.

Figure 6: Jobs created by typical clean energy projects

Estimated job creation by clean t echnology investmentsNumber of jobs

900

600

390410

200

520

230

830

240

610

130

1,140

Direct

Indirect/induced

5

20

90

15

500 KV, 200 miletransmission line(600 MW capacity)

100 MW Wind100 MW Geothermal100 MW Solar PV

Initial jobs per year during construction*

* Assuming 2-year project length

Ongoing permanent jobs

1. Job creation from construction and operations.

Figure 6 shows job creation numbers for typical projects in a two year time period: a 100 MW solar PV installation, a 100 MWgeothermal plant, a 100 MW wind farm, and a 200-mile long 500 kV transmission project. The total job impact is due to directconstruction, engineering, and other project jobs; indirect jobs from demand along the renewables supply chain; and induced jobs createdas the income earned in direct and indirect sectors is spent on additional products and services (e.g., restaurant meals purchased byrenewables construction workers). These job gains will be accompanied by a small number of job loss in sectors where demand isreduced (e.g., coal and gas generation). However, because Nevada has no significant coal mining or natural gas production, these lossesare found primarily in other states.


11/24

11

Note that because many of Nevadas renewable resources are located in rural areas (especially the

geothermal resources that dominate the renewables mix over the next 10-15 years), many of thejobs created during the construction phase could be filled by workers from rural communities.

2. Increase in GDP due to changes in trade

Renewables generation benefits state GDPby improving Nevadas balance of trade, reducing

imports of fuel and power and increasing exports of power.6

For example, a new 100 MW solar PVplant and 100 MW geothermal plant could produce a total of 800,000 MWh of electricity. Some ofthis additional electricity could displace gas-generated electricity (if it were used within the state),while some of it could be exported. For example, if half (400,000 MWh) of the renewableelectricity was used in Nevada and displaced 400,000 MWh of gas-generated electricity, and theother half of the electricity was exported, state GDP would increase by about $405 million per year.

3. Other impacts

Increased renewables deployment has a number of positive impacts not directly quantified by the model. These include the financial

value of reduced exposure to volatile gas and potential CO2 prices, possible future monetary transfers in any national Renewable EnergyCredit market, and the additional benefits to Nevadas economy ifthe increased deployment accelerates the growth of Nevadas cleanenergy industries.

Although these impacts were not included in the calculations, their impact could be quite large. For example,

a) A 30% reduction in natural gas generation (similar to what is achieved in our clean energy scenarios below) would reduce thecost of a hypothetical future gas price spike (to $10/MMBTU) by $340M per year, assuming that gas spikes up from a long-term price of $6/MMBTU.

b) If future U.S.carbon prices reach $30/ton, as envisioned under many national policy scenarios, the clean power deployment

modeled below would save Nevada $60-$150M per year (based on an estimated carbon dioxide emissions reduction of 2-5million tons per year) vs. a scenario with no clean power deployment

c) Establishing 400 MW/year of solar panel manufacturing capacity in Nevada (enough to meetNevadas peak solar moduledemand), including wafer, cell and module manufacturing, would create 6,0007,000 jobs.7

6 We conservatively assume that payments for renewables ultimately flow mainly to non-resident investors, so there are no follow on benefits from this spend within Nevada7 Solar manufacturing industry financials and employment data

Establishing 400 MW/yearof solar panel

manufacturing capacity inNevada (enough to meet

Nevadas peak solarmodule demand),including wafer, cell andmodule manufacturing,would create 6,000

7 000 obs.


12/24

12

Energy efficiency

The economic impacts of energy efficiency are broadly similar to those of renewables, in that that both types of measures require upfrontcapital expenditures and result in reductions in fossil fuel expenditures. In addition to the above benefits, cost effective energy efficiencyprograms will: (1) significantly reduce electricity bills, stimulating the local economy and making business more competitive, and (2)have a positive impact on jobs, as they tend to shift spending away from capital intensive energy industries and toward labor intensiveservice industries (e.g., duct sealing, home retrofitting, etc).

Figure 7 illustrates the level of short-term job creation expected from a 1-year home retrofit program with $60 million in subsidies, whichcould potentially enable 5% of Nevadas homes to have energy efficiency retrofits, could create 1,680 jobs of various types during theprogram. Longer term effects not captured in this figure include the impact of accompanying tax increases and energy bill reductions.

Figure 7: During a 1-year retrofit program addressing 5% of Nevadas

housing stock, 1,680 jobs are created in a variety of categories

Jobs created during program, by job type

100% = 1,680

1118

32

Other

18

Transportation, material moving 6

Installation, maintenance, repair 6

Management, business, financial10

ManufacturingSales, office, administrative

Construction


13/24

13

Savings from energy efficiency measures can be large. For example, a 10% reduction8 in energy use in residential and commercialbuildings in Nevada due to energy efficiency would save $350 million per year in energy costs (electricity, gas and other fuels). Anoptimized energy efficiency program could obtain this level of savings for $1.6 billion in upfront investment, paying for itself in less than5 years.

4. Exporting plan for Nevada

Figure 8: Clean energy scenarios

Scenario 1: BAU

Scenario 2: Export

25% renewables / EE by 2025 Of which, 6% solar (1.5% solar generation by 2025) Of which, up to 25% EE (6.25% EE by 2025)

Renewables

6.25% by 2025 (assumes EE carve-out in RPS is maximized)EnergyEfficiency

Add 600 MW from Northern to Southern Nevada in 2012 (ONLine) Add ~700 miles of 750 MW transmission from 2015-2025 for renewables

connection to grid and transmission to load centers

Transmission

25% of Nevada demand is from renewables by 2025 No EE carve-out Additional renewable energy specifically for export

Renewables

Separate EERS (Energy Efficiency Resource Standard) requiring 10%EE by 2025

EnergyEfficiency

In addition, add ~400 miles of 350 MW transmission from 2015-2025 forrenewables connection to grid, transmission to load centers, and export

Transmission

To understand the overall economic implications for Nevada, we modeled two clean energy and EE development scenarios (Figure 8). Inthe first scenario (BAU), Nevada develops renewable resources and achieves energy efficiency sufficient to meet its RPS target. In thesecond scenario (Export), Nevada achieves additional demand reduction through energy efficiency, develops slightly more renewableenergy for domestic consumption, and develops a significant amount of renewable resources for export. Figure 9 shows the electrical

8 This level of reduction would be equivalent to 27% capture of the economic potential identified in the 2009 McKinsey report Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, which is towardthe top end of the range (10-30%) of EE program historical performance and of expert estimates


14/24

14

energy produced from various sources in Nevada with the corresponding generation capacities installed, and Figure 10 breaks down thesame information for renewable energy.9 Energy efficiency measures could significantly reduce electricity consumption, with savingscoming from residential and commercial buildings and industry (Figure 11).

3943

2025

45

7

24

3

3

2015

41

9

23

3

3

2010

37

9

23

37

4

43

7

27

3

20152010

37 39

9

23

3

23

3

2025

9

Figure 9: Export scenario has lower demand,more renewables, and less gas

Generation mixTWh

BAU Export

* Small hydro is included in total hydro, not renewables

Demand

Coal

Gas

Hydro

Renewables

Renewables for export

0.8

0.80.8

0.6

2010

9.6

2015

10.6

1.3

7.0

1.0

7.0

1.3

7.0

0.80.4

0.81.8

2025

11.4

2015

10.0

1.3

7.0

1.0

7.9

0.80.8

2025

11.0

2010

9.6

0.81.2

1.3

7.0

0.80.4

CapacityGW

9 Different proportions of energy and capacity are due to differences in the capacity factors of different technologies

In order to deploythe renewable

resources for eachof the scenarios,

additionaltransmission linesand upgrades toexisting lines will

have to becompleted.


15/24


16/24

16

Figure 12: Proposed transmission to enable renewables deployment

SOURCE: 2009 Status of Energy in Nevada Report to Governor Gibbons and Legislature

Implementing these scenarios would have the following impacts:

Electricity bills

Including the cost of investment in infrastructure for a robust clean

energy economy, Nevada household electricity bills would decreasebecause of the reduction in energy use due to energy efficiency(Figure 13). Bills could be kept even lower if Nevada focused moreon energy efficiency and less on renewables in the early years. Forexample, by loosening the intermediate RPS target (from 20% to15% by 2015) but also imposing an intermediate EERS target (5%by 2015), the electricity bill savings would roughly double, from$1.50 per month per household to $3.00 per month per household.

Impact on household electricityBILLS relative to no action

$/month

-1.33-1.03

-3.46

-1.56

ExportBAU

Figure 13: Impact on household electricity bills

Including the cost ofinvestment in infrastructure

for a robust clean energyeconomy, Nevada

household electricity billswould decrease because ofthe reduction in energy use

due to energy efficiency(Figure 13).


17/24

17

Jobs and GDP

The total impact on Nevadas economy in terms of jobs and GDP is positive in both scenarios in most years (Figure 14). This is becausethe negative impact of higher prices is more than offset by the positive impact of clean energy investment and the savings due to energyefficiency, including increased electricity exports and reduced natural gas imports (Figure 15). The export scenario has significantly betteroutcomes than BAU, especially in 2025 when there is more clean technology investment and exported power.

Figure 14: Macroeconomic outcomes are more positive in export scenario

0.12

0.20

0.350.35

20252012

Export

BAU

-150

1,800

1,150

2,700

2012 2025

Impact on GDP relative to no actionPercent

Impact on employment relative to no actionNumber of jobs

Additional effects

Manufacturing (only from the export scenario)

If half of the energy exported in the export scenario in 2025 were produced from solar PV, and Nevada were to establish the localmanufacturing capacity to supply those PV installations, an additional 1,200 to 1,300 jobs could be created.

Local taxes

Renewable installations contribute significant taxes and other revenue (e.g., land leases) to local communities. Since most renewablepower plants would be located in rural areas, these taxes could have a significant positive impact on rural communities. In the export

The export scenario hassignificantly better

outcomes than BAU,especially in 2025 when

there is more cleantechnology investment and

exported power.


18/24

18

scenario, roughly $25 million in local taxes and assessments would be collected from renewable power installations. This would enhancethe services provided by local governments and create 300-400 rural jobs.

Figure 15: Export scenario delivers significant additional value to

Nevadas economy

3.4

2.3

20252015

Renewable electricity exports inexport scenario relative to BAUTWh/year

* At CA wholesale price

173

99

20252015

Dollar value of exports*$M/year

Natural gas generation in exportscenario relative to BAUTWh/year

Avoided cost of natural gas imports$M/year

-3.5

-0.6

20252015

147

25

2015 2025

34% lowernatural gas

importsrelative tono action

6. What will it take to capture the opportunity?

In order to capture the clean energy opportunity in Nevada, three critical issues must be addressed. First, there must be a significant andsustained investment in transmissionboth new lines, and upgrades to existing lines. Second, several key barriers to renewable energydevelopment must be addressed and removed or reduced. Finally, multiple and persistent barriers to capturing the energy efficiencyopportunity must be addressed.

Transmission

The key challenge in developing renewable resources is transmission. Many resources are located far from load centers, and developing arenewable industry for export will require additional long-distance transmission capacity and upgrades of existing transmission lines. Theplanned 600 MW ONLine project connecting the northern and southern grids will help to deliver geothermal resources from NorthernNevada to Southern Nevada, but additional high-capacity lines will be needed to connect individual installations to the grid and to exportrenewable energy to California.

In the export scenario,

roughly $25 million inlocal taxes and

assessments would becollected from renewable

power installations.


19/24

19

Cost allocation

The key barrier to transmission development is cost allocation. When transmission lines cross statesor multiple utility territories, or when they deliver energy between utilities and states, it is notalways clear who should pay for transmission. Because cost allocation often goes unresolved, newtransmission often does not get built. The most narrow view holds that those who directly benefitgeneration project developers and ratepayers physically connected by the transmissionshould bear

the cost. However, adding transmission development risk and cost to a generation project can makeit prohibitively difficult to obtain capital and ratepayers may not be the only party benefitting.Transmission expansion often has regional benefits. Several legislative and FERC proposals existthat would provide clear guidelines on how to allocate costs, including sharing the cost oftransmission expansion regionally. Clear guidelines could help minimize the time spent litigatingcost allocation cases. Federal support in the form of low-cost loans and/or subsidies would also helpenable additional transmission. Given that an upgraded grid could be a national security and climateissue, federal support could be appropriate.

Other issues

Obtaining rights-of-way along the entire route of a transmission corridor can be difficult andinvolves working with a variety of private and public (federal, local, and state) entities, and oftenrequires extensive environmental impact study and mitigation. In Nevada specifically, militaryairspace constraints often affect transmission rights of way. A key enabler of transmissionexpansion will be close collaboration between all of the stakeholders involved, likely with moreactive regional and Federal involvement. However, Nevada is positioned favorably compared toCalifornia from a siting and permitting perspective,11 and this fact could give Nevada anadvantage when competing with California for renewables projects.

Barriers to renewables development

Development risks

Risks include regulatory risks associated with siting and permitting, the exploration risksassociated with geothermal energy, and the risk that transmission cannot be obtained. Severalways to mitigate these risks exist. One would be for utilities to take a more active role in

11 This is because of several factors, including a lower population density, a large area of Federally owned and managed land, and a more streamlined regulatory process

Federal support in theform of low-cost loansand/or subsidies would

also help enable

additional transmission.Given that an upgradedgrid could be a national

security and climate issue,federal support could be

appropriate.

Another would be for thestate and/or federal

government to assume aportion of these risks.

For example, the federalgovernment has recently

agreed to help fund theexploration required for

geothermal projectsdeveloped on some

federally owned lands.


20/24

20

renewables development as opposed to simply signing PPAs, for example by taking an ownership stake in projects, forming joint ventures,or forming a subsidiary devoted to renewables development. Another would be for the state and/or federal government to assume aportion of these risks. For example, the federal government has recently agreed to help fund the exploration required for geothermalprojects developed on some federally owned lands. Finally, it will be important for all stakeholders (not just developers) to work withregulatory and government agencies to streamline the siting and permitting process and address issues such as military airspaceconstraints (for wind farms and solar power tower plants), environmental impact, and impact on protected lands such as nationalmonuments. Other ways to address permitting issues include developing brown field sites for utility-scale projects, for example retiredcoal plants, and emphasizing distributed generation and solar water heating, which are typically deployed on or above existingcommercial and residential structures.

Other issues

Lack of grid parity often impedes the development of renewable resources. This cost issue can tosome degree be addressed through subsidies and tax incentives, such as investment tax credits,production tax credits, investment subsidies, loan guarantees, and feed-in-tariffs. In addition, an

RPS will drive a State Commission to authorize ratepayer support of higher-cost power. Beyondrate impacts, renewables have other impacts which can be extremely positive. It is important tomaximize the local economic benefits to Nevada by supporting the development of localrenewables knowledge, R&D, and a manufacturing base (e.g., university programs, tax and otherincentives for manufacturing, coupled with predictable long-term renewables demand).

Capturing the energy efficiency opportunity

In spite of the large and compelling energy efficiency potential that exists, much of the potentialremains untapped. This is due to multiple and persistent barriers to capture that exist at both the

individual actor and system level. One set of barriers is financial: efficiency measures typicallyrequire a large up front investment in return for a long sequence of small payback amounts. Anotherbarrier arises due to the highly fragmented nature of the efficiency opportunity: it is spread acrossmore than 100 million locations and billions of devices, ensuring that it is a top priority for almostno one. Finally, measuring and verifying energy NOT consumed is difficult.

It is important tomaximize the local

economic benefits toNevada by supporting

the development of localrenewables knowledge,

R&D, and amanufacturing base (e.g.,university programs, taxand other incentives formanufacturing, coupled

with predictable long-term renewables

demand).


21/24

21

10

21

10

13

47

Figure 16: Energy efficiency opportunity in the residential sectorEnergy savings from energy efficiency, 2025TBTU

Measures to enable capture ofopportunity

Subsidies and/or financing Require retrofit at point of sale or

upgrade

Retrofit

Newbuildings

Enforce and update buildingcodes

PACE, on-bill, or similar financing Building labeling (E.g.,

EnergyStar)

Heavyappliances

Appliance standards Appliance labeling Consumer rebates

Consumerelectronics

Standby power standards Device labeling Consumer rebates

Lighting Lighting standards Lighting labeling Consumer rebates

SOURCE: Energy Information Administration

Heavy appliances

New buildings

Retrofit

Lighting

Consumer electronicsBAU100%=13

Fullpotential*

100%=60

Export100%=20

* For comparison only; not modeled here


22/24

22

22

17

1215

34

Figure 17: Energy efficiency opportunity in the commercial sectorEnergy savings from energy efficiency, 2025TBTU

Measures to enable capture ofopportunity

Subsidies and/or financing

Require retrofit at point of sale or

upgrade

Retrofit

New

buildings Enforce and update building

codes

PACE, on-bill, or similar financing

Building labeling (E.g.,

EnergyStar)

Heavy

appliances Appliance standards

Appliance labeling

Consumer

electronics Standby power standards

Device labeling

Lighting Lighting standards

Lighting labeling

SOURCE: Energy Information Administration

Lighting

Consumer electronics

Heavy appliances

New buildings

Retrofit

BAU100%=12

Full

potential*

100%=55

Export

100%=19

* For comparison only; not modeled here

Despite the difficulty in capturing the full potential, many policy, market and other mechanisms exist and can be deployed to address thebarriers (Figures 16 and 17) and capture part of the potential. Effective measures include an overall energy efficiency target coupled withremoving disincentives (rate decoupling) or adding incentives (rate of return on EE investment, sharing benefit of EE with customers) forthe utility, information and education, incentives and financing, codes and standards and third-party involvement (in which a third party,


23/24


24/24

24

6. Energy efficiency credits (EECs) and markets can help stimulate adoption of energy efficiency measures. A market forefficiency could take several forms, with the central objective that market participants compete for savings to meet an energyefficiency target. This approach is already in place in two forward-capacity markets (New England and Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland power markets). Energy efficiency bids captured 26% of the 2,550 MW of new and existing demand resource capacityin the ISO New Englands February 2008 auction.

7. A shared savings structure such that the utility could gain some of the value from installing energy efficiency systems.

6. Conclusion

Nevada has extensive renewable energy and energy efficiency resources and has set out on a successful path toward a clean energyeconomy. By meeting the current laws for the Renewable Portfolio Standard, Nevada will create an additional 1,800 jobs by 2012. IfNevada were to be even more ambitious in developing a clean energy future and meet the obtainable goal of 3,000 MWh for exportoutside of Nevada, 9,000 clean energy jobs directly supporting the new clean energy infrastructure would be created by 2025. The totalimpact on Nevadas economy in 2025 would be an increase in GDP of $540 million. Although challenges and barriers exist to achievingthese outcomes, there are multiple ways of addressing these barriers and Nevada is already on the path to doing so.

developing nevada's clean energy resources

Documents