National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for nyup npcc upstate

  1. Property:EIA/861/NercNpcc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Description: Nerc Npcc Entity conducts business operations within the NPCC region (Y or N) 1 References EIA Form EIA-861 Final Data File for 2008 - F861 File...

  2. Upstate Biodiesel | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Biodiesel Jump to: navigation, search Name: Upstate Biodiesel Place: New York Product: Biodiesel producer. References: Upstate Biodiesel1 This article is a stub. You can help...

  3. Annual Energy Outlook 2015 - Appendix F

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2015 Regional maps Figure F2. Electricity market module regions Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Analysis. 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 6 7 1. ERCT TRE All 2. FRCC FRCC All 3. MROE MRO East 4. MROW MRO West 5. NEWE NPCC New England 6. NYCW NPCC NYC/Westchester 7. NYLI NPCC Long Island 8. NYUP NPCC Upstate NY 9. RFCE RFC East 10. RFCM RFC Michigan 11. RFCW RFC West 12. SRDA

  4. Upstate NY Power Corp | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NY Power Corp Jump to: navigation, search Name: Upstate NY Power Corp Place: West Seneca, New York Zip: 14224-3454 Sector: Wind energy Product: Developer of clean energy projects...

  5. Healthcare Energy: State University of New York Upstate Medical University

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    East Wing | Department of Energy State University of New York Upstate Medical University East Wing Healthcare Energy: State University of New York Upstate Medical University East Wing The Building Technologies Office conducted a healthcare energy end-use monitoring project in partnership with two hospitals. This page contains highlights from monitoring at the East Wing, a hospital building addition at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University. In the figure above, click on

  6. Assessing geothermal energy potential in upstate New York. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hodge, D.S.

    1996-08-01

    The potential of geothermal energy for future electric power generation in New York State is evaluated using estimates of temperatures of geothermal reservoir rocks. Bottom hole temperatures from over 2000 oil and gas wells in the region were integrated into subsurface maps of the temperatures for specific geothermal reservoirs. The Theresa/Potsdam formation provides the best potential for extraction of high volumes of geothermal fluids. The evaluation of the Theresa/Potsdam geothermal reservoir in upstate New York suggests that an area 30 miles east of Elmira, New York has the highest temperatures in the reservoir rock. The Theresa/Potsdam reservoir rock should have temperatures about 136 {degrees}C and may have as much as 450 feet of porosity in excess of 8%. Estimates of the volumes of geothermal fluids that can be extracted are provided and environmental considerations for production from a geothermal well is discussed.

  7. Economic analysis of a passive solar multiple-family dwelling for upstate New York

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laquatra, J. Jr.

    1982-02-01

    The objective of this study was to examine the economic feasibility of passive solar energy as applied to a multiple-family dwelling in three upstate New York cities: Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Specifically, two passive solar applications - a Trombe wall and a direct-gain system - for a nine-unit structure designed by Total Environmental Action, Inc. were analyzed through the use of a solar economic performance code. City-specific data, including climatological information, building construction costs, utility rates, and property taxes were used, as were various economic parameters to reflect economic conditions in general and specifically those of the solar systems' owners.

  8. Healthcare Energy: State University of New York Upstate Medical...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    This page contains highlights from monitoring at the East Wing, a hospital building ... Photo of an aerial view of the SUNY children's hospital City: Syracuse, NY Year Built: ...

  9. National Grid (Gas)- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Custom incentives are available for projects that demonstrate the use of natural gas more efficiently than industry practices and/or more efficiently than the minimum building code requirements....

  10. Building America Case Study: Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York (Fact Sheet)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2014-11-01

    While previous versions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) have included provisions to improve the air tightness of dwellings, for the first time, the 2012 IECC mandates compliance verification through blower door testing. Simply completing the Air Barrier and Insulation Installation checklist through visual inspection is no longer sufficient by itself. In addition, the 2012 IECC mandates a significantly stricter air sealing requirement. In Climate Zones 3 through 8, air leakage may not exceed 3 ACH50, which is a significant reduction from the 2009 IECC requirement of 7 ACH50. This requirement is for all residential buildings, which includes low-rise multifamily dwellings. While this air leakage rate requirement is an important component to achieving an efficient building thermal envelope, currently, the code language doesn't explicitly address differences between single family and multifamily applications. In addition, the 2012 IECC does not provide an option to sample dwellings for larger multifamily buildings, so compliance would have to be verified on every unit. With compliance with the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements on the horizon, several of CARB's multifamily builder partners are evaluating how best to comply with this requirement. Builders are not sure whether it is more practical or beneficial to simply pay for guarded testing or to revise their air sealing strategies to improve compartmentalization to comply with code requirements based on unguarded blower door testing. This report summarizes CARB's research that was conducted to assess the feasibility of meeting the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements in 3 multifamily buildings.

  11. HQ Energy Services (US), Inc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Data Utility Id 21249 Utility Location Yes Ownership W NERC Location NPCC NERC NPCC Yes RTO PJM Yes ISO NY Yes ISO MISO Yes ISO NE Yes Activity Generation Yes Activity Buying...

  12. Rockland Electric Co | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Data Utility Id 16213 Utility Location Yes Ownership I NERC Location NPCC NERC NPCC Yes RTO PJM Yes Activity Transmission Yes Activity Distribution Yes This article is a stub. You...

  13. Energetix | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Utility Location Yes Ownership R NERC Location NPCC NERC NPCC Yes Activity Wholesale Marketing Yes Activity Retail Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by...

  14. Village of Solvay, New York (Utility Company) | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Id 17512 Utility Location Yes Ownership M NERC Location NPCC NERC NPCC Yes Activity Wholesale Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it. Utility...

  15. New York Mun Power Agency | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Id 13539 Utility Location Yes Ownership A NERC Location NPCC NERC NPCC Yes Activity Wholesale Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it. Utility...

  16. Vermont Yankee Nucl Pwr Corp | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Utility Location Yes Ownership I NERC Location NPCC NERC NPCC Yes ISO NE Yes Activity Wholesale Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it. Utility...

  17. Town of Boylston, Massachusetts (Utility Company) | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    2010 - File1a1 EIA Form 861 Data Utility Id 2086 Utility Location Yes Ownership M NERC Location NPCC NERC NPCC Yes ISO NE Yes Activity Buying Transmission Yes Activity...

  18. Energy Coop of New York, Inc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    2010 - File1a1 EIA Form 861 Data Utility Id 5880 Utility Location Yes Ownership R NERC Location NPCC NERC NPCC Yes Activity Retail Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can...

  19. Town of Wakefield, Massachusetts (Utility Company) | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    - File1a1 EIA Form 861 Data Utility Id 19979 Utility Location Yes Ownership M NERC Location NPCC NERC NPCC Yes Activity Buying Transmission Yes Activity Distribution Yes...

  20. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York) National Grid's High Efficiency Heating Rebates are offered to gas heating customers in the Upstate New York counties of...

  1. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    National Grid (Electric)- Non-Residential Energy Efficiency Program (Upstate New York) National Grid's Non-Residential Program is for electric business customers in upstate New...

  2. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Lighting National Grid (Electric)- Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York) National Grid residential electric customers in Upstate New York are eligible...

  3. New Whole-House Solutions Case Study: Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2014-11-01

    While previous versions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) have included provisions to improve the air tightness of dwellings, for the first time, the 2012 IECC mandates compliance verification through blower door testing. Simply completing the Air Barrier and Insulation Installation checklist through visual inspection is no longer sufficient; the 2012 IECC mandates a significantly stricter air sealing requirement. In Climate Zones 3 through 8, air leakage may not exceed 3 ACH50, which is a significant reduction from the 2009 IECC requirement of 7 ACH50. This requirement is for all residential buildings, which includes low-rise multifamily dwellings. While this air leakage rate requirement is an important component to achieving an efficient building thermal envelope, currently, the code language doesn't explicitly address differences between single family and multifamily applications. In addition, the 2012 IECC does not provide an option to sample dwellings for larger multifamily buildings, so compliance would have to be verified on every unit. With compliance with the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements on the horizon, several of Building America team Consortium for Advanced Residential Building's (CARB) multifamily builder partners are evaluating how best to comply with this requirement. Builders are not sure whether it is more practical or beneficial to simply pay for guarded testing or to revise their air sealing strategies to improve compartmentalization to comply with code requirements based on unguarded blower door testing. This report summarizes CARB's research that was conducted to assess the feasibility of meeting the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements in three multifamily buildings.

  4. Building America Whole-House Solutions for New Homes: Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In this project, the Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings team sought to create a well-documented design and implementation strategy for air sealing in low-rise multifamily buildings that would assist in compliance with new building infiltration requirements of the 2012 IECC.

  5. Alternative Fuels Data Center: Green Fueling Station Powers Fleets in

    Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)]

    Upstate New York Green Fueling Station Powers Fleets in Upstate New York to someone by E-mail Share Alternative Fuels Data Center: Green Fueling Station Powers Fleets in Upstate New York on Facebook Tweet about Alternative Fuels Data Center: Green Fueling Station Powers Fleets in Upstate New York on Twitter Bookmark Alternative Fuels Data Center: Green Fueling Station Powers Fleets in Upstate New York on Google Bookmark Alternative Fuels Data Center: Green Fueling Station Powers Fleets in

  6. Interested Parties - Multiple Loan Applications per Developer under Section

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    BlueGreen Alliance Interested Parties - BlueGreen Alliance PDF icon 09-25-10_Section_136_ATVM.pdf More Documents & Publications Interested Parties - MEMA Interested Parties - United Auto Workers Interested Parties - Chrystler

    MEMA Interested Parties - MEMA PDF icon 08-14-10_MEMA.pdf More Documents & Publications Interested Parties - Chrystler Interested Parties - Smith Dawson & Andrews Interested Parties - NYU>

    Morgan Wright Interested Parties - Morgan Wright PDF icon

  7. Analysis of the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 Appendix C: Map of NEMS Electricity Market Module Regions 1 Texas Regional Entity (ERCT) 12 SERC / Delta (SRDA) 2 Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) 13 SERC / Gateway (SRGW) 3 Midwest Reliability Organization / East (MROE) 14 SERC / Southeastern (SRSE) 4 Midwest Reliability Organization / West (MROW) 15 SERC / Central (SRCE) 5 NPCC / Northeast (NEWE) 16 SERC / Virginia-Carolina (SRVC) 6 NPCC / NYC-Westchester (NYCW) 17 Southwest Power Pool / North (SPNO) 7 NPCC / Long Island

  8. Massachusetts Bay Trans Auth | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NPCC Yes Operates Generating Plant Yes Activity Generation Yes Activity Wholesale Marketing Yes Activity Retail Marketing Yes Alt Fuel Vehicle Yes Alt Fuel Vehicle2 Yes This...

  9. Sempra Energy Trading Corp | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Location Yes Ownership R NERC Location NPCC Activity Buying Transmission Yes Activity Wholesale Marketing Yes Activity Bundled Services Yes This article is a stub. You can help...

  10. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Equipment, Data Center Equipment, LED Lighting, Commercial Refrigeration Equipment National Grid (Gas)- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  11. Building America Whole-House Solutions for New Homes: Challenges of

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York | Department of Energy Whole-House Solutions for New Homes: Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York Building America Whole-House Solutions for New Homes: Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York In this project, the Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings team sought to create a

  12. JP Morgan | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NPCC Yes NERC RFC Yes NERC SERC Yes NERC SPP Yes NERC WECC Yes ISO CA Yes ISO Ercot Yes RTO PJM Yes ISO NY Yes RTO SPP Yes ISO MISO Yes ISO NE Yes ISO Other Yes Activity Retail...

  13. NYSEG Solutions Inc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Utility Id 26650 Utility Location Yes Ownership R NERC NPCC Yes Activity Wholesale Marketing Yes Activity Retail Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by...

  14. Application for Presidential Permit OE Docket No. PP-400 TDI-NE- New England Clean Power Link Project: Motion to Intervene of The Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc.

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. (NPCC) submits its Motion to Intervene the New England Clean Power Link Project pursuant to Rules 212 and 214 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures of...

  15. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    A. U.S. Transmission Circuit Outages by Type and NERC region, 2013 Outage Type FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC Contiguous U.S. Circuit Outage Counts Automatic Outages...

  16. AES Eastern Energy LP | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NPCC Yes ISO NY Yes Operates Generating Plant Yes Activity Generation Yes Activity Wholesale Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it. Utility...

  17. Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NPCC Yes ISO NE Yes Operates Generating Plant Yes Activity Generation Yes Activity Wholesale Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it....

  18. Agway Energy Services, LLC | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    2010 - File1a1 EIA Form 861 Data Utility Id 113 Utility Location Yes Ownership R NERC Location NPCC ISO NY Yes Activity Retail Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can...

  19. Major Energy Electric Services | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    - File1a1 EIA Form 861 Data Utility Id 56504 Utility Location Yes Ownership R NERC Location NPCC ISO NY Yes Activity Retail Marketing Yes This article is a stub. You can...

  20. Glacial Energy Holdings | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    EIA-861 Final Data File for 2010 - File1a1 EIA Form 861 Data Utility Id 54871 Utility Location Yes Ownership R NERC ERCOT Yes NERC MRO Yes NERC NPCC Yes NERC RFC Yes Activity...

  1. Robison Energy, LLC | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    EIA-861 Final Data File for 2010 - File1a1 EIA Form 861 Data Utility Id 16177 Utility Location Yes Ownership R NERC NPCC Yes Activity Retail Marketing Yes This article is a...

  2. Better Buildings Challenge Partners Reach New Levels of Energy...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    improvements are all examples how our Better Buildings Challenge (BBC) partner HARBEC in upstate New York has already achieved their goal of reducing their energy intensity by 25%. ...

  3. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    National Grid (Gas)- Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York) National Grid's High Efficiency Heating Rebates are offered to gas heating customers in the...

  4. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Thermostats, DuctAir sealing, Building Insulation, CustomOthers pending approval National Grid (Gas)- Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  5. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    pending approval, Other EE, Fuel Cells using Renewable Fuels, Tankless Water Heater National Grid (Gas)- Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  6. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    National Grid (Gas)- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York) Custom incentives are available for projects that demonstrate the use of natural gas more...

  7. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Low Income Residential Savings Category: Comprehensive MeasuresWhole Building National Grid (Gas)- Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  8. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    CustomOthers pending approval, Other EE, Food Service Equipment, Tankless Water Heater National Grid (Gas)- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  9. Property:Incentive/UserSource | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Energy (Northern Nevada Gas) - SureBet Business Energy Efficiency Rebate Program (Nevada) National Grid (Gas) - Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  10. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Tankless Water Heater Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings National Grid (Gas)- Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  11. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Insulation, Windows, CustomOthers pending approval, Other EE, Tankless Water Heater National Grid (Gas)- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  12. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    approval, Wind (Small), Geothermal Direct-Use, Other Distributed Generation Technologies National Grid (Gas)- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  13. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Comprehensive MeasuresWhole Building, CustomOthers pending approval, Other EE National Grid (Gas)- Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  14. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Insulation, Windows, CustomOthers pending approval, Other EE, Pool Pumps, LED Lighting National Grid (Gas)- Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  15. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Programmable Thermostats, CaulkingWeather-stripping, Building Insulation, Windows, Doors National Grid (Gas)- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York)...

  16. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Other EE National Grid (Gas)- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York) Custom incentives are available for projects that demonstrate the use of natural...

  17. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Data Center Equipment, LED Lighting, Commercial Refrigeration Equipment National Grid (Gas)- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Programs (Upstate New York) Custom incentives...

  18. HARBEC, Inc. Case Study for Superior Energy Performance | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    manufacturing facility in upstate New York implemented an energy management system that earned both ISO 50001 and Platinum Superior Energy Performance (SEP(tm)) certification. ...

  19. Phillips BioFuel Supply Co | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    to create an area wide marketing and distribution network for agriculturally sourced biodiesel fuel in Vermont, eastern upstate NY, western NH and Quebec south in Canada....

  20. SEP Success Story: Library Patrons in New York Check-Out Renewable...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    In a hamlet on the Hudson River in upstate New York, two newly installed photovoltaic arrays at the local library are generating electricity, interest in renewable energy, and ...

  1. Rensselaer Incubator Program | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    New York Zip: 12180 Product: US-based incubator, Rensselaer Incubator Program , is run by the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a university based in Upstate New York. It has...

  2. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Upstate New York counties of Albany, Columbia, Fulton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren and Washington....

  3. Statement by Energy Secretary Steven Chu on New Clean Energy Manufacturing

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Facility in Upstate New York | Department of Energy New Clean Energy Manufacturing Facility in Upstate New York Statement by Energy Secretary Steven Chu on New Clean Energy Manufacturing Facility in Upstate New York October 14, 2010 - 12:00am Addthis WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu issued the following statement on today's announcement by Universal Display Corporation (UDC) that the company has selected Canandaigua, New York for the site of a new clean energy facility to

  4. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0.A. Existing Transmission Capacity by High-Voltage Size, 2014 Voltage Circuit Miles Type Operating (kV) frcc mro npcc rfc serc spp tre wecc Contiguous U.S. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Voltage Circuit Counts Type Operating (kV) frcc mro npcc rfc serc spp tre wecc Contiguous U.S. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Notes: NERC region and reliability assessment area maps are provided on EIA's Electricity Reliability web page: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia411/eia411.html Circuit miles do not

  5. net_energy_load_2006.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 (Thousands of Megawatthours and 2006 Base Year) Net Energy For Load (Annual) Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 2006 3,911,914 230,115 222,748 294,319 926,279 1,011,173 201,521 305,672 720,087 Projected Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC

  6. summer_peak_2005.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a . Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 2005 and Projected 2006 through 2010 (Megawatts and 2005 Base Year) Summer Noncoincident Peak Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 2005 758,876 46,396 39,918 58,960 190,200 190,705 41,727 60,210 130,760 Projected Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP

  7. summer_peak_2006.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a . Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 (Megawatts and 2006 Base Year) Summer Noncoincident Peak Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 2006 789,475 45,751 42,194 63,241 191,920 199,052 42,882 62,339 142,096 Projected Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC

  8. winter_peak_2005.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2b . Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 2005 and Projected 2006 through 2010 (Megawatts and 2005 Base Year) Winter Noncoincident Peak Load Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 2005/2006 626,365 42,657 33,748 46,828 151,600 164,638 31,260 48,141 107,493 Contiguous U.S. Projected FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.)

  9. winter_peak_2006.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b . Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 (Megawatts and 2006 Base Year) Winter Noncoincident Peak Load Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 2006/2007 640,981 42,526 34,677 46,697 149,631 175,163 30,792 50,402 111,093 Contiguous U.S. Projected FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.)

  10. DOE Tour of Zero: The Preserve by Greenhill Contracting | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    upstate New York. 3 of 18 Advanced lighting technology is used throughout the home with LED lamps in 80% of the fixtures and CFLs in the remaining 20%. 4 of 18 The home's...

  11. SEP Success Story: Library Patrons in New York Check-Out Renewable Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In a hamlet on the Hudson River in upstate New York, two newly installed photovoltaic arrays at the local library are generating electricity, interest in renewable energy, and community pride. Learn more.

  12. TBH-0097- In the Matter of David M. Widger

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Decision will consider two Motions to Dismiss filed by Safety & Ecology Corp. (SEC), a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor located in upstate New York. SEC seeks dismissal of a Complaint...

  13. TBZ-1097- In the Matter of David M. Widger

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Decision will consider two Motions to Dismiss filed by Safety & Ecology Corp. (SEC), a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor located in upstate New York. SEC seeks dismissal of a Complaint...

  14. TBZ-2097- IN THE MATTER OF DAVID M. WIDGER

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Decision will consider two Motions to Dismiss filed by Safety & Ecology Corp. (SEC), a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor located in upstate New York. SEC seeks dismissal of a Complaint...

  15. Whistleblower Cases | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    DAVID M. WIDGER This Decision will consider two Motions to Dismiss filed by Safety & Ecology Corp. (SEC), a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor located in upstate New York. SEC...

  16. Hampton Biofuels | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Biofuels Jump to: navigation, search Name: Hampton Biofuels Place: New York, New York Zip: 10017 Product: A start-up looking to develop a biodiesel plant in upstate New York....

  17. GROW HOME

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Upstate Buffalo, New York, isn’t typically associated with gardens. More people probably envision Buffalo covered in the lake-effect snow of Lake Erie than in greenery. But the Solar Decathlon 2015...

  18. net_energy_load_2005.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2005 and Projected 2006 through 2010 (Thousands of Megawatthours and 2005 Base Year) Net Energy For Load (Annual) Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 2005 3,900,461 226,544 216,633 303,607 1,005,226 962,054 201,548 299,225 685,624 Projected Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) In 2005 for 2006 3,926,389 232,561 220,006 301,893 992,742

  19. Inquiring Minds - Questions About Physics

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Duplicating the Big Bang in Upstate New York? You Wrote: I read in an article in Scientific American, I believe, two months ago, that they were going to try and duplicate the big bang in upstate New York. I understand that they are going to scale it down from the original, duplicating only the density and the heat of the original, but isn't there a danger of the experiment getting out of hand? After all, the original big bang, from what I've read, was rather small itself, but had some pretty

  20. Top 8 Things You Didn't Know About Daylight Saving Time | Department of

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Energy Daylight Saving Time Top 8 Things You Didn't Know About Daylight Saving Time March 6, 2014 - 4:06pm Addthis This Sunday, people across the country will spring forward an hour, marking the start to Daylight Saving Time. | Photo courtesy of iStock Photo, WoodyUpstate. This Sunday, people across the country will spring forward an hour, marking the start to Daylight Saving Time. | Photo courtesy of iStock Photo, WoodyUpstate. Rebecca Matulka Rebecca Matulka Former Digital Communications

  1. HARBEC's $52,000 Annual Energy Savings under SEP Described in New Case

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Study | Department of Energy HARBEC's $52,000 Annual Energy Savings under SEP Described in New Case Study HARBEC's $52,000 Annual Energy Savings under SEP Described in New Case Study September 18, 2014 - 4:40pm Addthis Photo of HARBEC, Inc.'s specialty plastics manufacturing facility in upstate New York, courtesy of HARBEC. A new case study details how HARBEC, Inc. improved the energy performance of its specialty plastics manufacturing plant in upstate New York by 16.5% over three years

  2. ,"Projected Year Base","Year","Summer",,,"Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid",,,"Western Power Grid"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2005 and 2006 through 2010 " ,"(Megawatts and Percent)" ,"Projected Year Base","Year","Summer",,,"Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid",,,"Western Power Grid" ,,,"Contiguous U.S." ,,,,,,"FRCC",,,"MRO",,,"NPCC",,,"RFC",,,"SERC",,,"SPP",,,"ERCOT",,,"WECC" " ",,,"Net Internal Demand

  3. ,"Year",,"Summer",,,"Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid",,,"Western Power Grid"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4b. Summer Historic Net Internal Demand, Capacity Resources, and Capacity Margins by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2005 through 2009 " ,"(Megawatts and Percent)" ,"Year",,"Summer",,,"Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid",,,"Western Power Grid" ,,,"Contiguous U.S." ,,,,,,"FRCC",,,"MRO (U.S.)",,,"NPCC

  4. summer_nid_cr_cm_2005.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    d Form EIA-411 for 2005 Released: February 7, 2008 Next Update: October 2007 Table 4. Summer Historic and Projected Net Internal Demand, Capacity Resources, and Capacity Margins by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 2005 and 2006 through 2010 (Megawatts and Percent) Projected Year Base Year Summer Eastern Power Grid Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO NPCC RFC Net Internal Demand (MW) Capacity Resources (MW) Capacity Margin (percent) Net Internal Demand (MW) Capacity Resources (MW)

  5. summer_nid_cr_cm_2006.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    h c Form EIA-411 for 2006 Released: February 7, 2008 Next Update: October 2008 Table 4. Summer Historic and Projected Net Internal Demand, Capacity Resources, and Capacity Margins by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2006 and 2007 throug (Megawatts and Percent) Projected Year Base Year Summer Eastern Power Grid Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO NPCC RFC Net Internal Demand (MW) Capacity Resources (MW) Capacity Margin (percent) Net Internal Demand (MW) Capacity Resources (MW)

  6. Pedestrian Friendly Outdoor Lighting

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Miller, N. J.; Koltai, R. N.; McGowan, T. K.

    2013-12-01

    The GATEWAY program followed two pedestrian-scale lighting projects that required multiple mockups – one at Stanford University in California and the other at Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York. The report provides insight into pedestrian lighting criteria, how they differ from street and area lighting criteria, and how solid-state lighting can be better applied in pedestrian applications.

  7. Table 8.12a Electric Noncoincident Peak Load and Capacity Margin: Summer Peak Period, 1986-2011 (Megawatts, Except as Noted)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a Electric Noncoincident Peak Load and Capacity Margin: Summer Peak Period, 1986-2011 (Megawatts, Except as Noted) Year Noncoincident Peak Load 1 by North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) 2 Regional Assessment Area Capacity Margin 21 (percent) Eastern Interconnection ERCOT 4 Western Inter- connection All Inter- connections FRCC 5 NPCC 6 Balance of Eastern Region 3 ECAR 7,8 MAAC 8,9 MAIN 8,10 MAPP 11 MISO 12 MRO 13 PJM 14 RFC 8,15 SERC 16 SPP 17 Subtotal TRE 18 WECC 19 Total 20

  8. Table 8.12b Electric Noncoincident Peak Load and Capacity Margin: Winter Peak Period, 1986-2011 (Megawatts, Except as Noted)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b Electric Noncoincident Peak Load and Capacity Margin: Winter Peak Period, 1986-2011 (Megawatts, Except as Noted) Year Noncoincident Peak Load 1 by North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) 2 Regional Assessment Area Capacity Margin 21 (percent) Eastern Interconnection ERCOT 4 Western Inter- connection All Inter- connections FRCC 5 NPCC 6 Balance of Eastern Region 3 ECAR 7,8 MAAC 8,9 MAIN 8,10 MAPP 11 MISO 12 MRO 13 PJM 14 RFC 8,15 SERC 16 SPP 17 Subtotal TRE 18 WECC 19 Total 20

  9. Next Update: October 2009

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7 Released: February 2009 Next Update: October 2009 Table 3a . January Monthly Peak Hour Demand, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region (Megawatts and 2007 Base Year) Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE (ERCOT) WECC Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) 2007 613,068

  10. Next Update: October 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    January 2010 Next Update: October 2010 Table 3a . January Monthly Peak Hour Demand, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, (Megawatts and 2008 Base Year) Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) 2008 635,911 41,705 34,462 46,803

  11. ,"Month","Year","Contiguous U.S.","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3a. January Monthly Peak Hour Demand, Actual by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2005 through 2009 " ,"(Megawatts)",,," " " " ,"Month","Year","Contiguous U.S.","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,,,,"FRCC"," MRO (U.S.)","NPCC (U.S.)","RFC","SERC","SPP","TRE (ERCOT)","WECC

  12. ,"Net Energy For Load (Annual)",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b. Historical Net Energy For Load, Actual by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2005 through 2009. " ,"(Thousands of Megawatthours)" ,"Net Energy For Load (Annual)",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,,"Year",,"FRCC","MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.) ","RFC","SERC","SPP","TRE","WECC

  13. ,"Summer Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    e. Historical Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2005 through 2009 " ,"(Megawatts)" ,,,,," " ,"Summer Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,,"Year",,"FRCC"," MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.) ","RFC","SERC","SPP","TRE

  14. ,"Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 " ,"(Thousands of Megawatthours and 2006 Base Year)" ,"Net Energy For Load (Annual)",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"FRCC","MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  15. ,"Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 and Projected 2004 through 2008 " ,"(Thousands of Megawatthours and 2003 Base Year)" ,"Net Energy For Load (Annual)",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"ECAR","FRCC","MAAC","MAIN","MAPP (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  16. ,"Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4 and Projected 2005 through 2009 " ,"(Thousands of Megawatthours and 2004 Base Year)" ,"Net Energy For Load (Annual)",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"ECAR","FRCC","MAAC","MAIN","MAPP/MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  17. ,"Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2005 and Projected 2006 through 2010 " ,"(Thousands of Megawatthours and 2005 Base Year)" ,"Net Energy For Load (Annual)",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"FRCC","MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.) ","RFC","SERC","SPP","ERCOT","WECC (U.S.) "

  18. ,"Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 " ,"(Megawatts and 2006 Base Year)" ,"Summer Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"FRCC","MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  19. ,"Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 and Projected 2004 through 2008 " ,"(Megawatts and 2003 Base Year)",,,," " ,"Summer Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"ECAR","FRCC","MAAC","MAIN","MAPP (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  20. ,"Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4 and Projected 2005 through 2009 " ,"(Megawatts and 2004 Base Year)",,,," " ,"Summer Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"ECAR","FRCC","MAAC","MAIN","MAPP/MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  1. ,"Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2005 and Projected 2006 through 2010 " ,"(Megawatts and 2005 Base Year)" ,"Summer Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"FRCC","MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.) ","RFC","SERC","SPP","ERCOT","WECC (U.S.) "

  2. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 " ,"(Megawatts and 2006 Base Year)" ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"FRCC"," MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  3. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2007 and Projected 2008 through 2012 " ,"(Megawatts and 2007 Base Year)" ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"FRCC"," MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  4. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2008 and Projected 2009 through 2013 " ,"(Megawatts and 2008 Base Year)" ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"FRCC"," MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  5. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2009 and Projected 2010 through 2014 " ,"(Megawatts and 2009 Base Year)" ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"FRCC"," MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  6. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 and Projected 2004 through 2008 " ,"(Megawatts and 2003 Base Year)" ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"ECAR","FRCC","MAAC","MAIN","MAPP (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.) ","SERC","SPP","ERCOT","WECC (U.S.)

  7. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4 and Projected 2005 through 2009 " ,"(Megawatts and 2004 Base Year)" ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,"Projected Year Base","Year",,"ECAR","FRCC","MAAC","MAIN","MAPP/MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.) ","SERC","SPP","ERCOT","WECC (U.S.)

  8. ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    f. Historical Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2005 through 2010 " ,"(Megawatts)" ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,,"Year",,"FRCC","MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.) ","RFC","SERC","SPP","TRE ","WECC

  9. ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    d. Historical Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 1990 through 2004 " ,"(Megawatts)" ,"Winter Noncoincident Peak Load",,"Contiguous U.S. ","Eastern Power Grid",,,,,,,,"Texas Power Grid","Western Power Grid" ,,"Year",,"ECAR","FRCC","MAAC","MAIN","MAPP/MRO (U.S.) ","NPCC (U.S.)

  10. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.A. Net Energy for Load by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Assessment Area, 2004 - 2014, Actual Net Energy (Thousands of Megawatthours) Eastern Interconnection ERCOT Western Interconnection All Interconnections Period FRCC NPCC Balance of Eastern Region ECAR MAAC MAIN MAPP MISO MRO PJM RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC Contiguous U.S. 2004 220,335 292,725 2,313,180 553,236 283,646 274,760 -- -- 152,975 -- -- 856,734 191,829 289,146 682,053 3,797,439 2005 226,544 303,607 2,385,461 -- -- --

  11. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9.A. Winter Net Internal Demand, Capacity Resources, and Capacity Margins by North American Electric Reliability Assessment Area, 2004 - 2014, Actual Net Internal Demand (Megawatts) -- Winter Eastern Interconnection ERCOT Western Interconnection All Interconnections Period FRCC NPCC Balance of Eastern Region ECAR MAAC MAIN MAPP MISO MRO PJM RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC Contiguous U.S. 2004 / 2005 41,449 47,859 371,011 91,800 45,565 40,618 -- -- 24,446 -- -- 139,486 29,096 44,010 101,002 605,331 2005 /

  12. monthly_peak_1996_2004.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Next Update: October 2007 Table 3a . January Monthly Peak Hour Demand, Actual by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 1996 through 2004 (Megawatts) Month Year Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP/MRO NPCC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW)

  13. monthly_peak_2003.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    O Form EIA-411 for 2005 Released: February 7, 2008 Next Update: October 2007 Table 3a . January Monthly Peak Hour Demand, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 1996 through 2003 and Projected 2004 through 2005 (Megawatts and 2003 Base Year) Projected Monthly Base Year Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP/MR NPCC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW)

  14. monthly_peak_2004.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Table 3a . January Monthly Peak Hour Demand, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 1996 through 2004 and Projected 2005 through 2006 (Megawatts and 2004 Base Year) Projected Monthly Base Year Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP/MRO NPCC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour

  15. monthly_peak_2005.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3a . January Monthly Peak Hour Demand, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 2005 and Projected 2006 through 2010 (Megawatts and 2005 Base Year) Projected Monthly Base Year Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak

  16. monthly_peak_2006.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    6 Released: February 7, 2008 Next Update: October 2008 Table 3a . January Monthly Peak Hour Demand, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region 2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 (Megawatts and 2006 Base Year) Projected Monthly Base Year Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP ERCOT WECC Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak Hour Demand (MW) Peak

  17. winter_peak_2003.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ) Form EIA-411 for 2005 Released: February 7, 2008 Next Update: October 2007 Table 2b . Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 1990 through 2003 and Projected 2004 through 2008 (Megawatts and 2003 Base Year) Winter Noncoincident Peak Load Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP (U.S. NPCC (U.S.) SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 1990/1991 484,231 67,097

  18. winter_peak_2004.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b . Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 1990 through 2004 and Projected 2005 through 2009 (Megawatts and 2004 Base Year) Winter Noncoincident Peak Load Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP/MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 1990/1991 484,231 67,097 30,800 36,551 32,461 21,113 40,545 86,648 38,949 35,815 94,252 1991/1992 485,761

  19. SREL Reprint #3313

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    3 Efficacy of labeling wetlands with enriched 15N to determine amphibian dispersal David E. Scott1, Yurena Yanes2, Betsie B. Rothermel3, Melissa Pilgrim4, and Christopher S. Romanek1 1Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, Aiken, SC 29802, USA 2Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA 3Archbold Biological Station, Venus, FL 33960, USA 4University of South Carolina – Upstate, Spartanburg, SC 29303, USA Abstract: Stable isotope enrichment

  20. Preparation and characterization of composites based on poly(lactic acid) and CaCO{sub 3} nanofiller

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Moreno, Janaína Fernandes; Silva, Ana Lúcia N. da E-mail: ananazareth@ima.ufrj.br; Sousa, Ana Maria F. de

    2015-05-22

    In recent years, extensive studies have been conducted on the study of the poly(lactic acid) (PLA) properties, because of its being a typical biobased and biodegradable polymer, with good mechanical properties. However, its toughness and gas barrier properties are not satisfactory and can be improved by the addition of nanofillers, such as calcium carbonate (n-CaCO{sub 3}). The present work PLA composites with nano-sized precipitated calcium carbonate (n-NPCC) were prepared by melt extrusion. Thermal, mechanical and flow properties of the composites were evaluated by using a factorial design.The results showed that the addition of the nanofiller in the PLA matrix didn’t improve thethermal and mechanical properties of the matrix significantly. This behavior is probably due to the presence of the stearic acid that is coating on the n-NPCC particles, resulting in a weak polymer-particle interaction. Beyond this, it was also observed a decrease in MFI of the composites when nanofiller was added and at a higher screw speed.

  1. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, Final Report For the Performance Period May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sampson, Melvin R.

    2009-07-30

    The Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) is a joint project of the Yakama Nation (lead entity) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and is sponsored in large part by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) with oversight and guidance from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). It is among the largest and most complex fisheries management projects in the Columbia Basin in terms of data collection and management, physical facilities, habitat enhancement and management, and experimental design and research on fisheries resources. Using principles of adaptive management, the YKFP is attempting to evaluate all stocks historically present in the Yakima subbasin and apply a combination of habitat restoration and hatchery supplementation or reintroduction, to restore the Yakima Subbasin ecosystem with sustainable and harvestable populations of salmon, steelhead and other at-risk species. The original impetus for the YKFP resulted from the landmark fishing disputes of the 1970s, the ensuing legal decisions in United States versus Washington and United States versus Oregon, and the region's realization that lost natural production needed to be mitigated in upriver areas where these losses primarily occurred. The YKFP was first identified in the NPCC's 1982 Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) and supported in the U.S. v Oregon 1988 Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP). A draft Master Plan was presented to the NPCC in 1987 and the Preliminary Design Report was presented in 1990. In both circumstances, the NPCC instructed the Yakama Nation, WDFW and BPA to carry out planning functions that addressed uncertainties in regard to the adequacy of hatchery supplementation for meeting production objectives and limiting adverse ecological and genetic impacts. At the same time, the NPCC underscored the importance of using adaptive management principles to manage the direction of the Project. The 1994 FWP reiterated the importance of proceeding with the YKFP because of the added production and learning potential the project would provide. The YKFP is unique in having been designed to rigorously test the efficacy of hatchery supplementation. Given the current dire situation of many salmon and steelhead stocks, and the heavy reliance on artificial propagation as a recovery tool, YKFP monitoring results will have great region-wide significance. Supplementation is envisioned as a means to enhance and sustain the abundance of wild and naturally-spawning populations at levels exceeding the cumulative mortality burden imposed on those populations by habitat degradation and by natural cycles in environmental conditions. A supplementation hatchery is properly operated as an adjunct to the natural production system in a watershed. By fully integrating the hatchery with a naturally-producing population, high survival rates for the component of the population in the hatchery can raise the average abundance of the total population (hatchery component + naturally-producing component) to a level that compensates for the high mortalities imposed by human development activities and fully seeds the natural environment. The objectives of the YKFP are to: use Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and other modeling tools to facilitate planning for project activities, enhance existing stocks, re-introduce extirpated stocks, protect and restore habitat in the Yakima Subbasin, and operate using a scientifically rigorous process that will foster application of the knowledge gained about hatchery supplementation and habitat restoration throughout the Columbia River Basin. The YKFP is still in the early stages of evaluation, and as such the data and findings presented in this report should be considered preliminary until results are published in the peer-reviewed literature. The following is a brief summary of current YKFP activities by species.

  2. Buildings Energy Data Book: 6.2 Electricity Generation, Transmission, and Distribution

    Buildings Energy Data Book [EERE]

    9 2009 Peak Load and Capacity Margin, Summer and Winter by NERC Region (MW) NERC Region Capacity Margin Capacity Margin TRE 16.7% 19.1% FRCC 6.0% 2.0% MRO (U.S.) 24.6% 26.8% NPCC (U.S.) 29.1% 43.2% RFC 25.2% 33.3% SERC 24.6% 26.2% SPP 16.4% 34.6% WECC 19.4% 29.6% U.S. TOTAL 22.2% 28.5% Note(s): Source(s): 128,245 109,565 725,958 668,818 1) Summer Demand includes the months of June, July, August, and September. 2) Winter Demand includes December of the previous year and January-March of the

  3. table01.chp:Corel VENTURA

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2. Noncoincident Peak Load, by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Assessment Area, 1990-2010 Actual, 2011-2015 Projected (Megawatts) Interconnection NERC Regional Assesment Area 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 FRCC 27,266 28,818 30,601 32,823 32,904 34,524 35,444 35,375 38,730 37,493 37,194 39,062 40,696 40,475 42,383 46,396 45,751 46,676 44,836 NPCC 44,116 46,594 43,658 46,706 47,581 47,705 45,094 49,269 49,566 52,855

  4. Next Update: December 2011 Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region,

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    . Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2009 and Projected 2010 through 2014 2009 3,832,180 225,966 213,797 285,625 880,377 997,142 202,301 308,278 718,694 Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC (U.S.) 3,969,750 223,174 225,167 291,540 961,436 1,027,470 211,438 310,444 719,081 4,084,175 225,498 229,258 292,816 1,024,183 1,051,645 215,333 316,194 729,248 4,203,875 229,393 240,817 295,623 1,081,320 1,072,124

  5. Next Update: December 2011 Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region,

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Released: December 2010 Next Update: December 2011 Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2009 and Projected 2010 through 2014 (Megawatts and 2009 Base Year) 2009 725,958 46,550 37,963 55,944 161,241 191,032 41,465 63,518 128,245 Contiguou s U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC (U.S.) 772,089 46,006 42,240 60,215 177,688 201,350 43,395 63,810 137,385 785,069 46,124 42,733 60,820 181,867 205,351

  6. Next Update: December 2011 Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region,

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2009 and Projected 2010 through 2014 (Megawatts and 2009 Base Year) 2009/2010 668,818 53,022 35,351 44,864 143,827 193,135 32,863 56,191 109,565 Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC (U.S.) 639,073 46,235 35,722 46,374 143,040 183,614 31,415 43,823 108,850 646,845 46,821 36,816 46,529 146,591 186,364 33,047 43,823 106,854 657,839 47,558 37,359 46,753

  7. Next Update: November 2013

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Next Update: November 2013 megawatts January NERC Regional Assesment Area 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 FRCC 39,860 37,127 27,122 38,581 37,521 40,258 39,675 45,033 35,545 41,247 34,464 38,352 41,705 44,945 53,093 46,086 NPCC 41,680 41,208 40,009 44,199 45,227 43,553 42,039 45,987 66,215 47,041 43,661 45,002 46,803 45,047 43,849 45,395 Balance of Eastern Region 322,095 335,954 307,784 343,981 347,724 349,937 340,525 377,419 371,550 381,698

  8. Next Update: October 2009

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a . Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2007 and Projected 2008 through 2012 (Megawatts and 2007 Base Year) 2007 782,227 46,676 41,684 58,314 181,700 209,109 43,167 62,188 139,389 Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP TRE (ERCOT) WECC (U.S.) 789,915 47,364 41,222 61,779 184,000 204,791 43,800 64,927 142,032 806,672 48,181 43,208 62,647 187,100 209,288 44,784 66,247 145,217 822,889 49,093 44,737 63,399

  9. Next Update: October 2009

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b . Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2007 and Projected 2008 through 2012 (Megawatts and 2007 Base Year) 2007/2008 637,905 41,701 33,191 46,795 141,900 179,888 31,322 50,408 112,700 Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP TRE (ERCOT) WECC (U.S.) 656,989 49,601 34,100 48,323 147,100 182,055 31,954 47,270 116,586 669,111 50,463 35,085 48,911 149,100 185,850 32,585 48,285 118,832 680,673 51,606 36,298

  10. Next Update: October 2009 Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region,

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2006 and Projected 2008 through 2012 2007 4,012,728 232,405 217,602 301,766 954,700 1,049,298 210,875 307,064 739,018 Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP TRE (ERCOT) WECC (U.S.) 4,085,683 242,923 225,058 301,767 973,800 1,073,081 208,532 313,946 746,575 4,149,201 248,996 230,745 305,223 984,000 1,086,304 212,884 319,355 761,694 4,226,516 255,216 239,483 308,534 999,200

  11. Next Update: October 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    8 Released: February 2010 Next Update: October 2010 Table 2a . Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2008 and Projected 2009 through 2013 (Megawatts and 2008 Base Year) 2008 752,470 44,836 39,677 58,543 169,155 199,779 43,476 62,174 134,829 Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC (U.S.) 779,716 45,734 43,172 61,327 178,100 202,738 44,462 63,491 140,692 790,116 45,794 44,184 61,601 180,400 206,218

  12. Next Update: October 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Table 2b . Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2008 and Projected 2009 through 2013 (Megawatts and 2008 Base Year) 2008/2009 643,557 45,275 36,029 46,043 142,395 179,596 32,809 47,806 113,605 Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC (U.S.) 642,383 44,446 36,571 47,098 145,800 181,045 32,636 43,463 111,324 651,534 45,099 36,884 47,076 148,000 183,608 33,308 44,463 113,096 664,867 46,140 37,613

  13. Next Update: October 2010 Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region,

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Jaunary 2010 Next Update: October 2010 Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2008 and Projected 2009 through 2013 2008 3,989,058 226,874 227,536 297,362 936,201 1,035,390 207,603 312,401 745,691 Contiguous U.S. FRCC MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC (U.S.) 4,025,705 227,690 233,519 295,883 958,792 1,051,350 207,850 312,205 738,416 4,076,698 228,579 239,702 295,753 967,962 1,067,893 211,343 315,065 750,401

  14. monthly_peak_bymonth_2010.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    A.1. January Monthly Peak Hour Demand, by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Assesment Area, 1996-2010 Actual, 2011-2012 Projected (Megawatts) January NERC Regional Assesment Area 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011E 2012E FRCC 39,860 37,127 27,122 38,581 37,521 40,258 39,675 45,033 35,545 41,247 34,464 38,352 41,705 44,945 53,093 46,839 47,613 NPCC 41,680 41,208 40,009 44,199 45,227 43,553 42,039 45,987 66,215 47,041 43,661 45,002 46,803

  15. net_energy_load_1990_2004.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Not applicable for this table format Table 1a . Historical Net Energy For Load, Actual by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 1990 through 2004. (Thousands of Megawatthours) Net Energy For Load (Annual) Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Year ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP/MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 1990 2,886,496 442,507 142,502 221,099 197,326 127,102 250,681 485,205 252,037 209,789 558,248 1991 2,941,669 450,586 146,903

  16. net_energy_load_2003.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 and Projected 2004 through 2008 (Thousands of Megawatthours and 2003 Base Year) Net Energy For Load (Annual) Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 1990 2,886,496 442,507 142,502 221,099 197,326 127,102 250,681 485,205 252,037 209,789 558,248 1991 2,941,669 450,586 146,903 228,588 205,880 129,826 253,701 501,794 257,434 211,568 555,389 1992 2,942,910 450,853 147,464

  17. net_energy_load_2004.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4 and Projected 2005 through 2009 (Thousands of Megawatthours and 2004 Base Year) Net Energy For Load (Annual) Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Projected Year Base Year ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP/MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 1990 2,886,496 442,507 142,502 221,099 197,326 127,102 250,681 485,205 252,037 209,789 558,248 1991 2,941,669 450,586 146,903 228,588 205,880 129,826 253,701 501,794 257,434 211,568 555,389 1992 2,942,910 450,853

  18. net_energy_load_2010.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Assessment Area, 1990-2010 Actual, 2011-2015 Projected (Thousands of Megawatthours) Interconnection NERC Regional Assesment Area 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 FRCC 142,502 146,903 147,464 153,468 159,861 169,021 173,377 175,557 188,384 188,598 196,561 200,134 211,116 NPCC 250,681 253,701 252,256 257,447 259,947 261,235 263,125 264,464 268,309 277,902 281,518 282,670

  19. peak_load_2010.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2. Noncoincident Peak Load, by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Assessment Area, 1990-2010 Actual, 2011-2015 Projected (Megawatts) Interconnection NERC Regional Assesment Area 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 FRCC 27,266 28,818 30,601 32,823 32,904 34,524 35,444 35,375 38,730 37,493 37,194 39,062 40,696 40,475 42,383 46,396 45,751 46,676 44,836 NPCC 44,116 46,594 43,658 46,706 47,581 47,705 45,094 49,269 49,566 52,855

  20. summer_capacity_2010.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Interconnection NERC Regional Assesment Area 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 FRCC 27,162 27,773 28,898 29,435 30,537 31,649 31,868 32,874 34,562 34,832 35,666 38,932 37,951 40,387 42,243 45,950 45,345 46,434 44,660 46,263 NPCC 46,016 45,952 46,007 46,380 47,465 48,290 48,950 50,240 51,760 53,450 54,270 55,888 55,164 53,936 51,580 57,402 60,879 58,221 59,896 55,730 Balance of Eastern Region 332,679 337,297 341,869 349,984

  1. summer_peak_1990_2004.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    c . Historical Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 1990 through 2004 (Megawatts) Summer Noncoincident Peak Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Year ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP/MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 1990 546,331 79,258 27,266 42,613 40,740 24,994 44,116 94,677 52,541 42,737 97,389 1991 551,418 81,224 28,818 45,937 41,598 25,498 46,594 95,968 51,885 41,870 92,026 1992 548,707

  2. winter_peak_1990_2004.xls

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    d . Historical Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, 1990 through 2004 (Megawatts) Winter Noncoincident Peak Load Contiguous U.S. Eastern Power Grid Texas Power Grid Western Power Grid Year ECAR FRCC MAAC MAIN MAPP/MRO (U.S.) NPCC (U.S.) SERC SPP ERCOT WECC (U.S.) 1990/1991 484,231 67,097 30,800 36,551 32,461 21,113 40,545 86,648 38,949 35,815 94,252 1991/1992 485,761 71,181 31,153 37,983 33,420 21,432 41,866 88,422 38,759 35,448 86,097

  3. Pedestrian Friendly Outdoor Lighting

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Miller, Naomi J.; Koltai, Rita; McGowan, Terry

    2013-12-31

    This GATEWAY report discusses the problems of pedestrian lighting that occur with all technologies with a focus on the unique optical options and opportunities offered by LEDs through the findings from two pedestrian-focused projects, one at Stanford University in California, and one at the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York. Incorporating user feedback this report reviews the tradeoffs that must be weighed among visual comfort, color, visibility, efficacy and other factors to stimulate discussion among specifiers, users, energy specialists, and in industry in hopes that new approaches, metrics, and standards can be developed to support pedestrian-focused communities, while reducing energy use.

  4. Solar Technologies for Native America

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Ready Vets: Inside the Training Solar Ready Vets: Inside the Training February 18, 2016 - 11:08am Addthis Solar Ready Vets: Inside the Training Gregory O'Brien Communications Specialist, SunShot Initiative Above: A little snow can't stop students in the Solar Ready Vets program at Fort Drum in upstate New York from learning how to complete solar installations. "I went in knowing very little about solar," said Jake Mayberry, who spent six years in the military, "and now that I get

  5. Governor Cuomo, GE Announce Power Electronics Manufacturing Consortium

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Governor Cuomo Announces 100 Businesses Led by GE to Join $500 Million Partnership with State to Develop Next-Generation Power Electronics, Creating Thousands of Jobs in Capital Region and Upstate Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Governor Cuomo Announces 100 Businesses Led by GE to Join $500 Million

  6. Resident Fish Stock above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams; 2002 Annual Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Connor, Jason M.; McLellan, Jason G.; Butler, Chris

    2003-09-01

    In 1980, the United States Congress enacted the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act (PL 96-501, 1980), which established the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), formerly the Northwest Power Planning Council. The NPCC was directed by Congress to develop a regional Power Plan and also the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) to restore or replace losses of fish caused by construction and operation of hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin. In developing the FWP, Congress specifically directed NPCC to solicit recommendations for measures to be included in the Program from the region's fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes. All measures adopted by the Council were also required to be consistent with the management objectives of the agencies and tribes [Section 4.(h)(6)(A)], the legal rights of Indian tribes in the region [Section 4.(h)(6)(D)] and be based upon and supported by the best available scientific knowledge [Section 4.(h)(6)(B)]. The Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Project, also known as the Joint Stock Assessment Project (JSAP) specifically addresses NPPC Council measure 10.8B.26 of the 1994 program. The Joint Stock Assessment Project is a management tool using ecosystem principles to manage artificial fish assemblages and native fish in altered environments existing in the Columbia River System above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (Blocked Area). A three-phase approach of this project will enhance the fisheries resources of the Blocked Area by identifying data gaps, filling data gaps with research, and implementing management recommendations based on research results. The Blocked Area fisheries information is housed in a central location, allowing managers to view the entire system while making decisions, rather than basing management decisions on isolated portions of the system. The JSAP is designed and guided jointly by fisheries managers in the Blocked Area. The initial year of the project (1997) identified the need for a central data storage and analysis facility, coordination with the StreamNet project, compilation of Blocked Area fisheries information, and a report on the ecological condition of the Spokane River System. These needs were addressed in 1998 by acquiring a central location with a data storage and analysis system, coordinating a pilot project with StreamNet, compiling fisheries distribution data throughout the Blocked Area, identifying data gaps based on compiled information, and researching the ecological condition of the Spokane River. In order to ensure that any additional information collected throughout the life of this project will be easily stored and manipulated by the central storage facility, it was necessary to develop standardized methodologies between the JSAP fisheries managers. Common collection and analytical methodologies were developed in 1999. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 the project began addressing some of the identified data gaps throughout the Blocked Area. Data collection of established projects and a variety of newly developed sampling projects are ongoing. Projects developed and undertaken by JSAP fisheries managers include investigations of the Pend Orielle River and its tributaries, the Little Spokane River and its tributaries, and water bodies within and near the Spokane Indian Reservation. Migration patterns of adfluvial and reservoir fish in Box Canyon Reservoir and its tributaries, a baseline assessment of Boundary Reservoir and its tributaries, ecological assessment of mountain lakes in Pend Oreille County, and assessments of streams and lakes on the Spokane Indian Reservation were completed by 2001. Assessments of the Little Spokane River and its tributaries, tributaries to the Pend Oreille River, small lakes in Pend Oreille County, WA, and water bodies within and near the Spokane Indian Reservation were conducted in 2002. This work was done in accordance with the scope of work approved by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

  7. Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams; 2002-2003 Annual Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Connor, Jason M.; McLellan, Jason G.; Butler, Chris

    2006-02-01

    In 1980, the United States Congress enacted the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act (PL 96-501, 1980), which established the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), formerly the Northwest Power Planning Council. The NPCC was directed by Congress to develop a regional Power Plan and also the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) to restore or replace losses of fish caused by construction and operation of hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin. In developing the FWP, Congress specifically directed NPCC to solicit recommendations for measures to be included in the Program from the region's fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes. All measures adopted by the Council were also required to be consistent with the management objectives of the agencies and tribes [Section 4.(h)(6)(A)], the legal rights of Indian tribes in the region [Section 4.(h)(6)(D)] and be based upon and supported by the best available scientific knowledge [Section 4.(h)(6)(B)]. The Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Project, also known as the Joint Stock Assessment Project (JSAP) specifically addresses NPPC Council measure 10.8B.26 of the 1994 program. The Joint Stock Assessment Project is a management tool using ecosystem principles to manage artificial and native fish assemblages in altered environments existing in the Columbia River System above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (Blocked Area). A three-phase approach of this project will enhance the fisheries resources of the Blocked Area by identifying data gaps, filling data gaps with research, and implementing management recommendations based on research results. The Blocked Area fisheries information is housed in a central location, allowing managers to view the entire system while making decisions, rather than basing management decisions on isolated portions of the system. The JSAP is designed and guided jointly by fisheries managers in the Blocked Area. The initial year of the project (1997) identified the need for a central data storage and analysis facility, coordination with the StreamNet project, compilation of Blocked Area fisheries information, and a report on the ecological condition of the Spokane River System. These needs were addressed in 1998 by acquiring a central location with a data storage and analysis system, coordinating a pilot project with StreamNet, compiling fisheries distribution data throughout the Blocked Area, identifying data gaps based on compiled information, and researching the ecological condition of the Spokane River. In order to ensure that any additional information collected throughout the life of this project will be easily stored and manipulated by the central storage facility, it was necessary to develop standardized methodologies between the JSAP fisheries managers. Common collection and analytical methodologies were developed in 1999. The project began addressing identified data gaps throughout the Blocked Area in 1999. Data collection of established projects and a variety of newly developed sampling projects are ongoing. Projects developed and undertaken by JSAP fisheries managers include investigations of the Pend Orielle River and its tributaries, the Little Spokane River and its tributaries, and water bodies within and near the Spokane Indian Reservation. Migration patterns of adfluvial and reservoir fish in Box Canyon Reservoir and its tributaries, a baseline assessment of Boundary Reservoir and its tributaries, ecological assessment of mountain lakes in Pend Oreille County, and assessments of streams and lakes on the Spokane Indian Reservation were completed by 2001. Assessments of the Little Spokane River and its tributaries, Spokane River below Spokane Falls, tributaries to the Pend Oreille River, small lakes in Pend Oreille County, WA, and water bodies within and near the Spokane Indian Reservation were conducted in 2002 and 2003. This work was done in accordance with the scope of work approved by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

  8. Resident Fish Stock above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams; 2003-2004 Annual Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Connor, Jason M.; McLellan, Jason G.; Butler, Chris

    2005-11-01

    In 1980, the United States Congress enacted the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act (PL 96-501, 1980), which established the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), formerly the Northwest Power Planning Council. The NPCC was directed by Congress to develop a regional Power Plan and also the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) to restore or replace losses of fish caused by construction and operation of hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin. In developing the FWP, Congress specifically directed NPCC to solicit recommendations for measures to be included in the Program from the region's fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes. All measures adopted by the Council were also required to be consistent with the management objectives of the agencies and tribes [Section 4.(h)(6)(A)], the legal rights of Indian tribes in the region [Section 4.(h)(6)(D)] and be based upon and supported by the best available scientific knowledge [Section 4.(h)(6)(B)]. The Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Project, also known as the Joint Stock Assessment Project (JSAP) specifically addresses NPPC Council measure 10.8B.26 of the 1994 program. The Joint Stock Assessment Project is a management tool using ecosystem principles to manage artificial and native fish assemblages in altered environments existing in the Columbia River System above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (Blocked Area). A three-phase approach of this project will enhance the fisheries resources of the Blocked Area by identifying data gaps, filling data gaps with research, and implementing management recommendations based on research results. The Blocked Area fisheries information is housed in a central location, allowing managers to view the entire system while making decisions, rather than basing management decisions on isolated portions of the system. The JSAP is designed and guided jointly by fisheries managers in the Blocked Area. The initial year of the project (1997) identified the need for a central data storage and analysis facility, coordination with the StreamNet project, compilation of Blocked Area fisheries information, and a report on the ecological condition of the Spokane River System. These needs were addressed in 1998 by acquiring a central location with a data storage and analysis system, coordinating a pilot project with StreamNet, compiling fisheries distribution data throughout the Blocked Area, identifying data gaps based on compiled information, and researching the ecological condition of the Spokane River. In order to ensure that any additional information collected throughout the life of this project will be easily stored and manipulated by the central storage facility, it was necessary to develop standardized methodologies between the JSAP fisheries managers. Common collection and analytical methodologies were developed in 1999. The project began addressing identified data gaps throughout the Blocked Area in 1999. Data collection of established projects and a variety of newly developed sampling projects are ongoing. Projects developed and undertaken by JSAP fisheries managers include investigations of the Pend Orielle River and its tributaries, the Little Spokane River and its tributaries, and water bodies within and near the Spokane Indian Reservation. Migration patterns of adfluvial and reservoir fish in Box Canyon Reservoir and its tributaries, a baseline assessment of Boundary Reservoir and its tributaries, ecological assessment of mountain lakes in Pend Oreille County, and assessments of streams and lakes on the Spokane Indian Reservation were completed by 2001. Assessments of the Little Spokane River and its tributaries, Spokane River below Spokane Falls, tributaries to the Pend Oreille River, small lakes in Pend Oreille County, WA, and water bodies within and near the Spokane Indian Reservation were conducted in 2002 and 2003. This work was done in accordance with the scope of work approved by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

  9. Evaluation of the Biological Effects of the Northwest Power Conservation Council's Mainstem Amendment on the Fisheries Upstream and Downstream of Libby Dam, Montana, 2007-2008 Annual Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sylvester, Ryan; Stephens, Brian; Tohtz, Joel

    2009-04-03

    A new project began in 2005 to monitor the biological and physical effects of improved operations of Hungry Horse and Libby Dams, Montana, called for by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) Mainstem Amendment. This operating strategy was designed to benefit resident fish impacted by hydropower and flood control operations. Under the new operating guidelines, July through September reservoir drafts will be limited to 10 feet from full pool during the highest 80% of water supply years and 20 feet from full pool during the lowest 20% of water supply (drought) years. Limits were also established on how rapidly discharge from the dams can be increased or decreased depending on the season. The NPCC also directed the federal agencies that operate Libby and Hungry Horse Dams to implement a new flood control strategy (VARQ) and directed Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks to evaluate biological responses to this operating strategy. The Mainstem Amendment operating strategy has not been fully implemented at the Montana dams as of June 2008 but the strategy will be implemented in 2009. This report highlights the monitoring methods used to monitor the effects of the Mainstem Amendment operations on fishes, habitat, and aquatic invertebrates upstream and downstream of Libby Dam. We also present initial assessments of data and the effects of various operating strategies on physical and biological components of the systems upstream and downstream of Libby Dam. Annual electrofishing surveys in the Kootenai River and selected tributaries, along with gill net surveys in the reservoir, are being used to quantify the impacts of dam operations on fish populations upstream and downstream of Libby Dam. Scales and otoliths are being used to determine the age structure and growth of focal species. Annual population estimates and tagging experiments provide estimates of survival and growth in the mainstem Kootenai River and selected tributaries. Radio telemetry will be used to validate an existing Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) model developed for the Kootenai River and will also be used to assess the effect of changes in discharge on fish movements and habitat use downstream of Libby Dam. Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags will be injected into rainbow, bull, and cutthroat trout throughout the mainstem Kootenai River and selected tributaries to provide information on growth, survival, and migration patterns in relation to abiotic and biotic variables. Model simulations (RIVBIO) are used to calculate the effects of dam operations on the wetted perimeter and benthic biomass in the Kootenai River below Libby Dam. Additional models (IFIM) will also be used to evaluate the impacts of dam operations on the amount of available habitat for different life stages of rainbow and bull trout in the Kootenai River.

  10. Screening study for waste biomass to ethanol production facility using the Amoco process in New York State. Appendices to the final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-08-01

    The final report evaluates the economic feasibility of locating biomass-to-ethanol waste conversion facilities in New York State. Part 1 of the study evaluates 74 potential sites in New York City and identifies two preferred sites on Staten Island, the Proctor and Gamble and the Arthur Kill sites for further consideration. Part 2 evaluates upstate New York and determines that four regions surrounding the urban centers of Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse provide suitable areas from which to select specific sites for further consideration. A conceptual design and economic viability evaluation were developed for a minimum-size facility capable of processing 500 tons per day (tpd) of biomass consisting of wood or paper, or a combination of the two for upstate regions. The facility would use Amoco`s biomass conversion technology and produce 49,000 gallons per day of ethanol and approximately 300 tpd of lignin solid by-product. For New York City, a 1,000-tpd processing facility was also evaluated to examine effects of economies of scale. The reports evaluate the feasibility of building a biomass conversion facility in terms of city and state economic, environmental, and community factors. Given the data obtained to date, including changing costs for feedstock and ethanol, the project is marginally attractive. A facility should be as large as possible and located in a New York State Economic Development Zone to take advantage of economic incentives. The facility should have on-site oxidation capabilities, which will make it more financially viable given the high cost of energy. This appendix to the final report provides supplemental material supporting the evaluations.

  11. Screening study for waste biomass to ethanol production facility using the Amoco process in New York State. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-08-01

    This report evaluates the economic feasibility of locating biomass-to-ethanol waste conversion facilities in New York State. Part 1 of the study evaluates 74 potential sites in New York City and identifies two preferred sites on Staten, the Proctor Gamble and the Arthur Kill sites, for further consideration. Part 2 evaluates upstate New York and determines that four regions surrounding the urban centers of Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse provide suitable areas from which to select specific sites for further consideration. A separate Appendix provides supplemental material supporting the evaluations. A conceptual design and economic viability evaluation were developed for a minimum-size facility capable of processing 500 tons per day (tpd) of biomass consisting of wood or paper, or a combination of the two for upstate regions. The facility would use Amoco`s biomass conversion technology and produce 49,000 gallons per day of ethanol and approximately 300 tpd of lignin solid by-product. For New York City, a 1,000-tpd processing facility was also evaluated to examine effects of economies of scale. The reports evaluate the feasibility of building a biomass conversion facility in terms of city and state economic, environmental, and community factors. Given the data obtained to date, including changing costs for feedstock and ethanol, the project is marginally attractive. A facility should be as large as possible and located in a New York State Economic Development Zone to take advantage of economic incentives. The facility should have on-site oxidation capabilities, which will make it more financially viable given the high cost of energy. 26 figs., 121 tabs.

  12. Next Update: November 2016

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    megawatts January NERC Regional Assesment Area 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 FRCC 39,860 37,127 27,122 38,581 37,521 40,258 39,675 45,033 35,545 41,247 34,464 38,352 41,705 44,945 53,093 46,086 38,518 36,733 38,895 NPCC 41,680 41,208 40,009 44,199 45,227 43,553 42,039 45,987 66,215 47,041 43,661 45,002 46,803 45,047 43,849 45,395 43,827 45,545 47,072 Balance of Eastern Region 322,095 335,954 307,784 343,981 347,724 349,937 340,525

  13. Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam, 2004-2005 Annual Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dunnigan, James; DeShazer, Jay; Garrow, Larry (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Libby, MT)

    2005-06-01

    ''Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam'' is part of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's (NPCC) resident fish and wildlife program. The program was mandated by the Northwest Planning Act of 1980, and is responsible for mitigating damages to fish and wildlife caused by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin. The objective of Phase I of the project (1983 through 1987) was to maintain or enhance the Libby Reservoir fishery by quantifying seasonal water levels and developing ecologically sound operational guidelines. The objective of Phase II of the project (1988 through 1996) was to determine the biological effects of reservoir operations combined with biotic changes associated with an aging reservoir. The objectives of Phase III of the project (1996 through present) are to implement habitat enhancement measures to mitigate for dam effects, to provide data for implementation of operational strategies that benefit resident fish, monitor reservoir and river conditions, and monitor mitigation projects for effectiveness. This project completes urgent and high priority mitigation actions as directed by the Kootenai Subbasin Plan. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) uses a combination of techniques to collect physical and biological data within the Kootenai River Basin. These data serve several purposes including: the development and refinement of models used in management of water resources and operation of Libby Dam; investigations into the limiting factors of native fish populations, gathering basic life history information, tracking trends in endangered and threatened species, and the assessment of restoration or management activities designed to restore native fishes and their habitats.

  14. Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam, 2003-2004 Annual Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dunnigan, James; DeShazer, Jay; Garrow, Larry

    2004-06-01

    ''Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam'' is part of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's (NPCC) resident fish and wildlife program. The program was mandated by the Northwest Planning Act of 1980, and is responsible for mitigating for damages to fish and wildlife caused by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin. The objective of Phase I of the project (1983 through 1987) was to maintain or enhance the Libby Reservoir fishery by quantifying seasonal water levels and developing ecologically sound operational guidelines. The objective of Phase II of the project (1988 through 1996) was to determine the biological effects of reservoir operations combined with biotic changes associated with an aging reservoir. The objectives of Phase III of the project (1996 through present) are to implement habitat enhancement measures to mitigate for dam effects, to provide data for implementation of operational strategies that benefit resident fish, monitor reservoir and river conditions, and monitor mitigation projects for effectiveness. This project completes urgent and high priority mitigation actions as directed by the Kootenai Subbasin Plan. Montana FWP uses a combination of diverse techniques to collect a variety of physical and biological data within the Kootenai River Basin. These data serve several purposes including: the development and refinement of models used in management of water resources and operation of Libby Dam; investigations into the limiting factors of native fish populations, gathering basic life history information, tracking trends in endangered, threatened species, and the assessment of restoration or management activities intended to restore native fishes and their habitats.

  15. Metal Cycling by Bacteria: Moving Electrons Around

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    Nealson, Ken

    2010-01-08

    About 20 years ago, Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 was isolated from a manganese-rich lack in upstate New York, and subsequently shown to utilize solid forms of oxidized manganese or iron as an electron acceptor. Recent studies of metal-reducing bacterial have unveiled a number of unexpected properties of microbes that have enlarged our view of microbes and their role(s) in natural ecosystems. For example, the processes of metal reduction themselves are fundamental to the carbon cycle in many lakes and sediments, where iron and manganese account for the major portion of organic carbon oxidation in many sediments. On more modest spatial scales, iron and manganese reduction can be linked to the oxidation of a wide variety of carbon compounds, many of them recalcitrant and/or toxic. One remarkable property of metal reducers is their ability to reduce solid, often highly crystalline substrates such as iron and manganese oxides and oxyhydroxides. It is now clear that this is done via the utilization of enzymes located on the outer wall of the bacteria - enzymes that apparently interact directly with these solid substrates. Molecular and genomic studies combined have revealed the genes and protoeins responsible for these activities, and many facets of the regulation. This talk focuses on the general features and properties of these remarkable organisms that seem to communicate via electron transfer across a wide variety of soluable, insoluable, and even "inert" substrates, and the way that these processes may be mechanistically linked.

  16. Building a barrier wall through boulders

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McMahon, D.R.; Mann, M.J. ); Tulett, R.C. )

    1994-10-01

    When the Occidental Chemical Co., Niagara Falls, N.Y., set out to remediate and contain wastes and ground water at its upstate New York site, they found that part of the proposed cutoff wall would be located in land reclaimed from the Niagara River. The fill was rock blasted out for a tunnel years ago, and the presence of boulders rule out conventional barrier-wall construction techniques. Occidental's first approach to containment had been a conventional soil-bentonite wall. Because of the area's geography and the location of the wastes, a portion of the wall had to be aligned along the riverbank. The company wanted to separate the plant area from the river, and decided to extend the barrier to the concrete headwall for intakes at the nearby Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant. This meant about 2,000 ft of the barrier wall would run through shot-rock fill placed during construction of the powerplant in the 1960s. Conduits for that plant were constructed by blasting rock to form open-cut tunnels several miles long. Some of the resulting shot rock was placed along the riverbank, extending the shoreline about 200 ft into the river near the now-contaminated site. The Rober Moses Parkway, a four-land highway, was constructed on the reclaimed land about 100 ft from the new shoreline.

  17. Metal Cycling by Bacteria: Moving Electrons Around

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nealson, Ken

    2009-07-06

    About 20 years ago, Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 was isolated from a manganese-rich lack in upstate New York, and subsequently shown to utilize solid forms of oxidized manganese or iron as an electron acceptor. Recent studies of metal-reducing bacterial have unveiled a number of unexpected properties of microbes that have enlarged our view of microbes and their role(s) in natural ecosystems. For example, the processes of metal reduction themselves are fundamental to the carbon cycle in many lakes and sediments, where iron and manganese account for the major portion of organic carbon oxidation in many sediments. On more modest spatial scales, iron and manganese reduction can be linked to the oxidation of a wide variety of carbon compounds, many of them recalcitrant and/or toxic. One remarkable property of metal reducers is their ability to reduce solid, often highly crystalline substrates such as iron and manganese oxides and oxyhydroxides. It is now clear that this is done via the utilization of enzymes located on the outer wall of the bacteria - enzymes that apparently interact directly with these solid substrates. Molecular and genomic studies combined have revealed the genes and protoeins responsible for these activities, and many facets of the regulation. This talk focuses on the general features and properties of these remarkable organisms that seem to communicate via electron transfer across a wide variety of soluable, insoluable, and even "inert" substrates, and the way that these processes may be mechanistically linked.

  18. Evaluation of Retrofit Variable-Speed Furnace Fan Motors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aldrich, R.; Williamson, J.

    2014-01-01

    In conjunction with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and Proctor Engineering Group, Ltd. (PEG), the Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB) has evaluated the Concept 3 replacement motors for residential furnaces. These brushless, permanent magnet (BPM) motors can use much less electricity than their PSC (permanent split capacitor) predecessors. This evaluation focuses on existing homes in the heating-dominated climate of upstate New York with the goals of characterizing field performance and cost effectiveness. The project includes eight homes in and near Syracuse, NY. Tests and monitoring was performed both before and after fan motors were replaced. Results indicate that BPM replacement motors will be most cost effective in HVAC systems with longer run times and relatively low duct static pressures. More dramatic savings are possible if occupants use the fan-only setting when there is no thermal load. There are millions of cold-climate, U.S. homes that meet these criteria, but the savings in most homes tested in this study were modest.

  19. Technology Solutions Case Study: Replacement of Variable-Speed Motors for Furnaces

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2013-02-01

    In conjunction with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and Proctor Engineering Group, Ltd. (PEG), the Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB) evaluated the Concept 3 replacement motors for residential furnaces in eight homes in Syracuse, NY. These brushless, permanent magnet (BPM) motors can use much less electricity than their PSC (permanent split capacitor) predecessors. This evaluation focuses on existing homes in the heating-dominated climate of upstate New York with the goals of characterizing field performance and cost-effectiveness. The results of this study are intended to be useful to home performance contractors, HVAC contractors, and home efficiency program stakeholders. Tests and monitoring was performed both before and after fan motors were replaced. Average fan power reductions were approximately 126 Watts during heating and 220 Watts during cooling operation. Over the course of entire heating and cooling seasons, these translated into average electric energy savings of 163 kWh, with average cost savings of $20 per year. Homes where the fan was used outside of heating and cooling mode saved an additional $42 per year on average. Results indicate that BPM replacement motors will be most cost-effective in HVAC systems with longer run times and relatively low duct static pressures. More dramatic savings are possible if occupants use the fan-only setting when there is no thermal load.

  20. Gasification Plant Cost and Performance Optimization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Samuel Tam; Alan Nizamoff; Sheldon Kramer; Scott Olson; Francis Lau; Mike Roberts; David Stopek; Robert Zabransky; Jeffrey Hoffmann; Erik Shuster; Nelson Zhan

    2005-05-01

    As part of an ongoing effort of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to investigate the feasibility of gasification on a broader level, Nexant, Inc. was contracted to perform a comprehensive study to provide a set of gasification alternatives for consideration by the DOE. Nexant completed the first two tasks (Tasks 1 and 2) of the ''Gasification Plant Cost and Performance Optimization Study'' for the DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in 2003. These tasks evaluated the use of the E-GAS{trademark} gasification technology (now owned by ConocoPhillips) for the production of power either alone or with polygeneration of industrial grade steam, fuel gas, hydrocarbon liquids, or hydrogen. NETL expanded this effort in Task 3 to evaluate Gas Technology Institute's (GTI) fluidized bed U-GAS{reg_sign} gasifier. The Task 3 study had three main objectives. The first was to examine the application of the gasifier at an industrial application in upstate New York using a Southeastern Ohio coal. The second was to investigate the GTI gasifier in a stand-alone lignite-fueled IGCC power plant application, sited in North Dakota. The final goal was to train NETL personnel in the methods of process design and systems analysis. These objectives were divided into five subtasks. Subtasks 3.2 through 3.4 covered the technical analyses for the different design cases. Subtask 3.1 covered management activities, and Subtask 3.5 covered reporting. Conceptual designs were developed for several coal gasification facilities based on the fluidized bed U-GAS{reg_sign} gasifier. Subtask 3.2 developed two base case designs for industrial combined heat and power facilities using Southeastern Ohio coal that will be located at an upstate New York location. One base case design used an air-blown gasifier, and the other used an oxygen-blown gasifier in order to evaluate their relative economics. Subtask 3.3 developed an advanced design for an air-blown gasification combined heat and power facility based on the Subtask 3.2 design. The air-blown case was chosen since it was less costly and had a better return on investment than the oxygen-blown gasifier case. Under appropriate conditions, this study showed a combined heat and power air-blown gasification facility could be an attractive option for upgrading or expanding the utilities area of industrial facilities. Subtask 3.4 developed a base case design for a large lignite-fueled IGCC power plant that uses the advanced GE 7FB combustion turbine to be located at a generic North Dakota site. This plant uses low-level waste heat to dry the lignite that otherwise would be rejected to the atmosphere. Although this base case plant design is economically attractive, further enhancements should be investigated. Furthermore, since this is an oxygen-blown facility, it has the potential for capture and sequestration of CO{sub 2}. The third objective for Task 3 was accomplished by having NETL personnel working closely with Nexant and Gas Technology Institute personnel during execution of this project. Technology development will be the key to the long-term commercialization of gasification technologies. This will be important to the integration of this environmentally superior solid fuel technology into the existing mix of power plants and industrial facilities. As a result of this study, several areas have been identified in which research and development will further advance gasification technology. Such areas include improved system availability, development of warm-gas clean up technologies, and improved subsystem designs.

  1. Final Technical Report: Residential Fuel Cell Demonstration by the Delaware County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mark Hilson Schneider

    2007-06-06

    This demonstration project contributes to the knowledge base in the area of fuel cells in stationary applications, propane fuel cells, edge-of-grid applications for fuel cells, and energy storage in combination with fuel cells. The project demonstrated that it is technically feasible to meet the whole-house electrical energy needs of a typical upstate New York residence with a 5-kW fuel cell in combination with in-home energy storage without any major modifications to the residence or modifications to the consumption patterns of the residents of the home. The use of a fuel cell at constant output power through a 120-Volt inverter leads to system performance issues including: relatively poor power quality as quantified by the IEEE-defined short term flicker parameter relatively low overall system efficiency Each of these issues is discussed in detail in the text of this report. The fuel cell performed well over the 1-year demonstration period in terms of availability and efficiency of conversion from chemical energy (propane) to electrical energy at the fuel cell output terminals. Another strength of fuel cell performance in the demonstration was the low requirements for maintenance and repair on the fuel cell. The project uncovered a new and important installation consideration for propane fuel cells. Alcohol added to new propane storage tanks is preferentially absorbed on the surface of some fuel cell reformer desulfurization filters. The experience on this project indicates that special attention must be paid to the volume and composition of propane tank additives. Size, composition, and replacement schedules for the de-sulfurization filter bed should be adjusted to account for propane tank additives to avoid sulfur poisoning of fuel cell stacks. Despite good overall technical performance of the fuel cell and the whole energy system, the demonstration showed that such a system is not economically feasible as compared to other commercially available technologies such as propane reciprocating engine generators.

  2. Evaluation of Retrofit Variable-Speed Furnace Fan Motors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aldrich, R.; Williamson, J.

    2014-01-01

    In conjunction with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and Proctor Engineering Group, Ltd. (PEG), the Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB) has evaluated the Concept 3 (tm) replacement motors for residential furnaces. These brushless, permanent magnet (BPM) motors can use much less electricity than their PSC (permanent split capacitor) predecessors. This evaluation focuses on existing homes in the heating-dominated climate of upstate New York with the goals of characterizing field performance and cost-effectiveness. The results of this study are intended to be useful to home performance contractors, HVAC contractors, and home efficiency program stakeholders. The project includes eight homes in and near Syracuse, NY. Tests and monitoring was performed both before and after fan motors were replaced. Average fan power reductions were approximately 126 Watts during heating and 220 Watts during cooling operation. Over the course of entire heating and cooling seasons, these translated into average electric energy savings of 163 kWh. Average cost savings were $20 per year. Homes where the fan was used outside of heating and cooling mode saved an additional $42 per year on average. Results indicate that BPM replacement motors will be most cost-effective in HVAC systems with longer run times and relatively low duct static pressures. More dramatic savings are possible if occupants use the fan-only setting when there is no thermal load. There are millions of cold-climate, U.S. homes that meet these criteria, but the savings in most homes tested in this study were modest.

  3. Selected Area Fishery Evaluation Project Economic Analysis Study Final Report, Final Draft Revision 4: November 10, 2006.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bonneville Power Administration; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

    2006-11-01

    The purpose of this Study is to provide an economic review of current and proposed changes to the Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project (SAFE or Project). The Study results are the information requested in comments made on the Project by a joint review dated March 2005 by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB). North et al. (2006) addressed technical questions about operations and plans, and this report contains the response information for comments concerning Project economics. This report can be considered an economic feasibility review meeting guidelines for cost-effective analysis developed by the IEAB (2003). It also contains other economic measurement descriptions to illustrate the economic effects of SAFE. The SAFE is an expansion of a hatchery project (locally called the Clatsop Economic Development Council Fisheries Project or CEDC) started in 1977 that released an early run coho (COH) stock into the Youngs River. The Youngs River entrance to the Columbia River at River Mile 12 is called Youngs Bay, which is located near Astoria, Oregon. The purpose of the hatchery project was to provide increased fishing opportunities for the in-river commercial fishing gillnet fleet. Instead of just releasing fish at the hatchery, a small scale net pen acclimation project in Youngs Bay was tried in 1987. Hirose et al. (1998) found that 1991-1992 COH broodstock over-wintered at the net pens had double the smolt-to-adult return rate (SAR) of traditional hatchery release, less than one percent stray rates, and 99 percent fishery harvests. It was surmised that smolts from other Columbia River hatcheries could be hauled to the net pens for acclimation and release to take advantage of the SAR's and fishing rates. Proposals were tendered to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and other agencies to fund the expansion for using other hatcheries smolts and other off-channel release sites. The BPA, who had been providing funds to the Project since 1982, greatly increased their financial participation for the experimental expansion of the net pen operations in 1993. Instead of just being a funding partner in CEDC operations, the BPA became a major financing source for other hatchery production operations. The BPA has viewed the 10 plus years of funding since then as an explorative project with two phases: a 'research' phase ending in 1993, and a 'development' phase ending in 2006. The next phase is referred to in proposals to BPA for continued funding as an 'establishment' phase to be started in 2007. There are three components of SAFE: (1) The CEDC owns and operates the net pens in the Columbia River estuary on the Oregon side. The CEDC also owns and operates a hatchery on the South Fork Klaskanine River. (2) There are many other hatcheries contributing smolts to the net pen operations. The present suite of hatcheries are operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The WDFW owns and operates the net pens at Deep River on the Washington side of the Columbia River. (3) The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) responsibilities are performed by employees of WDFW and ODFW. BPA provides funding for all three components as part of NPCC Project No. 199306000. The CEDC and other contributing hatcheries have other sources of funds that also support the SAFE. BPA's minor share (less than 10 percent) of CEDC funding in 1982 grew to about 55 percent in 1993 with the beginning of the development phase of the Project. The balance of the CEDC budget over the years has been from other federal, state, and local government programs. It has also included a 10 percent fee assessment (five percent of ex-vessel value received by harvesters plus five percent of purchase value made by processors) on harvests that take place in off-channel locations near the release sites. The CEDC total annual budget in the last several years has been in the $600 to $700 thousand range. The Project over the years also has relied on heavy volunteer participation and other agency in-kind support. The CEDC budget is exclusive of WDFW and ODFW M&E costs, and all non-CEDC hatchery smolt production costs. The annual estimated operation and management costs for SAFE except for the value of volunteer time and donated materials is in the $2.4 million range. Of this amount, BPA annual funding has been in the $1.6 million or two thirds range in recent years. Depreciation on capital assets (or an equivalent amount for annual contributions to a capital improvement fund) would be in addition to these operation and management costs. North et al. (2006) documented results through the second of three phases and described potential capacities. Full capacity as defined in early planning for the project (TRG 1996) was not reached by the time the second phase ended.

  4. Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP) - Year 5 : Annual Report for FY 2008.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marmorek, David R.; Porter, Marc; Pickard, Darcy; Wieckowski, Katherine

    2008-11-19

    The Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP) is a coordinated effort to improve the quality, consistency, and focus of fish population and habitat data to answer key monitoring and evaluation questions relevant to major decisions in the Columbia River Basin. CSMEP was initiated by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) in October 2003. The project is funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) through the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (NPCC). CSMEP is a major effort of the federal state and Tribal fish and wildlife managers to develop regionally integrated monitoring and evaluation (M&E) across the Columbia River Basin. CSMEP has focused its work on five monitoring domains: status and trends monitoring of populations and action effectiveness monitoring of habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and the hydrosystem. CSMEP's specific goals are to: (1) interact with federal, state and tribal programmatic and technical entities responsible for M&E of fish and wildlife, to ensure that work plans developed and executed under this project are well integrated with ongoing work by these entities; (2) document, integrate, and make available existing monitoring data on listed salmon, steelhead, bull trout and other fish species of concern; (3) critically assess strengths and weaknesses of these data for answering key monitoring questions; and (4) collaboratively design, implement and evaluate improved M&E methods with other programmatic entities in the Pacific Northwest. During FY2008 CSMEP biologists continued their reviews of the strengths and weaknesses (S&W) of existing subbasin inventory data for addressing monitoring questions about population status and trends at different spatial and temporal scales. Work was focused on Lower Columbia Chinook and steelhead, Snake River fall Chinook, Upper Columbia Spring Chinook and steelhead, and Middle Columbia River Chinook and steelhead. These FY2008 data assessments and others assembled over the years of the CSMEP project can be accessed on the CBFWA public website. The CSMEP web database (http://csmep.streamnet.org/) houses metadata inventories from S&W assessments of Columbia River Basin watersheds that were completed prior to FY2008. These older S&W assessments are maintained by StreamNet, but budget cutbacks prevented us from adding the new FY2008 assessments into the database. Progress was made in FY2008 on CSMEP's goals of collaborative design of improved M&E methods. CSMEP convened two monitoring design workshops in Portland (December 5 and 6, 2007 and February 11 and 12, 2008) to continue exploration of how best to integrate the most robust features of existing M&E programs with new approaches. CSMEP continued to build on this information to develop improved designs and analytical tools for monitoring the status and trends of fish populations and the effectiveness of hatchery and hydrosystem recovery actions within the Columbia River Basin. CSMEP did not do any new work on habitat or harvest effectiveness monitoring designs in FY2008 due to budget cutbacks. CSMEP presented the results of the Snake Basin Pilot Study to the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) in Portland on December 7, 2008. This study is the finalization of CSMEP's pilot exercise of developing design alternatives across different M&E domains within the Snake River Basin spring/summer Chinook ESU. This work has been summarized in two linked reports (CSMEP 2007a and CSMEP 2007b). CSMEP participants presented many of the analyses developed for the Snake Basin Pilot work at the Western Division American Fisheries Society (AFS) conference in Portland on May 4 to 7, 2008. For the AFS conference CSMEP organized a symposium on regional monitoring and evaluation approaches. A presentation on CSMEP's Cost Integration Database Tool and Salmon Viability Monitoring Simulation Model developed for the Snake Basin Pilot Study was also given to the Pacific Northwest Aquatic monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) stee

  5. Libby Mitigation Program, 2007 Annual Progress Report: Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dunnigan, James; DeShazer, J.; Garrow, L.

    2009-05-26

    Libby Reservoir was created under an International Columbia River Treaty between the United States and Canada for cooperative water development of the Columbia River Basin (Columbia River Treaty 1964). Libby Reservoir inundated 109 stream miles of the mainstem Kootenai River in the United States and Canada, and 40 miles of tributary streams in the U.S. that provided habitat for spawning, juvenile rearing, and migratory passage (Figure 1). The authorized purpose of the dam is to provide power (91.5%), flood control (8.3%), and navigation and other benefits (0.2%; Storm et al. 1982). The Pacific Northwest Power Act of 1980 recognized possible conflicts stemming from hydroelectric projects in the northwest and directed Bonneville Power Administration to 'protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife to the extent affected by the development and operation of any hydroelectric project of the Columbia River and its tributaries' (4(h)(10)(A)). Under the Act, the Northwest Power Planning Council was created and recommendations for a comprehensive fish and wildlife program were solicited from the region's federal, state, and tribal fish and wildlife agencies. Among Montana's recommendations was the proposal that research be initiated to quantify acceptable seasonal minimum pool elevations to maintain or enhance the existing fisheries (Graham et al. 1982). Research to determine how operations of Libby Dam affect the reservoir and river fishery and to suggest ways to lessen these effects began in May 1983. The framework for the Libby Reservoir Model (LRMOD) was completed in 1989. Development of Integrated Rule Curves (IRCs) for Libby Dam operation was completed in 1996 (Marotz et al. 1996). The Libby Reservoir Model and the IRCs continue to be refined (Marotz et al 1999). Initiation of mitigation projects such as lake rehabilitation and stream restoration began in 1996. The primary focus of the Libby Mitigation project now is to restore the fisheries and fish habitat in basin streams and lakes. 'Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam' is part of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's (NPCC) resident fish and wildlife program. The program was mandated by the Northwest Planning Act of 1980, and is responsible for mitigating damages to fish and wildlife caused by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin. The objective of Phase I of the project (1983 through 1987) was to maintain or enhance the Libby Reservoir fishery by quantifying seasonal water levels and developing ecologically sound operational guidelines. The objective of Phase II of the project (1988 through 1996) was to determine the biological effects of reservoir operations combined with biotic changes associated with an aging reservoir. The objectives of Phase III of the project (1996 through present) are to implement habitat enhancement measures to mitigate for dam effects, to provide data for implementation of operational strategies that benefit resident fish, monitor reservoir and river conditions, and monitor mitigation projects for effectiveness. This project completes urgent and high priority mitigation actions as directed by the Kootenai Subbasin Plan.

  6. The Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project, 2008 Annual Progress Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Contor, Craig R.; Harris, Robin; King, Marty

    2009-06-10

    The Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (UBNPMEP) is funded by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) as directed by section 4(h) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L.96-501). This project is in accordance with and pursuant to measures 4.2A, 4.3C.1, 7.1A.2, 7.1C.3, 7.1C.4 and 7.1D.2 of the Northwest Power Planning Council's (NPPC) Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (NPPC 1994). Work was conducted by the Fisheries Program of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). The UBNPMEP is coordinated with two Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) research projects that also monitor and evaluate the success of the Umatilla Fisheries Restoration Plan. This project deals with the natural production component of the plan, and the ODFW projects evaluate hatchery operations (project No. 1990-005-00, Umatilla Hatchery M & E) and smolt outmigration (project No. 1989-024-01, Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River). Collectively these three projects monitor and evaluate natural and hatchery salmonid production in the Umatilla River Basin. The need for natural production monitoring has been identified in multiple planning documents including Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit Volume I, 5b-13 (CRITFC 1996), the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan (CTUIR & ODFW 1990), the Umatilla Basin Annual Operation Plan, the Umatilla Subbasin Summary (CTUIR & ODFW 2001), the Subbasin Plan (CTUIR & ODFW 2004), and the Comprehensive Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan (CTUIR and ODFW 2006). Natural production monitoring and evaluation is also consistent with Section III, Basinwide Provisions, Strategy 9 of the 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (NPPC 1994, NPCC 2004). The Umatilla Basin M&E plan developed along with efforts to restore natural populations of spring and fall Chinook salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytsha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), and enhance summer steelhead (O. mykiss). The need for restoration began with agricultural development in the early 1900's that extirpated salmon and reduced steelhead runs (Bureau of Reclamation, BOR 1988). The most notable development was the construction and operation of Three Mile Falls Dam (TMD) and other irrigation projects which dewatered the Umatilla River during salmon migrations. CTUIR and ODFW developed the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan to restore fisheries to the basin. The plan was completed in 1990 and included the following objectives which were updated in 1999: (1) Establish hatchery and natural runs of Chinook and coho salmon. (2) Enhance existing summer steelhead populations through a hatchery program. (3) Provide sustainable tribal and non-tribal harvest of salmon and steelhead. (4) Maintain the genetic characteristics of salmonids in the Umatilla River Basin. (5) Increase annual returns to Three Mile Falls Dam to 31,500 adult salmon and steelhead. In the past the M&E project conducted long-term monitoring activities as well as two and three-year projects that address special needs for adaptive management. Examples of these projects include adult passage evaluations, habitat assessment surveys (Contor et al. 1995, Contor et al. 1996, Contor et al. 1997, Contor et al. 1998), and genetic monitoring (Currens & Schreck 1995, Narum et al. 2004). The project's goal is to provide quality information to managers and researchers working to restore anadromous salmonids to the Umatilla River Basin. The status of completion of each of BPA's standardized work element was reported in 'Pisces'(March 2008) and is summarized.

  7. Spinning Reserve From Responsive Loads

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kirby, B.J.

    2003-04-08

    Responsive load is the most underutilized reliability resource available to the power system today. It is currently not used at all to provide spinning reserve. Historically there were good reasons for this, but recent technological advances in communications and controls have provided new capabilities and eliminated many of the old obstacles. North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC), New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC), and New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) rules are beginning to recognize these changes and are starting to encourage responsive load provision of reliability services. The Carrier ComfortChoice responsive thermostats provide an example of these technological advances. This is a technology aimed at reducing summer peak demand through central control of residential and small commercial air-conditioning loads. It is being utilized by Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), Consolidated Edison (ConEd), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). The technology is capable of delivering even greater response in the faster spinning reserve time frame (while still providing peak reduction). Analysis of demand reduction testing results from LIPA during the summer of 2002 provides evidence to back up this claim. It also demonstrates that loads are different from generators and that the conventional wisdom, which advocates for starting with large loads as better ancillary service providers, is flawed. The tempting approach of incrementally adapting ancillary service requirements, which were established when generators were the only available resources, will not work. While it is easier for most generators to provide replacement power and non-spinning reserve (the slower response services) than it is to supply spinning reserve (the fastest service), the opposite is true for many loads. Also, there is more financial reward for supplying spinning reserve than for supplying the other reserve services as a result of the higher spinning reserve prices. The LIPAedge program (LIPA's demand reduction program using Carrier ComfortChoice thermostats) provides an opportunity to test the use of responsive load for spinning reserve. With potentially 75 MW of spinning reserve capability already installed, this test program can also make an important contribution to the capacity needs of Long Island during the summer of 2003. Testing could also be done at ConEd ({approx}30 MW), SCE ({approx}15 MW), and/or SDG&E ({approx}15 MW). This paper is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 discusses the contingency reserve ancillary services, their functions in supporting power system reliability, and their technical requirements. It also discusses the policy and tariff requirements and attempts to distinguish between ones that are genuinely necessary and ones that are artifacts of the technologies that were historically used to provide the services. Chapter 3 discusses how responsive load could provide contingency reserves (especially spinning reserve) for the power system. Chapter 4 specifically discusses the Carrier ComfortChoice responsive thermostat technology, the LIPAedge experience with that technology, and how the technology could be used to supply spinning reserve. Chapter 5 discusses a number of unresolved issues and suggests areas for further research. Chapter 6 offers conclusions and recommendations.

  8. Customer Strategies for Responding to Day-Ahead Market HourlyElectricity Pricing

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goldman, Chuck; Hopper, Nicole; Bharvirkar, Ranjit; Neenan,Bernie; Boisvert, Dick; Cappers, Peter; Pratt, Donna; Butkins, Kim

    2005-08-25

    Real-time pricing (RTP) has been advocated as an economically efficient means to send price signals to customers to promote demand response (DR) (Borenstein 2002, Borenstein 2005, Ruff 2002). However, limited information exists that can be used to judge how effectively RTP actually induces DR, particularly in the context of restructured electricity markets. This report describes the second phase of a study of how large, non-residential customers' adapted to default-service day-ahead hourly pricing. The customers are located in upstate New York and served under Niagara Mohawk, A National Grid Company (NMPC)'s SC-3A rate class. The SC-3A tariff is a type of RTP that provides firm, day-ahead notice of hourly varying prices indexed to New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) day-ahead market prices. The study was funded by the California Energy Commission (CEC)'s PIER program through the Demand Response Research Center (DRRC). NMPC's is the first and longest-running default-service RTP tariff implemented in the context of retail competition. The mix of NMPC's large customers exposed to day-ahead hourly prices is roughly 30% industrial, 25% commercial and 45% institutional. They have faced periods of high prices during the study period (2000-2004), thereby providing an opportunity to assess their response to volatile hourly prices. The nature of the SC-3A default service attracted competitive retailers offering a wide array of pricing and hedging options, and customers could also participate in demand response programs implemented by NYISO. The first phase of this study examined SC-3A customers' satisfaction, hedging choices and price response through in-depth customer market research and a Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) demand model (Goldman et al. 2004). This second phase was undertaken to answer questions that remained unresolved and to quantify price response to a higher level of granularity. We accomplished these objectives with a second customer survey and interview effort, which resulted in a higher, 76% response rate, and the adoption of the more flexible Generalized Leontief (GL) demand model, which allows us to analyze customer response under a range of conditions (e.g. at different nominal prices) and to determine the distribution of individual customers' response.

  9. Building a 40% Energy Saving House in the Mixed-Humid Climate

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Christian, Jeffrey E; Bonar, Jacob

    2011-10-01

    This report describes a home that uses 40% less energy than the energy-efficient Building America standard - a giant step in the pursuit of affordable near-zero-energy housing through the evolution of five near-zero-energy research houses. This four-bedroom, two-bath, 1232-ft2 house has a Home Energy Rating System (HERS) index of 35 (a HERS rating of 0 is a zero-energy house, a conventional new house would have a HERS rating of 100), which qualifies it for federal energy efficiency and solar incentives. The house is leading to the planned construction of a similar home in Greensburg, Kansas, and 21 staff houses in the Walden Reserve, a 7000-unit "deep green" community in Cookville, Tennessee. Discussions are underway for construction of similar houses in Charleston, South Carolina, Seattle, Washington, Knoxville and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and upstate New York. This house should lead to a 40% and 50% Gate-3, Mixed-Humid-Climate Joule for the DOE Building America Program. The house is constructed with structurally-insulated-panel walls and roof, raised metal-seam roof with infrared reflective coating, airtight envelope (1.65 air changes per hour at 50 Pascal), supply mechanical ventilation, ducts inside the conditioned space, extensive moisture control package, foundation geothermal space heating and cooling system, ZEHcor wall, solar water heater, and a 2.2 kWp grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) system. The detailed specifications for the envelope and the equipment used in ZEH5 compared to all the houses in this series are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Based on a validated computer simulation of ZEH5 with typical occupancy patterns and energy services for four occupants, energy for this all-electric house is predicted to cost only $0.66/day ($0.86/day counting the hookup charges). By contrast, the benchmark house would require $3.56/day, including hookup charges (these costs are based on a 2006 residential rates of $0.07/kWh and solar buyback at $0.15/kWh). The solar fraction for this home located in Lenoir City, Tennessee, is predicted to be as high as 41%(accounting for both solar PV and the solar water heater). This all-electric home is predicted to use 25 kWh/day based on the one year of measured data used to calibrate a whole-building simulation model. Based on two years of measured data, the roof-mounted 2.2 kWp PV system is predicted to generate 7.5 kWh/day. The 2005 cost to commercially construct ZEH5, including builder profit and overhead, is estimated at about $150,000. This cost - for ZEH5's panelized construction, premanufactured utility wall (ZEHcor), foundation geothermal system, and the addition of the walkout lower level, and considering the falling cost for PV - suggests that the construction cost per ft2 for a ZEH5 two-story will be even more cost-competitive. The 2005 construction cost estimate for a finished-out ZEH5 with 2632 ft2 is $222,000 or $85/ft2. The intention of this report is to help builders and homeowners make the decision to build zero-energy-ready homes. Detailed drawings, specifications, and lessons learned in the construction and analysis of data from about 100 sensors monitoring thermal performance for a one-year period are presented. This information should be specifically useful to those considering structural insulated panel walls and roof, foundation geothermal space heating and cooling, solar water heater and roof-mounted, photovoltaic, grid-tied systems.

  10. Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Warren, Dan

    2009-04-16

    The US Congress funded the Puget Sound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Reform Project via annual appropriations to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) beginning in fiscal year 2000. Congress established the project because it recognized that while hatcheries have a necessary role to play in meeting harvest and conservation goals for Pacific Northwest salmonids, the hatchery system was in need of comprehensive reform. Most hatcheries were producing fish for harvest primarily to mitigate for past habitat loss (rather than for conservation of at-risk populations) and were not taking into account the effects of their programs on naturally spawning populations. With numerous species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), conservation of salmon in the Puget Sound area was a high priority. Genetic resources in the region were at risk and many hatchery programs as currently operated were contributing to those risks. Central to the project was the creation of a nine-member independent scientific review panel called the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). The HSRG was charged by Congress with reviewing all state, tribal and federal hatchery programs in Puget Sound and Coastal Washington as part of a comprehensive hatchery reform effort to: conserve indigenous salmonid genetic resources; assist with the recovery of naturally spawning salmonid populations; provide sustainable fisheries; and improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of hatchery programs. The HSRG worked closely with the state, tribal and federal managers of the hatchery system, with facilitation provided by the non-profit organization Long Live the Kings and the law firm Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, to successfully complete reviews of over 200 hatchery programs at more than 100 hatcheries across western Washington. That phase of the project culminated in 2004 with the publication of reports containing the HSRG's principles for hatchery reform and recommendations for Puget Sound/Coastal Washington hatchery programs, followed by the development in 2005 of a suite of analytical tools to support application of the principles (all reports and tools are available at www.hatcheryreform.us). In 2005, Congress directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) to replicate the Puget Sound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Reform Project in the Columbia River Basin. The HSRG was expanded to 14 members to include individuals with specific knowledge about the Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. This second phase was initially envisioned as a one-year review, with emphasis on the Lower Columbia River hatchery programs. It became clear however, that the Columbia River Basin needed to be viewed as an inter-connected ecosystem in order for the review to be useful. The project scope was subsequently expanded to include the entire Basin, with funding for a second year provided by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) under the auspices of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's (NPCC) Fish and Wildlife Program. The objective of the HSRG's Columbia River Basin review was to change the focus of the Columbia River hatchery system. In the past, these hatchery programs have been aimed at supplying adequate numbers of fish for harvest as mitigation primarily for hydropower development in the Basin. A new, ecosystem-based approach is founded on the idea that harvest goals are sustainable only if they are compatible with conservation goals. The challenge before the HSRG was to determine whether or not conservation and harvest goals could be met by fishery managers and, if so, how. The HSRG determined that in order to address these twin goals, both hatchery and harvest reforms are necessary. The HSRG approach represents an important change of direction in managing hatcheries in the region. It provides a clear demonstration that current hatchery programs can indeed be redirected to better meet both conservation and harvest goals. For each Columbia River Basin Environmentally Significant Unit (ESU), Distinct Population Segment (MPG) or Major Population Group (MPG) reviewed, the HSRG presents its findings and recommendations in the form of an HSRG solution. This package of recommended changes to current hatchery and harvest program design and operation is intended to demonstrate how the programs could be managed to significantly increase the likelihood of meeting the managers goals for both harvest and conservation of the ESU/DPS/MPG. The 'HSRG solution' also highlights the biological principles that the HSRG believes must form the foundation for successful use of hatcheries and fisheries as management tools.

  11. Comparative Survival Study (CSS) of PIT-Tagged Spring/Summer Chinook and Summer Steelhead : 2008 Annual Report.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Comparative Survival Study Oversight Committee and Fish Passage Center

    2008-12-02

    The Comparative Survival Study (CSS; BPA Project 199602000) began in 1996 with the objective of establishing a long term dataset of the survival rate of annual generations of salmon from their outmigration as smolts to their return to freshwater as adults to spawn (smolt-to-adult return rate; SAR). The study was implemented with the express need to address the question whether collecting juvenile fish at dams and transporting them downstream in barges and trucks and releasing them downstream of Bonneville Dam was compensating for the effect of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) on survival of Snake Basin spring/summer Chinook salmon migrating through the hydrosystem. The Completion of this annual report for the CSS signifies the 12th outmigration year of hatchery spring/summer Chinook salmon marked with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags as part of the CSS and the 9th complete brood year return as adults of those PIT-tagged fish (report covers adult returns from 1997-2006 hatchery Chinook juvenile migrations). In addition, the CSS has provided PIT-tags to on-going tagging operations for wild Chinook since 2002 (report covers adult returns from 1994-2006 wild Chinook juvenile migrations). The CSS tags wild steelhead on the lower Clearwater River and utilized wild and hatchery steelhead from other tagging operations in evaluations of transportation (report covers adult returns from 1997-2005 wild and hatchery steelhead migrations). The primary purpose of this report is to update the time series of smolt-to-adult survival rate data and related parameters with additional years of data since the completion of the CSS 10-yr retrospective analysis report (Schaller et al 2007). The 10-yr report provided a synthesis of the results from this ongoing study, the analytical approaches employed, and the evolving improvements incorporated into the study as reported in CSS annual progress reports. This current report specifically addresses the constructive comments of the most recent regional technical review conducted by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board and Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISAB and ISRP 2007). This report completes the 3-salt returns from migration years 2004 for wild and hatchery Chinook and steelhead (all returns are to Lower Granite Dam). For wild and hatchery Chinook, this report also provides 3-salt returns from migration year 2005 and 2-salt returns from migration year 2006 through a cutoff date of August 13, 2008. For wild and hatchery steelhead, it provides completed 2-salt returns for wild and hatchery steelhead that outmigrated in 2005 (any 3-salt returns of PIT-tagged steelhead are few, but will occur after July 1, 2008). All of the Chinook salmon evaluated in the CSS study exhibit a stream-type life history. All study fish used in this report were uniquely identifiable based on a PIT-tag implanted in the body cavity during (or before) the smolt life stage and retained through their return as adults. These tagged fish can then be detected as juveniles and adults at several locations of the Snake and Columbia rivers. Reductions in the number of individuals detected as the tagged fish grow older provide estimates of survival. This allows comparisons of survival over different life stages between fish with different experiences in the hydrosystem (e.g. transportation vs. in-river migrants and migration through various numbers of dams) as illustrated in Figure 1.1. The CSS is a long term study within the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (NPCC FWP) and is funded by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Study design and analyses are conducted through a CSS Oversight Committee with representation from Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The Fish Passage Center (FPC) coordinates the PIT-tagging efforts, data management and preparation

  12. Seneca Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2012-11-30

    Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) is a hybrid energy storage and generation concept that has many potential benefits especially in a location with increasing percentages of intermittent wind energy generation. The objectives of the NYSEG Seneca CAES Project included: for Phase 1, development of a Front End Engineering Design for a 130MW to 210 MW utility-owned facility including capital costs; project financials based on the engineering design and forecasts of energy market revenues; design of the salt cavern to be used for air storage; draft environmental permit filings; and draft NYISO interconnection filing; for Phase 2, objectives included plant construction with a target in-service date of mid-2016; and for Phase 3, objectives included commercial demonstration, testing, and two-years of performance reporting. This Final Report is presented now at the end of Phase 1 because NYSEG has concluded that the economics of the project are not favorable for development in the current economic environment in New York State. The proposed site is located in NYSEG’s service territory in the Town of Reading, New York, at the southern end of Seneca Lake, in New York State’s Finger Lakes region. The landowner of the proposed site is Inergy, a company that owns the salt solution mining facility at this property. Inergy would have developed a new air storage cavern facility to be designed for NYSEG specifically for the Seneca CAES project. A large volume, natural gas storage facility owned and operated by Inergy is also located near this site and would have provided a source of high pressure pipeline quality natural gas for use in the CAES plant. The site has an electrical take-away capability of 210 MW via two NYSEG 115 kV circuits located approximately one half mile from the plant site. Cooling tower make-up water would have been supplied from Seneca Lake. NYSEG’s engineering consultant WorleyParsons Group thoroughly evaluated three CAES designs and concluded that any of the designs would perform acceptably. Their general scope of work included development of detailed project construction schedules, capital cost and cash flow estimates for both CAES cycles, and development of detailed operational data, including fuel and compression energy requirements, to support dispatch modeling for the CAES cycles. The Dispatch Modeling Consultant selected for this project was Customized Energy Solutions (CES). Their general scope of work included development of wholesale electric and gas market price forecasts and development of a dispatch model specific to CAES technologies. Parsons Brinkerhoff Energy Storage Services (PBESS) was retained to develop an air storage cavern and well system design for the CAES project. Their general scope of work included development of a cavern design, solution mining plan, and air production well design, cost, and schedule estimates for the project. Detailed Front End Engineering Design (FEED) during Phase 1 of the project determined that CAES plant capital equipment costs were much greater than the $125.6- million originally estimated by EPRI for the project. The initial air storage cavern Design Basis was increased from a single five million cubic foot capacity cavern to three, five million cubic foot caverns with associated air production wells and piping. The result of this change in storage cavern Design Basis increased project capital costs significantly. In addition, the development time required to complete the three cavern system was estimated at approximately six years. This meant that the CAES plant would initially go into service with only one third of the required storage capacity and would not achieve full capability until after approximately five years of commercial operation. The market price forecasting and dispatch modeling completed by CES indicated that the CAES technologies would operate at only 10 to 20% capacity factors and the resulting overall project economics were not favorable for further development. As a result of all of these factors, the Phase 1 FEED developed an installed CAES plant cost estimate of approximately $2,300/KW for the 210MW CAES 1A and 2 cycles. The capital cost for the 136 MW CAES 1 cycle was even higher due to the lower generating capacity of the cycle. Notably, the large equipment could have generated additional capacity (up to 270MW) which would have improved the cost per KW; however, the output was limited by the night time transmission system capability. The research herein, therefore, is particular to the site-specific factors that influenced the design and the current and forecasted generation mix and energy prices in Upstate New York and may not necessarily indicate that CAES plants cannot be economically constructed in other places in New York State or the world.

  13. Fuel Flexibility in Gasification

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McLendon, T. Robert; Pineault, Richard L.; Richardson, Steven W.; Rockey, John M.; Beer, Stephen K.; Lui, Alain P.; Batton, William A.

    2001-11-06

    In order to increase efficiencies of carbonizers, operation at high pressures is needed. In addition, waste biomass fuels of opportunity can be used to offset fossil fuel use. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Fluidized Bed Gasifier/Combustor (FBG/C) was used to gasify coal and mixtures of coal and biomass (sawdust) at 425 psig. The purpose of the testing program was to generate steady state operating data for modeling efforts of carbonizers. A test program was completed with a matrix of parameters varied one at a time in order to avoid second order interactions. Variables were: coal feed rate, pressure, and varying mixtures of sawdust and coal types. Coal types were Montana Rosebud subbituminous and Pittsburgh No. 8 bituminous. The sawdust was sanding waste from a furniture manufacturer in upstate New York. Coal was sieved from -14 to +60 mesh and sawdust was sieved to -14 mesh. The FBG/C operates at a nominal 425 psig, but pressures can be lowered. For the tests reported it was operated as a jetting, fluidized bed, ash-agglomerating gasifier. Preheated air and steam are injected into the center of the bottom along with the solid feed that is conveyed with cool air. Fairly stable reactor internal flow patterns develop and temperatures stabilize (with some fluctuations) when steady state is reached. At nominal conditions the solids residence time in the reactor is on the order of 1.5 to 2 hours, so changes in feed types can require on the order of hours to equilibrate. Changes in operating conditions (e.g. feed rate) usually require much less time. The operating periods of interest for these tests were only the steady state periods, so transient conditions were not monitored as closely. The test matrix first established a base case of operations to which single parameter changes in conditions could be compared. The base case used Montana Rosebud at a coal feed rate of 70 lbm/hr at 425 psig. The coal sawdust mixtures are reported as percent by weight coal to percent by weight sawdust. The mixtures of interest were: 65/35 subbituminous, 75/25 subbituminous, 85/15 subbituminous, and 75/25 bituminous. Steady state was achieved quickly when going from one subbituminous mixture to another, but longer when going from subbituminous to bituminous coal. The most apparent observation when comparing the base case to subbituminous coal/sawdust mixtures is that operating conditions are nearly the same. Product gas does not change much in composition and temperatures remain nearly the same. Comparisons of identical weight ratios of sawdust and subbituminous and bituminous mixtures show considerable changes in operating conditions and gas composition. The highly caking bituminous coal used in this test swelled up and became about half as dense as the comparable subbituminous coal char. Some adjustments were required in accommodating changes in solids removal during the test. Nearly all the solids in the bituminous coal sawdust were conveyed into the upper freeboard section and removed at the mid-level of the reactor. This is in marked contrast to the ash-agglomerating condition where most solids are removed at the very bottom of the gasifier. Temperatures in the bottom of the reactor during the bituminous test were very high and difficult to control. The most significant discovery of the tests was that the addition of sawdust allowed gasification of a coal type that had previously resulted in nearly instant clinkering of the gasifier. Several previous attempts at using Pittsburgh No. 8 were done only at the end of the tests when shutdown was imminent anyway. It is speculated that the fine wood dust somehow coats the pyrolyzed sticky bituminous coal particles and prevents them from agglomerating quickly. As the bituminous coal char particles swell, they are carried to the cooler upper regions of the reactor where they re-solidify. Other interesting phenomena were revealed regarding the transport (rheological) properties of the coal sawdust mixtures. The coal sawdust mixtures segregate quickly when transported. This is visibly apparent. To prevent bridges and ratholes from developing in the lowest coal feed hopper, it is normally fluidized. When feeding the coal sawdust mixtures the fluidizing gas was turned off to prevent segregation. The feed system worked as well with no fluidizing gas when using the mixtures as it did with fluidizing gas and only coal. In addition, it was inadvertently discovered that greatly increased pressure above the feeder resulted in greatly increased flow with the mixtures. Increased pressure above the feeder with coal only results in quickly plugging the feed system. Also, it was learned that addition of sawdust reduces the system loss during conveying compared to coal only. This is in spite of overall smaller particle sizes with the coal sawdust mixtures.

  14. New York Marcellus Shale: Industry boom put on hold

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mercurio, Angelique

    2012-01-16

    Key catalysts for Marcellus Shale drilling in New York were identified. New York remains the only state in the nation with a legislative moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, as regulators and state lawmakers work to balance the advantages of potential economic benefits while protecting public drinking water resources and the environment. New York is being particularly careful to work on implementing sufficiently strict regulations to mitigate the environmental impacts Pennsylvania has already seen, such as methane gas releases, fracturing fluid releases, flowback water and brine controls, and total dissolved solids discharges. In addition to economic and environmental lessons learned, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) also acknowledges impacts to housing markets, security, and other local issues, and may impose stringent measures to mitigate potential risks to local communities. Despite the moratorium, New York has the opportunity to take advantage of increased capital investment, tax revenue generation, and job creation opportunities by increasing shale gas activity. The combination of economic benefits, industry pressure, and recent technological advances will drive the pursuit of natural gas drilling in New York. We identify four principal catalysts as follows: Catalyst 1: Pressure from Within the State. Although high-volume hydraulic fracturing has become a nationally controversial technology, shale fracturing activity is common in every U.S. state except New York. The regulatory process has delayed potential economic opportunities for state and local economies, as well as many industry stakeholders. In 2010, shale gas production accounted for $18.6 billion in federal royalty and local, state, and federal tax revenues. (1) This is expected to continue to grow substantially. The DEC is under increased pressure to open the state to the same opportunities that Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming are pursuing. Positive labor market impacts are another major economic draw. According to the Revised Draft SGEIS on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (September 2011), hydraulic fracturing would create between 4,408 and 17,634 full-time equivalent (FTE) direct construction jobs in New York State. Indirect employment in other sectors would add an additional 29,174 FTE jobs. Furthermore, the SGEIS analysis suggests that drilling activities could add an estimated $621.9 million to $2.5 billion in employee earnings (direct and indirect) per year, depending upon how much of the shale is developed. The state would also receive direct tax receipts from leasing land, and has the potential to see an increase in generated indirect revenue. Estimates range from $31 million to $125 million per year in personal income tax receipts, and local governments would benefit from revenue sharing. Some landowner groups say the continued delay in drilling is costing tens of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in growth for New York, especially in the economically stunted upstate. A number of New York counties near Pennsylvania, such as Chemung, NY, have experienced economic uptick from Pennsylvania drilling activity just across the border. Chemung officials reported that approximately 1,300 county residents are currently employed by the drilling industry in Pennsylvania. The Marcellus shale boom is expected to continue over the next decade and beyond. By 2015, gas drilling activity could bring 20,000 jobs to New York State alone. Other states, such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, are also expected to see a significant increase in the number of jobs. Catalyst 2: Political Reality of the Moratorium. Oil and gas drilling has taken place in New York since the 19th century, and it remains an important industry with more than 13,000 currently active wells. The use of hydraulic fracturing in particular has been employed for decades. Yet, as technological advancements have enabled access to gas in areas where drilling is not common practice, public concern has ballooned. Opponents argue that more oversight is necessary to protect the environment and public health, while supporters believe the industry is already adequately regulated. Although it is important for New York to complete a thorough environmental and regulatory review, an extended ban could lead to litigation by property owners who have been stripped of the ability to lease their mineral rights. Other states are moving forward by implementing legislative guidelines or rules created by commissions to ensure that resources are developed safely. One of the most controversial issues in other states to date has revolved around the public disclosure of chemical additives in drilling fluid. While the industry is hesitant to reveal trade secrets, the public and many officials want the security of knowing what chemicals are pumped into the ground. Industry transparency could help mitigate the public concern and controversy that is delaying a lift of the moratorium. Currently, at least five other states have set chemical disclosure rules. Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming require disclosure of the chemical components of drilling fluid. Colorado has the most stringent rules, requiring not just the disclosure of the additives but of their concentrations as well. As more states continue to allow hydraulic fracturing, New York will likely lift the moratorium and instead implement more stringent regulations that help to alleviate public concern surrounding hydraulic fracturing. This will allow the state to safely pursue the expansive opportunities offered by the Marcellus shale without falling behind economically. Catalyst 3: Energy and Infrastructure Benefits. Natural gas provides a key source of energy in the Northeast. The DEC estimates the Marcellus shale gas resource potential to be between 168-516 Tcf. Even at the low end of this range, Marcellus alone could supply seven years of total U.S. energy consumption, and it would provide a local resource for New York. One report suggests that savings from lower natural gas costs would result in an average annual savings of $926 per household. (4) Industry growth is leading to lower natural gas and electric power prices, while decreasing reliance on Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) imports and enhancing domestic energy security. This makes development of the resources an even more attractive commitment to New York. In addition, the natural gas business is predominantly regional in scope. Drilling companies would be required to build new pipelines for gas development in New York, therefore State regulators face valuable ancillary benefits of natural gas development such as infrastructure improvements. Catalyst 4: Technology Improvements. Lastly, the moratorium itself does not prevent the use of alternative drilling technologies, such as non-hydraulic fracturing, for shale gas production. Developers are already using new systems in Texas and Canada, as well as in France where hydraulic fracturing is banned country-wide. Commercial viability of these new technologies could ultimately provide an alternative to jumpstart shale drilling in New York if necessary. The potential benefits from development of the Marcellus shale in New York are undeniable, though regulators are still working to balance the need to stimulate the economy with environmental protection and public health. Since closing the public comment period in January, the DEC has signaled that much more work is needed, making no promises to near-term completion. While, neighboring states are feeling the economic benefits of drilling, the political environment and the recession continues adding pressure to the process in New York state.