English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

C OMPARING S TATE P ORTFOLIO S TANDARDS AND S YSTEM -B ENEFITS C HARGES U NDER R ESTRUCTURING Ryan Wiser Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Kevin Porter National Renewable Energy Laboratory Mark Bolinger Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory October 23, 2000 Table 1. RPS Policies Established at the State Level Under Restructuring State Arizona Purchase Requirement 0.2% in 2001, rising by 0.2%/yr to 1% in 2005, and to 1.05% in 2006, then to 1.1% from 2007 to 2012. Competitive retail suppliers are exempt until 2004. Utility distribution companies may recover costs of the RPS through reallocating existing SBC accounts for DSM and partly through environmental portfolio surcharge. Class I or II Technologies: 5.5% in 2000, 6% in 2005, 7% in 2009 and thereafter. Class I Technologies: 0.5% in 2000 + 0.25%/yr to 1% in 2002, 6% in 2009 and thereafter. Revised law in 1999 clarifies that standard is energy based, not capacity based and allows individual suppliers to petition PUC for delay of RPS targets of up to 2 years. PUC has denied at least one petition for delay. PUC has established that RPS shall not apply to standard offer service, but this decision is under appeal 30% of retail sales in 2000 and thereafter as condition of licensing. PUC will revisit RPS within 5 years after retail competition. PUC has proposed to eliminate RPS in favor of an SBC. 1% of sales to end-use customers from new renewables in 2003 or 1 year after any renewable is within 10% of average spot-market price, +0.5%/yr to 4% in 2009, and +1%/yr increase thereafter until date determined by Division of Energy Resources (DOER). Preliminary RPS design proposal (June 2000) does not propose standard for existing renewables - DOER plans to monitor market and adopt standard if there is significant attrition of renewables. 0.2% of total Nevada consumption as of January 1, 2001. Increases by 0.2% biannually until reaches 1%. 50% of requirement from solar. Sierra Pacific given special treatment. Rural electric coops, general improvement districts, and others are exempted. With retail competition delay, it is also possible that RPS will be delayed. Class I of II Technologies: 2.5% when BPU adopts interim standards with no sunset. Class I Technologies: 0.5% in 2001, 1% in 2006, +0.5%/yr to 4% in 2012. Up to 5% for standard offer service by 2002 if it can be shown renewable resources are available in New Mexico and if cost of standard offer service does not increase by more than 1 mill/kWh. Purchase requirement could initially start at lower level if above conditions not met. For PECO, West Penn, and PP&L, 20% of residential consumers served by competitive default provider: 2% in 2001, rising 0.5%/year. For GPU, 0.2% in 2001 for 20% of customers, 40% of customers in 2002, 60% in 2003, 80% in 2004 and thereafter. Legislation establishes renewable energy capacity targets: 1280 MW by 2003 increasing to 2880 MW by 2009 (880 MW of which is existing generation). RPS rule translates capacity targets into percentage energy purchase requirements. 0.5% by 2001, increasing to 2.2% by 2011 (0.6% can come from facilities installed before 1998). Connecticut Maine Massachusetts Nevada New Jersey New Mexico Pennsylvania Texas Wisconsin

Comparing state portfolio standards and system-benefits charges under restructuring