Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy

EnergyEfficiencyandRenewable
EnergyinFlorida
FortheFloridaEnergyandClimateCommission
By
TheFloridaEnergySystemsConsortium
Dr.JulieHarrington,Director
Dr.BassamAwad
ZafarSiddiqui
DavidGlassner
StephenMuscarella
CenterforEconomicForecastingandAnalysis(CEFA)
FloridaStateUniversity
TedKury,Director,EnergyStudies
AchalaAcharya
TheUFPublicUtilityResearchCenter(PURC)
UniversityofFlorida
ErikSander,AssociateDirector
TheFloridaEnergySystemsConsortium(FESC)
JackSullivanJr.
Dr.AsterR.Adams
March22,2010
Acknowledgments:
TheauthorswouldliketothanktheDirectoroftheUniversityofCentralFloridaVentureLab,
Kirstie Chadwick, and the Director of the University of Florida Officeof Technology Licensing,
DavidDay,fortheirassistancerelatingtoventurecapital(VC)companiesinFlorida.Theauthors
wouldliketoextendthankstoSenaBlack,ofEnterpriseFlorida,forprovidinginformationon
Floridas Opportunity Fund. In addition, the authors are grateful to Mark Futrell and Walter
Clemence,ofthePublicServiceCommission(PSC),andtoBuckMartinez,ofFloridaPowerand
Light(FP&L),forprovidingclarificationonissuesrelatingtoFlorida.
TableofContents
Acknowledgments:.................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7
DefinitionsofRenewableEnergy,CleanEnergy,CleantechandEnergyEfficiency ................................. 9
RenewableEnergyinFlorida .................................................................................................................... 9
CleanEnergyandCleantech ................................................................................................................... 10
EnergyEfficiency..................................................................................................................................... 12
EconomicCostsandBenefitsofCleanEnergyinFlorida........................................................................ 13
CurrentIncentivesMix .......................................................................................................... 17
InventoryofEconomicIncentivesThatImpacttheCleanEnergySectorinFlorida............................... 17
TotalStateFundsAllocatedtoEachIncentiveandtheIncentivesAnnualUse .................................... 20
FederalIncentivesforFlorida ................................................................................................................. 25
FloridaEnergyEfficiencyandConservationAct(Section366.82).......................................................... 28
EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyIncentivesinCleanEnergyJobsandAmericanPowerAct
2009 ........................................................................................................................................................ 28
Section161:RenewableEnergy .................................................................................................... 29
Section162:AdvancedBiofuels .................................................................................................... 29
EnergyEfficiencyTargets ................................................................................................................ 30
ProgramsOfferedbyLocalUtilities,Cities,andCounties ...................................................................... 31
CommercialIncentives ............................................................................................................... 31
BarrierstoCommercializationandProjectFinance................................................................ 34
MainBarrierstoCleantechCommercializationandProjectFinance..................................................... 42
PerceivedHighRiskofCleantechBusinesses .............................................................................. 42
InsufficientInvestmentsinR&D .................................................................................................... 42
OtherBarrierstoCleantechCommercializationandProjectFinance...................................... 48
CleanTechnologyLifeCycleandFundingSources ................................................................................. 49
ResearchMethodology ................................................................................................................... 49
CurrentSituationandRelativePerformanceMetrics ................................................................ 50
StateofAffairs:FloridaVentureCapitalCommunity ............................................................................. 64
AssetFinanceBeyondCapitalMarkets,VentureCapital,PrivateandPublicEquity,and
DebtandPrivateCapital. ................................................................................................................ 75
PublicBenefitFund................................................................................................................................. 76
PropertyAssessedCleanEnergy(PACE)&EnergyFinancingDistrictsModels ..................................... 78
RegulatoryChanges............................................................................................................... 91
TheRPSandItsEconomicImpact........................................................................................................... 91
AnRPSforFlorida ................................................................................................................................... 94
PolicyConsiderationsforFloridaRecentDevelopments ..................................................................... 97
ConclusionsandRecommendations .................................................................................... 100

Task1 .................................................................................................................................................... 104
Task2 .................................................................................................................................................... 108
Task3 .................................................................................................................................................... 110
Task4 .................................................................................................................................................... 113
Task5 .................................................................................................................................................... 116
References........................................................................................................................... 122
Appendices.......................................................................................................................... 131
AppendixA:Tables ............................................................................................................................... 131
AppendixB:FederalCleantechIncentivesThrough2009.................................................................... 231
AppendixC:CleantechIncentiveProgramsOfferedbytheStateofFlorida ....................................... 233
AppendixD:LeadingPublicFinancingToolsandMechanisms ............................................................ 235
AppendixE:ExpectationsofCleantechDevelopers............................................................................. 237
AppendixF:EnergyRecoveryStimulusGrantAwardeesbyState ....................................................... 240
AppendixG:PACEModel...................................................................................................................... 274
AppendixH:EconomicImpactandSuccessStories ............................................................................. 277
AppendixI:FreeingtheFloridaGrid2009............................................................................................ 282
AppendixJ:FederalLoanGuarantee.................................................................................................... 283
AppendixK:EconomicDevelopmentStudyScopingDocument .......................................................... 289
ListofTables
Table1.CleanEnergyRelatedIndustriesListofNAICS .............................................................................. 11
Table2.RenewableTechnologyCostsforU.S............................................................................................ 14
Table3.RenewableTechnologyEstimatedEconomicImpactsforFlorida ................................................ 14
Table4.InventoryofIncentivesThatImpacttheCleanEnergySectorinFlorida...................................... 19
Table5.RemainingBalancesasofJanuary29,2010ofRenewableTaxCredits/SalesTaxRefunds ......... 22
Table6.RenewableEnergyTechnologiesGrantsProgram ........................................................................ 23
Table7.SolarEnergySystemIncentivesProgram(SolarRebate).............................................................. 24
Table8.EconomicImpactofStateIncentivesinTermsofJobsCreated ................................................... 24
Table9.CleanTechnologies........................................................................................................................ 35
Table10.CleantechSubsectorsTrackedbyCleantechVentureNetworkandtheTypesofCleantech
Businesses ................................................................................................................................................... 35
Table11.CurrentSituationandRelativePerformanceMetrics ................................................................. 50
Table12.TopStateswithCleanEnergyPatents......................................................................................... 55
Table13.TopStatesReceivingSBIRandSTTRFundsforCleanEnergyTechnologies20002008 ............. 57
Table14.TopStatesCleantechVCDeals20002009($Millions) ............................................................ 61
Table15.TopStatesReceivingVCFundingforEarlyCapitalStage($Millions,SelectedYears) ............... 62
Table16.TopStatesReceivingVCFundingforMid/LateCapitalStage($Millions,SelectedYears)......... 66
Table17.HistoricalGrowthRatesofCTIUS,NEXandS&P500Indices....................................................... 69
Table18.TopStateswithMostARRACleantechFunding.......................................................................... 84
Table19.TopStateswithMostSmartGridInvestmentGrants ................................................................. 85
Table20.TopStateswithMostElectricDriveVehicleBatteryGrants....................................................... 86
Table21.TopStateswithMostBiomassGrants ........................................................................................ 86
Table22.TopStateswithMostGeothermalGrants .................................................................................. 87
Table23.ARRAFundingforBreakthroughProjects($Millions) ............................................................... 87
Table24.TopStateswithMostSBIR/STTRCleantechGrants .................................................................... 88
Table25.SummaryTableofFloridasCurrentSituationandAchievementGap ....................................... 88
Table26.SummaryofStateIndustrialIncentivePrograms ....................................................................... 95
Table27.CurrentIncentiveProgramsandRecommendations ................................................................ 105
Table28.IncentiveProgramsandTheirAvailabilityinFlorida................................................................. 110
Table29.ProsandConsofEachPortfolioofProgramsToDecreaseBarriersTotheCommercializationof
theCleanTechnologySector .................................................................................................................... 111
Table30.RenewablePortfolioStandardsbyState................................................................................... 131
Table31.FederalIncentivesthatImpactCleanEnergyinFlorida............................................................ 132
Table32.ProgramsOfferedbyLocalUtilities,Cities,andCounties......................................................... 135
Table33.FloridaProjectsFundedthroughARRA2009............................................................................ 137
Table34.TotalSBIR/STTRAwards,AllAgencies,AllTechnologies,20002008 ....................................... 141

Table35.TotalSBIR/STTRAwards,AllAgencies,AllTechnologies,2008................................................. 142
Table36.TotalSBIR/STTRAwards,AllAgencies,CleanEnergyTechnologies,20002008 ...................... 143
Table37.NVCA:VentureCapitalInvestmentsbyState2000to2008($Millions) .................................. 144
Table38.NVCACapitalUnderManagementbyState2000to2008($Millions) .................................. 145
Table39.VentureCapitalFundCommitments20002008(Millions) .................................................... 146
Table40.ProgressofStatesinAttainingRPS ........................................................................................... 147
Table41.RetailSalesofElectricitybyState20002007TotalElectricIndustry....................................... 148
Table42.ListofStateswithanAngelTaxCreditProgram ....................................................................... 150
Table43.RenewablePortfolioStandardsbyStateAsofNovember2009............................................... 151
Table44.RenewablePortfolioStandards:NotesbyState ....................................................................... 152
Table45.DowJonesVentureSource:TotalVentureCapitalbyStatefor20002009($Millions) .......... 154
Table46.DowJonesVentureSource:VCinMidLateStage*byStatefor20002009($Millions) ........ 155
Table47.DowJonesVentureSource:VCinEarlyStage*byStatefor20002009($Millions) ............... 156
Table48.AngelGroupsbyStatewithAngelITCProgramsNotedfromNGAData(Circa2007) ............. 157
Table49.StateAngelInvestmentTaxCredits .......................................................................................... 158
Table50.SelectStateIncentivesforRenewableEnergy,November2009 .............................................. 160
Table51.StatePublicBenefitsFundsforRenewables(May2009EstimatedFunding) .......................... 161
Table52.CenterforVentureResearch,AngelActivityintheUS20012009........................................... 162
Table53.StateSupportedVCFundsfromtheNASVF.............................................................................. 163
Table54.U.S.StateSupportedVentureCapitalFunds:NationalAssociationofSeedandVentureFunds
(NASVF)March2008................................................................................................................................. 165
Table55.ARRA09Awards:VariousProgramsbyState ........................................................................... 167
Table56.CleantechnologyInvestmentsbyYear ..................................................................................... 169
Table57.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:AllStagesofFinancingandAllCleantech
Industries .................................................................................................................................................. 171
Table58.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:SeedandEarlyStageFunding,Energy
Industries .................................................................................................................................................. 171
Table59.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:Mid+StageFinancing,EnergyIndustry ..... 172
Table60.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:SeedandEarlyStageFunding,Environmental
Industries .................................................................................................................................................. 173
Table61.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:Mid+StageFunding,Environmental
Industries .................................................................................................................................................. 175
Table62.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:SeedandEarlyStageFunding,Industrial
Activities.................................................................................................................................................... 175
Table63.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:Mid+StageFunding,IndustrialActivities.. 176
Table64.LevelizedCostofEnergyKeyAssumptions ............................................................................ 178
Table65.ScienceAndEngineeringProfiles,byState(20062008).......................................................... 179
Table66.ElectricEnergyPricebyStateRevenueperKilowattHour(Cents)........................................ 181
Table67.EIA:StateEnergyRankingsSeptember2009 ............................................................................ 182
Table68.EnergyResources:MatrixofApplications................................................................................. 183
Table69.EIA,19902007ExistingNameplateCapacitybyEnergySourceandState(SumofNAMEPLATE
CAPACITY(Megawatts))(EIA860):TotalElectricPowerIndustry........................................................... 184
Table70.EIANameplateCapacityforCarbonFuelsinMWfortheTotalElectricPowerIndustry(2000
2007) ......................................................................................................................................................... 189
Table71.EIANetGenerationbyStatebyPowerSourceforAllProducers(20002007)......................... 190
Table72.EIANetGenerationbyStateForCarbonFuelSourcesforAllProducers(20002007)............. 197
Table73.EIANetGenerationbyStateForHydroelectricSourcesforAllProducers(20002007) .......... 199
Table74.EIANetGenerationbyStateForNuclearforAllProducers(20002007) ................................. 200
Table75.EIANetGenerationbyStateForNonHydroRenewablesforAllProducers(20002007) ....... 201
Table76.ARPAE ..................................................................................................................................... 202

Table77.GapAnalysis,FLvs.Top4:Startups .......................................................................................... 203
Table78.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:ActiveLicensesandOptions(ACTLIC) ............................................. 204
Table79.UtilityPatents:grantedbytheU.S.PatentandTrademarkOffice ........................................... 205
Table80.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:AcademicPatentApplications ........................................................ 206
Table81.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:Disclosures ...................................................................................... 207
Table82.AcademicR&DExpenditures..................................................................................................... 208
Table83.NSFResearchbyStateinDisciplinesw/CleantechImplications,2008 .................................... 209
Table84.ScientistandEngineersPlottedAgainstR&DfortopR&DStates ............................................ 210
Table85.PhDScientistsandEngineersEmployedbyState ..................................................................... 212
Table86.VentureCapitalFirmsListedin"CapitalVector"Database ...................................................... 212
Table87.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:AcademicLicensingManagersbyState .......................................... 214
Table88.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:PatentExpensestoProtectAcademicIntellectualProperty ......... 215
Table89.AcademicFacultyandStudents:DataBuiltbyInstitutionfromCarnegieFoundationfor
PreviousFRCReport.................................................................................................................................. 216
Table90.RenewablePortfolioStandardsbyState:RPSRequirement(%ofTotalElectricLoad)........... 217
Table91.PrivateEquityBackedMergersandAcquisitionsbyYear($Millions) ...................................... 219
Table92.PrivateEquityBackedAcquisitionsbyIndustry(20002008) ................................................... 220
Table93.VentureBackedIPO's,TotalOfferingSize($Millions) ............................................................. 221
Table94.VentureBackedIPO's ................................................................................................................ 222
Table95.HistoricalCleanEnergyPatentsbyState .................................................................................. 223
Table96.CapacityAdded,AllProducerforNonHyrdroRenewables(20002009)................................. 224
Table97.CapacityAdded,AllProducersforCarbonFuelSources(20002009) ...................................... 225
Table98.CapacityAdded,AllProducersforHydroSources(20002009)................................................ 226
Table99.CapacityAdded,AllProducersforAllFuelSources(20002009).............................................. 227
Table100.CapacityAdditionsforNonHydroRenewables,SouthernCo,ProgressEnergy,TECO,FP&L
Group ........................................................................................................................................................ 229
Table101.CapitalExpendituresatShareholderOwnedPublicUtilities($Billion)*............................... 230
Table102.EmploymentinNewJerseysGreenIndustries:AverageAnnualEmployment,2009............ 280
Table103.FreeingtheFloridaGrid2009 ................................................................................................. 282
ListofFigures
Figure1.StagesofTechnologyDevelopment ............................................................................................ 37
Figure2.MainProvidersofFinanceatEachStage..................................................................................... 39
Figure3.TheCapitalandSkillsGapforCleantechandCleanEnergyInfrastructureProject
Developments ............................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure4.SequentialModelofDevelopmentandFunding ......................................................................... 40
Figure5.ValleyofDeath,fromInventiontoInnovation ............................................................................ 41
Figure6.EquityGapatEachStageofDevelopment .................................................................................. 41
Figure7.ComparisonofUSAGovernmentIncentivesforEnergyDevelopment,19502006.................... 46
Figure8.FederalSubsidiestoFossilFuels .................................................................................................. 47
Figure9.U.S.VCandPrivateEquityInvestmentinRenewableEnergyTechnologyCompanies,20012008
($Millions) .................................................................................................................................................. 59
Figure10.U.S.VCInvestmentsinCleantech:19952007(MillionConstant2005U.S.Dollars) ................ 60
Figure11.TotalVCInvestmentsinNY,FLandNH,20002009($Millions) ............................................... 61
Figure12.CleantechVCInvestmentsinTX,FLandMI,20002009($Millions) ........................................ 62
Figure13.VCInvestmentsinEarlyStageInTX,FLandOH,20002009($Millions) .................................. 63
Figure14.VCInvestmentsInMid/LateStageForNY,FLAndOH,20002009($Millions) ........................ 67
Figure15.CleantechVCInvestmentsanMid/LateCapitalStageInFLandTX,20022009($Millions) ... 68
Figure16.CleantechIndexUSandNEXIndexComparedtoS&P500Index.............................................. 70
Figure17.TheSustainableEnergyFinancingContinuum........................................................................... 72
Figure18.U.S.RenewableEnergyInvestment ........................................................................................... 74
Figure19.AssetFinancingNorthAmerica ............................................................................................... 74
Figure20.RoleofTheU.S.DOEinFinancingCleantech............................................................................. 83
Figure21.ImpactsoftheFinancialCrisisandFederalLegislationonRenewableEnergyProject
Development............................................................................................................................................... 84
Figure22.VCInvestmentsinFlorida20012009 ...................................................................................... 170
Figure23.WorkingPhDS&EvsR&D:Top20R&DStates(IncludingOutliersCA,MI,NY) ...................... 211
Figure24.WorkingPhDS&EvsR&D:Top20R&DStates(ExcludingOutliersCA,MI,NY)...................... 211
Figure25.UnitedStatesAnnualAverageWindPower ............................................................................ 228
Figure26.FederalLoanGuaranteesforCommercialTechnologyRenewableEnergyGenerationProjects
UndertheFinancialInstitutionPartnershipProgram............................................................................... 283
Figure27.FederalLoanGuaranteesforProjectsthatEmployInnovativeEnergyEfficiency,Renewable
Energy,andAdvancedTransmissionandDistributionTechnologies ....................................................... 285
Figure28.FederalLoanGuaranteesforElectricPowerTransmissionInfrastructureInvestmentProjects
.................................................................................................................................................................. 287
Introduction
Cleanenergyisthefuture.Duetoincreasingenvironmentalconcerns,fluctuatingfossil
fuel prices and rising public awareness and interest in renewable energy, both globally and
domestically,countries,statesandmunicipalgovernments,andprivateandnonprofitentities
aretryingtosteerthemomentumofeconomicdevelopmenttowardscleanerandrenewable
sourcesofenergy.
Florida,likeotherUSstates,isalsoinatransitionstageofhowtobestplantomakethe
shift from traditional energy resources to cleantech1. However, the production of renewable
energy is currently more cost intensive than conventional energy production methods with
using fossil fuels that are more readily accessible and integrated into the current energy
market,althoughcertainrenewableenergyfieldssuchasphotovoltaicarequicklyapproaching
gridparityinsomepartsofthecountry.Assuch,inordertoincreasetheamountofrenewable
energy sources, incentives and subsidies must be used. Sales tax exclusions on materials for
hydrogencars,investmenttaxcreditsandvariousothermonetaryincentivesareusedtoattract
moreactivitytothemarketofrenewableandcleanenergy.
Totrulyestimatetheimpactofanyregulationonenergyproduction,allpossibleaspects
mustbeexamined.Thepolicyenactedwilldictatehowthemarketresponds.Thelimitationof
any system trying to increase investment and activity in the renewable energy sector is how
welltheyaresupportedbymarketpowers.Thepossibleoptionsatpresentaretocontinueon
the path of monetary and tax incentives, create a state Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS),
enactaFeedinTariff2,andvariousotherprograms.Eachoneoftheseoptionsisspecializedto
varyingtechnologiesandoutcomes.
This study aims to provide a framework or roadmap for the transition to clean and
renewable energy sources, and energy efficiencies, in line with market driven forces. We
conduct a comprehensive review of almost all existing statutory incentives supporting the
deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy in Florida followed by a discussion of
effective mechanisms to overcome barriers to commercialization and project finance, and
finally, with an analysis of the economic impact of a state renewable portfolio standard. In
1
Cleantechdefinition:knowledgebasedproductsandservicesthatoptimizetheuseofnaturalresourceswhilereducingecologicalimpactand
adding economic value through lowered costs or improved profitability. See further description on page 10, and in the Barriers to
Commercializationsectionofthisreport.
2
The City of Gainesville has implemented a FeedInTariff. Other states include Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota,NewJersey,NewYork,Oregon,RhodeIsland,Virginia,WashingtonandWisconsin.(http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45549.pdf)
conclusion,thisprojectaimstoprovideanecessaryfoundationorbaselineforthenextstepin
renewable energy and energy efficiency strategic planning and implementation, along with
somesuggestionsandrecommendations.
The report begins with providing an overview of the definition and description of
renewableenergyandcleantech,ingeneral,withabriefsectiononthecurrentstatusofclean
energyinFlorida.Afterthisintroductorysection,themainbodyofthereportisthenstructured
intofoursections.
ThesecondsectionoutlinesthecurrentincentivesavailableinFloridaandattheFederal
Government level, for the promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency. In
consultation with the Florida Energy and Climate Commission and Enterprise Florida, we
summarizeFloridascurrentcleanenergyincentives.Welistalleconomicincentivesthataffect
the clean energy sector in Florida along with details about State funds allocated to each
incentive and the incentives annual use. Additionally, we briefly cover each incentives
interaction with similar Federal incentives. We then evaluate the success of the States
investmentinthecleantechsectorandanalyzetheintendedeconomicimpactofeachincentive
program.Weaimtobenchmarktheperformance/impactagainstsimilartypesofprogramsor
programs with similar objectives in other jurisdictions or analogous industries/sectors. In
Florida, there are broad based economic development programs that prequalify the clean
energysector.Weanalyzetheseprogramsandverifytheireffectivenessastohowwellthey
catertocleansectorcompanies.Wealsoidentifyandincludefederal,stateandlocalincentives
targeting the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy products. At the end of
thissection,wedevelopalistofFloridasincentivesthattargetenergyefficiencyanddemand
side management. In order to give a comprehensive and more holistic picture, we cover the
FloridaEnergyEfficiencyandConservationAct(FEECA),theprogramsofferedbylocalutilities,
cities,andcounties,federalincentivesforthedeploymentofenergyefficiencyandrenewable
energyproducts.
Thethirdsectionofthereportcoversbarrierstocommercializationandprojectfinance
for cleantech projects in Florida. In this section, we identify Floridas university, business and
financialresourcesandlistbarrierstocommercializingintellectualpropertyanddeployingclean
technologybusinesses.Intheensuingdiscussion,weincorporateanalysisofstagesofresources
and capital necessary to progress business from inception to fullscale deployment.

Additionally, we identify and discuss the availability of resources for each stage in Florida. In
consultationwithFESC,stateincubationnetworks(Public&Private),technologytransferoffices
and early stage industry partnership programs in Florida, we aim to identify and list the
resources that are available to transition clean technology intellectual property (IP) into the
market. This section also provides some successful models from other states and aims to
identifychallengesthatareuniquetoFloridaregardingprojectfinancing.
Thefourthsectionofthereportdealswithregulatorychanges.Weprovideananalysis
of the potential economic impact of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) including aspects
suchasjobcreationinFlorida,growthinstateGDP,andothereconomicfactors.Inaddition,we
provide a comparison between various state programs including a breakdown of RPS among
differentrenewableenergyindustries/sectors.
Thefinalsectionofthereportencompassestheconclusionsandrecommendations.In
thissection,weprovidesuggestionsandrecommendationstotheFloridaEnergyandClimate
Commission (FECC) in a series of pros and cons in key areas: 1) whether to renew existing
incentives 2) how to target sunsetting incentives to the cleantech area 3) a portfolio of
programs to decrease barriers to cleantech commercialization and project finance, and; 4)
whether to pursue an RPS for Florida and; 5) suggest to the FECC effective demand side
incentives.
DefinitionsofRenewableEnergy,CleanEnergy,CleantechandEnergyEfficiency
RenewableEnergyinFlorida
According to the Florida Legislature, FL HB 7135 defines renewable energy (with
alternativeenergy)as:
"Electrical,mechanical,orthermalenergyproducedfromamethodthatusesoneor
moreofthefollowingfuelsorenergysources:ethanol,cellulosicethanol,biobutanol,
biodiesel,biomass,biogas,hydrogenfuelcells,oceanenergy,hydrogen,solar,hydro,
wind,orgeothermal.Biomassmeansapowersourcethatiscomprisedof,butnot
limitedto,combustibleresiduesorgasesfromforestproductsmanufacturing,waste,
byproducts, or products from agricultural and orchard crops, waste or coproducts
productsfromlivestockandpoultryoperations,wasteorbyproductsfromandfood
processing, urban wood waste, municipal solid waste, municipal liquid waste
treatmentoperations,andlandfillgas."3
CleanEnergyandCleantech
The Renewable Energy Trust defines clean energy as "energy from renewable sources
suchasbiomass,wind,orsolarpower.Thegoalofcleanenergyistohavealowenvironmental
impact, with low or zero emissions, and minimal impact on the physical surroundings.
Hydropowercan be defined as clean energy due to zero emissions, but today's hydropower
oftenhassubstantialimpactsonaquaticecosystems.Wasteburningandwoodburningplants
thatcaptureemissionscanbecleanenergygenerators.Fossilfuelsdonotprovidecleanenergy
becauseoftheiremissionsandenvironmentalimpacts."4
From the Japan Video Encyclopedia, clean energy is "the solar energy, wind power,
geothermal energy and coal technology projects underscores Japan's enthusiasm for clean
energyandreducedemissionsofcarbondioxide."5
AccordingtoJesperLindgaardChristensen,6thereseemstobemoreconsensusaround
thetermcleantechnologyorcleantechtoembraceknowledgebasedproductsandservices
that optimize the use of natural resources while reducing ecological impact and adding
economic value through lowered costs or improved profitability. In other words, clean
technologies are inherently designed to (1) provide superior performance at lower costs; (2)
reduceoreliminatenegativeecologicalimpact;and(3)improvetheproductiveuseofnatural
resources. Cleantech spans many industries, from alternative forms of energy generation
(including clean energy i.e., renewable and alternative energy technologies) to water
purificationtomaterialsefficientproductiontechniques.
Lookingattheimpactontheenvironment,GreenIdeasdefinesrenewableenergyasan
energy source that, from an Earth perspective, is continually replenished. The renewable
resourcecanbereplenishedatarateequaltoorgreaterthanitsrateofdepletion;i.e.,solar,
wind,geothermalandbiomassresources.7GreenIdeasprovidesashortcutdefinitionofclean
3
FloridaLegislatureFLHB7135CHAPTER2008227
http://masstech.org/cleanenergy/energy/glossaryAtoC.htm
5
http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/japan/video/pamph.html
6
JesperLindgaardChristensen,GreensRushIn?:CleantechVentureCapitalInvestmentsProspectsorHype?June2009.SeealsoNewYork
CityInvestmentFund:Cleantech:ANewEngineofEconomicGrowthforNewYorkState,page3,January2007;andForumfortheFuture,2006:
CleanCapitalFinancingcleantechnologyfirmsintheUK.
7
TheinclusionofNuclearenergyinthecleanenergydefinitioniscontroversial.Cleanenergyisenergythatisproducedwithoutburningfossil
fuels. Examples include wind, hydroelectricity and, controversially, nuclear power. The reason for this definition is that Nuclear energy
4
10
energy that summarizes the two points: "energy created from renewable sources with low
environmentalimpact."8
Fromthesedefinitions,cleanenergymusthavethefollowingtwocharacteristics:
1 Ithastoberenewable.
2 Ithasloworzeronegativeimpactontheenvironment.
Thismeansthatitissufficientfortheenergysourcetohavelowenvironmentalimpact
to be considered a clean energy source. However, it is not a sufficient condition to be
determined a renewable resource in order to be categorized as clean energy.9 In order to
provide an overview of those industries that are related to clean energy, the following table
provides a detailed list of clean energy industries and associated North American Industrial
ClassificationSystem(NAICS)codes.
Table1.CleanEnergyRelatedIndustriesListofNAICS
Industry
Renewableenergy
generation
wind,solar,tidal
geothermal
wasteincineration
NAICSCode
221119
221330
562213
NAICSTitle
OtherElectric/PowerGeneration
SteamProduction
SolidWasteCombustors&
Incinerators
Sawmills
PulpMills
PaperMills
biomass
321113
322110
322121
fuelcells/other
engineer
335999 AllOtherMiscellaneousElectrical
EquipmentManufacturing

221122 ElectricPowerDistribution

541712 R&DinPhysical,Engineeringand
LifeSciences
541330 EngineeringServices
finance
522110
522120
522130
522190
523910
Renewableenergysystems
transmission/distribution
supportfunctions
design
CommercialBanking
SavingsInstitutions
CreditUnions
OtherDepositoryCredit
MiscellaneousIntermediation
Includes
solar,tidal,wind,other
geothermalsteamproduction
cogenerationplantssellingelectricity
100%recycledpaper,mnfwithGreenE
certifiedrenewableenergy
fuelcellsandotheralternativeelectrical
sources
engineeringconsulting,design,and/or
services
venturecapitalcompanies,investment
produces no greenhouse gas emissions but it still uses uranium (and sometimes plutonium) which is a natural resource like gas and oil.
(http://www.ehow.com/about_4579290_nuclearenergyrenewablenonrenewable.html)
8
http://www.egreenideas.com/glossary.php?group=r
9
Nuclear energy sector will not be included in our overall analysis in this report for the following reasons: despite the absence of
emissions,nucleargeneration,ingeneral,stillproducesradiationasitsbyproduct.Also,intermsoftheCleantechdefinition(s)prevalentinthe
current Cleantech literature, nuclear power is often not included. In addition, for the purpose of this project, detailed data on renewable
energy/cleanenergywasmorereadilyavailablethandetaileddataonotherCleantechsectors.
11
Industry
NAICSCode NAICSTitle
construction
237130
Biofuels
238221
238222
238151
238152
238161
238162
238171
238172
238211
238212
238311
238312
325199
324199
Energyefficiency
development
Energyefficiency
manufacturing
111110
111120
111150
541712
541420
335110
335121
PowerandCommunication
Line/Structures
ResidentialPlumbing,Heating,AC
NonresidentialPlumb,HeatingAC
ResidentialGlassandGlazing
NonresidentialGlassandGlazing
ResidentialRoofing
NonresidentialRoofing
ResidentialSiding
NonresidentialSiding
ResidentialElectrical
NonresidentialElectrical
ResidentialDrywall/Insulation
NonresidentialDrywall/Insulation
AllOtherBasicOrganicChemical
Mnf
AllOtherPetroleumMnf
SoybeanFarming
Oilseed,ExceptSoybean
CornFarming
(R&Dseeabove)
IndustrialDesignServices
ElectricLampBulb/PartsMnf
ResidentialElectricLightingFixture
Mnf
Includes
clubs
alternativeenergystructure
construction
solarheatinginstallation
solarheatinginstallation
100%biodieselproduction
purchasingpetrolandblendingwith
100%vegetableoiltomakeblend
Source: Initial Washington Green Economy Industry List E2SHB 2815 Implementation
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/contentpub/greendigest/wanaicsindustrylist.pdf.
Team
May
16,
2008.
EnergyEfficiency
In addition to clean and renewable energy, the other area of interest in this study is
energy efficiency. It can be simply defined as the efficient use of energy. An operational
definitioncanbegivenasUsinglessenergytoprovidethesameservice. 10Itshouldbenoted
thatthereareanumberofperspectivesregardingthedefinitionofenergyefficiency.TheEIA
heldaseriesofworkshopsandfoundthattheparticipantdefinitioncanbethoughtoffromtwo
perspectives:either(1)aserviceperspectiveor(2)amechanistic,strictintensity,perspective.11
Someviewenergyefficiencyasbeingverydifferentfromenergyconservation,andthatenergy
10
BerkeleyLaboratories,2009.http://eetd.lbl.gov/ee/ee2.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/conf_papers.htm#Energy%20Information%20Administration%20Energy
Efficiency%20Workshop%20Summary%20Papers
11
12
conservationrelatesprimarilytobehavior.Peoplewithasocialviewofenergyefficiencymight
considertheenergysavingstobeanefficiencygain,whilethosewithamoretechnicalviewof
efficiency would classify the savings as conservation rather than efficiency improvement.12 An
example of energy conservation is turning off the light when the room is unoccupied.13
Examplesofenergyefficiencyforthepurposeofourstudyinclude:
1. Marketing,educationandoutreachbigoverlapwithconservationmessage.
2. Lightingreplacingbulbsandlightingsystemswithefficientmodels.
3. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning system (HVAC) retrofit, repair and
replacement.
4. Energyefficientnewconstructionincorporatingenergyefficientdesignconceptsand
thelatestinnovations.
EconomicCostsandBenefitsofCleanEnergyinFlorida
EnergysupplyandproductionisofcriticalimportanceformostFloridians.Florida,and
thenationingeneral,areconcernedwiththestatusofcurrentenergyreserves;basedprimarily
on nonrenewable resources (e.g., fossil fuel (coal and oil) and nuclear power). The
diversification of the nation's energy mix to include renewable resources helps improve: 1)
energy reliability and independence from foreign production 2) greenhouse gas emissions
and/orglobalwarming3)nationalsecurityand;4)longtermenergypricestability.Inaddition
tocleanandrenewableenergy,theotherareaofinterestinthisstudyisenergyefficiency.
Thissectionhighlightsrenewableoralternativeenergytechnologiescurrentlyavailable
inFlorida.ThefollowingtableprovidesasummaryofrenewabletechnologiescostsforFlorida,
asof2009.
12
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/definition.htm
Furthermore,Mostofwhatisdefinedasenergyefficiencyisinfactenergyintensity:"Energyintensityistheratioofenergyconsumptionto
some measure of demand for energy serviceswhat we call a demand indicator. However, at best, energyintensity measures are a rough
surrogate for energy efficiency. This is because energy intensity may mask structural and behavioral changes that do not represent "true"
efficiencyimprovementssuchasashiftawayfromenergyintensiveindustries."(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/definition.htm)
13
13
Table2.RenewableTechnologyCostsforU.S.
Technology
SolarPV
SolarThermal
Biomass
Landfill
Wind
Wind(offshore)
Geothermal
Hydropower
AdvancedNuclear
TotalOvernightCost
($/kW)
6,038
5,021
3,766
2,543
1,923
3,851
1,711
2,242
3,318
VariableO&MCost
($mills/kWh)
0.00
0.00
6.71
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.43
0.49
FixedO&MCost
($/kW)
11.68
56.78
64.45
114.25
30.30
89.48
161.64
13.63
90.02
Source:EnergyInformationAdministration.March2009.AssumptionstotheAnnualEnergyOutlook2009.
Table3.RenewableTechnologyEstimatedEconomicImpactsforFlorida
Technology
Solar
Biomass
Wind
GSP($Millions)
N/A
1,149*
N/A
Jobs
7.4130/MW
17,682
0.712.79/MW
Income($Millions)
N/A
687*
N/A
Sources: Southern Bioenergy Roadmap, Southeast Agriculture & Forestry Energy Resources Alliance (SAFER) UF/IFAS publication:
http://www.saferalliance.net. Economic Impacts of Extending Federal Solar Tax Credits, Solar Energy Research and Education. Foundation
(SEREF),http://www.seia.org/galleries/pdf/Navigant%20Consulting%20Report%209.15.08.pdf.*In2007$.
FloridahastwicethesolarinsolationofthelargestPVmarketintheworld,Germany.14
ThecapacityforsolarpowerinFloridaisamongthehighestinthecountry.Solarsystemshave
highercapitalstartupcoststhansomeothertechnologies,butthelackoffuelneedsandvery
low O&M costsandrequirementscanoffsetthehigherconstruction(capital)costs.ThesePV
systemsareestimatedtocreateupto30directjobsperMegawatt(MW),leadingto22,500
114,000directjobsthrough2020,dependentontheexpansionofsolaroutput.15AUSAToday
study found that when consumers were asked about powering their homes with electricity
fromsolarpanels,2%alreadyhadthem,andabout43%oftherespondentsthoughtitwould
happeninlessthanfiveyears.16
Being the leader in biomass feedstock, Florida has the ability to attract numerous
biomassprojectswithinstatefuels,avoidingtheneedandcostofshippinginfeedstockfrom
elsewhere. Solid biomass plants can be powered by organic material such as residual
production (wood chips from logging, wheat straw, etc) or purpose grown crops. Florida
currentlyranksfirstinbioenergyfeedstockofsugarcaneandcitrus,forestresiduesandurban
woodwaste.17TheSAFER2007studyreportedthatbiomassprojectsgenerated$1.15billionin
14
http://www.greentechmedia.SeeFaireStudy.
VoteSolarInitiative.www.votesolar.org
USAToday,July15,2009,citingSolarSurveyStudybyCSAInternational.
17
BioenergyatUF/IAFSPowerPoint.August12,2008.MaryDuryea
15
16
14
output and over 17,500 jobs in Florida18. Longerterm renewable energy sources include
offshorewind,oceancurrentandalgalharvestingforbiomassfeedstockandfuelproduction.
Researchiscurrentlybeingconductedintheseareas,amongothers,inFlorida.
Nuclear energy is one of the alternative energies in Florida. The three nuclear plants
(fivetotalunits)inFloridaproducedacombined2.69GWinMarchof2009.19Thisaccountsfor
4%ofthestatestotalenergyconsumption.ProjectedupgradesatthefacilitiesinLevyCounty
willincreaseProgressEnergyFloridasnucleargenerationby2.38GW.FloridaPowerandLight
is projected to add 2.61GW of nuclear power generation with upgrades at the St. Lucie and
TurkeyPointfacilities.20.AdvancednuclearhasavariableO&Mcostof$0.49/kWhandaFixed
O&Mcostof$90.02/kWh.Theaveragecapitalcostis$90.51.21
Given the volatility of recent fossil fuel prices, Floridians are becoming increasingly
aware of the costs of energy consumption in the state. By establishing new clean power
generation systems and investing in demand side management (energy efficient) programs,
utilities(suppliers)andconsumerswillnotonlylessenourimpacttotheenvironmentbutalso
helpwithdampeningFloridasincreasingenergydemand.Innovation,investment,andenergy
efficient conservation can help propel the state into becoming a prosperous, selfsufficient
providerofitsowncleanpower.
On June 25, 2008, Governor Charlie Crist signed into law, House Bill 7135, which
requires the Public Service Commission to develop a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by
February 1, 2009. Each electricity provider, except municipal utilities and rural cooperatives,
mustsupplyanasyetunspecifiedamountofrenewableenergytoitscustomers.AlthoughHB
7135 does not specify the RPS target, Governor Crists Executive Order 07127 from July 13,
2007 requires utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable
resources.22However,todate,noRPStargetpolicyhasbeenpassedbytheFloridalegislature.
The renewable energy incentives in Florida encompass corporate tax credits, sales tax
exemptions,localrebateprograms,loans,industrysupportsandproductionincentives.Florida
18
SouthernBioenergyRoadmap,SoutheastAgriculture&ForestryEnergyResourcesAlliance(SAFER)UF/IFASpublication:
http://www.saferalliance.net.
19
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=FL#overview
20
PersonalCommunication.TedKury,PublicUtilityResearchCenter.August18,2009
21
EIAAssumptionsReport:2009.http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html.
22
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2008/House/bills/billtext/pdf/h713503er.pdf,andtheExecutiveOrder07127:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ClimateChange/files/2007.07.13_eo_07127.pdf
15
does not currently have programs for personal income tax, grants and bonds. The energy
efficiencyincentivesincludeLocalRebatePrograms,grants,andloans.
The District of Columbia and 24 states have an RPS policy in place. Five other states,
NorthDakota,SouthDakota,Utah,Virginia,andVermont,havenonbindinggoalsforadoption
ofrenewableenergyinsteadofanRPS.Mostofthestatessetthestandardsinpercentageof
energy to be generated by renewable sources. These percentages ranged from 8% in
Pennsylvaniato40%inMaine,withthemajorityofthestatesinthe20%range.TexasandIowa
set their renewable energy production goals by Megawatts to be generated by renewable
resources.ThetargetyeartoattainthedesiredRPSdifferswidelybystate.VermontandNew
Yorkstargetyearis2013,whereasCaliforniatargeted2030toattainitsRPSgoals.SeeTable28
inAppendixA.
16
CurrentIncentivesMix
Authors:
Dr.JulieHarrington,Director,FSUCEFAandFSUIESESmember
Dr.BassamAwad
ZafarSiddiqui
DavidGlassner
TedKury,UFPURC
This section outlines the current incentives available in Florida and at the Federal
Government level, for the promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency. In
consultation with the Florida Energy and Climate Commission and Enterprise Florida, we
summarize Floridas current clean energy incentives in this section and list all economic
incentives that affectthecleanenergysectorinFlorida.Inaddition,weincludedetailsabout
thetotalamountofStatefundsallocatedtoeachincentive,andtheincentivesannualuse.
ThissectionhighlightsthestateincentivesinteractionwithsimilarFederalincentives.In
addition,thissectionalsoincludesanevaluationofthestateincentivestargetingthecleantech
sectorandananalysisoftheintendedeconomicimpactofeachincentiveprogram.Weaimto
benchmark the performance or impact against similar types of programs or programs with
similarobjectivesinotherjurisdictionsoranalogousindustries/sectors.
InFlorida,therearebroadbasedeconomicdevelopmentprogramsthatprequalifythe
cleanenergysector.Inordertogiveacomprehensiveandamoreholisticperspective,wecover
FloridaEnergyEfficiencyandConservationAct(FEECA),theprogramsofferedbylocalutilities,
cities, and counties, and federal incentives for the deployment of energy efficiency and
renewableenergyproducts.
InventoryofEconomicIncentivesThatImpacttheCleanEnergySectorinFlorida
Government incentives (both State and Federal) can be categorized into two basic
categories; up front incentives and performance based incentives. This section will look at
currentFloridarenewableenergyincentives.Thetypesofincentivesthatwillhaveanimpacton
theCleanEnergySectorinFloridaareshowninTable4.Therearevarioustypesofincentives
that are directed at different technologies and sectors of the economy. The Corporate Tax
17
Creditfrom the Renewable Energy Production Program and Renewable Energy Technologies
InvestmentprogramaredirectedattheCommercialsectors.
The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit applies to solar thermal electric,
photovoltaics,wind,biomass,hydroelectric,geothermalelectric,CHP/Cogeneration,hydrogen,
tidalenergy,waveenergyandoceanthermaltechnologies.Theincentiveamountis$0.01/kWh
ofelectricityproducedfrom1/1/2007to6/30/2010.Whilethereisnoindividualmaximum,no
entity will receive more than $5 million per fiscal year. The Renewable Energy Technologies
Investment Tax Credit is aimed at renewable fuel vehicles, fuel cells, hydrogen, refueling
stations,ethanolandbiodieseltechnologies.Thecreditcovers75%ofallcapitalcostsincluding
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Research and Development (R&D). The maximum
incentiveamountvariesbyprojectandtheexpirationdateis6/30/2010.
The Renewable Energy Property Tax Exemption focuses on incentives for the
Commercial,Industrial,andResidentialsectors.Theprogramoffersincentivesforsolarwater
heaters,photovoltaics,wind,geothermalheatpumps,anddirectusegeothermaltechnologies.
Itoffersa100%exemptionfrompropertytaxonunitsinstalledafter1/1/2009.
The Solar Energy Systems Equipment Sales Tax Exemption offers complete exemption
onsalestaxforsolarwaterheaters,solarspaceheaters,photovoltaics,andsolarpoolheating
within the sectors of Commercial, Residential, and General Public/Consumer. The Renewable
Energy Equipment Sales Tax Exemption applies to the same sectors, but only to the
technologies of renewable fuel vehicles, fuel cells, other alternative fuel vehicles, refueling
stations,ethanol,andbiodiesel.Theexpirationdateforthisprogramis7/1/2010.
Florida also offers a state grant program, the Renewable Energy Technologies Grants
Program, directed at commercial, nonprofit, school, local government andutilitysectorswith
varied incentive amounts. The grants are available for the technology development in heat
recovery,solarwaterheating,solarspaceheating,solarthermalelectric,solarthermalprocess
heat,photovoltaics,wind,biomass,hydroelectric,geothermalheatpumps,CHP/Cogeneration,
hydrogen, directuse geothermal, solar pool heating, tidal energy, wave energy and ocean
thermal.
The SolarEnergySystemIncentivesProgramisastaterebateprogramforsolarwater
heaters,photovoltaicsandsolarpoolheating.Therearemanyrestrictionsonsizerequirements
18
fortherebateandvaryingmaximumawardlevelsasshowninTable4.Commercial,Residential,
Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government, Federal Government, MultiFamily Residential and
Institutional sectors are covered under this program. The expiration date for this program is
6/20/2010.
Table4.InventoryofIncentivesThatImpacttheCleanEnergySectorinFlorida
IncentiveName
Incentive
Type
Capital
Investment
TaxCredit
Eligible
Technologies
Solar
panel
manufacturing
facility
Applicable
Sectors
Industrial,
Commercial
Renewable Energy
Production
Tax
Credit
(Florida Statutes
220.193)
Corporate
TaxCredit
Commercial
Renewable Energy
Technologies
Investment
Tax
Credit
(Florida
Statutes220.192)
Corporate
TaxCredit
Solar
Thermal
Electric,
Photovoltaics,
Wind,
Biomass,
Hydroelectric,
GeothermalElectric,
CHP/Cogeneration,
Hydrogen,
Tidal
Energy,
Wave
Energy,
Ocean
Thermal
Renewable
Fuel
Vehicles, Fuel Cells,
Hydrogen,Refueling
Stations, Ethanol,
Biodiesel
Renewable Energy
Property
Tax
Exemption (Florida
Statutes196.175)
Property
Tax
Exemption
Commercial,
Industrial,
Residential
Solar
Energy
Systems
Equipment Sales
Tax
Exemption(Florida
Statutes
212.08(7)(hh))
Renewable Energy
Equipment Sales
Tax
Exemption(Florida
Statutes
212.08(7)(ccc))
Renewable Energy
Technologies
Grants
Program
(Florida Statutes
Sales Tax
Exemption
Solar Water Heat,

Photovoltaics,
Wind, Geothermal
HeatPumps,Direct
UseGeothermal
Solar Water Heat,
Solar Space Heat,
Photovoltaics, Solar
PoolHeating
Capital investment
tax credit (Florida
Statutes220.191)
Sales Tax
Refund
State
Grant
Program
Renewable
Fuel
Vehicles, Fuel Cells,
Other Alternative
Fuel
Vehicles,
Refueling Stations,
Ethanol,Biodiesel
Heatrecovery,Solar
Water Heat, Solar
Space Heat, Solar
Thermal
Electric,
Commercial
Amount
Maximum
Incentive
100%, 75% 100% of
and 50% for the
a qualifying qualifying
project which project
results in a
cumulative
capital
investment of
at least $100,
between $50
$100 million,
and between
$2550$
respectively.
$0.01/kWh
No
for electricity individual
produced
maximum;
from
State max
1/1/2007
of
$5
through
million per
6/30/2010
fiscal year
for
all
credits
Eligible
SystemSize
Expiration
Date
6/30/2010
Varies
6/30/2010
75% of all
capital costs,
operationand
maintenance
costs,
and
research and
development
costs
100%
exemption
(for
units
installed after
1/1/2009
Allsalestax
Commercial,
Residential,
General
Public/Consumer
Allsalestax
7/1/2010
Commercial,
Nonprofit,
Schools,
Local
Government,
Varies
6/30/2010
Commercial,
Residential,
General
Public/Consumer
19
IncentiveName
Incentive
Type
377.804)
Solar
Energy
System Incentives
Program (Florida
Statutes377.806)
State
Rebate
Program
Eligible
Technologies
Solar
Thermal
Process
Heat,
Photovoltaics,
Wind,
Biomass,
Hydroelectric,
GeothermalElectric,
Geothermal Heat
Pumps,
CHP/Cogeneration,
Hydrogen, Direct
Use Geothermal,
Solar Pool Heating,
Tidal Energy, Wave
Energy,
Ocean
Thermal
Solar Water Heat,
Photovoltaics, Solar
PoolHeating
Applicable
Sectors
Utility
Commercial,
Residential,
Nonprofit,
Schools,
Local
Government,
State
Government, Fed.
Government,
MultiFamily
Residential,
Institutional
Amount
Maximum
Incentive
Eligible
SystemSize
Expiration
Date
PV: $4/watt
DC,
Solar
Water
Heaters:
Residential
$500; Non
residential &
Multifamily
$15per1,000
BTU/day,
Solar
Pool
Heaters:$100
PV:
Residential
$20,000;
Non
residential
$100,000,
Solar
Water
Heaters:
Residential
$500;
Non
residential
& Multi
family
$5,000,
Solar Pool
Heaters:
$100
PV:2kWand
larger, Solar
water
heaters must
provide
at
least50%ofa
buildings hot
water
consumption
6/20/2010
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?State=FL
Insummary,oftheseeightprograms,thefollowingfiveprogramsarescheduledtosunsetJune
30,2010:
RenewableEnergyProductionTaxCreditFloridaStatutes220.193
RenewableEnergyTechnologiesInvestmentTaxCreditFloridaStatutes220.192
RenewableEnergyEquipmentSalesTaxExemptionFloridaStatutes212.08(7)(ccc)
RenewableEnergyTechnologiesGrantsProgramFloridaStatutes377.804
SolarEnergySystemIncentivesProgram(SolarRebate)FloridaStatutes377.806
TotalStateFundsAllocatedtoEachIncentiveandtheIncentivesAnnualUse
As shown in the following table(s), for fiscal year 200910, a total of $20 million is
allocatedtotheincentivesforcleanenergysector.InFlorida,$11millionisearmarkedforthe
RenewableEnergyTechnologyInvestmentTaxCredit.Thiscanbeappliedto75%ofallcapital
costs,operationandmaintenancecostsandresearchanddevelopmentcosts.However,upper
caps are defined as $3 million in connection with hydrogenpowered vehicles and fueling
20
stations;$1.5millioninconnectionwithaninvestmentincommercialstationaryhydrogenfuel
cellsinthestate;and$6.5millioninconnectionwithaninvestmentintheproduction,storage
anddistributionofbiodieselandethanol.
The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits account for $5 million of the budget
during 20092010. This credit is available to encourage the development and expansion of
facilitiesthatproducerenewableenergyinFlorida.Thiscreditwillbeequalto$0.01foreach
kilowatthourofelectricityproducedandsoldbythetaxpayertoanunrelatedpartyduringa
giventaxyear.Thereisanupperlimitof$5millionperstatefiscalyearperapplicant.
The third major category of incentives is the Renewable Energy Technologies,
Machinery,Equipment,andMaterialSalesandUseTaxRefund,whichaccountfor$4millionof
budgetary allocation. Businesses may apply for a refund of sales and use taxes paid on
equipment, machinery, and other materials for renewable energy technologies. There is a $2
million annual statewide cap for hydrogenpowered vehicles, materials incorporated into
hydrogenpowered vehicles, and hydrogen fueling stations. For materials used in the
distribution of biodiesel and ethanol, including fuelling infrastructure, transportation and
storage,thereisanannualstatewidecapof$1million.23
As outlined in the following Table 5, a total of about $16.23 Million for (out of a
potential$20Million)isstillunusedinprogramfundingintherenewableenergytaxcreditand
salesandusetaxcategories.24
Sometaxincentiveshavebeenusedmorethanothers.TheProductionTaxCredithas
beenconsistentlyusedandthebiofuelinfrastructurecreditisshowingincreasedconsumption,
butthehydrogenvehicleincentivehasbeenbarelyused.Thelegislatureshouldrevieweach
technology granted a tax incentive and determine whether the tax code is the proper
instrument to catalyze that market. If Florida elects to support precommercially deployed
technologies, then the state should design incentives targeted to those technologies needs.
The data suggests there are state dollars allocated to these incentives that might be more
productively used. In addition, it would be beneficial to examine the current method of
information dissemination to the public regarding the state incentive program, to ensure the
broadestcoverage,applicationrate,anduseofcurrentlyavailableincentives.
23
http://www.bdb.org/clientuploads/PDFs/CleanEnergyIncentives.pdf
PersonalCommunicationwithEOGstaffmemberAprilGroover,February22,2010
24
21
Table5.RemainingBalancesasofJanuary29,2010ofRenewableTaxCredits/SalesTaxRefunds
RenewableEnergyProductionTaxCredit
2008
2009
2010
Appropriation
$5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00
FundsExpended
$1,925,730.00 $1,676,830.00
$0.00
Balance
$3,074,270.00 $3,323,170.00 $5,000,000.00
PercentofFundsExpended
38.51%
33.54%
n/a
RenewableEnergyTechnologiesInvestmentTaxCredit
Hydrogen(Vehicles)
FY0607
FY0708
FY0809
Appropriation
$3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00
FundsExpended
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Balance
$3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Hydrogen(StationaryFuelCells)
FY0607
FY0708
FY0809
Appropriation
$1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00
FundsExpended
$0.00
$0.00 $1,500,000.00
Balance
$1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00
$0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Biodiesel&EthanolInfrastructure FY0607
FY0708
FY0809
Appropriation
$6,500,000.00 $6,500,000.00 $6,500,000.00
FundsExpended
$3,347,482.62 $4,519,660.30 $2,473,456.24
Balance
$3,152,517.38 $1,980,339.70 $4,026,543.76
51.50%
69.53%
38.05%
RenewableEnergyEquipmentSalesTaxExemption
Hydrogen(Vehicles)
FY0607
FY0708
FY0809
Appropriation
$2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00
FundsExpended
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Balance
$2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Hydrogen(StationaryFuelCells)
FY0607
FY0708
FY0809
Appropriation
$1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00
FundsExpended
$0.00
$0.00
$219,004.98
Balance
$1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00
$658,944.91
0.00%
0.00%
21.90%
Biodiesel&EthanolInfrastructure FY0607
FY0708
FY0809
Appropriation
$1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00
FundsExpended
$0.00
$3,982.60
$41,349.06
Balance
$1,000,000.00
$996,017.40
$958,650.94
0.00%
0.40%
4.13%
2011
$5,000,000.00
$0.00
$5,000,000.00
n/a
FY0910
$3,000,000.00
$1,547,586.75
$1,452,413.25
51.59%
FY0910
$1,500,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$0.00
100.00%
FY0910
$6,500,000.00
$0.00
$6,500,000.00
0.00%
FY0910
$2,000,000.00
$0.00
$2,000,000.00
0.00%
FY0910
$1,000,000.00
$235,176.90
$764,823.10
23.52%
FY0910
$1,000,000.00
$482,726.69
$517,273.31
48.73%
Concerning the companies that have engaged in theSEP tax credit and sales tax
programfromFY0610,thefollowingobservationsweremade:
Biodiesel and Ethanol: Almost allof the tax credit funds are used by one company
Marathon Petroleum. It is unknown what innovations have been produced by this
company to date. The sales taxprogram has more widespread usage in small
22
quantities.FirstCoastEnergyLLPusedaboutaquarterofthefundinginFY20092010.
Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals LLC and Central Florida Pipeline each used abouta
tenthofthefundingduringthesametimeperiod.
Hydrogen(Cells):MetroPCSFloridaLLCistheonlycompanyusingboththecreditsand
the sales tax program. They perhaps were unaware of the tax credit and sales tax
offeringsfromearlier,inFY20062008,buthavesinceusedallthetaxcreditsavailable
andpartofthesalestaxexemption.Itappearsthatonecompanyisusingthemajority
ofthefundshence;itisassumeditisdirectedtowardsausabletechnology.Theresults
ofthetechnologygeneratedbytheseincentiveofferingsareunknownatthistime.
Hydrogen(Cars):UnitedNaturalFoodistheonlycompanyusingthetaxcredits.
Since 2006, The Renewable Energy Technology Grant Program has distributed $42.5
million dollars. Grants are attractive to industry because the application process is relatively
straightforwardandtheawardsareflexible.Althoughpopular,thestatemaywanttoconsider
selfsustaining mechanisms such as: a loan program, performance based incentives, or an
investment program rather than appropriating general revenue each year for the grant. The
state may want to use public/private partnerships to leverage funding and engage a broader
stakeholdergrouptoselectawardwinners.
Table6.RenewableEnergyTechnologiesGrantsProgram
Appropriation
FundsCommitted
FundsExpended
FY0607
$15,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$6,880,995.61
*AsofJan29,2010
**$1.676outof$5millionappropriated,hasbeenappliedfor
FY0708
$12,500,000.00
$12,500,000.00
$1,458,730.21
FY0809
$15,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$1,048,187.08
FY0910
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Since2006,theSolarEnergySystemIncentivesProgram(SolarRebate)hasdistributed
$24.9milliondollars(Table7).Thelegislatureshouldaddresstheeffectivenessandrevisethe
Solar Rebate Program. The Solar Rebates $4 per watt subsidy has not changed since 2006
although both the cost of the technology and other incentives has reduced the need for the
state subsidy. Inadditiontothedecliningcostsofsolarhardware,boththefederaltaxcode
and Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA) have provided alternative
incentives.TheEnergyImprovementandExtensionActof2008(H.R.1424)includedaneight
yearextensionofthe30%personalincometaxcredittoDecember31,2016,theabilitytotake
thecreditagainstthealternativeminimumtax,andtheremovalofthe$2,000creditlimitfor
solarelectricsystemsbeginningin2009.In2009,FEECAutilitieswereauthorizedtoprovideup
23
to $24.5 million in total annual incentives for customerowned solar water heaters and
photovoltaic systems. The current rebate appears to be outdated and in light of other
incentives, may not be needed to encourage the deployment of residential and commercial
solarsystems.
Table7.SolarEnergySystemIncentivesProgram(SolarRebate)
Appropriation
FundsExpended
Balance
FY0607
$2,500,000.00
$0.00
$2,500,000.00
100.00%
FY0708
$3,000,000.00
$0.00
$3,000,000.00
100.00%
FY0809
$5,000,000.00
$0.00
$5,000,000.00
100.00%
FY0910
$14,400,000.00
$14,400,000.00
$0.00
100.00%
The ARRA, or Federal Stimulus Plan, allocates $40.5 million to Florida under the State
Energy Program (SEP). An economic impact analysis was performed on the individual state
energyprogramsusingRegionalEconomicModels,Inc.,orREMI.REMI(v9.262007)isawidely
useddynamic(multipletimeperiod,uptoyear2050)integratedinputoutputandeconometric
model.REMIisusedextensivelytomeasureproposedlegislativeandotherprogramandpolicy
economic impacts across the private and public sectors of the state by the Florida Joint
LegislativeManagementCommittee,DivisionofEconomic&DemographicResearch,theFlorida
Department of Labor, and other state and local government agencies. In addition, it is the
chosentooltomeasuretheseimpactsbyanumberofuniversitiesandprivateresearchgroups
that evaluate economic impacts across the state and nation. FSU CEFA uses the REMI model
thathasbeendevelopedforthestateofFloridaandincludes169sectors(basedontheNorth
American Industrial Classification System, or NAICS). As presented in Table 8, the number of
projected jobs associated with each SEP program totaled 494 jobs. The most successful
programunderSEPintermsofjobscreationistheSolarEnergyRebateProgram,whichresulted
in 193 jobs. It was followed by the Solar Energy (Water Heating) Loan Program and Solar for
SchoolsandSheltersProgramwith119and103jobs,respectively.
Table8.EconomicImpactofStateIncentivesinTermsofJobsCreated
StateEnergyPrograms
Actualallocation
SolarEnergy(WaterHeating)loan
SolarEnergyRebateProgram
SolarforSchools&StormShelters
E85Installation/ConversionRevolvingLoans
ProgramAdministration,Marketing&Analysis
SubtotalRenewableEnergy
$10,000,000
$14,408,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$1,074,300
$40,482,300
JobsCreatedasperActual
Allocation
103
193
119
62
17
494
24
RegardingtheincentivesinteractionwithsimilarFederalincentives(i.e.Stateoffersa
solarrebate,Federalgovernmentoffersanincometaxcredit),thisreportfoundnolanguagein
anyincentiveprovisionsindicatingthatacceptinganincentivefromeitherStateorGovernment
wouldprohibitonefromacceptinganincentivefromtheother,grantedthetechnologyapplies
to both incentives. There is indication of a double dipping provision to reduce the federal
incentiveinthePrivateTrustCompanies(PTC)statute.Forwindbasedpowergeneration,the
FederalProductionTaxCredit(PTC)isasignificantincentive.Itprovidesfederaltaxcredittothe
ownersofutilityscalewindprojects.WhilethefederalPTChasbeenamajorstimulustothe
growthofthedomesticwindpowermarket,itssocalleddoubledippingprovisionmayalso
diminishthevalueofcertaintypesofstatewindpowerincentives.Theprovisionrequiresthat
the federal PTC be reduced if a wind project receives certain other kinds of support. To
eliminate double dipping, the federal PTC is reduced for any local, state, or federal grants,
subsidizedenergyfinancing,andanyothercredits.Thepurposeofthisruleisstatedtoprevent
excessiverelianceongovernmentassistance.25
FederalIncentivesforFlorida
Table 29 (in Appendix A) outlines the full slate of incentive offerings by the federal
government.
The specific language in the PTC is as follows: Credit Reduced for Grants, Taxexempt
Bonds,SubsidizedEnergyFinancing,andOtherCredits:Theamountofthecredit...withrespect
toanyprojectforanytaxableyear...shallbereducedbytheamountwhichistheproductofthe
amountsodeterminedforsuchyearandafraction:
(A)Thenumeratorofwhichisthesum,forthetaxableyearandallpriortaxableyears,of
grantsprovidedbytheUnitedStates,aState,orapoliticalsubdivisionofthe
Stateforuseinconnectionwiththeproject,
proceedsofanissueofStateorlocalgovernmentobligationsusedtoprovidefinancing
fortheprojecttheinterestonwhichisexemptfromtaxundersection103,
the aggregate amount of subsidized energy financing provided (directly or indirectly)
25
Ing, E. 2002. The Effect of NYSERDAs Wind Project Assistance on the Federal Production Tax Credit. Prepared for the New York State
EnergyResearchandDevelopmentAuthority.Rader,N.andR.Wiser.1999.StrategiesforSupportingWindEnergy:AReviewandAnalysisof
State Policy Options. Washington, D.C.: National Wind Coordinating Committee. Ryan Wiser, Mark Bolinger and Troy Gagliano. Sep 2002.
Analyzing the Interaction Between State Tax Incentives and the Federal Production Tax Credit for Wind Power. Ernest Orlando Lawrence
BerkeleyNationalLaboratory.http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMS/reports/51465.pdf
25
underaFederal,State,orlocalprogramprovidedinconnectionwiththeproject,and
theamountofanyothercreditallowablewithrespecttoanypropertywhichispartof
theproject,and
(B) The denominator of which is the aggregate amount of additions to the capital
accountfortheprojectforthetaxableyearandallpriortaxableyears.
Thestatutorylanguageleavesambiguityastowhichspecifictypeofstateincentivesmay
triggerthedoubledippingprovision.Albeit,itisclearthatanumberofformsofstateaidwill
offset at least partially the benefit associated with the federal PTC. Nonetheless, despite
legislativehistoryandanumberofprivateletterrulings,thereremainsalackofclarityonthe
kindsofstateincentivesthatwouldtriggertheoffset.Somestudiesprovidetangibleexamples
ofincentivetypesthatareorarenotlikelytooffsetthevalueofthePTC.26
GovernmentincentivesthatarelikelytotriggeraPTCoffsetincludeupfrontgrantsthat
buy down the projects capital costs, and belowmarket interest loans and other forms of
subsidizedfinancing.IncentivesthatarenotlikelytotriggerPTCoffsetsincludepricesupport
payments,productionincentivepayments,grantstomeetoperationalcosts,loanguarantees,
andimplicitsubsidiesprovidedthroughrenewablepurchasemandates.27
Therefore, it is clear that state tax incentives are at risk of reducing the value of the
federalPTC,viathesocalleddoubledippingprovision.ButfederaltaxlawandIRSrulingsare
notclearenoughtospecifywhattypesofincentivestriggerthisoffset.Giventhisprovisionof
federalPTCsandtheiruncertainapplicationtostatetaxincentives,nontaxbasedstatewind
power policies (cashbased production incentives, renewable purchase mandates, etc.) that
clearlydonotoffsetthefederalPTCmaybepreferable.
TheNewJerseyexperienceisanexampleofthesuccessofincentivescontingentonthe
amountofjobscreated.Inparticular,thereisadefiniteneedtocreateamarketbypolicyto
incentivizethemarket.ThekeyistocreatethemarketnotfortheendpurposeofinstallingPV
in the state (an added benefit) but the goal should be to attract the high level jobs (e.g.
cell/panelmanufacturing,supplychainmanufacturing(e.g.balanceofsystems),systemsdesign
andR&D).
26
RyanWiser,MarkBolingerandTroyGagliano2002
Ing,E.2002
27
26
The Federal government has several existing programs to promote home energy
efficiency.SomeoftheseprogramswereinitiatedundertheEmergencyEconomicStabilization
Actof2008(EESA)andcontinuedundertheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009
(ARRAorStimulusPackage).OtherswereinitiatedundertheARRA.Thisgroupofprogramsis
implementedintheformofadirecttaxcredittothetaxpayer,orapplicant.Becauseitisatax
credit, the taxpayer will see a dollar for dollar return on the investment, regardless of the
taxpayersincometaxbracket.28
It is critical to understand that not all Energy Star appliances qualify under these
programs, but only appliances from selected categories. The first group of programs applies
only to appliances and improvements installed in the applicants primary residence and will
continuethroughDecember31,2010.Theydonotapplytonewconstruction.Someofthese
creditsincludeinstallationcosts,whileothersdonot.Thesecreditsare30%oftheactualcost
of the appliance or improvement, up to $1,500. The types of appliances and improvements
coveredunderthisprogramarebiomassstoves,highSEERHVACunitsofvarioustechnologies,
insulation, metal and asphalt roofs, high energyfactor water heaters (excluding solar), and
energyefficientdoors,windows,andskylights.Thecreditsforbiomassstoves,HVACunits,and
water heaters include the costs of installation, while the credits for insulation, metal and
asphaltroofs,andenergyefficientdoors,windows,andskylights,donot.
Thesecondandthirdgroupsofprogramsrelatetothehomeinstallationofrenewable
electricgenerationsystems,andwillcontinuethroughDecember31,2016.Thesecondgroup
applies to the applicants primary or secondary residence, but not to rental homes. These
credits can be applied to both new and existing homes. Installation costs are covered under
theseprograms.Thecreditisfor30%oftheinstalledcostofthesystemwithnoupperlimit.
The systems covered include geothermal heat pumps, residential wind turbines of no more
than100kW,solarwaterheaters(excludingpoolheaters),andsolarphotovoltaicsystems.The
thirdprogramappliesonlytotheapplicantsprimaryresidence,whichcanbeanexistinghome
ornewconstruction.Residentialfuelcellandmicroturbinesystemsofatleast0.5kWapplyto
28 The ARRA extends until 2014 tax credits for renewable energy that had previously been scheduled to expire and by providing $6 billion
worth of loan guarantees authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for renewable electricity development. These loan guarantees are
expected to stimulate the deployment of conventional renewable and transmission technologies and innovative biofuels technologies. For
renewableprojectstoqualifytheymustbeunderconstructionbySeptember30,2011.SeeAppendixGfordetailsonFederalLoanGuarantee
27
this program. The credit covers 30% of the installed cost of the system, up to a maximum of
$500per0.5kW.
FloridaEnergyEfficiencyandConservationAct(Section366.82)
Florida utilities with sales of 2,000 GWh or more are subject to the Florida Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA). This act requires each utility to implement cost
effectiveenergyefficiencyprogramsandtoconductenergyaudits.TheLegislaturedirectsthe
FloridaPublicCommissiontodevelopandadoptoverallgoalsandauthorizesthecommissionto
requireeachutilitytodevelopplansandimplementprogramsforincreasingenergyefficiency
and conservation and demandside renewable energy systems within its service area. The
majorobjectivesoftheFEECAareto:
Reduceandcontrolthegrowthratesofelectricconsumption;
Reducethegrowthratesofweathersensitivepeakdemand;
Increase the overall efficiency and costeffectiveness of electricity and natural gas
productionanduse;
Encourage further development of demandside renewable energy systems; and

conserveexpensiveresources,particularlypetroleumfuels.
TheCommissionisauthorizedtofinanciallyrewardthoseutilitiesthatexceedtheirgoals
and may impose penalties for those utilities that fail to meet their goals. The Commission is
authorized to allow an investorowned electric utility an additional return on equity of up to
0.5% for exceeding 20 percent of their annual load growth through energy efficiency and
conservationmeasures.
EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyIncentivesinCleanEnergyJobsandAmericanPower
Act2009
Table29(inAppendixA)consistsoffederalprogramsavailablethroughtheDepartment
of the Treasury, Department of Energy, and Department of Agriculture. Some of these
programsareenabledthroughtheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009.Thislistis
thoughttobecomplete,butmaynotbeexhaustive.
28
Section161:RenewableEnergy
Under this section, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretaries of Energy,
Interior, and Agriculture, is authorized to establish a program to provide grants to states for
renewableenergyprojectsthatfacilitatecompliancewithastateRenewablePortfolioStandard
(RPS).Qualifyingsourcesofenergyincludesolar,wind,biomass,landfillgas,ocean(including
tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal, municipal solid waste, or new hydroelectric
generation capacity achieved from increased efficiency or additions of new capacity at an
existinghydroelectricproject.Theamountofthegrantmaynotexceed50percentofthetotal
costoftherenewableenergyprojectthatistobefundedbythegrant.Applicationsthatcome
from a state that have a binding renewable energy portfolio standard and projects that are
costeffectivearetobegivenprioritywhenawardingthegrant.Tomonitorthegrantprogram,
theAdministratorisrequiredtosubmitareporttotheCommitteesonEnergyandCommerce
oftheHouseofRepresentativesandtheSenate.Thereportmustincludeinformationaboutthe
projectapplicationsreceived,projectapplicationsapproved,amountallocatedtoeachproject
andthecumulativebenefitsofthegrantprogram.
Section162:AdvancedBiofuels
AccordingtoSection162oftheBill,anindividual,corporateentity,unitofStateorlocal
government, Indian tribe, farm cooperative, institution of higher learning, rural electric
cooperative,orpublicutilitywillbeentitledtoagranttosupport;
researchregardingtheproductionofadvancedfuels
the development of new advanced biofuel production and capacitybuilding

technologies
the development and construction commercialscale advanced biofuel production

facilities
theexpandedproductionofadvancedbiofuels
The grants will be awarded based on costeffectiveness, technical and economic
feasibility and innovation. Furthermore, priority will be given to programs that can be
replicatedandthatarebeingfinancedbyprivateresources.
29
Section163EnergyEfficiencyinBuildingCodes
EnergyEfficiencyTargets
This section requires the Administrator (or another agency head as designated by the
President)tosetnationaltargetsforimprovingenergyefficiencyinresidentialandcommercial
buildings, and write regulations establishing building codes to meet those targets. Buildings
would have to meet the energy efficiency targets beginning Jan. 1, 2014 and every year
thereafterthroughDec.31,2030.TheAdministratororotheragencyheadisrequiredtoreport
toCongressannuallyonthestatusandimplementationofthecodesandregulations.
Section164:RetrofitforEnergyandEnvironmentalPerformance
This section of the bill establishes the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental
Performance(REEP)program.Thepurposeoftheprogramistoretrofitexistingbuildingsacross
the United States to achieve maximum costeffective energy efficiency improvements and
significantimprovementinwateruse.
FinancialIncentivesforResidentialandNonResidentialBuildingsareasfollows:
ForResidentialBuildings:
$1,000 for a combination of prescriptive measures designed to reduce energy

consumption by more than 10% (but not less than 10%), and $2000 for prescriptive
measuresdesignedtoreduceenergyconsumptionby20%;
$3,000 for actual demonstrated savings of 20% utilizing the performance based
structure,and$150peradditionalpercentagepointofenergysavingsachieved;
Incentivesmayaccumulatetoamaximumincentivenottoexceed50%ofretrofitcosts.
ForNonResidentialBuildings:
Amaximumof$0.15persquarefootofretrofitareaforenergyusereductionsfrom20%
to30%;
$0.75persquarefootforenergyusereductionsfrom30%to40%;
$1.60persquarefootforenergyusereductionsfrom40%to50%;and
$2.50persquarefootforenergyusereductionsexceeding50%.
Incentivesmayaccumulatetoamaximumincentivenottoexceed50%ofretrofitcosts.
30
ProgramsOfferedbyLocalUtilities,Cities,andCounties
In Florida, some counties and municipal governments, and utilities offer inhouse
programs. Table 30 in Appendix A provides a listing of those programs. Some programs have
proven more successful than others. Among counties, MiamiDade, and Orange counties
offered programs ranging from green building to solar/thermal installers. Among citybased
utilities,theCityofTallahasseeoffersprogramslikesolarefficiencyloans,pool/waterheating
programs, residential energy efficiency rebate programs, energy star new homes rebate
program, solar loan program, utility rebate program and various others. Programs like onbill
financing were successful whereas the solar loan program has proven to not be successful.
Prominent among the programs offered by Orlando Utility Commission are the home energy
efficiencyfixupprogram,utilitygrantprogram,residentialinsulationloanprogram,residential
solar loan program and the residential energy efficiency rebate program. The Gainesville
Regional Utilities has its own solar feedintariff and energy efficiency rebate programs. The
FortPierceUtilityAuthoritysprominentprogramsaretheresidentialenergyefficiencyrebate
program, utility rebate program and building insulation program. The Kissimmee Utility
Authority offers the residential energyefficiency rebate program, utility rebate program and
various building insulation improvement plans. Various private power companies also offer
different energy efficiency programs. Gulf Power offers the geothermal installation rebate
program,utilityrebateprogram,solarwaterheaterprogramandsolarthermalwaterheating
pilotprogramsamongothers.Ahomeenergycheckauditandrebateprogramisofferedbythe
ProgressEnergyFlorida.Itsotherprogramsareutilityrebateprogramsandsolarwaterheating
with EnergyWise program. Florida Power and Lights prominent programs include the
residential energy efficiency program, utility rebate program, building insulation program.
Generally speaking, utility rebate programs are mostly successful in county and citybased
utilities,inadditiontotheprivatepowercompanies.
CommercialIncentives
There are several federal incentives available to manufacturers of certain appliances
thatuseenergyorwatermoreefficiently.Thetaxcreditsassociatedwiththeseappliancesgo
directly to the manufacturer, and not to theconsumer,butthegovernmentexpectsthatthe
creditwillbereflectedinthepriceoftheappliance.Through2010,themanufacturersofhigh
31
efficiencyrefrigeratorscanreceiveupto$200perunit,themanufacturersofclotheswashers
canreceiveupto$250perunit,andthemanufacturersofdishwasherscanreceiveupto$75
perunit.
Finally, there is another class of incentives that apply to commercial buildings to cut
theirenergyconsumption.Federaltaxincentivesconsistofeithera$1.80or$0.60persquare
footcredit,dependingonthesystemscopeoftheprogram.
RenewableFeedinTariffs
Inaddition,severalstateshavebegunofferingincentivestopromoteelectricgeneration
fromrenewableenergysources.Theseincentivesareincreasinglytakingtheformofafeedin
Tariff. Although feedinTariffs are often associated with subsidies, they differ from them
structurally.AfeedinTariffismorecloselyrelatedtoapurchasedpoweragreement,butwith
an indefinite sales volume. The form of a feedinTariff is a fixed payment for all energy
generatedfromagivenproject,overaparticulartimeperiod.Oneofthepurposesofafeedin
Tariff is to shift the volumetric, or production, risk away from the provider of the grant,
generally the government, and towards the power plant operator. Since the power plant
operator enjoys greater control over the production of the plant, this should be a more
equitableallocationofrisk.Theproviderofthetariff,then,agreestopurchasealloftheoutput
associated with the project. The first solar feedinTariff in North America was introduced in
Gainesville,FloridainFebruaryof2009,andmanystateshaveadoptedsimilarprograms.
InMayof2009,thestateofVermontadoptedasystemoffeedinTariffsforanarrayof
renewable energy technologies. A final order establishing the program was issued on
September 30, 2009, and by October 19, the 50 MW available under the program had been
fullysubscribed.
In July of 2009, the state of Oregon established the pilot program for a solar
photovoltaic feedin tariff. The program will have a participation cap of 25 MW, or close by
2015, whichever comes first. The rules for the administration of the feedinTariff are to be
determinedbyApril1,2010,butthetermhasalreadybeensetat15years.
In September of 2009, the state of Hawaii established a feedinTariff for renewable
energytechnologies.Theofferpriceshaveyettobeestablished,butthetermofthetariffwill
32
befor20years.Theinitialperiodforthetariffwillbe2years,andthestatewillreevaluatethe
programevery3years.
InOctoberof2009,thestateofCaliforniaannouncedtheimplementationofasystemof
feedinTariffsforrenewablegenerationbeginningin2010.Thecustomerwillbeabletochoose
thetermofthefeedintariff,andthetariffpricewillbebasedontheoperatingcostsofaso
called market price referent. The current generation proxy is a natural gas combined cycle
plant.
In addition, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Washington offer
subsidyproductionincentivesforsomeformsofrenewableenergy.
33
BarrierstoCommercializationandProjectFinance
Authors:
ErikSander,AssociateDirector,FloridaEnergySystemsConsortium
Dr.AsterAdams
JackSullivanJr.,President/CEO,FloridaResearchConsortium
There is a consensus among cleantech experts and observers alike that cleantech
companiesarecurrentlyunderfundedandthatthefinancialgapintheearlystagesofcleantech
companies development needs to be closed. In order to close this financial gap, we need to
identifythefactorsthathavecontributedtoit.
Cleantechisessentiallybuiltonthealignmentoftechnology,capital,andpolicy.Forthe
cleantechindustrytothrive,theunderlyingtechnologiesmustcontinuetodevelopandexpand
intocommercialization,privateandpubliccapitalmustbemadereadilyavailableandaccessible
topotentialinvestorsandlocal,stateandfederalpoliciesandregulationsmustbeconduciveto
marketdevelopment.Atallstagesofcleantechdevelopment,thethreepillarsmustworkhand
inhandtosustaininvestorsefforts.
This section discusses the barriers to commercialization and project finance of
cleantechprojects.Thosebarriersaredividedintothreemajorgroups:technological,financial,
andpolicy.Technologicalbarriersarethosebarriersthatrelatetothenoveltyofatechnology
or the lack of an appropriate, more costefficient technology to use in a project. Financial
barriers are those related to the funding and capital availability throughout the development
stages of the technology. Financial barriers can be traced back to the investors inability to
raise sufficient personal and family funds to push a new technology forward. They are also
barriersrelatedtoraisingprivatecapitalorpublic(local,stateorfederal)supportfundsdueto
perceivedrisksassociatedwiththenewtechnology(i.e.,technical,financial,legal)comparedto
competingtechnologies.Finally,policybarriersareassociatedwithobscurepublicpoliciesand
regulations, which may make it difficult for investors to finance all the stages of the new
technology.Policybarriersalsoincludethelackoftechnicalorcommercialskillsastheindustry
lagsbehindothersectorswithwellestablishedtraininginstitutions.
34
In the following sections, we will discuss the main technologies for a project to be
classifiedascleantech,thestagesofcleantechprojectdevelopmentandfunding,andbarriers
tocommercializationofcleantechprojects.
CleantechOverview
Cleantechnologiescanbegroupedintofourmajorsectors:
Table9.CleanTechnologies
Source:NewYorkCityInvestmentFund:Cleantech:ANewEngineofEconomicGrowthforNewYorkState,page3,January2007
Table 8 fails to include cleantech services such as investment, consulting, research and
development, and communications without which the development of clean technologies
would be impossible. Table 9 illustrates cleantech subsectors tracked by Cleantech Venture
Networkandthetypesofcleantechbusinesses.
Inthepastseveralyears,cleantechindustrieshavegrownrapidly,dueinparttoconcerns
over rising oil prices and the global debate over climate change. Cleantech growth has been
drivenlargelybygovernmentandlocalstateactionsincludingnewlawsandregulationsinfavor
ofcleantechnologiessuchastheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentAct(ARRA)signedinto
lawonFebruary17,2009andwhichmakescleantechakeydriverofeconomicstabilizationand
jobgrowth.Cleantechspendingandtaxplanscomprised$83billionoutofthe$787billionof
ARRA funding, or about 10.5%. Many states have their own cleantech incentives including
grants,mandates,andtaxincentives.
Table 10. Cleantech Subsectors Tracked by Cleantech Venture Network and the Types of
CleantechBusinesses
35
Source:ForumfortheFuture:CleanCapitalFinancingCleanTechnologyFirmsinUK,p.7.
In2008,thetotalinvestmentincleantechsectorsintheUnitedStatesamountedto$7.5
billion,whichwasthreetimeshigherthanthe2006investmentsof$2.5billion,andmorethan
16timesthe2001cleantechinvestmentsof$448million.29
StagesofCleantechProjectDevelopmentandFunding
Experts may not use the same terms when describing the development stages of a
project, but there is a consensus on four development stages: the PreSeed (or Research &
Development) stage, the Startup/Seed (Early Capital) stage, the Expansion (Mid/Late Capital)
stage and the Late Stage (Project Asset Finance) stage. Figure 1 below illustrates how the
WorldBankdescribesthefourstagesoftechnologydevelopmentandthemajorcorresponding
activities.ThosestagesareR&D,demonstration,scaleup,andfullcommercialization.30
Thesestagesofcleantechprojectandcorrespondingfundingopportunitiesareillustrated
inthefigures2through4below.Figure2combinesthepreseedandstartup/seedstagesinto
onestageforthepurposeoffunding.
29
DatafromtheCleantechNetworksDatabase.http://Cleantech.com/research/databases.cfm.
World Bank Working Paper No. 138: Accelerating Clean Energy Technology Research, Development, and Deployment Lessons from Non
energySectors,May2008.
30
36
Figure1.StagesofTechnologyDevelopment
Source:WorldBankWorkingPaperNo.138,AppendixA.
Cleantech projects canbe very expensive and are rarely wholly financed by personal or
familysavings.Theperunitcostofcleantechnologiesareinitiallyhighespeciallyatthefirstfull
integration of the project at which time the developer typically faces large capital needs
comparedtoavailableresources.Itiswhenthecleantechnologyreachesmaturationthatthe
perunitcostswillhavesufficientlydeclined,enablingfullcommercializationoftheproject.The
rising and falling perunit costs are referred to as the Mountain of Death for new technology
innovation.IthasitscorrespondingValleyofDeathwhichisexplainedbelow.
Researchanddevelopmentresourcestosupportthecreationofanewcleantechproject,
as well as project investment funds are generally available from corporate research or
governmentagenciesbutveryrarelyfrompersonalsavingsorassets.Betweenpersonalassets,
familyandfriends,cleantechentrepreneurshavetypicallyfewsourcesoffundingavailableto
them in order to bring their project to completion. This gap in funding is what is called the
Valley of Death for cleantech project developers. In order to bridge this gap, their funding
resourcesincludeangelinvestors(e.g.wealthyindividualsorphilanthropistsofteninterestedin
37
cleantech companies or products)31; equity investment firms interested in hightech startups;

venture capital firms specialized in seed investments; state or federal government programs
specificallydesignedforthepurpose;anduniversityfundingfrompublicorprivatesources.32
DuringtheR&Dpreseedstage,entrepreneurs/smallcompaniesformulateprojectideas
and finance initial R&D expenses with their own personal family savings or friends funding.
Other entrepreneurs ideas are financed through federal grants and incentives such as the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or the
SmallBusinessTechnologyTransfer(STTR)programs.33
Figures 2 and 3 below show a web of relationships between funding sources and
cleantech project developers, and the importance of venture capital funding at all stages of
project finance. They show that during the Startup or Seed stage, cleantech projects are
generallyfinancedbyangelinvestors,technologylabs,SBIR/STTR,andselectcorporationsand
venture capitalists. The Early Stage is also financed through the same investors as the
Startup/Seedstage,butmorecorporationsandventurecapitalinvestmentsareprovided.The
Late Stage or Expansion/Commercialization stage is mostly financed through venture capital,
banks,corporations,equityandinitialpublicoffering(IPO)sources.
31
Seemoreinformationhereathttp://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/default.aspx
NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology(NIST):BetweenInnovationandInvention:AnAnalysisofFundingforEarlyStageTechnology
Development,page33,November2002.
33
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) are U.S. Government programs inwhichfederal
agencies with large research and development (R&D) budgets set aside a small fraction of their funding for competitions among small
businesses only. Small businesses that win awards in these programs keep the rights to any technology developed and are encouraged to
commercialize the technology. Although officially based in the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Technology, SBIR funding is
actuallyavailabledirectlyfrom11differentfederalagencies.ThefollowingagenciesofferbothSBIRandSTTRprograms:U.S.Departmentof
Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Aeronautics & Space
Administration (NASA), The next agencies only offer SBIR programs: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Education,
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of CommerceNational Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
CommerceNationalOceanographicandAtmosphericAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,andU.S.DepartmentofHomeland
Security.http://www.science.doe.gov/sbir/aboutSBIR.html
32
38
Figure2.MainProvidersofFinanceatEachStage
Source:ForumfortheFuture:CleanCapitalFinancingCleanTechnologyFirmsinUK,2006,page12.
Figure 3. The Capital and Skills Gap for Cleantech and Clean Energy Infrastructure Project
Developments
Source:JoshCarmodyandDuncanRitchie:InvestinginCleanEnergyandLowCarbonAlternativesinAsia,AsianDevelopmentBank,p.61.
39
Figure4.SequentialModelofDevelopmentandFunding
Source:NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology(NIST):BetweenInnovationandInvention:AnAnalysisofFundingforEarlyStage
TechnologyDevelopment,page33,November2002.
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate a phenomenon known as the Valley of Death. They show
that from the product definition to the product introduction and sales stages, developers of
cleantechprojectsareexposedtomultiplefundinggapsandtypicallyonlybreakevenwhenthe
cleantechcompanyisinitsgrowth/expansionstage.Ourresearchconfirmsthatfederal,state
and local government entities offer a number of incentive programs, including corporate tax
and personal tax incentives, grants, loan guarantees, sales tax incentives, property tax
incentives, and many other such programs which help overcome the Valley of Death.
However, some states offer better financial incentives than others, enabling them to attract
greatercleantechinvestments.Itisalsoimportanttorecognizethatcompanyfundingneeds
40
increaseinsizefromtheearlystagetocompanyexpansion.However,atlaterstages,private
investors such as banks and venture capitalists are more willing to provide funding as the
perceivedriskislowercomparedtothehighriskassociatedwiththeearlystages.
Figure5.ValleyofDeath,fromInventiontoInnovation
Source:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy:FromInventiontoInnovation,August1999,p.13.
Figure6.EquityGapatEachStageofDevelopment
Source:EuropeanBusinessAngelNetwork(EBAN)ToolKit:IntroductiontobusinessangelsandbusinessangelsnetworkactivitiesinEurope,
June30,2009,p.19
41
MainBarrierstoCleantechCommercializationandProjectFinance
PerceivedHighRiskofCleantechBusinesses
Cleantech projects present risks in terms of technology, credit worthiness, revenue
security and market competition.34 The perceived risk of cleantech businesses is particularly
importantforprojectdevelopersandinvestorstoovercomeasitisthebasisoftheValleyof
Death explained above. When the perceived risk is high and the expected return is low,
cleantech developers can only depend on their own capital. When the perceived risk is high
and the expected return is moderate to high, the funding of cleantech projects is usually of
interest to Angel and Venture Capital investors. Conventional lenders such as banks supply
loanstocleantechdevelopersonlywhentheriskreturnrelationshipislow.
Wefoundthattheperceivedhighriskofcleantechbusinessesisaggravatedbydisparate
andinconsistentpoliciesandregulationsaffectingtheindustrywhichintroduceanelementof
risk that detracts from the attractiveness of apotential investment. More importantly,clean
technologies are considered by developers to be high risk business because they are mostly
nascenttechnologies,requirehighinitialcosts,andarebelievedtobeassociatedwithhigher
financialandbusinessriskswhentheirpotentialrevenuestreamsarecomparedtoinvestments
intraditionalindustries.
InsufficientInvestmentsinR&D
Thechiefbarriertocleantechprojectdevelopmentisthelackofsufficientinvestmentsin
R&D by both the federal government and private investors in order to address the nations
supply,security,andsustainabilitychallenges.AccordingtoarecentreportbyBrookings,the
federal government funds 27% of U.S. R&D efforts. The same report states that Todays
investmentsinenergyR&Dbythefederalgovernmentandlargeindustrialfirmsareonlyone
fifth the level of the early 1980s, and make up just 1.1 percent of the nations total R&D
investmentand0.03percentofthenationsGDP.35
The same report states that in 2007, the federal government spent $2 billion on non
defenseenergytechnologyrelatedR&D,comprisingjust1.7percentofthefederalR&Dbudget
34
National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Technical Report NREL/TP60038723, October 2005: Financing Projects That Use CleanEnergy
Technologies:AnOverviewofBarriersandOpportunitiesByD.P.Goldman,NewEnergyCapital,LLC;J.J.McKenna,HamiltonClark&Co.and
L.M.MurphyNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory.
35
James Duderstadt et al., February 2009: Blueprint for American Prosperity Unleashing the Potential of a Metropolitan Nation, p. 14,
MetropolitanPolicyatBrookings.
42
(4.2 percent of the nondefense portion) and 0.014 percent of the nations GDP. Estimated
federal energy technology R&D spending for 2009 is up to $2.37 billion, higher than its 1998
lowof$1.27billionbutsubstantiallylowerthanthe$10.5billionspentattheheightoffederal
spendingin1978and1979(inrealterms).36
Publicinvestmentincleantechresearchisalsocrucialforthefollowingreasons:37
Initsmagnitudealone,itcanacceleratethepaceofresearchinnovationand
development.
Ithelpstoreassureprivateinvestorsthatthisareaisimportanttothepublic,isworthy
ofinvestment,andwillreceiverealpublicsupport.
Potentialinvestorsinterpretthepublicsupportbyastateasapositivemessagethatthe
stateintendstocreateabusinessenvironmentthatissupportiveofcleantech.
InconsistencyandUnpredictabilityofPoliciesandRegulationsAffectingtheIndustry
Governmentwillplayasubstantialroleintheevolutionofcleantechmorethanitwillin
informationtechnology(excludingtelecommunicationsservices).
Accordingtoa2007cleantechreport,amongtheinvestorssurveyed,themostoftencited
barrier to investment in cleantech was the inconsistency and unpredictability of policies
affectingtheindustry.OneinvestorstatedthatIfthefederalpolicyisunclearorinconsistent,
itintroducesanelementofriskthatdetractsfromtheattractivenessofapotentialinvestment.
Ifafederalpolicyissupportiveandappearsstable,itmakestheinvestmentmoreattractive.38
The federalgovernment and all the states have implemented myriad financial incentive
programswiththeobviousobjectivetoencourageinvestmentincleantechnologies.However,
those policies are often accompanied with regulations and rules which are not always
harmonized between the federal and state governments, or between states within the same
region,andevenbetweenstatesandcitygovernments.Forexample,theSoutheastregionmay
benefitfromattractingacleantechnologywhichhasthepotentialtothriveintheregionbut
notinotherregions.
36
Id.
James Stack : Cleantech Venture Capital: How Public Policy Has Stimulated Private Investment. A joint report by Environmental
EntrepreneursandCleantechNetworkLLC,June2007,pp.29.
38
Id.,pp.2627
37
43
Evenwherestateshaveimplementedwellthoughtoutlawsandpoliciestoimprovethe
cleantechenvironment,thelegislationandpoliciesarelefttotheinterpretationofregulatory
agencies which must translate them into tariffs that are often difficult to understand for less
informed investors or require investors to engage highcost expertise at the expense of
investingintheproject.
The lack of federal and state policy coordination is more visible through the state
renewableportfoliostandards.TheEnergyPolicyActof2005(EPACT2005)extendedexisting
taxincentivestoencouragetheintegrationofrenewableenergyproductionwithinstatelevel
RenewablePortfolioStandards.However,therehasbeennofederallegislationtomandatea
specificfinancialmechanismtoimplementcleantechnologyintheenergysector.Thisleaves
statestoconstructtheirownsolutions.Toillustratethispoint,cleantechinvestorsbelievethat
anationalrenewableportfoliostandard(nationalRPS)wouldbeacriticalorimportantfactorin
their decisions to invest in nextgeneration clean energy technologies. Therefore, there is a
need to harmonize and simplify federal and state policies related to cleantech. This policy
harmonization will bring certainty and reduce the perceived risk for entrepreneurs and
investorsalike.
Recently, the federal government issued a report in which it clarified its strategy for
Americaninnovation.Themainprioritiesoutlinedaretounleashacleanenergyrevolutionby
promotingrenewableandenergyefficiencytechnologies,investingincleanenergyinnovation,
supporting advanced vehicle technologies, driving innovations in health care technology and
harnessingscienceandtechnologytoaddresstheGrandChallengesofthe21stCentury.39
CostsandPricing(SubsidiesforCompetingExistingBusinesses,HighInitialCosts,Transaction
Costs,EnvironmentalExternalities)
On average, cleantech requires higher initial costs compared to other sectors. For
example, the most recent report by Merrill Lynch (2008) concluded that cleantech requires
roughly2.5timesasmuchcapitalasIT.40Higherinitialcostsforcleantechbusinessescontribute
totheMountainofDeathofcleantechcosts.Whencomparedtomarginalcostsofcompeting
technologies,thehigherinitialcostsofcleantechrepresentaseriousbarriertoinvestmentin
39
Executive Office of the President National Economic Council Office of Science and Technology Policy: A Strategy for American Innovation:
DrivingTowardsSustainableGrowthandQualityJob,September2009,pp1922.
40
MerrillLynch,November17,2008:CleanTechnologyTheSixthRevolution:TheComingofCleantech.
44
cleantech, one that the state of Florida should address in order to attract more cleantech
businesses.
However, in a June 2008 study of comparative levelized cost of energy for various
technologiesona$/MWhbasis,LazardconcludedthatCertainAlternativeEnergygeneration
technologies are already costcompetitive with conventional generation technologies under
some scenarios, even before factoring in environmental and other externalities (e.g., RECs,
potentialcarbonemissioncosts,transmissioncosts)aswellasthefastincreasingconstruction
and fuel costs affecting conventional generation technologies. Nevertheless, as shown in
Table62,thecostperMWhofconventionalgenerationtechnologies(gascombinedcycle,coal
and nuclear) ranges from $73 to $135 while the cost per MWh of the most expensive
technologies (fuel cell, solar PV and solar thermal) ranges from $90 to $154. The same study
showsthatthecapitalcostsforanumberofAlternativeEnergygenerationtechnologies(e.g.,
solar PV, solar thermal) are currently in excess of conventional generation technologies (e.g.,
gas, coal, nuclear) but that declining costs for many Alternative Energy generation
technologies, coupled with rising construction and fuel costs for conventional generation
technologies,areworkingtocloseformerlywidegapsinelectricitycosts.41
Itisstillpossiblethatcleantechproductsarenotcompetingwithtraditionalalternatives
on a level playing field. Indeed, some cleantech investors believe that conventional
technologies such as coal, natural gas and petroleum regularly receive large government
subsidiesthatgivethemapriceadvantage,eventhoughthesetechnologieshavebeeninthe
mainstreamfordecades.42
The following figure illustrates this barrier. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear received more
governmentincentives,includingtaxincentivesthanrenewableandgeothermalfuels,keeping
inmindthatthesesourcesalsoproducedthelionsshareofenergyintheU.S.
41
Lazard:LevelizedCostofEnergyAnalysisVersion2.0,June2008,pages2,7.
Id.,p.26.
42
45
Figure7.ComparisonofUSAGovernmentIncentivesforEnergyDevelopment,19502006
Source:ManagementInformationServices,Inc.:WhyCleanEnergyPublicInvestmentMakesEconomicSenseTheEvidenceBase.Ananalysis
oftheconnectionbetweengovernmentcleanenergyspendingandvariousmeasuresofeconomichealth,2009,pagevi.
AccordingtotheUnionofConcernedScientists,comparedwithrenewables,nuclearand
fossilfueltechnologiesenjoyedforyearsaconsiderableadvantageingovernmentsubsidiesfor
researchanddevelopment,andlowertaxburdenthanrenewables.43
Through 1978, of $516 billion spent on energy subsidies, 50 percent went to oil, 25
percenttoelectricity,and25percenttonuclear,hydro,gas,andcoal.
During fiscal year 1992,directfederalsubsidiestotaled$8billion.Renewables(except

ethanolfortransportation)receivedaboutonethirdasmuchascoalandlessthanone
quarter as much as natural gas. The oil industry received $3.1 billion in indirect
subsidies.
During the fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated a combined $1.3 billion for fossil
fuels, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, and nuclear waste, but only $273 million for all
renewableenergytechnologiescombined.
AstudyreleasedbytheEnvironmentalLawInstitute,anonpartisanresearchandpolicy
organization,showsthatduringtheyears20022008,thefederalgovernmentprovided
subsidiestofossilfuelstotalingapproximately$72billion,whilesubsidiesforrenewable
fuelstotaledonly$29billionor40percentofsubsidiesprovidedtofossilfuelsoverthe
sameperiod.Thesamestudyrevealsthatthevastmajorityofsubsidieswenttoenergy
43
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/barrierstorenewableenergy.html.
46
sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when usedasfuel.44Figure9below

illustratesthesituation.
Giventhesizeoffederalsubsidiestotraditionalfuels,thesefuelsareabletokeeptheir
costs artificially low and it is difficult for many states to offer state tax and other incentive
policiessufficienttomakeupthedisadvantageagainstcleantechbusinesses.Again,itmustbe
stressedthatthelevelofincentivesdedicatedtotraditionalfuelsaretoagreatdegreedriven
bythesheermagnitudeoftheenergyproducedbythesetraditionalsources.
Figure8.FederalSubsidiestoFossilFuels
Source:http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf
ThePossibilitiesofFirstMoverAdvantages
The theory of pioneering and firstmover advantage states that companies gain this
advantageinatleastthreeways:1)bymakingnewproducts,2)byusinganewprocess,or3)
44
EnvironmentalLawInstitute:EstimatingU.S.GovernmentSubsidiestoEnergySources:20022008,September2009,p.3.
47
by entering a new market.45 By moving first in fostering cleantech businesses, state pioneers
havegainedadvantagebymakingfirstmovesintechnology,productormarketinginnovation
and have established industry best practices which are often difficult to meet for states
interestedinthesetechnologies.Thestateleadersincleantechhavealsocreatednewmarket
demand for cleantech products and have created a financial, fiscal, social and political
environment conducive to new cleantech ventures in the state. Other states have the
advantages of not reinventing the wheel of cleantech businesses, but at the same time face
higherstartingcoststhanleadingstates.
While advising the state of North Carolina and discussing the importance of early or
leading clusters, Carbonell states that patterns of regional development, once established,
exhibit positive feedbacks that reinforce the position of the cluster. Clusters generate
regional advantages that cannot be easily reproduced elsewhere: they form large pools of
skilled labor; they cultivate relationships with local suppliers, investors, financiers, and
attorneyswhounderstandtheirneeds;theydevelopastrongregionalbrandthatattractsstill
moreinvestment.46HeconcludedthatIfNorthCarolinachoosestopursuecleanenergyasan
economic development opportunity; it may be wise to deploy proactive policies now, when
markets are more fluid, rather than attempt to imitate the successful policies of other states
onlyaftertheyhaveclaimedadominantposition.47
OtherBarrierstoCleantechCommercializationandProjectFinance
Experts in cleantech commercialization and finance list many other barriers to
commercialization. For example a World Bank Working Paper on accelerating investment in
cleanenergy48discussesanumberofbarriersincludingnegativeexternalityofcarbonemissions
whichisdifficulttovaluate,climatechangemitigation,theValleyofDeathbetweenpublic
andprivatesectordevelopment,theMountainofDeathoftechnologycosts,concernsabout
Intellectual Property protection, and the limits of integration of new technologies into the
existingnetworkinfrastructure.
45
oreKalianin:AQuestionOfStrategy:Tobeapioneerorafollower?Communications,p.90.
Carbonell,Toms(YaleLawSchool):GettingAhead:NewOpportunitiesinCleanEnergy,page5.
47
Id.
48
World Bank Working Paper No. 138: Accelerating Clean Energy Technology Research, Development, and Deployment Lessons from Non
energySectors,May2008,Chapter4.
46
48
The Forum for the Future identifies other barriers including the lack of managerial
experience,undevelopedmarketsandbusinessmodels,lackofaroutetomarket,technology
andpublicpolicyrisk,andbusinesswithoutasoundcommercialcaseandpotentialreturns.49
CleanTechnologyLifeCycleandFundingSources
ResearchMethodology
The tasking for this section of the report suggested that a Gap Analysis would be an
appropriate and effective mechanism to identify barriers to commercialization and project
finance across the fourstage model presented below. This analysis protocol involves
identifyingthecurrentanddesiredconditionsofsupportandresourcesforkeymetrics(input
andoutput)andresultantgapsinresourcesthatwouldneedtobefilledtotransitionfromthe
currenttothedesiredcondition.
Floridahasthe4thlargestgrossstateproduct(GSP)andthisbenchmarkwasutilizedto
define the desired condition for a key set of energy related metrics (4th ranking among US
states).Weresearchedtheavailabilityoffunds,andreportonthefundinggapsagainstwhat
one would expect of a state with the nations 4th largest GSP in four lifecycle stages of clean
technologydevelopment,finance,andcommercialization.
Data was segmented from myriad sources into the fourstage development /
commercializationmodeldiscussedbelow:
Primary Information sources included representatives of Floridas energy
industry,technologyinvestmentcommunity,technologyincubators,universities,
andstategovernmentagencies.
Secondary information sources included the National Science Foundation, Dow
JonesVentureSource,theNationalAssociationofSeedandVentureFunds,and
Ventyx,amongmanyothers.
Informationwasnotavailablebystateortechnologyfor1)angeldealflowandvolume
or2)thedollarvalueofprojectfinancebystateforcleantechorrenewableprojects.Inthese
cases,proxymeasures(e.g.MWofaddedcapacity)wereutilized.
49
Forum for the Future, p. 21 and Fred Beck and Eric Martinot, Renewable Energy Policies and Barriers, Encyclopedia of Energy, Cutler J.
Cleveland,ed.,2004.
49
Foracompletepicture,researchersidentifiedkeyassetsdrivingperformanceaswellas
the output metrics. For instance, Floridas research performance at 16th in the US is better
understoodinthecontextofits13thpositioninthenumberofPhDscientistsandengineers.
Nationalpolicy/incentiveprogramsthatcouldsuccessfullyclosegapsinthekeymetrics
werestudiedforprogrammaticrecommendations.
CurrentSituationandRelativePerformanceMetrics
The following table and analysis identify each technology development and
commercialization stage and comment on the availability of funding in each stage, and
correspondingbusinessandfinancialresourcesinFlorida.Theanalysiscomparestherelative
performanceofthestateofFloridaagainstotherstates,especiallywithstatescomparableto
Floridainresourcesandeconomicperformance.Thedescriptiveanalysiswillbefollowedbya
comparativeanalysisofcurrentpoliciesandincentives.
From 2004 to 2008, the state of Florida had the nations fourth highest Gross State
Product(GSP)behindCalifornia,TexasandNewYork.Inassessingtherelativeperformanceof
the state of Florida in metrics related to cleantech commercialization, we compare Floridas
relative position in selected metrics to the fourth place ranked state in each metric and
calculatethegapthatFloridashouldstrivetoovercomeineachmetricinordertoimproveits
relativeposition.
Table11.CurrentSituationandRelativePerformanceMetrics
CurrentSituationAndRelativePerformanceMetrics
50
TotalR&D
FLRank/Amount
53
#4State/Amount
16 /$6.34B
TX/$17.1B
th
AllTechnologies
SBIR/STTR
51
Avg.0008
th
12 /$41M
MD/$87M
M&AAvg.
52
(US)0008
NA/NA($46.9B)
54
UNK
50
NationalScienceFoundation,2006data,http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10302/
SBADatabase,http://web.sba.gov/technet/public/dsp_search.cfm
52
NationalVentureCapitalAssociation2009Yearbook,
http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=89&Itemid=464
53
th
th
Floridahasthe4 largesteconomyinthenation.Forpurposesofrelativecomparisontheauthorshaveidentifiedthestateperforming4
anditsperformanceoneachmetricasarelativetargetindicator.
54
UNK represents Unknown. In most instances the standard presentation format used here of ranking performance by state and stage of
developmentrequiresadatasourcethatisindividualdeal/projectdriven.Inmanyinstances,thisinformationwasnotavailabletotheauthors
duetocostconstraintsoritisnotconsistentlycollectedandreported.ThisisparticularlytrueofProjectFinanceinformation,particularlythe
financialaspectsofconstructionactivityatutilities
51
50
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
55
Acad.Research
th
11 /$1.6B
MD/$2.7B
Avg.Acad.Disclosures02
59
06
th
FLRank/Amount
8 /556
#4State/Amount
PA/802
Avg.Acad.PatentApps
63
0206
th
FLRank/Amount
7 /336
#4State/Amount
MD/514
2008Utility
65
Patents
th
FLRank/Amount
12 /2,046
#4State/Amount
WA/3,517
Avg.ActiveAcad.Licenses
66
0206
th
FLRank/Amount
17 /515
#4State/Amount
TX/1,440
Avg.Univ.BasedStartups
67
0206
th
FLRank/Amount
7 /16
#4State/Amount
NY/27
CleanTechnologies(CT)
CTFieldsofAcad.R&D
68
08
th
FLRank/Amount
11 /$828M
#4State/Amount
MA/$1,366M
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
CTPatents0208Avg.
th
9 /11
CT/33
EarlyVC$Avg.
56
0008
th
14 /$118M
TX/$471M
Est.EarlyAngel$
60
Avg.0109
NA/NA($10.12BUS)
UNK
Mid+StageVC$
57
Avg.0008
th
11 /$490M
NY/$1,278M
Est.Mid+Angel$
61
Avg.0109
NA/NA($10.28BUS)
UNK
VCBackedIPO
58
(US)Avg.0008
NA/NA($7.2B)
UNK
MWAdded0009All
62
Fuels
nd
2 /2,256MW
IL/1,217MW
Avg.CapExatUtils.(US)
64
0308
NA/NA($58.4B)
UNK
SBIR/STTRAvg.
ii
0008
th
11 /$3.6M
NY/$6.6M
CleanTech(CT)VCDealsAvg.
70
0009$Investment
th
9 /$52.7M
TX/$156.1M
EarlyEnergy
Mid+Energy
EnergyM&A
69
Avg.(US)0008
NA/NA($6.4B)
UNK
VCBackedEnergyIPOs
71
(US)0008
NA/NA($358M)
UNK
MWAddedR.E.Fuels00
55
NSF,2006data
Down Jones Venture Source Database, http://fis.dowjones.com/products/venturesource.html, Access to the Venture Source DataBasewas
GraciouslyProvidedbyKirstieChadwickofUCF'sVentureLab
57
Down Jones Venture Source Database, http://fis.dowjones.com/products/venturesource.html, Access to the Venture Source DataBasewas
GraciouslyProvidedbyKirstieChadwickofUCF'sVentureLab
58
59
AUTM2008data,http://www.autmsurvey.org/statt/index.cfm.Dataaveragesfrom20022006.
60
Source:CenterforVentureResearch,http://wsbe.unh.edu/cvr.DataiscalculatedusingCVRprovidedfigures.
61
Source:CenterforVentureResearch,http://wsbe.unh.edu/cvr.DataiscalculatedusingCVRprovidedfigures.
62
VentyxDatabase.AccessGraciouslyprovidedbyFP&LGroup.http://www1.ventyx.com/velocity/vsoverview.asp
63
64
Edison
Electric
Institute
Data
which
includes
Generation,
Transmission,
Facilities
and
Equipment.
http://www.eei.org/whatwedo/DataAnalysis/IndusFinanAnalysis/Pages/QtrlyFinancialUpdates.aspx
65
USPTO,http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_utl.htm
66
67
68
DataisfromanNSFdatabase.http://webcaspar.nsf.gov/index.jsp?subHeader=WebCASPARHome
69
70
DataisfromtheCleantechNetworksDatabase,http://Cleantech.com/research/databases.cfm.TheauthorscombinedthePrimaryIndustries
intoheadingsofEnergy,EnvironmentalandIndustrialforclarityandbrevityofpresentationSeedandEarlystageincludesroundsidentifiedby
theCleantechNetworkasSeedorFirstRoundwithallotherclassifiedasMid+.
71
56
51

72
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
ARRAARPAEAwards
80
09
1of33with$0
CO/$14.1M
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
73
Avg.0009$Inv
Avg.0009$Inv
th
th
27 /$1M
14 /$21.4M
NY/$12M
TX/$58.1
EarlyEnviron.
Mid+Environ.
75
76
Avg.0009$Inv
Avg.0009$Inv
th
rd
16 /$1.1M
3 /$28.7M
WA/$5.6M
MA/$14.1
EarlyIndustrial
Mid+Industrial
77
78
Avg.0009$Inv
Avg.0009$Inv
th
rd
24 /$.1M
23 /$.441M
AZ/$3.6M
TX/$9M
ARRAEnergy(Combined)
79
09Awards
rd
3 /$414.1M
TX/$361.7M
ARRABiomass
ARRAGeothermal
81
82
09Awards
09Awards
th
th
4 /$50M
35 /$.250M
FL/$50M
CA/$24.5M
ARRASBIR/STTR
ARRABattery
84
85
09Awards
09Awards
th
rd
4 /$1.2M
3 /$95.5M
FL/$1.2M
SC/$50.1M
ARRAAdv.Vehicles
87
09Awards
1of32with/$0
WI/$15M
GlobalCleanTechnologyVCInvestmentin09(preliminary)
74
09
th
25 /19MW
CA/171MW
ARRASmartGrid
83
09Awards
st
1 /$267M
CA/$203M
ARRAReg.SmartGrid,
86
09Awards
1of42with$0
TX/$27.4M
GlobalM&AActivity09
(Prelim.)
72
73
74
VentyxDatabase.AccessGraciouslyprovidedbyFP&LGroup.http://www1.ventyx.com/velocity/vsoverview.asp
75
76
intoheadingsofEnergy,EnvironmentalandIndustrialforclarityandbrevityofpresentation.SeedandEarlystageincludesroundsidentified
bytheCleantechNetworkasSeedorFirstRoundwithallotherclassifiedasMid+.
77
intoheadingsofEnergy,EnvironmentalandIndustrialforclarityandbrevityofpresentation.SeedandEarlystageincludesroundsidentified
bytheCleantechNetworkasSeedorFirstRoundwithallotherclassifiedasMid+.
78
79
Data is combined from two sources, The Cooley Clean Tech Stimulus Portal and the Department of Energy.
http://www.cooley.com/Cooley_Clean_Tech_Stimulus_Portal,http://www.energy.gov/recovery/index.htm
80
DepartmentofEnergyARPAE,http://arpae.energy.gov/public/PR102609.pdf
81
CooleyCleanTechStimulusPortal,http://www.cooley.com/Cooley_Clean_Tech_Stimulus_Portal
82
83
84
85
86
Source:http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/SG_Demo_Project_List_11.24.09.pdf
87
52

FLRank/Amount
NA/NA($5.6B)
#4State/Amount
UNK
NA/NA($31.8B)
UNK
GlobalIPOActivity09
(Prelim.)
FLRank/Amount
NA/NA($4.7B)
#4State/Amount
CurrentAssetsAnd/OrSystemInputs
TotalPhDSci&
88
Engineers06
th
FLRank/Amount
13 /17,630
#4State/Amount
MA/32,400
TotalUniversityFaculty
91
07
th
FLRank/Amount
6 /16,792
#4State/Amount
PA/19,926
TotalTenureTrack
94
Faculty07
th
FLRank/Amount
7 /9,375
#4State/Amount
OH/10,450
FacultyStudentRatio
96
07
th
FLRank/Amount
45 /21
98
#4State/Amount
CA,NY,TX,PA,MA /15
Avg.AcadLicManagers
99
0206
th
FLRank/Amount
8 /25
#4State/Amount
TX/43
Avg.AcadPatent
101
Expenses0206
th
FLRank/Amount
10 /$6.7M
UNK(72%Asia)
STPubBenefitFunds
90
forRE
1of32/$0
CT/$444M
89
NumberofAngelGroups07
th
9 /5
NC&IL/9
92
TotalVCFirmsw/PrincipalOfficeinState09
RPSSTDsbyST,Nov09
th
93
12 /33
IL/107
1 of14/0%
CT/27%
95
AverageVentureCapitalUnderManagementbyState0008
th
17 /$1,459M
CT/$12,578M
97
CommitmentstoVentureCapitalFundsbyState0008
th
18 /$165M
CT/$1,713M
100
VentureCapitalFirmsinStatewithaCleanTechFocus09
th
13 /3
MA/17
102
StateVCFundsbyTotalFundSize
st
21 /$29.5M
88
NationalScienceFoundation,2006data,http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10302/
NationalGovernorsAssociationReport,http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0802ANGELINVESTMENT.PDF
90
www.dsireusa.org
91
Information comes from a previous Florida Research Consortium Study. Source is a Carnegie Foundation database on Higher Education.
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/
92
CapitalVectorVentureCapitalDirectory,http://www.capitalvector.com/
93
Floridahasimplemented110MWofRenewableEnergythatallowsforCostRecovery.The%requirementsbystatevarygreatlyastotimeto
implementationandMWsagainstwhichthestandardisapplicable.However,thecomparisonhighlightsasignificantimpedimenttoproject
finance for renewable energy in Florida, uncertainty about revenues to support investment in renewable energy. RPS standards provide
investment cost recovery mechanisms. States without RPS standards in one form or another face a great deal of uncertainty as to how
renewableprojectsgeneratedmegawattsarepricedinthemarket,whicheffectivelyhaltsprojectfinance.
94
95
96
97
98
Thesearethetop5AcademicR&Dperformingstates.WhileFloridaisnotaslimitedintotalfacultyasthenumberswouldsuggest,italso
enjoysanabundanceofstudents,onparwithTexasandNewYorkwhosefacultycountsarealmostdoubleFloridas.Facultyhastwoprimary
jobs,teachingandresearch.HighStudent/Facultyratiosareindicativeofhigherteachingloadsandthuslesstimeavailableforresearch.
99
100
CapitalVectorVentureCapitalDirectory,http://www.capitalvector.com/
101
102
NationalAssociationofSeedandVentureFunds,http://www.nasvf.org/pdfs/VCFundsReport.pdf.
89
53

#4State/Amount
PA/$10M
MI/$204M
103
Seed/EarlyFocusStateVCFunds
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
FLRank/Amount
#4State/Amount
th
14 /$29.5
IL/$83.5
105
StateAngelTaxCredits
1of32/0%
VA/50%
AllFocusStateVC
104
Funds
NA/$0
OK/$100M
1. Research&DevelopmentTransition
Asstatedabove,R&Dplaysanimportantroletotransitioncleantechnologyintellectual
propertyintothemarket.MostofacademicR&Dfundingisprovidedbyseedcapitalandgrants
fromfederalagenciessuchastheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)andDepartmentofEnergy
(DOE)throughavenuessuchastheSBIR/STTRprograms.However,eventhoughsomeSBIRand
STTRgrantsaredirectedtowardR&D,themajorityofthegrantsareforprojectdevelopment
ratherthantechnologyresearch.Forthisreason,federalandstateresources(grants,loansand
otherprograms)willbediscussedintheEarlyCapitalstage.
Ingeneral,thestateofFloridahasnotachievedtheexpectedlevelofinvestmentinR&D
for all technologies combined, for clean technologies and for current assets and/or system
inputs. This includes academic research, academic patents, academic licenses, and academic
resources.
In 2006, Florida ranked16th overallin terms ofR&D expenditures fora total amount of
$6.34billion.Inorderforthestatetoimproveherpositiontothe4thplace,thestateneedsto
close an annual R&D funding gap on the order of $10 billion so as to make up the deficit in
academic research, academic patents and licenses, and university assets. For clean
technologies, the state total expenditures on clean tech fields were $828 million in 2008
comparedtoapotentialspendingof$1,366million.Thus,thestateneedstocloseanannual
R&Dfundinggapover$500millionannually.
In2006,Floridaranked12thintermsofallutilitypatentsgrantedbytheUnitedStates
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and held in the state (2,046), a gap of 1,471 patents
comparedtothe4thranking.From2002to2009,whenconsideringonlythenumberofpatents
103
105
NationalGovernorsAssociationReport,http://www.nga.org/files/pdf/0802angelinvestment.pdf.
104
54
forcleanenergysectors,Table12showsthatFloridaranks9thwith85patents,fallingbehindby
160patents.AnalarmingfactisthatthetopsevenstatesoutperformedthestateofFloridabya
factorof2:1intermsofcleanenergypatents.
Table12.TopStateswithCleanEnergyPatents
StateName
Michigan
California
NewYork
Connecticut
Texas
Illinois
Massachusetts
NewJersey
Florida
Washington
2002
93
60
43
31
9
23
9
6
13
13
2003
112
52
51
30
16
17
7
16
12
6
2004
123
78
46
36
21
27
12
13
11
18
2005
105
44
39
38
20
25
12
9
11
6
2006
97
55
60
49
34
13
15
14
13
13
2007
113
60
60
23
17
17
20
9
10
7
2008
90
67
76
25
26
19
9
13
7
13
2009
64
73
41
13
12
9
28
7
8
8
TOTAL
797
489
416
245
155
150
112
87
85
84
Source:DataprovidedbytheCleanEnergyPatentGrowthIndex(CEPGI);http://cepgi.typepad.com/heslin_rothenberg_farley_/
In the academic world, when considering the states R&D expenditures for academic
research in all technologies, Floridas relative position is better, in the 11th place with $1.6
billiontotalR&Dexpenditures.Thisamountis$1.0billionlessthantheexpected4thposition.
Thestateaverageacademicpatentexpensesfor20022006were$6.7millionorafundinggap
of$3.3millionayear.Floridaranks7thintermsofacademicpatentapplications,7thintermsof
universitybased startups and 17th in terms of active academic licenses held. In terms of
academic research into new technologies, the state ranks 11th, spending $1.6 billion in 2006.
Thiswasequivalenttoafundingdeficitofmorethan$1.0billionthatyear.
TherelativepoorperformanceinR&Dexpenditurescomparedtotheexpectedpositionof
thestatetranslatedtoanannualaverageof16universitybasedstartupsfrom2002to2006,or
adeficitof11startupsperyearifthestatehadperformedattheexpectedlevel.However,the
numberofuniversitybasedstartupsdoubledfrom2002to20052006,incontrasttothestates
withthelargestnumberofstartups,whicheitherregressedorbarelyimprovedfromtheir2002
positions.Thisisanindicationthateventhoughtheresearchacademicinstitutionsinthestate
ofFloridahadalatestart,theycontinuedtoimprovetherelativepositionofthestateoverthe
period.
FloridaHighTechCorridorCouncilMatchingGrantsResearchProgram
The Florida High Tech Corridor Council (FHTCC) was established by the Florida
Legislature in 1996 to attract, retain, and grow high tech industry and to help develop the
55
workforce to support those industries in the service areas of theUniversityofCentralFlorida

and the University of South Florida through the Florida High Tech Corridor Council Matching
GrantsResearchProgram.In2005,theFHTCCwasexpandedtoincludetheUniversityofFlorida
as the third partner of this economic development initiative, merging the strengths of three
universities and bringing the number of Corridor counties to 23 including Alachua, Putnam,
Levy,Marion,Flagler,Citrus,Sumter,Lake,Volusia,Seminole,Brevard,Orange,Osceola,Polk,
Hernando,Pasco,Hillsborough,Pinellas,Manatee,Sarasota,DeSoto,Hardee,andHighlands.
Sincetheinceptionoftheprogramin1996,theUniversityofFlorida,theUniversityof
CentralFlorida,andtheUniversityofSouthFloridahavepartneredwithover340companieson
1,067 research projects involving 2,134 students and 281 faculty members in the sectors of
Agritechnology, Aviation and Aerospace, Digital Media/Interactive Entertainment, Financial
Services, Information Technology, Life Sciences/Medical Technologies, Microelectronics /
Nanotech,Modeling,SimulationandTraining,OpticsandPhotonics,andSustainableEnergy.
The $53 million in funds that have been invested by FHTCC have been matched by
corporate cash and inkind investments of nearly $148 million, generating an additional$524
million in quantifiable downstream impacts, resulting in a return of $672 million and total
project value of $726 million. Additionally, 103 patents plus 146 patent applications are
projectedtohaveresultedfromFHTCCprojects.
Thisisanexcellentmodeltoreplicateandexpanduponinbuildingtheearlystageenergy
R&D base of Floridas universities and companies. The FHTCC Matching Grants Research
Programmodelreliesoncoinvestmentsfrom1)thestatethroughFloridasuniversitiesand2)
FloridabasedindustrytosupportcuttingedgeR&DinFloridasuniversities.Atthispoint,the
FHTCC program funding is limited to UF, UCF, and USF working with companies in the 23
countiesoftheCorridor.However,thisprogramcanbeeasilyscaledtoincludealloftheSUS
universities and companies located in all of Florida using todays proven funding and
operational model. In fact, the Florida Energy Systems Consortium is already preparing to
release a Request for Proposals based on the FHTCC model for energy related R&D projects
supported by limited FESC commercialization funds and industry matching funds. FESCs
programwilltargetallSUSuniversitiesandcompaniesfromacrossthestate,butislimitedin
56
scope as only ~$250k is available for project funding. This could be quickly expanded with
additionalfundingfromthestate.
2. EarlyCapitalStage
Duringthisstage,themajorityoffundingissuppliedbythefederalgovernmentthrough
grants, loan guarantees, by angel investors, and by venture capitalists. Given that for the
period20052008thestateofFloridaisrankedfourthintermsofGrossStateProductbehind
California,TexasandNewYork,wemeasuredFloridascurrentperformanceorrankingrelative
totheperformanceofthestaterankedfourthinalltheareasofouranalysis.Fortheperiod
2000to2008,thestateofFloridaranked12thandreceivedfromthefederalgovernmentatotal
of$372.5millioninSBIR/STTRfunding(oranannualaverageof$41.4million)comparedtoa
potential $783.4 million (or an annual average of $87 million) the state could have received
underoptimisticconditions.Thisrepresentsatotalgapinfundingofmorethan$410million
overthenineyearperiod.
When considering governmentsupplied early capital through SBIR and STTR for clean
energy technologies, during the same nineyear period, the state of Florida ranked 11th and
receivedatotalof$32.4millioncomparedto$59.4millionthatthefederalgovernmentcould
haveinvestedinthestateunderidealconditions.Thisrepresentsanearlycapitalfundinggap
forcleanenergytechnologiesof$27millionovernineyears(orayearlydeficitof$3million).
Table13.TopStatesReceivingSBIRandSTTRFundsforCleanEnergyTechnologies20002008
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
StateCode
CA
MA
MD
NY
VA
TX
CO
OH
PA
NJ
FL
TotalAwards
732
482
200
176
214
170
164
143
128
96
94
TotalDollars
$216,427,068
$162,761,803
$64,396,076
$59,431,502
$56,101,592
$54,213,374
$46,166,680
$46,003,607
$37,889,101
$37,562,222
$32,410,649
AverageDollars
$24,047,452
$18,084,645
$7,155,120
$6,603,500
$6,233,510
$6,023,708
$5,129,631
$5,111,512
$4,209,900
$4,173,580
$3,601,183
Source:http://web.sba.gov/technet/public/dsp_search.cfm
With the exception of the top two states (California and Massachusetts); the other top
states received significantly similar amounts of SBIR and STTR funding. Maryland and
57
Massachusetts fared exceptionally well given that their respective Gross State Products rank
15th and 13th respectively. The state of Florida needs to put in place strategic economic
developmentpoliciesandincentivestoattractmorefederalfundingintermsofSBIRandSTTR.
StatespecificdataforAngelinvestorswasnotreadilyavailableforthisstudy.However,
based on aggregate data obtained from the Center for Venture Research from 2001 to the
secondquarterof2009,Angelcapitalistsinvested$189.3billionin408,600venturesinvolving
morethan1.8millionactiveinvestors.OfthetotalAngelinvestment,only9%onaveragefrom
2005to2009wenttotheindustrialandenergysectors.Angelinvestorsprovidedonaverage
45% of their capital to ventures in the Seed and Early Stages and 46% to the Mid and Late
Stages.ThesenumbersindicatethatAngelinvestorsarenottypicallyinterestedinfundingR&D
butarepersistentlycommittedtofundingalltheotherstagesoftechnologydevelopment.
Absent data on Angel funding by state, we analyzed state policies to assist new
technologybusinessesbyencouragingangelinvestment.EighteenstateshaveAngelTaxCredit
policiesinplacerangingfrom10%(NewJerseyandVermont)to100%(Hawaii),upto$5million
aggregate per business and in varying cap amounts, except for Hawaii, New Jersey and
Oklahomawhichdonothavecaps.ThestateofFloridadoesnothaveastateAngelTaxCredit
policy.
The third and largest funds source for states financing cleantech is from venture
capitalists.From2000to2008,thestateofFloridaranked12thaveraging$608millionayearof
totalventurecapitalinvestmentsinthestate.Thislevelofventurecapitalinvestmentsinthe
stateofFloridacorrespondstoapproximately$1.2billioninannualventurecapitalinvestment
funding gap compared to the expected level of performance (4th ranking). For all the states,
venturecapitalinvestmentsdecreasedfromhistoricalhighlevelsin2000tothelowestlevelsin
2009106.
This report shows that the state experienced a venture capital funding gap for early
capitalstageintheamountof$353millionayearfrom2000to2008foralltechnologies.For
the period 2000 to 2009, the annual funding gaps for early capital investment in clean
technologieswere$11millionforcleanenergy,$8millionforothercleantechnologies.
106
Given that venture capital investment remained high intherecessionyearsof2007and2008,itisnotclearwhyventurecapitalfunding

declinedsignificantlyin2009.
58
Oftheseventurecapitalinvestments,alargeproportionwenttoinvestmentsincleantech
sectors which are dominated by clean energy industries (which include renewable energy
projects).
According to the U.S. DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energys report, venture
capital and private equity investment in renewable energy technology companies increased
from$29millionin2001to$3.9billionin2008(SeeFigurebelow).
In addition, Figure 10 below shows that U.S. Venture Capital Investments in cleantech
increasedfromlessthan1%ofallVentureCapitalInvestmentsbefore2000tomorethan7%in
2007(inconstant2005U.S.dollars).
Figure 9. U.S. VC and Private Equity Investment in Renewable Energy Technology Companies,
20012008($Millions)
FiguresrepresentDisclosedDealsderivedfromNewEnergyFinancesDesktopdatabase.Source:U.S.DepartmentofEnergyEnergyEfficiency
&RenewableEnergy:2008RenewableEnergyDataBook,July2009,page112.
59
Figure10.U.S.VCInvestmentsinCleantech:19952007(MillionConstant2005U.S.Dollars)
Source:Dooley,J.J.(PacificNorthwestNationalLaboratory):TrendsinU.S.VentureCapitalInvestmentsRelatedtoEnergy:19802007,October
2008.
In constant 2005 U.S. dollars, cleantech venture capital investments in 1995 were less
than$100millionandabout1%ofallU.S.venturecapital.In2007,cleantechventurecapital
investmentsaccountedforapproximately$2.4billionandslightlymorethan8%ofallventure
capitalinvestments.ThistrendisexpectedtocontinuewithARRAfundingofcleantechnologies
andwithstateincentivestoencouragerenewableenergyandenergyefficiencyprojects.
ThefigurebelowshowsthatventurecapitalinvestmentsinthestateofFloridadeclined
significantlyovertheperiodfromthehigh$1,697millionin2000toonly$215millionin2008.
Asexplainedabove,Floridawascomparedtothestateinthe4thposition,apositionwhichthe
state was expected to achieve under the assumption of competitive advantage based on the
states rank in Gross State Product. For the purpose of analysis, another state was randomly
pickedasthestateinoraroundthe20thposition.Thisstatecouldbeoverorunderperforming
compared to its GSP position. The purpose was simply for the comparison of the trends. The
trendofventurecapitalinvestmentsinthestateofFloridawasnotunlikethetrendofventure
capitalinvestmentsinotherstateslikeNewYork(4thrank)orNewHampshire(20thrank).The
samedecliningtrendwasobservedforallthestates.Noneofthestateshaveshownevenan
incrementalincreaseinVCinvestmentsduringthetimeperiodunderreview.Thehighventure
capitalinvestmentsin2000correspondtothedotcombubbleorITbubblewhenthestock
60
value of the technologyheavy dotcom industry more than doubled within one year and
declinedsignificantlythereafter.
Figure11.TotalVCInvestmentsinNY,FLandNH,20002009($Millions)
Source:http://fis.dowjones.com/products/venturesource.html
Although the state of Florida ranked 11th in total venture capital investments, the state
ranked9thintotalventurecapitalinvestmentsincleantechfrom2000to2009withanannual
averageventurecapitalinvestmentof$53million.Thislevelofventurecapitalinvestmentsin
cleantech in the state of Florida corresponds to more than $100 million in annual cleantech
venture capital investment funding gap compared to the expected level of performance (4th
ranking).
Table14.TopStatesCleantechVCDeals20002009($Millions)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average0009
Rank State
#
1
CA
$302 36 $228 42 $453 55 $1,180 68 $1,863 112 $3,440 137 $2,108 118 $1,021 64
2
VA
$4 2
$18 4
$15 4
$53 4
$70 5
$468 7 $1,816 5
$246 3.7
3
MA
$98 17 $96 16 $189 23
$241 25
$371 22
$451 37
$373 28
$200 20
4
TX
$43 9
$36 11 $57 10
$278 15
$254 20
$513 14
$285 26
$156 12
5
CO
$35 7
$54 9
$9 3
$55 7
$104 7
$442 14
$104 11
$85 6.4
6
WA
$25 6
$49 6
$24 7
$107 8
$209 18
$187 15
$74 17
$76 8.3
7
PA
$8 7
$5 7
$9 8
$58 8
$67 6
$189 11
$310 6
$71 6.5
8
NJ
$27 6
$27 6 $0.3 1
$59 6
$175 8
$274 9
$47 7
$62 4.9
9
FL
$20 9
$26 2
$44 3
$84 7
$111 6
$176 8
$53
4
10 IL
$18 9
$18 4
$28 8
$20 2
$0.25 2
$87 6
$265 2
$48 4.6
Source:http://cleantech.com/research/databases.cfm
However, even though total venture capital investments in cleantech in the state of
Florida declined over the period, the figure below shows that venture capital investments in
cleantech in the state increased by a 2.5 factor on average from $20 million in 2003 to $176
million in 2009, averaging $53 million a year from 2000 to 2009, The Figure below shows
however that venture capital investments in cleantech in Texas (4th ranked state) increased
61
almost four time on average during the same time period compared to the 2003 level, but
achieved$0.5billionin2008.Ingeneral,forbothFloridaandTexas,theamountofinvestments
followedanupwardtrendstartingin2004.Ontheotherhand,thestateofMichiganfolloweda
reversetrendasitsawventurecapitalinvestmentsincleantechdeclineovertime.
Asdiscussedabove,thethirdandlargestfundingsourcefortheEarlyCapitalstagecomes
from venture capitalists. Table 14 below shows the top states receiving the most venture
capitalfundingoftheEarlyCapitalprojectstage.
Figure12.CleantechVCInvestmentsinTX,FLandMI,20002009($Millions)
Source:http://Cleantech.com/research/databases.cfm
Table15.TopStatesReceivingVCFundingforEarlyCapitalStage($Millions,SelectedYears)
State
California
Massachusetts
NewYork
Texas
NewJersey
Washington
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Virginia
Maryland
Georgia
Colorado
NorthCarolina
Florida
2000
$10,260
$2,681
$2,045
$1,994
$1,047
$695
$758
$1,016
$980
$682
$765
$664
$838
$476
2001
$3,153
$838
$429
$633
$330
$245
$129
$95
$117
$94
$156
$139
$126
$87
2005
$2,323
$535
$476
$200
$247
$254
$92
$88
$113
$137
$83
$65
$76
$77
2006
$2,595
$596
$538
$222
$94
$144
$217
$41
$110
$198
$60
$91
$68
$80
2007
$3,179
$715
$301
$236
$214
$298
$198
$188
$149
$94
$109
$111
$114
$134
2008
$2,319
$677
$623
$261
$157
$253
$182
$122
$60
$86
$67
$123
$113
$16
2009
Avg.0008
$521
$3,258
$136
$833
$117
$534
$59
$471
$27
$274
$73
$247
$34
$217
$24
$191
$4
$192
$6
$181
$5
$180
$161
$161
$8
$168
$4
$118
62
ThestateofFloridaranks14thwithanaverageof$118millionayearfrom2001to2008,
which is equivalent to a funding gap of $353 million a year. The top four states, California,
Massachusetts, New York and Texas averaged $3,258 million, $833 million, $534 million and
$471millionannually,respectively,inventurefundingoftheEarlyCapitalstage.
ThefigurebelowshowsthatventurecapitalinvestmentintheEarlyCapitalstageinthe
stateofFloridadeclinedfrom$476millionin2000toonly$16millionin2008and$4millionin
2009. This trend is alarming because the state of Florida does not receive sufficient funding
from other sources of capital for these stages, especially from the federal government. The
figureshowshoweverthatthedownwardtrendfrom2000to2003wasgeneralized,affecting
allstatesregardlessoftheirperformance.
Figure13.VCInvestmentsinEarlyStageInTX,FLandOH,20002009($Millions)
Finally,manystates,includingthestateofFloridahaveinplacestatesupportedventure
capitalfundstosupportfundingoftheseedandearlystage.TheFloridaOpportunityFundof
$29.5 million was authorized in 2007. This fund was created to realize significant longterm
capital appreciation by investing in highquality venture capital funds, businesses and
infrastructure projects that will provide a lasting benefit to Florida.107 In comparison,
107
"LegislationpassedbyFloridaLegislaturein2007,whichcreatedSections288.9621288.9625oftheFloridaStatutes,collectivelyreferredto
astheFloridaCapitalFormationAct,providedforthecreationoftheFloridaOpportunityFund("FOF"orthe"Fund"),initiallyasafundoffunds
program that invests in venture capital funds. In 2009, The Florida Legislature expanded the Florida Opportunity Funds mandate under the
Florida Capital Formation Act to create direct investment programs that invest in businesses and infrastructure projects. The Florida
OpportunityFundissponsoredbyEnterpriseFloridaandismanagedbyFloridaFirstPartners("FFP").TheFloridaOpportunityFundofficially
63
Massachusettsfundof$35millionwasauthorizedin1978,NewYorksfundof$20millionwas
authorizedin1981andTexasfundof$290millionwasauthorizedin2005.EnterpriseFlorida
canattesttooneprojectwhichthestatelostbecauseoftheabsenceofaRPS.(Itwasoneof
two reasons that Florida lost the company to another state). This project, had it come to
Florida, would have generated $64 million in capital investment with a projected total
employment of 200 jobs at an average annual salary of $40,000. California has no state
supported venture capital fund but leads all other states in venture capital and cleantech
investmentsbecauseoflongstandingincentivesandpolicies.ThestateofFloridaranks21stin
termsofinvestmentcapitalinthestatesupportedventurecapitalfundandwasauthorizedin
2007comparedtothemajorityofstateswithhighercapitalfundinglevelsbutwhichauthorized
thesefundsseveralyearsearlier.
StateofAffairs:FloridaVentureCapitalCommunity
A review of the venturecapitalcommunityinFloridarevealssignificantchallengesfor
entrepreneurs in the early stage108 capital markets in Florida. Industry experts including
UniversityofCentralFlorida(UCF)VentureLabsKirstieChadwick,andUniversityofFlorida(UF)
Office of Technology Licensing Director, David Day, helped develop a list of VC firms actively
investinginthestateofFlorida.109Alargenumberofthesefirms(asmanyas35)wereexcluded
fromthelistduetomislabelingasVentureCapitalists.Manyoftheseentitiesareconsultants,
withnofundsdevotedto1st3rdroundfinancing.BasedontheknowledgeofMs.Chadwick
andconfirmedbyMr.Day,afairnumberoftheFloridabasedVCfirmshaveceasedtoexistor
are not actively investing in new opportunities at this time. Those deemed nonactive were
removed from the final listing for this report. We must also note that not all are Venture
Capitalfocused; with a handful investing at all stages up to and including the traditional
territoryofinvestmentbanks;initialpublicofferings.Thekeyfilteringcriteriarequiredrecent
activeinvestmentactivity.
launched its fund of funds program in 2008. In 2010, The Florida Opportunity Fund will be launching a direct investment program with the
FloridaEnergyandClimateCommission."http://www.floridaopportunityfund.com/HomePage.asp
108
The seed/early stage corresponds to a project development stage during which seed capital and startups financing is made available for
R&D,proofofconcept/invention,earlystagetechnologydevelopmentandpilotplant/construction.Duringthemid/latestage,investorsfund
thecommercialscaleoftheprojectwhichincludesprojectdevelopment,productionandmarketing,andprojectexpansion.
109
https://www.venturesource.com/login/index.cfm?CFID=1487158&CFTOKEN=57304535
64
Ofthe37activefirmsoperatinginFlorida,sixinvestonlyintheseed/earlystage,only
two invest in both seed/early and midlater stages, three are angel investors, and twenty
venturecapitalfirmsinvestonlyinmidlaterstage.110Notably,forcleantechfunding,thereare
only two firms solely seed and early stage focused. Eight firms are mezzanine financing and
buyoutfirms.Thereappearstobeaglaringgapinresourcesavailabletoentrepreneursand
seedstageventurespresentinFloridaascomparedtostateswithsimilarpopulationsandGSP.
Additionally,Floridadoesnotcomparefavorablywiththenumberofdealsclosedoramounts
financed.Moreover,fundingsuppliedtoallareasofventurecreationhascontracted,resulting
in a more cautious venture capital market and less innovation transitioning to commercial
production. The current economic landscape precludes Florida VCs from assuming the same
riskprofilesintheirinvestmentportfoliosasinthepastdecadeanditappearsthattrueseed
moneyofasignificantamountisalmostnonexistentinFlorida.
ThereweresevenfirmsincludingfiveventurecapitalfirmsoperatinginFloridathat
highlighttheirdesiretofundcleantechventuresandestablishedbusinessesasapartoftheir
overall investment strategy. Of these seven, none were specifically cleantech/renewable
energyfocused,butinsteadinvestedinatleastthreedifferentsectorsoftheeconomy.Thisis
not uncommon as the investment community typically seeks to diversify its investment
portfolioandreduceitsrisks.Mostexpressednoexclusionof,orpreferencefor,cleantech.It
appears that there is an opportunity to focus greater investor attention to the Green
Technology trend, as the seven firms investing in cleantech have only begun doing so as of
recentlyandmanyseecleantechasafavorableinvestmentmarket.111,112.
3.
Mid/LateCapitalStage
Asdiscussedabove,duetothelackofdisaggregateddataforthemidtolatecapitaland
theexpansionorprojectfinancestages,theanalysispresentedhereisforbothstages.Over
theperiod2001Q22009,Angelinvestmentsfundedthiscombinedstagefor$87.35billionor
approximately46%ofthetotalAngelinvestments.From 2005Q22009,Angelinvestments
totaled$103billion,ofwhich9%or$11.1billionwenttofinanceindustrialandenergyprojects
110
ThenumbershereareslightlydifferentfromnumbersonFigureX[metrics]becausewemorecloselyanalyzedfirmslistedasdoingbusiness
inFlorida.Weremovedthosethathavebeeninactiveforthepastfewyearsandaddednewcomersinvolvedindealsmadeinthestate.
111
http://Cleantech.com/news/5464/Cleantechhitsrecordvcdeal2009
112
http://Cleantech.com/about/pressreleases/20090106.cfm
65
andalmosthalfofthisamount($5.1billion)financedthemidtolatecapitalandprojectfinance
stagesofindustrialandenergyprojects.
ThelargestfundssourcefortheMid/LateCapitalstagecomesfromventurecapitalists.
As discussed above, for all the states, venture capital investments decreased from historical
highlevelsin2000tothelowestlevelsinthisdecadein2009.Thetablebelowshowsthetop
statesreceivingthemostventurecapitalfundingofMid/LateCapitalstage.
Table 16. Top States Receiving VC Funding for Mid/Late Capital Stage ($ Millions, Selected
Years)
State
California
Massachusetts
Texas
NewYork
Colorado
Washington
NewJersey
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
Florida
2000
$30,006
$6,949
$4,000
$3,699
$3,108
$2,065
$1,403
$1,664
$1,085
$1,254
$1,221
2001
$11,562
$3,475
$1,969
$1,189
$851
$713
$1,486
$722
$964
$735
$785
2002
$7,571
$2,233
$1,106
$643
$522
$464
$463
$298
$570
$342
$204
2006
$10,618
$2,372
$1,054
$1,163
$358
$822
$635
$1,270
$435
$392
$268
2007
$11,140
$2,810
$977
$1,151
$523
$1,038
$378
$834
$439
$468
$284
2008
$12,226
$2,281
$876
$1,153
$785
$628
$449
$450
$601
$495
$199
2009
Avg.0008
$3,612
$11,856
$976
$2,993
$233
$1,406
$384
$1,278
$345
$813
$330
$801
$240
$795
$192
$722
$60
$581
$99
$524
$123
$490
th
ThestateofFloridaranks11 withanaverageof$490millionayearfrom2001to2008,
which is equivalent to a funding gap of $788 million a year. The top four states, California,
Massachusetts, Texas and New York averaged $11,856 million, $2,993 million, $1,406 million
and$1,278millionannually,respectively,inventurefundingoftheMid/LateCapitalstage.
Figure 14 below shows that in the state of Florida, venture capital investments in the
Mid/LateCapitalstagesdeclinedfromahighof$1,221millionin2000toalowof$123million
in2009.AsimilartrendwasgenerallyfollowedbymoststatesincludingOhio(18th).However,
states which performed well such as New York (4th rank), saw a steady increase in venture
capitalinvestmentsinthisstagefrom2002to2008.
66
Figure14.VCInvestmentsInMid/LateStageForNY,FLAndOH,20002009($Millions)
Foralltechnologies,from2000to2008,thestateofFlorida,onaverage,received$490
millionannually.Thisanalysisestimatesthatthestatefundinggapisastunning$788milliona
year.
For clean energy technology funding, Florida received an annual average of $21.4
millionfortheperiod20002009forMid/LateCapitalstageandthefundinggapis$36.7million
ayear.Thedatashowsanincoherentfundingpatternformoststates.In2009,followingthe
federal government awards of Stimulus Funding of clean technologies, the state of Florida
received over $414 million, or a projected funding surplus of $52.4 million compared to the
statesexpectedposition.
67
Figure 15. Cleantech VC Investments an Mid/Late Capital Stage In FL and TX, 20022009 ($
Millions)
http://Cleantech.com/research/databases.cfm
4. CleantechProjectFinance
CleantechMarketPerformanceandProjectFinance
Project finance is defined as assetbased financing, which means that the project
lenders have recourse only to the underlying assets of a project. It involves both debt and
equity,wherethedebttoequityratioistypicallylarge(e.g.,70%debtto30%equity).Debtis
used when available and when it is the least expensive form of financing, with equity still
needed for credit worthiness. Most important, revenue from the project must be able to
generate a return to the equity investors, and pay for interest and principal on the debt,
transaction costs associated with developing and structuring the project, and operations and
maintenancecosts.113
According to published research, the current financial crisis has severely affected
cleantechmarketperformanceandinfrastructureandprojectfinance.Projectfinancebanking
andcapitalmarketshavebeenaffectedbytheglobalrecessionbecauseofreducedavailability
ofcreditandincreasedbusinessrisk,whichforcedinvestorstorequirelargeupfrontfeesand
margins before funding projects. As a consequence of the global recession, financial lending
113
Daniel P. Goldman et al.: Financing Projects That Use CleanEnergy Technologies: An Overview of Barriers and Opportunities. Technical
ReportNREL/TP60038723.October2005,page1.
68
institutions and investors have become more conservative in estimating their riskreturn
relationship.
Inordertoaccuratelydescribethecurrentandfuturestateofcleantechprojectfinance,
we need to understand the strong relationship between cleantech market performance and
cleantechprojectfinance.Ingeneral,therequiredreturnonanyinvestmentisdeterminedby
the perceived relative risk of the project and the level of return associated with riskfree
investments(generallyU.S.GovernmentlongtermTreasuryBonds).Ifacleantechprojectwas
perceived to be more risky than an investment in other businesses, investors generally will
require return premiums on equity to compensate for the high risk. The figure below shows
thatcleantechstockindices(CTIUSandNEX) 114,performedwellrelativetotheS&P500index
fromJanuary2005toJanuary7,2010.115
Table17.HistoricalGrowthRatesofCTIUS,NEXandS&P500Indices
StockIndices
SP500Index
CTIUSIndex
NEXIndex
1/02/2009to
1/07/2010
23%
37%
38%
11/20/2008to
1/07/2010
52%
90%
90%
1/03/2006to
1/07/2010
10%
2%
17%
1/11/2005to
1/07/2010
3%
23%
49%
Source:http://www.amex.com/othProd/prodInf/OpPiIndMain.jsp?monthVal=60&Product_Symbol=CTIUS.http://finance.yahoo.com
The graph and historical growth rates table show that the global cleantech index
outperformed the U.S. Cleantech index and the S&P 500 index fromJanuary2005toJanuary
2010. Generally, cleantech companies have reflected a similar trend to the wider market,
recoveringfromalowpointattheendofFebruary2009,butlevelingoffinrecentmonths.Our
analysis shows that wind and biofuel sectors have been remarkably steady over this time
period.
114
TheCleantechIndex(CTIUS)isamodifiedequaldollarweightedindexoftheleadingCleantechcompaniesworldwidefromabroadrangeof
industry sectors. "Cleantech" is defined as knowledgebased products and services that improve operational performance, productivity or
efficiency;whilereducingcosts,resourceandenergyconsumption,wasteorpollution.TheCleantechindexwasestablishedwithabasevalue
of500.00,atmarketclose,December31,1999.TheIndexisrebalancedeveryMarch,June,SeptemberandDecember.TheIndexwascreated
byandisatrademarkofCleantechIndicesLLC.
http://www.amex.com/othProd/prodInf/OpPiIndMain.jsp?monthVal=60&Product_Symbol=CTIUS
115
TheWilderHillNewEnergyGlobalInnovationIndex(NEX)iscomprisedofcompaniesworldwidewhoseinnovativetechnologiesandservices
focusongenerationanduseofcleanerenergy,conservationandefficiency,andadvancingrenewableenergygenerally.Includedarecompanies
whoselowercarbonapproachesarerelevanttoclimatechange,andwhosetechnologieshelpreduceemissionsrelativetotraditionalfossilfuel
use.
69
Figure16.CleantechIndexUSandNEXIndexComparedtoS&P500Index
Source:http://www.amex.com/othProd/prodInf/OpPiIndMain.jsp?monthVal=60&Product_Symbol=CTIUS.http://finance.yahoo.com
However, during the period from November 20, 2008116 to January 7, 2010, the CTIUS
and NEX indices performed exceptionally well compared to the S&P 500 index, recovering
nearlyalltheirlossesandalmostdoublingtheindexvaluesasofNovember20,2008.Whilethe
performance since January 3, 2006 of the CTIUS and NEX indices as of January 7, 2010 were
respectively2%and17%,theS&P500indexis10%belowitspeaklevelof1/03/2006(negative
performance of 10%). Given this performance of cleantech indices, one must conclude that
cleantechinvestmentsinprojectfinancewillbouncebacktothepreNovember2008upward
trend, given the right federal and state investment incentives. Thus, our conclusions that
cleantechprojectfinanceshouldcontinuetoattractprivateinvestors,providedthatthefederal
andstategovernmentsputinplaceappropriateincentivesandprogramstomitigatethehigh
riskassociatedwithcleantechprojects.
Inordertocompleteanassetfinancing,multiplestructurescanbeutilizedincludingall
debtorallequityorsomecombinationsofdebtandequity.Projectfinanceissensitivetothe
riskreturnrelationshipashigherreturnonequityandrateofreturnwillberequiredtomatch
116
OnNovember20,2008allthethreeindicesplungedtotheirlowestlevels.
70
theriskinthetechnology.Inaddition,ifthecashflowassociatedwiththetechnologyisnot
predictable,theprojectriskishigherandinvestorswilldemandariskpremiumtoinvestinthe
technology.
The sources of a project cash flows come from cash and tax benefits generated from
federalandstateproductionorinvestmenttaxcredits,stateandlocalgovernmentincentives,
tax benefits from accelerated depreciation, renewable energy certificates (RECs) and the
projectrevenue.
The graph below shows the sustainable energy financing continuum. R&D and
technology development are respectively funded through government programs and venture
capitalandprivateequity,whilemanufacturingscaleupandassetfinance(orprojectrollout)
are financed through public equity markets, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), credit (debt)
marketsandcarbonfinance.117
Therefore, asset financing options which are available to cleantech projects include
public markets (stock exchanges and Initial Public Offerings IPOs), private equity (venture
capital, equity markets, hedge funds, federal agency stimulus packages, state incentives),
Mergers and Acquisitions (MAs), special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), and banks and
privatedebt.
117
Carbonfinanceisdefinedasaninvestmentvehiclethatseekseithertorepayinvestorsincarboncredits,ortouseincomefromsellingsuch
creditstogenerateorenhanceinvestmentreturns.Suchfundscaneithersimplybuycredits,orinvestintheunderlyingprojectsandclaimtitle
over emission reductions they generate. (http://www.carbonfinanceonline.com/index.cfm?section=glossary&letter=C). Another definition is
"anewbranchofenvironmentalfinance.Carbonfinanceexploresthefinancialimplicationsoflivinginacarbonconstrainedworld,aworldin
whichemissionsofcarbondioxideandothergreenhousegases(GHG)carryaprice.Financialrisksandopportunitiesimpactcorporatebalance
sheets,andmarketbasedinstrumentsarecapableoftransferringenvironmentalriskandachievingenvironmentalobjectives.Issuesregarding
climatechangeandGHGemissionsmustbeaddressedaspartofstrategicmanagementdecisionmaking.AccordingtoWikipediaasmentioned
by Garcia and Roberts (http://cbey.research.yale.edu/uploads/Carbon%20Finance%20Speaker%20Series/00%20Front%20Matter.pdf) " The
general term is applied to investments in GHG emission reduction projects and the creation (origination) of financial instruments that are
tradableonthecarbonmarket.
71
Figure17.TheSustainableEnergyFinancingContinuum
Source:GlobalTrendsinSustainableEnergyInvestment2009:AnalysisofTrendsandIssuesintheFinancingofRenewableEnergyandEnergy
Efficiency,p.9
Although the main sources of debt and equity for project finance are banks, capital
markets and private debt, federal and state government programs are of paramount
importance in cleantech project finance. In addition, many incumbent companies doing
businessinindustriesorsectorsdirectlyincompetitionwithcleantechnologiesmakestrategic
decisions driven by multiple factors (including competitive purposes, preservation of
monopolistic power, investment portfolio diversification purposes, diversification of the
generation portfolio, or simply taking advantage of advanced technologies (for example the
Smart Grid)) to heavily invest in cleantech projects. Examples are utility subsidiaries of
American Electric Power Company (AEP), Florida Power & Light (FPL), AES Corporation, oil
companies,andotherlargeenergycorporationssuchasGeneralElectric(GE)whicharetoday
amongtheleadersincleantechnologiesincludingcleanenergy.
OthersourceofcleantechprojectfinanceincludemonetizationofRECs,PowerPurchase
Agreements (PPAs), tax benefits and other revenue streams, longterm power price hedges,
financial hedges, equity financing driven by tax credit requirements, and other innovative
sourcesofprojectfinance,discussedbelow.118
118
MoredetaileddiscussionsofthistopicareofferedinEdwardKayukov:NewDevelopmentsInRenewableProjectFinance:IndustryGrowth
ForumPhiladelphia,PA;October2426,2006
72
More than $440 billion has been invested worldwide in cleantech since 2004, even
though the trend is down during the 20082009 recession. Asset finance continues to
constitutethelargestshareoftotalinvestment.CorporateM&Aandpublicmarketsarealso
majorprovidersofinvestmentincleantech,buttheircontributionsfluctuateovertime.Venture
capital investment represents the smallest source of investment, but its share is steadily
increasing.119
Globalassetfinanceofnewbuildcleanenergyprojectsgrewfrom$4.5billionin2001to
$84.5 billion in 2007 and to $97.7 billion in 2008. Global asset finance of newbuild energy
projects increased by 15.4% from 2007 to 2008 and experienced a compound annual growth
rate(CAGR)of62%from2004to2008.Assetfinancingnewinvestmentusingprojectfinance
grewfrom$1.5billionin2002(onethirdoftotal)to$48.5billionin2008(50%oftotal).Most
assetfinancingwenttowind,solarandbiofuelprojectsrespectively.
Thelargestsharewasprovidedthroughbalancesheetfinancingandsyndicatedequity,
buttheshareofprojectfinancegrewsteadilyoverthesameperiod,surpassingbalancesheet
financingsfrom2005to2007.
Newbuildwindprojectfinancingincreasedby16%during20072008from$41.3billion
in2007to$47.9billionin2008.Ontheotherhand,newbuildsolarprojectfinancingincreased
significantlyby84%from$12.1billionin2007to$22.1billionin2008.However,theybothfell
sharplyinthefirstquarterof2009followingthesharpdeclineofthemarketperformanceof
thecleantechindices.
The figure below shows that while total financing of renewable energy in the United
Statesgrewfrom$4billionin2004to$30billionin2007,decreasingto$26billionin2008,the
trendoffinancingisupward.Thedeclineinfundingin2008isduetoadeclineinpublicequity
financing from 2007 to 2008. During the period from 2004 to 2008, renewable energy asset
financeoftenrepresentedmorethan50%ofthetotalinvestment.Publicequityfinancingisthe
secondlargestproviderofinvestmentinrenewableenergy.Venturecapitalandprivateequity
provided the smallest share of total investment in renewable energy but its share is steadily
increasingduringtheperiod2004to2008.
119
CleanTechWebinarSeries:ThrivinginToughTimes:TheStimulusPlanand
CleanTechUnderObama,February26,2009,page24.SeealsoUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP):GlobalTrendsinSustainable
EnergyInvestment2009AnalysisofTrendsandIssues,page36.
73
Figure18.U.S.RenewableEnergyInvestment
Source:Lazard:RenewableEnergyFinancingEnvironment,February2009,page4.
Ananalysisofquarterlyfinancingdatabytechnologyshowsthatwindenergyreceiveda
lionsshareofthefunding,ashighas$4billioninthefirstquarterof2008outofatotalofless
than$5billion.Eventhoughtherehasbeenadeclineinfundingrenewabletechnologyfromthe
fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2008, wind energy continued to receive the
largest share of the funding. Biofuels asset finance received the second largest investment
amounts.Whilesolarassetfinancesurgedinthesecondquarterof2008,itcontinuestoreceive
negligiblefunding.Ingeneral,assetfinanceforrenewableenergyprojectsdeclinedsignificantly
from2007to2008,andmoresoforthelasttwoquartersof2008continuinginto2009.
Figure19.AssetFinancingNorthAmerica
Source:LeeWhite:FinancingRenewableEnergyinToday'sCapitalMarkets,page10.
http://www.gkbaum.com/renewableEnergy/CRES%20Presentation%20032009.pdf
74
AssetFinanceBeyondCapitalMarkets,VentureCapital,PrivateandPublicEquity,andDebtand
PrivateCapital.
Mergers,AcquisitionsandIPOs
Areviewofpublishedreportsshowsthatassetfinanceactivityhasnotbeenconfinedto
conventionalpublicandprivatecapitalandequities.Overtheyears,manycleantechcompanies
changed their capital structure through a number of cleantech M&A and IPO transactions.
Although M&A and IPO transactions and capital raised grew significantly from 2000 to 2008,
(seetables91,92and93)ascompaniessoughttodiversifyandacquirelowcarbongeneration
assets,expandgloballyandoffernewcleantechproductsandservices,2008and2009sawfew
suchtransactionsandlesscapitalwasraisedasaconsequenceoftheglobalrecession.
TaxIncentives
Forthedevelopmentofacleanenergysector,Carbonell120identifiedthefoundationsof
anewcleaneconomyasthepresenceofastrongandsustainabledemandfortheproduct,a
local labor pool and entrepreneurial support, adequate supply of capital, the presence of
complementary firms, and the presence of a positive cooperative regulatory and institutional
environment.
The following section discusses existing state and federal programs intended to
encourage investment in cleantech sectors. Many of the programs are open to different
projects and not specific for clean technology projects but are relevant in showing how
differentstateshaveimplementedpoliciestoattracteconomicdevelopmentprojects.
Thefederalandstategovernmentsdooffermanytaxincentivestosupportcleanenergy
development.Threeprevalenttaxoptionsthatstatesandlocalgovernmentshaveusedare1)
investmentorproductiontaxcredits,2)salestaxexemptionsand3)propertytaxexemptions.
InvestmentandProductionTaxCredits
Investment tax credits (ITCs) and production tax credits (PTCs) provide a way for
renewable energy system owners to reduce the cost of the system through a credit on their
personal or corporatestateincometaxes.Aninvestmenttaxcreditrepresentsashareofthe
systemcostwhileaproductiontaxcreditisbasedonmeasuredsystemoutput.
120
Source:Carbonell,Toms(YaleLawSchool):GettingAhead:NewOpportunitiesinCleanEnergy,page6.
75
ITCsandPTCsareeasytoadminister,easytomodify,buttheyprovideinsufficienttax
liabilityandtheycanhavenegativeimpactsonstaterevenuebecausetheyareopenendedand
canhaveagreaterthananticipatedimpactonstatetaxrevenue.
SalesTaxExemptions
Twenty six states currently offer state sales tax exemptions on the purchase of
renewableenergysystems.Theseexemptionsactasanupfrontdiscountonthepriceofthese
systems. Sales tax exemptions are easy to administer, but they are not a strong incentive.
Florida recently established a state production tax credit of $0.01/kWh from qualified
renewable energy technologies. However, the credit is limited to an aggregate amount of $5
millionperyearacrossallqualifyingprojects.121
PropertyTaxExemptions
Anumberofstatesofferpropertytaxexemptionsontheinstalledvalueofaresidential
or commercial renewable energy system. These exemptions do not typically extend to utility
scale projects. Property tax exemptions are easy to administer, do not raise tax burden, but
alone are not a strong incentive. The state of Florida does not offer a state property tax
exemptionprogram.
Although the state of Florida ranks 9th in the total number of programs offering
financialincentivestorenewableenergybusinesses,thestatedoesnothaveinplaceimportant
direct programs and incentives. In order to be more renewable energy friendly and create
more opportunities for economic development, the state of Florida should consider
implementing certain statesponsored programs in addition to the programs and incentives
alreadyinplace.Themajorityofcleanenergydevelopersbelievethatacombinationoflong
term carbon price, stable subsidies, higher targets and tax breaks is very important for
institutionalinvestors.
PublicBenefitFund
Statesusepublicbenefitfunds(PBFs)tosupportavarietyofrenewableenergyrelated
programssuchasR&D,renewableenergyeducationactivities,grants,loans,rebates,andmany
other activities. Though these clean energy funds, states are investing to stimulate cleantech
innovationandprojects.
121
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/energy/energyact/incentives.htm
76
Other roles played by state PBFs in states with RPSs include providing financial
assistancetorenewablegenerationprojects,servingastherecipientandmanagerofACPs,and
administering the RPS itself. Similarly, state PBFs are believed to have helped to encourage
resourcediversityinstateRPSpoliciesbyprovidingincentivestohelpbringdownthecostsof
highercostRPSeligibletechnologies.MostofthesebenefitswouldaccruetoFlorida,especially
ifastateRPSprogramisputinplace.
Many PBFs work by imposing a small, nonbypassable perkWh charge attached to the
distributionservicebill(typicallycalledasystembenefitchargeorpublicbenefitcharge).
Todate,21statesandtheDistrictofColumbiahavesetupsomesortofPBF.Seventeenhave
funds for renewable energy and for energy efficiency. Seven have funds just for energy
efficiency.
PBFGoals
1. To educate Floridians on the importance of energy efficiency and renewable energy
withinformationonreadilyavailableandcostsavingsolutions
2. ToprovidefinancialassistancetoFloridiansforthepurchaseandlongtermfinancingof
renewableenergysystemsandenergyefficiencyimprovements
3. To establish secure, longterm market conditions for investors, manufacturers, and
installationcontractorsforcreatingFloridajobs,achievinglowerinstallationcosts,and
raisingindustrystandards
4. To provide incentive packages for solar manufacturing companies that establish
factoriesinFlorida,therebyemployingFloridiansandeliminatinghighshippingcosts
TheProsofastatePBF
A PBF is a potentially flexible funding mechanism, depending on legislative

authorizations which can be used to fund R&D activities, loans, grants, rebates,
education,etc.
A PBF can be large enough to offer substantial funding support for cleantech projects
andhelpovercomecurrentbarrierstofinancingcleantechprojects
Aneutralpartyinsteadofaprofitseekingutilitydesignsenergyprograms
77
Provided at low cost to Floridians (usually, the PBF is funded through a small system
charge,usuallylessthan2millsperkWhpermonth)
APBFhaspublicsupportespeciallywhenitistransparenttoratepayers
TheConsofastatePBF
AstatePBFisoftenviewedasanothertaxonratepayers.
It is difficult to preserve social equity among regions and ratepayers when funds are
disbursedwithoutregardtothegeographiclocationsofutilityratepayers.
ItisdifficulttoexplaintoratepayershowtheywillbenefitfromastatePBF.
Costsoftheprogramandtoratepayerscouldescalateuncontrollablyifnohardcapis
set
SansstatelegislationprohibitingtheuseofaPBFtoclosestatebudgetgaps,aPBFcan
beraidedtoclosestatebudgetgapsorreducestatedeficits.
PropertyAssessedCleanEnergy(PACE)&EnergyFinancingDistrictsModels
AccordingtoMerrianC.Fulleretal.(September2009),EnergyFinancingDistricts(a.k.a
PropertyAssessedCleanEnergy(PACE),SustainableEnergyFinancing,CleanEnergyAssessment
Districts(CEAD),ContractualAssessments,orSpecialTaxDistricts)werefirstproposedbythe
CityofBerkeley,Californiain2007andhavereceivedincreasingattentionasamechanismfor
financing residential or commercial clean energy projects, including energy efficiency, solar
photovoltaic,orsolarthermalsystems.122Theseprogramsarealsocalledpropertytaxfinancing
authorization,municipalenergyfinancingdistricts,orlandsecuredfinancingdistricts.
EFDsorPACEprogramsallowpropertyownerstoborrowmoneytopayforrenewable
energyand/orenergyefficiencyimprovementsandoveraperiodofyearsthenrepaytheloan
(often at belowmarket rates) over a longterm period through an increased property tax
assessmentorutilitybill.ThismeansthatstateorlocalgovernmentsthatdecidetoofferPACE
programs must do so through an enabling legislation which will also create a structure to
122
MerrianC.Fulleretal.(RenewableandAppropriateEnergyLaboratoryRAEL):GuidetoEnergyEfficiency&RenewableEnergyFinancing
DistrictsforLocalGovernments,September2009,page
3. This report also discusses all the above programs and their strengths and weaknesses. The report also compares some Energy Financing
Districtswhichhavebeenimplementedaroundthecountry.
78
administertheprogramandmakesurethatthespecialpropertytaxassessmentisusedforthe
purposeintended.
Thus, these programs are based on the premises that efficiency improvements and
renewable power generation qualify as a public benefit worth funding by a state or local
government.
The structure of the program and the funding mechanism are straightforward: a
municipalityorastateraisesfundswithamunicipalorstatebondissuetofundhomeowners
cleanenergy(particularlysolar)andefficiencyprojects.Thebondholdersriskassociatedwith
thesefundsislowbecausetheloansarecollateralizedwiththeborrowershome.Astateor
localgovernmentenergyfinancingstructureallowspropertyownerstooptintoattachup
to100%ofthecostofenergyimprovementstotheirpropertytaxbill.Theassessmentruns
withthepropertyatlawandsuccessorownersareresponsibleforremainingbalances.123This
means that the financial obligation to repay the loan stays with the property, regardless of a
changeofownership.
Inorderfortheseprogramstobecostbenefitefficient,repaymenttermsshouldmatch
both the energy savings/energy generation and useful life of the asset. Also, these financing
programs can offer other financial incentives such as rebates and should not prevent a
homeownerfromacceptingotheravailablestateorfederaltaxincentives,includingtheability
todeducttherepaymentobligationfromfederaltaxableincome,aspartofthelocalproperty
taxdeduction.
The main strength of PACE and similar state orlocalgovernmentcleanenergyfundis
that they provide the initial capital needed for the homeowner to make a sound investment
decision.Otherbenefitsincludelongtermloansatfixedcostandreducedinterestrates;loans
whicharenottiedtothehomeownerscreditratingbuttiedtotheassetusedascollateral;a
transferable repayment obligation when the home is sold to new owners; and reduced
transactionscosts.Finally,theprogramsdonotleveragepublicdollarsandatthesametime
createalongtermloanrepaymentschedulewhichinturnallowstheborrowerstobenefitfrom
the programs and the state or local government to use the loan proceeds to fund additional
loansorforotheruses.
123
The White House: Policy Framework for PACE Financing Programs, October 18, 2009. See Policy Principles at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/PACE_Principles.pdf
79
Prior to 2009, only two states California and Colorado had passed legislation
authorizingpropertytaxfinancing.BerkeleywithitsFinanceInitiativeforRenewableandSolar
Technology (CityFIRST) program, launched in November 2008 and Palm Desert in California
were the first municipalities to implement a property tax assessment financing.124 As of
November 2009, 18 states authorize PACE: 16 states have authorized PACE legislation and 2
states(HIandFL)permititbasedonexistinglaw:CA,CO,FL,HI,IL,LA,OK,MD,NC,NM,NV,
NY,OH,OR,TX,VA,VT,WI.125
A variation in the structure of PACE programs is illustrated by the Portland model126
which is partially funded by federal stimulus dollars, in the form of an energy efficiency and
conservation block grant (EECBG), to provide $2.5 million in loans to homeowners to finance
efficiencyimprovements,notsolarinstallations.Inthismodel,borrowersrepaytheloanson
theirmonthlygasorelectricbillsinsteadofusingthepropertytaxassessmentmechanism.See
AppendixG.
1705FederalLoanGuarantee127
TheARRAextendsuntil2014taxcreditsforrenewableenergythathadpreviouslybeen
scheduled to expire and by providing $6 billion worth of loan guarantees authorized by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 for renewable electricity development. These loan guarantees are
expected to stimulate the deployment of conventional renewable and transmission
technologiesandinnovativebiofuelstechnologies.Forrenewableprojectstoqualifytheymust
beunderconstructionbySeptember30,2011.128
There is currently no state offering a loan guarantee program (LGP) for renewable
energy. Under the federal loan guarantee program projects applying for loan guarantees do
notnecessarilyneedtoemployneworsignificantlyimprovedtechnologies.
Before implementing a state LGP and in order to help mitigate risk to the state
taxpayers,werecommendthatthestateconductsananalysisofthefederalLGPandadoptsthe
124
Claudia Eyzaguirre andAnnieCarmichael:MunicipalPropertyTaxAssessmentFinancing:RemovingKeyBarrierstoResidentialSolar,Vote

SolarInitiative,October2008.Availableathttp://www.votesolar.org/linkeddocs/Solar%20Finance%20Paper_100808_Final.pdf
125
www.dsireusa.org/documents/.../PACE%20map%20Nov%202009.ppt
126
Portland(CleanEnergyWorks)www.cleanenergyworksportland.org/index.php
127Source:http://www.cooley.com/files/20090913_LoanGrntyEnrgyGen.html
TheLoanGuaranteeSolicitationAnnouncementcanbereadathttp://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/CTRE.pdf
128
EnergyInformationAdministration,AnUpdatedAnnualEnergyOutlook2009ReferenceCase,April2009.
80
followingrecommendationsthatthefederalGovernmentAccountabilityOffice(GAO)recently
issuedforimprovementofthefederalLGP:
Completedetailedinternalloanselectionpoliciesandproceduresthatlayoutrolesand
responsibilitiesandcriteriaandrequirementsforconductinganddocumentinganalyses
anddecisionmaking;
Clearlydefineneedsforcontractorexpertisetofacilitatetimelyapplicationreviews;
Amendapplicationguidancetoincludemorespecificityonthecontentofindependent
engineeringreportsandonthedevelopmentofprojectcostestimatestoprovidethe
levelofdetailneededtobetterassessoverallprojectfeasibility;
ImprovetheLGPsfulltrackingoftheprogramsadministrativecostsbydevelopingan
approachtotrackandestimatecostsassociatedwithofficesthatdirectlyandindirectly
supporttheprogramandincludingthosecostsasappropriateinthefeeschargedto
applicants;
Furtherdevelopanddefineperformancemeasuresandmetricstomonitorandevaluate
programefficiency,effectiveness,andoutcomes;and
Clarifytheprogramsequityrequirementstothe16companiesinvitedtoapplyforloan
guaranteesandinfuturesolicitations.
CleantechProjectFinance&ARRA2009
Most recently, the federal government enacted the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA 2009) which includes a number of incentives for energy
projects,specifically$43billioninexpendituresand$22billionintaxincentives.Themajority
ofthesefundsareforprojectsinearlycapital(advancedbatteryresearch)tomid/latecapital
stages (Smart Grid). Specifically for clean energy and clean technology projects, ARRA 2009
includes $6.0 billion for Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, $4.5 billion for
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Smart Grid), $3.4 billion for Fossil Energy Research
and Development, $2.0 billion for Advanced Battery Manufacturing, $2.5 billion for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment,
$3.1billionforStateEnergyProgram,$3.2billionforEnergyEfficiencyandConservationBlock
Grants.OtherARRA2009programsincludetaxcreditsandloanguaranteeprogramssuchasa
Modified Existing Energy Credit ($2.3 billion), Grants in Lieu of Tax Credits ($5 million),
81
Expanded Investment Tax Credit ($285 million), and Production Tax Credit Extension ($13.1
billion).
For tax incentives, the ARRA 2009 extends the Production Tax Credit, removes the
limitation on existing Business Energy Credit, expands Investment Tax Credit, creates a New
GrantinLieuofTaxCredit,createsaNewCreditforInvestmentinAdvancedEnergyProperty
andextendsBonusDepreciation(50%)through2010.
In addition, ARRA 2009 creates the Clean Energy Finance Authority (CEFA) which is
designedtopromoteacleanenergyfutureforAmerica.ARRA2009changedthetraditionalrole
played by the federal departments such as DOE, the Department of Agriculture, the
DepartmentofDefenseandothersinfinancingcleantechprojects.Thefigurebelowillustrates
thetraditionalroleoftheDOE.WithARRA2009,theroleoftheDOEmovedfromfundingR&D
and applied science to finance of technology investors and asset investors (for example,
financingtheSmartGrid).
The modified role of the federal government in cleantech asset finance provides an
importantbenefittothesociety:Itallowsincreaseddebtflowandimprovesequityflowingto
cleantech developers because an increased government role in cleantech increases the
confidence of private lenders and investors in the cleantech market. The following figure
illustratestheexpectedimpactofARRA2009onrenewableenergyprojectdevelopment.
WithoutARRA2009,cleantechdeveloperswerefacinglimitedcapitalfromlendersand
equitymarkets,resultinginfewerprojectsonline.Thedifferentfederalgovernmentincentives
willservetoliftthecapitalconstraintsandimprovethecapitalmarkets.
Usually, renewable energy projects have received funding through tax incentives
offered by both the federal and state governmentstorenewableenergygeneratingfacilities.
The most common tax credits used are the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit
(PTC)129andtheBusinessEnergyInvestmentTaxCredit(ITC).130
129
The federal PTC is 2.1 /kWh subject to availability of annual appropriations in each federal fiscal year of operation, and based on the
amountofelectricityproducedandsoldbythetaxpayerforqualifiedenergyfacilities;thecreditispaidannuallyfor10years.
Seehttp://apps1.eere.energy.gov/repi
130
ThefederalITCisataxcreditequalto30%ofthequalifiedprojectcostsforcertainqualified
renewableenergyprojects;thecreditispaidupfront.
Seehttp://www.energy.gov/recovery/48C.htm
82
Figure20.RoleofTheU.S.DOEinFinancingCleantech
Source:TechnologyCommercializationEnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyU.S.DepartmentofEnergyFebruary2009RETECHActing
AssistantSecretaryStevenChalkWendolynHolland,SeniorAdvisor,page8.
ForcleantechrelatedARRA2009funding,manyoftheprojectsfundedaremultistate
projectssuchthattheaggregatedatawasnotbrokenintotheindividualelements.Examplesof
suchmultistatefundingareSmartGridinvestmentgrantawardstotheMidwestIndependent
Transmission System Operator (MISO), PJM Interconnection (PJM) which are both regional
transmissionorganizations(RTO).Othersuchfundingisforutilitieswithaffiliatesoperatingin
differentstates.Forstatespecificprojects,thefollowingtablesillustrateshowmuchcleantech
relatedfundingthestateofFloridareceivedfromthefederalgovernmentin2009comparedto
thetopstatesreceivingthefundingineachcleantechcategory.
83
Figure21.ImpactsoftheFinancialCrisisandFederalLegislationonRenewableEnergyProject
Development
Source:PaulSchwabeetal.:RenewableEnergyProjectFinancing:ImpactsoftheFinancialCrisisandFederalLegislation,TechnicalReport,
NREL/TP6A244930,July2009,page12
Table18.TopStateswithMostARRACleantechFunding
MultiState
California
Michigan
Florida
Texas
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Nevada
Maryland
Mississippi
Ohio
$2,737,217,186
$476,688,707
$468,874,119
$414,142,173
$361,671,480
$309,587,026
$292,641,293
$208,402,362
$206,353,504
$163,269,680
$150,695,983
http://www.cooley.com/Cooley_Clean_Tech_Stimulus_Portal
The table above shows that the State of Florida received the third highest total ARRA
cleantechrelated funding and was only outperformed by the states of California and
84
Michigan.131Floridareceivedatotalof$414millioningrantsorapproximately6%oftheARRA
cleantechrelated funding. The states of Michigan, Indiana, Nevada, Maryland and Mississippi
outperformed other states in gaining ARRA cleantechrelated funding compared to their
respectivegrossstateproductrankings(Miat12th,INat18th,NVat31st,MDat15th,andMSat
35th).
The analysis below shows the states that received the most ARRA funding for specific
cleantechnologies:SmartGridprojects,SmartGridregionaldemonstrationandenergystorage
projects,electricdrivevehiclebatteryprojects,geothermalprojects,biomassprojectsandSBIR
STTRcleantechprojects.ThestateofFloridareceivedARRAcleantechrelatedfundinginallthe
categoriesexceptfortheSmartGridregionaldemonstrationandenergystorageprojects.The
federalgovernmentalsodistributed$298.5millioninARRAfundingforcleancities,butthere
wasnofundingreceivedbythestateofFlorida.
Table19.TopStateswithMostSmartGridInvestmentGrants
MultiState
Florida
Texas
Pennsylvania
California
Maryland
Nevada
Michigan
$1,359,748,037
$267,197,537
$257,194,844
$219,486,141
$203,010,487
$200,000,000
$138,000,000
$103,158,878
http://www.energy.gov/recovery/smartgrid_maps/SGIGSelections_Category.pdf
TheStateofFloridareceivedthemostdirectfundingforSmartGridinvestmentgrants
($267 million). This amounts to approximately 8% of the total ARRA funding of Smart Grid
Investmentsinallthestates.Thetableaboveshowsalargefundinggapbetweenthetopfive
states(FL,TX,PA,CAandMD)andthesecondtierstates.
The state of Florida received the third most direct funding for electric drive vehicle
battery grants ($95.5 million). This amounts to approximately 5% of ARRA funding for this
category. However, the state of Florida was not included in any of the multistate grants
distributedforthisfundingcategory.
131
ThismaynotbetrueafterthemultistateSmartGridInvestmentGrantAwardsaredistributedtothedifferentstates.ThestateofFlorida
wasonlyincludedinonemultistategrantaward,$164,527,160awardedtotheSouthernCompanyServices,Inc.,forthecompanysservice
territoryinAlabama,Florida,Georgia,Mississippi,NorthCarolinaandSouthCarolina.
85

Table20.TopStateswithMostElectricDriveVehicleBatteryGrants
MultiState
Michigan
Indiana
Florida
SouthCarolina
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Oregon
Louisiana
Arkansas
$1,044,100,000
$329,600,000
$270,600,000
$95,500,000
$50,100,000
$45,100,000
$40,600,000
$34,100,000
$21,000,000
$20,600,000
$12,600,000
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/pdfs/battery_awardee_list.pdf
The state of Florida received the fourth most directfundingforbiomassprojects($50

million), which is approximately 9% of ARRA funding for this category. This isasingleproject
presentedbyINEOSNewPlanetBioEnergy,LLCtoproduceethanolandelectricityfromwood
andvegetativeresiduesandconstructionanddemolitionmaterials.
Table21.TopStateswithMostBiomassGrants
Mississippi
Illinois
NewMexico
Florida
Louisiana
California
Oregon
Texas
Missouri
Hawaii
$131,134,686
$52,334,592
$50,000,000
$50,000,000
$50,000,000
$45,445,849
$25,000,000
$25,000,000
$25,000,000
$25,000,000
http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/564M_Biomass_Projects.pdf
Only $250,000 (rank = 35th) was received by Florida International University to gather
and analyze data to improve Geothermal Heat Pump (GHP) loop design and efficiency in
systemsintendedforuseinhotandhumidregionsofthecountry.
Additionally, ARRA 2009 included funding for breakthrough projects that could
fundamentally change the way we use and produce energy. A total of $151 million was
awardedtomultipleprojectsincluding$30.6millionforenergystorageprojects,$27.7million
86
for biomass projects, $21.8 million for solar projects, and $11.3 million for wind energy
projects.ThetablebelowshowsthatthestateofFloridareceivednofundingforbreakthrough
projects while the top 5 states received $94.8 million or 63 percent of all the funding for
breakthroughprojects.
Table22.TopStateswithMostGeothermalGrants
Nevada
Oregon
MultiState
Texas
California
Arkansas
NewYork
Colorado
Idaho
Tennessee
NewMexico
Florida
$70,252,935
$40,004,516
$34,360,371
$25,524,879
$24,481,202
$16,993,447
$13,711,321
$12,099,922
$10,190,110
$9,800,000
$7,045,834
$250,000
http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/338M_Geothermal_Project_Descriptions.pdf
Table23.ARRAFundingforBreakthroughProjects($Millions)
State
Solar
MA
Biomass
Energy
Storage
Vehicle
Technologies
12
Oil
&
Gas
Wind
CO
DE
28
31
OH
22
ALL
Water
Waste
Heat
Capture
FL
Carbon
Capture
CA
Geothermal
Building
Efficiency
17
33
21
18
14
11
Total
15
11
0
5
151
http://www.cooley.com/Cooley_Clean_Tech_Stimulus_Portal;
http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/ARPAE_Project_Selections.pdf
87
Table24.TopStateswithMostSBIR/STTRCleantechGrants
Massachusetts
California
Colorado
Florida
Pennsylvania
Texas
Delaware
Washington
NewJersey
Virginia
$3,718,248
$2,885,848
$1,493,594
$1,194,636
$747,947
$745,709
$600,000
$575,959
$449,995
$449,958
http://www.cooley.com/Cooley_Clean_Tech_Stimulus_Portal;www.energy.gov/media/SBIR_Awards_112309.pdf
The state of Florida received the fourth most direct funding for SBIR/STTR cleantech
related grants ($1.2 million), which is approximately 6.5% of SBIR/STTR funding for cleantech
projects. The Florida projects financed cover advanced building air conditioning and
refrigeration, thermal load shifting and cool roofs, advanced gas turbines and materials,
sensors,controlsandwirelessnetworks,andadvancedsolartechnologies.ThestateofFlorida
didnotreceiveanyfundingforprojectsdealingwithwaterusageinelectricpowerproduction,
powerplantcooling,advancedwaterpowertechnologydevelopment,andsmartcontrollersfor
SmartGridapplications.
ThefollowingtableprovidesasummaryofFloridascurrentsituationandtheassociated
funding or achievement gap. With the national VC recognition of cleantech as an attractive
market, Florida seems to be lagging far behind other states (e.g., CA, TX, MA, NY, etc. and
othersthatprimarilyhaveastateRPSinplace)andtheprivatesectorofVCisnotshowingthe
response to be expected from a normal, healthy economy that should react appropriately to
consumerdemandforcleantechproducts.
Table25.SummaryTableofFloridasCurrentSituationandAchievementGap
R&DTransition
TotalR&D
AcademicResearch
AverageAcademicDisclosures0206
AverageAcademicPatentApplications0206
2008UtilityPatents
AverageActiveAcademicLicenses0206
FL
FLRank
AllTechnologies
$6.34
$1.60
556
336
2046
515
Expected
Spending
Fundingor
AchievementGap
16 $17.10 $10,760
11 $2.70 $1,100
8
802
246
7
514
178
12
3517
1471
17
1440
925
88

AverageUniversityBasedStartups0206
EarlyCapitalStage
AverageSBIR/STTR0008
AverageEarlyVCFunding0008
AverageVCInvestments0008
FL
FLRank
16
7
$41.00
12
$118.00
14
$490.00
11
CleanTechnologies
R&DTransition
CleantechFieldsofAcademicR&D
$828.00
11
TotalCleanEnergyPatents0209
85
9
ARRAARPAEAwards09
$
EarlyCapitalStage
AverageSBIR/STTR0008
$3.60
11
AverageEarlyCapitalEnergy0009
$1.00
27
AverageEarlyCapitalEnvironmental0009
$1.10
16
AverageEarlyCapitalIndustrial0009
$0.10
24
ARRABiomassAwards09
$50.00
4
ARRASBIR/STTRAwards09
$1.20
4
AverageMid/LateCapitalEnergy0009
$21.40
14
AverageMid/LateCapitalEnvironmental.0009
$28.70
3
AverageMid/LateCapitalIndustrial0009
$0.44
23
ARRAGeothermalAwards09
$0.25
35
ARRABatteryAwards09
$95.50
3
ARRAAdvancedVehiclesAwards09
$
ProjectFinance
ARRASmartGridAwards09
$267.00
1
ARRAReg.SmartGridDemProjectsAwards09
$
CurrentAssetsand/orSystemInputs
R&DTransition
AverageAcademicPatentExpenses0206
$6.70
10
TotalPhD.Sci&Engineers06
17,630
13
TotalUniversityFaculty07
16,792
6
TotalTenureTrackFaculty07
9,375
7
Faculty/StudentRatio07
21
45
AverageAcademicLicenseAssociates0206
25
8
EarlyCapitalStage
NumberofAngelGroups07
5
9
FocusStateVCFunds
$29.50
14
AllfocusStateVCFunds
$
Early,MidandLateCapitalStages
Expected
Fundingor
Spending
AchievementGap
27
11
$87.00 $46.00
$471.00 $353.00
$1,278.00 $788.00
$1,366.00
245
$14.10
$6.60
$12.00
$5.60
$3.60
$50.00
$1.20
$58.10
$14.10
$9.00
$24.50
$50.10
$15.00
$203.00
$27.40
$538.00
160
$14.10
$3.00
$11.00
$4.50
$3.50
$
$
$36.70
$(14.60)
$8.56
$24.25
$(45.40)
$15.00
$(64.00)
$27.40
$10.00
32,400
19,926
10,450
15
43
9
$83.50
$100.00
$3.30
14,770
3,134
1,075
(6)
18
4
$54.00
$100.00
89

TotalVCFirmswithPrincipalOfficeinFL09
VCFirmsinFLwithaCleantechFocus09
AverageVCUnderManagement0008
CommitmentstoVCFunds0008
StateVCFundsbyTotalFundSize
ProjectFinance
StatePublicBenefitFundsforRenewables
FL
FLRank
33
3
$1,459.00
$165.00
$29.50
12
13
$17.00
$18.00
$21.00
Expected
Spending
107
17
$12,578.00
$1,713.00
$204.00
$444.00
Fundingor
AchievementGap
74
14
$11,119.00
$1,548.00
$174.50
$444.00
Source:Table10above
90
RegulatoryChanges
Author:
TedKury
Director,EnergyPrograms,UFPURC
TheRPSandItsEconomicImpact
ThepreviousRPS(alternativelyRES,forRenewableEnergyStandard)economicimpact
studies are encouraging. There are already success stories in the application of RPS in
enhancing employment, growth and environment. These are specified in Appendix H and
include:
Netmetering,interconnectionstandards,renewableportfoliostandards,taxincentives,
renewableenergyaccesslaws,andgenerationdisclosurelawsarethemostcommonly
implementedrenewableenergypolicieswithintheU.S.states.
Net metering, tax incentives, and renewable portfolio standards were the most
commonlyaddedstaterenewableenergypoliciesduringthepastyear.
Asmorepoliciesareimplementedonvariouslevels,policymakersmustpayincreasing
attention to the interactions between federal and state policies, as well as between
policiesofdifferenttypes.
A renewable portfolio standard, or the mandate to generate a set percentage of
electricityfromrenewableenergysources,isoftenviewedasanincentiveforrenewableenergy
production; this is not always the case. Such standards create markets for renewable energy
credits, but often create price ceilings for these credits. This price protection may provide
protectionsagainstmarketmanipulationandpricespikes,buttheyalsocreatedisincentivesfor
deployingrenewablegeneration.If,forexample,arenewableenergyrulecreatesapricecapof
$25/MWhforarenewableenergycredit,anenergyprovidercansimplypaythepricecapinlieu
ofproducingenergyfromrenewablesources.Thatis,ifanelectricityproducerhastochoose
betweenproducingfromcoalat$65/MWh,say,andbiomassat$110/MWh,theproducermay
choose to produce with coal and pay the $25/MWh cap for a renewable energy credit.132
Moreover,aproducerwitharegulatorymandatetoproduceattheleastcostwouldhaveno
132
Itshouldbenotedthatwiththeadditionofcostfactorsinthefuturesuchas:costofgreenhousegasemissions,andthatconventionalfuels
areagingandnewerfuelswillrequirecarboncaptureandcoalgasificationtechnologies,thiscurrentconditionwillsignificantlychange.
91
choice but to produce with coal and buy credits. Regulatory and technical factors such as
potentialcostsassociatedwithCO2emissionsandcarboncaptureandstoragetechnologyhave
thepotentialtochangethisrelationshipinthefuture.
An alternative, or more properly, an expansion, of the idea behind RPS is socalled
Clean,orAlternativeEnergyStandards(CESorAES).ThesestandardsexpandthescopeofRPS
to include other technologies that may be desirable from the states point of view. These
technologiesmaybealternativestothetraditionalwind,solar,andbiomasstechnologiesthat
donotemitCO2,suchasnuclearenergy.Theymayalsoincludeparochialfuels.Pennsylvania,
for example, includes energy generated from waste coal in its alternative energy standard.
Nevada includes electricity generated from waste tires. Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia all
includeelectricityproductionfromcleancoaltechnologiesintheircleanenergystandard,and
Ohioincludesnuclearpower.
Fromapolicyperspective,aRPSorCESisimplementedtoencouragetheconstruction
of generation that would not otherwise be constructed. This generation is generally not
constructed for economic reasons, that is, because it is not the most costeffective resource.
Accordingtothe2009LoadandResourcePlanfortheStateofFlorida,thecurrentandplanned
generatingunitsforthestatearesufficienttomeetthestatesprojectedloadgrowthforthe
nexttenyears,includingan18%to21%reservemargin,withoutimplementinganyofFloridas
load management programs. With these programs, Florida has a capacity reserve of 25% to
30%. This means that Florida doesnt really need additional generating resources to meet its
futureneedsatthistime,andthatanynewrenewableresourcewillbedisplacinganexisting
sourceofelectricity,whosefixedcostsarestillbeingbornebytheFloridaratepayer,regardless
ofwhethertheunitproduceselectricity.
Theeconomicimpactsofrenewableenergystandardsinindividualstatesaredifficultto
quantifyfortworeasons.First,manystatesimplementindustryincentiveprogramsinaddition
toRPSanditmaybedifficulttoseparatetheeffectsofindustryincentivesfromanysignalthat
it being given by an RPS. The state of Michigan, for example, enacted industry support
programs for attracting infrastructure investment before it established a statewide RPS. The
stateoffersataxcreditforupto25%ofthecapitalcostsassociatedwiththeconstructionofa
PV facility, or $15 million. Other states have implemented similar programs, and these
92
programsmaybeimplementedbeforeoraftertheestablishmentofRPS.Oregonsprogram,for
example,awards50%ofconstructioncostsupto$20million.Arizonaofferstaxcreditsof10%
of capital costs. Kansas offer credits up to $5 million in costs. Montana offers 50% tax
abatement for 15 years for all qualifying projects. Other states award capital directly to
renewable energy manufacturers. Maryland has offered $7 million in 2 funding cycles. New
Yorkoffers$1.5millionforeachproject,whileOhioawards$50,000to$2million.NewMexico
offersa5%creditforpurchaseofmanufacturingequipment.
Some of these incentives have resulted in ironic unintended consequences. Michigan
has been very aggressive in its pursuit of renewable energy manufacturers. But because the
manufactureofsolarpanelsandcomponentsissuchanenergyintensiveprocess,thedemand
for inexpensive, reliable electricity from Hemlock Semiconductor and Evergreen Solar
manufacturingplantsinMichiganhavenecessitatedtheconstructionofanew800MWcoal
firedgeneratingstation.Inaddition,thestateiscurrentlyconstructingtwomoresuchplantsto
servefuturegeneratingneeds.
ThesecondreasonthattheeconomicimpactsofRPSpolicyisdifficulttoquantifyisthat
RPSpolicyisrelativelyimmatureintheUnitedStates.Asaresult,availabledatamakeforensic
analysesdifficult.However,wemaybeabletolookatforensicstudiesofsimilarprogramsin
othermarketstogaugethepossiblesuccessoftheseprogramsintheUnitedStates.Europe,for
example, has supported green jobs programs since 1997, and we might be able to learn
somethingfromtheexperiencesofEuropeannations,despitethefactthatimplementationin
the European market has differed slightly from the planned implementation in the United
States. Gabriel Alvarez published a study in March of 2009 that caused considerable
controversy.133 Alvarez and his team conducted a forensic study of the effects of incentive
programs for renewable energy production in the electric market in Spain since 1997 and
arrivedattheconclusionthatforeveryfourgreenjobthatthegovernmentprogramscreated,
9traditionaljobsweredestroyedbytheallocationofgovernmentresources.Manyquestions
andaccusationshavebeendirectedtowardAlvarezforbothhismethodsandanyexistingbias
he may have harbored towards these government programs. His argument, however, is
essentially the crowding out argument that has existed in economic theory for over 200
133
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327employmentpublicaidrenewable.pdf
93
years. That is, that government spending in a market has a tendency to displace private
investment, and that government expenditure is not as efficient as creating value as private
investment. Thus, Alvarez argument isnotthat9jobsaredestroyed,butthatthesejobsare
notcreatedasaresultofthegovernmentspending.Whilehisfocusonopportunitycostshas
garnered his study much criticism, this does not mean that the opportunity costs of
governmentspendingshouldbesummarilyignored.
AstudybyUlrikeLehr134oftheGermanmarketconcludedthatemphasisonrenewable
energyhas,andwouldcontinuetoleadtonetbenefitstotheGermaneconomy.Butthestudy
has two interesting conclusions. First, that the cost of renewable energy would be partially
offsetbyarobustmarketpriceofCO2emissions,amarketthatdoesnotpresentlyexistinthe
UnitedStates.However,thecurrentadministrationhasexpresseditsdesiretoestablishsucha
market, and many states are currently preparing for one, and second, the value of export
markets in determining thebenefits.Lehrfoundthatitwasessentialtoexportmaterialsand
technology to fuel economic benefits to the system. The degree to which manufacturers in
Floridawillbeabletoexporttheirmaterialsandtechnologywilllikelyplayacriticalroleinthe
degreeofeconomicbenefitthatwillberealizedbythestate.
AnRPSforFlorida
A February 2, 2010 study by Navigant Consulting135 studied the impact of a national
RenewableElectricityStandard(RES)program.136Itsfindingsalsosupporttheimplementation
of a Florida RPS program in order to maximize economic development through job creation.
FindingsfromthereportpertinenttoFloridainclude:1)Thebiomass,hydropower,andwaste
toenergy industries would see significant job gains in the Southeast United States under a
strongnationalpolicy.Biomassjobswoulddouble,withmostoftheincreaseconcentratedin
Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Kentucky. 2) Specifically for the state of Florida, the
study found that without a national RES, Florida will gain up to 2,500 renewable electricity
supportedjobsbetweennowand2025.However,witha25%RESby2025,thestatewillsee
between 15,000 and 17,500 renewable electricity supported jobs. With a strong nearterm
target, Florida and Pennsylvania will see the largest job gains: between 5,000 and 7,500
134
http://www.ecomod.org/files/papers/148.pdf
NavigantConsulting:JobsImpactofaNationalRenewableElectricityStandard,February2,2010.
136
See:http://www.resalliance.org/public/RESAllianceNavigantJobsStudy.pdf.
135
94
additionaljobswillbesupportedby2014.A20%RESin2020willsupportbetween12,500and
15,000morerenewableelectricityjobsinthestatethanwithoutanationalpolicy.StrongerRES
targetswillmeanmorethan150,000jobyearsofworkby2025inthestateofFlorida.
Incentives to manufacturers and producers have the advantage of being largely
complementary at the federal, state, and local level. However, each type of incentive has its
own strengths and weaknesses, and these should be considered when crafting incentive
packages.Incentivescantakeoneoftwobasicforms,directpaymentssuchascapitalgrants,
deferred payments such as tax credits, or production credits such as subsidies and Feedin
Tariffs.Directpaymentswillhavethemostutilitytofirmsthatareunabletoraisecapitalinthe
capital markets. However, without investment or employment conditions on the grants,
monitoring of those conditions, and the legal recourse to rescind those grants, there is no
incentiveforthefirmreceivingthegranttoactuallyusethegrantinthemannerinwhichitwas
intended. Therefore, the costs of monitoring and nonperformance may serve to erode any
benefitassociatedwiththeprogram.Deferredpaymentssuchastaxincentivesmaynotdirectly
helpwiththeattractionofinvestmentcapital,butdorepresentaknownfuturerevenuestream
withwhichaninvestormaysecurefinancing.However,thesecreditssharemanyofthesame
drawbacks as direct payments in that investment and employment conditions may be
necessarytoensurethattheindustrialcustomerusesthetaxcreditinthemannerinwhichit
wasintended.
Table26.SummaryofStateIndustrialIncentivePrograms
State
Effective
Date
Arizona
1/1/2010
Connecticut
Florida(MiamiDade
Countyonly)
Hawaii
Applyby
9/30/10
7/1/01
Kansas
4/6/09
Maryland
Applyby
4/30/10
Massachusetts
1979
Michigan
9/11/08
Montana
5/25/07
IndustrialIncentiveProgram
Taxcreditofupto10%ofcapitalinvestment,providingemploymentandwage
conditionsarefulfilled
$10,000grantstoupto5smallfirmsannuallythatdevelopenergyefficient
technologies
Upto$9,000pernewjobcreatedbysolarthermalorphotovoltaicmanufacturer
orrepaircompany
100%taxcredit(upto$2,000,000)forqualifiedhightechbusiness
Upto$5,000,000forfinancingsolarorwindmanufacturingproject,subjectto
employmentandinvestmentconditions
Upto$7,000,000inARRAfundsforcleanenergydevelopmentprojects
100%corporatetaxdeductionfor5yearsonanyincomederivedfrompatents
deemedbeneficialforenergyconservationoralternativeenergydevelopment
25%ofcapitalcosts(notexceed$15,000,000,butoneprojectmayreceive
$25,000,000)oftheconstructionofaphotovoltaicmanufacturingfacility
50%propertytaxabatementfornewrenewableenergyproductionfacilities,
95
Effective
Date
State
NewJersey
NewMexico
7/1/06
NewYork
Ohio
6/12/07
Oklahoma
Oregon
6/20/08
Pennsylvania
7/9/08
Tennessee
7/1/09
Texas
1982
Utah
5/12/09
Virginia
1/1/96
Washington
IndustrialIncentiveProgram
newrenewableenergymanufacturingfacilities,orrenewableenergyresearch
anddevelopmentequipment
Upto$3,300,000ingrantsandloans,perproject,formanufacturingofenergy
efficientandrenewableenergyproducts
5%taxcreditonthepurchaseofmanufacturingequipmentforalternativeenergy
productsandcomponents
Upto$1,500,000ingrants,perneworexistingproject,formanufacturingof
energyefficientandrenewableenergyproducts
Awardsof$50,000to$2,000,000forprojectsthatcreateadvancedenergyjobs,
subjecttoemploymentconditions
$25persquarefootofrotorsweptareataxcreditforproducersofwindturbines
between1kWand50kW
50%taxcredit,upto$20,000,000,oftheconstructioncostsforafacilityto
manufacturerenewableenergysystems
Programofloansupto$5,000,000andgrantsupto$2,000,000todevelop
alternateenergyproductionandcleanenergyprojects
99.5%taxcredittomanufacturersofcleanenergytechnologies,subjectto
investmentandemploymentconditions
Franchisetaxexemptionforcompaniesengagedsolelyinthebusinessof
manufacturing,selling,orinstallingsolarenergydevices
Upto100%taxcreditofallnewstatetaxrevenuesforrenewableenergy
producersandmanufacturers
Grantofup$0.75perwattsoldforthefirsttwoyearsofoperationforsolar
panelmanufacturers.Grantamountis$0.50perwattforyears3and4,and
$0.25perwattforyears5and6.
43%reductionofbusinessandoccupationtaxformanufacturersandwholesale
marketersofphotovoltaicmodulesorsiliconcomponents
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?SearchType=Recruitment&EE=0&RE=1
Finally, there are a wide range of production credits that may be used. The two most
popularareunitsubsidiesandFeedinTariffs.Aunitsubsidysimplypaysacertainamountfor
unitofoutputfromaproductionfacility.AnexamplemightbetheSolarPilotProgramoffered
by the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC). Under this program, OUC offers production
credits of $0.03/kWh for electricity generated by solar thermal systems and $0.05/kWh for
electricitygeneratedbysolarphotovoltaicsystems.Thispayment,then,isusedbytheproducer
tosupplementthevalueotherwisederivedfromtheelectricity.Assuch,itfunctionstopaythe
produceroverandaboveamarketvalueoftheelectricity.FeedinTariffsliketheoneoffered
byGainesvilleRegionalUtilities;ontheotherhand,representapaymentfortheentirevalueof
the electrical output, typically above current market rates. Unlike a subsidy, a FeedinTariff
represents a long term, guaranteed, revenue stream that a project developer can use in
financialanalysestosecurefinancingforaproject,wheretherevenuefromaprogramunder
subsidy still depends on market conditions. Both programs share similar strengths. Since any
96
benefit to the producer accrues as production increases, any risk of nonperformance, or

volumetricrisk,isbornebytheproduceroftheelectricity.Sincetheproducerismorelikelyto
control this risk than the government, mosteconomistswouldagreethatthisisanequitable
risk allocation. A direct or deferred payment, however, allocates more of the risk of non
performancetothegovernmentagencyofferingthepayment.Theonlytypesofprogramsthat
couldnotcoexistwithanothertypeofprogramareFeedinTariffs,astheproducercanonly
sellitsoutputonce.
Manyrecentprojectshaveprimarilyreliedupondirectorindirectpaymentstoattract
investment.Aspreviouslynoted,thisplacestheresponsibilityofpropercontrolsandtheriskof
nonperformancefirmlywiththegovernmentagencyofferingthefunding.AstheNewJersey
experienceshows,thisburdenmayturnouttobequitesignificantasincentivepackagesmay
attractcompanieswithlittleornoexperienceintheindustry,simplychasingthedollarsigns.
PennsylvaniahastakenaproactiveapproachtotheirRPSprogram.AccordingtoClean
Energy States Alliance, the reason that Pennsylvania has been successful in developing their
windresourcesisearlyactionbysomeLoadServingEntities(LSEs)inthestatetoacquirewind
energyinanticipationthataRPSwouldbeenacted,andstrategicinvestmentsandproduction
incentive auctions by Pennsylvanias public benefit funds, in particular the Sustainable
DevelopmentFundofPennsylvania(SDF).Pennsylvaniasrelativelystreamlinedsitingprocess,
at least compared to other states in the northeast, also played a role. Pennsylvania relies on
localsitinganddoesnothaveastatesitingprocess.137
A package that combines direct or indirect payments with production incentives may
serve the dual purpose of attracting investment and mitigating the risk to the government
agency.
PolicyConsiderationsforFloridaRecentDevelopments
Thecompanies'decision(s)tolocatefacilitieselsewherehingedonotherstatessupport
forregionaldevelopmentofthemarketfortheirtechnologies.RenewablePortfolioStandards
or other mechanisms that allow utilities or consumers to earn a return on their investments
havebeenkeyelementssupportingthatmarketdevelopment.138
137
http://www.cleanenergystates.org/Publications/CESA_Progress_Report_Porter_NEMA_Regional_RPS_Dec2008.pdf,page19.
Sullivan,Jack.PersonalCommunication.January27,2010.
138
97
Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. (ECD): a leading manufacturer of thinfilm flexible solar
laminateproductsforthebuildingintegratedandcommercialrooftopmarketsrecentlymoved
to Battle Creek Michigan and set up a new 120MW solar cell manufacturing facility. Their
projectednumberofjobstobecreatedisestimatedtobe350jobsoverthenextthreeyears.
The economic incentives offered by the State, County and Battle Creek governments totaling
$120 million were key factors in their decision to select Battle Creek. The incentive package
included:
The Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) offered Michigan Business

Taxcreditsvaluedat$41.4millionover20years.
A $12.6 million Community Development Block Grant to fund infrastructure

improvementsforthenewplant.
The MEDCand city have supported a 15 year tax free Renaissance Zone and property
taxabatementsforthesiteworthanadditional$67milliontothecompany.
Additionalfundingfortrainingassistance.
MXUSA:asolarenergymanufacturingcompanyinsolarmodulemanufacturingcreatedfroma
joint venture of: MX Group SPA (a solar energy manufacturing company based in Northern
Italy)andIPPSolar(aleadingdeveloper,owner,andoperatorofphotovoltaicsolarsystemsin
theUnitedStates).Theyexpecttocreate260newjobs.ThenewMXUSAfacilityislocatedin
Millville, New Jersey. One factor involved in the MX USAs decision to locate in New Jersey
includedtheRPSof22.5%(by2020),whichwasrecentlyincreasedto30%by2020,asoutlined
intheStatesEnergyMasterPlan.TheincentivepackageforMXUSAincluded:
EconomicDevelopmentAuthoritysBusinessEmploymentIncentiveProgramcommitted
$2.4 million. The company will receive the funds as a rebate from the income taxes
generatedbythenewjobsproducedbytheplant.
Localincentives.
SuntechPower:asolarpanelmanufacturer,openingfirstAmericanplantinPhoenix,Arizona.
SunpowersdecisiontolocateinPhoenixwasbasedonshippingcosts.Thecompanyestimates
upto200jobswillbecreatedwhentheplantisfullyoperational.Suntechwasofferedasetof
strong incentives by the state of Arizona, and the company has applied for a 30 percent
investmenttaxcredit.
98
BP Solar and Jabil Circuit Inc.: Solar module assembly for the North American market. The
plant is located in Jabils plant, in Chihuahua, Mexico. This partnership dovetails with an
ongoingrelationshipwithBPSolarmodulemanufacturinginPoland(thatcoverstheEuropean
market) through manufacturing agreements. The Jabil plant in Mexico has proven to be very
reliableintheirtimetomarketforNorthAmericancustomerbase.
99
ConclusionsandRecommendations
Theeconomicimpactsofrenewableenergystandardsinindividualstatesaredifficultto
quantifyfortworeasons.First,manystatesimplementindustryincentiveprogramsinaddition
toRPSanditmaybedifficulttoseparatetheeffectsofindustryincentivesfromanysignalthat
it being given by an RPS. The second reason is that many state RPS policies are relatively
immatureintheUnitedStates.Asaresult,availabledatamakeforensicanalysesdifficult.
However, previous RPS economic impact studies are encouraging. There are already
successstoriesintheapplicationofanRPSenhancingemploymentandeconomicgrowth.An
analysis was conducted to determine the effectiveness of best practice design elements for
three individual policies: RPS, net metering, and interconnection. Some of the features of a
welldesigned RPS policy are found to significantly contribute to renewable energy
development when looked at individually; however, none of them can be combined into a
modelthatadequatelypredictsanyoftherenewableenergygenerationindicators.
OtherimportantRPSpolicydecisionsthatFloridashouldconsiderincludethefollowing:
FloridashouldevaluatetheimpactofanexplicitcostassociatedwithCO2emissionson
conventional fuels and generation costs and in mitigating the need for government
subsidizationormandateofcleanenergytechnologies,andtherelativeimpactofeither
programonshorttermenergycostsforconsumers.
RPSprogramswillnotnecessarilyleadtoincreasesincleanenergyproductionaslongas
thereisacaponthepriceofrenewableenergycredits.However,theabsenceofaprice
capputsconsumersatriskofpricespikesintheenergymarket.
Current tenyear site plans show that Florida has no need for additional generating
capacity beyond what is already planned for the next ten years, and producers are
therefore more likely to purchase renewable energy credits or offsets elsewhere. The
state might address the impacts of this situation with a comprehensive longrange
capacityplanundervariouscarbonpricingandtechnologyscenarios.
Conditions on capital investment and employment should accompany any incentive

programforcleanenergyproducersormanufacturers.
100

ExplorethePossibilitiesof139:
Expandingnetmeteringtoallutilities(i.e.,munisandcoops)
IncreasingcapacitycoveredbytheInterconnectionrulesfrom2MWto20MW140
Removingrequirementsforredundantexternaldisconnectswitchonlargersystems
Removinginterconnectionrequirementsforadditionalinsuranceonlargersystems
Expanding interconnection procedures to all utilities (i.e., munis and coops). (See
AppendixI).141
Thechiefbarriertocleantechprojectdevelopmentinthestateandthenationisthelack
ofsufficientinvestmentsinR&Dbyboththefederalgovernmentandprivateinvestorsinorder
toaddressthenationssupply,security,andsustainabilitychallenges.
Itisstillpossiblethatcleantechproductsarenotcompetingwithtraditionalalternatives
on a level playing field. Indeed, some cleantech investors believe that conventional
technologies such as coal, natural gas and petroleum regularly receive large government
subsidiesthatgivethemapriceadvantage,eventhoughthesetechnologieshavebeeninthe
mainstream for decades. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear received more government incentives,
includingtaxincentives,thanrenewableandgeothermalfuels,understandingthattraditional
sourcesproducethelionsshareofenergyintheU.S.
The State of Florida is lagging behind its expected historical relative performance in
funding all the stages of cleantech projects. There appears to be a glaring gap in resources
available to cleantech entrepreneurs at all stages of cleantech development in Florida as
comparedtostateswithsimilarpopulationsandGrossStateProduct.Floridadoesnotcompare
favorably in terms of amounts financed, current assets and/or system inputs, and academic
achievementrelatedtonewtechnologiesincludingcleantech.Moreover,fundingsuppliedto
all areas of venture creation has contracted, resulting in a more cautious venture capitalist
market and less innovation making it to commercial production. The current economic
landscape precludes Florida VCs from assuming the same risk profiles in their investment
139
See:www.freeingthegrid.org
Exploreatwotieredapproachbasedonutilityload;forexample,20MWmightbeachievableforIOUs,and5MWmightbemorefeasiblefor
munis.
140
101
portfoliosasinthepastdecadeanditappearsthattrueseedmoneyofasignificantamountis
verylimitedinFlorida.
However, during 2009, the state of Florida took advantage of the ARRA funding
opportunities for cleantech and other clean energy projects except for geothermal and wind
projects. In general, when considering the ARRA 2009 funding, the state of Florida
outperformeditsrelativepositionbasedonitsrankbyGrossStateProductexceptforfunding
ofgeothermalprojects.Shouldthistrendbesustainedinthefuture,Floridawouldbeableto
reducethefundingandachievementgapsoutlinedabove.142
In 20082009, FPL invested in 110 MW of solar capacity in Florida. This investment in
solarhasmovedFloridafromlastplace,tosecondinthenation(behindCalifornia).Thesolar
investmentwasaresultofthe110MWtranchethattheFloridalegislatureapprovedin2008.
This is a clear illustration that Florida utilities and investors interested in clean
technologies are interested in investing in clean energy in states with the right policy and
incentivesandwithappropriatemarkettoenableareasonablereturnoninvestment.Thisisan
indicationthatgivensimilarorbetterincentivesappliedtotherighttechnologies,thoseutilities
andotherinvestorsincleantechnologieswillinvestmoreinthestateofFlorida.
Although the State of Florida ranks 9th in the total number of programs offering
financialincentivestorenewableenergybusinesses,thestatecurrentlydoesnothaveinplace
importantdirectprogramsandincentives.Inordertobemorerenewableenergyfriendlyand
create more opportunities for economic development, the state of Florida should consider
implementing the following statesponsored programs in additional to the programs and
incentivesalreadyinplace:directstategrantsandloans,economicdevelopmentincentivesto
supportjobcreatingnewindustries,andproductionincentives.
WhilethisanalysisshowsthatthestateofFloridahasalotofgroundtocoverinhelping
cleantechnologydevelopersovercometheValleyofDeathfortheirprojects,manytoolshave
beendevelopedbyotherstatesandthefederalgovernmentovertheyearsofwhichthestate
cantakeadvantage.Thestateneedstomoreaccuratelyevaluatethebestcleantechnologies
with the greatest benefitcost ratio for support in Florida. In addition, an analysis of the
comparativeadvantagesthestatehasoverthemanyotherstateswhichhaveimplementedand
142
SeeTable46.
102
financially supported such technologies can help in making the final determination of which
cleantechnologywillthriveinthestate.
Clean technologies are unique. Funding mechanisms and incentives policies which
worked well with other technologies may not produce effective support to investors in clean
technologies. In order to overcome the main barriers to cleantech commercialization and
projectfinanceidentifiedinthisanalysis,thestateneedstolookatthosepolicesthatworked
wellforcleanenergyandrelatedsectors.
In addition to the programs recommended above, in order to help finance the high
upfront costs of clean technologies, the state of Florida should explore the development of
PowerPurchaseAgreements(PPAs),PACEandEECBGmodels,aGreenBank,CleanTechnology
VictoryBonds,TaxCreditBonds,StateLoanGuarantees,andCleanTechCityFunds.143Similar
modelshavebeenusedsuccessfullyintheU.S.andothercountries.Theseprogramshavegreat
potentialtofinanceandsustaincleantechnologyinthestate.Conditionsoncapitalinvestment
and employment should accompany any incentive program for clean energy producers or
manufacturers.
There is a need to harmonize and simplify federal and state policies related to
cleantech. This policy harmonization will bring certainty and reduce the perceived risk for
entrepreneursandinvestorsalike.Companiesarelookingforthestatetosetthemarketfor4
5 years" through incentive programs in order to justify coming to Florida (justification to not
onlytheirmanagementteams,butalsototheirinvestors).Asmorepoliciesareimplemented
on various levels, policymakers must pay increasing attention to the interactions between
federalandstatepolicies,aswellasbetweenpoliciesofdifferenttypes.
The State of Florida has the advantage not to reinvent the wheel of cleantech
commercializationandprojectfinance,butatthesametimemayfacehigherstartingcoststhan
leading states. A number of other states (e.g., CA, TX)havegainedcompetitiveadvantageby
making first moves in technology, product or marketing innovation. They have also created
new market demand for cleantech products and have created a financial, fiscal, social and
political environment conducive to new cleantech ventures, at the same time attracting new
cleantechinvestmentsawayfromstateslikeFloridawhicharestartingtosetupnewpolicies
143
Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder, Clean Edge Inc.: Five Emerging U.S. Public Finance Models: Powering CleanTech Economic Growth andJob
Creation,October2009.
103
and incentives for cleantech projects. If Florida chooses to pursue clean technologies as an
economic development opportunity, now is the time to benefit from a global procleantech
environment, with fundamentally strong federal support and a growing penetration of
cleantechcompaniesinthecapitalmarkets.
Incentives to manufacturers and producers have the advantage of being largely
complementaryatthefederal,state,andlocallevel.Thedesignofanincentivepackagemust
consider, among other things, the strengths and weaknesses that each type of incentive
packagemighthave.
In order to maximize the benefits associated withthe opportunities offered by an
increaseinfederalfundingofcleantechatallstages,thestateshouldevaluatethepossibilities
of making net metering and interconnection standards the best in the nation. Florida
shouldbalancetheimplementationofthebestnetmeteringandinterconnectionpracticeswith
thepotentialincreasedcoststoconsumerssuchimplementationwouldhaveintheshortterm.
Thestate'sgoalsshouldbetoimplementthebestnetmeteringandinterconnectionstandards
and at the same time, put in place state policies to alleviate the short term increase in rates
associated with such policies. The improved net metering and interconnection standards
shouldexplore the possibilities toexpand net metering and interconnection standards to all
utilities(i.e.,munisandcoops)throughanoptinprocess,toincreasecapacitycoveredbythe
Interconnection rules to a level that provide the greatest incentive for investors, to remove
requirements for redundant external disconnect switch on larger systems, andtoremove
interconnectionrequirementsforadditionalinsuranceonlargersystems.
Task1
RecommendtotheFloridaEnergyandClimateCommissionwhetherthestateshould
(1) renew the current incentives asis (2) renew the current incentives with technical
changesandreviewoffundinglevels,or(3)allowthecurrentincentivestosunset.
Theresultsoftheanalysisshowthatthesunsettingprogramshavehadvaryingdegrees
of success and must be analyzed on an incentivebyincentive basis. The following chart
analyzeseachsunsettingactivity:
104
Table27.CurrentIncentiveProgramsandRecommendations
Program
Category
SolarRebate
StateCorporate
TaxIncentives
RenewableSales
TaxExemptions
Renewable
Energy
TechnologyGrant
Program
Availabilityin
Florida
SolarEnergy
SystemIncentives
Program
ExpiresJune2010
FEECAutility
programs
StateCorporate
taxincentives
Renewable
EnergyProduction
TaxCredit,Expires
June2010
Renewable
Energy
Technologies
InvestmentTax
CreditExpiresJune
2010
Renewable
EnergyEquipment
SalesTax
ExemptionExpires
June2010
SolarEnergy
SystemsEquipment
SalesTax
Exemption
ExpiresJune2010
Recommendation
Amend:expiration
date,decreasethe
subsidyand
considerimpactof
FEECA.Linkto
project
performance
Continueand
Amend:Only
availableto
commercial
Continueand
Amend:Include
Residential
Continueand
Amend:Include
residential,remove
hydrogenvehicles
andstations
Continueand
Amend:No
expirationdate
Continuethe
programasis
Pros
Supportmarket
transformation
Adjustable
Provideupfront
capital
Lowadministrative
burden
Easytoadminister
Easytomodify
Cons
Createrebate
dependency
Canbeeconomically
inefficient
Notlinkedtoproject
performance
Easytoadminister
Notastrongincentive
Continueand
Amend:
Investment/loan
programinsteadof
grant.
Investment/Loan
Program
Loweradministrative
requirements
Leverageprivate
capital
Leveragestatefunds
Buildlender
confidence
Supportinnovative
projects
Investment/Loan
Program
Relianceonprivate
lenders
Defaultrisk
Narrowtargetmarket
Insufficienttax
liability
Impactonstate
revenue
Maynotbethebest
incentiveforeach
technology
In order to be more renewable energy friendly and create more opportunities for
economic development, the state of Florida should consider implementing certain state
sponsoredprogramsinadditiontotheprogramsandincentivesalreadyinplace.Themajority
105
of clean energy developers believe that a combination of longterm carbon price, stable
subsidies,highertargetsandtaxbreaksisveryimportantforinstitutionalinvestors.
The state has limited resources and those resources need to be spent in a way that
leverages as much private capital as possible and is equitably distributed among as many
Floridiansaspossible.Programscalledpropertytaxfinancingauthorization,municipalenergy
financing districts, or landsecured financing districts have received increasing attention as a
mechanism for financing residential or commercial clean energy projects, including energy
efficiency, solar photovoltaic, or solar thermal systems. Some of the pros and cons of these
programsareoutlinedbelowintheTask4recommendation.
In order to increase the state share of funding from the current ARRA 2009 and any
futureextensionofthefederalstimulusprogram,thestateshouldconsiderthefollowing:
Identify specific areas of R&D that match state objectives and the expertise of Florida
universitiesandresearchinstitutes.
Through a cleantech advisory committee coordinate efforts to pursue ARRA cleantech

relatedfunds.
Consider a partnership with the private sector to provide matching research dollars as
incentivestopursueresearchinstrategicareas.
Create a system to channel through and coordinate cleantechrelated workforce

developmentfunding.
Partnerwithprivatecompaniestopromoteresearchanddevelopmentofhybridvehicles,
advanced batteries, advanced fossil energy technology (including coal gasification),
hydrogen fuel cell technology, advanced nuclear energy facilities, carbon capture and
storage, efficiency enduse energy technologies, production facilities for fuel efficient
vehicles, pollution control equipment, and oil refineries using state tax credits or other
supportiveincentives.
106
FederalIncentivesPros/Cons:
Ourrecommendationforfederalincentiveswouldbeacombinationofupfront(grant,
loan or tax) incentives and performance based measures. Up front incentives have the
advantage of providing a funding source and they dont require monitoring. Performance
basedincentivesrequireacompanytoactuallyfulfilltheirpromises,althoughtheydorequire
monitoringandenforcement,ifthecompanyfailstoperform.
UpFrontIncentives
Pros:
Canbeusedasasourceoffinancingtosecureadditionalcapital
Noongoingoversightresponsibilityforgovernmentagency
Totalincentiveamountispredictable
Provideimmediatebenefitforproducer
Cons:
May be no incentive to perform as promised performance risk allocated to

government
Duediligenceonrecipientiscritical
PerformanceorVolumeBasedIncentives
Pros:
Recipientmustperformorproducetoreceiveincentiveperformanceriskallocatedto
producer
Incentiveamountperunitofproductionispredictable
Notasmuchduediligenceofrecipientrequired
Cons:
Cannotbeusedasasourceoffinancingtosecureadditionalcapital
Requiresoversightfromregulatororgovernment
Requireslegalrecoursetodenyorrevokeincentive
107
Recommendations
In order to increase the state share of funding from the current ARRA 2009 and any future
extensionofthefederalstimulusprogram,thestateshouldconsiderthefollowing:
Identify specific areas of R&D that match state objectives and the expertise of Florida
universitiesandresearchinstitutes.
ThroughacleantechadvisorycommitteecoordinateeffortstopursueARRAcleantech
relatedfunds.
Considerapartnershipwiththeprivatesectortoprovidematchingresearchdollarsas
incentivestopursueresearchinstrategicareas.
Create a system to channel through and coordinate cleantechrelated workforce

developmentfunding.
Partner with private companies to promote research and development of hybrid

vehicles, advanced batteries, advanced fossil energy technology (including coal
gasification), hydrogen fuel cell technology, advanced nuclear energy facilities, carbon
capture and storage, efficiency enduse energy technologies, production facilities for
fuel efficient vehicles, pollution control equipment, and oil refineries using state tax
creditsorothersupportiveincentives.
Task2
Recommend to the Florida Energy and Climate Commission how to cater non
sunsettingexistingincentivestothecleantechnologysector
Maximizingthebenefitsassociatedwithanincreaseinfederalfundingofcleantechatall
stageswillrequirethestatetoimplementthebestnetmeteringandinterconnectionstandards.
Thestate'sgoalsshouldbetoimplementthebestnetmeteringandinterconnectionstandards
and at the same time, put in place state policies to alleviate the short term increase in rates
associated with such policies. The improved net metering and interconnections standards
shouldexplore the possibilities toexpand net metering and interconnection standards to all
utilities including municipal and cooperative utilities through an optin process, toincrease
thecapacitycoveredbytheinterconnectionrulestoalevelthatprovidesthegreatestincentive
for investors, to remove requirements for redundant external disconnect switches on larger
108
systems, andtoremove interconnection requirements for additional insurance on larger

systems.
A major incentive for clean energy project finance would be to calculate the full
avoided costs in Section 366.051 of Florida Statutes based on the actual cost of renewable
energy generation and provide a reasonable rate of return in order to make clean energy
projectsprofitable.Thenewfullavoidedcostsformulawouldbebasedonthetypeofclean
energyresourceortechnology,potentialcarbonemissionreduction,thesizeoftheplant,the
resourceintensityoftherenewableenergyplant,thetimeofdayinwhichgenerationoccurs
(i.e.,peakoroffpeak),andthegeographiclocation.
Anotherincentiveistoenablecleantechdeveloperstoeffectivelyrecoverinvestments
incleantechprojectsatthefullyavoidedcostsoftheprojects.
PotentialImpactforFlorida
Pros
Helpimprovethefueldiversityofthestateselectricutilities
Reductionofairpollutionandgreenhousegasemissions
Enhancethestatesgreenjobcreationandeconomicdevelopment
Allowcustomerstoproduceandsellexcesspowertoutilities
Allow customers to effectively manage theirenergy consumption. Mitigate price

volatilityinthepowersector
Encouragegreaterrenewableenergygeneration
Increaseenergyindependence
Cons
Provideasubsidyforproductionofrenewableenergy
Increasedratesforconsumers
Consumerslacksufficientknowledgeofthepowermarket
HighEducationandMarketingexpenses
Thereliabilityofthedistributionandtransmissioncouldbecompromised
Complicatedbillingsystemforsmallutilities(i.e.,munisandcoops)
109
Table28.IncentiveProgramsandTheirAvailabilityinFlorida
ProgramCategory
Rebates
DirectLoans
FeedInTariffs
StateTaxIncentives
SalesTaxExemptions
ProductionIncentive(*)
AvailabilityinFlorida
SolarEnergySystemIncentivesProgram
ExpiresJune2010
Plusutilityprograms
PACEFinancingNONECREATED
http://www.floridaspecialdistricts.org
Utilityoffered
CityofTallahasseeUtilitiesSolarand
EfficiencyLoans
ClayElectricCooperative,IncEnergy
ConservationLoans
ClayElectricCooperative,IncSolar
ThermalLoans
GainesvilleRegionalUtilitiesLow
InterestEnergyEfficiencyLoanProgram
OrlandoUtilitiesCommission
ResidentialSolarLoanProgram
TheGainesvilleRegionalUtilitiesSolar
FeedInTariff
StateCorporatetaxincentives:
RenewableEnergyProductionTaxCredit
RenewableEnergyTechnologies
InvestmentTaxCredit
RenewableEnergyEquipmentSalesTax
Exemption
SolarEnergySystemsEquipmentSales
TaxExemption
Offered
GainesvilleRegionalUtilitiesSolar
FeedInTariff
OrlandoUtilitiesCommissionPilot
SolarPrograms
Recommendation
Amend:expirationdate
Linktoprojectperformance
Revisetoincludebestpractices
LegislationtorequireIOUstooffer
program
Investigate
Onlyavailabletocommercial
IncludeResidential
Includeresidential
MakeNOexpirationdate
Continuetheprogramasis
InvestigatepartnershipwithIOUs
ImplementafterastateRPSis
implemented
Task3
RecommendtotheFloridaEnergyandClimateCommissionaportfolioofprogramsto
decreasefinancialbarrierstocleansectortechnologycommercialization.
Although the State of Florida ranks 9th in the total number of programs offering
financialincentivestorenewableenergybusinesses,thestatecurrentlydoesnothaveinplace
certain important direct programs and incentives. In order to be more renewable energy
friendlyandcreatemoreopportunitiesforeconomicdevelopment,thestateofFloridashould
consider implementing certain statesponsored programs in addition to the programs and
incentivesalreadyinplace.Themajorityofcleanenergydevelopersbelievethatacombination
110
oflongtermcarbonprice,stablesubsidies,highertargetsandtaxbreaksisveryimportantfor
institutionalinvestors.
If Florida chooses to pursue clean technologies as an economic development
opportunity, now is the time to benefit from a global procleantech environment, with a
fundamentallystrongfederalsupportandastrongperformanceofcleantechcompaniesonthe
capitalmarket.Thefollowingareproposedincentiveprogramsthatthestateshouldinvestigate
orimplementinordertodecreasefinancialbarrierstocleantechcommercializationandproject
finance.
Table 29. Pros and Cons of Each Portfolio of Programs To Decrease Barriers To the
CommercializationoftheCleanTechnologySector
Program
Category
Rebates
DirectLoans
Recommendation
Pros
Cons
SolarEnergySystemIncentives
Program
ExpiresJune2010
Plusutilityprograms
PACEFinancingNONECREATED
SeveralUtilityofferedprograms
Amend:
expirationdate
Linktoproject
performance
Supportmarket
transformation
Adjustable
Provideupfrontcapital
Lowadministrative
burden
Createrebatedependency
Canbeeconomicallyinefficient
Notlinkedtoproject
performance
Revisetoinclude
bestpractices
Legislationto
requireIOUsto
offerprogram
Reduceupfrontcost
barriers
Improveuponstandard
Canofferbelowmarket
interestrates
Longerrepaymentterms
Increasemarket
confidence
Preservationofcapital
Canbeatbelowmarket
interestrates
Canoffermoreflexible
repaymenttermsthan
privatelenders
ReduceriskandIncrease
marketconfidence
Lowadmin.Costs
Statesubsidizesinterest
rateofferedbyprivate
lenders
Stateneedsnotfundthe
capital
Statedoesnotbear
projectrisk
Statepartners(not
compete)withprivate
lenders
Similartointerestrate
buydown
Limitedcosttostate
Limitedadministrative
costsandoversight
Nolegislationneeded
Avoidupfrontcost
barriers
Usedwithother
incentives
Increaseleveraging
Requirehighinitialcapital
Requirehighadministrative
costs
Mayimpacttaxcredit
Matchingloans
Notoffered
Implement
InterestRate
Buydown
Notoffered
Investigate
LinkedDeposits
Notoffered
Investigate
LEASES
Notoffered
Investigate
Relianceonprivatelenders
Mayimpacttaxcredit
Relianceonoutsidelenders
Outsidelendersbear
underwritingrisks
Mayimpacttaxcredit
Requireactivemarketing
Transferdifficulties
111
Program
Category
LoanGuarantees
Recommendation
Pros
Cons
Notoffered
Implement
Providenoupfrontcapital
Defaultrisk
Narrowtargetmarket
RPSSetaside
andRECs
Notoffered
Implement
StateTax
Incentives
StateCorporatetaxincentives:
RenewableEnergyProductionTax
Credit,and
RenewableEnergyTechnologies
InvestmentTaxCredit
SalesTax
Exemptions
RenewableEnergyEquipmentSales
TaxExemption
SolarEnergySystemsEquipment
SalesTaxExemption
Onlyavailableto
commercial
Include
Residential
Include
residential
MakeNO
expirationdate
Continuethe
programasis
Investigate
partnershipwith
IOUs
Implement
followingastate
RPS
Loweradministrative
requirements
Leverageprivatecapital
Leveragestatefunds
Buildlenderconfidence
Supportinnovative
projects
Drivetechnology
deployment
Providetechnology
specificsupport
Reduceneedforrebates
Reduceadministrative
burden
Easytoadminister
Easytomodify
Easytoadminister
Notastrongincentive
Noupfrontsupport
Needlongtermsupport
AggregatorsofRECsgain
Insufficienttaxliability
Impactonstaterevenue
Requirelongtermpower
Easytoadminister
purchaseagreement
Drivestechnology
MusthaveaCreditWorthy
deployment
PurchasersofProjectOutput
Supportmarket
RequiresanRPS
transformation
Requiresupfrontincentiveto
Encouragelargescale
workasintended
renewableenergyprojects.
Appearnottotrigger
offsetstothefederal
productiontaxcredit(PTC)
PublicBenefit
Notoffered
Investigate
Flexiblefunding
Viewedasanothertax
Fund(PBF)(*)
mechanism
Doesnotpreservesocialequity
Upfrontfundingsupport
amongregionsandratepayers
Ratepayersdonotunderstand
Anotforprofitseeking
itsbenefits
entitydesignsenergy
Costsoftheprogramcouldbe
programs
veryhighifnohardcapisset
Lowcosttoconsumers/
Couldberaidedbyastateto
ratepayers
closestatebudgetgapsunless
Haspublicsupportif
prohibitedbylaw.
transparenttoratepayers
Source:CharlesKubertandMarkSinclair:DistributedRenewableEnergyFinanceandPolicyToolkit,CleanEnergyStatesAlliance,December
2009.(*)Addedbyauthorsofthisreport.
Production
Incentive(*)
Offered
GainesvilleRegionalUtilitiesSolar
FeedInTariff
OrlandoUtilitiesCommissionPilot
SolarPrograms
Additionally, a number of recommendations are offered for consideration to reduce

barrierstocommercializationandprojectfinance,including:
R&DStage
112
Support the Innovation Caucus initiative to increase SUS funding and provide
universityGAPProgramfunding.
Build R&D partnerships with industry by expanding the Florida High Tech Corridor
CouncilmodelfocusedoncleantechacrossFlorida.
EarlyStageCapital
Allow angel & corporate investors to earn a transferable corporate income tax
liabilitycreditforqualifiedhighriskearlyventureinvestment.
MidtoLateStageCapital
ExpandtheFloridaOpportunityFundtoinvestinprecommercializedcleantech.
Enhancethestatesroleasapurchaserofcleantech(e.g.energyefficiency).
ProjectFinance
Enactpolicytodrivecleantechmarketdemandasoutlinedinthereport.
Partnerwithcorporateleadersandotherstoestablishaspecialpurposefundwhich
can be used in loan guarantee programs, longer term grants to support
commercializationofcleantechnologies,andothersimilarpurposes
Authorize Florida to partner with DOE to access the Section 1705 Loan Guarantee
ProgramthatcouldhelpFloridasecure$400800millionoffederalloanguarantees
Task4
RecommendtotheFloridaEnergyandClimateCommissionwhethertopursueanRPS
An RPS package that combines direct or indirect payments with production incentives
willservethedualpurposeofattractinginvestmentandmitigatingtherisktothegovernment
agency.Thepreviouseconomicimpactstudiesareencouraging,althoughitcanbedifficultto
distinguish the policy effects of RPS from the effects of economic incentives. While an RPS
increasesthedemandfortargetedrenewableenergyproductsandservices,reducesthecarbon
footprint of electricity in a state and reduces the need for rebates, it does not provide much
neededupfrontcapital,almostcertainlyleadstohigherelectricitypricesandplacesadditional
administrative and oversight burden on a state. Unlike a state RPS, a CES (or Clean Energy
Standard) expands the scope of available energy technologies to include nuclear energy.
Nuclearpowerisconsideredacleanenergyandgeneratesalargeamountofenergy,buthas
113
some limitations such as the uncertainty associated with the disposal of nuclear waste. The
prosandconsofimplementationofanRPSorCES,areoutlinedbelow.
Pros:
Increasesdemandforrenewableenergyproductsandservices
Abilitytotargetfavoredtechnologies
Reducestheneedforrebates
Cons:
Almostcertainlyleadstohigherelectricityprices,whichmayincreasethecoststo
existingandprospectivebusinesses
Favoredtechnologiesmaynotprovetobethemosteffectiveinthelongrun
Costcapscouldresultinproductionoflessrenewableenergythananticipated
Eligibilityofenergyefficiencytoqualifyunderthestandardmayreducetheamountof
renewableenergyproduced
RenewableEnergyCreditmarketplacesadditionaladministrativeandoversightburden
ongovernment
Doesnotprovideupfrontcapitalsupportandrequiresalongtermsupport/contractin
ordertobesuccessful
RecommendaCleanEnergyStandard(CES)
Pros:
Expandthescopeofavailabletechnologiestomeetcleanenergyneeds
Increasesdemandforcleanenergyproducts
Federalassistancefornuclearpowerisincreasingandmorepeopleareacknowledging
itspartinalowemissionsfuture
Cons:
Nuclearpowerisnotwidelyviewedasenvironmentallyfriendly
Mayneedtoaddresslongtermstorageissueforspentfuel,asfederalprogramshave
notadvanced
Almostcertainlyleadstohigherelectricityprices,whichmayincreasethecoststo
existingandprospectivebusinesses
Costcapscouldresultinproductionofuncertainamountsofrenewableenergy
114
RenewableEnergyCreditmarketplacesadditionaladministrativeandoversightburden
ongovernment
There are currently six states that have a CES. Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia all
allow electricity production with clean coal. There are no standards on the amount of CCS
(carbon capture sequestration), though. Ohio and New Mexico allow nuclear. Nevada allows
wastetires,andPennsylvaniaallowswastecoal.
AsuccessfulRPSshouldbesupportedbyinterconnectionstandardsandnetmeteringpolicies
whichprovidesufficientincentivestoinvestorsandtosmallandlargeconsumers.
NetMeteringBestPractices:144
Allownetmeteringsystemsizelimitstocoverlargecommercialandindustrial
customersloads;systemsatthe2MWlevelarenolongeruncommon.
Donotarbitrarilylimitnetmeteringasapercentofautilityspeakdemand.
Allowmonthlycarryoverofexcesselectricityattheutilitysfullretailrate.
Specifythatcustomersitedgeneratorsretainallrenewableenergycreditsforenergy
theyproduce.
Allowallrenewabletechnologiestonetmeter.
Allowallcustomerclassestonetmeter.
Protectcustomersitedgeneratorsfromunnecessaryandburdensomeredtapeand
specialfees.
Applynetmeteringstandardstoallutilitiesinthestate,socustomersandinstallers
fullyunderstandthepolicy,regardlessofserviceterritory.
RecommendationforFlorida:Expandnetmeteringtoallutilities(i.e.,munisandcoops)
BestPracticesinInterconnectionProceduresByTheLeadingState:VA
Setfairfeesthatareproportionaltoaprojectssize.
Coverallgeneratorsinordertocloseanystatefederaljurisdictionalgapsinstandards.
144
TheleadingstateswiththebestpracticesinnetmeteringincludeCO,DE,MD,NJ,CA,OR,PA,FL,UT,
CT,andAZ.
115
Screenapplicationsbydegreeofcomplexityandadoptplugandplayrulesfor
residentialscalesystemsandexpeditedproceduresforothersystems.
Ensurethatpoliciesaretransparent,uniform,detailedandpublic.
Prohibitrequirementsforextraneousdevices,suchasredundantdisconnect
switches,anddonotrequireadditionalinsurance.
Applyexistingrelevanttechnicalstandards,suchasIEEE1547andUL1741.
Processapplicationsquickly;adeterminationshouldoccurwithinafewdays.
Standardizeandsimplifyforms.
RecommendationsforFlorida:
Increasecoveredcapacitytogreaterthan2MW145
Removerequirementsforredundantexternaldisconnectswitchonlargersystems
Removerequirementsforadditionalinsuranceonlargersystems
Expandinterconnectionprocedurestoallutilities(i.e.,munisandcoops)
Task5
RecommendtotheFloridaEnergyandClimateCommissioneffectivedemandsideincentives
Recognizing the importance of providing the right financing incentive, the federal
government created through ARRA 2009 the Clean Energy Finance Authority (CEFA) which is
designed to promote a clean energy future for America. States around the country have also
created similar programs. PropertyAssessed Clean Energy (PACE), an emerging cleantech
financingprogram,isquicklybecomingakeyincentiveforresidentialandcommercialproperty
owners to invest in cleantech projects. Although existing Florida laws permits municipalities
andcountiestocreatespecialdistrictsforfinancingprojectsthatservethepublicpurposeand
benefitthemunicipalityorcounty,asofJanuary2010,nocountiesormunicipalitiesinFlorida
havecreatedsuchspecialdistrictsforPACEfinancingprograms.TheFloridaLegislatureshould
investigate barriers to properly functioning PACE programs, through an analysis of existing
successfulPACEmodelsinotherstates.
Many states around the country are also developing innovative financing mechanisms
designed to help finance the high upfront costs of clean technologies. The state of Florida
145
Exploreatwotieredapproachbasedonutilityload;forexample,amaximumof20MWmightbeachievableforIOUs,and5MWmightbe
morefeasibleformunis.
116
should explore the development of those financing mechanismswhichincludeaGreenBank,

Clean Technology Victory Bonds, Tax Credit Bonds, State Loan Guarantees, energy efficiency
and conservation block grant (EECBG) models, Cleantech City Funds and Public Benefit Funds
(PBF).
Asnostateloanguaranteeprogram(LGP)currentlyexists,FloridaLGP,ifimplemented,
should be modeled after the federal LGP. In order to improve the implementation of a state
LGP and to help mitigate risk to the state taxpayers, we recommend that an analysis of the
federal LGP be performed to determine improvements to a similar program for Florida and
adoptstherecommendationsthatthefederalGovernmentAccountabilityOffice(GAO)recently
issuedforimprovementofthefederalLGP.
ProsofastatePBF
APBFisapotentiallyflexiblefundingmechanism,dependingonlegislative
authorizationswhichcanbeusedtofundR&Dactivities,loans,grants,rebates,
education,etc.
APBFcanbelargeenoughtooffersubstantialfundingsupportforcleantechnology
projectsandhelpovercomecurrentbarrierstofinancingcleantechprojects
Aneutralpartyinsteadofprofitseekingutilitydesignsenergyprograms
LowcosttoFloridians(usually,thePBFisfundedthroughasmallsystemchargeusually
lessthan2millsperkWhpermonth)
APBFhaspublicsupportespeciallywhenitistransparenttoratepayers
ConsofastatePBF
AstatePBFisoftenviewedasanothertaxonratepayers.
Itisdifficulttopreservesocialequityamongregionsandratepayerswhenfundsare
disbursedwithoutregardtothegeographiclocationsofutilityratepayers.
ItisdifficulttoexplaintoratepayershowtheywillbenefitfromastatePBF.
Costsoftheprogramandtoratepayerscouldescalateuncontrollablyifnohardcapis
set
UnlessastatelegislationprohibitstheuseofaPBFtoclosestatebudgetgaps,aPBFcan
beraidedbyastatetoclosestatebudgetgaps.
ProsofPACEFinancing
117
PropertyOwner:
Lowerenergybillsandsubstantiallyreducedupfrontcostsforenergyretrofits
Improvedreturnoninvestment/positivecashflowonretrofits(annualsavings>cost)
StateofFlorida,Cities&Municipalities:
Significantjobcreation
Acceleratesmovementtowardenergyindependence&reducesGHGemissions
Promoteenergyefficiencyimprovementsinbuildings
Maketheshifttorenewableenergymoreaffordable
ReduceenergycostsforFloridaresidentsandbusinesses
Verylowfiscalcost&highprobabilityofsuccess
Nocreditorgeneralobligationrisk
Obligationisliabilityofrealestateowner
Greenhousegasreductions/energyindependence
Optin:Onlythoserealestateownerswhooptinpayforit
ExistingMortgageLenders:
Borrowerscashflow/creditprofileimproves(energysavings>annualtaxcost)
Property/collateralvalueincreases
Lender:
Virtuallynoriskoflossaspropertytaxliensareseniortomortgagedebt
97%ofpropertytaxesarecurrent&lossesarelessthan1%
ConsofPACEFinancing
Legalandadministrativeexpensestosetup
Slowerturnaroundforfinancing,moreappropriateforlargerprojects
Someresistancebylenderswhosepriorityinbankruptcymaybereduced.
Lackofinformationformanycustomerswhodonotknowhowtoimplementenergy
efficiencyorsolarenergy,andmaynotunderstandthebenefitsofaproject.
Uncertaintyofsavingsashomeownersandbusinessesmaynottrustthatthe
improvementswillsavethemmoneyorhavetheotherbenefitsclaimed.
118
Splitincentives(whenthedecisionmakerdoesnotreceivemanyofthebenefitsofthe
improvements).
Transactioncostsbecauseofthetimeandeffortrequiredtogetenoughinformationto
makeadecision,applyforfinancing,andarrangefortheworktobedonewhichmay
simplynotbeperceivedasworththereturninenergysavingsandotherbenefits.
Initialcapitalinvestmentwhichmaydeterinvestment,eitherbecausetheresidentor
businessownerdoesnothaveaccesstocapitalortheychoosetomakeotherhigher
priorityinvestments.
Lengthofpaybacksashomeownersandbusinessownersmaynotwanttoinvestin
comprehensiveretrofitsiftheydonotplantostayinthebuildinglongenoughtorecoup
theirinvestment.
1705FederalLoanGuaranteePrograms
There is currently no state offering a loan guarantee program (LGP) for renewable
energy. Under the federal loan guarantee program projects applying for loan guarantees do
notnecessarilyneedtoemployneworsignificantlyimprovedtechnologies.
TheProsofaloanguaranteeprogram146:
LowerAdministrativeRequirements:Thestatedoesnothavetoadministerafullloan
program.Loanunderwritingandapprovalisdonebyaprivatelender,althoughthestatestill
mustapprovetheloanguarantee.
LeveragesPrivateCapital:Aloanguaranteeprogramdoesnotcompetewithbut,rather,
assistscommercialbanks.
LeveragesStateFunds:Aloanguaranteeprogramsignificantlyleveragesavailablestate
funding,asmuchas10:1orhigher.
BuildsLenderConfidence:Loanguaranteeshavehighvaluetobanksmakingloansfor
unknown/unproventechnologiesandduringperiodsoftightcredit.Further,theguaranteed
portionsofloansareremovedfrombanksbalancesheets,providingthemwithgreaterlending
capacity.
CharlesKubertandMarkSinclair:DistributedRenewableEnergyFinanceandPolicyToolkit,CleanEnergyStatesAlliance,December2009.
146
119
SupportsInnovativeProjects:Loanguaranteesareparticularlyvaluableforprecommercial
orinnovativetechnologiesinwhichtheperceivedlendingriskisgreater.
TheConsofaloanguaranteeprogram
ProvidesNoUpfrontCapital:Loanguaranteesdonotreducetheupfrontcapitaltothe
projectowner/developer(althoughtheymayfacilitateahigherloanamountorimproved
terms).
RelianceonPrivateLenders:Theprojectownerstillmustfindalenderwillingtounderwrite
theloan.Thiscanstillbechallengingforlargeorriskierprojects,evenwithaloanguarantee.
DefaultRisk:Programadministratorsmustunderstanddefaultriskandsetasideappropriate
fundsasareserveagainstthesedefaults.
NarrowTargetMarket:Loanguaranteesarebestsuitedforlargeprojects,ratherthan
individualdistributedgenerationprojects.
InordertoimprovetheimplementationofastateLGPandtohelpmitigaterisktothe
state taxpayers, we recommend that the state requests an analysis of the federal LGP to
determine improvements to a similar program for Florida and adopts the following recent
recommendationsthatthefederalGovernmentAccountabilityOffice(GAO)recentlyissuedfor
improvementofthefederalLGP:
Completedetailedinternalloanselectionpoliciesandproceduresthatlayoutrolesand
responsibilitiesandcriteriaandrequirementsforconductinganddocumentinganalyses
anddecisionmaking;
Clearlydefineneedsforcontractorexpertisetofacilitatetimelyapplicationreviews;
Amendapplicationguidancetoincludemorespecificityonthecontentofindependent
engineeringreportsandonthedevelopmentofprojectcostestimatestoprovidethe
levelofdetailneededtobetterassessoverallprojectfeasibility;
ImprovetheLGPsfulltrackingoftheprogramsadministrativecostsbydevelopingan
approachtotrackandestimatecostsassociatedwithofficesthatdirectlyandindirectly
supporttheprogramandincludingthosecostsasappropriateinthefeeschargedto
applicants;
120
Furtherdevelopanddefineperformancemeasuresandmetricstomonitorandevaluate
programefficiency,effectiveness,andoutcomes;and
Clarifytheprogramsequityrequirementstothe16companiesinvitedtoapplyforloan
guaranteesandinfuturesolicitations.
121
References
lvarez,GabrielCalzada.March2009.StudyoftheEffectsonEmploymentofPublicAidtoRenewable
EnergySources.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327employmentpublicaidrenewable.pdf
AssociationofUniversityTechnologyManagers(AUTM).August2008.DatasetonGapAnalysis.
Retrievedfrom:http://www.autmsurvey.org/statt/index.cfm
Beck,F.andMartinot,E.2004.RenewableEnergyPoliciesandBarriers.EncyclopediaofEnergy,CutlerJ.
Cleveland,ed.,2004.
BingamanBill.Jan2010.Retrievedfrom:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueItems.View&IssueItem_ID=1921e893
aa534d048ca5f79d3b1a6a1b
Bolinger,Mark.PropertyTaxAssessmentsasaFinanceVehicleforResidentialPVInstallations.Lawrence
BerkeleyNationalLaboratoryandCleanEnergyStatesAlliance,2008.Retrievedfrom:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/cases/propertytaxfinance.pdf
CapitalVector.2010.The2010VentureCapitalDirectory.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.capitalvector.com/
Carbonell,Toms.April2009.GettingAhead:NewOpportunitiesinCleanEnergy,page5.
Case.YaleLawSchool.
Carmody,J.andRitchie,D.InvestinginCleanEnergyandLowCarbonAlternativesinAsia.Asian
DevelopmentBank,p.61.
Chalk,StevenandHolland,Wendolyn.February2009.TechnologyCommercializationEnergyEfficiency
andRenewableEnergyRETECH.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.Page8.
Chapple,AliceandWalia,Ved.2006.ForumfortheFutureCleanCapitalFinancingCleanTechnology
FirmsintheUK.Retrievedfrom:http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0FB454FF157448C3
82942C212E39A0BA/0/SUS_WorkshopReportJuly06.pdf
Christensen,JesperLindgaard.June2009.GreensRushIn:CleantechVentureCapitalInvestments
ProspectsorHype.RetrievedFrom:http://gin.confex.com/gin/2009/webprogram/Paper2287.html
CityofBerkeley.2007.BerkeleyFIRST:FinancingInitiativeforRenewableandSolarTechnology.Office
ofEnergyandSustainableDevelopment.Retrievedfrom:
www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=26580
CleantechGroupHeslinRothenbergFarleyandMesitiP.C.2008.DatafromCleanEnergyPatentGrowth
Index.Retrievedfrom:http://cepgi.typepad.com/heslin_rothenberg_farley_/
CleantechGroupLLCDatabase.2010.DataonCleantechNetwork,DealFlowsandFinancingof
CleantechIndustrries.Retrievedfrom:http://Cleantech.com/research/databases.cfm.
122
ComparisonofUSAGovernmentIncentivesforEnergyDevelopment,19502006.GraphicIllustration..:
WhyCleanEnergyPublicInvestmentMakesEconomicSenseTheEvidenceBase.Ananalysisofthe
connectionbetweengovernmentcleanenergyspendingandvariousmeasuresofeconomichealth,
2009,pagevi.
CooleyGodwardKronishLLP.2010.CooleyCleanTechStimulusPortal:SmartGridDemoandEnergy
Storage.Retrievefrom:http://www.cooley.com/Cooley_Clean_Tech_Stimulus_Portal
CooleyGodwardKronishLLP.2010.CooleyCleanTechStimulusPortal:CleanCities'RecoveryAct&
Awards.Retrievedfrom:http://www.cooley.com/Cooley_Clean_Tech_Stimulus_Portal
Cory,K.,Couture,T.andKreycik,C.March2009.FeedinTariffPolicy:Design,Implementation,andRPS
PolicyInteractions.NRELTechnicalReport.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45549.pdf
DatabaseofStateIncentivesforRenewablesandEfficiency(DSIRE).2009.Federal
Incentives/PoliciesforRenewables&Efficiency.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?state=us&re=1&EE=1
DatabaseofStateIncentivesforRenewablesandEfficiency.2009.TableonRenewablePortfolio
StandardsbyStateasofNovember2009.Retrivedfrom:
http://www.dsireusa.org/summarymaps/index.cfm?ee=1&RE=1
DatabaseofStateIncentivesforRenewables&Efficiency(DSIRE).2009.Summarymaps.Retrieved
from:http://www.dsireusa.org/summarymaps/index.cfm?ee=0&RE=1
DepartmentofEnergy.2009.Energy.gov:ARPAEAwards.Retrievedfrom:
DepartmentofEnergy.2010.ABOUTSBIR/STTR.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.science.doe.gov/sbir/aboutSBIR.html
Dooley,J.J.October2008.GraphicIllustrationonU.S.VentureCapitalInvestmentsInCleantech:1995
2007.TrendsinU.S.VentureCapitalInvestmentsRelatedtoEnergy:19802007.PacificNorthwest
NationalLaboratory.
DowJonesFinancialInformationServices.Retrievedfrom:
http://fis.dowjones.com/products/venturesource.html
Dow Jones. Graphic Illustration on Top States Receiving VC Funding for Early Capital Stage.
Retrievedfrom:http://fis.dowjones.com/products/venturesource.html
DowJones.GraphicIllustrationonVCInvestmentsInMid/LateStageForNY,FLandOH,20002009.
Retrievedfrom:http://fis.dowjones.com/products/venturesource.html
Duderstadt,J.etal.February2009.BlueprintforAmericanProsperityUnleashingthePotentialofaMetropolitanNation,p.14,Metropolitan
PolicyatBrookings.
123
Duryea,M.August2008.BioenergyatUF/IAFSPowerPoint:DataonCapitalExpendituresatShareholder
OwnedPublicUtilities.Retrievedfrom:
E2SHBImplementationTeam.May2008.InitialWashingtonGreenEconomyIndustryListRetrieved
from:http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/contentpub/GreenDigest/WANAICSIndustryList.pdf
ENF.CN.Jan2010.ScheutenSolarUSAReceives$3MillionsGovernmentalFunding.Retrievedfrom:
http://news.enf.cn/en/news/news_12832.html
EnergyConversionDevicesSelectsBattleCreekSiteforitsNext120MegawattSolarCellManufacturing
Plant.ElectronicDocument.Retrievedfrom:
http://investor.shareholder.com/ovonics/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=340384
Energystar.gov.January2010.FederalTaxCreditsforConsumerEnergyEfficiency.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index
EnterpriseFlorida,Inc.February2009.FloridaKeyIncentivesfortheCleanEnergySector.Retrieved
from:http://www.bdb.org/clientuploads/PDFs/CleanEnergyIncentives.pdf
EnvironmentalLawInstitute.September2009.EstimatingU.S.GovernmentSubsidiestoEnergySources:
20022008,p.3.
Environmental Law Institute. September 2009. Energy Subsidies Black, Not Green. Retrieved from:
http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf
EuropeanBusinessAngelNetwork(EBAN)ToolKit.June2009.GraphicIllustrationEquityGapAtEach
StageOfDevelopment.IntroductionToBusinessAngelsAndBusinessAngelsNetworkActivitiesIn
Europe.p.19.
ExecutiveOfficeofthePresidentNationalEconomicCouncilOfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy.
September2009.AStrategyforAmericanInnovation:DrivingTowardsSustainableGrowthandQuality
Job,pp1922.
Eyzaguirre,C.Carmichael,A.October2008.MunicipalPropertyTaxAssessmentFinancing:Removing
KeyBarrierstoResidentialSolar,VoteSolarInitiative.Retrievedfrom:http://www.votesolar.org/linked
docs/Solar%20Finance%20Paper_100808_Final.pdf
FaireStudy.2010.Greentechmedia.RetrievedFrom:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/
FloridaEnergyandClimateCommission.Jan2009.CleanEnergyGrantSolicitationDocument.Florida
CleanEnergyGrantProgram.
FloridaEnergyandClimateCommission.2010.ARRAFundingandOpportunities.Retrievedfrom:
http://myfloridaclimate.com/climate_quick_links/florida_energy_climate_commission/arra_funding_an
d_opportunities
124
FloridaHouseofRepresentativesBill.2008.ABilltoBeEntitled.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2008/House/bills/billtext/pdf/h713503er.pdf
FloridaLegislature.June2008.Chapter2008227:HouseBillNo.7135.Retrievedfrom:
http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2008227.pdf
FloridaOpportunityFund.2010.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.floridaopportunityfund.com/HomePage.asp
FloridaRenewableEnergy.PotentialAssessment. 2008.DraftReport.PreparedforFloridaPublic
Service Commission, Florida Governors Energy Office, and Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.NavigantConsulting.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/utilities/electricgas/RenewableEnergy/Full_Report_2008_11_24.pdf
Frick,K.June2009.MakingSolarPanelsRequiresOldFashionedCoalFiredPower.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.mlive.com/news/baycity/index.ssf/2009/06/making_solar_panels_requires_o.html
Fuller,M.May2009.EnablingInvestmentsinEnergyEfficiency.Energy&ResourcesGroup,UCBerkeley.
Retrievedfrom:www.ucciee.org/energyeff/documents/resfinancing.pdf
Fuller,M.Kunkel,C.Kammen,D.September2009.GuidetoEnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy
FinancingDistrictsforLocalGovernments,p.12.RenewableandAppropriateEnergyLaboratory(RAEL).
UCBerkeley.Retrievedfrom:http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/berkeleysolar/HowTo.pdf
GainesvilleRegionalUtilities(GRU).2010.GreenEnergy:SolarFit.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.gru.com/OurCommunity/Environment/GreenEnergy/solar.jsp
Galbraith,Kate.November2009.ChineseSolarPanelFirmtoOpenPlantinArizona.NewYorkTimes.
Retrievedfrom:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/business/energyenvironment/17solar.html
GoldmanD.P.,McKennaJ.J.andMurphy,L.M.October2005.FinancingProjectsThatUseCleanEnergy
Technologies:AnOverviewofBarriersandOpportunities.NationalRenewableEnergy
Laboratory.TechnicalReportNREL/TP60038723.
GreenIdeasEnvironmentalBuildingConsultants.2010.Glossary.Retrievedfrom:
GrantThorntonLLP.2010.NavigatingtheCleantechStimulus:AnExecutiveChecklist,p.1415.
Retrievedfrom:
http://www.grantthornton.com/portal/site/gtcom/menuitem.91c078ed5c0ef4ca80cd8710033841ca/?v
gnextoid=adc330c3e2be2210VgnVCM1000003a8314acRCRD&vgnextfmt=default
Kalianin,ore.AQuestionofStrategy:ToBeaPioneeroraFollower?Communications,p.90.
Kayukov,Edward.October2006.NewDevelopmentsinRenewableProjectFinance.IndustryGrowth
ForumPhiladelphia,PA.
125
KerryBoxerBill.Jan2010.CleanEnergyJobsandAmericanPowerAct.Retrievedfrom:
http://kerry.senate.gov/cleanenergyjobsandamericanpower/pdf/bill.pdf
Kooley,Godward,KronishLLP.2010.DOELoanGuaranteeProgramSitesandAwards.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.cooley.com/files/20090913_LoanGrntyEnrgyGen.html
Kubert,CharlesandSinclair,Mark.December2009.DistributedRenewableEnergyFinanceandPolicy
Toolkit.CleanEnergyStatesAlliance.
Lazard.June2008.LevelizedCostofEnergyAnalysisVersion2.0.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/2008%20EMP%20Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%2
0%20Master%20June%202008%20(2).pdf
ManagementInformationServices,Inc.2009.WhyCleanEnergyPublicInvestmentMakesEconomic
SenseTheEvidenceBase.Ananalysisoftheconnectionbetweengovernmentcleanenergyspending
andvariousmeasuresofeconomichealth,pagevi.
McLaren,J.2009.StateoftheStates2009:RenewableEnergyDevelopmentandtheRoleofPolicy
National.RenewableEnergyLaboratory.
MerrillLynch.November2008.CleanTechnologyTheSixthRevolution:TheComingofCleantech.
MinistryofForeignAffairsofJapan.2009.JapanVideoEncyclopedia.Retrievedfrom:
Murley,JamesF.OverviewoftheFloridaEnergy&ClimateCommissionsStatutoryResponsibilities.
MyFlorida.Com.2010.RenewableEnergyTaxIncentives.Retrievedfrom:
http://myfloridaclimate.com/climate_quick_links/florida_energy_climate_commission/state_energy_ini
tiatives/renewable_energy_tax_incentives
NationalAssociationofSeedandVentureFunds.March2008.StateSupportedVCFunds.Retrieved
from:http://www.nasvf.org/pdfs/VCFundsReport.pdf
NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology(NIST).November2002.BetweenInnovationand
Invention:AnAnalysisofFundingforEarlyStageTechnologyDevelopment,p33.
NationalScienceFoundationDatabase.November2009.DataonScienceandEngineeringProfiles.
Retrievedfrom:http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10302/
NationalVentureCapitalAssociation.2009.GraphicIllustationonCleanTechnologyInvestmentsby
Year.Retrievedfrom:
NationalVentureCapitalAssociation.2009.VariousTablesonVentureCapitalInvestments/Funds.
Retrievedfrom:
126
NationalVentureCapitalAssociation.DataonPrivateEquityBackedMergersandAcquisitionsbyYear.
Retrievedfrom:
NavigantConsulting.GlobalTrendsinSustainableEnergyInvestment2009:AnalysisofTrendsandIssues
intheFinancingofRenewableEnergyandEnergyEfficiency,p.9.
Retrievedfrom:
http://sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/publications/Executive_Summary_2009_EN.pdf
NewJerseyBoardofPublicUtilities.Oct2009.NJBPUJoinsOtherStateandLocalOfficialsAnnouncing
NewSolarManufacturingFacilityinMillville.PressRelease.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.state.nj.us/bpu/newsroom/news/pdf/20091026.pdf
NewYorkCityInvestmentFund.January2007.Cleantech:ANewEngineofEconomicGrowthforNew
YorkState.RetrievedFrom:http://www.nycif.org/pdfs/CleantechReport.pdf
NGACenterforBestpractices.2009.DataonAngelGroupsbyStatewithAngelITCPrograms
NotedfromNGAData.Retrievedfrom:http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0802ANGELINVESTMENT.PDF
NYSEEuronext.GraphicIllustrationonCleantechIndexUSAndNEXIndexComparedtoS&P500Index.
OfficeoftheGovernor,StateofFlorida.July2007.ExecutiveOrderNumber07127.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ClimateChange/files/2007.07.13_eo_07127.pdf
OkanaganScience&TechnologyCouncil.May11,2009.SustainabledevelopmenttechnologyCanada,
Partneringforrealresults.ProceedingsfromCleantechFundingSeminar.
Pacenow.Detailsretrievedfrom:www.pacenow.org
Pernick,R.Wilder,C.Oct2009.CleanEdgeInc.FiveEmergingU.S.PublicFinanceModels:Powering
CleanTechEconomicGrowthandJobCreation.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/pdf/FiveEmerging_US_PublicFinanceModels_2009.pdf
Portland(CleanEnergyWorks).Retrievedfrom:www.cleanenergyworksportland.org/index.php
RenewableEnergyCertificates.Cleanenergyrewardsprogram.DepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection/MontgomeryCounty,Maryland.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/dep/CERpages/recs.pdf
RenewableEnergyTrust.2009.EnergyGlossary.Availableat:
http://www.masstech.org/cleanenergy/energy/glossaryAtoC.htm
Rose,J.,Chapman,S.November2009.FreeingtheGridBestandWorstPracticesinStateNetMetering
PoliciesandInterconnectionProcedures,2009Edition.Availableat:http://www.freeingthegrid.org
Schwabe,P.etal.July2009.RenewableEnergyProjectFinancing:ImpactsoftheFinancialCrisisand
FederalLegislation.TechnicalReport.NREL/TP6A244930.Page12.
SNLEnergy.2009.ProgressofStatesinAttainingRPS(Table).Retrievedfrom:
http://www.snl.com/Sectors/Energy/whitepapers_library.aspx
127

Stack,J.June2007.CleantechVentureCapital:HowPublicPolicyHasStimulatedPrivateInvestment.A
jointreportbyEnvironmentalEntrepreneursandCleantechNetworkLLC.Page29.
Talgov.com.2009.EnergyEfficiencyLowInterestLoans.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.talgov.com/you/energy/loans.cfm
TheCarnegieFoundationfortheAdvancementofTeaching.2009.DataonAcademicFacultyand
Students.Retrievedfrom:http://www.classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/
TheTaxIncentivesAssistanceProject.2009.TaxIncentivesAssistanceProjectSummaryofFederal
EnergyEfficiencyTaxIncentives.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.energytaxincentives.org/uploaded_files/Tax_incentive09.pdf
TheWhiteHouse.October18,2009.PolicyFrameworkforPACEFinancingPrograms.Availableat:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/PACE_Principles.pdf
Thomas,R.2009.IsNuclearEnergyRenewableorNonrenewable?eHow.com.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.ehow.com/about_4579290_nuclearenergyrenewablenonrenewable.html
U.S.CensusBureau.2009.Information/dataretrievedfrom:
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/industry/e221113.htm
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.August1999.ValleyOfDeath,FromInventionToInnovation.Graphic
Illustration,p.13.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.Oct2009.FinancialInstitutionPartnershipProgram:PartnershipswithPublic
andNonProfitDevelopmentFinanceOrganizationsCoLendingOpportunities.Availableat:
http://www.cleanenergystates.org/library/Reports/RFI.pdf
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.2009.EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy.ResourcePortalfor
FinancingPrograms.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.eecbg.energy.gov/solutioncenter/financialproducts/default.html
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.2009.EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy.[Mapofstateswith
renewableportfoliostandards].Retrievedfrom:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm?print
U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.2009.ElectricSalesandRevenue,annual.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_sum.html
U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.2009.EIAAssumptionsReport:2009.Availableat:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html
U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.StateenergyrankingsSep2009.December24,2009.Retrieved
from:http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_rankings.cfm
U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.2009.VariousDatasetOnExistingNameplateCapacityByEnergy
SourceAndState,NetPowerGenerationByState,NameplateCapacityForCarbonFuels.Retrieved
from:http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html
128

U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.April2009.AnUpdatedAnnualEnergyOutlook2009Reference
CaseReflectingProvisionsoftheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActandRecentChangesinthe
EconomicOutlook.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/pdf/sroiaf(2009)03.pdf
U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.2009.Definition:EnergyEfficiency.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/definition.htm
U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.2009.RetailSalesOfElectricityByState20002007Total
ElectricIndustry(Table).Retrievedfrom:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html
U.S.PatentAndTrademarkOffice,ElectronicInformationProductsDivision,PatentTechnology
MonitoringTeam(PTMT).Dec2008.Patentsbycountry,state,andyearUtilitypatents.Retrieved
from:http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_utl.htm
U.S.SmallBusinessAdministration.DataRetrievedfrom:http://web.sba.gov/tech
net/public/dsp_search.cfm
U.S.VentureCapitalandPrivateEquityInvestment($millions)inRenewableEnergyTechnology
Companies,20012008.July2009.GraphicIllustration.FiguresrepresentDisclosedDealsderivedfrom
NewEnergyFinancesDesktopdatabase.U.S.DepartmentofEnergyEnergyEfficiency&Renewable
Energy:2008RenewableEnergyDataBook,page112.
UNEP.2008.GreenJobs:TowardsDecentWorkinaSustainable,LowCarbonWorld.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Publications/Newreleases/langen/docName
WCMS_098503/index.htm
UNEP.2009.GlobalTrendsinSustainableEnergyInvestment2009:AnalysisofTrendsandIssuesinthe
FinancingofRenewableEnergyandEnergyEfficiency,p.9.
Retrievedfrom:
http://sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/publications/Executive_Summary_2009_EN.pdf
UNEP.April2009.TheGlobalFinancialCrisisAndItsImpactOnRenewableEnergyFinance.Pages4344
USAToday.July15,2009.CitingSolarSurveyStudybyCSAInternational.
VentyxDatabase.DataRetrievedfrom:http://www1.ventyx.com/velocity/vsoverview.asp
Volkmann,K.2010.ConfluenceSolarpicksTenn.overMo.for$200Mplant.Saint.LouisBusiness
Journal.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/01/18/daily49.html?ana=from_rss&utm_source=feed
burner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_stlouis+%28St.+Louis+Business+Journal%29
VoteSolarInitiative.Source:www.votesolar.org
Walsh,D.Jan2010.FinancialIncentivesBringRenewableEnergyBusinessesButNotExperience.
Retrievedfrom:http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/new_jersey/article_8f91763cf7ae
11deb0e1001cc4c002e0.html?mode=print
129

WaxmanMarkeybill.Jan2010.Retrievedfrom:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111
2454
White,L.FinancingRenewableEnergyinToday'sCapitalMarkets,page10.Retrievedfrom:
http://www.gkbaum.com/renewableEnergy/CRES%20Presentation%20032009.pdf
Werner,Tom.December2009.SunpowerCorporation.LetterwrittentoHon.CharlieChrist,Governor
ofFlorida.
Williams,J.July2008.TaxCreditsandGovernmentIncentivesforAngelInvestinginVariousStates.
AngelCapitalEducationFoundation.BelmontUniversity.
Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., Gagliano, T. 2002. Analyzing the Interaction Between State Tax Incentives and the Federal Production Tax Credit for
WindPower.BerkeleyLab.Availableat:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/51465.pdf
WorldBank.May2008.WorkingPaperNo.138:AcceleratingCleanEnergyTechnologyResearch,
Development,AndDeploymentLessonsFromNonEnergySectors(Chapter4).
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol17_2/swim.pdf
http://www.cleanenergyflorida.org/clean_energy_fund.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/public_benefit_funds.cfm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSS41JM9R6
B&_user=2139768&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_doca
nchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1217226951&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000054272&_version=1&_ur
lVersion=0&_userid=2139768&md5=f404c6cde12bf30e25599aef08b9707c
130
Appendices
AppendixA:Tables
Table30.RenewablePortfolioStandardsbyState
State
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DistrictofColumbia
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Illinois
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
NewHampshire
NewJersey
NewMexico
Nevada
NewYork
NorthCarolina
NorthDakota
Oregon
Pennsylvania
RhodeIsland
SouthDakota
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
RenewableEnergyMixasa
PercentageofTotalEnergyProduction
15%
33%
20%
23%
20%
20%
20%
105MW
25%
15%
20%
40%
10%
25%
15%
15%
23.8%
22.5%
20%
20%
24%
12.5%
10%
25%
8%
16%
10%
5,880MW
20%
10%
12%
15%
10%
Source:http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm?print
Year
2025
2030
2020
2020
2020
2019
2020
2025
2020
2022
2017
2015
2025
2021
2015
2025
2021
2020
2015
2013
2021
2015
2025
2020
2019
2015
2015
2025
2013
2022
2020
2015
131
Table31.FederalIncentivesthatImpactCleanEnergyinFlorida
Program
EnergyEfficient
Commercial
BuildingsTax
Deduction
IncentiveType
CorporateDeduction
EligibleTechnologies
EfficiencyTechnologies
MACRS+Bonus
Depreciation
CorporateDepreciation
RenewableEnergy
Technologies
ResidentialEnergy
Conservation
SubsidyExclusion
CorporateExemption
BusinessEnergy
InvestmentTax
Credit
CorporateTaxCredit
SolarWaterHeat,
SolarSpaceHeat,
Photovoltaics,and
EfficiencyTechnologies
intheResidential
Sector
Renewable
Technologies
EnergyEfficient
ApplianceTax
Creditfor
Manufacturers
CorporateTaxCredit
Clothes
Washers/Dryers,
Dishwasher,
Refrigerators
EnergyEfficient
NewHomestax
CreditforHome
Builders
RenewableEnergy
ProductionTax
Credit
CorporateTaxCredit
WholeBuilding
CorporateTaxCredit
RenewableEnergy
Technologies
FederalGrantProgram
Efficiencyand
TribalEnergyGrant
Amount
$0.30$1.80per
squarefoot,
dependingon
technologyand
amountofenergy
reduction
50%bonus
depreciation
MaximumAmount
$1.80persquarefoot
ExpirationDate
2013
Subsidyisexempt
fromincometax
Expired2009,
Maybe
renewed
30%forsolar,fuel
cellsandsmall
wind
10%for
geothermal,
microturbinesand
CHP
Fuelcells:$1,500per
0.5kW
Microturbines:$200
perkW
Smallwindturbines
placedinservice
10/4/0812/31/08:
$4,000
Smallwindturbines
placedinserviceafter
12/31/08:nolimit
Allothereligible
technologies:nolimit
Theaggregateamount
ofcreditallowedis$75
millionpertaxpayer.
Certainrefrigerators
andclotheswashers
willnotaddtothe
aggregatecredit
amount.
$2,000
Expiredin
2009,butmay
berenewed
Inserviceby
2012forwind,
2013forother
technologies
NoCurrent
Dishwashers:$45
or$75perunit,
variesbyenergy
andwater
efficiency
Clotheswashers:
$75$250per
unit,variesby
type,andenergy
andwater
efficiency
Refrigerators:$50
$200,depending
onenergy
efficiencyrating
$1,000$2,000,
dependingon
energysavingsand
hometype
2.1/kWhfor
wind,geothermal,
closedloop
biomass
1.1/kWhforother
eligible
technologies.
Generallyapplies
tofirst10yearsof
operation
Variesby
Variesby
Appliance,but
mostrun
through2010
132
Program
Treasury
Department
RenewableEnergy
Grants
FederalGrantProgram
RuralEnergyfor
AmericaProgram
Grants
CleanRenewable
EnergyBonds
FederalGrantProgram
EnergyEfficient
Mortgages
FederalLoanProgram
QualifiedEnergy
ConservationBonds
FederalLoanProgram
Departmentof
EnergyLoan
GuaranteeProgram
FederalLoanProgram
RuralEnergyfor
AmericaProgram
LoanGuarantee
FederalLoanProgram
Qualifying
AdvancedEnergy
Manufacturing
InvestmentTax
Credit
ResidentialEnergy
Conservation
SubsidyExclusion
ResidentialEnergy
EfficiencyTaxCredit
Residential
RenewableEnergy
TaxCredit
Industry
Recruitment/Support
FederalLoanProgram
Renewable
Technologies
RenewableEnergy
Technologies
Solicitation
Efficiencyand
Renewable
Technologies
Renewable
Technologiesinthe
PublicSector
ResidentialEnergy
Efficiencyand
Renewable
Technologies
Efficiencyand
Renewable
Technologiesinthe
PublicSector
Efficiencyand
Renewable
Technologiesinthe
NonFederalSector
Efficiencyand
Renewable
Technologiesinthe
Commercialand
AgriculturalSector
AdvancedLightingand
RenewableEnergy
Technologies
30%ofproperty
thatispartofa
qualifiedfacility,
qualifiedfuelcell
property,solar
property,or
qualifiedsmall
windproperty
10%ofallother
property
Solicitations
Varies
$1,500per0.5kWfor
qualifiedfuelcell
property
$200perkWfor
qualifiedmicroturbine
property
50MWforCHP
property,with
limitationsforlarge
systems
25%ofProjectCost
Varies
8/4/09
Varies
5%ofPropertyValue
Varies
ProjectCostover
$25million
Varies
$25million
30%ofqualified
investment
Expiredin
2009,butmay
berenewed
PersonalExemption
EfficiencyandSolar
Technologies
100%ofsubsidy
PersonalTexCredit
EfficiencyandBiomass
StoveTechnologies
RenewableEnergy
Technologies
30%ofprojectcost
$1,500
2010
30%ofProject
Cost
Solarelectricsystems
placedinservicebefore
1/1/2009:$2,000
Solarelectricsystems
12/31/2008:no
maximum
Solarwaterheaters
placedinservicebefore
1/1/2009:$2,000
Solarwaterheaters
12/31/2008:no
maximum
Windturbinesplacedin
servicein2008:$4,000
Windturbinesplacedin
serviceafter
12/31/2008:no
maximum
Geothermalheat
2016
PersonaltaxCredit
133
RenewableEnergy
Production
Incentive
ProductionIncentive
RenewableEnergy
Technologiesinthe
PublicSector
2.1/kWh
pumpsplacedinservice
in2008:$2,000
Geothermalheat
pumpsplacedinservice
after12/31/2008:no
maximum
Fuelcells:$500per0.5
kW
10years
Facility
Operatingby
2016
134
Table32.ProgramsOfferedbyLocalUtilities,Cities,andCounties
IncentiveName
MiamiDadeCounty
GreenBuildingsExpedite
Process
MiamiDadeCounty
TargetedJobsIncentive
Fund
OrangeCountySolar
HotWaterRebate
Program
LakelandElectricSolar
WaterHeatingProgram
OrlandoUtilities
CommissionPilotSolar
Programs
OrlandoUtilities
CommissionHome
EnergyEfficiencyFixUp
Program
OrlandoUtilities
CommissionResidential
InsulationLoanProgram
OrlandoUtilities
SolarLoanProgram
OrlandoUtilities
EnergyEfficiencyRebate
Program
GainesvilleRegional
UtilitiesSolarFeedIn
Tariff
GainesvilleRegional
UtilitiesEnergy
EfficiencyRebate
Program
GainesvilleRegional
UtilitiesSolarWater
HeatingRebateProgram
GainesvilleRegional
UtilitiesSolarElectric
(PV)SystemRebate
Program
CityofTallahassee
UtilitiesSolarand
EfficiencyLoans
CityofTallahassee
UtilitiesEnergyStar
CertifiedNewHomes
RebateProgram
CityofTallahassee
UtilitiesResidential
Program
CityofTallahassee
UtilitiesSolarWater
HeatingRebate
ClayElectricCooperative,
IncEnergyConservation
Loans
IncSolarThermalLoans
IncEnergySmartEnergy
EfficiencyRebate
IncentiveType
GreenBuildingIncentive
ComprehensiveMeasures/WholeBuilding,SolarWaterHeat,Photovoltaics,Wind,
Biomass,GeothermalHeatPumps,Daylighting,SmallHydroelectric
Industry
Recruitment/Support
SolarThermalElectric,Photovoltaics
LocalRebateProgram
SolarWaterHeat
OtherIncentive
SolarWaterHeat
ProductionIncentive
SolarWaterHeat,Photovoltaics
UtilityGrantProgram
EquipmentInsulation,Caulking/Weatherstripping,Duct/Airsealing,Building
Insulation,Windows,Doors,Custom/Otherspendingapproval,WaterHeater
Insulation
UtilityLoanProgram
BuildingInsulation
UtilityLoanProgram
SolarWaterHeat,Photovoltaics
UtilityRebateProgram
Heatpumps,Airconditioners,Caulking/Weatherstripping,Duct/Airsealing,
BuildingInsulation,Windows,Roofs,SolarScreen,WindowFilm,InjectedWall
Foam
ProductionIncentive
Photovoltaics
Airconditioners,Duct/Airsealing,BuildingInsulation,Roofs,Comprehensive
Measures/WholeBuilding
SolarWaterHeat
UtilityLoanProgram
Photovoltaics
ClothesWashers,Refrigerators/Freezers,Heatpumps,Airconditioners,Heat
recovery,Duct/Airsealing,BuildingInsulation,Windows,Doors,Roofs,SolarWater
Heat,Photovoltaics,SolarPoolHeating
ComprehensiveMeasures/WholeBuilding
ClothesWashers,Refrigerators/Freezers,Heatpumps,Airconditioners,Building
Insulation
UtilityLoanProgram
SolarWaterHeat
Refrigerators/Freezers,WaterHeaters,Heatpumps,Airconditioners,Heat
recovery,ProgrammableThermostats,Duct/Airsealing,BuildingInsulation,
Windows,Doors,Metalroofing,SolarWaterHeat,SolarThermalElectric,Solar
PoolHeating
UtilityLoanProgram
SolarWaterHeat,SolarPoolHeating
Heatpumps,BuildingInsulation
135
IncentiveName
Program
IncEnergySmartSolar
WaterHeaterRebate
Program
BeachesEnergyServices
ResidentialEnergy
EfficiencyRebate
Program
FloridaPowerandLight
ResidentialEnergy
EfficiencyProgram
FloridaPublicUtilities
(Electric)Residential
Programs
FloridaPublicUtilities
(Gas)ResidentialEnergy
EfficiencyRebate
Programs
FortPierceUtilities
AuthorityResidential
Program
GulfPowerGeothermal
InstallationRebate
Program
GulfPowerSolar
ThermalWaterHeating
PilotProgram
JEASolarIncentive
Program
KissimmeeUtility
AuthorityResidential
Program
LakeWorthUtilities
EnergyConservation
RebateProgram
LakelandElectric
ResidentialConservation
RebateProgram
NewSmyrnaBeach
ResidentialEnergy
EfficiencyRebate
Program
ProgressEnergyFlorida
HomeEnergyCheck
AuditandRebate
Program
ProgressEnergyFlorida
SolarWaterHeatingwith
EnergyWiseProgram
TampaElectric
ResidentialEnergy
EfficiencyRebate
Program
IncentiveType
SolarWaterHeat
Heatpumps,ProgrammableThermostats,BuildingInsulation,WindowFilm/Solar
Screens,SolarWaterHeat
Heatpumps,Airconditioners,Duct/Airsealing,BuildingInsulation,Ceiling
Insulation
Heatpumps,Airconditioners,BuildingInsulation,GeothermalHeatPumps
WaterHeaters,Furnaces,GasStoves,ClothesDryers
ClothesWashers,Refrigerators/Freezers,Heatpumps,Airconditioners,
ProgrammableThermostats,BuildingInsulation
GeothermalHeatPumps
SolarWaterHeat
SolarWaterHeat
Lighting,Airconditioners,Duct/Airsealing,BuildingInsulation
ClothesWashers,Refrigerators/Freezers,Heatpumps,Airconditioners,
ProgrammableThermostats,UltralowFlushToilets
Lighting,BuildingInsulation,HVACMaintenance
Duct/Airsealing,BuildingInsulation,DuctLeakRepair,EnergyAudit
Heatpumps,Airconditioners,Duct/Airsealing,BuildingInsulation,Windows,
Roofs
SolarWaterHeat
Heatpumps,Duct/Airsealing,BuildingInsulation,Windows
136
Table33.FloridaProjectsFundedthroughARRA2009
Awardees
Mainstream
Engineering
Corporation
ProjectCategory(if
available)
AdvancedBuilding
AirConditioningand
Refrigeration,
ThermalLoad
Shifting,andCool
Roofs
Grant
Amount
Total
Value/Cost
ProjectLocation
(City)
149,979
Rockledge
AdvancedGas
FloridaTurbine
Turbinesand
Technologies,Inc.
Materials
149,917
Jupiter
FractalSystems
Inc.
AdvancedSolar
Technologies
149,718
BelleairBeach
Mainstream
Engineering
Corporation
AdvancedSolar
Technologies
149,956
Rockledge
Mainstream
Engineering
Corporation
AdvancedSolar
Technologies
149,938
Rockledge
CobbDesignInc
AdvancedSolar
Technologies
145,472
Saint
Petersburg
Description
Mainstream Engineering is
developing an active thermal
energystoragethatcombinesthe
best features of existing chilled
water and icestorage systems.
The system will allow for
significantshiftingofthedemand
loadfrompeakhourstooffpeak
hoursresultinginsubstantialcost
savings.
This project will verify and
validatetestingofinnovativenew
SparShell turbine component
designs to clear the technology
for full engine test and to
eventuallyfacilitaterevolutionary
advances of power plant
performance,efficiencyandclean
operation.
Low cost solar power based on
organic materials has the
potential to reduce security and
reliability risks and to reduce
environmental impacts and will
find uses in homes and
commercialbuildingsaswellasin
militarygearandequipment
New distributed power systems
producewasteheatthatiseither
not used or combined with a
waste heat recovery system,
which uses a working fluid with
high global warming potential.
Mainstream will develop a new
commerciallyviable system that
increases efficiency, reduces
pollutant emissions, and uses an
environmentallysustainable
fluid.
Cement
manufacturing
is
inefficient, consumes large
amounts of energy, and emits
large volumes of greenhouse
gases.
Mainstream
will
demonstrateanenvironmentally
friendly,
costeffective,
commerciallyviable
manufacturing improvement to
reduce energy loss, reduce
emissions, and make the US
cement industry (3rd in the
world) more competitive while
creatingadditionalUSjobs
The project will allow Cobb
Design to refine a design for
components of a solar energy
systemthatgeneratespowerata
137
Awardees
ProjectCategory(if
available)
Grant
Amount
Total
Value/Cost
ProjectLocation
(City)
Mainstream
Engineering
Corporation
Sensors,Controls,
andWireless
Networks
149,656
Rockledge
FieldmetricsInc.
Sensors,Controls,
andWireless
Networks
150,000
Seminole
INEOSNewPlanet
BioEnergy,LLC
Pilotand
DemonstrationScale
FOADemonstration 50,000,000
Scale
50,000,000
VeroBeach
Florida
International
UniversityBoard
ofTrustees
GroundSourceHeat
PumpDemonstration
Projects
250,000
Miami
SaftAmerica,Inc.
Cell,Battery,and
Materials
Manufacturing
Facilities
95,500,000
Jacksonville
LakelandElectric
AdvancedMetering
Infrastructure
20,000,000
48,306,833
Lakeland
Description
cost competitive with fossilfuel
sources. Commercialization of
this system will generate new
green jobs to expand use of
technology that reduces both
energy imports and greenhouse
gases.
Mainstream has developed a
wireless Remote Monitoring
System
that
automatically
monitorsanddetectsproblemsin
residential air conditioning
systems thereby saving valuable
energy, reducing homeowner
expenses, avoiding unexpected
failures, and creating jobs in
Florida(sincethisproduct,likeall
Mainstreamproducts,isMadein
theUSA
The multifunction integrated
sensor platform is an enabling
technology for the smart grid.
The project creates sensors for
immediate deployment on the
power grid to detect energy
theft, improve energy delivery
efficiency, provide early warning
of grid instability and accurately
monitor renewable energy
resources
This project will produce ethanol
and electricity from wood and
vegetative
residues
and
construction and demolition
materials. The facility will
combinebiomassgasificationand
fermentation, and will have the
capacity to produce 8 million
gallons of ethanol and 2
megawatts of electricity per year
bytheendof2011.
Florida International University
will gather and analyze data to
improve GHP loop design and
efficiencyinsystemsintendedfor
use in hot and humid regions of
thecountry.
Production of lithiumion cells,
modules, and battery packs for
industrial
and
agricultural
vehicles and defense application
markets. Primary lithium
chemistries include nickelcobalt
metalandironphosphate.
Install more than 125,000 smart
meters network for residential,
commercialandindustrialelectric
customers across the utility's
138
Awardees
ProjectCategory(if
available)
Grant
Amount
Total
Value/Cost
ProjectLocation
(City)
TalquinElectric
Cooperative,Inc.
AdvancedMetering
Infrastructure
8,100,000
16,200,000
Quincy
CityofQuincy,FL
AdvancedMetering
Infrastructure
2,471,041
4,942,082
Quincy
Cityof
Tallahassee
CustomerSystems
8,890,554
17,781,108
Tallahassee
Intellon
Corporation
CustomerSystems
4,955,583
9,911,166
Orlando
FloridaPower&
LightCompany
Integratedand/or
CrosscuttingSystems 200,000,000
578,347,232
Miami
JEA
Integratedand/or
26,204,891
Jacksonville
CityofLeesburg,
Florida
Integratedand/or
19,497,625
Leesburg
Description
servicearea.
Install a smart meter network
systemfor56,000residentialand
commercial customers in a
mainly rural, fourcounty service
area in North Florida. Also,
integrateanoutagemanagement
system
and
geographic
information as part of the Smart
Grid.
Deploy a smart grid network
across the entire customer base,
including
twoway
communication and dynamic
pricingtoreduceutilitybills.
Implement a comprehensive
demand response program,
including smart thermostats and
advanced load control systems
that will target residential and
commercial customers and lead
toanestimated35MWreduction
inpeakpower.
Modify existing power line
communications to enhance
smartgridfunctionality.
Energy Smart Florida is a
comprehensive
project
to
advance implementation of the
Smart Grid, including installing
over 2.6 million smart meters,
9,000 intelligent distribution
devices, 45 phasors, and
advanced monitoring equipment
in over 270 substations. By
incorporating intelligence into
thetransmission,distributionand
customer systems, the utility will
beabletoanticipateandrespond
to grid disturbances, empower
customers through alternative
rate programs, and enable the
integrationofrenewableandon
siteenergysources.
Upgrade metering and data
management
infrastructure;
install 3,000 smart meters with
twoway
communications,
introduceadynamicpricingpilot,
enhance the existing IT system,
and
implement
consumer
engagement software to provide
consumers with detailed energy
usedata.
Enable new energy efficiency
and conservation programs to all
23,000
electric
consumers
through deployment of smart
139
ProjectCategory(if
available)
Awardees
Grant
Amount
414,142,173
Total
Value/Cost
50,000,000
ProjectLocation
(City)
Description
meter
networks,
energy
management for municipal
buildings, integrated distributed
generation, and new substation
power
transformer
with
enhanced
monitoring
and
control. Key consumer initiatives
include time differentiated rates
anddemandresponseoptionsfor
reducingpeakload.
140
Table34.TotalSBIR/STTRAwards,AllAgencies,AllTechnologies,20002008
Phase1
StateName
Awards Phase1Dollars
California
7,458
$831,376,836
Massachusetts
5,049
$563,259,719
Virginia
2,284
$218,266,520
Maryland
1,893
$229,705,567
Colorado
1,876
$188,413,790
NewYork
1,652
$193,080,018
Texas
1,702
$184,622,363
Ohio
1,540
$166,584,476
Pennsylvania
1,416
$158,556,079
NewJersey
1,013
$104,154,510
Washington
837
$96,937,114
Florida
973
$94,705,178
Michigan
828
$90,796,207
Alabama
772
$74,086,380
Arizona
720
$72,722,338
NorthCarolina
609
$83,754,782
Illinois
675
$72,893,927
Connecticut
632
$74,330,433
Minnesota
528
$57,861,961
NewMexico
613
$60,896,725
Oregon
449
$53,814,218
NewHampshire
409
$37,856,772
Wisconsin
414
$60,279,966
Georgia
461
$47,536,440
Utah
353
$38,432,872
Indiana
296
$31,881,205
Tennessee
273
$27,614,313
Montana
206
$25,582,034
Missouri
235
$26,846,895
SouthCarolina
161
$17,459,510
RhodeIsland
134
$18,601,730
Oklahoma
173
$20,253,144
Delaware
172
$16,116,784
Hawaii
137
$19,106,891
Kentucky
129
$19,761,114
Maine
124
$11,226,920
Nevada
111
$10,767,364
Arkansas
146
$16,543,491
Vermont
92
$9,608,050
Kansas
110
$10,517,430
Dist.ofColumbia
87
$9,914,680
Iowa
114
$14,148,421
WestVirginia
94
$8,404,936
Louisiana
95
$9,530,457
Idaho
92
$7,984,528
Nebraska
71
$11,103,099
Wyoming
70
$6,930,550
Mississippi
67
$5,774,262
NorthDakota
41
$4,167,701
SouthDakota
35
$3,297,710
Alaska
30
$2,570,685
PuertoRico
8
$630,260
Totals:
38459 $4,221,269,373
http://web.sba.gov/technet/public/dsp_search.cfm
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
State
Code
CA
MA
VA
MD
CO
NY
TX
OH
PA
NJ
WA
FL
MI
AL
AZ
NC
IL
CT
MN
NM
OR
NH
WI
GA
UT
IN
TN
MT
MO
SC
RI
OK
DE
HI
KY
ME
NV
AR
VT
KS
DC
IA
WV
LA
ID
NE
WY
MS
ND
SD
AK
PR
Phase2
Awards
3,258
2,213
1,035
774
793
700
703
698
668
440
429
418
362
352
311
252
286
261
231
226
217
219
173
174
147
123
129
89
74
63
58
62
70
55
44
57
58
53
53
63
42
40
38
39
38
24
35
31
24
15
7
5
16729
Phase2Dollars
$2,378,303,385
$1,588,654,950
$699,225,786
$553,692,998
$552,377,621
$515,607,708
$503,152,986
$493,398,364
$485,591,685
$305,370,695
$307,540,442
$277,755,283
$260,541,044
$243,024,653
$213,475,783
$188,443,946
$185,307,271
$176,113,018
$166,030,883
$151,564,029
$154,893,407
$150,848,295
$124,057,646
$117,803,842
$101,356,820
$90,709,944
$86,711,908
$51,244,797
$49,807,810
$45,603,750
$43,142,775
$41,230,163
$44,089,152
$36,751,404
$32,921,248
$40,817,875
$39,781,262
$33,193,397
$36,687,823
$33,107,095
$30,390,181
$24,472,065
$29,555,668
$26,703,868
$23,751,030
$15,918,464
$18,729,697
$19,473,419
$11,963,240
$7,008,390
$3,637,681
$2,258,868
$11,813,795,529
Total
Awards
8,370
5,718
2,568
2,150
2,093
1,856
1,894
1,714
1,578
1,149
975
1,085
919
860
812
693
770
724
610
682
527
467
468
509
411
329
318
236
256
188
156
191
194
153
147
139
124
153
115
136
112
124
103
109
100
82
83
81
54
46
34
10
43375
TotalDollars
Average
$3,209,680,222
$356,631,136
$2,151,914,670
$239,101,630
$917,492,307
$101,943,590
$783,398,566
$87,044,285
$740,791,412
$82,310,157
$708,687,726
$78,743,081
$687,775,349
$76,419,483
$659,982,840
$73,331,427
$644,147,764
$71,571,974
$409,525,206
$45,502,801
$404,477,556
$44,941,951
$372,460,461
$41,384,496
$351,337,252
$39,037,472
$317,111,033
$35,234,559
$286,198,121
$31,799,791
$272,198,729
$30,244,303
$258,201,198
$28,689,022
$250,443,452
$27,827,050
$223,892,844
$24,876,983
$212,460,755
$23,606,751
$208,707,626
$23,189,736
$188,705,067
$20,967,230
$184,337,613
$20,481,957
$165,340,282
$18,371,142
$139,789,692
$15,532,188
$122,591,150
$13,621,239
$114,326,221
$12,702,913
$76,826,831
$8,536,315
$76,654,705
$8,517,189
$63,063,260
$7,007,029
$61,744,505
$6,860,501
$61,483,307
$6,831,479
$60,205,936
$6,689,548
$55,858,295
$6,206,477
$52,682,362
$5,853,596
$52,044,795
$5,782,755
$50,548,626
$5,616,514
$49,736,888
$5,526,321
$46,295,873
$5,143,986
$43,624,525
$4,847,169
$40,304,861
$4,478,318
$38,620,487
$4,291,165
$37,960,604
$4,217,845
$36,234,325
$4,026,036
$31,735,558
$3,526,173
$27,021,563
$3,002,396
$25,660,247
$2,851,139
$25,247,681
$2,805,298
$16,130,941
$1,792,327
$10,306,100
$1,145,122
$6,208,366
$689,818
$2,889,128
$321,014
$16,035,064,902 $1,781,673,878
141
Table35.TotalSBIR/STTRAwards,AllAgencies,AllTechnologies,2008
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
State
Code
CA
MA
VA
MD
NY
CO
PA
OH
TX
NC
FL
NJ
MI
WA
AL
IL
MN
CT
AZ
WI
NH
GA
NM
OR
IN
UT
TN
KY
MT
DE
AR
VT
HI
OK
MO
IA
SC
NE
ME
LA
KS
RI
NV
WY
DC
ID
MS
WV
AK
ND
SD
State
Name
California
Massachusetts
Virginia
Maryland
NewYork
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Texas
NorthCarolina
Florida
NewJersey
Michigan
Washington
Alabama
Illinois
Minnesota
Connecticut
Arizona
Wisconsin
NewHampshire
Georgia
NewMexico
Oregon
Indiana
Utah
Tennessee
Kentucky
Montana
Delaware
Arkansas
Vermont
Hawaii
Oklahoma
Missouri
Iowa
SouthCarolina
Nebraska
Maine
Louisiana
Kansas
RhodeIsland
Nevada
Wyoming
Dist.ofColumbia
Idaho
Mississippi
WestVirginia
Alaska
NorthDakota
SouthDakota
Totals:
Phase1
Awards
762
541
254
182
219
206
150
144
165
76
121
99
95
76
85
85
44
76
73
50
46
53
74
42
39
42
26
23
18
17
24
10
16
17
31
17
15
12
8
9
7
11
7
7
5
7
5
6
6
3
3
4109
Phase1
Dollars
$90,118,606
$66,796,031
$25,407,174
$27,057,308
$26,641,567
$22,411,277
$20,659,443
$16,434,599
$19,299,381
$14,470,897
$11,848,912
$11,242,411
$12,001,811
$12,611,983
$8,826,351
$8,885,300
$6,030,478
$10,088,150
$6,847,566
$7,879,337
$4,254,761
$5,991,032
$8,306,203
$6,653,514
$3,887,592
$7,491,516
$2,560,697
$3,348,732
$2,642,651
$1,536,299
$2,889,233
$1,161,537
$1,703,415
$2,065,269
$3,558,565
$2,229,761
$1,985,481
$3,097,020
$724,223
$933,237
$698,934
$1,387,944
$719,548
$729,505
$513,107
$677,354
$469,140
$556,884
$514,825
$250,000
$329,019
$499,425,590
Phase2
Awards
388
250
157
91
82
90
92
78
69
40
56
53
42
46
42
41
32
33
32
23
34
26
22
23
22
12
18
13
12
11
11
8
11
6
7
5
5
3
6
5
5
3
5
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
0
2023
Phase2
Dollars
$300,896,820
$187,802,332
$107,454,398
$72,869,398
$67,081,391
$69,448,939
$65,236,119
$59,095,976
$54,947,802
$38,475,889
$38,750,099
$37,663,195
$36,273,734
$34,916,265
$32,656,014
$26,663,364
$27,076,749
$22,460,674
$22,145,288
$18,851,330
$21,918,142
$18,078,799
$15,393,030
$16,720,331
$17,463,780
$11,268,491
$15,329,547
$12,284,101
$6,769,437
$7,479,094
$5,843,933
$6,638,838
$5,845,592
$5,386,932
$3,672,034
$3,178,328
$3,068,610
$1,713,559
$4,029,084
$3,303,825
$3,154,994
$2,198,294
$2,779,556
$1,708,648
$1,810,733
$1,496,984
$1,639,142
$1,349,641
$963,144
$1,099,955
$0
$1,524,352,360
Total
Awards
1,145
786
409
273
300
296
241
221
233
116
176
152
136
121
127
126
76
107
104
73
80
79
96
65
61
54
44
36
30
28
35
18
27
23
37
22
20
15
14
14
12
14
12
9
7
9
7
8
7
5
3
6109
Total
Dollars
$391,015,426
$254,598,363
$132,861,572
$99,926,707
$93,722,958
$91,860,216
$85,895,562
$75,530,576
$74,247,183
$52,946,786
$50,599,011
$48,905,606
$48,275,545
$47,528,248
$41,482,365
$35,548,665
$33,107,227
$32,548,825
$28,992,855
$26,730,667
$26,172,904
$24,069,831
$23,699,233
$23,373,845
$21,351,372
$18,760,007
$17,890,244
$15,632,833
$9,412,088
$9,015,393
$8,733,166
$7,800,375
$7,549,007
$7,452,201
$7,230,599
$5,408,089
$5,054,091
$4,810,579
$4,753,307
$4,237,062
$3,853,928
$3,586,238
$3,499,104
$2,438,153
$2,323,840
$2,174,338
$2,108,282
$1,906,525
$1,477,969
$1,349,955
$329,019
$2,023,777,950
142
Table36.TotalSBIR/STTRAwards,AllAgencies,CleanEnergyTechnologies,20002008
State
Phase1
Phase1
Name
Awards
Dollars
1
California
591
$65,180,673
2
Massachusetts
349
$39,783,047
3
Maryland
164
$23,788,645
4
NewYork
134
$14,666,531
5
Virginia
164
$15,825,450
6
Texas
116
$11,795,403
7
Colorado
131
$13,647,155
8
Ohio
102
$10,251,754
9
Pennsylvania
98
$11,556,352
10
NewJersey
73
$8,408,734
11
Florida
64
$5,744,103
12
Wisconsin
41
$8,411,094
13
Washington
46
$8,468,607
14
Minnesota
48
$4,896,965
15
Alabama
63
$5,668,620
16
NorthCarolina
52
$8,008,802
17
Connecticut
50
$6,021,651
18
Arizona
55
$5,964,114
19
Illinois
48
$5,312,676
20
Georgia
44
$4,501,816
21
Michigan
48
$5,051,421
22
NewMexico
39
$3,514,903
23
Oregon
39
$4,114,854
24
NewHampshire
32
$2,908,167
25
Indiana
20
$2,042,334
26
Tennessee
27
$2,665,128
27
Utah
24
$2,632,951
28
Delaware
21
$2,096,179
29
Montana
18
$2,308,971
30
Hawaii
9
$838,285
31
WestVirginia
8
$681,512
32
Oklahoma
11
$1,951,997
33
Nebraska
9
$935,262
34
SouthCarolina
12
$1,048,185
35
RhodeIsland
8
$1,576,244
36
Iowa
14
$2,025,316
37
Mississippi
4
$329,978
38
Nevada
5
$466,669
39
Kentucky
8
$1,053,782
40
Louisiana
7
$597,484
41
NorthDakota
6
$853,486
42
Arkansas
11
$1,119,742
43
Maine
12
$1,129,670
44
Vermont
8
$790,816
45
Kansas
6
$531,627
46
Idaho
6
$539,236
47
Missouri
10
$1,066,083
48
Wyoming
7
$595,155
49
SouthDakota
6
$599,342
50
Dist.ofColumbia
2
$218,814
51
Alaska
2
$169,793
Totals:
2872 $324,355,587
http://web.sba.gov/technet/public/dsp_search.cfm
#
State
Code
CA
MA
MD
NY
VA
TX
CO
OH
PA
NJ
FL
WI
WA
MN
AL
NC
CT
AZ
IL
GA
MI
NM
OR
NH
IN
TN
UT
DE
MT
HI
WV
OK
NE
SC
RI
IA
MS
NV
KY
LA
ND
AR
ME
VT
KS
ID
MO
WY
SD
DC
AK
Phase2
Awards
204
165
49
57
63
63
47
52
40
40
37
16
21
24
26
19
20
18
19
22
17
17
14
14
10
8
9
6
5
6
5
3
5
5
3
2
5
3
4
4
4
3
2
3
4
2
2
2
1
0
0
1170
Phase2
Dollars
$151,246,394
$122,978,755
$40,607,431
$44,764,971
$40,276,142
$42,417,970
$32,519,524
$35,751,853
$26,332,749
$29,153,488
$26,666,546
$16,950,543
$16,610,463
$19,116,793
$18,160,764
$13,759,090
$14,537,976
$13,884,577
$13,314,966
$14,047,419
$11,140,080
$11,323,702
$10,662,333
$8,755,466
$7,861,330
$6,791,221
$5,680,913
$4,098,682
$2,644,331
$3,496,438
$3,413,721
$1,989,710
$2,966,085
$2,806,587
$2,263,000
$1,789,661
$3,349,984
$2,843,759
$2,041,558
$2,326,070
$2,039,835
$1,744,165
$1,554,267
$1,649,629
$1,842,039
$1,511,960
$847,907
$1,035,174
$463,361
$0
$0
$844,031,387
Total
Awards
732
482
200
176
214
170
164
143
128
96
94
53
62
68
83
65
62
65
63
60
60
50
50
39
26
33
32
26
22
14
12
13
13
14
11
14
9
7
11
10
8
14
13
11
6
7
12
8
7
2
2
3736
Total
Dollars
$216,427,068
$162,761,803
$64,396,076
$59,431,502
$56,101,592
$54,213,374
$46,166,680
$46,003,607
$37,889,101
$37,562,222
$32,410,649
$25,361,637
$25,079,070
$24,013,758
$23,829,384
$21,767,892
$20,559,627
$19,848,691
$18,627,642
$18,549,235
$16,191,501
$14,838,605
$14,777,187
$11,663,633
$9,903,664
$9,456,349
$8,313,864
$6,194,861
$4,953,302
$4,334,723
$4,095,233
$3,941,707
$3,901,347
$3,854,772
$3,839,244
$3,814,977
$3,679,962
$3,310,428
$3,095,340
$2,923,554
$2,893,321
$2,863,907
$2,683,937
$2,440,445
$2,373,666
$2,051,196
$1,913,990
$1,630,329
$1,062,703
$218,814
$169,793
$1,168,386,975
Average
Dollars
$24,047,452
$18,084,645
$7,155,120
$6,603,500
$6,233,510
$6,023,708
$5,129,631
$5,111,512
$4,209,900
$4,173,580
$3,601,183
$2,817,960
$2,786,563
$2,668,195
$2,647,709
$2,418,655
$2,284,403
$2,205,410
$2,069,738
$2,061,026
$1,799,056
$1,648,734
$1,641,910
$1,295,959
$1,100,407
$1,050,705
$923,763
$688,318
$550,367
$481,636
$455,026
$437,967
$433,483
$428,308
$426,583
$423,886
$408,885
$367,825
$343,927
$324,839
$321,480
$318,212
$298,215
$271,161
$263,741
$227,911
$212,666
$181,148
$118,078
$24,313
$18,866
$129,820,775
143
Table37.NVCA:VentureCapitalInvestmentsbyState2000to2008($Millions)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
State
CA
MA
TX
NY
NJ
WA
CO
PA
VA
MD
FL
GA
IL
NC
MN
CT
OH
OR
UT
NH
AZ
MI
MO
TN
DC
IN
SC
WI
RI
AL
KS
NE
KY
NM
DE
NV
HI
LA
OK
ME
VT
UN
IA
ID
AR
PR
WV
MT
MS
SD
ND
WY
AK
Total
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Average
42,568.60 16,541.30
9,444.80
8,536.20 10,208.40 10,962.00 12,844.30 14,720.20 14,277.80 15,567.07
10,337.80
4,775.80
2,532.70
2,733.30
3,114.40
2,582.50
2,995.00
3,721.40
2,996.70
3,976.62
6,003.00
2,943.00
1,296.00
1,246.90
1,154.50
1,174.90
1,389.40
1,468.50
1,287.30
1,995.94
6,795.60
2,015.90
779.7
658.8
761.6
1,127.40
1,273.20
1,129.70
1,297.80
1,759.97
3,271.60
1,528.40
904.7
870.1
1,004.50
886.4
807.3
607.6
694.8
1,175.04
2,773.80
1,124.70
579.8
463.5
863.6
838.3
1,106.30
1,377.20
962.3
1,121.06
4,103.70
1,222.40
536.5
621.4
408
643.7
645.1
609.7
817.4
1,067.54
2,853.20
927.1
451.8
498
602.3
481.9
854
820.2
700.9
909.93
3,307.00
936.1
423.9
408.2
301.9
525.8
439.6
556.7
486.4
820.62
1,817.70
997.4
636.1
346
549.8
486.6
661.9
610.7
460.7
729.66
2,682.50
846.5
410.2
308.7
363.7
329
387.2
767.5
238.4
703.74
2,314.50
890.3
564.7
295.3
501.2
253.1
369.5
474.9
423.4
676.32
2,350.50
964.2
308.9
374.1
208.9
276.7
403.4
505.4
444.9
648.56
1,823.70
584.5
562.2
380.7
306.7
392.5
418.8
546.7
459.1
608.32
1,023.30
455.9
402.7
233
386.9
239.6
327.3
488.1
487
449.31
1,509.40
549.8
182.7
212.3
205.1
201.6
269.7
295.9
129.7
395.13
973.6
233.6
264.8
179
76.6
139.9
78.5
192.8
258.1
266.32
789.5
230.1
151.1
107.5
143.7
134.4
152.8
312.1
176
244.13
673.6
208.1
129.5
106.5
227.8
192
180.9
188.3
193.6
233.37
750.6
224.6
207.8
154.3
135.6
92.4
78.7
135.2
181.1
217.81
622.6
196
191.1
73.3
70.7
123.4
262.6
202.9
208
216.73
337.2
153.6
107.8
80.2
129.6
80.8
116.9
104.7
245.7
150.72
590.3
237.4
76
78.4
26
56
43.7
91.7
86.5
142.89
453.3
212.8
115.8
84.4
85
88.6
41.5
124.7
65.1
141.24
478.1
162.2
20.3
56.1
80.2
26.4
43.9
90.5
31
109.86
269
39.7
40
24.5
67.8
103.6
70.3
82.8
133.6
92.37
447.6
98.1
79.5
14.3
13.6
2.7
10.3
87.2
34
87.48
191.8
93.1
50.8
37.5
57.1
68.5
72.3
90.1
75.2
81.82
74.6
118.7
95.9
61.3
58
76.3
82.7
7
39.2
68.19
266.3
80.3
56.3
29.9
26
20.2
18.9
31.5
24.1
61.50
264.8
40.3
7.4
24.9
48.7
1.7
21.5
82.1
45.5
59.66
134.8
88.6
12.6
204.6
0.2
13.1
6.5
0
16
52.93
201.8
23.9
13.8
4.8
47.2
32
27.7
53.4
29.5
48.23
21.1
14.2
53.7
3.6
24
76.4
32.1
128.5
69.4
47.00
134.7
164.6
19.4
0.4
2.1
7.2
5.3
6.5
62.7
44.77
30.8
28.2
31.8
40.2
47.6
158.5
19.6
29.4
12.6
44.30
203
37.8
4.4
12.8
13.7
11.9
32.1
4.9
7.2
36.42
112.7
80.5
19.3
1.3
3.2
4.1
11.5
15.9
8.2
28.52
52.5
29.8
33
31.1
63.9
0
14.9
8.1
17.3
27.84
140.2
3.9
15.4
0.9
12
4.5
7.6
5
20.2
23.30
46.4
11.6
3.7
5.2
5.1
35.2
10.1
8.7
42.9
18.77
58.8
26.3
0
0
0.9
57.1
0
0
0
15.90
30.8
6
2
0
5.3
32.1
1.5
6.3
40.2
13.80
18.5
2.7
10.6
52.2
2.5
8
1.5
16.2
11.9
13.79
34.3
10.4
9.7
1.2
3.7
12.6
39.2
0.2
0
12.37
31.1
32
0.5
0.1
1.5
1.7
14.3
16
13.8
12.33
4.5
1.4
15.9
12.6
5.8
10.5
4.7
10.2
24
9.96
16.7
24.8
0
0
0
27.4
0
4
15.6
9.83
19.5
30
5
0.9
4.9
10
1
5.9
0
8.58
0.3
0.5
18.1
3.5
1.9
0
0
4
0.5
3.20
6.1
1
0
14.5
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
2.69
0
0
0
0
1.5
4.1
6.5
0.2
1.5
1.53
3.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.39
104,020.50 40,250.00 21,880.30 19,688.80 22,436.90 23,115.10 26,703.70 30,847.60 28,355.20 35,255.34
144
Table38.NVCACapitalUnderManagementbyState2000to2008($Millions)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Year
CA
MA
NY
CT
MD
TX
PA
IL
CO
NJ
WA
DC
VA
MN
OH
NC
FL
GA
TN
MI
UT
LA
IN
MO
ME
WI
AL
SD
OK
WY
AZ
OR
NE
KY
DE
SC
IA
AR
PR
NH
RI
NM
VT
ID
MS
KS
WV
NV
HI
ND
MT
AK
2000
78,830
35,805
44,727
9,021
8,709
7,211
4,892
4,172
4,751
3,635
2,814
4,478
2,554
2,202
1,856
1,314
1,765
1,286
1,197
709
272
478
479
215
203
184
108
168
140
118
37
100
176
7
140
79
16
71
39
66
0
12
15
14
25
52
21
23
11
0
0
0
2001
89,359
43,276
46,033
12,286
8,458
8,373
5,093
4,590
5,266
4,296
3,638
5,268
2,752
2,141
1,878
1,394
1,730
1,279
1,289
712
479
731
477
241
291
183
108
168
140
118
48
100
165
7
140
80
60
71
69
66
24
12
41
14
53
51
21
23
11
0
0
0
2002
90,067
45,776
43,733
12,112
8,430
8,207
4,911
5,294
5,408
4,181
3,640
4,223
2,763
2,317
1,878
1,542
1,661
1,274
1,169
711
452
727
466
209
218
90
107
167
140
117
89
113
165
0
116
93
60
71
68
84
24
12
41
14
53
51
21
23
11
0
0
0
2003
92,500
44,610
43,021
12,065
8,418
8,127
5,304
5,692
5,394
4,389
3,512
3,956
2,943
2,307
1,855
1,738
1,567
1,197
1,161
751
526
709
499
198
219
89
107
167
139
117
124
83
71
14
68
80
55
71
68
65
24
34
41
14
28
28
21
23
9
0
0
0
2004
97,866
45,415
43,217
13,924
8,906
8,446
5,182
5,789
5,218
4,092
4,493
2,733
3,141
2,315
2,053
1,619
1,556
1,229
1,048
944
540
745
409
296
215
100
125
162
117
118
125
85
38
14
56
80
65
71
68
66
24
35
41
14
28
19
21
23
16
0
0
0
2005
104,497
47,665
42,890
13,874
9,417
8,122
5,104
5,536
4,897
4,091
4,469
3,046
3,720
2,403
1,878
1,449
1,718
1,267
1,040
780
499
585
417
276
217
85
178
163
118
119
143
86
38
18
56
86
54
72
69
19
24
70
41
14
28
0
21
24
16
0
0
0
2006
110,241
50,391
35,581
15,057
11,396
7,794
5,680
5,430
4,686
5,177
4,467
4,153
3,613
2,550
1,790
1,658
1,436
1,268
844
796
603
512
429
335
278
255
177
101
111
119
116
76
38
218
57
86
60
72
29
30
97
75
41
85
29
0
21
24
16
0
0
0
2007
103,763
48,159
30,874
13,083
10,868
6,165
5,370
4,575
3,033
5,073
5,508
4,346
3,494
2,441
1,652
1,540
1,166
1,443
675
510
1,130
437
415
547
162
258
169
102
117
120
117
79
39
220
57
87
68
0
31
30
98
77
55
86
30
0
21
0
8
0
0
0
2008 Average
84,479
94,622
36,149
44,138
17,950
38,670
11,781
12,578
7,316
9,102
4,591
7,448
3,803
5,038
3,851
4,992
1,571
4,469
4,174
4,345
4,954
4,166
4,410
4,068
2,310
3,032
1,644
2,258
1,008
1,761
1,204
1,495
530
1,459
853
1,233
569
999
503
713
1,159
629
421
594
119
412
460
309
165
219
185
159
161
138
19
135
42
118
0
105
139
104
23
83
0
81
225
80
31
80
21
77
69
56
0
55
31
52
31
51
100
46
78
45
40
40
73
36
30
34
0
22
0
19
0
18
14
12
13
1
0
0
0
0
145
Table39.VentureCapitalFundCommitments20002008(Millions)
State
CA
MA
NY
CT
MD
TX
DC
WA
PA
NJ
IL
VA
MN
CO
OH
NC
GA
FL
UT
TN
MO
MI
LA
KY
WI
AL
IN
OK
ME
SD
AZ
ID
RI
IA
SC
OR
NM
AR
VT
NE
NH
PR
DE
MS
WY
WV
HI
ND
KS
NV
UN
Total
2000
$41,901
$16,173
$16,588
$3,050
$4,039
$4,160
$1,423
$1,195
$2,290
$1,206
$1,007
$2,345
$2,473
$2,414
$662
$601
$861
$936
$129
$262
$65
$286
$70
$0
$82
$80
$103
$110
$0
$131
$0
$15
$0
$21
$70
$65
$0
$69
$20
$41
$0
$0
$0
$30
$26
$6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$105,005
2001
$13,328
$9,563
$2,504
$3,904
$521
$2,739
$1,122
$938
$334
$652
$1,073
$201
$17
$513
$330
$120
$19
$26
$224
$82
$286
$8
$112
$135
$14
$16
$40
$0
$77
$1
$21
$27
$25
$26
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25
$0
$0
$31
$0
$0
$0
$4
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$39,056
2002
$2,735
$2,577
$1,025
$60
$478
$186
$315
$83
$86
$392
$478
$41
$276
$140
$102
$72
$0
$8
$29
$22
$0
$11
$52
$8
$0
$11
$10
$0
$16
$0
$42
$0
$0
$0
$15
$14
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11
$0
$22
$0
$0
$13
$3
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,330
2003
$4,652
$1,597
$1,245
$165
$1,100
$76
$0
$1
$488
$561
$702
$238
$26
$94
$5
$291
$0
$56
$34
$101
$0
$51
$8
$2
$0
$7
$36
$0
$3
$0
$41
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18
$0
$0
$0
$9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,608
2004
$9,203
$1,692
$2,183
$2,327
$278
$794
$392
$995
$463
$197
$432
$72
$50
$84
$276
$3
$55
$1
$40
$16
$80
$33
$75
$0
$11
$19
$17
$0
$0
$5
$0
$0
$0
$10
$0
$2
$22
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10
$0
$0
$0
$8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,845
2005
$14,930
$5,144
$2,096
$1,216
$833
$652
$566
$281
$349
$344
$81
$428
$295
$69
$544
$101
$104
$313
$24
$84
$29
$101
$4
$5
$0
$60
$6
$12
$0
$0
$19
$0
$0
$0
$6
$0
$34
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$28,728
2006
$10,902
$4,641
$2,583
$3,186
$2,868
$363
$1,413
$590
$486
$1,962
$465
$555
$398
$133
$125
$398
$103
$11
$130
$62
$40
$13
$13
$65
$78
$19
$24
$38
$46
$0
$0
$0
$64
$43
$0
$0
$5
$0
$0
$0
$5
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$31,828
2007
$14,866
$6,257
$5,223
$625
$1,377
$284
$240
$1,882
$754
$235
$558
$599
$275
$371
$209
$166
$518
$109
$142
$100
$220
$49
$0
$98
$101
$0
$1
$5
$20
$0
$0
$75
$14
$0
$0
$2
$7
$0
$11
$0
$7
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35,398
2008 Average
$15,096 $14,179
$3,501
$5,683
$1,973
$3,936
$886
$1,713
$447
$1,327
$1,172
$1,158
$1,293
$752
$489
$717
$1,025
$697
$48
$622
$236
$559
$83
$507
$325
$459
$157
$442
$194
$272
$1
$195
$19
$187
$25
$165
$559
$146
$129
$95
$45
$85
$106
$73
$0
$37
$12
$36
$0
$32
$68
$31
$0
$26
$0
$18
$0
$18
$15
$17
$20
$16
$0
$13
$0
$11
$0
$11
$0
$10
$5
$10
$0
$10
$0
$8
$3
$7
$0
$5
$0
$4
$0
$4
$0
$4
$0
$3
$0
$3
$0
$3
$6
$2
$13
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$27,948
146
Table40.ProgressofStatesinAttainingRPS
MWh
Deliveries
2007
77,193,000
264,235,000
51,299,000
34,129,000
11,869,000
146,055,000
45,270,000
40,166,000
11,860,000
65,391,000
57,139,000
109,297,000
68,231,000
85,533,000
15,532,000
35,643,000
11,236,000
81,934,000
22,267,000
148,178,000
131,881,000
161,771,000
48,697,000
151,573,000
8,013,000
343,829,000
85,742,000
71,301,000
%
Subject
toRPS
63.30%
98.00%
94.00%
94.30%
74.70%
73.00%
76.0%
69.0%
95.0%
73.0%
86.0%
100.0%
100.0%
70.0%
71.6%
88.1%
100.0%
98.0%
87.9%
82.0%
100.0%
88.8%
100.0%
97.0%
99.0%
76.0%
85.0%
100.0%
EligibleRPS
Generation
As%
TotalMWh
of
total
111,384
0.20%
29,100,554 11.20%
3,634,045
7.50%
1,294,897
4.00%
48,116
0.50%
2,474,161
2.30%
5,200,313
15.1%
1,779,109
6.4%
131,621
1.2%
732,977
1.5%
2,046,878
4.2%
6,507,215
6.0%
4,209,329
6.2%
2,897,453
4.8%
590,308
5.3%
3,500,178
11.1%
1,431,608
12.7%
2,106,832
2.6%
1,072,856
5.5%
1,285,869
1.1%
122,745
0.1%
235,475
0.2%
5,841,766
12.0%
8,187,275
5.6%
159,119
2.0%
16,709,530
6.4%
5,340,367
7.3%
2,873,906
4.0%
RPSTarget(%ofcovered
volume)
PlannedRenewables(MW)
2010
2012
2014+
2020+
Total
3.50%
20.00%
10.00%
12.00%
8.50%
7.00%
0.7%
10.0%
5.0%
9.0%
7.0%
2.0%
15.0%
2.0%
10.0%
15.0%
10.7%
10.1%
10.0%
5.8%
3.0%
1.5%
5.0%
10.7%
6.5%
3.8%
3.0%
4.2%
4.50%
20.00%
15.00%
14.00%
11.50%
9.00%
0.7%
15.0%
7.0%
17.4%
9.0%
10.0%
21.0%
5.0%
15.0%
18.0%
12.8%
12.1%
15.0%
6.6%
6.0%
2.5%
15.0%
11.3%
8.5%
5.2%
3.0%
10.0%
10.00%
33.00%
20.00%
23.00%
20.00%
20.50%
0.7%
20.0%
10.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
25.0%
15.0%
15.0%
20.0%
20.8%
22.5%
20.0%
6.6%
12.5%
12.5%
25.0%
18.5%
16.0%
8.9%
15.0%
10.0%
1,995
21,220
1,856
353
1,560
3,148
2,517
1,167
2,812
3,479
3,300
2,006
2,497
2,206
2,684
5,133
105
4,602
4,364
9,693
259
1,523
6,518
1,360
291
16,154
6,404
990
2,385,264,000
86.8% 109,625,886
5.3%
7.4%
http://www.snl.com/Sectors/Energy/whitepapers_library.aspx
9.8%
14.9%
110,195
State
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
NewHampshire
NewJersey
NewMexico
NewYork
NorthCarolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
RhodeIsland
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Totals
Under
Construction
123
174
191
1,340
360
132
0
4
11
8
146
111
311
4
1
110
37
2
164
500
1
794
154
4,676
UnderDev
and
Announced
1,872
21,046
1,665
353
1,560
1,807
2158
1,167
2680
3,479
3,296
1,995
2,490
2060
2573
4823
100
4,601
4,254
9,657
258
1,523
6354
860
289
15360
6250
990
105,518
%
Wind
%
Hydro
Other
42%
37%
71%
0%
99%
89%
96%
100%
60%
97%
97%
99%
98%
70%
96%
26%
95%
76%
85%
61%
0%
53%
42%
72%
52%
95%
61%
91%
0%
23%
22%
1%
1%
9%
2%
0%
40%
0%
1%
0%
2%
30%
4%
9%
0%
22%
0%
38%
4%
1%
53%
20%
0%
0%
37%
4%
58%
40%
7%
99%
0%
2%
2%
0%
0%
3%
3%
1%
1%
0%
0%
65%
5%
2%
15%
1%
96%
46%
6%
8%
48%
5%
3%
5%
67.10%
17.1%
15.8%
147
Table41.RetailSalesofElectricitybyState20002007TotalElectricIndustry
State
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
318,262,529
244,057,202
195,842,976
318,044,174
247,758,778
200,752,133
320,845,849
235,213,332
210,473,530
322,685,955
243,221,316
217,378,622
320,614,840
252,025,973
218,584,494
334,258,262
254,249,507
224,977,011
342,724,213
262,958,528
228,219,544
343,828,582
264,234,911
231,084,600
165,194,857
155,797,714
153,407,098
152,189,238
154,221,114
160,176,303
153,428,844
161,770,827
142,026,560
133,845,326
134,696,962
119,185,076
119,855,456
104,772,216
96,715,402
97,774,925
95,727,709
83,524,220
78,316,156
144,180,760
135,271,933
136,033,549
117,790,473
119,026,943
102,409,347
96,453,175
97,733,968
96,130,718
79,358,258
79,975,499
147,440,116
139,819,870
138,447,313
123,789,078
122,686,468
104,713,520
100,618,570
101,428,550
98,233,027
83,067,078
87,266,835
144,044,703
140,369,128
136,247,891
123,676,657
121,335,121
108,877,193
101,509,731
100,467,779
97,455,808
83,844,220
85,219,631
145,081,709
143,501,493
139,253,956
129,465,784
125,656,807
106,606,040
105,424,173
103,094,263
99,660,665
86,870,519
86,521,156
150,147,571
148,272,940
144,986,215
132,265,452
128,335,377
110,444,563
108,849,552
106,548,910
103,905,421
89,201,620
89,351,466
142,238,019
146,150,358
142,447,811
134,834,168
126,698,979
108,017,697
106,721,241
105,664,484
103,931,744
90,677,695
88,743,435
148,177,523
151,572,950
146,055,151
137,453,878
131,880,754
109,296,749
111,569,552
109,420,150
106,716,934
91,828,464
92,404,100
WA
96,511,121
78,495,247
75,403,856
78,133,501
79,981,608
83,425,200
85,033,335
85,741,947
SC
77,011,969
74,832,367
77,819,392
77,054,098
79,908,340
81,254,088
80,877,321
81,948,158
LA
80,690,346
74,692,751
79,260,989
77,769,322
79,737,112
77,389,170
77,467,748
79,566,937
72,642,699
69,977,129
65,146,487
61,130,045
60,677,804
59,782,089
51,773,113
49,564,141
43,020,284
73,213,157
73,177,390
65,218,293
62,274,304
61,640,020
60,686,852
52,496,075
49,666,725
44,236,038
75,000,629
74,602,620
66,999,296
62,600,737
68,379,906
62,162,361
53,707,537
49,485,466
45,936,696
74,239,888
76,382,512
67,241,494
64,079,560
71,258,583
63,087,339
55,514,357
50,428,168
46,494,645
74,054,296
77,593,167
67,975,709
66,933,251
66,891,700
63,340,315
56,142,019
50,942,042
46,723,841
80,940,494
81,896,813
70,335,683
69,390,686
68,365,385
66,019,053
57,227,588
53,707,102
48,353,236
82,015,230
79,680,947
69,820,749
73,252,776
63,173,143
66,769,931
55,850,090
54,905,314
49,733,698
85,532,850
81,934,334
71,301,300
77,193,206
65,390,660
68,231,182
57,138,822
55,193,200
51,299,156
50,330,414
45,884,830
45,255,173
45,194,730
45,636,448
46,419,245
48,069,265
48,696,965
45,336,178
41,611,188
39,087,867
35,921,461
29,952,407
27,791,691
44,286,865
41,732,449
39,443,755
35,846,951
30,540,758
28,167,293
45,451,850
42,449,558
40,897,543
36,713,540
31,005,489
29,204,272
45,543,881
43,108,259
41,207,284
36,735,390
31,830,218
30,131,660
46,032,538
43,672,360
40,902,773
37,126,540
32,214,610
31,312,306
45,901,064
46,164,923
42,756,808
39,024,283
33,095,029
32,500,630
46,936,437
46,635,624
43,336,835
39,751,302
31,677,453
34,586,260
48,153,181
47,054,891
45,269,523
40,165,977
34,129,107
35,643,402
TX
CA
FL
OH
NY
PA
IL
GA
NC
MI
VA
IN
TN
AL
KY
MO
NJ
WI
AZ
MD
MN
MA
OK
CO
OR
MS
AR
IA
KS
CT
NV
00
07
1.1
%
1.1
%
2.4
%
0.3
%
0.6
%
1.8
%
1.2
%
2.1
%
1.4
%
0.6
%
2.1
%
1.6
%
1.6
%
1.4
%
2.4
%
1.7
%
0.9
%
0.2
%
2.4
%
2.3
%
1.3
%
3.4
%
1.1
%
1.9
%
1.4
%
1.5
%
2.5
%
0.5
%
0.9
%
1.8
%
2.1
%
1.6
%
1.9
%
3.6
%
2020
396,881,750
306,237,920
314,217,862
155,599,088
160,316,219
190,959,717
169,750,987
179,134,552
157,505,855
118,224,220
145,472,698
134,851,423
130,581,739
109,503,097
125,634,281
68,828,115
91,970,111
77,521,936
115,845,845
109,824,296
84,315,888
119,056,441
75,135,748
87,217,739
68,622,596
67,398,085
71,131,923
45,802,757
53,857,368
59,124,336
59,459,969
49,423,993
43,492,291
56,580,888
148
WV
NE
UT
ID
NM
WY
MT
ME
DE
DC
NH
ND
HI
SD
RI
AK
VT
Grand
Total
27,692,998
24,349,189
23,185,277
22,834,099
18,800,676
12,367,684
14,579,982
27,669,432
24,722,640
23,217,308
21,096,017
18,726,594
12,949,505
11,446,658
28,463,122
25,661,061
23,267,188
20,699,666
19,206,917
12,874,060
12,831,388
28,296,993
25,856,566
23,860,350
21,218,685
19,330,491
13,253,836
12,824,660
28,918,612
25,875,930
24,511,704
21,808,674
19,845,735
13,539,513
12,956,782
30,152,069
26,975,944
25,000,498
21,852,681
20,638,951
14,137,727
13,478,838
32,312,126
27,276,292
26,365,716
22,761,749
21,434,957
14,946,612
13,814,980
34,183,839
28,248,400
27,785,447
23,755,186
22,267,394
15,535,552
15,531,985
12,162,977
12,151,997
11,441,358
11,971,837
12,367,668
12,362,879
12,284,768
11,860,202
11,274,290
10,615,521
10,158,903
9,413,409
9,690,596
8,282,740
7,301,336
5,309,970
5,638,614
3,421,414,2
66
11,378,626
10,880,472
10,315,551
9,809,757
9,784,563
8,626,999
7,392,917
5,454,080
5,585,446
3,394,458,1
04
12,018,734
11,128,743
10,383,387
10,219,353
9,891,638
8,936,801
7,560,699
5,465,489
5,629,263
3,465,466,0
11
12,599,590
10,946,383
10,972,542
10,461,108
10,390,836
9,079,990
7,796,626
5,563,682
5,352,429
3,493,734,4
86
11,761,153
11,414,847
10,973,309
10,516,400
10,731,520
9,213,844
7,887,575
5,788,484
5,663,772
3,547,479,4
83
12,136,788
11,816,207
11,244,628
10,839,990
10,538,910
9,811,017
8,049,112
5,912,571
5,883,053
3,660,968,5
13
11,554,672
11,396,424
11,094,343
11,245,238
10,567,912
10,056,387
7,799,126
6,182,291
5,795,029
3,669,918,8
40
11,868,810
12,110,185
11,235,856
11,905,695
10,585,299
10,603,301
8,013,022
6,326,610
5,864,006
3,764,560,7
12
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html
3.1
%
2.1
%
2.6
%
0.6
%
2.4
%
3.3
%
0.9
%
0.4
%
0.7
%
1.9
%
1.4
%
3.4
%
1.3
%
3.6
%
1.3
%
2.5
%
0.6
%
1.4
%
50,542,666
37,221,763
38,886,449
25,565,485
30,490,309
23,727,664
17,467,978
11,317,759
13,057,344
15,466,674
13,547,948
18,416,108
12,471,809
16,774,568
9,523,877
8,759,123
6,306,767
4,495,746,2
07
149
Table42.ListofStateswithanAngelTaxCreditProgram
State
Hawaii
Oregon
WestVirginia
Virginia
Louisiana
Kansas
NorthDakota
Maine
Kentucky*
Arizona
NewMexico
NorthCarolina
Ohio
Wisconsin
Indiana
Iowa
Oklahoma
NewJersey
Vermont**
Michigan*
Florida
NameofTaxCredit(TC)
HighTechInvestmentTC
UniversityVCFunds
HighGrowthBusinessInvestmentTC
QBInvestmentCredit
AngelInvestorTC
AngelInvestorTC
SeedCapitalInvestmentTC
SeedCapitalTC
KentuckyInvestmentFundAct
AngelInvestingTC
AngelInvestmentCredit
QBInvestmentTC
TechInvestmentTC
AngelInvestorTC
VCInvestmentTC
QBInvestmentTC
SmallBusinessCapitalCredit
HighTechInvestmentTC
SeedCapitalFund
AngelInvestorIncentive
None
Rate
100%
60%
50%
50%
50%
50%
45%
40%
40%
30%
25%
25%
25%
25%
20%
20%
20%
10%
10%
N/A
0%
Tiedw/WV,LA,KS
Tiedfor35thw/30Statesw/noProgram
*KentuckyandMichiganweredescribedinthereport,butnotlistedasanangeltaxcreditintheNGAAppendixF.Thisismostlikelybecause
Kentuckys tax credit does not apply to a single investor; rather it applies to a fund of multiple investors investing in multiple companies.
Michigandoesnotofferangelsanincometaxcredit;rather,itoffersadeductionfromcapitalgainsincomeasanincentiveforangelinvesting.
**According to the research of this paper, Vermonts 10% Seed Fund tax credit, though still on the books, is in fact nonexistent. Instead,
Vermont currently has an Angel Venture Investment Capital Gain Deferral Credit that provides an up to 60% deferral of capital gains on
investments of up to $200,000. This paper did not investigate all states, and other states have since created new programs and eliminated
others,suchastheIowaprogram.
Source:AngelCapitalEducationFoundation(JeffreyWilliams,BelmontUniversity):TaxCreditsandGovernmentIncentivesforAngelInvesting
inVariousStates,July,2008.
150
Table43.RenewablePortfolioStandardsbyStateAsofNovember2009
RPS%Standards
RPSMWStandards
RPSwithSolar/DGProvisions
%
Target
MW
Target
Target
%orMWbenchmarks
benchmarks
Year
benchmark
Year
Year
Alabama

Alaska

Arizona
15%
2025

4.5%DG
2025
Arkansas

California
33%
2020

Colorado(Coops&largeMunis)
10%
2020

Colorado(IOUs)
20%
2020

0.8%solarelectric
2020
Connecticut
23%
2020

Delaware
20%
2019

2.005%SolarPV
2019 TriplecreditforPV
DistrictofColumbia
20%
2020

0.40%
2020 1.1multiplierforsolar
Florida*(Voluntaryw/RateRecoveryOK)
110.0
43rd
Georgia

Hawaii
40%
2030

Idaho

Illinois
25%
2025

1.5%solarPV
2025
Indiana

Iowa
105

Kansas
20%
2020

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine
30%
2000

Maine(NewRE)
10%
2017

Maryland
20%
2022
2%Solarelectric
2022
Massachusetts
15%
2020
(+1%annualincreaseforClassIRenewables)
Michigan
10%
2015
1,100
2015
Triplecreditforsolar
Minnesota
25%
2025

MinnesotaXcel
30%
2020

Mississippi

Missouri
15%
2021
0.3%solarelectric
2021
Montana
15%
2015

Nebraska

Nevada
25%
2025
1.5%Solar
2025 2.4to2.45multiplierforPV
NewHampshire
24%
2025
0.3%Solarelectric
2014
NewJersey
23%
2021
2.12%Solarelectric
2021
NewMexico(Coops)
10%
2020

NewMexico(IOUs)
20%
2020
4%solarelectric;0.6%DG
2020
NewYork
24%
2013
0.1312%customersited
2013
NorthCarolina(Coops&Munis)
10%
2018

NorthCarolina(IOUs)
13%
2021
0.2%solar
2018
NorthDakota
10%
2015
RPGoal
Ohio
25%
2025
0.5%solar
2025
Oklahoma

Oregon(largeutilities)
25%
2025
20MWsolarPV
2020 DoublecreditforPV
Oregon(smallerutilities)
5%10%
2025

Pennsylvania
18%
2020
0.5%SolarPV
2020
RhodeIsland
16%
2020

SouthCarolina

SouthDakota
10%
2015
RPGoal
Tennessee

Texas
5,880
2015
500MW
Doublecreditfornonwind
Utah
20%
2025
RPGoal,2.4multiplierforsolar
Vermont
20%
2017
RE&CHPoranyincreaseinretailsalesby2012
Virginia
15%
2025
RPGoal
Washington
15%
2020
DoublecreditforDG
WestVirginia
25%
2025
RPGoal;variousmultipliersforsolar
Wisconsin
10%
2015
variesbyutility
Wyoming

Source:www.dsireusa.org

=Nodatareported.

SolarwaterheatingeligibleMinimumsolarorcustomersitedrequirement.StateRPSwithsolar/DGprovisions:16states&DC:AZ,CO,DE,DC,IL,MA,MD,MO,NC,
NH,NJ,NM,NV,NY,PA,OH,OR.
*TitleXXVII,Chapter366FloridaStatutes

366.92Floridarenewableenergypolicy.
State
In order to demonstrate the feasibility and viability of clean energy systems, the commission shall provide for full cost recovery under the
environmental costrecovery clause of all reasonable and prudent costs incurred by a provider for renewable energy projects that are zero
greenhouse gas emitting at the point of generation, up to a total of 110 megawatts statewide, and for which the provider has secured
necessaryland,zoningpermits,andtransmissionrightswithinthestate.Suchcostsshallbedeemedreasonableandprudentforpurposesof
costrecoverysolongastheproviderhasusedreasonableandcustomaryindustrypracticesinthedesign,procurement,andconstructionofthe
projectinacosteffectivemannerappropriatetothelocationofthefacility.Theprovidershallreporttothecommissionaspartofthecost
151
recovery proceedings the construction costs, inservice costs, operating and maintenance costs, hourly energy production of the renewable
energyproject,andanyotherinformationdeemedrelevantbythecommission.Anyproviderconstructingacleanenergyfacilitypursuantto
thissectionshallfileforcostrecoverynolaterthanJuly1,2009.
Table44.RenewablePortfolioStandards:NotesbyState
State(Notesandcomments)
MemoNotesandUpdates
Arizona
California
09/30/09Revisedcomplianceschedule,notes,andloadcoveredtoincludethenewlyenacted
33%by2020standardauthorizedunderExecutiveOrderS2109,tobeimplementedbytheCAAir
ResourcesBoardundertheirauthoritytoadoptregulationsformeetingCA'sGHGreductiongoals.
Inadditiontoextendingthepreviousstandardfor10moreyears,theEOalsoappliesitto
municipalutilities,whichwereformerlynotcovered.Theyearlyfractionalgoalssectionusesan
equalannualincreasetowardsthe33%targetalthoughtheEOdoesnotsetanyinterim
benchmarks.
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
08/27/09RevisedloadcovereddataforS1andS2pernumbersfromDEPSC.Revisednumbers
includeactualindustrialexemptionsfrom20072008complianceyearandusea2009Delmarva
SOS(S2)percentageof33%.S2willsunsetin2010asexisting2005and2006SOScontractsexpire.
07/24/09Revisedannualcomplianceschedulebypushingitbackoneyearinkeepingwith
methodologyforotherstateswithmidyearcompliancedeadlines(e.g.,NJ,PA),whichrefertothe
yeartheperiodends.ThestateofDEstillreferstocomplianceyearsbytheyearinwhichthey
begin.04/03/09CorrectederrorinsecondaryRPS(Schedule2)TierIcompliancepercentagefor
2010.Totalcompliance%wasindicatedas6%butshouldhavebeen5%.Correctingtheerror
reducedTierI(2010)from4.892%to3.892%.Addedcommentindicatingrationaleforload
covered%.
DistrictofColumbia
4/24/2009AddedDCintospreadsheet.
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
07/27/09RevisedcompliancescheduleforH.B.1464.Therevisionincreasesthe2020target
(formerlythelastcomplianceyearlisted)from20%to25%,extendsthe25%targetthrough2029,
andaddsa40%targetfor2030.AlsorevisednotestodescribesunsetofEEcountingunderthe
RPSin2015.EEwillhaveaseparatestandard.04/24/09AddedHawaiiintospreadsheet.
08/28/09RevisedtocreatesecondaryRPSforcompetitivesaleswhichworksouttobe12.5%by
2025(sameschedule,butsecondaryrequiresACPstobeusedforatleast50%oftheobligation).
AlsoaddedTier3tobothRPStypesforsolarcarveoutof6%ofannualrequirementsfor2015
2025.WindcarvesoutforsecondaryRPSis60%asopposedto75%forprimaryRPS.Starting%of
secondaryRPS(4%or5%)remainsinquestion.04/03/09IllinoisenactedPublicAct0951027in
January2009,expandingtheRPStocoveralternativeretailelectricsuppliers.Thisincreasedthe
loadcoveredfrom46%to87.7%using2007EIAdataasareference.Thisexpandedload%willnot
applyuntil2010.Additionallegislationisnowintheworkstoclarifycertainaspectsofextending
theRPStocompetitivesuppliers.
04/06/09RemovedmentionofconditionalRPSforIPLbasedonIPL'sapplicationtotheIUB
approvaltobuilda630MWcoalfiredpowerplant.IPLhascanceledthereplanssoanexpansion
oftheRPSviathismechanismisnolongerapossibility.
06/09/09CompletelynewentryforRPSenactedinMay2009.Standardis10%by2011and20%
by2020.
07/27/09AddedinformationaboutcommunityREmultiplierof1.5enactedaspartofL.D.1075
inJune2009.04/06/09UpdatedACPlevelsfor2009complianceyear.NoticesareissuedinJan.
orFeb.eachyearwithupdatedACPlevels.
04/06/09AddedmorenotesdetailingvariableACPlevelsforindustrialprocessloadsand
decliningSACP(TierIII)schedule.FilledinapplicableACPscurrentfor2009.
06/09/09MinorupdateswithFinalRegulations.Vintagedesignationforpre1998resourcesto
beconsidered"new"Class1facilitiesnolongerineffect,replacedwithprovisionsforincremental
additionsandefficiencyimprovementsatexistingfacilities.Possiblecustomersitedtierremains
unaddressedinFinalRules.04/29/09UpdatedperemergencyrulesineffectasofMarch31,
2009.RemovedformerTier3(CHP,coalgasification,etc.)asitdoesnotactuallyincludeany
renewablesandaddednewTier3forexistingMSW.
04/10/09RevisedtoclarifythatDTEandConsumer'snewcapacityobligationsarenotexclusive
of%requirements.Productionfromnewfacilitiescountsfor%obligation,thusthesearenot
152
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
separatetiers.
06/09/09Revisedgeneralnotestoindicatethatupto1%solarisnoweligibleundertheformer
"windonly"carveoutforXcel.ThusTierIIisnow25%(total)withatleast24%fromwindandup
to1%fromsolar.Thisisessentiallyaneligibilitychangesoitdoesnotaffectthe%requirements.
04/10/09Revisednotetoprovidemoredetailonentitiescovered,post2021compliance
treatment
06/09/09Addedcomplianceyears20162025toscheduleasaresultofMay2009amendments.
Schedulethrough2015unchanged,butsolarportionincreasesfrom5%to6%oftotalbeginningin
2016.Totalobligationchangedfrom20%in2015to20%for20152019,22%for20202024,and
25%for2025andthereafter.
NewHampshire
04/10/09updatedwithrevisedACPlevelsfor2009.EditedloadcoveredtoreflectJune2008
amendmentexemptingmunicipalutilitiesfromstandard,whichdecreasedfrom100%to98.2%
basedon2007EIAdata.
NewJersey
06/09/09revisedACPlevelforsolar(Tier3,now$693/MWh)toreflectannualreductionwith
newcomplianceyear(June1).04/10/09revisednotesforsolar(Tier3)ACPstofullydescribe
declining8yearschedule.
NewMexico
10/21/09Slightrevisiontonotes.TierIVwasrevisedpertheactualwordingofthestatuteto
includeallnonwind,nonsolarREasopposedtojustbiomassandgeothermal.Addednoteto
"ExistingRenewables"fieldtoindicatethathydroisonlyeligibleifplacedinserviceafterJuly1,
2007.
NewYork
04/22/09addeddetailtonotesdescribingultimatetargettofurtherclarifythatitdoesnot
includeEO111(0.19%)orthevoluntary(1%)greenpowermarketingtarget.
NorthCarolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
RhodeIsland
Texas
04/22/09addednotetoclarifythatrenewablesareeligibletoparticipateinthe"advanced
energy"standardinadditiontothespecificallyidentifiedrenewablesportion.Alsoaddeddetails
aboutACPpaymentstonotesandascommentintheACP/penaltyfield.
08/31/09addedsectiontonotesdescribing20MWACPV(500kW5MWpersystem)by2020
requirementforIOUs.Thusfarthisdetailisnotincludedinscheduleasitdoesnotcorrespondto
existingRPSstructure,butthiscanberevisitedasnecessary.04/24/09revisedACP
commentstoindicatedirectionofcurrentdiscussiontakingplace.
07/27/09addednotetodescribetheTier1scheduleasa"movingtarget"effectiveJune1,2009.
PUCmustadjusttheTier1%quarterlytoaccountfornewlydesignatedTier1resources.
04/24/09added2007/2008solar(TierIII)ACPperPAAEPSwebsite.Revisednotetoindicatehow
theTierIIIACPprocessworks.Alsoaddeddetailtonotesaboutloadcoveredin2008,2009,and
2010.
07/28/09Separaterequirementfor90MW(including3MWsolar)oflongtermcontractsby
2013inStateNotessection.Forthetimebeing,thisrequirementisnotreflectedinthe
quantitativedetails.Adjustingforcapacityfactor,thesolarportionamountstoroughlya0.3%
solarrequirementbasedonexpected2013retailsales.04/24/09updatedACPlevelwith2009
ACP,issuedJanuary31eachyear
04/24/09addednotedaboutexemptionforlargecustomersservedattransmissionvoltagein
thecontextofloadcovered.AddedadditionalfieldstodefineMWmandatecomplianceschedule
04/24/09addednotetoindicatebestguessforcurrentACP,asadjustedforinflation.
Washington
Wisconsin
NorthDakota
SouthDakota
VoluntaryGoals(Detailsnotincludedhere)
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm
153
Table45.DowJonesVentureSource:TotalVentureCapitalbyStatefor20002009($Millions)
State
California
Massachusetts
Texas
NewYork
NewJersey
Washington
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
Georgia
Florida
NorthCarolina
Illinois
Minnesota
Connecticut
Utah
Oregon
Ohio
NewHampshire
Arizona
Missouri
Michigan
Tennessee
Withheld
SouthCarolina
NewMexico
DistrictofColumbia
Indiana
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Delaware
Alabama
Hawaii
RhodeIsland
Kansas
Nevada
Nebraska
Louisiana
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Maine
Iowa
Idaho
Vermont
Montana
Arkansas
NorthDakota
WestVirginia
Wyoming
SouthDakota
VirginIslands
PuertoRico
Alaska
Seed/Early
SeedRound
FirstRound
2000
2001
2002
$40,266
$14,715
$9,409
$9,630
$4,312
$2,640
$5,994
$2,602
$1,331
$5,744
$1,618
$775
$2,450
$1,816
$637
$2,760
$958
$539
$3,771
$989
$648
$2,422
$851
$378
$1,767
$1,058
$721
$2,234
$852
$385
$1,950
$688
$544
$1,697
$872
$262
$1,661
$439
$583
$1,829
$501
$244
$1,025
$448
$424
$1,391
$407
$253
$520
$312
$113
$800
$206
$191
$472
$170
$195
$588
$274
$187
$416
$138
$136
$371
$169
$211
$275
$108
$74
$231
$103
$137
$11
$21
$58
$570
$195
$92
$132
$77
$71
$380
$155
$7
$179
$48
$33
$159
$23
$14
$125
$74
$63
$288
$150
$54
$184
$59
$38
$231
$15
$3
$91
$58
$39
$166
$42
$9
$20
$37
$18
$85
$43
$45
$87
$10
$7
$20
$28
$19
$22
$38
$108
$10
$13
$2
$5
$16
$9
$2
$11
$30
$24
$2
$20
$2
$2
$1
$1
$4
$7
$3
$1
$2
$1
$1
Mid+
SecondRound
LaterStage3rd
LaterStage4th
LaterStage5th
LaterStage6th
2003
$8,540
$2,815
$1,109
$732
$985
$448
$346
$503
$378
$377
$275
$883
$302
$200
$271
$199
$76
$87
$139
$165
$102
$114
$86
$199
$20
$72
$97
$56
$25
$5
$74
2004
$10,229
$2,804
$1,040
$948
$756
$837
$365
$723
$662
$431
$492
$287
$310
$269
$391
$198
$219
$145
$214
$110
$52
$93
$114
$80
$32
$17
$18
$70
$65
$40
$57
$26
$13
$51
$21
$23
$3
$4
$6
$4
$24
$54
$1
$5
$4
LaterStage7th
LaterStage8th
LaterStage9th
LaterStageLater
Mezzanine
$54
$33
$20
$76
$6
$5
$4
$32
$5
$14
$1
$1
$4
$10
$3
$2
2005
$10,792
$2,781
$1,192
$1,566
$1,043
$711
$656
$423
$420
$488
$448
$489
$410
$300
$219
$188
$131
$124
$94
$113
$233
$51
$43
$109
$46
$7
$84
$19
$54
$186
$49
$10
$2
$94
$16
$0
$48
$3
$23
$35
$13
$2
$3
$27
$1
$15
$1
$3
Restart1
Restart2
Restart3
Restart4
Restart5
2006
2007
$13,214 $14,320
$2,968 $3,524
$1,276 $1,213
$1,701 $1,452
$730
$593
$966 $1,336
$449
$634
$1,487 $1,032
$633
$533
$502
$617
$371
$357
$348
$418
$439
$767
$359
$491
$552
$487
$230
$237
$215
$245
$96
$266
$223
$345
$127
$125
$139
$239
$122
$101
$168
$92
$72
$112
$742
$94
$2
$104
$29
$167
$52
$22
$81
$85
$8
$87
$75
$55
$8
$33
$30
$26
$22
$86
$4
$11
$5
$5
$56
$13
$11
$18
$36
$18
$10
$13
$2
$3
$17
$3
$13
$6
$20
$6
$7
$1
2008
2009 Average.0008
$14,545 $4,133
$15,114
$2,958 $1,112
$3,826
$1,137 $293
$1,877
$1,776 $501
$1,812
$606 $267
$1,068
$880 $403
$1,048
$908 $506
$974
$631 $226
$939
$686
$67
$762
$555 $104
$716
$333 $188
$606
$215 $126
$608
$441 $133
$595
$492
$92
$520
$279 $127
$455
$134
$97
$360
$364
$80
$244
$171
$54
$234
$255
$31
$232
$208
$66
$211
$199 $100
$184
$57
$22
$143
$183
$58
$127
$82
$12
$125
$89
$1
$124
$20
$1
$120
$122
$3
$88
$30
$88
$163
$51
$81
$20
$94
$70
$55
$4
$60
$22
$7
$59
$133
$28
$56
$49
$7
$56
$52
$17
$48
$41
$5
$35
$4
$15
$32
$16
$23
$5
$13
$19
$22
$18
$7
$17
$6
$4
$17
$71
$3
$16
$4
$15
$7
$1
$10
$28
$6
$6
$3
$4
$0
$2
$2
$1
$1
$1
$0
$0
$0
http://fis.dowjones.com/products/venturesource.html,AccesstotheVentureSourceDataBasewasGraciouslyProvidedbyKirstieChadwick
ofUCF'sVentureLab
Venture Source "rounds" as grouped by the authors. The authors choose to only include 1st and 2nd rounds as "Seed/Early" with all else
definedas"Mid+"aswebelieveitprovidesthemostaccuraterepresentationofthestateofthe"fundingworld".
154
Table46.DowJonesVentureSource:VCinMidLateStage*byStatefor20002009($Millions)
State
California
Massachusetts
Texas
NewYork
Colorado
Washington
NewJersey
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
Florida
Georgia
NorthCarolina
Minnesota
Illinois
Connecticut
Utah
Ohio
Oregon
NewHampshire
Arizona
SouthCarolina
Withheld
Missouri
Michigan
Tennessee
NewMexico
DistrictofColumbia
Indiana
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Hawaii
Delaware
RhodeIsland
Alabama
Nevada
Nebraska
Kansas
Mississippi
Maine
Idaho
Iowa
Oklahoma
Vermont
Montana
Louisiana
Arkansas
WestVirginia
NorthDakota
Wyoming
SouthDakota
Alaska
VirginIslands
PuertoRico
Seed/Early
SeedRound
FirstRound
2000
$30,006
$6,949
$4,000
$3,699
$3,108
$2,065
$1,403
$1,664
$1,085
$1,254
$1,221
$1,185
$823
$755
$813
$983
$369
$336
$532
$410
$265
$562
$135
$179
$159
$126
$301
$123
$124
$102
$224
$113
$55
$85
$10
$54
$62
$6
$91
$2
$2
$30
$19
$6
$1
2001
$11,562
$3,475
$1,969
$1,189
$851
$713
$1,486
$722
$964
$735
$785
$532
$313
$378
$407
$324
$193
$143
$183
$168
$95
$179
$21
$142
$59
$47
$65
$138
$40
2002
2003
2004
$7,571
$6,887
$8,227
$2,233
$2,274
$2,296
$1,106
$843
$840
$643
$640
$775
$522
$280
$300
$464
$322
$700
$463
$888
$653
$298
$452
$473
$570
$296
$556
$342
$326
$328
$204
$827
$204
$465
$195
$272
$513
$264
$239
$372
$246
$351
$184
$156
$201
$188
$133
$171
$86
$64
$158
$150
$96
$204
$158
$52
$90
$156
$153
$96
$128
$62
$48
$92
$63
$13
$58
$20
$200
$76
$91
$71
$73
$113
$91
$162
$63
$38
$91
$5
$5
$31
$70
$27
$16
$42
$12
$3
$40
$57
$55
$71
$48
$5
$12
$51
$150
$54
$19
$21
$47
$25
$22
$29
$26
$14
$5
$17
$51
$40
$40
$6
$19
$5
$20
$17
$23
$4
$10
$13
$1
$11
$51
$14
$5
$9
$24
$5
$20
$8
$19
$11
$0
$0
$1
$2
$2
$5
$1
$4
$7
$3
$4
$1
$4
$1
$1
$3
$10
$2
$1
$1
$1
Mid+
SecondRound
LaterStage3rd
LaterStage4th
LaterStage5th
LaterStage6th
LaterStage7th
LaterStage8th
LaterStage9th
LaterStageLater
Mezzanine
2005
$8,469
$2,246
$992
$1,090
$591
$457
$796
$332
$283
$374
$413
$365
$334
$190
$212
$117
$88
$74
$104
$96
$216
$4
$19
$18
$30
$64
$63
$6
$22
$185
$44
$92
$5
$12
$2
$48
$0
$29
$25
$3
$13
$1
$4
$15
$1
2006
$10,618
$2,372
$1,054
$1,163
$358
$822
$635
$1,270
$435
$392
$268
$311
$372
$504
$318
$203
$141
$177
$94
$118
$115
$2
$730
$66
$129
$66
$25
$52
$40
$45
$21
$86
$30
$5
$8
$11
$36
$2
$17
$10
$3
$2
$7
$1
Restart1
Restart2
Restart3
Restart4
Restart5
2007
2008
2009
Average.0008
$11,140 $12,226 $3,612
$11,856
$2,810
$2,281
$976
$2,993
$977
$876
$233
$1,406
$1,151
$1,153
$384
$1,278
$523
$785
$345
$813
$1,038
$628
$330
$801
$378
$449
$240
$795
$834
$450
$192
$722
$439
$601
$60
$581
$468
$495
$99
$524
$284
$199
$123
$490
$249
$266
$183
$427
$654
$328
$125
$426
$379
$257
$119
$381
$303
$370
$68
$329
$151
$50
$40
$258
$198
$314
$77
$179
$285
$149
$24
$179
$243
$121
$43
$175
$85
$183
$66
$163
$178
$152
$84
$140
$90
$20
$1
$114
$64
$43
$106
$93
$39
$22
$95
$49
$106
$25
$90
$29
$42
$80
$128
$95
$1
$71
$11
$1
$68
$52
$153
$2
$57
$34
$17
$93
$46
$40
$30
$4
$55
$15
$22
$7
$49
$5
$5
$36
$37
$34
$29
$23
$28
$27
$43
$15
$21
$16
$3
$2
$15
$18
$22
$15
$2
$13
$3
$4
$12
$31
$11
$4
$3
$8
$12
$5
$0
$7
$28
$6
$8
$1
$13
$4
$2
$6
$1
$0
$1
$1
$1
$0
$0
$0
http://fis.dowjones.com/products/venturesource.html,AccesstotheVentureSourceDataBasewasGraciouslyProvidedbyKirstieChadwickof
UCF'sVentureLab
VentureSource"rounds"asgroupedbytheauthors.Theauthorschoosetoonlyinclude1stand2ndroundsas"Seed/Early"withallelse
definedas"Mid+"aswebelieveitprovidesthemostaccuraterepresentationofthestateofthe"fundingworld".
155
Table47.DowJonesVentureSource:VCinEarlyStage*byStatefor20002009($Millions)
State
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 2007 2008 2009 Average.0008
California
$10,260
$3,153 $1,838
$1,654
$2,002
$2,323 $2,595 $3,179 $2,319 $521
$3,258
Massachusetts
$2,681
$838
$408
$540
$507
$535
$596
$715 $677 $136
$833
NewYork
$2,045
$429
$132
$92
$173
$476
$538
$301 $623 $117
$534
Texas
$1,994
$633
$225
$266
$200
$200
$222
$236 $261 $59
$471
NewJersey
$1,047
$330
$174
$98
$104
$247
$94
$214 $157 $27
$274
Washington
$695
$245
$75
$125
$136
$254
$144
$298 $253 $73
$247
Pennsylvania
$758
$129
$80
$51
$250
$92
$217
$198 $182 $34
$217
Illinois
$1,016
$95
$60
$44
$68
$88
$41
$188 $122 $24
$191
Virginia
$980
$117
$43
$51
$104
$113
$110
$149
$60 $4
$192
Maryland
$682
$94
$151
$82
$106
$137
$198
$94
$86 $6
$181
Georgia
$765
$156
$79
$81
$219
$83
$60
$109
$67 $5
$180
Colorado
$664
$139
$126
$67
$65
$65
$91
$111 $123 $161
$161
NorthCarolina
$838
$126
$71
$38
$72
$76
$68
$114 $113 $8
$168
Florida
$476
$87
$58
$55
$83
$77
$80
$134
$16 $4
$118
Connecticut
$408
$83
$65
$66
$28
$71
$28
$87
$84 $57
$102
Minnesota
$270
$70
$52
$24
$40
$29
$47
$108
$22 $9
$74
Utah
$151
$119
$27
$12
$61
$43
$74
$47
$50 $3
$65
Oregon
$269
$23
$34
$35
$55
$20
$2
$23
$50 $11
$57
Ohio
$136
$26
$45
$43
$10
$20
$46
$60 $106 $7
$55
NewHampshire
$179
$106
$31
$12
$14
$18
$9
$40
$26
$48
Missouri
$236
$27
$11
$39
$2
$33
$56
$8
$17
$48
Tennessee
$72
$56
$46
$38
$16
$45
$6
$83
$40 $12
$45
Arizona
$150
$43
$8
$41
$4
$17
$24
$61
$47 $16
$44
Michigan
$96
$49
$3
$13
$1
$13
$39
$44
$77 $34
$37
Indiana
$56
$8
$6
$9
$22
$32
$41
$33
$9 $49
$24
Alabama
$99
$37
$9
$3
$1 $110
$29
Delaware
$175
$6
$4
$22 $2
$23
Kansas
$104
$23
$4
$2
$3
$2
$40 $5
$20
DistrictofColumbia
$79
$17
$2
$25
$1
$13
$0
$11
$29
$20
NewMexico
$6
$12
$33
$6
$13
$21
$4
$39
$27 $3
$18
Withheld
$11
$32
$27
$12
$30
$47 $1
$18
RhodeIsland
$36
$39
$18
$3
$8
$4
$4
$15 $17
$14
Wisconsin
$23
$16
$8
$3
$9
$6
$30
$15
$25
$15
Louisiana
$81
$6
$1
$19
$9
$10
$4
$14
Kentucky
$35
$23
$2
$2
$1
$8
$52
$3 $1
$14
Nevada
$10
$23
$13
$6
$25
$0
$13
$4
$10
Oklahoma
$19
$2
$30
$6
$13
$9
$4
$9
Hawaii
$7
$9
$3
$1
$4
$2
$5
$7
$27
$7
Nebraska
$32
$3
$5
$3
$5
$16
$7
SouthCarolina
$8
$16
$9
$4
$3
$15
$6
Iowa
$7
$3
$40 $3
$5
Maine
$17
$1
$4
$2
$3
$4 $4
$3
Mississi99i
$14
$5
$4
$6
$3
Vermont
$13
$2
$1
$3
$7
$2 $1
$3
Idaho
$7
$2
$3
$2
$10
$3
NorthDakota
$7
$4
$1
Montana
$1
$6
$0
SouthDakota
$4
$1
$1
WestVirginia
$3
$1
$1
$0
Arkansas
$4
$0
Wyoming
$2
$0
PuertoRico
$0
VirginIslands
$0
Alaska
$0
Seed/Early
Mid+
SeedRound
SecondRound
LaterStage7th
Restart1
FirstRound
LaterStage3rd
LaterStage8th
Restart2
LaterStage4th
LaterStage9th
Restart3
LaterStage5th
LaterStageLater
Restart4
LaterStage6th
Mezzanine
Restart5
http://fis.dowjones.com/products/venturesource.html
AccesstotheVentureSourceDataBasewasGraciouslyProvidedbyKirstieChadwickofUCF'sVentureLab
VentureSource"rounds"asgroupedbytheauthors.Theauthorschoosetoonlyinclude1stand2ndroundsas"Seed/Early"withallelsedefined
as"Mid+"aswebelieveitprovidesthemostaccuraterepresentationofthestateofthe"fundingworld".
156
Table48.AngelGroupsbyStatewithAngelITCProgramsNotedfromNGAData(Circa2007)
State
CA
PA
IL
NC
MA
NY
WI
TX
FL
SC
WA
OH
MI
TN
DC
NH
AZ
CT
ID
KS
MD
NV
MT
OR
IN
UT
NJ
CO
AR
VA
GA
LA
HI
AL
KY
OK
MO
ME
VT
GA
CA
RI
NM
GrandTotal
AngelITC
(blank)
(blank)
(blank)
Yes
(blank)
(blank)
Yes
(blank)
(blank)
(blank)
(blank)
Yes
(blank)
(blank)
(blank)
(blank)
Yes
(blank)
(blank)
Yes
(blank)
(blank)
(blank)
Yes
Yes
(blank)
Yes
(blank)
(blank)
Yes
(blank)
Yes
Yes
(blank)
(blank)
Yes
(blank)
Yes
Yes
(blank)
(blank)
(blank)
Yes
#AngelGroups
18
10
9
9
8
7
7
6
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
144
http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0802ANGELINVESTMENT.PDF
157
Table49.StateAngelInvestmentTaxCredits
State
Hawaii
Oregon
West
Virginia
Virginia
TaxCredit Rate(%) Requirements Span(years)

High
Technology
Investment
TaxCredit
University
Venture
CapitalFunds
HighGrowth
Business
Investment
TaxCredit
Qualified
Business
Investment
Credit
Louisiana
AngelInvestor
TaxCredit
Kansas
AngelInvestor
TaxCredit
North
Dakota
SeedCapital
Investment
TaxCredit
Maine
SeedCapital
TaxCredit
Arizona
Carry(years)
$2Mcreditper
businessperyear
Claims
1999to2002,
$36Min887
claimswith
$114.4M
outstanding
100
None
60
$14M
$50kcreditper
aggregate
year
50
Maintain
investmentfor5
years
$2Mper $50kperinvestor;
yearfor5 $1Minvestment
years
percompany
BeganJuly1,
2005
50
Musthold
equityfor3
years
$3Mper
$50kperinvestor
year
annually
prorated
15
Over5years,
$7.3Mcredited
to863claims
50
Morethan50%
ofcompany
salesareoutside
thestate
50
Company<$5M
grossrevenue
and<5yearsof
operations
45
Qualified
companyis
principallyin
stateand
engagedin
innovationor
R&D
Investmentat
riskfor5years
Angel
Investment
TaxCredit
30
Notavailableto
thosewho
alreadyhold>
30%equity
AngelInvestor
TaxCredit
25
Upto$500kin
equity
purchases
Ohio
Technology
Investment
TaxCredit
25
Businesshas<
$2.5Min
revenue
North
Carolina
Qualified
Business
Investment
TaxCredit
25
Companygross
revenues<$5M
inpreviousfiscal
year
Angel
25
Hightechor
New
Max
Researchmust
beatleast50%
ofcompany
activity
40
Wisconsin
Cap
None
Beginsin2006
$1Minvestment
peryearper
$5Mper
BeganJanuary1,
business;and$2M
11
year
2005
aggregateper
business
$2Mper
yearand $50kinvestment;5
0
BeganJanuary1,
$20M
investmentsper
Transferable
2006
over12
year
years
$250kinvestment
peryearper
$2.5M
investor;$500k
peryear
investmentper
business
50%totalliability;
$200kcreditper
$20M
investment;
aggregate
aggregate$5Mper
business
$250kaggregate
$20M
investmentper
over5
investorperyear;
years
$2Mcreditper
business
$3Mper
year; $125kcreditper
$30M
investment
aggregate
investment</=
$20M $250kperyear;
aggregate$1.5Minvestment
percompany
$6Mper
year;
increased $50kcreditper
to$7M
year
peryear
in2004
$750,000 25percentupto
2002to2005,
$34Minvestedin
1088companies
by768
claimants,$9M
incredits
15
199202$6.7M
claimedat30
percent;200305
$5.4Mclaimedat
40percent
EffectiveJuly1,
2006
$3Min2005;
290investors
15
Estimated$1.3M
peryear
$6Mperyear
claimedin2002
and2003
Passed2007
158
State
Mexico
TaxCredit Rate(%) Requirements Span(years) Cap

Max
Carry(years)
Claims
Investment
manufacturing;
$25,000per
Credit
<100
companyand2
employees;
companiesper
<$5Mgross
year
revenue
Company
spends50%of
Claims:2002
SmallBusiness
$500kinvestment
Oklahoma
20
1
None
10
$2M;2003$3M;
investment
CapitalCredit
peryear
within18
2004$1M
months
Qualified
Business
Creditcannotbe
$50kcreditper
$1.8Mclaimed
$10M
Investment
claimeduntil3
investment;5
thruJune2005
Iowa
20
1
over3
5
andSeed
yearsafter
investmentsper
sinceinception
years
investment
year
in2002
CapitalTax
Credit
Venture
Qualified
$12.5M $500kperyearper
Capital
Indiana
20
1
5
Notyetrecorded
Investment
business
peryear
company
TaxCredit
50%firm
SeedCapital
$2M
50%oftotal
Vermont
10
revenuefrom
1
4
Began2005
Fund
aggregate
liability
outofstate
High
Companyhas
$1Mcreditper
Technology
<225jobs,75%
NewJersey
10
1
None
company;$500k
15
Notavailable
Investment
ofwhicharein
creditperinvestor
TaxCredit
thestate
http://www.nga.org/files/pdf/0802angelinvestment.pdf
159
Table50.SelectStateIncentivesforRenewableEnergy,November2009
PropertyAssessed
CleanEnergy(PACE)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DistrictofColumbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
NewHampshire
NewJersey
NewMexico
NewYork
NorthCarolina
NorthDakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
RhodeIsland
SouthCarolina
SouthDakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
WestVirginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
NetMetering
25*
nolimit*
25/300
1,000*
nolimit
2,000*
25/500/2,000*
1,000
2,000*
10/100
100
40*
10*
500*
25/200*
30*
25/300
660
2,000
60/1,000/2,000*
150*
40
100
50*
25
1,000*
100
2,000*
80,000*
25/500/2,000*
1,000*
100*
nolimit*
100*
25/2,000*
50/3,000/5,000*
1,650/2,2250/3,500*
25/2,000*
250
20/500*
100
25
20*
25*
InterconnectionStandards
25/300**
nolimit
10,000
20,000
10,000
2,000**
10/100**
nolimit
10,000
nolimit
25/200**
30**
25/300**
10,000
nolimit
nolimit
10,000
100**
50*
25**
20,000
100**
2,000**
80,000
2,000
nolimit
20,000
10,000
5,000**
20/100
10,000
10,000
25/2,000**
nolimit
20,000
20,000
15,000
25**
=Nodatareported.16stateshaveauthorizedPACElegislationand2states(HIandFL)permititbasedonexistinglaw:CA,CO,FL,HI,IL,LA,
OK,MD,NC,NM,NV,NY,OH,OR,TX,VA,VT,WI.42StatesandDChaveadoptedanetmeteringpolicy;*statepolicyappliestocertainutility
typesonly(e.g.,investorownedutilities);NetmeteringisvoluntaryinIdaho,SouthCarolinaandTexas.**Standardonlyappliestonet
meteredsystems;numbersindicatesystemcapacitylimitinkW.Source:www.dsireusa.org
160
Table51.StatePublicBenefitsFundsforRenewables(May2009EstimatedFunding)
2009Funding
LongTermFunding
Amount($million)
Amount($million)
Years
Rank
California
$363.70
$4,566.00
19982016
1
NewJersey
$78.30
$ 647.00
20012012
2
Massachusetts
$25.00
$524.00
19982017
3
Connecticut
$28.00
$444.00
20002017
4
Minnesota
$19.50
$327.00
19992017
5
Oregon
$13.90
$ 191.00
20012017
6
NewYork
$15.70
$114.00
19992011
7
Illinois
$3.30
$97.00
19982015
8
Wisconsin
$7.90
$90.00
20012017
9
Ohio
$3.20
$63.00
20012010 10
Pennsylvania
$0.95
$63.00
19992010 11
Delaware
$3.40
$48.00
19992017 12
RhodeIsland
$2.20
$38.00
19972017 13
Vermont
$5.20
$33.00
20042011 14
Michigan
$6.70
$27.00
20012017 15
Montana
$0.75
$14.00
19992017 16
DistrictofColumbia
$2.00
$8.80
20042012 17
Maine
TBD
$0.58
20022009 18
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
34
Nebraska
Nevada
NewHampshire
NewMexico
NorthCarolina
NorthDakota
Oklahoma
SouthCarolina
SouthDakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
WestVirginia
Wyoming
TOTALPBF
$579.70
$7,295.38
=Nodatareported.StatePBFforRenewables:16states&DC:CA,CT,DE,DC,IL,ME,MA,MI,MN,MT,NJ,NY,OH,OR,PA,RI,
VT,WI.Source:www.dsireusa.org
State
161
Table52.CenterforVentureResearch,AngelActivityintheUS20012009
Stages
Seedand
NumberofActive %Industrialor
Mid+
JobCreation Early
Investors
Energy
Capital*
Capital
140,200
13%
N/A
28%
72%
260,500
11%
N/A
46%
54%
258,200
8%200,000
44%
56%
234,000
6%201,400
46%
40%
227,000
6%198,000
55%
43%
225,000
N/A
141,200
N/A
N/A
220,000
N/A
N/A
52%
35%
200,000
N/A
N/A
47%
23%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
220,613
9%
185,150
45%
46%
$
Est.Energy
$2.01 Est.byStage
$10.28
10.12
Est.EnergyEarlyStage($B)
$0.92
Est.EnergyMid+Stage($B)
$0.93
TotalAngel
Numberof
YearorQuarters Investment($
Ventures
billion)
Q1Q22009
$9.1024,500
2008
$19.2055,480
2007
$26.0057,120
2006
$25.6051,000
2005
$23.1049,500
2004
$22.5048,000
2003
$18.1042,000
2002
$15.7036,000
2001
$30.0045,000
TOTAL
$189.30408,600
Average
$22.27
48,071
Source:CenterforVentureResearch,http://wsbe.unh.edu/cvr
*Notethatduetoinconsistenciesindatareportingthat%bystagein2006andearlierdoesnotaddto100%
162
Table53.StateSupportedVCFundsfromtheNASVF
AllStateSupportedVCFunds
RowLabels
CapitalinMillions
NewMexico
Texas
Ohio
Michigan
Oklahoma
Utah
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Pennsylvania
NewJersey
Connecticut
SouthCarolina
Arkansas
Kentucky
NorthDakota
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Hawaii
Maryland
Florida
Colorado
NewYork
Georgia
Minnesota
Maine
Virginia
Delaware
Kansas
RhodeIsland
GrandTotal
$536.00
$290.00
$212.00
$204.00
$107.20
$106.00
$100.00
$83.50
$70.00
$68.00
$65.00
$60.00
$48.00
$47.60
$46.00
$43.00
$38.00
$35.00
$31.00
$30.00
$29.50
$23.00
$20.00
$18.00
$16.00
$12.00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.40
$7.00
$2,370.20
PreSeedtoEarlyStageFocus
SeedtoMid+StageFocus
State,Focus,Yearof
Capitalin #of State,Focus,Yearof
Capitalin #of
#ofFunds
Implementation
Millions Funds Implementation
Millions Funds
2Texas
$290.00
1NewMexico
$536.00
2
1
PreSeedtoSeed
SeedtoGrowth
2
2005
$290.00
1
1995
$400.00
1
2Ohio
$212.00
2
2004
$136.00
1
2
EarlyStageFocus
Michigan
$109.00
1
2
2005
$150.00
1
Any
1
PreSeed,Seed
2007
$109.00
1
3
2003
$62.00
1Utah
$106.00
2
1Michigan
$95.00
1
AllStages
2
SeedtoEarly
1986
$6.00
1
1
2007
$95.00
1
Any
4Illinois
$83.50
3
2006
$100.00
1
1
Seed
Oklahoma
$100.00
1
2
1984
$5.50
1
SeedtoMezzanine
2
2006
$3.00
1
1993
$100.00
1
2
EarlyStageFocus
Iowa
$100.00
1
1
2004
$75.00
1
SeedtoLater
1Indiana
$70.00
1
2005
$100.00
1
1
SeedandEarly
SouthCarolina
$48.00
1
2
2000
$70.00
1
SeedtoLateGrowth
1Pennsylvania
$68.00
2
2007
$48.00
1
1
EarlyStageFocus
Arkansas
$45.00
1
1
2000
$8.00
1
SeedtoLater
1
2006
$60.00
1
2003
$45.00
1
1NewJersey
$65.00
1Hawaii
$31.00
1
2
Early
SeedtoMezzanine
1
2006
$65.00
1
1995
$31.00
1
2Connecticut
$60.00
4Minnesota
$16.00
1
1
PreSeed,Seed,Early
SeedtoExpansion
1
1995
$40.00
1
1998
$16.00
1
47
1999
$16.50
1Maine
$3.00
1
2002
$1.50
1
Any
2007
$2.00
1
2000
$3.00
1
Kentucky
$46.00
2Delaware
$3.00
1
SeedandEarly
Any
2001
$21.00
1
2006
$3.00
1
2002
$25.00
1GrandTotal
$1,097.00 13
NorthDakota
$43.00
2
EarlyStageFocus
2003
$10.00
1
SeedtoEarly
1991
$33.00
1
Louisiana
$38.00
1
EarlytoLater
1989
$38.00
1
Massachusetts
$35.00
1
SeedtoEarly
1979
$35.00
1
Maryland
$30.00
2
SeedtoEarly
1994
$20.00
1
2002
$10.00
1
Florida
$29.50
1
SeedandEarly
163
(blank)
Colorado
SeedandEarly
2005
NewYork
SeedtoEarly
1982
Georgia
Seed
2000
Virginia
SeedStage
2004
Maine
EarlytoLater
1997
Kansas
SeedandEarly
2000
Oklahoma
Seed
2007
RhodeIsland
SeedtoEarlyStage
1997
Delaware
PreSeed,Seed
(blank)
Arkansas
Seed
1986
GrandTotal
$29.50
$23.00
$23.00
$20.00
$20.00
$18.00
$18.00
$9.00
$9.00
$9.00
$9.00
$7.40
$7.40
$7.20
$7.20
$7.00
$7.00
$5.00
$5.00
$2.60
$2.60
$1,273.20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
34
NationalAssociationofSeedandVentureFunds,http://www.nasvf.org/pdfs/VCFundsReport.pdf
164
Table 54. U.S. StateSupported Venture Capital Funds: National Association of Seed and
VentureFunds(NASVF)March2008
State
Investment
Capitalin
Millions(2)
FundofFunds
Year
Year
DirectInvesting
Authorized Beganto
Fund
(1) Invest
NewMexico
$400.0
NMICFundofFunds
Texas
$290.0
Ohio
$150.0
NewMexico
$136.0
Michigan
$109.0
Iowa
$100.0
NMICDirect
InvestmentProgram
21stCenturyJobs
21stCenturyJobsFund
Fund
IowaFundofFunds
Oklahoma
$100.0
OklahomaCapitalInvestmentBoard
Utah
Michigan
$100.0
$95.0
Illinois
$75.0
Indiana
$70.0
NewJersey
$65.0
Ohio
$62.0
Pennsylvania
Stagesof
Investment*
Seedto
Growth
PreSeedto
Seed
EarlyStage
Focus
Seedto
Growth
1994
1995
2005
2005
2005
2005
2003
2004
2006
2007
Any
2005
2005
1991
1993
2003
2006
2006
2007
2002
2004
SeedtoLater
Seedto
Mezzanine
Any
SeedtoEarly
EarlyStage
Focus
1999
2000
Seedand
Early
2006
2006
Early
ThirdFrontierPreSeedFundInitiative
2002
2003
$60.0
NewPAVentureCapitalInvestmentProgram
2005
2006
SouthCarolina
$48.0
SouthCarolinaVentureCapitalFund
2007
2007
Arkansas
$45.0
ArkansasInstitutionalFund
2001
2003
Connecticut
$40.0
EliWhitneyFund
1989
1995
Louisiana
$38.0
1989
1989
Massachusetts
$35.0
1978
1979
SeedtoEarly
NorthDakota
$33.0
VentureCapitalMatchProgram
Mass.Technology
Development
Corporation
NorthDakota
DevelopmentFund
PreSeed,
Seed
EarlyStage
Focus
SeedtoLate
Growth
SeedtoLater
PreSeed,
Seed,Early
EarlytoLater
1991
1991
SeedtoEarly
Hawaii
$31.0
1990
1995
Florida
$29.5
2007
Kentucky
$25.0
KSTCEnterpriseFund
2000
2002
Colorado
$23.0
VentureCapitalAuthorityFundofFunds
2004
2005
Kentucky
$21.0
2001
2001
Maryland
$20.0
1994
1994
SeedtoEarly
NewYork
$20.0
1981
1982
SeedtoEarly
Georgia
$18.0
1988
2000
Seed
EmergingTechnology
Fund
OhioCapitalFund
UtahFundofFunds
VentureMichiganFund
TechnologyDevelopmentAccount
EdisonInnovationFunds
21stCentury
Research&
TechnologyFund
EdisonInnovation
Funds
HawaiiStrategicDevelopmentCorporation
FloridaOpportunityFund
CommonwealthSeed CommonwealthSeed
CapitalFund
CapitalFund
MarylandVenture
Fund
SmallBusiness
Technology
InvestmentFund
SeedCapitalFundof
Seedto
Mezzanine
Seedand
Early
Seedand
Early
Seedand
Early
Seedand
Early
165
State
Investment
Capitalin
Millions(2)
FundofFunds
Year
Year
DirectInvesting
Authorized Beganto
Fund
(1) Invest
Georgia
PreSeed,
Seed,Early
Seedto
Expansion
SeedtoEarly
EarlyStage
Focus
Connecticut
$16.5
BiotechFacilities
Minnesota
$16.0
RAINSourceCapital RAINSourceCapital
1998
1998
Maryland
$10.0
1998
2002
NorthDakota
$10.0
2003
2003
Maine
$9.0
1996
1997
EarlytoLater
Virginia
$9.0
2003
2004
SeedStage
Pennsylvania
$8.0
TEDCOFund
NewVentureCapital NewVentureCapital
Fund
Fund
SmallEnterprise
GrowthFund
CITGapFund
BenFranklin(BTDA) BenFranklin(BTDA)
VentureInvestment VentureInvestment
Program
Program
2000
2000
EarlyStage
Focus
Kansas
$7.4
1987
2000
Seedand
Early
Oklahoma
$7.2
1989
2007
Seed
RhodeIsland
$7.0
1997
1997
Utah
$6.0
1984
1986
SeedtoEarly
Stage
AllStages
Illinois
$5.5
1983
1984
Seed
Delaware
$5.0
2007
PreSeed,
Seed
Delaware
Illinois
Maine
$3.0
$3.0
$3.0
2005
2006
2000
2006
2006
2000
Any
Seed
Any
Arkansas
$2.6
1985
1986
Seed
Connecticut
$2.0
SeedFund
2007
Connecticut
$1.5
BioSeedFund
2002
TotalCapital
$2,370.2
1999
Stagesof
Investment*
KTECSeedFund
OCASTSeedCapital
Fund
SlaterTechnology
Fund
UTFC
FinanceAuthority
FinanceAuthority
TechnologyDevelopment
Technology
Bridge DevelopmentBridge
Emerging
TechnologiesPre
VentureFund
VentureCapitalProgram
IllinoisEquityFundAngel&SeedFund
VentureCapitalRevolvingInvestingProgram
SeedCapital
InvestingProgram
PreSeed,
Seed,Early
PreSeed,
Seed,Early
1)Yearauthorizedmeanstheyearinwhichthefundcouldhavestartedinvesting.Inseveralstates,theoriginallegislationrequiredtechnical
corrections.Thisdateiswhentheauthoritywasinplace,includingsuchcorrections.
2)Capital=Totalcapitalundermanagement,meaningallmoniesavailableforinvestmentandmoniescurrentlyinvested.
NationalAssociationofSeedandVentureFunds,http://www.nasvf.org/pdfs/VCFundsReport.pdf
166
Table55.ARRA09Awards:VariousProgramsbyState
AllARRA09
State Amount
Multi $2,747,136,237
CA
$497,540,451
MI
$474,069,924
FL
$414,142,173
TX
$361,671,480
IN
$316,320,412
PA
$295,108,001
NV
$208,402,362
MD $206,353,504
OH
$168,207,386
MS
$163,269,680
NY
$133,912,573
LA
$121,172,851
CO
$120,075,182
ME
$96,050,000
OR
$96,048,944
AZ
$94,531,486
IL
$86,250,504
MA $80,451,963
VT
$78,316,811
MO $75,144,058
NM $58,801,765
SC
$52,706,241
GA
$50,891,724
WI
$38,330,957
HI
$35,408,921
CT
$32,097,332
WA $31,401,703
KY
$22,668,234
VA
$22,643,838
KS
$19,753,822
TN
$18,598,224
AR
$18,363,831
ID
$18,021,682
UT
$17,782,668
AK
$16,993,447
GU
$16,603,507
NJ
$16,557,234
NH
$15,815,225
WY $12,088,248
IA
$12,023,488
DE
$9,600,000
NC
$8,477,466
NE
$7,271,994
MN $6,774,590
OK
$5,883,818
ND
$3,467,728
WV $1,419,593
MT
$1,228,014
DC
$1,077,500
Total $7,406,928,776
SmartGrid09
State Amount
Multi $1,359,748,037
FL
$267,197,537
TX
$257,194,844
PA
$219,486,141
CA
$203,010,487
MD $200,000,000
NV
$138,000,000
MI
$103,158,878
ME $95,900,000
AZ
$89,103,844
VT
$68,928,650
LA
$45,572,851
NY
$37,382,908
GA
$35,617,687
MA $32,056,471
MS $30,563,967
CO
$24,244,117
IN
$22,075,080
WI
$21,525,946
VA
$20,694,097
KS
$19,753,822
GU
$16,603,507
WA $15,825,817
NH
$15,815,225
IL
$10,994,000
OR
$9,894,450
OH
$9,731,769
KY
$9,538,234
CT
$9,188,050
TN
$8,648,491
WY $7,588,248
HI
$5,347,598
IA
$5,000,000
NC
$3,927,899
AR
$2,357,520
NE
$2,271,994
ID
$2,171,710
MN $1,544,004
MO $1,527,641
Total $3,429,191,521
Battery09
State Amount
Multi $1,044,100,000
MI $329,600,000
IN
$270,600,000
FL
$95,500,000
SC
$50,100,000
CO $45,100,000
PA $40,600,000
OH $34,100,000
OR $21,000,000
LA
$20,600,000
AR $12,600,000
NY $11,300,000
VT $9,100,000
CT $5,000,000
Total $1,989,300,000
RegSmartGrid09
State Amount
Multi $259,536,851
CA $174,589,024
OH $75,311,246
NY $42,777,189
TX $27,391,797
MO $23,940,112
MA $7,629,592
PA $7,245,523
NM $1,755,931
Total $620,177,265
Biomass09
State Amount
MS $131,134,686
IL
$52,334,592
NM $50,000,000
FL
$50,000,000
LA
$50,000,000
CA $45,445,849
OR $25,000,000
TX $25,000,000
MO $25,000,000
HI
$25,000,000
CO $23,000,000
PA $21,765,738
OH $19,980,930
MI $17,944,902
IA
$2,500,000
Total $564,106,697
Geothermal09
AdvVehicles09
State Amount
State
Amount
NV $70,252,935 Multi
$39,471,927
OR $40,004,516 NY
$28,293,284
Multi$34,360,371 CA
$26,276,297
TX $25,524,879 TX
$25,814,251
CA $24,481,202 WI
$15,000,000
AK $16,993,447 WA
$14,999,927
NY $13,711,321 MO
$14,999,905
CO $12,099,922 IL
$14,999,658
ID $10,190,110 NJ
$14,997,240
TN $9,800,000 GA
$14,983,167
NM $7,045,834 MI
$14,970,144
IN $6,339,591 UT
$14,908,648
LA $5,000,000 CT
$13,195,000
NE $5,000,000 KY
$12,980,000
HI $4,911,330 OH
$11,041,500
WY $4,500,000 IN
$10,125,000
CT $4,414,494 MD
$5,924,190
MA $3,771,546 ID
$5,519,862
IL $3,659,971 Total
$298,500,000
ND $3,467,728
AR $3,256,311 ARPAE09
MN $2,888,018 State
Amount
OK $2,883,818 MA
$33,276,106
UT $2,874,020 CA
$20,851,744
PA $2,795,944 OH
$17,511,403
MI $2,752,163 CO
$14,137,549
MO $2,476,400 Multi
$11,919,051
SC $2,457,741 DE
$9,000,000
WI $1,805,011 MO
$7,200,000
MS $1,571,027 IN
$6,733,386
VA $1,499,783 MI
$5,195,805
NC $1,298,625 AZ
$5,133,150
WV $1,269,595 IA
$4,373,488
MT $1,228,014 IL
$3,966,239
DC $1,077,500 NC
$3,111,693
FL $250,000
OK
$3,000,000
OH $232,596
PA
$2,466,708
NJ $109,999
MN
$2,200,000
Total $338,255,762 NJ
$1,000,000
Total
$149,076,322
SBIR/STTR09
State
Amount
MA
$3,718,248
CA
$2,885,848
CO
$1,493,594
FL
$1,194,636
PA
$747,947
TX
$745,709
DE
$600,000
WA
$575,959
NJ
$449,995
VA
$449,958
MI
$448,032
NY
$447,871
IN
$447,355
MD
$429,314
CT
$299,788
OH
$297,942
IL
$296,044
AZ
$294,492
167
AllARRA09
SmartGrid09
Battery09
Geothermal09
AdvVehicles09
GA
$290,870
VT
$288,161
IA
$150,000
AR
$150,000
KY
$150,000
ME
$150,000
WV
$149,998
HI
$149,993
OR
$149,978
TN
$149,733
NV
$149,427
SC
$148,500
MN
$142,568
ID
$140,000
NC
$139,249
Total
$18,321,209
SourcesforMasterTable:
SmartGridDemoandEnergyStorage:
CooleyGodwardKronishLLP.(n.d.)CooleyCleantechStimulusPortal
RetrievedDecember22,2009,fromhttp://www.cooley.com/Cooley_Clean_Tech_Stimulus_Portal
Source:http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/SG_Demo_Project_List_11.24.09.pdf
SmartGridInvestment:
http://www.energy.gov/recovery/smartgrid_maps/SGIGSelections_Category.pdf
BioMassAwards:
http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/564M_Biomass_Projects.pdf
GeoThermalAwards:
http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/338M_Geothermal_Project_Descriptions.pdf
BatteryProjects:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/pdfs/battery_awardee_list.pdf
CleanCities'RecoveryActAwards:
http://michigan.gov/documents/recovery/Clean_Cities_Recovery_Act_Award_List_8_25_09_v4_290161_7.pdf
ARRASBIR/STTRAwards:
DepartmentofEnergy(n.d.)Energy.gov:SBIRAwards.
RetrievedDecember22,2009,from
www.energy.gov/media/SBIR_Awards_112309.pdf
ARPAEAwards
DepartmentofEnergy(n.d.)Energy.gov:ARPAEAwards.
RetrievedDecember27,2009,from
*underthelisttitled,Awards
168
Table56.CleantechnologyInvestmentsbyYear
Year
CTInvestments(Millions)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
76.7
156.9
143.6
107.3
202.9
577.8
398.9
388.4
266.2
444.1
550.1
1,439.00
2,666.30
4,118.90
Deal#
36
46
46
36
37
46
61
65
59
79
90
139
238
277
AverageInvPerDeal
2.1
3.4
3.1
3
5.5
12.6
6.5
6
4.5
5.6
6.1
10.4
11.2
14.9
http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=89&Itemid=464.Page38
NORTHAMERICA:In2008,U.S.companiesraised$5.8billionin241disclosedrounds,up56%from2007.UScompaniesaccountedfor68%of
the global total. Canadian companies raised $159 million in 14 disclosed rounds, down 58 percent from 2007.
http://Cleantech.com/about/pressreleases/010609.cfm
169
Figure22.VCInvestmentsinFlorida20012009
$200,000,000
$176,440,000
$180,000,000
$160,000,000
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$111,382,400
$100,000,000
$84,274,250
$80,000,000
$61,400,000
$60,000,000
$43,907,000
$40,000,000
$20,099,000
$25,500,000
$20,000,000
$4,002,000
$0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
170
Table57.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:AllStagesofFinancingandAllCleantechIndustries
2000
State
California
Virginia
Massachusetts
Texas
Colorado
Washington
Pennsylvania
NewJersey
Florida
Illinois
Connecticut
NewYork
Maryland
Georgia
Oregon
NewHampshire
NorthCarolina
NewMexico
Ohio
Michigan
Arizona
Minnesota
Iowa
Indiana
Wisconsin
Utah
Vermont
SouthCarolina
Missouri
Mississippi
Hawaii
Tennessee
Idaho
Nevada
Arkansas
RhodeIsland
SouthDakota
Alabama
Delaware
Kansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Wyoming
WashingtonDC
Kentucky
Maine
WestVirginia
Montana
GrandTotal
Investment
$243,440,600
$74,078,900
$29,000,000
$41,400,000
$72,878,000
$19,575,000
$13,738,000
$67,099,900
$27,275,000
$5,339,000
$25,000,000
$2,400,000
$20,200,000
$39,000,200
$10,200,000
$7,990,000
$7,800,000
$0
$5,500,000
$1,500,000
$6,894,000
$502,000
$450,000
$721,260,600
#
19
9
2
1
4
4
4
4
8
2
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
76
2001
Investment
$220,010,200
$5,449,800
$30,150,000
$4,700,000
$3,500,000
$23,188,000
$12,175,300
$4,002,000
$18,000,000
$1,257,000
$10,150,000
$32,500,000
$22,400,000
$8,000,000
$4,815,000
$3,100,000
$31,527,000
$4,000,000
$1,700,000
$3,500,100
$3,550,000
$447,674,400
#
23
2
15
3
1
3
4
2
3
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
74
2002
Investment
$169,170,000
$7,755,000
$76,650,000
$61,300,000
$9,475,000
$5,000,000
$21,574,000
$804,000
$61,400,000
$10,400,000
$13,400,000
$52,000,000
$941,000
$500,000
$16,000,000
$6,400,000
$15,530,000
$6,545,000
$21,200,000
$4,500,000
$3,000,000
$35,000,000
$17,000,000
$100,000
$100,000
$2,500,000
$4,125,000
$17,300,000
$10,000,000
$500,000
$650,169,000
#
30
4
11
5
5
1
5
2
3
6
3
6
1
1
3
1
5
3
4
1
1
4
1
1
114
2003
Investment
$302,457,000
$4,000,000
$97,739,000
$42,870,000
$34,900,000
$24,700,000
$7,684,000
$27,135,000
$20,099,000
$18,350,000
$41,900,000
$30,000,000
$6,000,000
$28,000,000
$7,380,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$800,000
$17,550,000
$17,200,000
$2,442,000
$15,000,000
$1,400,000
$12,000,000
$1,750,000
$3,400,000
$0
$2,500,000
$1,500,000
$798,756,000
#
36
2
17
9
7
6
7
6
9
9
4
4
1
4
2
1
1
2
5
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
146
2004
Investment
$228,125,100
$18,600,000
$96,161,400
$36,075,000
$53,532,000
$49,490,000
$4,855,100
$27,479,900
$25,500,000
$18,400,000
$4,250,100
$44,550,000
$250,000
$3,000,000
$9,000,000
$6,998,000
$15,520,000
$10,250,000
$2,750,000
$38,300,000
$1,750,000
$39,800,000
$8,600,000
$500,000
$4,064,000
$6,000,000
$0
$0
$400,000
$5,000,000
$1,500,000
$760,700,600
2005
#
42
4
16
11
9
6
7
6
2
4
1
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
145
Investment
$452,787,845
$15,400,000
$189,048,587
$57,333,000
$8,500,000
$23,850,000
$9,296,000
$300,000
$43,907,000
$28,150,000
$26,393,000
$10,350,000
$26,700,000
$18,200,200
$1,180,000
$25,111,000
$16,000,000
$48,750,000
$17,255,000
$21,768,100
$780,000
$16,650,000
$3,459,084
$31,400,000
$1,640,000
$8,700,000
$15,940,782
$3,500,000
$7,000,000
$150,000
$5,500,000
$3,050,000
$2,998,000
$1,141,047,598
#
55
4
23
10
3
7
8
1
3
8
5
7
3
6
2
1
4
4
5
5
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
185
2006
Investment
$1,180,119,170
$52,600,000
$241,288,000
$278,330,000
$54,700,000
$107,100,000
$57,575,000
$59,250,000
$20,000,000
$5,110,000
$35,367,471
$140,000,000
$21,000,000
$11,000,000
$44,000,000
$13,000,000
$2,888,000
$11,450,000
$10,000,000
$18,200,000
$12,000,000
$106,000,000
$20,000,000
$2,250,000
$0
$3,000,000
$10,646,905
$3,200,000
$1,000,000
$12,430,000
$6,500,000
$1,000,000
$2,541,004,546
#
68
4
25
15
7
8
8
6
2
3
6
2
3
2
5
2
2
4
2
4
4
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
199
2007
Investment
$1,862,508,000
$70,000,000
$370,510,000
$253,816,000
$104,285,000
$208,780,000
$67,410,000
$174,587,000
$84,274,250
$250,000
$28,350,000
$104,635,000
$20,250,000
$48,400,000
$46,470,000
$1,500,000
$25,200,000
$97,100,000
$15,000,000
$9,000,000
$41,800,000
$33,500,000
$25,000,000
$23,000,000
$6,700,000
$10,000,000
$8,455,000
$10,000,000
$0
$3,775,000
$26,859,000
$9,425,000
$22,000,000
$2,190,000
$5,000,000
$9,700,000
$4,500,000
$3,834,229,250
#
112
5
22
20
7
18
6
8
7
2
5
16
2
4
3
1
3
4
3
1
5
3
2
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
283
2008
Investment
$3,440,395,000
$468,400,000
$451,400,000
$512,850,000
$442,300,000
$186,750,000
$189,050,000
$273,640,000
$111,382,400
$86,900,000
$214,700,000
$47,700,000
$161,500,000
$107,000,000
$205,000,000
$105,000,000
$13,600,000
$44,000,000
$127,420,000
$36,750,000
$21,000,000
$6,000,000
$26,000,000
$1,500,000
$20,000,000
$40,960,000
$60,000,000
$15,700,000
$20,000,000
$19,850,000
$5,000,000
$6,600,000
$7,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$7,475,847,400
2009
#
137
7
37
14
14
15
11
9
6
6
4
12
5
4
3
5
2
3
9
5
1
1
1
1
3
5
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
335
Investment
$2,108,435,000
$1,816,450,000
$373,090,000
$284,946,775
$103,800,000
$73,600,000
$309,750,000
$46,650,000
$176,440,000
$265,000,000
$2,500,000
$37,860,000
$7,100,000
$76,550,000
$21,100,000
$65,000,000
$101,282,000
$4,750,000
$7,308,888
$82,039,812
$33,546,051
$11,000,000
$47,300,000
$12,100,000
$7,400,000
$26,500,000
$4,000,000
$20,000,000
$11,000,000
$0
$3,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
$6,143,998,526
Average
#
118
5
28
26
11
17
6
7
8
2
3
11
3
3
5
3
10
5
10
9
5
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
317
Investment
$1,020,744,792
$245,865,480
$200,011,589
$156,122,078
$85,289,200
$75,564,800
$70,995,710
$62,202,120
$52,700,465
$47,918,800
$40,496,000
$39,988,747
$36,808,000
$36,015,020
$32,593,000
$30,380,900
$24,800,220
$22,413,300
$21,602,000
$20,104,399
$17,786,981
$14,693,805
$13,445,908
$10,340,000
$9,624,000
$7,600,000
$6,521,000
$6,175,000
$5,401,900
$4,594,078
$3,574,400
$3,242,191
$3,105,900
$3,075,000
$2,950,000
$2,665,000
$2,130,000
$2,050,200
$1,969,000
$1,633,010
$1,300,000
$1,120,000
$1,105,000
$1,000,000
$605,000
$594,800
$550,000
$0
$2,451,468,792
#
64
3.7
20
12
6.4
8.3
6.5
4.9
4
4.6
3.4
7.9
2
2.8
2.1
2.2
2.9
2.3
3.8
3.8
2.4
2.6
0.6
0.8
1.3
1.4
0.8
0.4
1.3
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
187
DatafromtheCleantechNetworksDatabasehttp://Cleantech.com/research/databases.cfm.AccesstotheCleantechNetworkDatabasegraciouslyprovidedbyKirstieChadwickoftheUCFVentureLab.The3Headings,Environmental,
Energy and Industrial were constructs of the author's that summarize the Primary Industries identified in the database as follows: Energy, Environmental, Industrial, Energy Efficiency, Agriculture, Manufacturing/Industrial, Energy
Generation,Air&Environment,Materials,EnergyInfrastructure,NonCleantechFocused,Transportation,EnergyStorage,Recycling&Waste,Water&Wastewater,TheHeadingsMid+StageFinancingandSeedandEarlyStageFunding
areconstructsoftheauthors'thatsummarizetheFinanceStageidentifiedinthedatabaseasfollows:Mid+Financing,SeedandEarly,Acquisition/Buyout.FirstRound,FollowOn,Seed,Mezzanine,,Other,PrivateEquity.
Table58.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:SeedandEarlyStageFunding,EnergyIndustries
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
171
State
California
Massachusetts
Texas
NewYork
Colorado
Iowa
Washington
Oregon
Georgia
Pennsylvania
Virginia
NewJersey
Vermont
Michigan
Ohio
Illinois
NorthCarolina
NewHampshire
Minnesota
SouthDakota
Missouri
RhodeIsland
Connecticut
Wisconsin
Indiana
Alabama
Florida
Idaho
Hawaii
Maryland
Nevada
Delaware
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Arizona
Utah
NewMexico
Tennessee
Wyoming
WashingtonDC
Kansas
Nebraska
Mississippi
WestVirginia
Maine
Arkansas
SouthCarolina
Montana
GrandTotal
Investment
$9,000,000
$9,148,000
$13,100,000
$2,400,000
$0
$5,500,000
$39,148,000
#
2
3
11
Investment
$16,290,000
$13,200,000
$1,700,000
$20,000,000
$32,500,000
$16,500,000
$5,449,800
$3,100,000
$3,000,000
$1,700,000
$3,550,000
$116,989,800
#
3
6
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
19
Investment
$37,020,000
$32,800,000
$30,000,000
$600,000
$800,000
$5,000,000
$13,000,000
$7,900,000
$3,000,000
$4,400,000
$5,000,000
$3,000,000
$17,300,000
$14,000,000
$7,000,000
$2,500,000
$4,125,000
$100,000
$230,000
$187,775,000
#
10
6
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
40
Investment
$17,150,000
$12,939,000
$12,500,000
$12,400,000
$16,500,000
$6,000,000
$15,500,000
$2,000,000
$13,000,000
$1,900,000
$2,275,000
$800,000
$112,964,000
#
7
7
2
3
1
1
1
32
Investment
$27,410,000
$2,128,500
$6,000,000
$13,000,000
$17,410,000
$3,000,000
$539,000
$2,880,000
$6,100,000
$3,000,000
$5,000,000
$1,750,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$90,217,500
#
6
5
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
30
Investment
$42,067,100
$42,028,387
$33,533,000
$4,850,000
$5,000,000
$20,250,000
$2,000,200
$3,575,000
$12,000,000
$1,100,000
$2,730,000
$2,600,000
$9,000,000
$12,500,000
$3,000,000
$500,000
$1,640,000
$3,500,000
$5,500,000
$780,000
$208,153,687
#
11
7
6
5
1
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
56
Investment
$192,370,000
$22,958,000
$1,067,471
$48,200,000
$100,000,000
$0
$2,000,000
$17,500,000
$5,000,000
$2,250,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$0
$7,500,000
$3,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,646,905
$423,692,376
#
22
8
3
4
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
53
Investment
$233,620,000
$9,100,000
$44,819,000
$74,750,000
$4,600,000
$3,000,000
$29,850,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$11,500,000
$15,000,000
$9,000,000
$15,000,000
$250,000
$4,700,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$0
$750,000
$2,000,000
$484,939,000
#
35
5
5
5
2
1
6
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
78
Investment
$271,970,000
$65,500,000
$18,400,000
$12,500,000
$12,000,000
$50,000,000
$15,000,000
$50,000
$18,000,000
$10,500,000
$37,000,000
$16,500,000
$400,000
$0
$3,600,000
$4,000,000
$12,700,000
$4,500,000
$3,500,000
$2,600,000
$558,720,000
#
29
16
4
6
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
73
Investment
$87,250,000
$21,125,000
$54,700,000
$0
$24,800,000
$14,250,000
$500,000
$15,000,000
$5,750,000
$2,280,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$300,000
$15,500,000
$12,500,000
$5,000,000
$149,812
$0
$269,104,812
#
20
8
4
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
59
Investment
$93,414,710
$23,092,689
$20,165,200
$11,986,747
$11,321,000
$10,300,000
$9,785,000
$8,040,000
$7,350,020
$7,216,400
$5,194,980
$4,713,000
$3,925,000
$3,678,000
$2,723,000
$2,525,000
$2,330,000
$2,200,000
$1,777,500
$1,730,000
$1,600,000
$1,550,000
$1,500,000
$1,464,000
$1,400,000
$1,250,000
$1,000,000
$970,000
$900,000
$850,000
$747,500
$550,000
$500,000
$355,000
$267,981
$260,000
$223,000
$164,691
$150,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$249,170,418
#
15
7
3
3
2
0
2
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
Table59.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:Mid+StageFinancing,EnergyIndustry
State
California
Virginia
Massachusetts
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
Investment
$177,100,100
$57,725,900
#
5
Investment
$107,850,300
#
7
Investment
$3,075,000
$755,000
$37,000,000
#
2
1
2
Investment
$35,600,000
$2,000,000
$29,475,000
#
5
1
1
Investment
$83,616,000
$16,600,000
$80,000,000
#
15
3
6
Investment
$137,040,000
$3,400,000
$102,990,200
#
14
1
8
Investment
$795,100,000
$47,600,000
$180,110,000
#
27
3
13
Investment
$917,222,000
$58,500,000
$333,340,000
#
48
3
14
Investment
$2,580,500,000
$450,400,000
$330,600,000
#
65
4
10
Investment
$1,496,235,000
$1,816,450,000
$270,340,000
#
68
5
8
Investment
$633,333,840
$239,570,500
$142,158,110
#
26
2
7
172
Texas
Colorado
Washington
Pennsylvania
Illinois
NewJersey
Maryland
Connecticut
Oregon
Georgia
Florida
Ohio
NewMexico
NewHampshire
NewYork
NorthCarolina
Michigan
Utah
Minnesota
Indiana
Wisconsin
Mississippi
Arizona
Iowa
Idaho
Nevada
Hawaii
Kansas
Nebraska
Delaware
Vermont
WashingtonDC
Wyoming
Missouri
Alabama
Oklahoma
SouthDakota
RhodeIsland
Maine
SouthCarolina
WestVirginia
Tennessee
Arkansas
Kentucky
Montana
GrandTotal
$25,000,000
$41,400,000
$51,000,000
$139,000
$64,600,000
$25,000,000
$10,200,000
$8,925,000
$7,800,000
$468,890,000
1
1
2
1
2
20
$2,000,000
$5,474,900
$4,000,000
$25,000,000
$4,000,000
$148,325,200
13
$24,000,000
$2,000,000
$941,000
$5,000,000
$1,500,000
$400,000
$6,000,000
$7,600,000
$18,500,000
$17,000,000
$10,000,000
$133,771,000
1
1
1
1
2
1
17
$21,000,000
$12,500,000
$0
$2,770,000
$11,200,000
$1,380,000
$8,000,000
$18,849,000
$167,000
$0
$2,500,000
$145,441,000
3
1
1
2
1
1
5
26
$2,800,000
$40,900,000
$3,216,000
$20,999,900
$9,000,000
$23,500,000
$8,000,000
$29,600,000
$24,800,000
$0
$343,031,900
3
3
44
$1,400,000
$3,600,000
$5,721,000
$15,700,000
$300,000
$1,180,000
$2,000,000
$39,500,000
$13,500,000
$30,000,000
$7,568,000
$650,000
$31,400,000
$15,940,782
$3,050,000
$414,939,982
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
49
$154,450,000
$3,500,000
$84,700,000
$35,000,000
$10,000,000
$56,750,000
$140,000,000
$9,000,000
$11,000,000
$0
$30,000,000
$15,000,000
$0
$5,000,000
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
$8,000,000
$3,200,000
$12,430,000
$6,500,000
$1,613,340,000
7
2
4
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
78
$141,097,000
$69,625,000
$88,630,000
$50,310,000
$122,865,000
$12,500,000
$17,100,000
$46,470,000
$3,000,000
$60,974,250
$70,000,000
$12,520,000
$20,500,000
$16,000,000
$21,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,500,000
$22,000,000
$18,859,000
$5,675,000
$9,700,000
$10,000,000
$8,455,000
$5,000,000
$2,159,842,250
9
2
6
4
4
1
2
3
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
120
$12,250,000
$362,500,000
$134,750,000
$74,000,000
$74,500,000
$64,140,000
$158,000,000
$210,200,000
$145,000,000
$92,000,000
$33,182,400
$119,300,000
$20,000,000
$61,000,000
$17,000,000
$0
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
$4,000,000
$19,850,000
$760,000
$0
$0
$5,003,932,400
2
9
9
5
3
6
3
3
1
2
2
5
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
145
$197,486,775
$58,000,000
$49,500,000
$264,000,000
$265,000,000
$40,900,000
$0
$15,000,000
$75,000,000
$36,440,000
$1,500,000
$11,000,000
$37,360,000
$67,000,000
$13
$47,300,000
$22,546,051
$10,300,000
$7,400,000
$1,500,000
$11,000,000
$7,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,812,757,839
12
8
8
2
2
5
2
3
1
4
1
1
5
5
2
3
2
1
1
156
$58,148,378
$54,752,500
$45,308,000
$43,501,700
$36,720,000
$32,262,980
$31,158,000
$29,690,000
$22,703,000
$21,600,000
$21,394,565
$14,490,000
$12,800,000
$10,800,000
$9,480,500
$8,750,000
$7,476,801
$6,730,000
$6,516,305
$4,990,000
$4,700,000
$4,594,078
$3,460,000
$2,200,000
$2,135,900
$2,027,500
$1,985,000
$1,243,000
$1,120,000
$1,100,000
$1,076,000
$1,000,000
$955,000
$845,500
$750,000
$500,000
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,524,427,157
Table60.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:SeedandEarlyStageFunding,EnvironmentalIndustries
State
California
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Washington
NewYork
Indiana
NorthCarolina
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
Investment
$14,400,000
$4,000,000
$1,500,000
$3,000,000
1
1
Investment
$1,000,000
$688,000
$11,150,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$8,000,000
#
1
1
3
1
1
Investment
$25,300,000
$8,574,000
$34,900,000
$6,400,000
#
4
3
Investment
$10,500,000
$164,000
$14,800,000
$8,200,000
#
2
1
2
2
Investment
$37,180,100
$5,590,000
#
4
Investment
$28,500,000
$0
$14,100,000
$7,000,000
#
4
1
2
Investment
$2,408,222
#
3
Investment
$14,550,000
$13,100,000
$25,000,000
$4,965,000
#
4
1
1
4
Investment
$34,200,000
$53,000,000
$6,900,000
$10,000,000
$26,000,000
#
9
1
3
1
Investment
$22,200,000
$2,000,000
$14,500,000
$0
#
6
1
2
Investment
$17,583,832
$9,192,600
$6,145,000
$5,629,000
$4,436,500
$2,600,000
$2,440,000
#
4
1
1
1
1
0
1
173
4
2
4
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
Texas
Michigan
Illinois
NewMexico
Colorado
Vermont
Arizona
Florida
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Wisconsin
Connecticut
NewHampshire
Virginia
Kansas
NewJersey
Kentucky
Oregon
Tennessee
SouthCarolina
Georgia
WestVirginia
Maine
Ohio
Hawaii
Arkansas
Delaware
Nebraska
Wyoming
Nevada
Utah
RhodeIsland
Iowa
Idaho
WashingtonDC
SouthDakota
Oklahoma
Mississippi
Alabama
Montana
GrandTotal
$10,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,499,900
$200,000
$37,099,900
10
$1,000,000
$332,000
$3,500,100
$800,000
$2,400,000
$35,370,100
1
1
13
$1,000,000
$8,000,000
$350,000
$4,500,000
$100,000
$400,000
$5,000,000
$804,000
$500,000
$500,000
$96,328,000
1
1
2
1
1
23
$3,700,000
$6,200,000
$1,050,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$500,000
$6,000,000
$3,400,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,500,000
$1,750,000
$84,664,000
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
25
$2,750,000
$5,000,000
$250,000
$4,064,000
$2,000,000
$400,000
$0
$57,234,100
1
1
14
$3,500,000
$750,000
$3,500,000
$3,500,000
$2,000,000
$500,000
$63,350,000
1
1
1
1
15
$1,688,000
$3,000,000
$0
$7,500,000
$1,000,000
$350,000
$15,946,222
1
1
$7,100,000
$0
$64,715,000
12
$15,700,000
$15,000,000
$0
$6,000,000
$166,800,000
2
1
20
$500,000
$0
$6,590,000
$10,000,000
$100,000
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$56,890,000
1
2
1
1
1
1
19
$2,365,000
$2,120,000
$2,055,000
$1,753,800
$1,335,000
$1,200,000
$1,109,000
$1,050,000
$985,000
$950,000
$906,400
$750,000
$503,190
$500,000
$400,000
$390,010
$270,400
$250,000
$240,000
$200,000
$175,000
$100,000
$100,000
$70,000
$35,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$67,839,732
174
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
Table61.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:Mid+StageFunding,EnvironmentalIndustries
State
California
Texas
Florida
Massachusetts
Colorado
NorthCarolina
NewHampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington
Connecticut
SouthCarolina
Georgia
NewMexico
NewYork
Michigan
NewJersey
Arkansas
Tennessee
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Missouri
Maryland
Arizona
Ohio
Hawaii
Utah
WestVirginia
Vermont
Oregon
Maine
Virginia
Indiana
Iowa
Oklahoma
WashingtonDC
Nebraska
Idaho
Nevada
Kansas
RhodeIsland
Mississippi
Delaware
Wyoming
Kentucky
SouthDakota
Alabama
Montana
GrandTotal
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
Investment
$49,250,500
$1,686,000
$36,000,200
$20,200,000
$5,000,000
$17,878,000
$3,750,000
$7,990,000
$6,894,000
$250,000
$148,898,700
#
7
2
1
1
1
2
4
21
Investment
$34,769,900
$4,100,000
$6,000,000
$925,000
$3,150,000
$6,527,000
$55,471,900
#
8
2
1
17
Investment
$50,300,000
$1,000,000
$52,900,000
$3,250,000
$1,300,000
$1,500,000
$5,700,000
$2,000,000
$117,950,000
#
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
13
Investment
$110,200,000
$750,000
$13,725,000
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$750,000
$31,600,000
$1,500,000
$11,000,000
$335,000
$15,000,000
$900,000
$7,500,000
$1,000,000
$224,260,000
#
9
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
26
Investment
$37,484,000
$12,750,000
$2,000,000
$10,032,900
$30,000,000
$12,520,000
$6,998,000
$1,000,100
$3,000,000
$2,800,000
$6,000,000
$15,000,000
$8,600,000
$7,300,000
$155,485,000
#
7
4
1
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
29
Investment
$81,382,900
$5,000,000
$14,580,000
$23,738,000
$8,700,000
$16,000,000
$12,000,100
$5,000,000
$350,000
$5,700,000
$7,500,000
$0
$179,951,000
#
9
1
2
1
1
1
1
25
Investment
$28,240,948
$112,000,000
$25,000,000
$13,000,000
$5,000,000
$675,000
$10,000,000
$5,110,000
$10,000,000
$17,300,000
$1,500,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$0
$254,825,948
#
6
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
27
Investment
$217,000,000
$48,900,000
$23,300,000
$17,470,000
$20,000,000
$50,300,000
$0
$40,400,000
$14,500,000
$8,000,000
$36,722,000
$22,000,000
$7,750,000
$4,700,000
$4,500,000
$0
$515,542,000
#
10
3
3
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
35
Investment
$99,650,000
$434,100,000
$78,200,000
$28,250,000
$75,900,000
$10,000,000
$59,000,000
$11,500,000
$60,000,000
$0
$19,000,000
$10,000,000
$7,500,000
$5,000,000
$12,400,000
$3,000,000
$0
$0
$3,200,000
$0
$916,700,000
#
8
4
4
5
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
42
Investment
$38,000,000
$20,000,000
$130,000,000
$22,725,000
$24,282,000
$50,000,000
$28,250,000
$0
$2,500,000
$1,800,000
$11,800,000
$0
$3,100,000
$2,000,000
$334,457,000
#
5
4
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
29
Investment
$74,627,825
$63,375,000
$28,715,000
$14,081,890
$12,590,000
$10,580,220
$10,219,800
$10,067,510
$9,267,800
$6,387,300
$6,000,000
$5,910,000
$5,080,000
$4,800,000
$4,501,710
$3,855,700
$2,950,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,360,000
$2,095,000
$2,050,000
$1,525,000
$800,000
$750,000
$689,400
$570,000
$450,000
$320,000
$310,000
$225,000
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$290,354,155
#
7
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
Table62.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:SeedandEarlyStageFunding,IndustrialActivities
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
175
State
California
Massachusetts
NewYork
Arizona
Texas
Michigan
Connecticut
Minnesota
Indiana
NewMexico
Washington
Illinois
Ohio
Oregon
Colorado
Georgia
Pennsylvania
NewJersey
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Iowa
Oklahoma
Maryland
Florida
Alabama
Utah
RhodeIsland
Virginia
Mississippi
Nebraska
Kentucky
NewHampshire
Maine
WashingtonDC
NorthCarolina
SouthDakota
Idaho
Missouri
Arkansas
Vermont
Delaware
Wyoming
Hawaii
WestVirginia
Nevada
Kansas
SouthCarolina
Montana
GrandTotal
Investment
$8,090,000
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$502,000
$18,092,000
#
4
1
Investment
$11,100,000
$1,700,000
$4,815,000
$1,002,000
$18,617,000
#
2
2
Investment
$14,225,000
$3,600,000
$15,000,000
$8,000,000
$2,500,000
$6,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,145,000
$2,125,000
$57,595,000
#
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
Investment
$18,007,000
$18,800,000
$10,000,000
$5,500,000
$8,500,000
$0
$1,050,000
$4,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$400,000
$70,257,000
#
5
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
21
Investment
$12,800,000
$0
$250,000
$8,700,000
$2,250,000
$750,000
$122,000
$100,000
$2,600,000
$27,572,000
#
4
1
1
1
1
12
Investment
$22,397,245
$2,350,000
$5,500,000
$11,000,000
$1,100,000
$6,000,000
$1,025,000
$3,459,084
$150,000
$52,981,329
#
7
1
2
1
1
2
2
18
Investment
$7,500,000
$5,220,000
$2,000,000
$2,200,000
$4,670,000
$1,000,000
$2,400,000
$4,000,000
$1,000,000
$29,990,000
#
1
1
1
1
2
11
Investment
$313,150,000
$10,600,000
$1,200,000
$33,300,000
$1,250,000
$15,000,000
$4,860,000
$3,775,000
$2,000,000
$385,135,000
#
5
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
17
Investment
$45,775,000
$3,150,000
$3,200,000
$5,250,000
$8,500,000
$10,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$1,500,000
$82,375,000
#
6
1
2
1
1
16
Investment
$74,750,000
$400,000
$6,000,000
$3,200,000
$11,000,000
$1,750,000
$250,000
$1,050,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$103,400,000
#
7
2
2
1
1
1
18
Investment
$52,779,425
$4,782,000
$3,715,000
$3,550,000
$3,117,000
$1,825,000
$1,775,000
$1,600,000
$1,350,000
$1,306,500
$1,265,000
$1,250,000
$1,022,000
$1,000,000
$910,700
$555,000
$510,000
$510,000
$377,500
$350,000
$345,908
$300,000
$200,000
$100,200
$50,200
$40,000
$15,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$84,601,433
#
5
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Table63.CleantechNetworkDealFlowfrom20002009:Mid+StageFunding,IndustrialActivities
RowLabels
California
NewJersey
Massachusetts
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
Investment
$3,519,000
Investment
$49,000,000
$5,900,400
#
2
1
Investment
$39,250,000
#
4
Investment
$111,000,000
$8,000,000
#
8
Investment
$29,635,000
$1,000,000
$4,000,000
#
6
1
1
Investment
$141,400,600
$13,000,000
#
10
Investment
$154,500,000
$0
$8,000,000
#
9
1
1
Investment
$166,966,000
#
10
Investment
$408,300,000
$199,000,000
$17,000,000
#
20
2
2
Investment
$390,000,000
$44,000,000
#
12
Investment
$149,005,160
$20,590,040
$9,751,900
#
8
1
1
176
Texas
Arizona
NewHampshire
NewYork
Colorado
Washington
Illinois
Ohio
Maryland
Minnesota
NewMexico
RhodeIsland
NorthCarolina
Connecticut
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Virginia
Georgia
Florida
Delaware
Nevada
Oregon
Maine
Indiana
Oklahoma
WestVirginia
Vermont
Kansas
Wyoming
SouthCarolina
Nebraska
SouthDakota
Tennessee
Idaho
Utah
Kentucky
Arkansas
Hawaii
WashingtonDC
Mississippi
Wisconsin
Missouri
Alabama
Montana
GrandTotal
$238,000
$5,200,000
$175,000
$9,132,000
$18,000,000
$72,900,400
$6,300,000
$6,200,000
$5,000,000
$56,750,000
$170,000
$18,500,000
$14,500,000
$9,000,000
$161,170,000
2
2
16
$11,775,000
$28,500,000
$6,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
$4,250,100
$87,160,100
1
2
16
$6,400,000
$25,111,000
$3,500,000
$15,700,000
$2,000,000
$2,155,000
$5,000,000
$4,407,000
$2,998,000
$221,671,600
1
1
22
$7,210,000
$10,000,000
$7,100,000
$6,000,000
$4,400,000
$5,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
$203,210,000
1
1
1
21
$19,000,000
$1,500,000
$3,200,000
$5,200,000
$15,000,000
$2,500,000
$5,500,000
$2,190,000
$3,000,000
$224,056,000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
$32,400,000
$21,000,000
$40,000,000
$5,000,000
$1,900,000
$10,000,000
$0
$7,720,000
$5,000,000
$0
$747,320,000
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
39
$6,260,000
$65,000,000
$500,000
$21,000,000
$8,100,000
$11,000,000
$11,000,000
$7,000,000
$500,000
$28,875
$3,000,000
$567,388,875
3
4
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
36
$8,951,500
$8,600,000
$6,661,100
$5,570,000
$4,380,000
$4,310,000
$3,273,800
$2,582,000
$2,090,000
$1,350,000
$1,250,000
$1,100,000
$700,000
$640,510
$600,000
$507,500
$502,888
$500,000
$500,000
$440,700
$319,000
$300,000
$300,000
$299,800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$235,075,898
177
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
Table64.LevelizedCostofEnergyKeyAssumptions
Units
NetFacilityOutput
MW
EPCCost
$/kW
OwnersCost
$/kW
TotalCapitalCost(a)
FixedO&M
VariableO&M
HeatRate
$/kW
$/kWyr
$/MWh
Btu/kWh
CapacityFactor
FuelPrice
ConstructionTime
FacilityLife
CO2EquivalentEmissions
InvestmentTaxCredit
ProductionTaxCredit
$/MMBtu
Months
Years
Tons/MWh
%
$/MWh
LevelizedCostofEnergy
$/MWh
SolarPV
Thin
Crystalline
Film
Utility(b)
Utility
10
10
$3,500
$6,000
$4,000
$5,500
included
included
$3,500
$4,000
$25.00
23%
20%
12
20
30%
$96
$124
SolarThermal
Trough
No
Tower(d)
Storage(c)
200
100
$4,500
$5,000
$5,800
$6,300
included
included
$6,000
$5,500
$25.00
$4,500
$5,800
$66.00
26%20%
29%26%
12
20
30%
$128
$154
24
20
30%
$108
$145
$5,000
$6,300
$70.00
35%
38%
24
20
30%
$90
$116
580
Gas
Combined
Cycle
550
150
600
1,100
2.3
35
100
30
2%20%(k)
$2,500$3,375
$700$875
$500$1,150
$1,825$3,825
$3,750$5,250
$3,000
$2,750$3,500
$1,900$2,500
$3,000$4,000
$1,500$2,000
$50$500
$1,250$1,700
$200$225
$150$350
$725$1,525
$2,000$2,300
$800
included
included
included
included
included
$3,750$5,075
$900$1,100
$650$1,500
$2,550$5,350
$5,750$7,550
$3,800
$2,750$3,500
$1,900$2,500
$3,000$4,000
$1,500$2,000
$50$500
$26.40$28.20
$6.80
8,80010,520
$5.50$6.20
$2.00$3.50
6,8007,220
$6.80$27.00
$28.00$4.70
10,88010,200
$20.40$31.60
$2.00$5.60
8,87011,900
$12.80
$11.00
10,450
$169.00
$11.00
6,2407,260
$83.00
$11.00
14,500
$40.00$50.00
$25.00$30.00
$17.00
13,500
$10.00$20.00
10,000
IGCC(e)
GasPeaking(f)
Coal(g)
Nuclear(h)
FuelCell(i)
BiomassDirect
Wind
Geothermal
LandfillGas
Biomass
Cofiring(J)
80%
85%40%
10%
85%
90%
95%
80%
36%28%
80%70%
80%
80%
$2.50
5763
20
0.930.11
$8.00
36
20
0.400.42
$8.00
25
20
0.400.42
$2.50
6066
20
0.940.13
$0.50
69
20
$8.00
3
20
0.360.42
30%
$0.00$2.00
36
20
$10
12
20
$20
36
20
$20
$1.50$3.00
12
20
$10
$0.00$2.00
12
20
$104$134
$73$100
$221$334
$74$135
$98$126
$115$125
$50$94
$44$91
$42$69
$50$81
$3$37
Source:LazardPresentationtoNARCUMeeting.http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/2008%20EMP%20Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20%20Master%20June%202008%20(2).pdf
Note:Assumes2.5%annualescalationforproductiontaxcredit,O&Mcostsandfuelprices,40%taxrate,financingwith60%debtat7%interestrateand40%equityat12%cost.
(a)Includescapitalizedinterestcostsduringconstruction.
(b)Leftsiderepresentssingleaxistrackingcrystalline;rightsiderepresentsfixedinstallation.
(c)Leftsiderepresentswetcooled;rightsiderepresentsdrycooled.
(d)Representsarangeofsolarthermaltowerestimates.
(e)Highendincorporates90%carboncaptureandcompression.
(f)LowendrepresentsassumptionsregardingGE7FA.HighendrepresentsassumptionsregardingGELM6000PC.
(g)Basedonadvancedsupercriticalpulverizedcoal.Highendincorporates90%carboncaptureandcompression.
(h)Doesnotreflectpotentialeconomicimpactoffederalloanguaranteesorothersubsidies.
(i)Lowendincorporatesillustrativeeconomicandefficiencybenefitsofcombinedheatandpower(CHP)applications
(j)Representsretrofitcostofhostcoalplant.
(k)Additionaloutputtoacoalfacility.
178
Table65.ScienceAndEngineeringProfiles,byState(20062008)
Location
SEHpost
SEHgraduate
S&E
doctoratesin studentsin
Population,
doctorates doctorate
doctorate
awarded,
granting
granting
2008
2007
institutions, institutions,
2006
2006
Total
Rank Total Rank Total Rank Total Rank
Rank
(000's)
31,801
49,201
542,073
308,014
1 4,283
1 7,550
1 52,480
1 36,757
1
4 1,903
4 6,670
2 27,109
4 6,498 15
12 1,163
8 1,373
9 18,885
9 10,003
8
3 2,101
3 3,189
4 37,004
3 24,327
2
8
686 15
692
21 12,903 14 8,683 11
6
858 12 1,710
7 14,071 13 5,634 19
2 2,560
2 4,182
3 48,022
2 19,490
3
7 1,519
5 1,459
8 25,639
6 12,902
5
14
594 17 1,203
13 7,423 24 6,549 13
5 1,499
6 2,530
5 24,031
7 12,448
6
10
750 14
931
17 15,605 11 7,769 12
9 1,144
9
972
16 21,263
8 11,486
7
19
512 21 1,216
12 7,081 25 3,501 30
11
940 10 1,960
6 14,456 12 9,222 10
18
571 19 1,057
15 15,818 10 5,220 21
13 1,231
7 1,359
10 26,317
5 18,328
4
16
591 18 1,099
14 10,683 19 4,939 22
25
193 34
105
41 4,030 34 1,984 37
21
807 13
840
18 11,293 17 6,377 16
24
564 20
495
24 8,190 21 6,500 14
17
898 11 1,230
11 11,535 16 9,686
9
22
650 16
781
19 9,082 20 5,628 20
26
309 28
320
29 5,107 30 3,790 28
EmployedSEH
doctorate
holders,2006a
Total
UnitedStates 620,140
California
87,370
Massachusetts 32,400
Michigan
17,900
Texas
36,000
NewJersey
20,810
Maryland
26,160
NewYork
45,850
Illinois
24,110
Washington
16,920
Pennsylvania
29,120
Virginia
19,850
Ohio
20,540
Connecticut
10,330
NorthCarolina 18,910
Minnesota
11,800
Florida
17,630
Colorado
13,150
NewMexico
8,300
Indiana
9,870
Arizona
8,410
Georgia
12,970
Wisconsin
9,530
Oregon
8,270
Districtof
13,330
Columbia
Missouri
9,300
Alabama
5,900
Tennessee
9,980
Kansas
4,250
SouthCarolina
5,910
New
2,470
Hampshire
RhodeIsland
3,020
Utah
5,520
Iowa
4,890
Delaware
3,110
Kentucky
4,960
Louisiana
5,480
Idaho
2,840
Oklahoma
4,420
Nebraska
2,970
Nevada
2,620
Personal
Civilianlabor
incomeper
force,2008
capita,2007
Total
Rank
(000's)
155,366
18,392
1
3,424 14
4,936
8
11,702
2
4,497 11
2,998 20
9,680
3
6,697
5
3,477 13
6,395
6
4,125 12
5,972
7
1,876 28
4,544 10
2,933 21
9,231
4
2,730 22
959 38
3,230 15
3,133 16
4,848
9
3,084 17
1,958 27
15
331
27
208
35 11,641
15
592
51
333
23
28
20
34
27
496
352
441
259
282
22
25
23
32
30
671
278
762
351
360
22 10,751
31 7,858
20 7,813
28 6,659
27 3,720
18
22
23
26
36
5,912
4,662
6,215
2,802
4,480
18
23
17
34
24
3,012
2,162
3,041
1,497
2,153
43
124
39
235
32
1,776
46
1,316
42
739
37
29
32
36
31
30
40
33
38
42
192
296
427
147
267
347
78
257
175
81
35
29
24
38
31
26
46
33
36
44
228
367
544
120
486
311
44
162
218
101
33
26
23
40
25
30
47
37
34
42
2,177
6,052
5,479
2,045
4,925
6,131
2,141
4,444
3,324
2,554
41
28
29
44
31
27
42
33
38
40
1,051
2,736
3,003
873
4,269
4,411
1,524
3,642
1,783
2,600
44
35
31
46
26
25
40
29
39
36
568
1,384
1,676
443
2,043
2,079
755
1,748
996
1,373
Totalfederal
expenditures,
2007
FederalR&D
obligations,
2006
TotalR&D
performance,
2006
IndustryR&D, AcademicR&D,
2006
2007
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
(dollars)
($millions)
($millions)
($millions)
($millions)
($millions)
38,615
2,532,073
107,545
335,377
243,853
49,406
41,805
8 260,422
1
21,157
1
71,335
1
58,424
1
6,733
1
48,995
4
61,028 14
6,105
4
20,577
2
15,562
3
2,172
6
34,423 34
71,652
9
1,681 19
18,189
3
16,477
2
1,510 11
37,083 23 171,766
2
5,264
5
17,059
4
13,334
5
3,415
3
49,511
3
63,972 13
2,111 14
16,259
5
14,606
4
864 18
46,471
6
70,617 11
12,499
2
14,493
6
3,421 19
2,542
4
46,364
7 157,789
3
5,225
6
14,366
7
9,518
9
3,965
2
41,012 14
88,669
8
1,976 17
13,609
8
10,765
7
1,867
8
41,203 11
52,455 16
4,039
8
13,585
9
11,320
6
981 14
38,793 20 117,151
5
3,228
9
12,929 10
9,819
8
2,438
5
41,727
9 110,105
6
8,882
3
9,867 11
4,816 15
972 15
34,468 33 105,214
7
2,420 11
9,431 12
6,852 11
1,807
9
54,981
2
32,378 28
1,592 20
9,049 13
8,273 10
691 22
33,735 37
65,863 12
1,766 18
7,710 14
5,486 13
1,885
7
41,105 13
40,075 23
1,237 23
7,149 15
6,296 12
637 24
38,417 21 147,091
4
2,319 12
6,339 16
4,139 17
1,546 10
41,192 12
34,828 27
2,030 16
6,153 17
4,657 16
873 17
30,706 47
22,418 34
3,100 10
5,789 18
676 34
410 32
33,215 41
47,254 20
560 28
5,784 19
4,858 14
802 19
32,833 42
48,012 18
2,056 15
4,760 20
3,590 18
783 20
33,499 38
71,079 10
1,251 22
4,440 21
2,786 22
1,389 12
36,272 26
38,177 24
636 26
4,132 22
3,020 21
1,067 13
35,143 29
25,242 31
505 30
4,104 23
3,419 20
575 27
51 62,484
Utility
patents
SBIRawards, issuedto Grossdomestic
200007
state
product,2007
residents,
2008
Total
Total Rank Total Rank
Rank
($billions)
44,157
77,493
13,832
8,818
1 19,181
1
1,813
1
5,881
2 3,516
5
352 13
937 13 2,996
6
382 12
1,936
6 5,712
2
1,142
2
1,191 10 2,722
8
465
8
2,208
4 1,232 20
269 15
1,826
7 4,885
3
1,103
3
688 17 2,741
7
610
5
1,043 12 3,517
4
311 14
1,654
9 2,414 10
531
6
2,574
3 1,030 22
383 11
1,796
8 2,227 11
466
7
697 16 1,356 17
216 23
634 19 1,841 13
399
9
619 20 2,535
9
255 16
1,062 11 2,046 12
735
4
2,164
5 1,622 15
236 20
672 18
280 36
76 39
314 26
985 23
246 18
816 15 1,584 16
247 17
471 23 1,344 19
397 10
455 24 1,349 18
232 21
543 21 1,781 14
158 26
43,475
21
4,092
3,762
24
276
42
327
35
113
41
68
47
94
35
33,964
32,419
33,395
36,525
31,103
36
43
39
24
45
55,564
47,889
51,456
22,737
37,056
15
19
17
32
25
1,225
2,162
1,456
212
371
24
13
21
42
34
3,650
3,300
3,263
2,441
2,164
25
26
27
28
29
2,675
1,835
1,428
2,064
1,396
23
25
28
24
29
941
655
761
376
569
16
23
21
33
28
230
895
309
145
174
29
14
27
36
32
615
279
586
425
395
25
37
26
30
33
229
166
244
117
153
22
25
19
32
28
41 41,639
10
9,764
44
372
33
2,121
30
1,774
26
307
36
508
22
477
28
57
43
44
32
30
47
26
25
40
29
37
33
18
49
32
15
46
30
44
31
25
17
9,077
17,158
21,649
6,234
35,927
43,036
10,946
30,686
13,986
15,474
46
36
35
50
26
22
43
29
41
39
616
738
497
109
239
321
297
262
160
422
27
25
31
48
40
36
38
39
44
32
2,000
1,945
1,715
1,588
1,342
972
927
888
840
792
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1,330
1,274
1,055
1,446
839
367
625
474
447
535
30
31
32
27
33
39
35
37
38
36
230
413
587
126
503
598
114
299
365
189
40
30
26
47
29
25
49
37
34
41
166
391
116
184
100
111
113
191
72
130
33
218
25
642
39
561
31
325
45
413
43
260
41 1,162
30
417
48
191
38
375
39
24
27
35
32
38
21
31
40
34
47
106
129
60
154
216
51
139
80
127
46
33
30
41
27
24
44
29
38
31
19
23
18
31
24
39,829
29,831
34,916
40,112
30,824
35,100
31,804
34,997
36,372
39,853
179
SEHpost
SEHgraduate
Utility
S&E
doctoratesin studentsin
patents
EmployedSEH
Personal
Totalfederal
FederalR&D
TotalR&D
doctorates doctorate
Population, Civilianlabor
IndustryR&D, AcademicR&D, SBIRawards, issuedto Grossdomestic
doctorate
doctorate
incomeper expenditures,
obligations,
performance,
2008
force,2008
2006
2007
200007
product,2007
awarded,
granting
granting
state
a
holders,2006
capita,2007
2007
2006
2006
2007
institutions, institutions,
residents,
2006
2006
2008
Mississippi
3,310
35
174 37
194
36 3,626 37 2,939 32 1,314 36 28,541 51
30,616 30
544 29
758 41
231 44
411 31
79 47
102 43
89 37
Arkansas
2,840
40
91 43
139
38 3,760 35 2,855 33 1,370 34 30,177 48
22,454 33
156 45
572 42
285 41
240 39
138 37
108 42
95 34
WestVirginia
2,000
45
103 40
59
45 2,908 39 1,814 38
806 39 29,385 50
17,067 37
301 37
534 43
221 45
167 44
110 44
74 46
58 42
Hawaii
2,850
39
98 41
98
43 2,058 43 1,288 43
654 43 39,242 19
14,062 40
340 35
518 44
155 46
274 38
157 35
77 45
62 40
Vermont
1,690
47
45 49
79
44
757 50
621 50
355 50 37,483 22
5,579 51
106 49
493 45
360 40
115 48
114 40
437 29
25 52
Maine
2,350
44
39 51
0
51
728 51 1,316 41
707 42 33,991 35
11,850 42
226 41
450 46
253 43
137 46
161 34
113 41
48 45
NorthDakota
1,380
49
79 45
39
48 1,799 45
641 49
370 48 36,082 27
6,766 49
112 47
316 47
120 47
169 43
55 49
63 48
28 51
Montana
1,990
46
68 47
135
39 1,477 47
967 45
506 45 33,225 40
8,497 47
150 46
307 48
103 48
179 42
240 28
91 44
34 48
Alaska
1,110
50
29 52
0
51
661 52
686 48
357 49 40,042 16
9,378 45
209 43
291 49
49 50
160 45
28 51
20 51
45 47
SouthDakota
1,050
51
41 50
19
50 1,292 48
804 47
445 46 35,760 28
8,280 48
76 51
191 50
95 49
82 51
37 50
54 49
34 49
Wyoming
730
52
58 48
49
46
964 49
533 52
293 52 47,047
5
5,355 52
36 52
129 51
27 51
80 52
80 46
35 50
32 50
PuertoRico
1,690
47
98 41
21
49 4,526 32 3,954 27 1,366 35 13,291 52
16,798 38
99 50
na na
na na
107 50
11 52
14 52
89 36
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10302/.Coefficientofvariation>10%but<25%.=novaluepossible.na=notapplicable;datawerenotcollected.S&E=scienceandengineering;SEH=science,engineering,andhealth;SBIR=small
businessinnovationresearch.aDoctorateholdersworkinginU.S.territoriesotherthanPuertoRicoandthosewhoselocationisunknownareincludedintotalbutnotbrokenoutseparately.Numbersareroundedtonearest10.Detail
maynotaddtototalbecauseofrounding..NOTES:Rankingandtotalsarebasedondataforthe50states,DistrictofColumbia,andPuertoRico.Rankingsarebasedonunroundedtotals;theydonotaccountformarginoferrorof
estimatesfromsamplesurveys.EmployedSEHdoctorateholdersincludeonlyrecipientsofU.S.doctoraldegrees.StateestimatesforemployedSEHdoctorateholdersmayhavelargesamplingerrorsbecausethesourceforthesedata,
theSurveyofDoctorateRecipients,wasnotdesignedtoprovideasampleforestimatesatthestatelevel;thesedataareclassifiedbythestatewherethedoctorateholderresides,ifknown;otherwise,dataareclassifiedbyemployer's
location.
Source:PreparedbytheNationalScienceFoundation/DivisionofScienceResourcesStatistics.Datacompiledfromnumeroussources;seethesection,"DataSourcesforScienceandEngineeringStateProfiles."
180
Table66.ElectricEnergyPricebyStateRevenueperKilowattHour(Cents)
State
UnitedStates
Hawaii
NewYork
Connecticut
Massachusetts
NewHampshire
RhodeIsland
Alaska
California
Maine
NewJersey
Vermont
Delaware
DistrictofColumbia
Texas
Maryland
Florida
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Louisiana
Arizona
Wisconsin
Mississippi
Michigan
Colorado
Georgia
Ohio
NorthCarolina
Illinois
NewMexico
Oklahoma
Alabama
Minnesota
SouthCarolina
Montana
Virginia
Iowa
Tennessee
Kansas
Arkansas
SouthDakota
Oregon
Missouri
Indiana
NorthDakota
Washington
Utah
Nebraska
Kentucky
Wyoming
WestVirginia
Idaho
P.O.
ABBR.
US
HI
NY
CT
MA
NH
RI
AK
CA
ME
NJ
VT
DE
DC
TX
MD
FL
NV
PA
LA
AZ
WI
MS
MI
CO
GA
OH
NC
IL
NM
OK
AL
MN
SC
MT
VA
IA
TN
KS
AR
SD
OR
MO
IN
ND
WA
UT
NE
KY
WY
WV
ID
2005
8.14
18.33
13.95
12.06
12.18
12.53
11.97
11.72
11.63
10.57
10.89
10.95
9.18
7.76
9.14
8.13
8.76
9.02
8.27
8.03
7.79
7.48
7.54
7.23
7.64
7.43
7.08
7.19
6.95
7.51
6.85
6.46
6.61
6.72
6.72
6.64
6.69
6.31
6.55
6.30
6.60
6.34
6.13
5.88
5.92
5.87
5.92
5.87
5.01
5.16
5.15
5.12
2006
8.90
20.72
15.27
14.83
15.45
13.84
13.98
12.84
12.82
11.80
11.88
11.37
10.13
11.08
10.34
9.95
10.45
9.63
8.68
8.30
8.24
8.13
8.33
8.14
7.61
7.63
7.71
7.53
7.07
7.37
7.30
7.07
6.98
6.98
6.91
6.86
7.01
6.97
6.89
6.99
6.70
6.53
6.30
6.46
6.21
6.14
5.99
6.07
5.43
5.27
5.04
4.92
2007
9.13
21.29
15.22
16.45
15.16
13.98
13.12
13.28
12.80
14.59
13.01
12.04
11.35
11.79
10.11
11.50
10.33
9.99
9.08
8.39
8.54
8.48
8.03
8.53
7.76
7.86
7.91
7.83
8.46
7.44
7.29
7.57
7.44
7.18
7.13
7.12
6.83
7.07
6.84
6.96
6.89
7.02
6.56
6.50
6.42
6.37
6.41
6.28
5.84
5.29
5.34
5.07
3YearAverage
8.72
20.12
14.81
14.45
14.26
13.45
13.02
12.62
12.42
12.32
11.93
11.45
10.22
10.21
9.87
9.86
9.85
9.55
8.68
8.24
8.19
8.03
7.97
7.97
7.67
7.64
7.57
7.52
7.49
7.44
7.15
7.03
7.01
6.96
6.92
6.87
6.84
6.78
6.76
6.75
6.73
6.63
6.33
6.28
6.18
6.13
6.11
6.07
5.43
5.24
5.18
5.04
Volatility
(StdDev)
0.52
1.57
0.75
2.22
1.81
0.80
1.01
0.80
0.68
2.06
1.06
0.55
1.09
2.15
0.64
1.69
0.94
0.49
0.41
0.19
0.38
0.50
0.40
0.67
0.08
0.21
0.44
0.32
0.84
0.07
0.26
0.55
0.41
0.23
0.21
0.24
0.16
0.42
0.19
0.39
0.15
0.35
0.22
0.35
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.20
0.41
0.07
0.15
0.10
Source:U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration,ElectricSalesandRevenue,annual..
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_sum.html
181
Table67.EIA:StateEnergyRankingsSeptember2009
Natural
Gas
Residential,
Sept.2009
(dollars/
thousand
cuft)
44.67
27.29
25.83
24.23
23.99
23.75
23.69
Electricity
Residential,
Sept.2009
(cents/kWh)
Total
Energy
Production,
2007
(trillion
Btu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Hawaii
SouthCarolina
Delaware
Florida
Alabama
Arizona
Georgia
Vermont
9
10
Missouri
21.82
15.76 Oklahoma
2,440.75 Arizona
NorthCarolina
21.38
15.46 Colorado
2,335.33 NewYork
New
20.39 Maine
15.38 Alaska
2,051.77 Indiana
Hampshire
RhodeIsland
20.32 Vermont
15.36 Illinois
1,951.19 Michigan
Connecticut
19.81 DC
14.48 Alabama
1,503.20 NorthCarolina
Virginia
19.73 Delaware
14.45 Montana
1,214.89 SouthCarolina
Maryland
19.22 Nevada
13.27 Virginia
1,173.14 Louisiana
Pennsylvania
18.96 Michigan
12.89 Utah
1,087.45 Kentucky
WestVirginia
18.92 Texas
12.35 Washington
971.61 Washington
Oklahoma
18.74 Florida
12.34 Ohio
901.79 Missouri
Oregon
18.33 Wisconsin
12.21 Indiana
885.29 Oklahoma
DC
18 Pennsylvania
11.99 NewYork
873.21 Virginia
NewYork
17.84 Illinois
11.48 Kansas
797.05 Tennessee
Arkansas
17.7 Virginia
11.25 Michigan
757.61 NewJersey
Washington
17.35 Arizona
11.17 NorthDakota
752.04 Wisconsin
Ohio
17.11 Ohio
11.15 SouthCarolina
654.32 Mississippi
Kansas
16.84 Iowa
10.99 Arkansas
588.7 Oregon
Tennessee
16.49 Georgia
10.73 Georgia
550.34 Arkansas
Nevada
16.05 Alabama
10.73 Arizona
546.42 WestVirginia
NewJersey
15.96 Colorado
10.72 NorthCarolina
533.73 Iowa
Texas
15.8 NorthCarolina
10.62 Florida
524.28 Colorado
Louisiana
15.69 Kansas
10.38 Tennessee
484.05 Minnesota
Maine
15.44 Oklahoma
10.33 Mississippi
413.32 Wyoming
Massachusetts
15.41 SouthCarolina
10.32 Iowa
405.08 Kansas
Iowa
14.87 NewMexico
10.28 Oregon
397.43 Utah
Michigan
14.13 Mississippi
10.1 NewJersey
360.68 Massachusetts
NorthDakota
13.34 Nebraska
9.85 Nebraska
333.95 Nevada
Illinois
13.23 Minnesota
9.79 Minnesota
326.2 NewMexico
Mississippi
13.05 Arkansas
9.77 Wisconsin
278.14 Maryland
Nebraska
12.99 Indiana
9.74 Maryland
251.29 Nebraska
Idaho
12.66 Montana
9.3 Connecticut
199.2 Connecticut
NewMexico
12.41 SouthDakota
9.28 Maine
153.58 NorthDakota
SouthDakota
11.72 Wyoming
9.13 Missouri
153.48 Montana
Montana
11.44 Oregon
9.1 NewHampshire
145.94 NewHampshire
Wisconsin
11.14 Missouri
9.08 SouthDakota
144.29 Maine
Alaska
10.89 Tennessee
9.03 Idaho
119.35 Idaho
Indiana
10.82 Utah
8.93 Massachusetts
97.54 Hawaii
Colorado
10.49 NorthDakota
8.69 Vermont
64.48 SouthDakota
Utah
9.6 Kentucky
8.39 Nevada
58.15 RhodeIsland
Minnesota
9.34 Louisiana
8.17 Hawaii
18.12 Vermont
California
9.1 Washington
7.98 RhodeIsland
3.78 Alaska
Wyoming
NA WestVirginia
7.96 Delaware
2.35 Delaware
Kentucky
NA Idaho
7.75 DC
1.09 DC
UnitedStates
14.36 UnitedStates
12.06 U.S.Total:
71,353.31 U.S.Total:
Source:http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_rankings.cfm,December24,2009Update.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
22.69
Hawaii
Connecticut
NewYork
Massachusetts
Alaska
NewJersey
RhodeIsland
New
Hampshire
California
Maryland
25.49
20.31
19.74
17.28
17.21
16.79
16.14
Texas
Wyoming
Louisiana
WestVirginia
Kentucky
California
Pennsylvania
11,341.26
10,290.49
6,893.37
4,145.85
3,040.87
2,898.68
2,683.41
16.07
NewMexico
2,553.76
Electricity
TotalNet
Generation,
Sept.2009
(thousand
MWh)
CO Emissions
bythe
Electric
Power
Industry2007
(metrictons)
Texas
Florida
California
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Alabama
Ohio
33,735.76
20,651.35
19,775.26
16,917.35
15,621.10
12,238.65
11,300.10
Texas
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Florida
Indiana
Illinois
Georgia
Georgia
11,040.92
Kentucky
92,320,191
10,720.11
10,589.64
Alabama
WestVirginia
87,344,975
86,273,654
Michigan
79,090,202
8,893.87
8,701.93
8,613.85
8,530.82
7,973.89
7,298.58
7,259.28
7,084.50
6,100.92
6,042.33
5,768.88
5,432.74
5,019.34
4,913.39
4,447.37
4,441.73
4,377.30
4,167.16
4,120.57
4,099.90
3,774.28
3,735.97
3,658.97
3,382.14
3,250.68
3,247.56
2,923.41
2,663.16
2,581.56
2,526.62
1,773.09
1,489.35
1,263.43
995.38
922.57
803.55
682.36
544.69
539.8
432.56
0
327,069.71
NorthCarolina
Missouri
California
Tennessee
Arizona
Louisiana
NewYork
Oklahoma
Wisconsin
Virginia
Wyoming
Iowa
Colorado
SouthCarolina
Kansas
Utah
Minnesota
NorthDakota
NewMexico
Maryland
Arkansas
Mississippi
Massachusetts
Nebraska
NewJersey
Montana
Nevada
Washington
Oregon
Connecticut
Hawaii
Delaware
NewHampshire
Maine
Alaska
SouthDakota
RhodeIsland
Idaho
DC
Vermont
U.S.Total:
182
255,092,183
130,407,085
127,888,320
127,662,330
121,724,872
104,619,546
95,248,726
78,533,282
77,131,256
62,780,179
60,837,496
55,778,500
54,289,959
53,262,343
51,388,701
48,842,014
46,721,552
45,705,725
43,858,798
42,989,936
42,107,344
38,926,886
38,486,267
37,706,385
31,985,187
31,452,437
31,165,417
29,852,236
27,764,176
25,538,756
20,645,874
20,585,235
20,012,990
16,778,142
12,651,998
10,558,882
10,361,669
8,933,935
7,223,767
6,848,507
5,565,587
4,301,706
3,019,701
2,946,005
1,273,975
85,166
9,980
2,516,580,038
Table68.EnergyResources:MatrixofApplications
FUELCELL
SOLARPV
Alternative
Energy
Conventional
Location
CARBON
STATEOF
LEVELIZED NEUTRAL/
COSTOF
REC
TECHNOLOGY
ENERGY POTENTIAL
Emerging/
$115125
?(a)
Commercial
Newly
$96154
Commercial
SOLAR
$90145
THERMAL
BIOMASS
$5094
DIRECT
WIND
$4491
$4269
GEOTHERMAL
LANDFILL
$5081
GAS
GAS
$221334
PEAKING
CUSTOMER CENTRAL
GEOGRAPHY
LOCATED STATION
Universal
Dispatch
INTERMITTENT PEAKING
LOAD
FOLLOWING
BASE
LOAD
Universal
Emerging
Southwest
Mature
Universal
Mature
Commercial/
Evolving
Varies
Varies
Mature
Varies
Mature
Universal
Colocated
orrural
Universal
IGCC
$104134
(b)
GAS
COMBINED
CYCLE
$73100
Emerging(c)
Mature
$74135
(b)
Mature(c)
Colocated
orrural
Mature/
Colocated
NUCLEAR
$98126
Emerging
orrural
(a)QualificationforRPSrequirementsvariesbylocation.
(b)Couldbeconsideredcarbonneutraltechnology,assumingcarboncaptureandcompression.
(c)Carboncaptureandcompressiontechnologiesareinemergingstage.
Source:LazardPresentationtoNARCUMeeting
http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/2008%20EMP%20Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20%20Master%20June%202008%20(2).pdf
WhilethelevelizedcostofenergyforAlternativeEnergygenerationtechnologiesisbecomingincreasinglycompetitivewithconventionalgenerationtechnologies,
directcomparisonsmusttakeintoaccountissuessuchaslocation(e.g.,centralstationvs.customerlocated),dispatchcharacteristics(e.g.,baseloadand/or
dispatchableintermediateloadvs.peakingorintermittenttechnologies),andcontingenciessuchascarbonpricing
COAL
183
Table 69. EIA, 1990 2007 Existing Nameplate Capacity by Energy Source and State (Sum of
NAMEPLATECAPACITY(Megawatts))(EIA860):TotalElectricPowerIndustry
STATE
TX
CA
FL
IL
PA
NY
GA
OH
MI
AL
NC
ENERGYSOURCE
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
Nuclear
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
2000
86,948
80,577
5,139
572
661
92.7%
54,574
30,379
10,122
9,520
4,555
55.7%
45,684
39,928
4,110
1,603
42
87.4%
39,501
27,736
11,538
193
35
70.2%
39,941
27,797
9,589
1,833
723
69.6%
38,092
26,471
5,508
4,419
1,693
69.5%
29,427
21,552
4,042
2,215
1,618
73.2%
30,512
27,968
2,178
196
171
91.7%
28,215
21,115
4,251
2,479
371
74.8%
25,307
16,501
5,271
2,961
575
65.2%
25,986
18,648
5,182
1,819
2001
94,440
87,095
5,139
1,546
661
92.2%
57,556
33,357
10,118
9,526
4,554
58.0%
47,483
42,097
4,110
1,234
42
88.7%
44,757
32,874
11,626
219
37
73.4%
41,118
28,843
9,600
1,900
775
70.1%
38,934
27,171
5,611
4,472
1,680
69.8%
31,605
23,817
4,042
2,216
1,530
75.4%
31,969
29,424
2,178
196
171
92.0%
29,309
22,222
4,251
2,476
361
75.8%
25,428
16,741
5,270
2,959
457
65.8%
27,780
20,366
5,182
1,826
2002
101,703
94,191
5,139
1,712
661
92.6%
59,546
35,181
10,170
9,640
4,554
59.1%
52,804
47,144
4,110
1,508
42
89.3%
49,863
37,997
11,626
219
22
76.2%
43,534
31,212
9,600
1,947
775
71.7%
39,482
27,602
5,611
4,564
1,705
69.9%
37,176
29,096
4,042
2,216
1,823
78.3%
34,208
31,667
2,178
193
171
92.6%
32,056
25,037
4,251
2,406
363
78.1%
28,577
19,784
5,270
2,959
563
69.2%
28,538
21,108
5,182
1,826
2003
108,367
100,663
5,139
1,889
676
92.9%
62,059
37,726
9,953
9,825
4,554
60.8%
55,977
50,359
4,110
1,466
42
90.0%
51,083
38,884
11,882
279
38
76.1%
46,629
33,959
9,860
2,036
775
72.8%
40,007
28,100
5,611
4,602
1,695
70.2%
37,626
29,746
4,042
2,016
1,823
79.1%
36,900
34,357
2,178
197
169
93.1%
33,280
26,273
4,251
2,384
373
78.9%
32,831
23,829
5,270
3,159
572
72.6%
29,342
21,910
5,182
1,828
2004
109,580
101,801
5,139
1,964
676
92.9%
62,225
37,735
9,970
9,943
4,577
60.6%
57,511
51,946
4,110
1,399
56
90.3%
47,696
35,498
11,882
278
38
74.4%
49,614
36,944
9,860
2,036
775
74.5%
41,159
29,199
5,611
4,651
1,698
70.9%
38,498
30,351
4,042
1,931
2,175
78.8%
36,976
34,415
2,237
197
128
93.1%
33,370
26,298
4,314
2,384
375
78.8%
33,248
24,050
5,270
3,261
667
72.3%
29,023
21,592
5,182
1,828
2005
109,956
101,665
5,139
2,477
676
92.5%
66,105
41,568
9,987
9,973
4,577
62.9%
60,535
54,986
4,110
1,383
56
90.8%
48,155
35,911
11,882
325
38
74.6%
49,399
36,637
9,860
2,126
775
74.2%
42,826
30,730
5,611
4,648
1,838
71.8%
39,792
31,644
4,042
1,932
2,175
79.5%
36,725
34,214
2,237
147
128
93.2%
33,358
26,272
4,314
2,389
384
78.8%
33,228
23,986
5,270
3,280
692
72.2%
29,013
21,539
5,182
1,828
2006
109,666
100,338
5,139
3,518
673
91.5%
67,785
43,021
9,987
10,202
4,577
63.5%
60,701
55,165
4,110
1,370
56
90.9%
48,176
35,935
11,882
322
38
74.6%
49,340
36,634
9,860
2,072
775
74.2%
43,134
30,842
5,611
4,648
2,033
71.5%
39,758
31,611
4,042
1,932
2,175
79.5%
36,688
34,110
2,237
213
128
93.0%
32,979
25,894
4,314
2,389
383
78.5%
33,228
23,960
5,270
3,280
718
72.1%
29,022
21,515
5,182
1,828
2007
111,098
99,964
5,139
5,324
672
90.0%
68,522
43,471
10,032
10,442
4,577
63.4%
63,145
57,592
4,110
1,387
56
91.2%
48,654
35,784
11,882
950
38
73.5%
49,176
36,317
9,860
2,223
775
73.9%
42,769
30,310
5,708
4,654
2,098
70.9%
39,767
31,447
4,042
1,932
2,347
79.1%
36,707
34,092
2,237
251
128
92.9%
33,037
25,950
4,314
2,400
374
78.5%
33,230
23,947
5,270
3,280
733
72.1%
29,654
22,143
5,182
1,828
184
CAGR0007
3.56%
3.13%
0.00%
37.53%
0.24%
0.42%
3.30%
5.25%
0.13%
1.33%
0.07%
1.89%
4.73%
5.37%
0.00%
2.05%
4.20%
0.61%
3.02%
3.71%
0.42%
25.57%
1.18%
0.66%
3.02%
3.89%
0.40%
2.79%
1.00%
0.85%
1.67%
1.95%
0.51%
0.74%
3.11%
0.28%
4.40%
5.55%
0.00%
1.93%
5.46%
1.10%
2.68%
2.87%
0.38%
3.60%
4.05%
0.19%
2.28%
2.99%
0.21%
0.46%
0.12%
0.69%
3.97%
5.46%
0.00%
1.47%
3.53%
1.44%
1.90%
2.48%
0.00%
0.07%
STATE
LA
WA
AZ
VA
SC
TN
MO
NJ
WI
MA
AR
ENERGYSOURCE
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
2000
337
71.8%
23,714
20,831
2,236
454
192
87.8%
25,719
20,697
3,153
1,200
670
12.3%
16,697
9,598
4,210
2,702
190
57.5%
20,854
13,502
3,655
2,955
743
64.7%
19,925
9,424
6,799
2,435
1,266
47.3%
21,989
14,262
3,711
2,420
1,595
64.9%
18,556
16,221
1,236
601
499
87.4%
18,452
13,567
4,151
721
13
73.5%
13,765
11,499
1,583
505
178
83.5%
13,263
10,511
1,823
670
259
79.3%
10,174
6,618
1,845
1,315
397
2001
407
73.3%
24,630
21,812
2,236
391
192
88.6%
26,211
20,692
3,478
1,200
841
13.3%
18,347
11,243
4,209
2,702
194
61.3%
22,047
14,655
3,654
2,999
740
66.5%
20,914
10,415
6,799
2,435
1,265
49.8%
22,647
14,894
3,711
2,418
1,623
65.8%
20,534
18,199
1,236
600
499
88.6%
17,729
13,517
3,510
689
13
76.2%
14,503
12,125
1,583
510
286
83.6%
12,970
10,240
1,801
670
259
79.0%
10,622
7,102
1,845
1,314
362
2002
422
74.0%
28,832
26,069
2,236
334
192
90.4%
26,798
20,702
4,049
1,200
846
15.1%
21,531
14,423
4,209
2,699
200
67.0%
21,919
14,506
3,654
3,019
740
66.2%
21,761
11,262
6,799
2,435
1,265
51.8%
23,021
15,250
3,711
2,418
1,642
66.2%
21,563
19,227
1,236
600
499
89.2%
20,235
15,382
4,151
689
13
76.0%
14,639
12,245
1,583
513
299
83.6%
13,463
10,651
1,883
670
259
79.1%
11,916
8,367
1,845
1,309
397
2003
422
74.7%
29,088
26,326
2,236
334
192
90.5%
27,522
20,704
4,671
1,200
948
17.0%
26,187
19,065
4,209
2,705
207
72.8%
23,041
15,616
3,654
3,030
740
67.8%
22,258
11,749
6,799
2,438
1,271
52.8%
23,036
15,265
3,711
2,418
1,642
66.3%
21,623
19,287
1,236
600
499
89.2%
20,481
15,606
4,151
711
13
76.2%
14,661
12,286
1,583
500
294
83.8%
15,697
12,844
1,918
670
266
81.8%
14,472
10,921
1,845
1,309
399
2004
422
74.4%
30,033
27,060
2,236
546
192
90.1%
27,776
20,627
5,003
1,200
946
18.0%
27,259
20,134
4,209
2,709
207
73.9%
24,497
17,075
3,654
3,028
740
69.7%
24,117
13,568
6,799
2,438
1,311
56.3%
23,063
15,265
3,711
2,418
1,669
66.2%
21,689
19,354
1,236
600
499
89.2%
19,876
14,989
4,151
722
14
75.4%
15,143
12,696
1,583
500
364
83.8%
15,718
12,872
1,906
670
270
81.9%
14,472
10,921
1,845
1,309
399
2005
466
74.2%
29,906
26,791
2,236
688
192
89.6%
28,011
20,660
5,055
1,200
1,096
18.0%
28,007
20,868
4,209
2,718
211
74.5%
24,431
17,009
3,654
3,028
740
69.6%
24,155
13,558
6,799
2,444
1,353
56.1%
22,969
15,162
3,711
2,418
1,678
66.0%
22,075
19,739
1,236
600
499
89.4%
19,401
14,515
4,151
722
14
74.8%
16,762
14,293
1,608
507
356
85.3%
15,740
12,889
1,911
670
270
81.9%
14,967
11,415
1,845
1,309
399
2006
498
74.1%
30,108
26,797
2,236
884
192
89.0%
28,351
20,677
4,950
1,200
1,524
17.5%
28,741
21,602
4,209
2,718
211
75.2%
24,415
16,994
3,654
3,026
740
69.6%
24,500
13,892
6,799
2,455
1,353
56.7%
23,006
15,162
3,711
2,418
1,715
65.9%
22,109
19,770
1,236
603
499
89.4%
20,511
15,588
4,151
760
13
76.0%
16,949
14,468
1,608
506
367
85.4%
15,690
12,841
1,911
670
268
81.8%
15,377
11,821
1,845
1,309
403
2007
502
74.7%
30,158
26,788
2,236
943
192
88.8%
28,720
20,807
4,886
1,200
1,828
17.0%
28,730
21,591
4,209
2,718
211
75.2%
25,270
17,023
3,654
3,851
741
67.4%
25,078
14,460
6,799
2,455
1,363
57.7%
22,962
15,099
3,711
2,418
1,735
65.8%
22,195
19,800
1,236
660
499
89.2%
20,154
15,228
4,151
765
13
75.6%
16,976
14,472
1,608
505
392
85.2%
15,299
12,442
1,917
670
272
81.3%
16,462
12,905
1,845
1,309
403
185
CAGR0007
5.86%
0.57%
3.49%
3.66%
0.00%
11.01%
0.00%
0.16%
1.59%
0.08%
6.46%
0.00%
15.42%
4.79%
8.06%
12.28%
0.00%
0.08%
1.51%
3.90%
2.78%
3.37%
0.00%
3.86%
0.04%
0.57%
3.34%
6.31%
0.00%
0.12%
1.06%
2.87%
0.62%
0.82%
0.00%
0.01%
1.21%
0.20%
2.59%
2.89%
0.00%
1.35%
0.00%
0.29%
1.27%
1.66%
0.00%
0.85%
0.00%
0.39%
3.04%
3.34%
0.22%
0.00%
11.94%
0.29%
2.06%
2.44%
0.72%
0.00%
0.70%
0.37%
7.12%
10.01%
0.00%
0.07%
0.21%
STATE
MD
MN
IA
CT
NE
NH
VT
UT
ID
DE
WY
ENERGYSOURCE
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
2000
65.0%
11,286
8,656
1,829
494
308
76.7%
10,661
8,067
1,737
650
207
75.7%
9,559
8,618
207
597
137
90.2%
6,932
4,355
2,163
269
144
62.8%
6,146
4,619
1,338
183
7
75.2%
3,007
1,164
1,242
447
155
38.7%
1,098
563
309
144
82
13.1%
5,476
5,157
279
42
94.2%
2,850
2,483
218
149
7.6%
2,602
2,286
316
87.9%
6,532
6,137
288
108
94.0%
2001
66.9%
12,633
9,984
1,829
494
327
79.0%
11,620
9,035
1,737
663
186
77.8%
9,790
8,636
426
597
131
88.2%
8,440
5,230
2,804
261
145
62.0%
6,266
4,738
1,338
183
9
75.6%
3,014
1,177
1,242
447
148
39.1%
1,089
563
302
142
82
13.0%
5,567
5,268
260
39
94.6%
3,286
2,479
666
142
20.3%
2,591
2,591
100.0%
6,673
6,238
293
141
93.5%
2002
70.2%
12,653
10,002
1,829
494
327
79.0%
12,017
9,413
1,737
681
186
78.3%
9,940
8,687
524
597
131
87.4%
8,127
5,558
2,163
264
142
68.4%
6,279
4,741
1,338
191
11
75.5%
3,620
1,782
1,242
447
148
49.2%
1,087
563
302
140
82
12.9%
6,182
5,882
262
39
95.1%
3,307
2,499
666
142
20.1%
3,528
3,204
324
90.8%
6,743
6,306
296
141
93.5%
2003
75.5%
13,363
10,774
1,829
494
266
80.6%
12,146
9,384
1,737
839
186
77.3%
10,691
9,394
570
597
131
87.9%
8,237
5,668
2,163
264
142
68.8%
7,012
5,364
1,303
325
21
76.5%
4,530
2,692
1,242
447
148
59.4%
1,094
563
299
140
91
12.8%
6,252
5,953
262
39
95.2%
3,327
2,520
666
142
20.0%
3,624
3,299
324
91.0%
6,970
6,389
296
285
91.7%
2004
75.5%
13,382
10,792
1,829
494
267
80.6%
12,230
9,412
1,737
894
186
77.0%
11,643
10,283
633
597
131
88.3%
8,694
6,127
2,163
263
142
70.5%
7,126
5,476
1,303
327
21
76.8%
4,553
2,711
1,242
447
153
59.5%
1,094
563
299
140
91
12.8%
6,491
6,144
262
85
94.7%
3,329
2,521
666
142
20.0%
3,612
3,287
324
91.0%
6,970
6,375
299
297
91.5%
2005
76.3%
13,382
10,792
1,829
494
267
80.6%
12,957
9,976
1,737
1,058
186
77.0%
11,898
10,340
830
597
131
86.9%
8,739
6,171
2,163
263
142
70.6%
7,493
5,784
1,303
327
81
77.2%
4,553
2,712
1,242
445
153
59.6%
1,094
563
299
140
91
12.8%
6,862
6,572
262
28
95.8%
3,459
2,521
786
153
22.7%
3,520
3,195
324
90.8%
7,087
6,381
299
407
90.0%
2006
76.9%
13,383
10,792
1,829
494
267
80.6%
13,533
10,428
1,737
1,184
186
77.1%
12,008
10,343
936
597
131
86.1%
8,681
6,113
2,163
263
143
70.4%
7,497
5,785
1,303
327
83
77.2%
4,553
2,662
1,242
445
203
58.5%
1,095
563
299
141
91
12.9%
7,075
6,751
262
63
95.4%
3,526
2,523
786
217
22.3%
3,527
3,195
331
90.6%
7,087
6,381
299
407
90.0%
2007
78.4%
13,442
10,815
1,829
527
273
80.5%
13,984
10,460
1,737
1,601
186
74.8%
13,389
11,394
1,185
680
131
85.1%
8,561
5,997
2,163
284
119
70.1%
7,422
5,712
1,303
327
81
77.0%
4,494
2,616
1,242
445
190
58.2%
1,090
563
300
136
91
12.5%
7,521
7,215
262
43
95.9%
3,518
2,516
786
217
22.3%
3,525
3,193
331
90.6%
7,036
6,331
299
407
90.0%
186
CAGR0007
2.70%
2.53%
3.23%
0.00%
0.93%
1.71%
0.69%
3.95%
3.78%
0.00%
13.74%
1.52%
0.16%
4.93%
4.07%
28.31%
1.88%
0.64%
0.82%
3.06%
4.68%
0.00%
0.78%
2.69%
1.57%
2.73%
3.08%
0.38%
8.65%
41.88%
0.34%
5.91%
12.26%
0.00%
0.06%
2.95%
6.00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.42%
0.81%
1.50%
0.71%
4.64%
4.91%
0.89%
0.34%
0.26%
#DIV/0!
3.05%
0.19%
20.11%
5.52%
16.55%
#DIV/0!
4.43%
4.89%
0.66%
0.44%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
1.07%
0.45%
0.54%
20.87%
0.62%
#DIV/0!
STATE
ND
AK
OR
KS
RI
MT
SD
CO
IN
HI
ME
OK
ENERGYSOURCE
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
AllSources
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
NonHydroRenewables
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
2000
4,892
4,357
517
18
89.1%
2,328
1,936
392
83.2%
10,673
8,261
2,152
261
20.2%
10,788
9,550
1,236
3
88.5%
1,385
1,365
15
4
98.6%
5,083
2,573
2,500
11
50.6%
2,997
1,731
1,267
42.3%
8,898
7,715
538
646
86.7%
26,441
25,648
703
89
97.0%
2,556
2,319
211
27
90.7%
4,576
3,120
733
723
68.2%
14,915
2001
4,882
4,347
517
18
89.0%
2,278
1,879
400
82.5%
11,370
8,240
2,779
353
24.4%
11,096
9,746
1,236
2
87.8%
112
1,387
1,365
17
4
98.4%
5,165
2,656
2,498
11
51.4%
2,980
1,730
1,246
41.8%
3
9,356
8,136
576
645
87.0%
26,855
26,130
637
89
97.3%
2,552
2,320
206
26
90.9%
4,568
3,090
763
715
67.6%
16,063
2002
4,866
4,331
517
18
89.0%
2,244
1,844
400
82.2%
12,274
8,211
3,686
378
30.0%
11,210
9,860
1,236
2
88.0%
112
1,985
1,963
17
4
98.9%
5,166
2,656
2,499
11
51.4%
3,019
1,730
1,286
42.6%
3
10,169
8,940
583
645
87.9%
28,499
27,793
617
89
97.5%
2,509
2,320
165
25
92.5%
4,564
3,096
755
714
67.8%
17,589
2003
4,989
4,331
576
82
86.8%
2,126
1,726
400
81.2%
1
12,747
8,235
4,046
466
31.7%
11,653
10,301
1,236
3
88.4%
113
2,011
1,989
17
4
98.9%
5,209
2,699
2,499
11
51.8%
2,852
1,598
1,211
42.5%
43
11,594
10,214
745
636
88.1%
28,455
27,695
671
89
97.3%
2,508
2,316
169
23
92.3%
4,571
3,098
755
718
67.8%
19,833
2004
5,029
4,333
614
82
86.2%
2,016
1,622
393
80.5%
1
12,621
8,236
3,923
463
31.1%
11,746
10,394
1,236
3
88.5%
113
2,016
1,995
17
4
99.0%
5,215
2,699
2,499
17
51.8%
2,840
1,598
1,199
42.2%
43
12,475
11,085
751
640
88.9%
29,709
28,856
764
89
97.1%
2,573
2,381
169
23
92.5%
4,466
2,991
756
719
67.0%
21,197
2005
5,060
4,333
614
114
85.6%
2,035
1,631
395
80.1%
10
12,740
8,242
3,915
583
30.7%
11,904
10,403
1,236
3
87.4%
263
2,022
1,992
26
4
98.5%
5,362
2,710
2,499
152
50.5%
3,035
1,598
1,394
45.9%
43
12,491
11,099
753
640
88.9%
30,073
29,218
763
92
97.2%
2,589
2,395
169
25
92.5%
4,466
2,992
754
719
67.0%
21,511
2006
5,129
4,333
614
182
84.5%
2,049
1,648
398
80.4%
3
12,859
8,261
3,915
683
30.4%
12,056
10,454
1,236
3
86.7%
363
2,024
1,994
26
4
98.5%
5,588
2,897
2,529
162
51.8%
3,129
1,598
1,487
47.5%
43
12,549
11,097
813
640
88.4%
30,054
29,186
776
92
97.1%
2,648
2,423
201
25
91.5%
4,466
2,992
754
719
67.0%
21,841
2007
5,346
4,332
614
401
81.0%
2,163
1,763
398
81.5%
3
13,802
8,261
4,299
1,242
31.1%
12,200
10,598
1,236
3
86.9%
363
2,022
1,992
26
4
98.5%
5,658
2,898
2,548
212
51.2%
3,127
1,598
1,486
47.5%
43
13,735
11,491
1,597
649
83.7%
30,050
29,186
773
92
97.1%
2,674
2,427
222
25
90.8%
4,522
2,993
810
719
66.2%
21,901
187
CAGR0007
1.28%
0.08%
2.49%
55.79%
1.34%
#DIV/0!
1.04%
1.33%
0.22%
0.29%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
3.74%
0.00%
10.39%
24.96%
6.41%
#DIV/0!
1.77%
1.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.27%
#DIV/0!
5.55%
5.55%
8.17%
0.00%
0.01%
#DIV/0!
1.54%
1.71%
0.27%
52.60%
0.17%
#DIV/0!
0.61%
1.14%
2.30%
1.69%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
6.40%
5.86%
16.82%
0.07%
0.51%
#DIV/0!
1.84%
1.86%
1.37%
0.47%
0.02%
#DIV/0!
0.65%
0.65%
0.73%
1.09%
0.01%
#DIV/0!
0.17%
0.59%
1.44%
0.08%
0.42%
#DIV/0!
5.64%
STATE
KY
WV
NM
DC
NV
MS
ENERGYSOURCE
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydroRenewables
Hydroelectric
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Hydroelectric
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Hydroelectric
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Nuclear
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydroRenewables
CarbonFuels%ofTotal
Hydroelectric
2000
13,692
771
452
91.8%
18,658
17,877
778
4
95.8%
15,762
15,413
254
95
97.8%
6,067
5,986
2
79
98.7%
868
868
100.0%
7,072
5,810
1,053
210
82.2%
9,661
8,009
1,373
279
82.9%
2001
14,834
770
459
92.3%
19,972
19,103
777
92
95.6%
16,574
16,277
203
95
98.2%
6,197
6,115
2
79
98.7%
868
868
100.0%
7,464
6,200
1,052
212
83.1%
12,001
10,356
1,373
273
86.3%
2002
16,360
770
459
93.0%
22,055
21,186
777
92
96.1%
16,984
16,621
203
161
97.9%
6,527
6,441
7
79
98.7%
868
868
100.0%
7,494
6,195
1,052
247
82.7%
14,924
13,272
1,373
279
88.9%
2003
18,417
778
638
92.9%
21,981
21,111
777
93
96.0%
16,972
16,610
203
161
97.9%
6,923
6,634
211
79
95.8%
868
868
100.0%
8,392
7,093
1,052
246
84.5%
18,600
16,949
1,373
279
91.1%
2004
19,782
778
638
93.3%
22,729
21,850
777
102
96.1%
17,274
16,869
245
161
97.7%
6,963
6,613
271
79
95.0%
868
868
100.0%
9,840
8,546
1,047
246
86.8%
18,376
16,774
1,373
229
91.3%
2005
19,882
778
852
92.4%
23,455
22,575
777
103
96.2%
17,354
16,964
325
66
97.8%
7,094
6,605
411
79
93.1%
868
868
100.0%
9,841
8,512
1,047
281
86.5%
18,553
16,951
1,373
229
91.4%
2006
20,092
778
972
92.0%
23,410
22,528
777
105
96.2%
17,346
16,957
325
66
97.8%
7,826
7,247
501
79
92.6%
868
868
100.0%
11,100
9,756
1,047
296
87.9%
18,541
16,939
1,373
229
91.4%
2007
20,045
790
1,067
91.5%
23,351
22,465
777
108
96.2%
16,986
16,596
325
66
97.7%
7,934
7,354
501
79
92.7%
868
868
100.0%
11,526
10,090
1,047
389
87.5%
18,184
16,582
1,373
229
91.2%
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html,19902007ExistingNameplateandNetSummerCapacitybyEnergy
Source,ProducerTypeandState(EIA860)
188
CAGR0007
5.60%
0.35%
13.05%
0.04%
#DIV/0!
3.26%
3.32%
0.02%
60.13%
0.06%
#DIV/0!
1.07%
1.06%
3.58%
5.07%
0.01%
#DIV/0!
3.91%
2.98%
120.13%
0.00%
0.89%
#DIV/0!
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
7.23%
8.20%
0.08%
9.21%
0.91%
#DIV/0!
9.46%
10.96%
0.00%
2.78%
1.37%
#DIV/0!
Table70.EIANameplateCapacityforCarbonFuelsinMWfortheTotalElectricPowerIndustry
(20002007)
State
TX
FL
CA
OH
PA
IL
NY
IN
GA
MI
LA
NC
KY
AL
MO
WV
TN
OK
NJ
VA
WI
MA
AZ
KS
SC
MD
IA
MN
MS
CO
AR
WY
NM
NV
UT
NE
ND
CT
WA
ME
MT
HI
DE
OR
AK
RI
SD
NH
DC
ID
VT
2000
80,577
39,928
30,379
27,968
27,797
27,736
26,471
25,648
21,552
21,115
20,831
18,648
17,877
16,501
16,221
15,413
14,262
13,692
13,567
13,502
11,499
10,511
9,598
9,550
9,424
8,656
8,618
8,067
8,009
7,715
6,618
6,137
5,986
5,810
5,157
4,619
4,357
4,355
3,153
3,120
2,573
2,319
2,286
2,152
1,936
1,365
1,267
1,164
868
218
144
2001
87,095
42,097
33,357
29,424
28,843
32,874
27,171
26,130
23,817
22,222
21,812
20,366
19,103
16,741
18,199
16,277
14,894
14,834
13,517
14,655
12,125
10,240
11,243
9,746
10,415
9,984
8,636
9,035
10,356
8,136
7,102
6,238
6,115
6,200
5,268
4,738
4,347
5,230
3,478
3,090
2,656
2,320
2,591
2,779
1,879
1,365
1,246
1,177
868
666
142
2002
94,191
47,144
35,181
31,667
31,212
37,997
27,602
27,793
29,096
25,037
26,069
21,108
21,186
19,784
19,227
16,621
15,250
16,360
15,382
14,506
12,245
10,651
14,423
9,860
11,262
10,002
8,687
9,413
13,272
8,940
8,367
6,306
6,441
6,195
5,882
4,741
4,331
5,558
4,049
3,096
2,656
2,320
3,204
3,686
1,844
1,963
1,286
1,782
868
666
140
2003
100,663
50,359
37,726
34,357
33,959
38,884
28,100
27,695
29,746
26,273
26,326
21,910
21,111
23,829
19,287
16,610
15,265
18,417
15,606
15,616
12,286
12,844
19,065
10,301
11,749
10,774
9,394
9,384
16,949
10,214
10,921
6,389
6,634
7,093
5,953
5,364
4,331
5,668
4,671
3,098
2,699
2,316
3,299
4,046
1,726
1,989
1,211
2,692
868
666
140
2004
101,801
51,946
37,735
34,415
36,944
35,498
29,199
28,856
30,351
26,298
27,060
21,592
21,850
24,050
19,354
16,869
15,265
19,782
14,989
17,075
12,696
12,872
20,134
10,394
13,568
10,792
10,283
9,412
16,774
11,085
10,921
6,375
6,613
8,546
6,144
5,476
4,333
6,127
5,003
2,991
2,699
2,381
3,287
3,923
1,622
1,995
1,199
2,711
868
666
140
2005
101,665
54,986
41,568
34,214
36,637
35,911
30,730
29,218
31,644
26,272
26,791
21,539
22,575
23,986
19,739
16,964
15,162
19,882
14,515
17,009
14,293
12,889
20,868
10,403
13,558
10,792
10,340
9,976
16,951
11,099
11,415
6,381
6,605
8,512
6,572
5,784
4,333
6,171
5,055
2,992
2,710
2,395
3,195
3,915
1,631
1,992
1,394
2,712
868
786
140
2006
100,338
55,165
43,021
34,110
36,634
35,935
30,842
29,186
31,611
25,894
26,797
21,515
22,528
23,960
19,770
16,957
15,162
20,092
15,588
16,994
14,468
12,841
21,602
10,454
13,892
10,792
10,343
10,428
16,939
11,097
11,821
6,381
7,247
9,756
6,751
5,785
4,333
6,113
4,950
2,992
2,897
2,423
3,195
3,915
1,648
1,994
1,487
2,662
868
786
141
2007
99,964
57,592
43,471
34,092
36,317
35,784
30,310
29,186
31,447
25,950
26,788
22,143
22,465
23,947
19,800
16,596
15,099
20,045
15,228
17,023
14,472
12,442
21,591
10,598
14,460
10,815
11,394
10,460
16,582
11,491
12,905
6,331
7,354
10,090
7,215
5,712
4,332
5,997
4,886
2,993
2,898
2,427
3,193
4,299
1,763
1,992
1,486
2,616
868
786
136
CAGR0007
3.1%
5.4%
5.3%
2.9%
3.9%
3.7%
2.0%
1.9%
5.5%
3.0%
3.7%
2.5%
3.3%
5.5%
2.9%
1.1%
0.8%
5.6%
1.7%
3.4%
3.3%
2.4%
12.3%
1.5%
6.3%
3.2%
4.1%
3.8%
11.0%
5.9%
10.0%
0.4%
3.0%
8.2%
4.9%
3.1%
0.1%
4.7%
6.5%
0.6%
1.7%
0.7%
4.9%
10.4%
1.3%
5.5%
2.3%
12.3%
0.0%
20.1%
0.8%
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html,19902007ExistingNameplateandNetSummerCapacitybyEnergySource,
ProducerTypeandState(EIA860)
189
Table71.EIANetGenerationbyStatebyPowerSourceforAllProducers(20002007)
Sta
te
EnergySource
TX
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
PA
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
FL
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
IL
AllSources
Nuclear
CarbonFuels
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
CA
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
OH
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
GA
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
NonHydro
Renewables
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
307,764,164
295,791,622
288,364,154
283,995,784
298,031,697
312,120,108
318,894,469
321,979,091
268,844,487
37,555,807
534,907
828,963
87.35%
255,206,677
38,162,863
1,221,751
1,200,331
86.28%
248,349,720
35,618,004
3,272,937
1,123,492
86.12%
246,914,711
33,437,484
2,747,049
896,539
86.94%
252,856,015
40,435,372
3,439,701
1,300,609
84.84%
267,895,889
38,232,493
4,659,166
1,332,560
85.83%
269,752,664
41,264,278
7,215,556
661,971
84.59%
269,820,925
40,955,030
9,558,698
1,644,437
83.80%
190,999,658
186,239,275
194,555,562
195,777,789
204,236,443
206,874,000
206,386,678
213,745,076
113,681,687
73,771,347
1,879,636
1,256,392
59.52%
109,702,349
73,730,797
1,034,554
1,156,125
58.90%
115,207,357
76,088,930
1,552,809
1,048,712
59.22%
117,143,846
74,360,862
2,607,273
926,814
59.84%
122,371,462
77,458,632
2,469,454
1,251,012
59.92%
127,181,924
76,289,432
1,521,138
1,170,465
61.48%
126,940,361
75,297,632
2,145,965
1,304,543
61.51%
132,756,452
77,376,316
1,513,127
1,376,325
62.11%
175,565,037
176,640,814
189,593,679
196,310,308
203,718,075
206,285,410
210,170,891
212,033,520
139,865,399
32,291,345
3,321,524
86,769
79.67%
141,661,795
31,583,404
3,247,896
147,718
80.20%
152,431,108
33,704,230
3,274,227
184,114
80.40%
162,101,092
30,979,481
2,967,067
262,667
82.57%
168,959,029
31,215,576
3,278,213
265,258
82.94%
174,003,044
28,758,826
3,257,381
266,159
84.35%
175,224,034
31,426,349
3,317,086
203,422
83.37%
179,344,096
29,289,289
3,245,687
154,446
84.58%
174,542,440
175,456,043
183,919,275
185,203,498
188,008,854
190,027,915
188,506,520
196,213,061
89,438,049
84,321,338
641,422
141,631
48.31%
92,358,477
82,489,012
467,537
141,017
47.01%
90,860,108
92,314,817
615,761
128,589
50.19%
94,733,036
89,444,968
886,997
138,497
48.30%
92,047,323
94,946,528
864,735
150,268
50.50%
93,263,001
95,912,753
723,124
129,037
50.47%
94,154,140
93,315,438
863,670
173,272
49.50%
95,728,845
99,045,131
1,285,359
153,727
50.48%
164,852,052
158,797,801
138,133,722
147,157,533
151,104,848
158,068,800
176,847,385
169,839,430
69,658,751
39,263,698
35,175,505
21,692,037
42.26%
80,324,873
25,192,093
33,219,520
19,711,627
50.58%
50,999,150
30,899,631
34,352,340
21,641,604
36.92%
54,358,539
35,457,476
35,593,789
20,835,415
36.94%
65,235,630
33,324,095
30,267,887
21,460,405
43.17%
60,178,018
39,746,234
36,154,898
22,109,442
38.07%
74,459,997
48,136,123
31,958,621
22,388,781
42.10%
83,164,398
27,624,142
35,792,490
23,568,180
48.97%
147,515,160
140,726,564
146,325,196
145,209,869
147,004,558
155,568,086
153,994,843
153,902,202
130,123,885
16,781,378
583,048
26,849
88.21%
124,724,129
15,463,762
510,785
27,888
88.63%
134,727,252
10,864,902
488,329
244,713
92.07%
136,195,386
8,475,016
510,835
28,632
93.79%
130,297,750
15,950,121
729,876
26,811
88.64%
140,213,815
14,802,733
515,744
35,794
90.13%
136,477,914
16,846,939
631,936
38,054
88.62%
137,701,997
15,764,049
410,436
25,720
89.47%
117,607,707
112,412,045
116,749,479
118,785,957
121,780,290
131,358,088
132,531,461
139,674,936
82,822,896
32,472,935
2,304,394
70.42%
(147,346)
76,713,421
33,681,769
1,997,448
68.24%
(550,303)
83,584,466
31,107,735
2,038,524
71.59%
(629,414)
82,035,814
33,256,649
3,476,697
69.06%
(619,295)
85,224,331
33,747,705
2,790,653
69.98%
(860,245)
96,004,520
31,534,259
3,803,062
73.09%
(192,974)
98,365,582
32,005,810
2,145,161
74.22%
(385,435)
105,221,765
32,544,998
1,895,364
75.33%
(308,841)
CAGR
0007
0.6%
Genin
MWh
350,143,
071
0.1%
1.2%
51.0%
10.3%
0.6%
263,416,
317
1.6%
2.2%
0.7%
3.1%
1.3%
0.6%
301,042,
635
2.7%
3.6%
1.4%
0.3%
8.6%
0.9%
243,848,
828
1.7%
1.0%
2.3%
10.4%
1.2%
0.6%
179,505,
471
0.4%
2.6%
4.9%
0.2%
1.2%
2.1%
166,506,
600
0.6%
0.8%
0.9%
4.9%
0.6%
0.2%
2.5%
192,227,
236
3.5%
0.0%
2.8%
1.0%
11.2%
190
Sta
te
EnergySource
NY
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
NC
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
MI
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
WA
AllSources
AllHydroelectric
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AZ
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
SC
AllSources
Nuclear
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
NonHydro
Renewables
TN
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
NonHydro
Renewables
MO
AllSources
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
113,944,299
120,760,058
119,763,248
119,558,058
122,137,916
130,214,866
128,563,846
131,581,157
56,824,646
31,507,988
23,828,181
793,046
49.87%
56,613,058
40,394,985
22,083,913
737,583
46.88%
54,389,558
39,617,491
24,059,560
775,415
45.41%
53,850,566
40,679,205
23,276,717
839,764
45.04%
56,450,381
40,640,305
23,093,802
1,140,257
46.22%
60,769,234
42,443,152
24,939,184
1,282,565
46.67%
57,148,061
42,223,899
26,495,890
1,939,840
44.45%
61,814,159
42,452,854
24,422,154
2,123,609
46.98%
115,126,471
110,617,459
117,511,815
120,375,870
120,027,450
123,537,812
119,612,533
124,901,825
73,258,482
39,126,881
2,299,799
549,411
63.63%
70,555,331
37,775,025
1,861,019
426,085
63.78%
75,018,588
39,626,849
2,446,332
445,220
63.84%
72,593,772
40,906,900
6,447,957
546,514
60.31%
74,669,503
40,090,623
4,808,815
536,760
62.21%
78,301,385
39,981,739
4,802,959
598,234
63.38%
75,705,248
39,963,184
3,464,515
610,928
63.29%
81,272,576
40,044,705
3,111,673
609,867
65.07%
91,323,508
99,466,456
105,482,582
98,936,164
102,168,701
109,167,712
101,233,117
107,813,453
70,477,092
18,882,432
563,179
347,106
77.17%
70,639,649
26,710,782
580,450
408,738
71.02%
72,162,208
31,087,454
592,518
604,843
68.41%
69,008,347
27,953,563
663,825
293,184
69.75%
69,542,661
30,561,961
554,749
396,346
68.07%
74,298,361
32,871,574
565,048
326,489
68.06%
70,041,435
29,066,165
637,275
449,032
69.19%
74,485,442
31,516,953
567,153
114,662
69.09%
102,814,587
77,136,788
98,385,715
95,746,474
98,555,365
98,439,690
104,953,969
104,328,570
80,160,637
13,392,016
8,605,232
656,702
13.03%
54,674,085
13,618,232
8,250,429
594,042
17.65%
77,984,337
10,208,350
9,048,475
1,140,020
10.38%
71,698,550
15,025,057
7,614,708
1,404,867
15.69%
71,490,935
16,503,955
8,981,583
1,569,074
16.75%
72,031,456
16,811,671
8,242,273
1,362,763
17.08%
81,990,944
11,769,193
9,328,277
1,912,654
11.21%
78,825,744
14,164,023
8,108,560
3,274,755
13.58%
88,149,792
89,097,739
92,664,349
92,199,394
102,242,600
99,305,430
101,972,498
111,034,938
49,126,049
30,380,571
8,643,172
288,956
55.73%
52,439,714
28,724,076
7,899,859
310,384
58.86%
54,113,517
30,861,911
7,551,144
261,741
58.40%
54,879,745
28,581,053
7,358,574
1,663,611
59.52%
65,794,475
28,112,609
6,919,707
1,362,369
64.35%
66,910,226
25,807,446
6,517,429
177,694
67.38%
70,969,508
24,012,231
6,941,456
197,855
69.60%
77,492,309
26,782,391
6,723,082
162,567
69.79%
90,600,253
87,231,949
94,322,125
91,822,796
94,892,537
99,839,252
96,602,744
100,767,901
50,887,700
39,261,927
450,626
43.34%
(1,082,006)
49,869,998
37,172,750
189,201
42.61%
(1,035,722)
53,325,854
40,734,536
246,213
43.19%
(1,127,694)
50,417,690
38,925,191
2,457,824
42.39%
(1,184,722)
51,200,640
42,156,904
1,295,747
44.43%
(909,844)
53,137,554
44,647,664
1,736,967
44.72%
(881,608)
50,797,372
44,710,047
685,396
46.28%
(709,970)
53,199,914
46,783,792
344,599
46.43%
(771,017)
92,585,787
93,184,512
92,778,446
88,733,574
94,400,796
93,981,191
91,079,128
92,597,374
61,587,094
25,824,858
5,144,607
66.52%
(702,224)
76,283,550
58,765,365
28,576,431
5,808,892
63.06%
(699,900)
79,216,968
58,545,619
27,573,925
6,621,644
63.10%
(658,585)
80,835,582
54,190,574
24,152,580
10,358,399
61.07%
(696,628)
86,885,544
56,933,345
28,612,271
8,831,380
60.31%
(794,026)
87,247,836
58,207,417
27,803,108
7,940,062
61.94%
(567,331)
90,478,139
59,820,990
24,678,777
6,499,802
65.68%
(587,981)
91,283,074
59,592,601
28,700,371
4,235,237
64.36%
(635,199)
90,745,722
CAGR
0007
2.1%
Genin
MWh
171,896,
555
1.2%
4.4%
0.4%
15.1%
0.8%
145,311,
418
1.2%
1.5%
0.3%
4.4%
1.5%
0.3%
146,742,
215
2.4%
0.8%
7.6%
0.1%
14.6%
1.6%
0.2%
107,199,
649
0.2%
0.8%
0.8%
25.8%
0.6%
3.4%
170,457,
696
6.7%
1.8%
3.5%
7.9%
3.3%
1.5%
122,774,
689
0.6%
2.5%
3.8%
1.0%
4.7%
0.0%
92,618,8
97
0.5%
1.5%
2.7%
0.5%
1.4%
2.5%
125,269,
191
Sta
te
EnergySource
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
VA
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Carbon%Total
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
LA
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
WI
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
MN
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
MD
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
NJ
AllSources
Nuclear
CarbonFuels
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
65,810,785
9,991,845
407,825
(119,000)
86.27%
69,942,861
8,384,240
838,275
(214,268)
88.29%
71,192,831
8,389,629
1,197,924
(103,806)
88.07%
76,664,525
9,699,589
398,486
(131,048)
88.24%
77,712,683
7,830,693
1,595,239
224,547
89.07%
81,133,774
8,030,577
1,245,258
154,462
89.67%
80,850,192
10,116,660
246,766
117,008
88.57%
79,727,456
9,371,955
1,587,799
441,985
87.86%
68,700,446
66,832,391
67,708,252
67,864,352
71,366,913
70,734,634
65,811,901
70,854,654
40,602,746
28,321,091
59.10%
(641,586)
(922,796)
41,638,975
25,759,130
62.30%
(1,227,185)
(1,578,606)
40,497,030
27,346,163
59.81%
(1,122,149)
(1,001,627)
41,681,793
24,816,022
61.42%
277,543
(409,166)
41,391,399
28,315,294
58.00%
416,819
77,291
41,527,072
27,918,481
58.71%
50,295
(182,037)
36,844,679
27,593,516
55.98%
177,446
28,816
42,740,082
27,268,475
60.32%
(378,782)
(395,404)
68,692,465
64,385,166
71,863,094
64,668,734
66,414,352
62,252,849
59,631,431
61,257,578
52,300,669
15,795,739
532,290
63,767
76.14%
46,256,761
17,336,135
732,217
60,053
71.84%
53,403,754
17,305,328
891,441
262,571
74.31%
47,352,962
16,126,322
891,991
297,459
73.22%
47,795,239
17,079,981
1,098,825
440,307
71.97%
45,689,587
15,676,353
810,948
75,961
73.39%
42,106,464
16,735,448
713,215
76,304
70.61%
43,278,376
17,077,572
826,642
74,988
70.65%
56,232,457
55,734,262
55,125,147
56,795,088
57,490,221
58,380,742
58,287,887
59,690,940
42,520,992
11,512,078
1,759,351
445,235
75.62%
41,782,614
11,507,078
1,899,964
544,607
74.97%
39,874,322
12,448,813
2,297,218
504,794
72.33%
42,311,281
12,215,463
1,653,066
615,278
74.50%
43,196,543
11,887,849
1,783,371
622,458
75.14%
46,306,916
9,920,991
1,530,237
622,598
79.32%
43,867,128
12,233,515
1,474,692
712,552
75.26%
44,665,413
12,910,319
1,335,840
779,369
74.83%
47,682,932
46,222,020
49,774,496
52,434,774
50,024,711
50,123,599
50,846,591
51,567,219
32,604,522
12,959,976
1,434,563
683,872
68.38%
32,208,532
11,789,027
1,579,069
645,392
69.68%
33,737,860
13,684,824
1,587,961
763,851
67.78%
36,566,755
13,413,828
1,732,903
721,287
69.74%
34,686,548
13,295,502
1,436,011
606,649
69.34%
34,385,026
12,835,219
2,267,842
635,512
68.60%
34,466,990
13,183,418
2,728,657
467,526
67.79%
34,404,752
13,103,000
3,506,235
553,232
66.72%
47,584,058
46,167,529
44,859,214
48,875,992
48,486,654
48,824,445
45,418,429
46,298,194
31,677,285
13,827,243
1,732,619
346,911
66.57%
30,997,151
13,656,267
1,183,518
330,593
67.14%
30,691,566
12,128,005
1,660,989
378,654
68.42%
32,154,060
13,690,713
2,646,984
384,235
65.79%
31,013,935
14,580,260
2,507,521
384,938
63.96%
32,061,059
14,703,221
1,703,639
356,526
65.67%
29,108,052
13,830,411
2,104,275
375,691
64.09%
29,931,735
14,353,192
1,652,216
361,052
64.65%
40,931,623
42,726,987
45,492,562
43,138,419
43,818,341
48,057,163
49,765,767
51,248,068
28,578,119
11,645,198
694,269
28.45%
(126,592)
30,469,230
11,598,869
640,887
27.15%
(123,739)
30,865,675
13,949,102
665,755
30.66%
(133,770)
29,709,201
12,243,691
1,146,636
28.38%
(80,991)
27,081,566
15,689,742
1,010,785
35.81%
(250,991)
31,391,685
15,566,708
1,069,378
32.39%
(253,315)
32,567,885
16,049,484
1,114,322
32.25%
(264,525)
32,010,376
18,153,858
1,062,925
35.42%
(248,025)
CAGR
0007
2.8%
0.9%
21.4%
220.6%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
7.3%
11.4%
1.6%
49,518,5
94
2.7%
1.1%
6.5%
2.3%
1.1%
0.9%
66,688,0
60
0.7%
1.7%
3.9%
8.3%
0.1%
1.1%
59,639,8
51
0.8%
0.2%
13.6%
3.0%
0.4%
44,001,6
37
0.4%
0.8%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.4%
3.3%
77,798,1
12
1.6%
6.5%
6.3%
AllHydroelectric
IA
AllSources
40,138,680
39,250,702
40,969,004
40,518,134
41,684,571
42,662,479
43,884,064
48,230,634
2.7%
CarbonFuels
2.2%
75,036,1
40
0.7%
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Genin
MWh
671
3.2%
10.1%
67,834,1
63
192
Sta
te
EnergySource
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
MA
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
CT
AllSources
Nuclear
CarbonFuels
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
NH
AllSources
Nuclear
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
VT
AllSources
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
CarbonFuels
Carbon%Total
SD
AllSources
AllHydroelectric
CarbonFuels
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
OR
AllSources
AllHydroelectric
CarbonFuels
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
AL
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
CAGR
0007
Genin
MWh
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
34,272,628
4,452,884
509,158
904,010
85.39%
34,023,711
3,852,722
529,116
845,153
86.68%
34,497,692
4,573,958
950,971
946,383
84.20%
34,661,217
3,987,657
1,080,667
788,593
85.54%
34,673,394
4,928,948
1,136,270
945,959
83.18%
35,423,942
4,538,313
1,740,698
959,526
83.03%
35,450,759
5,095,442
2,428,515
909,348
80.78%
39,858,161
4,518,875
2,891,252
962,346
82.64%
0.2%
28.2%
0.9%
31,862,335
31,742,240
35,187,916
42,157,338
42,560,296
43,744,062
42,789,993
43,899,816
4.7%
23,975,936
5,512,255
1,321,293
352,487
75.25%
24,717,281
5,144,033
1,186,659
(17,082)
77.87%
27,528,786
5,768,766
1,025,076
22,487
78.23%
34,599,403
4,977,955
1,515,554
553,497
82.07%
34,111,666
5,938,600
1,516,824
494,879
80.15%
35,683,093
5,475,057
1,544,457
579,812
81.57%
34,001,136
5,829,658
1,455,127
925,174
79.46%
36,870,720
5,119,789
1,131,074
(52,315)
83.99%
30,215,838
28,112,946
28,899,719
27,226,329
30,390,142
31,605,736
32,478,307
31,124,230
16,365,334
11,175,426
2,148,766
521,944
36.99%
15,427,767
10,619,244
1,779,562
286,373
37.77%
14,918,272
12,022,058
1,624,301
324,887
41.60%
16,078,095
9,017,894
1,565,924
564,398
33.12%
16,539,097
11,871,682
1,516,751
470,327
39.06%
15,562,122
14,082,571
1,482,844
476,546
44.56%
16,589,446
13,853,677
1,491,292
543,892
42.66%
16,386,142
12,945,883
1,428,947
347,906
41.59%
14,562,235
14,669,118
15,661,615
21,245,461
23,484,117
24,076,390
21,871,840
23,124,728
7,921,880
4,452,324
1,244,367
943,665
30.57%
8,692,743
4,177,913
897,883
900,579
28.48%
9,294,617
4,413,935
1,087,979
865,084
28.18%
9,276,288
9,945,578
1,169,528
854,067
46.81%
10,177,573
11,154,107
1,309,895
842,541
47.50%
9,455,885
11,953,618
1,790,729
876,158
49.65%
9,397,856
10,154,198
1,523,637
796,149
46.43%
10,763,884
9,918,695
1,260,733
1,181,416
42.89%
6,264,864
5,445,347
5,436,647
6,021,886
5,443,776
5,686,758
7,059,149
5,822,058
4,548,065
1,200,923
364,426
151,450
2.42%
4,171,120
868,281
363,206
42,740
0.78%
3,962,616
1,098,925
362,425
12,681
0.23%
4,444,152
1,147,962
405,136
24,636
0.41%
3,858,020
1,166,269
398,463
21,024
0.39%
4,071,547
1,189,668
413,124
12,419
0.22%
5,106,523
1,497,064
446,316
9,246
0.13%
4,703,728
645,081
463,549
9,700
0.17%
9,697,337
7,400,743
7,721,958
7,943,837
7,510,214
6,520,769
7,132,243
6,136,605
5,715,508
3,981,829
41.06%
3,431,865
3,968,007
53.62%
871
4,353,653
3,362,262
43.54%
6,043
4,276,303
3,623,285
45.61%
44,249
3,597,509
3,755,027
50.00%
157,678
3,074,566
3,288,078
50.42%
158,125
3,396,833
3,586,388
50.28%
149,022
2,917,283
3,069,278
50.02%
150,044
46,555,628
38,526,634
40,449,642
42,580,911
43,893,771
41,899,838
47,123,713
47,471,409
38,115,630
8,278,000
161,999
17.78%
28,644,556
9,706,083
175,995
25.19%
34,413,167
5,573,641
462,834
13.78%
33,250,332
8,851,480
479,098
20.79%
33,080,819
10,158,617
654,335
23.14%
30,948,345
10,184,724
766,769
24.31%
37,850,297
8,308,384
965,032
17.63%
33,587,439
12,597,592
1,286,377
26.54%
118,079,367
118,789,017
126,096,636
130,910,429
130,681,647
131,124,893
131,468,576
133,474,823
80,893,173
31,368,563
80,075,572
30,357,063
85,414,923
31,856,926
86,568,609
31,676,953
88,419,637
31,635,789
89,283,946
31,694,223
92,303,947
31,911,096
95,013,582
34,325,127
0.5%
79,606,6
44
6.3%
1.0%
2.2%
176.1%
1.6%
0.4%
32,884,3
19
0.0%
2.1%
5.7%
5.6%
1.7%
6.8%
54,585,9
88
4.5%
12.1%
0.2%
3.3%
5.0%
5,081,05
8
1.0%
0.5%
8.5%
3.5%
32.5%
31.8%
2,623,42
5
6.3%
9.2%
3.7%
2.9%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.3%
49,220,2
06
1.8%
6.2%
34.4%
5.9%
#DIV/0!
1.8%
2.3%
167,589,
347
1.3%
4.8%
193
Sta
te
EnergySource
Carbon%Total
NonHydro
Renewables
DC
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Carbon%Total
AllHydroelectric
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
RI
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
ND
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
ID
AllSources
AllHydroelectric
CarbonFuels
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
NE
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
NonHydro
Renewables
OK
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
WY
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
5,817,631
68.51%
144,374
144,374
100.00%
8,356,382
67.41%
123,239
123,239
100.00%
8,824,787
67.74%
261,980
261,980
100.00%
12,664,867
66.13%
74,144
74,144
100.00%
10,626,221
67.66%
36,487
36,487
100.00%
10,144,581
68.09%
2,143
226,042
226,042
100.00%

7,251,786
70.21%
1,747
81,467
81,467
100.00%
4,136,114
71.18%
75,251
75,251
100.00%
5,417,107
6,990,151
6,939,068
5,569,002
4,903,803
5,968,058
5,886,328
6,999,781
5,297,001
115,239
4,867
97.78%
6,883,392
103,616
3,143
98.47%
6,250,253
685,130
3,685
90.07%
5,461,213
101,768
6,021
98.06%
4,796,816
101,526
5,461
97.82%
5,961,324
6,734
99.89%
5,731,506
148,913
5,909
97.37%
6,840,660
154,757
4,364
97.73%
31,122,917
30,135,733
31,147,221
31,126,730
29,735,481
31,727,862
30,691,657
31,016,355
29,000,356
2,122,561
93.18%
28,803,657
1,332,076
95.58%
29,554,605
1,592,616
94.89%
29,343,948
1,723,904
94.27%
58,878
27,975,094
1,545,864
94.08%
214,523
30,165,693
1,341,824
95.08%
220,345
28,801,138
1,521,034
93.84%
369,485
29,089,217
1,305,393
93.79%
621,745
10,969,487
8,362,832
8,845,554
9,520,600
9,940,192
9,926,970
12,537,281
10,710,379
10,966,695
2,792
0.03%
7,223,127
1,139,705
13.63%
8,769,321
76,233
0.86%
8,354,034
1,166,566
12.25%
8,461,655
1,478,537
14.87%
8,542,121
1,384,849
13.95%
11,242,372
1,125,292
8.98%
169,617
9,021,690
1,516,422
14.16%
172,267
29,045,739
30,411,669
31,550,226
30,367,879
31,944,127
31,391,643
31,599,046
32,403,289
18,916,336
8,628,679
1,500,724
65.13%
20,558,746
8,726,113
1,124,122
67.60%
2,688
20,322,319
10,122,242
1,097,486
64.41%
8,179
21,325,350
7,996,902
980,110
70.22%
65,517
20,724,540
10,241,254
913,021
64.88%
65,312
21,597,149
8,801,841
871,473
68.80%
121,180
21,404,353
9,002,656
893,386
67.74%
298,651
20,751,363
11,041,532
347,444
64.04%
262,949
51,403,249
51,257,422
55,188,421
54,023,712
57,211,649
64,532,352
66,701,532
69,048,364
49,253,603
2,149,646
(127,287)
95.82%
49,041,211
2,216,211
(128,479)
95.68%
53,378,445
1,809,976
(177,868)
96.72%
52,377,017
1,592,225
(151,717)
96.95%
53,896,109
2,742,797
338,865
94.20%
61,208,043
2,476,536
693,948
94.85%
64,481,985
507,106
1,595,968
96.67%
64,299,202
2,900,018
1,683,300
93.12%
44,831,620
44,112,978
43,108,230
43,313,848
44,409,875
44,733,816
44,388,869
44,609,789
43,574,674
1,011,035
245,911
97.20%
42,868,705
879,111
365,162
97.18%
42,077,285
583,615
447,330
97.61%
42,353,815
593,555
366,478
97.78%
43,200,213
593,147
616,515
97.28%
43,208,177
808,375
717,264
96.59%
42,786,492
843,316
759,061
96.39%
43,125,484
729,424
754,881
96.67%
CAGR
0007
0.5%
#DIV/0!
8.9%
22,438
8.9%
0.0%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
3.7%
11,267,2
02
3.7%
4.3%
1.5%
0.0%
#DIV/0!
0.0%
6.7%
0.1%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.3%
10,245,3
06
2.8%
145.9%
146.7%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
1.6%
39,702,3
08
1.3%
3.6%
18.9%
0.2%
#DIV/0!
4.3%
3.9%
244.6%
0.4%
#DIV/0!
44,200,7
25
0.1%
0.1%
4.6%
17.4%
AR
AllSources
41,486,607
44,728,164
44,120,689
46,666,905
48,259,426
44,542,277
49,034,858
51,834,059
3.2%
CarbonFuels
27,464,352
27,399,124
26,082,090
29,312,785
29,141,391
27,749,488
32,229,597
33,048,712
2.7%
119,445,
575
4.4%
30,819,4
21
0.0%
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
Genin
MWh
0.1%
#DIV/0!
78,381,6
66
194
Sta
te
EnergySource
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
NonHydro
Renewables
WV
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
HI
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydro
Renewables
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
UT
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
AK
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
KS
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
NonHydro
Renewables
MT
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
KY
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
IN
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
AllSources
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
11,651,772
2,370,483
66.20%
14,780,789
2,548,251
61.26%
14,558,884
3,435,829
59.12%
43,886
14,689,416
2,664,703
62.81%
10,085
15,449,851
3,668,184
60.38%
24,745
13,689,571
3,103,218
62.30%
20,702
15,232,577
1,565,277
65.73%
22,126
15,486,102
3,265,807
63.76%
63,042
90,748,589
80,066,391
92,714,476
92,485,650
87,582,332
91,798,141
92,122,423
92,406,044
90,035,941
698,216
14,432
99.21%
79,526,745
513,309
26,337
99.33%
92,084,702
598,963
30,811
99.32%
91,664,755
630,353
190,542
99.11%
86,798,757
607,560
176,015
99.11%
90,740,430
891,891
165,820
98.85%
90,893,721
1,048,467
180,235
98.67%
91,432,214
805,854
167,976
98.95%
7,190,994
6,904,326
7,913,305
7,044,498
7,249,310
7,194,843
7,389,719
7,435,912
6,518,819
628,960
43,216
90.65%
6,362,846
491,198
50,282
92.16%
7,502,913
375,552
34,840
94.81%
6,490,349
513,685
40,464
92.13%
6,971,259
220,783
57,268
96.16%
6,904,293
228,229
62,321
95.96%
7,015,977
291,950
81,792
94.94%
6,913,231
468,070
54,611
92.97%
36,267,083
35,534,387
36,557,062
37,992,281
37,571,874
37,401,116
40,419,111
44,415,914
35,364,599
750,641
156,359
97.51%
34,873,238
508,407
152,742
98.14%
35,881,679
457,732
217,651
98.15%
37,372,477
421,339
198,465
98.37%
36,927,150
449,848
194,876
98.28%
36,431,851
784,463
184,802
97.41%
39,481,720
746,783
190,608
97.68%
43,713,206
538,782
163,925
98.42%
4,937,687
5,416,191
5,471,990
5,673,462
5,866,420
5,946,148
6,068,520
6,226,211
3,935,868
1,001,819
79.71%
4,069,576
1,345,665
75.14%
950
4,032,639
1,439,351
73.70%
4,090,926
1,582,536
72.11%
4,368,400
1,498,020
74.46%
4,481,617
1,463,942
75.37%
589
4,844,125
1,223,607
79.82%
788
4,933,976
1,291,223
79.25%
1,012
44,780,241
44,708,105
47,171,361
46,532,229
46,777,672
45,857,415
45,516,498
50,113,672
35,704,075
9,060,834
15,332
79.73%
34,296,061
10,346,651
25,561
76.71%
39,832
37,650,234
9,041,702
12,746
79.82%
466,679
37,264,186
8,889,667
12,435
80.08%
365,939
36,273,756
10,132,736
12,547
77.55%
358,632
36,599,310
8,820,945
11,337
79.81%
425,823
35,164,690
9,350,269
9,649
77.26%
991,890
38,581,498
10,369,136
10,501
76.99%
1,152,538
25,902,731
23,731,809
25,053,476
25,812,715
26,276,718
27,438,230
27,720,001
28,328,723
16,264,441
9,623,257
15,033
62.79%
17,118,337
6,613,472
72.13%
15,480,805
9,566,909
5,762
61.79%
17,105,635
8,701,772
5,308
66.27%
17,414,499
8,856,031
6,188
66.27%
17,850,881
9,587,349
65.06%
17,153,870
10,130,161
435,970
61.88%
18,468,611
9,364,336
495,776
65.19%
92,852,619
95,126,405
91,530,410
91,262,846
94,018,350
97,301,597
98,265,542
96,656,490
90,527,941
2,324,568
110
97.50%
91,270,897
3,855,508
95.95%
87,505,661
4,024,749

95.60%
87,293,122
3,948,052
21,672
95.65%
90,163,841
3,780,251
74,258
95.90%
94,256,342
2,961,193
84,062
96.87%
95,560,637
2,591,701
113,204
97.25%
94,874,050
1,668,587
113,854
98.16%
CAGR
0007
Genin
MWh
4.1%
4.7%
0.5%
#DIV/0!
0.3%
95,564,9
07
0.2%
2.1%
42.0%
0.0%
#DIV/0!
0.5%
7,913,10
6
0.8%
4.1%
3.4%
0.4%
#DIV/0!
2.9%
64,716,5
59
3.1%
4.6%
0.7%
0.1%
#DIV/0!
3.4%
9,577,20
2
3.3%
3.7%
0.1%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
1.6%
61,761,0
15
1.1%
1.9%
5.3%
0.5%
#DIV/0!
1.3%
33,453,0
25
1.8%
0.4%
64.8%
0.5%
#DIV/0!
0.6%
104,139,
087
0.7%
4.6%
169.6%
0.1%
#DIV/0!
0.3%
195
Sta
te
EnergySource
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
CO
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
NV
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
ME
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
DE
AllSources
CarbonFuels
NonHydro
Renewables
Carbon%Total
AllHydroelectric
Nuclear
NM
AllSources
CarbonFuels
AllHydroelectric
Carbon%Total
Nuclear
NonHydro
Renewables
MS
AllSources
CarbonFuels
Nuclear
Carbon%Total
AllHydroelectric
NonHydro
Renewables
CAGR
0007
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
123,515,453
118,331,568
121,908,922
115,812,939
117,958,001
121,032,399
121,131,068
121,245,996
122,839,030
588,276
88,146
99.45%
117,671,688
570,692
89,188
99.44%
121,409,063
411,270
88,589
99.59%
115,303,708
423,953
85,278
99.56%
117,428,063
443,721
86,217
99.55%
120,574,095
438,282
20,022
99.62%
120,467,562
489,515
173,991
99.45%
120,606,207
449,936
189,853
99.47%
40,898,076
43,624,618
42,470,949
44,103,108
46,032,708
47,848,613
49,059,960
52,033,428
39,398,485
1,499,590
45,175
96.33%
42,331,855
1,244,122
(201,942)
97.04%
41,340,316
988,743
(78,374)
97.34%
42,893,441
1,058,557
(52,530)
97.26%
44,807,863
1,002,864
30,180
97.34%
45,776,268
1,293,233
657,049
95.67%
46,601,200
1,590,705
667,553
94.99%
49,176,320
1,561,472
1,127,574
94.51%
33,032,292
31,430,649
29,661,238
29,959,150
35,268,511
38,067,557
29,232,661
30,000,637
29,232,033
2,429,468
1,370,791
88.50%
27,717,052
2,513,722
1,199,874
88.18%
26,266,369
2,267,586
1,127,283
88.55%
27,136,734
1,756,705
1,065,711
90.58%
32,355,883
1,615,123
1,297,504
91.74%
35,102,470
1,702,380
1,262,707
92.21%
25,831,324
2,057,626
1,343,711
88.36%
26,700,788
2,003,191
1,296,658
89.00%
7,622,211
12,050,331
13,006,923
11,669,546
12,631,044
13,127,649
11,091,215
10,154,992
3,969,537
2,294,743
1,357,932
52.08%
8,975,801
1,710,244
1,364,286
74.49%
9,945,796
1,831,118
1,230,008
76.47%
8,384,480
2,150,143
1,134,923
71.85%
8,520,382
2,867,071
1,243,590
67.46%
8,002,613
3,465,890
1,659,146
60.96%
5,940,678
3,499,336
1,651,201
53.56%
5,343,431
3,043,827
1,767,734
52.62%
5,539,416
6,300,624
5,442,452
6,683,855
6,889,670
7,103,726
6,041,389
7,330,908
5,520,578
18,838
99.66%
6,300,624
100.00%
5,442,452
100.00%
6,683,855
100.00%
6,889,670
100.00%
7,103,726
100.00%
6,040,972
417
99.99%
4.0%
7,282,792
14.3%
48,116
99.34%
0.0%
#DIV/0!
33,040,224
32,581,161
29,966,484
32,043,466
32,831,418
34,366,798
36,701,583
35,437,121
32,819,071
221,152
99.33%
32,343,841
237,320
99.27%
29,701,893
264,591
99.12%
31,690,032
170,699
98.90%
182,735
32,179,006
138,947
98.01%
513,465
33,407,175
164,993
97.21%
794,630
35,247,936
198,211
96.04%
1,255,436
33,775,904
267,978
95.31%
1,393,239
35,299,819
49,827,645
40,127,052
38,666,712
41,898,475
43,322,832
44,340,826
48,144,245
24,605,264
10,694,555
69.70%
39,903,763
9,923,882
80.08%
30,067,593
10,059,459
74.93%
27,764,256
10,902,456
71.80%
31,665,709
10,232,766
75.58%
33,243,847
10,077,846
76.74%
1,139
33,912,194
10,418,586
76.48%

10,046
6.7%
38,785,460
1.9%
9,358,784
80.56%
2.1%
Genin
MWh
117,141,
338
0.3%
3.8%
11.6%
0.0%
#DIV/0!
3.5%
81,376,9
90
3.2%
0.6%
58.3%
0.3%
#DIV/0!
1.4%
25,089,1
89
1.3%
2.7%
0.8%
0.1%
#DIV/0!
4.2%
17,301,2
32
4.3%
4.1%
3.8%
0.1%
#DIV/0!
4.1%
1.0%
12,335,6
07
40,359,3
59
0.4%
2.8%
0.6%
#DIV/0!
4.5%
85,671,2
41
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.htmlTable1.1.NetGenerationbyEnergySourcebyTypeofProducer
196
Table72.EIANetGenerationbyStateForCarbonFuelSourcesforAllProducers(20002007)
Stat
e
TX
FL
OH
PA
IN
IL
KY
WV
GA
AL
MO
NC
MI
CA
AZ
TN
NY
OK
LA
CO
WI
WY
SC
VA
UT
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
268,844,48
7
139,865,39
9
130,123,88
5
113,681,68
7
122,839,03
0
84,321,338
90,527,941
90,035,941
255,206,67
7
141,661,79
5
124,724,12
9
109,702,34
9
117,671,68
8
82,489,012
91,270,897
79,526,745
248,349,72
0
152,431,10
8
134,727,25
2
115,207,35
7
121,409,06
3
92,314,817
87,505,661
92,084,702
246,914,71
1
162,101,09
2
136,195,38
6
117,143,84
6
115,303,70
8
89,444,968
87,293,122
91,664,755
252,856,01
5
168,959,02
9
130,297,75
0
122,371,46
2
117,428,06
3
94,946,528
90,163,841
86,798,757
267,895,88
9
174,003,04
4
140,213,81
5
127,181,92
4
120,574,09
5
95,912,753
94,256,342
90,740,430
269,752,66
4
175,224,03
4
136,477,91
4
126,940,36
1
120,467,56
2
93,315,438
95,560,637
90,893,721
82,822,896 76,713,421 83,584,466
82,035,814
85,224,331
96,004,520
98,365,582
80,893,173
65,810,785
73,258,482
70,477,092
69,658,751
49,126,049
61,587,094
56,824,646
49,253,603
52,300,669
39,398,485
42,520,992
43,574,674
39,261,927
40,602,746
86,568,609
76,664,525
72,593,772
69,008,347
54,358,539
54,879,745
54,190,574
53,850,566
52,377,017
47,352,962
42,893,441
42,311,281
42,353,815
38,925,191
41,681,793
88,419,637
77,712,683
74,669,503
69,542,661
65,235,630
65,794,475
56,933,345
56,450,381
53,896,109
47,795,239
44,807,863
43,196,543
43,200,213
42,156,904
41,391,399
89,283,946
81,133,774
78,301,385
74,298,361
60,178,018
66,910,226
58,207,417
60,769,234
61,208,043
45,689,587
45,776,268
46,306,916
43,208,177
44,647,664
41,527,072
92,303,947
80,850,192
75,705,248
70,041,435
74,459,997
70,969,508
59,820,990
57,148,061
64,481,985
42,106,464
46,601,200
43,867,128
42,786,492
44,710,047
36,844,679
269,820,92
5
179,344,09
6
137,701,99
7
132,756,45
2
120,606,20
7
99,045,131
94,874,050
91,432,214
105,221,76
5
95,013,582
79,727,456
81,272,576
74,485,442
83,164,398
77,492,309
59,592,601
61,814,159
64,299,202
43,278,376
49,176,320
44,665,413
43,125,484
46,783,792
42,740,082
80,075,572
69,942,861
70,555,331
70,639,649
80,324,873
52,439,714
58,765,365
56,613,058
49,041,211
46,256,761
42,331,855
41,782,614
42,868,705
37,172,750
41,638,975
85,414,923
71,192,831
75,018,588
72,162,208
50,999,150
54,113,517
58,545,619
54,389,558
53,378,445
53,403,754
41,340,316
39,874,322
42,077,285
40,734,536
40,497,030
CAG
R00
07
0.1%
3.6%
0.8%
2.2%
0.3%
2.3%
0.7%
0.2%
3.5%
2.3%
2.8%
1.5%
0.8%
2.6%
6.7%
0.5%
1.2%
3.9%
2.7%
3.2%
0.7%
0.1%
2.5%
0.7%
3.1%
197
KS
IA
MN
NM
MS
MA
MD
ND
AR
NV
NE
MT
NJ
WA
CT
OR
NH
ME
HI
DE
RI
AK
SD
ID
DC
VT
35,364,599
35,704,075
34,272,628
32,604,522
32,819,071
24,605,264
23,975,936
31,677,285
29,000,356
27,464,352
29,232,033
18,916,336
16,264,441
11,645,198
13,392,016
11,175,426
8,278,000
4,452,324
3,969,537
6,518,819
5,520,578
5,297,001
3,935,868
3,981,829
2,792
144,374
34,873,238
34,296,061
34,023,711
32,208,532
32,343,841
39,903,763
24,717,281
30,997,151
28,803,657
27,399,124
27,717,052
20,558,746
17,118,337
11,598,869
13,618,232
10,619,244
9,706,083
4,177,913
8,975,801
6,362,846
6,300,624
6,883,392
4,069,576
3,968,007
1,139,705
123,239
35,881,679
37,650,234
34,497,692
33,737,860
29,701,893
30,067,593
27,528,786
30,691,566
29,554,605
26,082,090
26,266,369
20,322,319
15,480,805
13,949,102
10,208,350
12,022,058
5,573,641
4,413,935
9,945,796
7,502,913
5,442,452
6,250,253
4,032,639
3,362,262
76,233
261,980
37,372,477
37,264,186
34,661,217
36,566,755
31,690,032
27,764,256
34,599,403
32,154,060
29,343,948
29,312,785
27,136,734
21,325,350
17,105,635
12,243,691
15,025,057
9,017,894
8,851,480
9,945,578
8,384,480
6,490,349
6,683,855
5,461,213
4,090,926
3,623,285
1,166,566
74,144
36,927,150
36,273,756
34,673,394
34,686,548
32,179,006
31,665,709
34,111,666
31,013,935
27,975,094
29,141,391
32,355,883
20,724,540
17,414,499
15,689,742
16,503,955
11,871,682
10,158,617
11,154,107
8,520,382
6,971,259
6,889,670
4,796,816
4,368,400
3,755,027
1,478,537
36,487
36,431,851
36,599,310
35,423,942
34,385,026
33,407,175
33,243,847
35,683,093
32,061,059
30,165,693
27,749,488
35,102,470
21,597,149
17,850,881
15,566,708
16,811,671
14,082,571
10,184,724
11,953,618
8,002,613
6,904,293
7,103,726
5,961,324
4,481,617
3,288,078
1,384,849
226,042
39,481,720
35,164,690
35,450,759
34,466,990
35,247,936
33,912,194
34,001,136
29,108,052
28,801,138
32,229,597
25,831,324
21,404,353
17,153,870
16,049,484
11,769,193
13,853,677
8,308,384
10,154,198
5,940,678
7,015,977
6,040,972
5,731,506
4,844,125
3,586,388
1,125,292
81,467
43,713,206
38,581,498
39,858,161
34,404,752
33,775,904
38,785,460
36,870,720
29,931,735
29,089,217
33,048,712
26,700,788
20,751,363
18,468,611
18,153,858
14,164,023
12,945,883
12,597,592
9,918,695
5,343,431
6,913,231
7,282,792
6,840,660
4,933,976
3,069,278
1,516,422
75,251
151,450
42,740
12,681
24,636
21,024
12,419
9,246
9,700
1.1%
2.2%
0.8%
0.4%
6.7%
6.3%
0.8%
0.0%
2.7%
1.3%
1.3%
1.8%
6.5%
0.8%
2.1%
6.2%
12.1
%
4.3%
0.8%
4.0%
3.7%
3.3%
3.7%
145.9
%
8.9%
32.5
%
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html,Table1.1.NetGenerationbyEnergySourcebyTypeofProducer
198
Table73.EIANetGenerationbyStateForHydroelectricSourcesforAllProducers(20002007)
State
WA
CA
OR
NY
ID
MT
AL
AZ
TN
SD
NC
KY
AR
ME
GA
OK
NV
MD
PA
WI
ND
AK
NH
CO
TX
VT
NE
MO
SC
IA
LA
WY
WV
MN
UT
OH
IN
CT
MI
MA
NM
FL
IL
HI
KS
RI
NJ
VA
DE
DC
MS
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
CAGR0007
80,160,637 54,674,085 77,984,337 71,698,550 71,490,935 72,031,456 81,990,944 78,825,744
0.2%
39,263,698 25,192,093 30,899,631 35,457,476 33,324,095 39,746,234 48,136,123 27,624,142
4.9%
38,115,630 28,644,556 34,413,167 33,250,332 33,080,819 30,948,345 37,850,297 33,587,439
1.8%
23,828,181 22,083,913 24,059,560 23,276,717 23,093,802 24,939,184 26,495,890 24,422,154
0.4%
10,966,695 7,223,127 8,769,321 8,354,034 8,461,655 8,542,121 11,242,372 9,021,690
2.8%
9,623,257 6,613,472 9,566,909 8,701,772 8,856,031 9,587,349 10,130,161 9,364,336
0.4%
5,817,631 8,356,382 8,824,787 12,664,867 10,626,221 10,144,581 7,251,786 4,136,114
4.8%
8,643,172 7,899,859 7,551,144 7,358,574 6,919,707 6,517,429 6,941,456 6,723,082
3.5%
5,144,607 5,808,892 6,621,644 10,358,399 8,831,380 7,940,062 6,499,802 4,235,237
2.7%
5,715,508 3,431,865 4,353,653 4,276,303 3,597,509 3,074,566 3,396,833 2,917,283
9.2%
2,299,799 1,861,019 2,446,332 6,447,957 4,808,815 4,802,959 3,464,515 3,111,673
4.4%
2,324,568 3,855,508 4,024,749 3,948,052 3,780,251 2,961,193 2,591,701 1,668,587
4.6%
2,370,483 2,548,251 3,435,829 2,664,703 3,668,184 3,103,218 1,565,277 3,265,807
4.7%
2,294,743 1,710,244 1,831,118 2,150,143 2,867,071 3,465,890 3,499,336 3,043,827
4.1%
2,304,394 1,997,448 2,038,524 3,476,697 2,790,653 3,803,062 2,145,161 1,895,364
2.8%
2,149,646 2,216,211 1,809,976 1,592,225 2,742,797 2,476,536 507,106 2,900,018
4.4%
2,429,468 2,513,722 2,267,586 1,756,705 1,615,123 1,702,380 2,057,626 2,003,191
2.7%
1,732,619 1,183,518 1,660,989 2,646,984 2,507,521 1,703,639 2,104,275 1,652,216
0.7%
1,879,636 1,034,554 1,552,809 2,607,273 2,469,454 1,521,138 2,145,965 1,513,127
3.1%
1,759,351 1,899,964 2,297,218 1,653,066 1,783,371 1,530,237 1,474,692 1,335,840
3.9%
2,122,561 1,332,076 1,592,616 1,723,904 1,545,864 1,341,824 1,521,034 1,305,393
6.7%
1,001,819 1,345,665 1,439,351 1,582,536 1,498,020 1,463,942 1,223,607 1,291,223
3.7%
1,244,367 897,883 1,087,979 1,169,528 1,309,895 1,790,729 1,523,637 1,260,733
0.2%
1,499,590 1,244,122 988,743 1,058,557 1,002,864 1,293,233 1,590,705 1,561,472
0.6%
828,963 1,200,331 1,123,492 896,539 1,300,609 1,332,560 661,971 1,644,437
10.3%
1,200,923 868,281 1,098,925 1,147,962 1,166,269 1,189,668 1,497,064 645,081
8.5%
1,500,724 1,124,122 1,097,486 980,110 913,021 871,473 893,386 347,444
18.9%
407,825 838,275 1,197,924 398,486 1,595,239 1,245,258 246,766 1,587,799
21.4%
450,626 189,201 246,213 2,457,824 1,295,747 1,736,967 685,396 344,599
3.8%
904,010 845,153 946,383 788,593 945,959 959,526 909,348 962,346
0.9%
532,290 732,217 891,441 891,991 1,098,825 810,948 713,215 826,642
6.5%
1,011,035 879,111 583,615 593,555 593,147 808,375 843,316 729,424
4.6%
698,216 513,309 598,963 630,353 607,560 891,891 1,048,467 805,854
2.1%
683,872 645,392 763,851 721,287 606,649 635,512 467,526 553,232
3.0%
750,641 508,407 457,732 421,339 449,848 784,463 746,783 538,782
4.6%
583,048 510,785 488,329 510,835 729,876 515,744 631,936 410,436
4.9%
588,276 570,692 411,270 423,953 443,721 438,282 489,515 449,936
3.8%
521,944 286,373 324,887 564,398 470,327 476,546 543,892 347,906
5.6%
347,106 408,738 604,843 293,184 396,346 326,489 449,032 114,662
14.6%
352,487 (17,082) 22,487 553,497 494,879 579,812 925,174 (52,315)
176.1%
221,152 237,320 264,591 170,699 138,947 164,993 198,211 267,978
2.8%
86,769 147,718 184,114 262,667 265,258 266,159 203,422 154,446
8.6%
141,631 141,017 128,589 138,497 150,268 129,037 173,272 153,727
1.2%
43,216 50,282 34,840 40,464 57,268 62,321 81,792 54,611
3.4%
15,332 25,561 12,746 12,435 12,547 11,337 9,649 10,501
5.3%
4,867 3,143 3,685 6,021 5,461 6,734 5,909 4,364
1.5%
(126,592) (123,739) (133,770) (80,991) (250,991) (253,315) (264,525) (248,025)
10.1%
(641,586) (1,227,185) (1,122,149) 277,543 416,819 50,295 177,446 (378,782)
7.3%

199
Table74.EIANetGenerationbyStateForNuclearforAllProducers(20002007)
State
IL
PA
SC
NY
NC
TX
CA
GA
AL
FL
NJ
MI
AZ
VA
TN
LA
CT
AR
OH
MD
MN
WI
MS
KS
NH
NE
MO
WA
MA
IA
VT
AK
ND
CO
NM
UT
NV
WV
IN
SD
ID
DC
WY
DE
ME
OR
HI
KY
MT
RI
OK
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
89,438,049
73,771,347
50,887,700
31,507,988
39,126,881
37,555,807
35,175,505
32,472,935
31,368,563
32,291,345
28,578,119
18,882,432
30,380,571
28,321,091
25,824,858
15,795,739
16,365,334
11,651,772
16,781,378
13,827,243
12,959,976
11,512,078
10,694,555
9,060,834
7,921,880
8,628,679
9,991,845
8,605,232
5,512,255
4,452,884
4,548,065
92,358,477
73,730,797
49,869,998
40,394,985
37,775,025
38,162,863
33,219,520
33,681,769
30,357,063
31,583,404
30,469,230
26,710,782
28,724,076
25,759,130
28,576,431
17,336,135
15,427,767
14,780,789
15,463,762
13,656,267
11,789,027
11,507,078
9,923,882
10,346,651
8,692,743
8,726,113
8,384,240
8,250,429
5,144,033
3,852,722
4,171,120
90,860,108
76,088,930
53,325,854
39,617,491
39,626,849
35,618,004
34,352,340
31,107,735
31,856,926
33,704,230
30,865,675
31,087,454
30,861,911
27,346,163
27,573,925
17,305,328
14,918,272
14,558,884
10,864,902
12,128,005
13,684,824
12,448,813
10,059,459
9,041,702
9,294,617
10,122,242
8,389,629
9,048,475
5,768,766
4,573,958
3,962,616
94,733,036
74,360,862
50,417,690
40,679,205
40,906,900
33,437,484
35,593,789
33,256,649
31,676,953
30,979,481
29,709,201
27,953,563
28,581,053
24,816,022
24,152,580
16,126,322
16,078,095
14,689,416
8,475,016
13,690,713
13,413,828
12,215,463
10,902,456
8,889,667
9,276,288
7,996,902
9,699,589
7,614,708
4,977,955
3,987,657
4,444,152
92,047,323
77,458,632
51,200,640
40,640,305
40,090,623
40,435,372
30,267,887
33,747,705
31,635,789
31,215,576
27,081,566
30,561,961
28,112,609
28,315,294
28,612,271
17,079,981
16,539,097
15,449,851
15,950,121
14,580,260
13,295,502
11,887,849
10,232,766
10,132,736
10,177,573
10,241,254
7,830,693
8,981,583
5,938,600
4,928,948
3,858,020
93,263,001
76,289,432
53,137,554
42,443,152
39,981,739
38,232,493
36,154,898
31,534,259
31,694,223
28,758,826
31,391,685
32,871,574
25,807,446
27,918,481
27,803,108
15,676,353
15,562,122
13,689,571
14,802,733
14,703,221
12,835,219
9,920,991
10,077,846
8,820,945
9,455,885
8,801,841
8,030,577
8,242,273
5,475,057
4,538,313
4,071,547
94,154,140
75,297,632
50,797,372
42,223,899
39,963,184
41,264,278
31,958,621
32,005,810
31,911,096
31,426,349
32,567,885
29,066,165
24,012,231
27,593,516
24,678,777
16,735,448
16,589,446
15,232,577
16,846,939
13,830,411
13,183,418
12,233,515
10,418,586
9,350,269
9,397,856
9,002,656
10,116,660
9,328,277
5,829,658
5,095,442
5,106,523
95,728,845
77,376,316
53,199,914
42,452,854
40,044,705
40,955,030
35,792,490
32,544,998
34,325,127
29,289,289
32,010,376
31,516,953
26,782,391
27,268,475
28,700,371
17,077,572
16,386,142
15,486,102
15,764,049
14,353,192
13,103,000
12,910,319
9,358,784
10,369,136
10,763,884
11,041,532
9,371,955
8,108,560
5,119,789
4,518,875
4,703,728
200
CAGR
0007
1.0%
0.7%
0.6%
4.4%
0.3%
1.2%
0.2%
0.0%
1.3%
1.4%
1.6%
7.6%
1.8%
0.5%
1.5%
1.1%
0.0%
4.1%
0.9%
0.5%
0.2%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
4.5%
3.6%
0.9%
0.8%
1.0%
0.2%
0.5%
Table75.EIANetGenerationbyStateForNonHydroRenewablesforAllProducers(20002007)
State
CA
TX
MN
FL
WA
NY
IA
PA
MA
OK
ME
MI
CT
NM
NJ
NV
CO
OR
IL
VA
NH
KS
WI
WY
ND
MT
NC
HI
VT
SC
MD
NE
IN
ID
WV
UT
RI
SD
KY
LA
TN
MO
DE
AZ
AR
OH
GA
AK
DC
AL
MS
2000
20,754,097
534,907
1,434,563
3,321,524
656,702
1,783,483
509,158
1,666,988
2,021,657
1,357,932
1,616,877
2,153,134
834,897
1,370,791
161,999
641,422
418,195
943,665
440,035
245,911
15,033
441,309
628,960
364,426
346,911
88,146
14,432
151,843
115,239
110
63,767
29,227
73,095
18,838
26,849
7,482
2001
20,061,316
1,221,751
1,579,069
3,247,896
594,042
1,668,103
529,116
1,771,575
1,898,008
1,364,286
1,707,287
1,779,562
782,627
1,199,874
48,640
175,995
467,537
661,471
900,579
39,832
544,607
365,162
426,085
491,198
363,206
330,593
2,688
89,188
26,337
152,742
103,616
871
60,053
33,824
51,592
34,090
27,888
19,407
950
2002
21,882,601
3,272,937
1,587,961
3,274,227
1,144,552
1,696,639
950,971
1,706,466
1,867,877
1,230,008
1,628,078
1,634,502
811,555
1,127,283
141,890
462,834
615,761
987,208
865,084
466,679
504,794
447,330
5,762
420,045
375,552
362,425
15,522
378,654
8,179
88,589
30,811
217,651
685,130
6,043
262,571
37,258
55,198
137,777
43,886
244,713
18,754
2003
21,747,728
2,747,049
1,732,903
2,967,067
1,408,160
1,751,570
1,080,667
1,665,808
2,026,483
54,470
1,134,923
1,681,071
1,565,942
182,735
1,266,518
1,065,711
151,110
479,098
886,997
1,088,993
854,067
365,939
615,278
366,478
58,878
5,308
427,241
513,685
405,136
22,091
384,235
65,517
85,278
190,542
198,465
101,768
44,249
21,672
297,459
32,021
122,943
1,380,021
28,632
16,798
2004
22,277,236
3,439,701
1,436,011
3,278,213
1,578,892
1,953,428
1,136,270
1,936,896
2,015,150
572,744
1,243,590
1,667,733
1,509,036
513,465
1,298,024
1,297,504
221,981
654,335
864,735
1,243,402
842,541
358,632
622,458
616,515
214,523
6,188
458,509
220,783
398,463
239,246
384,938
65,312
86,217
176,015
194,876
101,526
157,678
74,258
440,307
23,800
109,222
1,415,809
26,811
17,601
2005
21,989,649
4,659,166
2,267,842
3,257,381
1,354,290
2,063,296
1,740,698
1,881,506
2,006,100
847,773
1,659,146
1,671,289
1,484,497
794,630
1,352,085
1,262,707
779,112
766,769
723,124
1,238,786
876,158
425,823
622,598
717,264
220,345
451,729
228,229
413,124
317,067
356,526
121,180
20,022
165,820
184,802
158,125
84,062
75,961
30,604
68,530
70,329
35,794
16,247
589
2,143
1,139
2006
22,292,644
7,215,556
2,728,657
3,317,086
1,865,555
2,695,996
2,428,515
2,002,720
2,034,025
1,712,441
1,651,201
1,676,485
1,491,292
1,255,436
1,412,923
1,343,711
868,055
965,032
863,670
1,196,260
796,149
991,890
712,552
759,061
369,485
435,970
479,586
291,950
446,316
409,929
375,691
298,651
173,991
169,617
180,235
190,608
148,913
149,022
113,204
76,304
79,559
69,456
417
49,303
7,407
38,054
14,908
788
1,747
10,046
2007
23,258,401
9,558,698
3,506,235
3,245,687
3,230,243
2,891,989
2,891,252
2,099,180
1,961,621
1,849,144
1,767,734
1,696,394
1,444,302
1,393,239
1,331,859
1,296,658
1,295,635
1,286,377
1,285,359
1,224,879
1,181,416
1,152,538
779,369
754,881
621,745
495,776
472,871
468,070
463,549
439,597
361,052
262,949
189,853
172,267
167,976
163,925
154,757
150,044
113,854
74,988
69,165
58,512
48,116
37,156
33,438
25,720
12,808
1,012
CAGR0007
1.6%
51.0%
13.6%
0.3%
25.6%
7.1%
28.2%
3.3%
0.4%
141.4%
3.8%
0.7%
5.5%
66.2%
6.9%
0.8%
72.8%
34.4%
10.4%
16.6%
3.3%
75.2%
8.5%
17.4%
80.3%
64.8%
1.0%
4.1%
3.5%
95.2%
0.6%
114.7%
11.6%
1.6%
42.0%
1.1%
4.3%
135.9%
169.6%
2.3%
13.1%
3.1%
14.3%
1.4%
351.4%
0.6%
8.0%
31.1%
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.htmlTable1.1.NetGenerationbyEnergySourcebyTypeofProducer.
201
Table76.ARPAE
Vehicle
Waste
Energy Technologie
Geotherma Building Carbon
Heat
State
Solar Biomass Storage
s
Oil&Gas Wind
l
Efficiency Capture Water Capture
Total
12,299,55
MA
8,085,350 4,565,800
6
8,325,400
33,276,106
2,031,25
2
20,851,744
CA
4,989,144 4,000,000
760,705
3,000,000
4,992,651 1,077,992
OH
CO
Multi
state
DE
MO
IN
MI
AZ
IA
5,992,697 1,999,447
5,205,706
9,000,000
4,373,488
IL
NC
OK
7,200,000
5,133,150
4,519,259 5,000,000
17,511,403
14,137,549
4,462,162
2,251,183
11,919,051
9,000,000
6,733,386
7,200,000
6,733,386
5,195,805
5,195,805
5,133,150
4,373,488
1,715,75
2 3,966,239
9,151,300 4,986,249
3,111,693
PA
1,900,067
MN
2,200,000
NJ
Total
2,250,487
566,641
3,111,693
3,000,00
0 3,000,000
2,466,708
2,200,000
1,000,00
0
1,000,000
21,764,61 27,659,33 30,632,15

1,000,00 11,325,40
14,498,15 11,146,30 2,031,25 4,715,75 151,076,32
1
4
3 17,152,058
0
0 9,151,300
9
3
2
2
2
202
Table77.GapAnalysis,FLvs.Top4:Startups
Rank
State
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
GrandTotal
1
CA
55
47
35
42
63
242
2
MA
35
23
35
34
33
160
3
PA
26
25
26
29
32
138
4
NY
26
25
29
21
33
134
5
TX
25
20
18
18
17
98
6
NC
16
16
21
14
21
88
7
FL
11
13
15
22
21
82
8
GA
16
14
20
15
13
78
9
IL
20
9
17
13
18
77
10
OH
15
9
17
14
19
74
11
UT
12
6
11
14
26
69
12
MI
5
11
23
13
17
69
13
MD
8
13
12
15
8
56
14
VA
9
10
12
15
8
54
15
CO
3
7
11
11
15
47
16
IN
3
7
10
10
17
47
17
AZ
8
3
8
10
8
37
18
IA
5
2
3
11
7
28
19
OR
2
8
7
7
4
28
20
KY
5
2
6
7
7
27
21
WA
2
3
7
4
10
26
22
SC
0
3
3
6
13
25
23
WI
4
2
3
6
9
24
24
TN
2
2
5
4
8
21
25
MT
2
5
4
3
5
19
26
AL
4
2
4
6
1
17
27
NM
1
1
3
5
7
17
28
MN
6
4
3
1
3
17
29
MS
3
1
5
4
4
17
30
MO
2
4
3
3
4
16
31
NE
3
2
2
3
6
16
32
OK
3
3
1
3
6
16
33
AR
5
2
6
3
16
34
NJ
6
1
0
4
3
14
35
RI
4
2
4
4
0
14
36
VT
0
3
3
2
3
11
37
LA
0
4
1
0
4
9
38
NH
1
1
1
3
2
8
39
CT
1
1
2
2
1
7
40
KS
2
4
1
0
0
7
41
ME
2
4
6
42
HI
0
0
0
2
4
6
43
NV
0
4
1
0
0
5
44
DE
0
0
3
0
3
45
ID
0
1
1
0
1
3
46
SD
1
1
47
ND
1
0
0
0
0
1
GrandTotal
360
329
402
403
481
1,975
DatadrawnfromAUTMSTAATWebsiteon8/19/08http://www.autmsurvey.org/statt/index.cfm
Average#Startups
48
32
28
27
20
18
16
16
15
15
14
14
11
11
9
9
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
395
203
Table78.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:ActiveLicensesandOptions(ACTLIC)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
State
CA
MA
MO
TX
NC
NY
IA
MD
PA
WI
GA
WA
MI
IL
MN
VA
FL
OH
IN
OR
TN
UT
NJ
CO
AL
AZ
NH
NE
KS
KY
SC
LA
MT
ND
AR
OK
CT
MS
NM
HI
RI
VT
ID
DE
NV
ME
SD
GrandTotal
2002
2003
2004
3,060
3,008
3,257
1,608
1,624
1,675
1,313
1,559
1,518
1,235
1,447
1,141
1,484
1,255
1,344
1,710
1,047
1,089
1,235
1,255
1,198
892
986
841
713
754
841
680
798
877
712
851
952
629
699
756
529
637
695
617
698
605
558
589
639
342
422
550
413
441
496
336
421
452
135
379
549
306
328
408
291
290
312
283
233
219
236
238
194
210
214
203
176
160
64
110
171
198
100
107
135
86
57
107
100
73
123
80
79
89
77
93
89
71
77
76
17
66
54
70
71
77
75
80
98
39
62
67
40
50
58
42
48
55
49
63
54
40
87
77
40
50
42
21
30
34
20
19
31
26
23
27
15
15
12
5
7
1
20,827
21,661
22,378
2005
2006
1,784
3,378
1,744
1,705
1,539
1,798
1,690
1,688
1,318
1,369
1,326
1,195
1,028
992
1,094
756
985
1,038
1,007
957
852
836
828
975
770
854
614
675
678
720
677
689
635
591
534
586
510
623
447
464
340
363
312
389
237
288
265
237
329
299
176
205
156
171
174
183
127
111
119
135
107
120
68
98
123
126
72
89
75
67
86
67
68
61
69
36
68
8
36
6
34
38
43
25
16
1
19
23,085
25,106
GrandTotal
14,487
8,356
7,727
7,201
6,770
6,367
5,708
4,569
4,331
4,319
4,203
3,887
3,485
3,209
3,184
2,680
2,576
2,329
2,196
1,953
1,596
1,436
1,193
1,129
1,028
860
669
607
534
502
486
390
386
379
328
321
283
275
270
212
174
157
138
92
62
12
1
113,057
Average#ActLic
2,897
1,671
1,545
1,440
1,354
1,273
1,142
914
866
864
841
777
697
642
637
536
515
466
439
391
319
287
239
226
206
172
134
121
107
100
97
78
77
76
66
64
57
55
54
42
35
31
28
18
12
2
0
22,611
204
Table79.UtilityPatents:grantedbytheU.S.PatentandTrademarkOffice
State
California
Texas
NewYork
Washington
Massachusetts
Michigan
Illinois
Newjersey
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Florida
NorthCarolina
Oregon
Colorado
Arizona
Connecticut
Wisconsin
Georgia
Maryland
Idaho
Virginia
Indiana
Utah
Missouri
Tennessee
Iowa
NewHampshire
Vermont
Kansas
Oklahoma
Kentucky
SouthCarolina
Nevada
Delaware
NewMexico
Alabama
Louisiana
Rhodeisland
Nebraska
Maine
Arkansas
Mississippi
Montana
Hawaii
WestVirginia
NorthDakota
SouthDakota
Wyoming
Total
08Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
2006
22275
6308
5628
3286
4011
3758
3294
3171
2957
2842
2630
2601
1974
2060
2118
1705
1652
1688
1487
1410
1663
1094
1165
684
721
669
666
602
437
492
543
413
577
386
357
344
357
321
269
186
142
138
119
121
84
103
66
74
48
91702
2007
19600
5733
5006
3228
3510
3141
2894
2693
2554
2500
2255
2358
1745
1877
1745
1571
1384
1412
1310
1246
1350
1004
1137
638
702
618
601
542
472
424
470
429
411
367
330
286
300
262
263
203
110
113
142
110
64
106
82
60
54
81419
2008
19181
5712
4885
3517
3516
2996
2741
2722
2535
2414
2227
2046
1841
1781
1622
1584
1356
1349
1344
1232
1162
1030
985
642
615
586
561
477
437
425
417
413
395
375
325
280
279
260
218
191
113
108
102
91
77
74
63
54
35
79399
Http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_utl.htm
205
Table80.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:AcademicPatentApplications
Rank
State
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
GrandTotal
1
CA
1,059
1,081
1,447
1,239
2,148
6,974
2
PA
446
407
789
742
833
3,217
3
MA
474
486
580
601
679
2,820
4
MD
461
464
565
479
599
2,568
5
NY
507
442
491
600
416
2,456
6
VA
267
326
382
374
453
1,802
7
FL
192
355
428
401
305
1,681
8
TX
311
328
362
376
283
1,660
9
GA
141
210
421
423
391
1,586
10
IL
283
260
291
294
352
1,480
11
NC
283
308
277
178
350
1,396
18
NJ
94
128
126
162
163
673
19
AZ
52
139
233
125
119
668
20
MO
80
106
175
135
153
649
21
UT
102
129
93
139
156
619
22
CO
76
76
113
157
151
573
23
WA
30
96
143
101
129
499
24
IA
78
95
113
117
71
474
25
MN
94
72
83
98
80
427
26
SC
47
52
76
99
92
366
27
KY
50
52
74
87
85
348
28
OR
49
63
77
81
75
345
29
NE
35
73
58
73
60
299
30
NM
47
29
78
56
86
296
31
RI
57
42
58
79
24
260
32
OK
36
24
44
38
92
234
33
HI
41
38
64
21
37
201
34
NH
29
40
38
41
33
181
35
LA
15
36
40
25
64
180
36
CT
24
41
25
30
30
150
37
MT
19
32
26
25
34
136
38
KS
16
19
24
32
42
133
39
DE
29
20
76
125
40
MS
23
26
20
30
24
123
41
AR
33
37
19
28
117
42
VT
16
10
22
37
13
98
43
NV
14
16
21
15
30
96
44
ND
13
5
11
25
26
80
45
ID
8
14
18
11
5
56
46
ME
3
7
10
47
SD
GrandTotal
6,453
7,024
9,225
9,057
10,144
41,903
AveragePatApps
1,395
643
564
514
491
360
336
332
317
296
279
135
134
130
124
115
100
95
85
73
70
69
60
59
52
47
40
36
36
30
27
27
25
25
23
20
19
16
11
2
0
8,381
206
Table81.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:Disclosures
Rank
State
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
GrandTotal
1
CA
1,828
2,024
2,222
2,073
2,490
10,637
2
MA
916
939
1,014
966
1,137
4,972
3
NY
951
773
873
833
881
4,311
4
PA
680
751
829
861
888
4,009
5
TX
818
744
622
811
669
3,664
6
MD
521
520
578
659
621
2,899
7
NC
535
570
568
557
661
2,891
8
FL
422
503
585
639
630
2,779
9
IL
442
469
533
526
650
2,620
10
OH
423
442
555
555
625
2,600
11
GA
361
426
499
566
635
2,487
12
MI
407
404
539
534
555
2,439
13
WI
331
452
459
461
594
2,297
14
VA
402
429
409
444
432
2,116
15
IN
98
301
347
416
528
1,690
16
UT
300
360
319
308
328
1,615
17
WA
271
237
261
305
380
1,454
18
MN
236
218
224
251
230
1,159
19
AZ
208
197
188
222
244
1,059
20
IA
189
210
200
237
209
1,045
21
CO
159
171
205
225
251
1,011
22
MO
169
168
221
215
226
999
23
NJ
147
202
221
190
217
977
24
OR
189
166
190
198
224
967
25
AL
159
201
147
216
209
932
26
TN
147
174
190
177
224
912
27
SC
110
139
139
172
183
743
28
KY
142
95
141
142
157
677
29
LA
71
109
108
85
152
525
30
NE
82
70
98
105
105
460
31
OK
69
95
93
75
101
433
32
NM
57
53
90
79
129
408
33
KS
68
83
47
86
117
401
34
CT
75
83
70
85
67
380
35
RI
69
67
85
109
19
349
36
MS
47
51
67
74
88
327
37
NH
56
56
52
52
70
286
38
AR
57
59
51
61
228
39
HI
34
28
56
46
64
228
40
DE
46
37
63
32
35
213
41
ND
26
19
47
45
35
172
42
ID
30
31
51
28
26
166
43
MT
21
33
33
36
42
165
44
VT
14
24
34
24
43
139
45
NV
22
32
39
2
33
128
46
ME
4
17
21
47
SD
3
GrandTotal
12,412
13,232
14,362
14,783
16,204
70,993
Average#Disclosures
2,127
994
862
802
733
580
578
556
524
520
497
488
459
423
338
323
291
232
212
209
202
200
195
193
186
182
149
135
105
92
87
82
80
76
70
65
57
46
46
43
34
33
33
28
26
4
1
14,199
207
Table82.AcademicR&DExpenditures
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
California
$4,067,820 $4,428,903 $4,887,918
$5,357,900
NewYork
$2,297,109 $2,481,833 $2,765,484
$3,078,092
Texas
$2,037,681 $2,251,839 $2,535,237
$2,764,769
Maryland
$1,507,669 $1,653,757 $1,895,382
$2,040,747
Pennsylvania
$1,553,216 $1,693,793 $1,913,687
$2,014,842
Massachusetts
$1,486,174 $1,578,977 $1,697,182
$1,821,924
NorthCarolina
$1,040,943 $1,139,099 $1,279,377
$1,397,859
Illinois
$1,170,905 $1,281,256 $1,441,156
$1,614,270
Ohio
$918,241
$996,069 $1,116,116
$1,268,397
Michigan
$1,007,910 $1,108,622 $1,233,887
$1,390,083
Florida
$851,932
$985,628 $1,085,764
$1,204,592
Georgia
$926,749
$989,024 $1,076,706
$1,176,523
Wisconsin
$662,080
$729,288
$806,543
$877,800
Washington
$643,998
$707,761
$784,186
$871,113
Virginia
$553,924
$610,904
$693,668
$776,067
Missouri
$614,028
$678,202
$705,593
$807,075
Indiana
$509,141
$584,418
$650,718
$725,752
Colorado
$544,584
$572,950
$645,291
$694,862
NewJersey
$567,666
$628,040
$690,642
$754,426
Arizona
$465,777
$500,548
$531,106
$617,978
Tennessee
$405,291
$428,259
$491,274
$600,004
Connecticut
$468,708
$499,095
$538,488
$594,507
Alabama
$428,122
$448,294
$503,470
$550,756
Minnesota
$418,029
$469,370
$504,398
$517,912
Louisiana
$409,537
$436,483
$476,785
$514,403
Oregon
$346,149
$366,023
$386,666
$436,958
SouthCarolina
$294,274
$361,404
$399,982
$435,328
Iowa
$418,263
$439,810
$485,756
$498,669
Kentucky
$276,986
$298,268
$334,208
$377,635
Utah
$308,059
$338,127
$359,556
$385,158
NewMexico
$243,822
$274,209
$292,691
$306,636
Mississippi
$217,064
$260,991
$289,412
$324,236
Kansas
$258,452
$268,897
$299,806
$310,111
Nebraska
$208,480
$241,638
$266,930
$300,540
DistrictofColumbia
$245,828
$228,110
$260,819
$280,874
Oklahoma
$252,419
$255,217
$282,062
$295,098
NewHampshire
$150,982
$196,975
$220,061
$252,210
Hawaii
$161,300
$156,976
$172,664
$184,602
Arkansas
$131,868
$142,310
$140,813
$183,908
RhodeIsland
$129,697
$142,625
$163,052
$187,131
Nevada
$106,154
$115,934
$126,713
$154,515
Montana
$99,069
$107,744
$122,375
$141,220
NorthDakota
$67,406
$84,574
$106,078
$133,615
WestVirginia
$75,524
$81,880
$100,830
$125,417
Delaware
$78,126
$79,985
$88,319
$104,650
Maine
$57,753
$70,969
$75,063
$83,935
Vermont
$64,762
$76,882
$90,189
$106,581
Idaho
$73,726
$82,496
$93,323
$105,039
Alaska
$108,099
$119,199
$128,875
$142,413
PuertoRico
$74,529
$63,755
$70,286
$78,410
SouthDakota
$27,589
$32,498
$38,449
$49,977
Wyoming
$43,094
$41,632
$41,632
$60,054
VirginIslands
$3,310
$8,645
$13,981
$15,762
Guam
$4,130
$3,752
$4,571
$6,989
Total
$30,084,148 $32,823,937 $36,405,220 $40,100,324
http://webcaspar.nsf.gov/index.jsp?subHeader=WebCASPARHome
2004
$6,012,871
$3,351,943
$2,879,129
$2,268,304
$2,208,100
$2,000,120
$1,446,874
$1,713,282
$1,319,680
$1,397,435
$1,306,810
$1,222,150
$956,652
$897,326
$849,038
$841,779
$841,141
$771,359
$805,135
$650,961
$658,247
$649,245
$572,279
$535,469
$559,372
$504,802
$455,964
$531,770
$424,013
$407,327
$303,922
$347,563
$332,547
$325,001
$303,049
$283,021
$277,201
$241,346
$182,958
$192,326
$163,764
$154,726
$151,710
$134,961
$114,663
$99,108
$115,767
$116,757
$146,465
$86,514
$58,583
$60,054
$17,874
$9,458
$43,257,915
2005
$6,264,908
$3,610,287
$3,073,724
$2,356,905
$2,367,837
$2,079,548
$1,655,844
$1,771,107
$1,531,614
$1,456,218
$1,448,634
$1,274,410
$999,847
$901,558
$910,163
$893,013
$759,622
$825,048
$865,641
$720,184
$726,078
$669,923
$589,860
$558,259
$584,336
$536,228
$487,776
$548,301
$452,265
$400,276
$361,466
$353,078
$348,751
$360,148
$302,921
$291,697
$287,472
$240,247
$209,518
$199,709
$178,492
$170,791
$149,994
$146,489
$115,751
$96,569
$117,400
$119,871
$153,721
$100,235
$67,012
$83,449
$16,735
$8,531
$45,799,461
2006
2007
$6,490,107 $6,733,546
$3,804,748 $3,964,070
$3,270,728 $3,417,082
$2,529,998 $2,542,336
$2,431,403 $2,438,312
$2,122,756 $2,171,596
$1,710,496 $1,885,499
$1,824,223 $1,867,003
$1,637,546 $1,807,038
$1,473,199 $1,509,953
$1,522,099 $1,557,504
$1,302,570 $1,388,976
$1,039,530 $1,066,688
$988,252
$981,229
$946,886
$971,377
$900,202
$941,445
$823,501
$893,808
$820,565
$872,576
$858,413
$864,678
$765,434
$782,671
$742,923
$761,388
$691,998
$691,408
$601,881
$655,245
$605,201
$636,920
$552,931
$604,007
$557,405
$574,521
$524,034
$569,347
$572,623
$586,786
$479,282
$503,293
$412,811
$414,690
$421,428
$410,375
$369,143
$410,637
$354,376
$375,960
$358,858
$364,842
$296,155
$333,222
$298,175
$298,663
$315,394
$307,074
$257,478
$274,373
$237,233
$240,321
$230,104
$230,281
$194,459
$192,081
$172,622
$179,137
$160,095
$169,468
$150,420
$167,208
$122,001
$125,663
$120,038
$137,425
$123,608
$115,025
$111,465
$114,224
$163,034
$159,991
$104,077
$106,852
$72,790
$81,544
$89,414
$79,700
$17,495
$17,842
$7,604
$7,059
$47,751,211 $49,553,959
2008
$7,026,354
$4,044,815
$3,744,182
$2,747,001
$2,604,118
$2,271,757
$1,980,833
$1,972,752
$1,827,042
$1,593,654
$1,591,774
$1,521,486
$1,117,152
$1,058,170
$1,052,601
$960,171
$954,188
$924,073
$876,698
$831,192
$787,122
$731,711
$707,801
$698,920
$660,139
$594,945
$576,219
$527,769
$506,057
$425,683
$416,991
$406,459
$403,512
$376,092
$369,020
$333,230
$302,008
$278,751
$246,786
$236,627
$190,893
$185,791
$180,764
$170,869
$133,231
$128,090
$117,210
$113,482
$111,418
$100,401
$91,797
$74,720
$18,099
$6,106
$51,908,726
208
Table83.NSFResearchbyStateinDisciplinesw/CleantechImplications,2008
State
California
NewYork
Texas
Massachusetts
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Georgia
Illinois
NorthCarolina
Ohio
Florida
Michigan
Virginia
Indiana
NewJersey
Wisconsin
Colorado
Washington
Arizona
Missouri
Tennessee
Louisiana
Alabama
Oregon
SouthCarolina
Connecticut
Kansas
Minnesota
Mississippi
Utah
Iowa
NewMexico
Kentucky
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Nevada
Montana
NewHampshire
NorthDakota
Hawaii
RhodeIsland
Delaware
WestVirginia
Idaho
Maine
DistrictofColumbia
Alaska
SouthDakota
Wyoming
Vermont
PuertoRico
Guam
VirginIslands
GrandTotal
R&Din000's
2,904,907
1,933,004
1,906,263
1,366,223
1,362,368
1,074,674
914,358
909,232
904,826
854,166
828,172
798,649
651,059
551,005
546,820
531,621
513,763
505,202
439,749
439,106
428,792
370,208
336,294
324,362
319,451
295,053
294,318
274,725
267,955
260,698
258,575
248,615
243,778
230,655
225,214
161,274
158,332
144,326
131,376
124,102
121,605
120,247
99,053
97,375
91,218
87,480
68,902
65,748
60,848
58,613
56,090
41,902
4,115
26,006,466
http://webcaspar.nsf.gov/index.jsp?subHeader=WebCASPARHome
Note
Academic Disciplines in Figures Above are
Aeronautical and Astronautical, Agricultural
Sciences, Atmospheric Biological Sciences,
Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Civil
Engineering, Earth Sciences, Electrical
Engineering,
Mechanical
Engineering,
Metallurgical and Materials Engineering,
Oceanography, Other Engineering, Other
EnvironmentalSciences,Physics
209
Table84.ScientistandEngineersPlottedAgainstR&DfortopR&DStates
AllUSStates
Rank
State
S&E
1
California
87,370
2
Massachusetts
32,400
3
Michigan
17,900
4
Texas
36,000
5
NewJersey
20,810
6
Maryland
26,160
7
NewYork
45,850
8
Illinois
24,110
9
Washington
16,920
10
Pennsylvania
29,120
11
Virginia
19,850
12
Ohio
20,540
13
Connecticut
10,330
14
NorthCarolina
18,910
15
Minnesota
11,800
16
Florida
17,630
17
Colorado
13,150
18
NewMexico
8,300
19
Indiana
9,870
20
Arizona
8,410
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10302/
R&D
71,335
20,577
18,189
17,059
16,259
14,493
14,366
13,609
13,585
12,929
9,867
9,431
9,049
7,710
7,149
6,339
6,153
5,789
5,784
4,760
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
AllStates(ExCA,MI,NY)
State
S&E
Massachusetts
32,400
Texas
36,000
NewJersey
20,810
Maryland
26,160
Illinois
24,110
Washington
16,920
Pennsylvania
29,120
Virginia
19,850
Ohio
20,540
Connecticut
10,330
NorthCarolina
18,910
Minnesota
11,800
Florida
17,630
Colorado
13,150
NewMexico
8,300
Indiana
9,870
Arizona
8,410
Georgia
12,970
Wisconsin
9,530
Oregon
8,270
R&D
20,577
17,059
16,259
14,493
13,609
13,585
12,929
9,867
9,431
9,049
7,710
7,149
6,339
6,153
5,789
5,784
4,760
4,440
4,132
4,104
210
Figure23.WorkingPhDS&EvsR&D:Top20R&DStates(IncludingOutliersCA,MI,NY)
100,000
2
90,000
R =0.8421
80,000
WorkingS&E
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

R&DinMillions
FLCA,NY,MI
Figure24.WorkingPhDS&EvsR&D:Top20R&DStates(ExcludingOutliersCA,MI,NY)
40,000
35,000
R =0.7599
WrkingS&E
30,000
25,000
20,000
FL
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
R&DinMillions
211
Table85.PhDScientistsandEngineersEmployedbyState
Location
UnitedStates
California
NewYork
Texas
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Illinois
NewJersey
Ohio
Virginia
NorthCarolina
Michigan
Florida
Washington
DistrictofColumbia
Colorado
Georgia
Minnesota
Connecticut
Tennessee
Indiana
Wisconsin
Missouri
Arizona
NewMexico
Oregon
SouthCarolina
Alabama
Utah
Louisiana
Kentucky
Iowa
Oklahoma
Kansas
Mississippi
Delaware
RhodeIsland
Nebraska
Hawaii
Idaho
Arkansas
Nevada
NewHampshire
Maine
WestVirginia
Montana
Vermont
PuertoRico
NorthDakota
Alaska
SouthDakota
Wyoming
Total
Rank
620,140
87,370
45,850
36,000
32,400
29,120
26,160
24,110
20,810
20,540
19,850
18,910
17,900
17,630
16,920
13,330
13,150
12,970
11,800
10,330
9,980
9,870
9,530
9,300
8,410
8,300
8,270
5,910
5,900
5,520
5,480
4,960
4,890
4,420
4,250
3,310
3,110
3,020
2,970
2,850
2,840
2,840
2,620
2,470
2,350
2,000
1,990
1,690
1,690
1,380
1,110
1,050
730
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
40
42
43
44
45
46
47
47
49
50
51
52
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10302/
Table86.VentureCapitalFirmsListedin"CapitalVector"Database
212
UniqueFirmswithPrincipalOfficeinStatewithaPrimaryInterestin
oneormoreCleantechFields*
AllVCFirmswithPrincipalOfficeintheState
State
VCFirms
State
Total
CA
67
CA
471
NY
24
NY
264
TX
23
MA
174
MA
17
IL
107
CT
10
TX
79
CO
7
PA
68
IL
6
CT
61
NJ
5
OH
42
PA
5
NJ
39
DC
5
VA
38
MD
5
CO
35
NC
4
FL
33
FL
3
MD
32
WV
2
WA
30
MI
2
NC
29
HI
2
MN
25
NM
2
MI
24
GA
2
GA
21
TN
2
UT
16
VA
2
DC
16
LA
2
WI
14
WI
2
TN
13
SD
1
KS
11
UT
1
AZ
10
OR
1
MO
9
AZ
1
IN
9
OH
1
IA
7
NH
1
AL
7
GrandTotal
205
OR
7
NH
7
NM
7
*IncludesCompaniesInvestingin1orMoreofthefollowingFields
KY
6
Energy
163
RI
5
Cleantech
37
DE
5
Environmental
13
OK
5
Transportation
13
HI
5
NaturalResources
7
LA
4
PhysicalSciences
1
NV
4
MS
3
WV
2
VT
2
ME
2
WY
2
AR
2
ID
2
ND
2
SC
1
GrandTotal
1757
http://www.capitalvector.com/
213
Table87.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:AcademicLicensingManagersbyState
Rank
State
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1
CA
85
102.5
91
77
122
2
NY
51
40.6
45.5
47
45
3
MA
43
45.1
39.86
47.13
46.4
4
TX
48
42.5
36
46
41.7
5
IL
29
30.5
31.5
31.5
34.5
6
OH
21
24.03
31.8
32.8
31.3
7
PA
25
24
25
27.5
33.7
8
FL
22
23.5
24.1
23.5
29.48
9
MD
20
20.63
22.8
24.8
20.1
10
NC
18
20.43
22.5
20.6
25
11
WI
20
19.5
19.5
21.6
22.85
12
MI
19
18.7
18.3
19
20.5
13
WA
15
15.5
19.5
23.35
20.4
14
GA
14
15.5
17.5
20
22
15
UT
12
13.25
14.5
16.75
17.6
16
MN
10
10
9.25
12.25
18.25
17
IN
6
10
14
16
13.5
18
VA
11
10.25
11.25
12.25
13.35
19
OR
9
11.46
11.78
12.35
12.25
20
IA
11
10.8
11.3
11
10.8
21
CO
8
7.95
11.9
10.7
14.2
22
MO
9
8.5
11.75
10.75
11.15
23
NJ
9
9
9
12
11
24
TN
8
10.25
10
9.25
9
25
AL
8
2.5
9
10
9.5
26
AZ
5
6
9
9
9
27
KS
7
6.6
7
4.7
5.6
28
SC
5
4.4
6.25
6.6
7.6
29
LA
5
5.5
6
6
7.35
30
NM
4
5.5
6
5
6.75
31
OK
6
5
5
6
5
32
NE
7
4.5
6
5.3
4.5
33
KY
4
6
5.6
5
5
34
HI
6
5
5
5
5
35
CT
3
4
4
4
5
36
MS
3
3
3.5
5
5
37
RI
3
4
4
5
2
38
NH
3
3
3
3
3
39
MT
2
2.5
3.5
3.5
2.4
40
DE
2
2
2
2
2
41
AR
3
2.5
2
3
42
VT
1
1
1
2
2
43
ND
1
1
1.5
1.75
1.75
44
NV
1
1
1
1
3
45
ID
1
2
1
1
1
46
ME
1
0.5
47
SD
0
Total
598
621.95
650.94
678.93
738.48
Total
477
229
222
214
157
141
135
123
109
107
103
95
93
89
74
60
60
58
57
55
53
51
50
46
39
38
31
30
29
27
27
27
26
26
20
20
18
15
14
10
10
7
7
7
6
1
0
3,288
Average#FTE
95
46
44
43
31
28
27
25
22
21
21
19
19
18
15
12
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
9
8
8
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
658
214
Table88.GapAnalysis,FLvsTop4:PatentExpensestoProtectAcademicIntellectualProperty
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
State
CA
MA
NY
PA
NC
TX
MI
IL
MD
FL
WI
GA
IA
OH
IN
MO
MN
WA
VA
AL
UT
TN
AZ
OR
NJ
NE
KY
CO
SC
NM
KS
OK
LA
CT
NH
AR
RI
MS
VT
MT
ID
ND
HI
NV
DE
ME
SD
Total
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
30,765,276
33,133,910
30,502,597
33,399,201
37,690,894
16,366,427
16,368,668
18,272,858
19,223,547
20,887,629
17,738,415
10,391,149
12,870,726
13,946,442
14,705,891
7,433,185
8,987,376
11,060,394
9,312,472
13,298,552
6,465,987
8,852,056
9,336,821
8,383,137
10,680,958
8,153,201
7,425,501
6,847,500
8,114,503
7,283,350
5,687,415
6,490,237
7,167,605
8,005,435
8,136,761
4,522,137
6,135,800
6,717,134
8,197,818
9,021,156
5,490,982
5,413,366
7,362,684
7,311,908
8,168,849
4,836,486
6,598,840
6,212,500
7,891,239
7,772,098
4,536,046
5,084,163
6,226,537
7,313,269
7,712,678
4,729,473
5,331,325
5,415,186
5,448,295
5,744,094
3,234,465
3,483,615
4,476,053
5,314,191
5,060,248
2,827,103
3,088,599
2,755,765
5,093,575
5,663,514
1,081,262
3,841,368
4,056,847
3,655,963
3,883,779
3,076,695
2,821,038
2,768,136
3,366,287
4,387,619
2,987,363
3,210,937
2,564,221
3,077,860
3,182,622
2,866,998
2,927,122
2,032,409
3,397,650
3,688,396
2,443,003
2,340,987
2,923,159
3,587,618
3,473,613
1,843,214
2,238,504
3,482,940
2,637,650
3,125,675
2,163,118
2,477,221
2,321,632
2,636,618
3,293,558
2,027,596
2,372,544
2,345,319
2,964,245
3,135,593
1,563,067
1,633,612
2,207,557
2,120,531
1,505,138
1,336,868
1,714,703
1,875,951
1,588,958
1,882,589
1,052,314
1,212,665
1,210,617
1,853,441
1,892,210
1,368,058
976,956
928,320
1,004,489
1,215,292
748,476
982,844
849,296
1,478,486
1,329,057
964,611
842,894
1,016,721
1,226,159
1,232,402
656,363
897,892
989,878
990,033
985,085
693,321
827,735
927,085
723,910
973,782
703,033
797,368
756,174
834,183
1,012,962
513,382
624,925
725,476
758,613
1,315,168
619,692
578,025
873,160
511,882
1,311,331
619,623
731,288
650,351
561,000
717,771
536,512
535,525
543,275
649,271
925,965
543,037
1,112,414
827,515
672,790
507,494
646,284
643,235
652,422
168,216
240,643
423,532
390,229
511,780
555,844
282,391
332,009
0
672,798
470,511
181,039
403,860
362,038
310,436
272,460
183,100
169,438
350,898
322,960
305,605
123,389
110,333
197,878
374,529
429,200
184,900
278,110
160,265
334,825
164,290
165,352
171,744
240,628
12,840
393,921
204,112
246,526
338,379
0
0
0
100,000
155,266,624 165,365,008 174,783,949 190,445,259 209,056,326
GrandTotal
165,491,878
91,119,129
69,652,623
50,091,979
43,718,959
37,824,055
35,487,453
34,594,045
33,747,789
33,311,163
30,872,693
26,668,373
21,568,572
19,428,556
16,519,219
16,419,775
15,023,003
14,912,575
14,768,380
13,327,983
12,892,147
12,845,297
9,029,905
8,399,069
7,221,247
5,493,115
5,388,159
5,282,787
4,519,251
4,145,833
4,103,720
3,937,564
3,894,090
3,280,033
3,190,548
3,155,756
2,617,651
2,122,028
1,757,709
1,529,833
1,332,001
1,235,329
1,122,390
984,485
789,017
100,000
0
894,917,166
AverageLglFees
33,098,376
18,223,826
13,930,525
10,018,396
8,743,792
7,564,811
7,097,491
6,918,809
6,749,558
6,662,233
6,174,539
5,333,675
4,313,714
3,885,711
3,303,844
3,283,955
3,004,601
2,982,515
2,953,676
2,665,597
2,578,429
2,569,059
1,805,981
1,679,814
1,444,249
1,098,623
1,077,632
1,056,557
903,850
829,167
820,744
787,513
778,818
656,007
638,110
631,151
523,530
424,406
351,542
305,967
266,400
247,066
224,478
196,897
157,803
20,000
0
178,983,433
215
Table 89. Academic Faculty and Students: Data Built by Institution from Carnegie Foundation
forPreviousFRCReport
Tot
TotTen
Student
Inst
State
Faculty
Rank
R&D2007*
Rank
Faculty
Rank
Count
Count Stu/Faculty Rank
California
34,920
1
$6,163,831
1
19,920
1
601,644
31 17
33
NewYork
28,346
2
$3,920,892
2
18,543
2
375,008
34 13
15
Texas
27,881
3
$3,402,621
3
17,336
3
498,832
31 18
36
Pennsylvania
19,926
4
$2,408,775
5
10,189
5
235,913
12 12
6
Massachusetts
18,724
5
$2,026,011
6
8,824
10
200,233
18 11
3
Florida
16,792
6
$1,545,209
10
9,375
7
350,651
14 21
45
Illinois
14,450
7
$1,837,557
8
9,109
9
193,503
11 13
16
Ohio
14,398
8
$1,799,990
9
10,450
4
282,576
14 20
42
Michigan
14,268
9
$1,498,070
11
9,230
8
256,856
9 18
37
NorthCarolina
13,926
10
$1,871,257
7
9,407
6
182,091
11 13
13
Virginia
10,702
11
$967,420
15
6,793
12
176,853
11 17
30
Missouri
10,090
12
$938,759
16
4,913
16
115,965
8 11
5
Maryland
9,970
13
$2,424,077
4
5,597
13
89,356
8 9
2
Indiana
9,641
14
$798,804
19
6,894
11
191,999
5 20
43
Georgia
9,212
15
$1,378,685
12
5,170
15
111,701
10 12
7
Tennessee
8,694
16
$758,631
21
5,488
14
112,963
8 13
12
Colorado
8,051
17
$870,360
17
4,080
20
109,757
5 14
19
NewJersey
6,953
18
$856,333
18
4,397
17
87,014
6 13
8
Wisconsin
6,920
19
$1,058,841
13
4,036
21
105,277
7 15
24
Louisiana
6,392
20
$590,427
25
4,101
19
95,135
7 15
23
Alabama
6,059
21
$652,379
23
4,349
18
100,750
7 17
31
Washington
5,808
22
$973,168
14
2,975
27
78,890
3 14
18
Oregon
5,627
23
$568,672
27
2,084
35
70,791
5 13
9
Utah
5,059
24
$412,512
30
3,102
25
77,092
3 15
25
Minnesota
5,012
25
$624,149
24
2,876
28
66,099
1 13
14
Iowa
4,912
26
$583,856
26
3,061
26
67,969
3 14
20
Connecticut
4,826
27
$681,228
22
2,593
32
38,368
3 8
1
Arizona
4,787
28
$782,671
20
3,464
22
110,045
3 23
49
Kentucky
4,432
29
$496,782
29
3,232
24
68,402
4 15
26
SouthCarolina
4,392
30
$564,345
28
3,259
23
73,287
5 17
32
Oklahoma
4,356
31
$297,077
36
2,704
30
69,554
4 16
28
Kansas
4,214
32
$373,427
33
2,695
31
66,127
3 16
27
Nebraska
3,842
33
$364,842
34
2,801
29
53,727
2 14
22
Mississippi
3,725
34
$407,530
32
2,519
33
60,828
5 16
29
Arkansas
3,099
35
$239,704
38
2,222
34
60,270
6 19
41
NewMexico
2,518
36
$409,292
31
1,600
37
44,104
3 18
34
WestVirginia
2,372
37
$163,114
42
1,619
36
43,341
3 18
39
Idaho
1,940
38
$114,224
47
1,440
38
44,384
3 23
48
Nevada
1,886
39
$148,858
44
1,319
40
44,641
2 24
50
Hawaii
1,850
40
$274,373
37
1,347
39
23,624
2 13
10
RhodeIsland
1,761
41
$228,856
39
1,220
41
23,817
2 14
17
NewHampshire
1,493
42
$307,074
35
1,151
42
20,854
2 14
21
Montana
1,453
43
$178,291
40
1,087
43
27,460
3 19
40
NorthDakota
1,432
44
$169,244
41
861
45
25,086
2 18
35
Delaware
1,325
45
$125,663
46
1,016
44
24,098
2 18
38
Alaska
1,211
46
$158,904
43
813
46
25,081
2 21
44
Vermont
1,088
47
$113,195
48
603
49
12,239
1 11
4
SouthDakota
1,052
48
$74,986
50
672
48
22,958
3 22
46
Maine
1,016
49
$130,934
45
759
47
22,365
2 22
47
Wyoming
1,007
50
$79,700
49
567
50
12,875
1 13
11
GrandTotal
383,810
$47,815,600
233,862
5,852,453
350 15
Top5R&D
Students
1,911,630 Stu/Faculty
Faculty
129,797 14.72784
InformationfromFloridaResearchConsortiumStudy.SourceDataCarnegieFoundation.
*DataisdrivenbyinstitutionandforpurposesoftheFRCstudy,dataonsmallerinstitutionswithlessthan$3Minresearchexpendituresere
excluded.Thus,thisdatawillnotfootwithdatapresentedonothertablesinthisreport,butisaccurateforthepurposeused.
216
Other
40%
2030 Subjecttorevisionsevery5years
CA
33%
2020 20%by2010
ME
30%
CT
27%
IL
25%
2025 75%mustbefromwind
MN
25%
2025
NV
25%
2025
OH
25%
2025
OR
25%
2025
NY
24%
2013
NH
23.80%
2025
NJ
22.50%
2021 max2.5%fromClassII
CO
20%
2020
DC
20%
2020 HeavilyskewedtowardTierIrenewables
DE
20%
KS
20%
MD
20%
NM
20%
2020 10%by2020forcoops
PA
18%
2020
RI
16%
2019
AZ
15%
2025
MA
15%
MO
15%
2021 IOUsonly;0.3%solarby2021
MT
15%
2015
WA
15%
2020
NC
12.50%
MI
10%
WI
10%
Wave
MSW
FuelCells
Biomass
HI
Wind
State
Solar
Hydrogen
OceanTherm.
TidalEnergy
CHP/Cogen
Anaerobic
Geothermal
Hydroelectric
LandfillGas
Photovoltaic
Table90.RenewablePortfolioStandardsbyState:RPSRequirement(%ofTotalElectricLoad)
By
AdditionalRequirements/Notes
MandatoryRPS
Increaserenewablesby10%by2017
(MSW&hydroineligible)
20%fromClassI,3%ClassIorII,and4%
2020
ClassIIIrenewables
2000
30%by2020forXcelEnergy,ofwhichat
least25%wind
5%solarcarveoutthrough2015,6%
thereafter
Atleasthalfmustbefrominstate
facilities;IOUsonly
10%forsmallutilities;5%forsmallest
utilities
25%ofwhich1%tobemetw/voluntary
greenpowersales
Separateportfoliostandardsbyclassof
renewables
10%forcoops&largemunis;4%must
besolar(IOUsonly)
Subjecttoamendmentsafter2014;2%
mustbefromPV
10%by2011;15%by2016(basedon
2020
peakcapacitydemand)
Additionalrequirementfor2.5%from
2022
TierIIrenewablesthru2018
2019
8%TierIand10%TierII(includesnon
renewables)
By2012,>30%mustbemetw/
distributedenergy
1%p.a.increaseinClassIREafter2020
2020
w/ostatedexpiration
2021 10%by2018forcoops&munis
Alsorequires1,100MWofnew
renewablecapacity
Requirementvariesbyutility;10%by
2015
2015isagoal
2015
217
State
Solar
Photovoltaic
LandfillGas
Wind
Biomass
Hydroelectric
Geothermal
Anaerobic
FuelCells
MSW
CHP/Cogen
TidalEnergy
Wave
OceanTherm.
Hydrogen
Other
TX
5,880MW 2015
IA
105MW 1983 Obligationalreadymet
By
AdditionalRequirements/Notes
Atleast500MWfromsourceotherthan
wind
VoluntaryRPS
UT
VA
SD
VT
MO
ND
WV
FL
Source:DatabaseofStateIncentivesforRenewablesandEfficiency(DSIRE),EPA,EEI.
*Fuelcellsusingrenewablefuelsonly.
Requiredonlytotheextentthatitis
costeffective
25%
2025
25%
2025
20%
2025
15%
2025 Interimgoalof20%byJuly1,2017
10%
2015 IOUsonly
10%
2015
10%
2015
110MW
25%standardincl.alternativeresources
too(e.g.,cleancoal)
VoluntarywithRateRecoveryOK
218
Table91.PrivateEquityBackedMergersandAcquisitionsbyYear($Millions)
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
#Total
1
1
1
3
5
9
17
21
32
35
27
33
91
121
136
162
193
270
324
353
376
406
359
326
383
448
502
549
473
Averagefrom20002008
#Known
Price
0
1
0
0
2
4
4
8
16
20
12
13
60
76
89
109
146
202
233
259
249
203
187
146
210
223
221
238
155
Average
$0
$218
$0
$0
$644
$282
$215
$854
$1,580
$2,071
$596
$1,039
$4,293
$6,141
$9,972
$16,348
$37,024
$65,423
$91,567
$223,151
$125,327
$39,597
$24,019
$14,561
$25,171
$41,470
$48,895
$76,547
$26,018
$46,845
$0
$218
$0
$0
$322
$71
$54
$107
$99
$104
$50
$80
$72
$81
$112
$150
$254
$324
$393
$862
$503
$195
$128
$100
$120
$186
$221
$322
$168
$216
Note:PrivateEquityincludesventurecapital,buyouts,mezzanine,andotherprivateequityfinancedcompanies.Therefore,data.
219
Table92.PrivateEquityBackedAcquisitionsbyIndustry(20002008)
Industrial/Energy
Software
Telecommunications
FinancialServices
Biotechnology
MediaandEntertainment
BusinessProductsandServices
Retailing/Distribution
NetworkingandEquipment
ComputersandPeripherals
ConsumerProductsandServices
Semiconductors
MedicalDevicesandEquipment
HealthcareServices
ITServices
Electronics/Instrumentation
Other
2000
$3,022
$22,039
$17,540
$1,505
$1,972
$6,733
$2,258
$5,663
$18,902
$2,569
$1,375
$5,243
$481
$286
$31,248
$4,491
$0
2001
$3,116
$3,258
$7,670
$3,566
$540
$738
$245
$2,408
$5,525
$357
$568
$1,564
$993
$602
$866
$7,582
$0
2002
$3,809
$1,944
$7,116
$1,538
$2,540
$1,112
$142
$178
$751
$59
$1,540
$563
$1,011
$1,020
$670
$27
$0
2003
$1,634
$4,169
$326
$256
$660
$285
$154
$1,636
$877
$64
$1,432
$415
$548
$85
$1,809
$21
$190
2004
$6,014
$4,631
$2,159
$10
$816
$2,260
$1,269
$703
$526
$756
$1,101
$612
$1,295
$706
$1,848
$221
$245
2005
$8,614
$5,045
$1,241
$1,005
$4,855
$5,259
$486
$0
$2,346
$270
$4,166
$214
$3,063
$1,717
$2,079
$72
$1,039
2006
$16,866
$5,299
$2,794
$938
$1,765
$9,239
$1,859
$690
$819
$285
$1,642
$922
$2,312
$2,398
$520
$3
$545
2007
$8,318
$5,773
$4,978
$1,370
$5,513
$7,902
$3,459
$3,894
$947
$610
$19,369
$896
$4,328
$1,801
$2,643
$3,689
$1,055
2008 Average0608
$6,517
$6,434
$4,452
$6,290
$2,043
$5,096
$1,813
$1,333
$1,776
$2,271
$1,650
$3,909
$1,537
$1,268
$878
$1,783
$782
$3,497
$769
$638
$760
$3,550
$677
$1,234
$643
$1,630
$614
$1,025
$538
$4,691
$472
$1,842
$100
$353
220
Table93.VentureBackedIPO's,TotalOfferingSize($Millions)
2000
2001 2002 2003
2004
2005 2006
2007
2008 Avg0008
ComputersandPeripherals
$606
$0
$55
$0
$84
$7
$0
$108 $188
$116
HealthcareServices
$192 $535
$72
$52
$108
$67
$0
$113 $164
$145
Software
MedicalDevicesandEquipment
Biotechnology
BusinessProductsandServices
$4,019 $365 $155 $289 $2,050 $505 $576 $1,242
$62
$1,029
$844 $327 $714 $1,241
$57
$545
$4,085 $335 $331 $440 $1,436 $782 $855 $1,315
$0
$1,064
$0
$266
$759 $610 $300

$683
$0
$0
$53
$97
$324 $464
$0
$828
$39 $157
$250 $103
$77
$202
$0
$159
$0
$0
$0
$91
$699 $755 $197
$0
$0
$308
$21 $257
$580
$0
$358
$90 $122 $191
$344
$0
$283
$65 $1,699 $352 $798
$184
$0
$534
$453
$0
$502
$0
$0
$0
$0
ConsumerProductsandServices
$414 $185
Electronics/Instrumentation
$274
FinancialServices
$104 $490 $201 $322
$41 $500
$0
Industrial/Energy
$1,317 $522 $158
$0
ITServices
$1,711
$0
$0
MediaandEntertainment
$1,499
$0 $207
NetworkingandEquipment
$3,361 $135
Other
Retailing/Distribution
$90
$0
$367
$0
$0
$138
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$275
$0
$0
$65
$62
$0
$0 $427
$0
$28 $139
$496
$0
$118
Semiconductors
$1,591 $122
$0 $332 $2,218 $594 $125
$636
$0
$624
Telecommunications
$4,730 $150
$0 $152 $1,040 $358 $719 $2,583
$0
$1,081
221
Table94.VentureBackedIPO's
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
#IPO's
OfferAmtin$M
59
97
39
196
83
76
153
126
54
65
70
157
195
219
167
205
272
138
78
269
265
41
22
29
94
57
56
86
6
Average0008
$664
$1,068
$577
$3,770
$1,005
$1,293
$3,423
$2,318
$846
$1,223
$1,396
$4,923
$7,204
$6,683
$4,671
$8,147
$11,482
$4,826
$3,782
$20,823
$25,618
$3,490
$2,109
$2,023
$11,378
$4,485
$5,075
$10,326
$470
$7,219
222
Table95.HistoricalCleanEnergyPatentsbyState
StateName
Michigan
California
NewYork
Connecticut
Texas
Illinois
Massachusetts
NewJersey
Florida
Washington
Minnesota
Ohio
Delaware
Oregon
Colorado
Wash.D.C.
NewMexico
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Maryland
NorthCarolina
Virginia
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Nevada
Georgia
Missouri
Oklahoma
Kansas
Hawaii
Utah
Louisiana
Vermont
Wyoming
Indiana
Iowa
Nebraska
RhodeIsland
NewHampshire
SouthCarolina
Kentucky
Maine
NorthDakota
WestVirginia
Alaska
Idaho
Mississippi
Montana
Alabama
Arkansas
SouthDakota
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTALAvg0208
93
112
123
105
97
113
90
64
797
105
60
52
78
44
55
60
67
73
489
59
43
51
46
39
60
60
76
41
416
54
31
30
36
38
49
23
25
13
245
33
9
16
21
20
34
17
26
12
155
20
23
17
27
25
13
17
19
9
150
20Gap160
9
7
12
12
15
20
9
28
112
12 188%
6
16
13
9
14
9
13
7
87
11
13
12
11
11
13
10
7
8
85
11
13
6
18
6
13
7
13
8
84
11
5
6
7
5
14
18
10
6
71
9
6
7
6
8
7
12
10
12
68
8
6
8
7
7
7
6
9
5
55
7
6
5
6
7
8
6
7
2
47
6
4
5
4
5
6
6
4
6
40
5
5
5
4
5
5
8
4
4
40
5
1
6
5
6
6
3
3
7
37
4
1
3
4
6
4
4
8
4
34
4
0
7
4
5
3
3
3
3
28
4
4
5
2
7
1
3
0
1
23
3
6
2
0
1
0
2
3
7
21
2
3
0
1
2
0
5
9
1
21
3
3
1
1
1
7
3
1
2
19
2
3
0
3
5
3
2
3
0
19
3
1
0
1
6
2
4
3
1
18
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
3
1
17
2
1
2
0
1
5
4
2
2
17
2
1
3
0
2
0
2
4
1
13
2
0
1
0
1
3
3
2
2
12
1
0
2
0
3
3
2
1
0
11
2
4
0
4
2
0
0
1
0
11
2
4
2
1
0
0
2
0
1
10
1
0
0
0
0
3
3
2
1
9
1
0
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
9
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
2
8
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
8
1
0
3
0
1
0
0
4
0
8
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
4
1
7
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
6
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
5
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Source:http://cepgi.typepad.com/heslin_rothenberg_farley_/.DataprovidedbyVictorA.Cardona,HeslinRothenbergFarley&MesitiP.C,5
ColumbiaCircle,Albany,NY12203,phone(518)4525600,fax(518)4525579,vac@hrfmlaw.com,Website:http://www.hrfmlaw.com,
www.Cleantechintellectualproperty.com,www.cleanenergypatentgrowthindex.com
223
Table96.CapacityAdded,AllProducerforNonHyrdroRenewables(20002009)
State
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Texas
755 163 240 4 594 851 1,787 2,960 2,495

Iowa
2 81 98 49 176 200 104 51 1,776 685
Washington
2 177 48 34
158 428 390 204 365
California
83 119 179 196 136 66 244 122 176 392
Oregon
118 86 41
75 104 476 254 523
Minnesota
4 89 23 264 38 102 143 563 349 78
NewYork
12 36
3
141 196 71 307 580
Colorado
7 40
162 14
60 558 236 189
Illinois
12
1 52 8 55 2 644 171 315
NorthDakota
4 62
43 74 167 420 444
Wyoming
18 50 1
252 3
388 423
Oklahoma
176
258 41 215
362
Kansas
112
150 100
452 199
Indiana
5
108 5 3 6
9 531 314
Pennsylvania
10 34 3 109
79 118 86 399
NewMexico
4 204
200 90 0 2 100
Wisconsin
11 38 6 4 8 3 13 9 348 56
Montana
145
126 104
WestVirginia
66
264
Missouri
37 23 108 150
Nevada
30 3 125 27 125
Utah
3 12 19 218
Maine
1
16 56 8 131
SouthDakota
3
41
17
51 78
Florida
11
78 41 14 39
Idaho
0
75
3 55 33
Michigan
1 3 1 2
1 3 127 27
Nebraska
1 14
59 2 2 0 81
Ohio
28 0 4 4
82 8
Arizona
0 11 0 2
2 1
24 68
Kentucky
89 1 9
1 2 3
2
Hawaii
16
41 35 2 5
Virginia
25
14 16
16 14 6
Tennessee
2
27
50 8
NewJersey
23 1
3 2 14 20 12 11
Georgia
10 25
3
Alabama
19
0 18
NewHampshire
26
Massachusetts 10 1
6 3 2 5 2 5
Maryland
4
4
3 5 2 10
SouthCarolina
2
1
6 6
6 5
NorthCarolina
1 4 7 8
Louisiana
7
15 0
Vermont
5
2
5
RhodeIsland
2
Delaware
Alaska
0 1
0 5
Arkansas
Connecticut
3
Mississippi
0
GrandTotal
206 1,837 818 1,708 729 2,243 2,974 5,555 9,629 9,066
AccesstoVentyxDatabaseGraciouslyProvidedbyFP&LGroup.http://www1.ventyx.com/velocity/vsoverview.asp
Total
9,848
3,222
1,805
1,712
1,676
1,654
1,345
1,265
1,259
1,213
1,135
1,051
1,013
981
837
600
496
375
330
318
315
253
210
189
185
166
165
159
125
107
106
98
92
86
85
39
37
35
34
28
26
26
22
11
11
7
6
5
3
0
34,765
224
Avg.
985
322
180
171
168
165
135
126
126
121
114
105
101
98
84
60
50
38
33
32
32
25
21
19
19
17
17
16
13
11
11
10
9
9
9
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
3,476
Table97.CapacityAdded,AllProducersforCarbonFuelSources(20002009)
State
Texas
Florida
California
Illinois
Georgia
Arizona
Pennsylvania
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Ohio
Oklahoma
SouthCarolina
Nevada
Arkansas
NewYork
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Virginia
NorthCarolina
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Colorado
Kentucky
NewJersey
Missouri
Iowa
Washington
Tennessee
NewMexico
Oregon
Kansas
Connecticut
Nebraska
Utah
Maine
NewHampshire
WestVirginia
Maryland
RhodeIsland
Delaware
Idaho
SouthDakota
Wyoming
Hawaii
Alaska
Montana
Vermont
NorthDakota
GrandTotal
2000
5,599
1,047
1,977
2,512
88
857
891
1,078
1,168
654
591
598
7
1,707
291
568
891
1,059
1
371
27
434
570
318
1,266
150
205
118
7
868
7
13
273
40
199
37
26,483
2001
8,259
1,085
2,744
3,985
2,041
1,602
1,296
864
2,147
604
1,249
1,448
394
380
410
564
445
1,099
699
875
1,445
945
975
303
1,207
242
1,876
15
149
718
54
606
252
8
96
34
751
7
861
10
1
100
402
40
11
2
43,298
2002
6,527
7,554
2,924
5,556
4,163
3,333
2,469
2,781
1,538
4,845
2,446
1,511
1,797
1,314
541
914
2,711
76
114
799
957
580
1,032
1,487
1,796
1,077
26
672
376
88
819
39
1,090
397
1,506
344
13
598
672
43
68
39
11
4
67,646
2003
5,667
3,977
4,847
918
2,180
4,376
3,454
4,619
3,832
575
3,227
2,040
411
903
2,670
123
883
21
122
1,122
594
2,642
23
1,009
383
235
20
593
194
395
467
560
4
800
88
7
43
54,023
2004
3,167
1,850
681
167
568
1,325
2,581
99
84
1,013
47
1,344
2,064
1,353
1,750
1,320
1,176
756
1,461
6
27
794
796
29
19
1,454
284
29
578
119
168
11
6
46
2
27,179
2005
1,364
3,757
3,473
525
1,377
622
776
84
101
118
1,975
402
1,710
11
401
525
353
109
2
74
17
5
305
22
173
205
15
11
2
18,516
2006
274
352
2,200
760
819
101
3
1,551
746
520
14
52
70
2
27
387
1,186
6
8
650
94
49
1
577
5
94
10
10
171
10,739
2007
960
2,230
369
9
58
675
1,089
0
8
4
631
12
525
394
13
851
312
405
153
86
534
5
222
9,552
2008
1,033
726
917
7
186
688
340
600
1,461
40
1,047
357
3
5
1,022
247
965
749
406
40
30
170
95
90
11,229
2009
4,570
4,266
1,748
200
400
33
135
10
350
179
161
116
650
279
278
100
180
340
101
663
14,759
Total
37,418
26,843
19,903
13,343
12,840
12,604
10,664
9,908
9,394
8,407
8,140
7,476
6,532
6,374
6,229
5,871
5,685
5,357
5,052
5,002
4,731
4,682
4,590
4,429
4,320
4,175
4,148
2,979
2,664
2,362
2,271
2,225
2,002
1,957
1,862
1,721
1,623
1,521
1,205
898
879
772
744
444
326
313
311
215
8
6
283,423
225
Avg.
3,742
2,684
1,990
1,334
1,284
1,260
1,066
991
939
841
814
748
653
637
623
587
568
536
505
500
473
468
459
443
432
418
415
298
266
236
227
222
200
196
186
172
162
152
121
90
88
77
74
44
33
31
31
22
1
1
28,342
Table98.CapacityAdded,AllProducersforHydroSources(20002009)
State
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Georgia
328 62 62 26
WestVirginia
80
California
40 2
5 0
Florida
15 15 15
Alaska
0 6 0
3 15
NewYork
10
13 0
Vermont
16 0
Colorado
3
4 1
8
Washington
14
Utah
12
Idaho
0
3 1 2 3
Illinois
Montana
SouthCarolina
Maine
2
Massachusetts
0 2
1
0
Hawaii
2
0
Ohio
0
2
Arizona
Virginia
1
Oregon
1 0
Iowa
NorthCarolina
0
0
Michigan
Texas
0
Minnesota
0
Wisconsin
NewHampshire
0
GrandTotal
7 150 345 87 79 32 23 28 32 15
Total
478
80
46
44
26
22
16
16
14
12
9
8
8
6
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
798
226
Table99.CapacityAdded,AllProducersforAllFuelSources(20002009)
RowLabels
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Texas
5,599 9,014 6,690 5,906 3,171 1,957 1,124 2,747 3,993
Florida
1,058 1,099 7,569 3,993 1,850 3,757 430 2,272 740
California
83 2,903 3,104 5,042 817 3,538 2,444 496 1,093
Illinois
1,989 3,993 5,557 969 174 580 2 653 178
Georgia
2,512 2,041 4,491 2,252 655 1,402 3
Arizona
0 1,612 3,333 4,379 1,325 624 761
210
Pennsylvania
98 1,330 2,471 3,563 2,581 776 79 118 86
Alabama
857 864 2,781 4,638 99
0 706
Mississippi
891 2,147 1,538 3,832 84 84 819
0
Oklahoma
654 1,448 1,511 2,216 1,344 262 41 215 340
Louisiana
1,078 604 4,845 575 1,013 108 101 73 0
Ohio
1,168 1,277 2,446 3,231 53
3
82
NewYork
19 600 541 136 1,750 2,116 716 84 347
Nevada
598 380 7 903 1,353 148 1,553 125 1,488
Indiana
1,712 445 1,022 889 1,323 408 14 9 531
SouthCarolina
591 396 1,797 412 2,064 6 12 675 606
Minnesota
5 1,065 603 287 65 503 530 1,088 1,371
Arkansas
410 1,314 2,670
751 1,089
Iowa
320 96 124 68 1,630 309 112 902 1,776
Colorado
381 343 1,032 1,171 811 1 60 960 483
Wisconsin
579 737 82 126 765 1,713 83 13 1,395
Michigan
292 1,102 2,712 23 1,176 0 53 11 127
Virginia
892 900 114 1,137 1,478
2 16 371
NorthCarolina
1,059 1,445 804 594
11 28 635 10
Massachusetts
11 947 957 2,642 12 3 2 17 7
Washington
2 326 720 627 284 158 442 390 1,169
Missouri
570 1,876 1,077 235 19 353 43 36 108
Kentucky
27 1,296 1,488 9 796 526 2 3
NewJersey
434 265 1,797 383 32 2 1,200 20 17
Oregon
724 905 436

75 104 881 254
Kansas
205 364 39 467 29 167 194 153 858
NewMexico
150 54 92 398
274 740 312 751
Tennessee
1,268 718 376
27 2 50 8
Nebraska
118 97 14 560 119 365 4 2 0
Utah
7 34 397 4 168
581 546 31
Connecticut
8 1,090
578 5 49 86 43
Maine
870 751
2
21 56 8
WestVirginia
941 410
264
NewHampshire 7 7 1,506 1
Wyoming
58 90 69 88 252 3
478
NorthDakota
2 8 62
43 74 167 420
Maryland
13 14 13 804 11 22 3 5 32
Idaho
402 0 0 3 248 2 6 225

RhodeIsland
273 1 598
15
2
Delaware
100 672
SouthDakota
3 43 41 8 205 110
146
Montana
43 8 2 316
126
Hawaii
215
39
46 17 50 40 2
Alaska
37 17 12 7 2 14 11 222 3
Vermont
5
10 16
GrandTotal
26,696 45,284 68,808 55,818 27,987 20,791 13,736 15,136 20,889
2009
7,065
4,305
2,140
515
468
399
497
33
8
931
135
314
5
728
865
468
56
27
185
170
121
365
150
280
111
523
539
100
744
218
101
131
26
423
444
10
33
2
78
104
5
20
5
23,841
Total
47,266
27,072
21,661
14,610
13,356
12,712
11,501
9,945
9,394
8,526
8,429
8,267
7,238
6,689
6,666
6,564
6,243
6,234
6,202
5,710
5,548
5,523
5,095
4,756
4,719
4,482
4,466
4,427
4,260
3,901
3,015
2,871
2,448
2,021
1,985
1,960
1,836
1,615
1,555
1,461
1,219
927
920
890
779
633
598
413
343
35
318,986
227
Average
3,939
2,256
1,805
1,217
1,113
1,059
958
829
783
711
702
689
603
557
555
547
520
520
517
476
462
460
425
396
393
374
372
369
355
325
251
239
204
168
165
163
153
135
130
122
102
77
77
74
65
53
50
34
29
3
26,582
Figure25.UnitedStatesAnnualAverageWindPower
228
Table100.CapacityAdditionsforNonHydroRenewables,SouthernCo,ProgressEnergy,TECO,
FP&LGroup
FuelSource
Texas
Wind
Iowa
Wind
NorthDakota
Wind
Colorado
Wind
Oklahoma
Wind
NewMexico
Wind
California
Wind
Washington
Wind
Wyoming
Wind
Pennsylvania
Wind
Oregon
Wind
Kansas
Wind
Minnesota
Wind
SouthDakota
Wind
Wisconsin
Wind
WestVirginia
Wind
Florida
Solar
GrandTotal
2000
10
10
2001
521
177
24
83
112
30
947
2002
98
36
66
200
2003
62
102
204
146
95
41
648
2004
34
144
178
2005
327
32
107
465
2006
607
69
41
99
815
2007
364
167
201
732
2008
398
640
189
200
51
1,477
2009
80
170
174
54
25
502
Total
2,295
738
687
575
249
204
180
177
144
129
120
112
99
92
84
66
25
5,974
229
Table101.CapitalExpendituresatShareholderOwnedPublicUtilities($Billion)*
2003
$43.00
2004
$41.07
2005
$48.37
2006
$59.86
2007
$74.06
2008
$84.15
Average
$58.42
The EEI Financial Analysis grouptracks and analyzes a wide range of industry financial metrics covering69 U.S. shareholderowned electric
utility companies. These69 companies include 58 electric utility holding companies whose stocks are traded on major U.S. stock exchanges
and11electricutilitysubsidiariesofnonutilityorforeigncompanies.
*DataincludesGeneration,Transmission,FacilitiesandEquipment
230
AppendixB:FederalCleantechIncentivesThrough2009
ThetablebelowillustratesallthefederaltaxcreditincentivesavailablethroughtheARRA.
CleantechLoanGuaranteesavailablethroughARRA2009:
231
SelectDepartmentofEnergyCleantechIncentives
OthergovernmentdepartmentandagencyCleantechincentivesavailablethroughARRA2009
Source:GrantThornton:NavigatingtheCleantechStimulus,anexecutivechecklist,pp.1415..
232

AppendixC:CleantechIncentiveProgramsOfferedbytheStateofFlorida
ThestateofFloridaofferstwotypesofproductionincentive:
1. RenewableEnergyProductionTaxCreditwhichisacorporatetaxcreditof$0.01/kWh
forelectricityproducedfrom1/1/2007through6/30/2010.Theprogramspecifiesno
maximumforindividualprojectsbutithasamaximumof$5millionperstatefiscalyear
forallcreditsunderthisprogramwhileunusedcreditmaybecarriedforwardforupto5
years.147
2. RenewableEnergyTechnologiesInvestmentTaxCreditwhichisacorporatetaxcreditof
75%ofallcapitalcosts,operationandmaintenancecosts,andresearchand
developmentcosts.Themaximumincentivevariesbyapplicationandunusedamount
maybecarriedforwardandusedintaxyearsbeginning1/1/2007andending
12/31/2012eventhoughthetaxcreditprovisionexpiresonJune30,2010.148
TheGainesvilleRegionalUtilitiesandtheOrlandoUtilitiesCommissionoffertwoproduction
incentivesforrenewableenergy:
1. TheGainesvilleRegionalUtilitiesSolarFeedInTariffwhichisatwentyyearcontract
structuredas$0.32/kWhforbuildingorpavementmountedsystemsofanysizeorfor
groundmountedsystemswithacapacityof25kWorlessor$0.26/kWhforfree
standingsystemswithcapacitygreaterthan25kW.149
2. TheOrlandoUtilitiesCommissionPilotSolarProgramswhichisafiveyearagreement
withautomaticrenewalofferingaproductionincentiveof$0.03/kWhforsolarthermal
and$0.05/kWhforPV.150
OtherincentivesofferedinthestateofFloridaarethefollowing:
1. MiamiDadeCountyTargetedJobsIncentiveFundwhichoffersdevelopersofSolar
ThermalElectric,Photovoltaics,CHP/Cogenerationsystemsupto$9,000pernewjob
createdaslongastheprojectisanewtomarketorexpandingproject.
2. CityofTallahasseeUtilitiesSolarandEfficiencyLoanswhichautilityloanprogram
offeringresidentialconsumers5%interestratefora5yeartermeligibleefficiencyand
renewabletechnologies,exceptforSolarPVtechnologywhichisa10yearterm.151
3. ClayElectricCooperative,IncEnergyConservationLoansforresidentialconsumers
varyingfrom$1,000to$5,000(or$7,500formetalroofs)ataninterestrateof8%(or
11%)withamonthlyloanpaymentof$100.152
JesperLindgaardChristensen,GreensRushIn?:CleantechVentureCapitalInvestmentsProspectsorHype?June2009.SeealsoNewYork
CityInvestment
Fund: Cleantech: A New Engine of Economic Growth for New York State, page 3, January 2007; and Forum for the Future, 2006: Clean Capital
- Financing
149
Florida was one states in the United States who have considered FeedInTariff legislation or regulation. Other states include Hawaii,
Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington and
Wisconsin.http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45549.pdf.
UnitedStateswhohaveconsideredFeedInT
arifflegislationorregulation.Otherstates
includeHawaii,Illinois,Indiana,Maine,Mas
233
4. ClayElectricCooperative,IncSolarThermalLoansforresidentialconsumersvarying
from$1,000to$5,000ataninterestrateof8%(or11%)withamonthlyloanpayment
of$100.153
5. GainesvilleRegionalUtilitiesLowInterestEnergyEfficiencyLoanProgramwhichoffers
residentialconsumersusingsolartechnologiesforenergyefficiency$1,000to$10,000
loansat3%foratermofupto5years.154
6. OrlandoUtilitiesCommissionResidentialSolarLoanProgramwhichoffersupto
$20,000forPVandupto$7,500forSolarWaterHeater(SWH)ataninterestrate
varyingfrom0to5.5%dependingontechnologyandloanterm.155
7. SolarEnergySystemIncentivesProgramwhichoffersamaximumincentivefor
residentialPVsystemof$20,000andnonresidentialPVsystemof$100,000;residential
SWHreceiveanincentiveof$500andnonresidentialandmultifamilyreceive$5,000
whileSolarPoolHeatersreceive$100.Theprogrambudgetvariedfrom$2.5millionin
theFY20062007,$3.5millionfor20072008and$5millionfor20082009.This
programisexpectedtoexpireJune20,2010.156
8. SolarEnergySystemsEquipmentSalesTaxExemptionforSolarWaterHeat,SolarSpace
Heat,PhotovoltaicsandSolarPoolHeatingeffective07/01/1997.
9. RenewableEnergyEquipmentSalesTaxExemptionforRenewableFuelVehicles,Fuel
Cells,OtherAlternativeFuelVehicles,RefuelingStations,EthanolandBiodiesel.The
programstartedonJuly1,2006andisexpectedtoexpireonJuly1,2010.157
10. OtherprogramsincludePACEfinancingandseveralutilityrebateprograms.158
sachusetts,Michigan,Minnesota,NewJersey,N
ewYork,Oregon,RhodeIsland,Virginia,WashingtonandWisconsin.
(http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45549.pd
f)
156
FloridaLegislatureFLHB7135CHAPTER2008227
156
http://masstech.org/cleanenergy/energy/glossaryA
toC.htm
157
158
TheinclusionofNuclearenergyinthecleanenergydefinitioniscontroversial.Cleanenergyisenergythatisproducedwithoutburningfossil
fuels. Examples include wind, hydroelectricity and, controversially, nuclear power. The reason for this definition is that Nuclear energy
produces no greenhouse gas emissions but it still uses uranium (and sometimes plutonium) which is a natural resource like gas and oil.
(http://www.ehow.com/about_4579290_nuclearenergyrenewablenonrenewable.html)
158
158
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/energyefficiency.html
158
Furthermore,Mostofwhatisdefinedasenergyefficiencyisinfactenergyintensity:"Mostofwhatisdefinedasenergyefficiencyisactually
energyintensity.Energyintensityistheratioofenergyconsumptiontosomemeasureofdemandforenergyserviceswhatwecallademand
indicator.However,atbest,energyintensitymeasuresarearoughsurrogateforenergyefficiency.Thisisbecauseenergyintensitymaymask
structuralandbehavioralchangesthatdonotrepresent"true"efficiencyimprovementssuchashiftawayfromenergyintensiveindustries."
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/definition.htm)
158
Variousstudieshaveestimatedatimeframeforexhaustionoffossilfuelsrangingfrom10150years.
158
http://www.greentechmedia.SeeFaireStudy.
158
VoteSolarInitiative.www.votesolar.org
158
USAToday,July15,2009,citingSolarSurveyStudybyCSAInternational.
158
BioenergyatUF/IAFSPowerPoint.August12,2008.MaryDuryea
158
SouthernBioenergyRoadmap,SoutheastAgriculture&ForestryEnergyResources
234

AppendixD:LeadingPublicFinancingToolsandMechanisms159
Asexplainedabove,privatecapitalhasnotbeensufficienttosupportthegrowthofCleantechprojects.
Federal, state and local government incentive programs have played an important role in raising
confidenceinthefinancialviabilityofcleantechnologiesandatthesametimereducingtheperceived
highriskassociatedwithCleantechprojects.Thoseprogramsincludethefollowing:
ProgramCategory
Rebates
ProgramDescription
Rebates
PerformanceBased
Incentives
PerformanceBased
Incentives
Grants
Grants
LoanPrograms
DirectLoans
Matchingloans
InterestRateBuy
down
LinkedDeposits
ProgramCategory
ProgramDescription
PAYSorPayasYou
Save
LEASES
LoanGuarantees
RPSSetasideand
RPSsetasideand
MajorProgramStrengths
Supportmarkettransformation
Adjustable
Provideupfrontcapital
Lowadministrativeburden
EconomicallyEfficient
ReducesRiskandMotivatesQualityInstallations
Sustainable
LeveragePrivateCapital
FocusedSolicitations
Projectselectivity
Adjustable
LeveragePrivateCapital
SupportDemonstrationProjects
ProgramPublicity
Reduceupfrontcostbarriers
Improveuponstandard
Canofferbelowmarketinterestrates
Longerrepaymentterms
Increasemarketconfidence
Preservationofcapital
Canbeatbelowmarketinterestrates
Canoffermoreflexiblerepaymenttermsthanprivate
lenders
ReduceriskandIncreasemarketconfidence
Lowadmin.Costs
Statesubsidizesinterestrateofferedbyprivatelenders
Stateneedsnotfundthecapital
Statedoesnotbearprojectrisk
Statepartners(notcompete)withprivatelenders
Similartointerestratebuydown
Limitedcosttostate
Limitedadministrativecostsandoversight
Nolegislationneeded
Removeupfrontcostandlongpaybackbarriers
Reduceownershiprisk
Avoidupfrontcostbarriers
Usedwithotherincentives
Increaseleveraging
Loweradministrativerequirements
Leverageprivatecapital
Leveragestatefunds
Buildlenderconfidence
Supportinnovativeprojects
Drivetechnologydeployment
MajorProgramWeaknesses
Createrebatedependency
Canbeeconomicallyinefficient
Notlinkedtoprojectperformance
Noupfrontsupport
DecliningTimeValueofMoney
OngoingSystemTracking
ExcessiveAwards
FewerAwardees
HighAdministrativeCosts
NoGuaranteeofProjectResults
Requirehighinitialcapital
Requirehighadministrativecosts
Mayimpacttaxcredit
Mayimpacttaxcredit
Outsidelendersbearunderwritingrisks
Mayimpacttaxcredit
Requireactivemarketing
Administrativelycomplex
Mayrequirelegislationandregulatory
approval
Requirehighcapitalduelongloan
repaymentperiods
Transferdifficulties
Providenoupfrontcapital
Defaultrisk
Narrowtargetmarket
Noupfrontsupport
Alliance(SAFER)UF/IFASpublication:http://www.saferalliance.net.
159
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=FL#overview
159
PersonalCommunication.TedKury,PublicUtilityResearchCenter.August18,2009
159
EIAAssumptionsReport:2009.http://www.eia.doe.gov/oi
235
ProgramCategory
RECs
ProgramDescription
RECs
Providetechnologyspecificsupport
Needlongtermsupport
Reduceneedforrebates
AggregatorsofRECsgain
Reduceadministrativeburden
FeedInTariffs
FITs
Supportmarkettransformation
Requireregulatoryreview
Adaptable
Pricesettingchallenges
BuildInvestorconfidence
Regulatorycomplexity
Sustainable
Noupfrontcapitalsupport
Economicallyefficient
Supplyuncertainty
Wideparticipation
longtermmonitoringandrevisions
Lowadministrativecosts
StateTaxIncentives StateTaxincentives
Easytoadminister
Insufficienttaxliability
Easytomodify
Impactonstaterevenue
SalesTaxExemptions
Easytoadminister
Notastrongincentive
PropertyTax
Easytoadminister
Notastrongincentive
Exemptions
Doesnotraisetaxburden
Source:CharlesKubertandMarkSinclair:DistributedRenewableEnergyFinanceandPolicyToolkit,CleanEnergyStatesAlliance,December
2009.
236
AppendixE:ExpectationsofCleantechDevelopers
A survey was administered to judge the impact of the current global recession on project
finance.Thefollowingaretheresultsofthesurveyforselectedquestions.
Asked what will happen to project finance (in the next two years) due to banks having less
liquidity,themajorityofrespondentsbelievethatrenewableenergyprojectswillbenegativelyaffected
by the downturn in lending due to liquidity problems 38% of the respondents predict a strong
decreaseand49%aslightdecreaseinprojectfinance.
Inaddition,thesurveyconfirmsthatbanksareaskinghigherupfrontfeesandrequiringthatthe
proportionofdebttoequitybelowinordertoavoidtakingonhigherrisks.
When asked about their expectation for the market volume of private equity, venture capital,
projectfinance,capitalmarkets,andpublicfinance,thegreatmajorityofrespondentsexpectalltypesof
commercial finance to decrease in market volume, including 59% who expect project finance to
decrease and 86% who expect capital markets to decline while only 19% expect that public finance
projectswilldecline.Theresultsareillustratedinthefigurebelow.
Source:UNEP/SEFI:Theglobalfinancialcrisisanditsimpactonrenewableenergyfinance,April2009,Pages4344
Currentinvestmentvolumesindicateamoveawayfromfinancialinvestorsasthemainsource
ofcapitaltowardscorporateandgovernments.
Askedwhatkindofpolicyframeworkisthemosteffectiveoneinpromotingrenewableenergy,
themajorityoftherespondents(81%)indicatethattheybelieveFeedinTariffsarethemosteffective
policyframeworks.Only10%seecapitalsubsidies/grantsastherighttoolandonly5%thinkRenewable
EnergyPortfoliosStandardsareeffectiveandhaveworkedinthepast.
237
Source:Id,Page54
Thesurveyparticipantswereaskedwhichpoliciesinstitutionalinvestorsrequirewheninvesting
inrenewables.Theyweregivenfourkindsofpolicies:longtermcarbonprice,stablesubsidies,higher
targets, tax breaks. Of the 80% who answered, 60% of the respondents think all four tools are either
importantorveryimportantforinstitutionalinvestors.Thefigurebelowillustratestheirresponses.
238
Source:Id,p.62.
The fact that tax breaks is the lowest ranked instrument may be linked to the negative
experiencewiththeUSproductiontaxcredit(PTC),whichexpiredthreetimesinfiveyears.
239
AppendixF:EnergyRecoveryStimulusGrantAwardeesbyState
State
ProgramOffice
Project
AK
EERE
GeothermalDemonstrations
AK
EERE
EGSTechnologyR&D
AK
EERE
AK
EERE
AK
EERE
AK
EERE
ValidationofInnovative
ExplorationTechnologies
EEConservationBlockGrant
ProgramFormula
WeatherizationAssistance
Program
StateEnergyProgram
AK
AK
AK
OE
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
$12,376,568
$0
$0
$2,154,238
$0
$0
$4,616,879
$0
$0
$26,206,400
$18,410,100
$50,000
FormulaGrant
$18,142,580
$18,142,580
$0
FormulaGrant
$28,232,000
$28,232,000
$0
EERE
EEApplianceRebatePrograms FormulaGrant
$658,477
$65,800
$0
OE
StateAssistanceonElectricity FormulaGrant
Policies
EnhancingStateandLocal
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
$767,493
$0
$0
$262,969
$262,969
$0
$93,417,604
$65,113,449
$50,000
$5,000,000
$0
$0
AKTotal
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
AL
EERE
AL
EERE
AL
EERE
AL
EERE
AL
AL
$470,000
$0
$0
$31,748,000
$31,068,970
$0
$71,800,599
$71,800,599
$2,774,138
EERE
Competitive
Grant
IndustrialAssessmentCenters Competitive
andPlantBestPractices
Grant
EEConservationBlockGrant FormulaGrant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$55,570,000
$55,570,000
$162,584
EERE
$4,472,947
$447,300
$0
AL
EERE
AL
OE
AL
OE
AL
OE
HydroelectricFacility
ModernizationProgram
SmartGridInvestmentGrant
Program(EISA1306)
StateAssistanceonElectricity
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
ALTotal
GroundSourceHeatPumps
$6,000,000
$0
$0
$164,527,160
$0
$0
$868,824
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$627,742
$627,742
$0
$341,085,272 $159,514,611
$2,936,722
AR
EERE
AR
EERE
AR
EERE
AR
EERE
AR
EERE
EnablingFuelCellMarket
Transformation
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
AR
EERE
AR
EERE
BatteryManufacturing
AR
EERE
AR
OE
AR
OE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$3,256,311
$0
$0
$1,290,464
$1,290,464
$0
$20,117,400
$15,292,300
$0
FormulaGrant
$48,114,415
$48,114,415
$2,716,849
FormulaGrant
$39,416,000
$39,416,000
$139,042
$2,739,657
$274,000
$0
$12,600,000
$0
$0
$450,000
$0
$0
$2,357,520
$0
$0
$822,779
$822,779
$0
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
SmartGridInvestmentGrant Competitive
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
240
State
AR
ProgramOffice
Project
OE
ARTotal
Type
EERE
AS
EERE
AS
EERE
AS
EERE
ASTotal
Awarded
Spent
FormulaGrant
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$9,593,500
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$719,511
$719,511
$62,464
FormulaGrant
$18,550,000
$18,550,000
$123,322
AS
Announced
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
$461,990
$0
$131,626,536 $105,671,948
$2,855,891
$461,990
$100,000
$10,000
$0
$28,963,011
$19,279,511
$185,786
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$70,500,000
$39,000,000
$0
$15,799,947
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$72,722,900
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$66,091,428
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$55,447,000
$60,479,200
$579,608
AZ
FE
AZ
EERE
AZ
EERE
AZ
EERE
AZ
EERE
IndustrialCarbonCaptureand
StorageApplications
NationalGeothermal
Database,Resource
AssessmentandClassification
System
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
AZ
EERE
$6,236,718
$66,091,428
$1,769,624
AZ
EERE
$3,717,000
$55,447,000
$311,390
AZ
EERE
$99,800,000
$623,700
$0
AZ
SC
$27,020,000
$27,020,000
$145,841
AZ
OE
$94,095,594
$0
$0
AZ
OE
$915,679
$0
$0
AZ
OE
$796,410
$796,410
$0
AZ
ARPAE
HighPenetrationSolar
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
TransportationElectrification Competitive
Grant
EnergyFrontierResearch
Competitive
Centers
Grant
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AdvancedResearchProjects Competitive
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Grant
$10,338,856
$0
$0
$452,981,532 $210,457,738
$2,806,463
AZTotal
CA
EM
ETECRecoveryActProject
CA
EM
SLACRecoveryActProject
Contract
CA
FE
CA
FE
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Admin
CA
EERE
StorageApplications
ExpandandExtendCleanCoal
PowerInitiativeRoundIII
LabCallforFacilitiesand
Equipment
EnhanceandAccelerateFEMP
ServiceFunctionstothe
FederalGovernment
CA
EERE
EGSTechnologyR&D
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
Transformation
CombinedHeatandPower
Contract
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
$54,175,000
$15,875,000
$240,587
$7,925,000
$7,925,000
$2,021,926
$22,134,026
$0
$0
$308,000,000
$50,000,000
$0
$15,900,000
$0
$0
$1,400,000
$1,480,556
$73,780
$26,999,430
$0
$0
$19,003,699
$3,789,000
$110,997
$4,040,375
$0
$0
$4,315,583
$0
$0
$84,337,759
$0
$0
241
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
(CHP),DistrictEnergySystems, Grant
WasteHeatRecovery
ImplementationandDeplo
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
ConcentratingSolarPower
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
CA
EERE
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
CA
SC
Competitive
Grant
PVSystemsDevelopment
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
WindEnergyTechnologyR&D Competitive
andTesting
Grant
Grant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Competitive
Program
Grant
CommercialVehicle
Competitive
Integration(SuperTruck)and Grant
AdvancedCombustionEngine
R&D
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Centers
Grant
AdvancedLightSourceUser Contract
SupportBuilding
LinacCoherentLightSource Contract
UltrafastScienceInstruments
MIE
MIE
LightSourceImprovements
Contract
Announced
$100,000
Awarded
Spent
$0
$0
$355,592,700 $196,683,081 $11,047,997

$185,811,061 $185,811,061
$2,992,192
$226,093,000 $226,093,000
$0
$35,266,866
$3,526,700
$0
$2,113,108
$1,933,011
$0
$7,660,000
$5,899,489
$1,654,861
$21,481,607
$0
$0
$400,383
$0
$0
$45,900,000
$0
$0
$31,867,908
$0
$0
$5,500,000
$5,500,000
$0
$4,450,000
$0
$0
$28,372,362
$28,372,362
$99,550
$14,682,000
$14,682,000
$6,173,544
$33,600,000
$33,600,000
$3,591,752
$5,908,000
$5,908,000
$143,450
$13,100,000
$13,100,000
$146,610
Contract
$61,979,000
$61,979,000
$126,400
Contract
$4,000,000
$4,000,000
$14,786
Contract
$16,384,000
$16,384,000
$22,613
Contract
$4,039,000
$4,039,000
$1,614
Contract
$13,122,000
$13,122,000
$2,129,952
AdvancedPlasmaAcceleration Contract
FacilityMIE
ResearchandInfrastructure Contract
augmentationatuniversities
intheHEPprogram
AdvancedtechnologyR&D
Contract
augmentation
EnhancedAIPfundingatNP Contract
userfacilities
NuclearDataProgram
Contract
Initiative
NuclearScienceWorkforce
Contract
$30,000,000
$30,000,000
$1,456,798
$270,000
$270,000
$0
$201,000
$201,000
$60,872
$1,880,000
$1,880,000
$155,224
$1,700,000
$1,700,000
$78,221
$1,287,000
$1,287,000
$20,856
AdvancedNetworking
Initiative
ComputationalPartnerships
(SciDACe)
MagellanDistributed
ComputingandDataInitiative
BioenergyResearchCenter
CapitalEquipment
JointGenomeInstitute
242
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
CA
SC
DIIIDFacilityUpgrades
Contract
$10,460,000
$10,460,000
$1,016,118
CA
SC
Contract
$2,875,000
$2,875,000
$1,159,446
CA
SC
Contract
$19,973,000
$19,973,000
$163,470
CA
SC
Contract
$11,000,000
$11,000,000
$486,824
CA
SC
EnhancedoperationofMajor
FusionFacilities
HighEnergyDensity
LaboratoryPlasma,Matterin
ExtremeConditions(MEC)
InstrumentProject
HighEnergyDensity
LaboratoryPlasma,NDCXII
PlasmaScienceCenters
Contract
$5,785,861
$5,785,861
$0
CA
SC
SLIConstruction
Contract
$29,301,000
$29,301,000
$3,934,818
CA
SC
Contract
$38,100,000
$38,100,000
$2,701,106
CA
SC
Contract
$120,000
$120,000
$0
CA
OE
$8,081,973
$648,575
OE
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$203,010,487
CA
$1,686,869
$1,686,869
$0
CA
OE
FormulaGrant
$3,572,526
$3,572,526
$0
CA
ARPAE
GeneralPlantProjectfunding
acrossallSClaboratories
EnergySciencesFellowships
andEarlyCareerAwards
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AdvancedResearchProjects
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
$20,851,744
$58,000
$23,695
CATotal
CO
Treasury
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
CO
EERE
Competitive
Grant
$2,047,728,353 $1,066,054,489 $42,498,634

1603GrantsinleiuofTax
Competitive
Credits
Grant
FundamentalResearchinKey Competitive
ProgramAreas
Grant
ManagementandOversight Admin
(EEProgramDirection)
BuildingsandAppliance
Competitive
MarketTransformation
Grant
CommunityRenewableEnergy Competitive
Deployment
Grant
IntegratedBiorefinery
Competitive
ResearchExpansion
Grant
RenewableEnergyand
Competitive
SupportingSiteInfrastructure Grant
Competitive
Equipment
Grant
NWTCUpgrades
Competitive
Grant
EnhanceandAccelerateFEMP Admin
FederalGovernment
Energy,Water&Emissions
Competitive
ReportingandTrackingSystem Grant
GeothermalDemonstrations Competitive
Grant
EGSTechnologyR&D
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
GroundSourceHeatPumps Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Transformation
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
$157,809
$0
$0
$5,000,000
$57,876
$0
$7,751,369
$7,751,369
$2,366,102
$2,898,500
$2,898,500
$1,846,945
$527,468
$527,468
$92,283
$13,500,000
$13,432,500
$376
$100,700,000
$86,660,000
$834,057
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$10,000,000
$9,950,000
$635
$5,496,000
$4,013,687
$167,177
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$107,762
$1,047,714
$1,200,000
$0
$4,272,186
$525,000
$9,216
$7,055,315
$0
$0
$7,887,629
$0
$0
$1,072,330
$0
$0
$42,765,600
$36,643,400
$253,607
$79,531,213
$81,762,213
$6,141,733
243
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
Program
CO
EERE
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$49,222,000
$50,222,000
$327,366
CO
EERE
$4,739,253
$473,900
$0
CO
EERE
$467,500
$0
$0
CO
EERE
$15,435,869
$15,700,000
$117,034
CO
EERE
$13,498,218
$1,000,000
$2,126
CO
EERE
$982,821
$0
$0
CO
EERE
$45,145,534
$0
$0
CO
EERE
$4,999,834
$0
$0
CO
EERE
$5,000,000
$4,536,594
$509,861
CO
EERE
$1,179,827
$0
$0
CO
SC
$8,033,952
$8,033,952
$89,875
CO
SC
$241,380
$241,380
$9,000
CO
OE
$4,841,647
$4,841,647
$0
CO
OE
$24,244,117
$510,000
$112,727
CO
OE
$875,889
$0
$0
CO
OE
$653,209
$653,209
$0
CO
ARPAE
$14,137,549
$153,000
$77,112
COTotal
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
andTesting
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Grant
Investigationofintermediate Competitive
ethanolblends,optimization Grant
ofE85engines,and
developmentof
transportationinfrastructure
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Centers
Grant
Contract
SmartGridRegionaland
Competitive
EnergyStorageDemonstration Grant
Project(EISA1304)
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Grant
$487,861,732 $333,787,695 $13,064,994
CT
Treasury
CT
EERE
CT
EERE
CT
EERE
CT
EERE
CT
EERE
CT
EERE
CT
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Grant
AdvancedMaterialsRD&Din Competitive
SupportofEERENeedsto
Grant
AdvanceCleanEnergy
TechnologiesandEnergy
IntensiveProcessR&D
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
CT
EERE
CT
EERE
CT
EERE
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Credits
EGSTechnologyR&D
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
$2,578,717
$0
$0
$4,267,521
$0
$0
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$146,973
$0
$0
$884,022
$884,022
$0
$24,575,400
$20,262,500
$488,300
$64,310,502
$64,310,502
$4,793,859
$38,542,000
$38,542,000
$860
$3,359,341
$335,900
$0
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$13,195,000
$0
$0
244
State
ProgramOffice
CT
OE
CT
OE
CT
OE
CT
ARPAE
CTTotal
Project
$9,188,050
$0
$0
$839,241
$839,241
$0
FormulaGrant
$521,250
$521,250
$0
$2,251,183
$0
$0
$174,659,200 $125,695,415
$5,283,019
DC
EM
DC
EM
DC
EERE
DC
EERE
DC
EERE
DC
EERE
DC
EERE
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
DC
EERE
DC
EERE
DC
SC
DC
SC
DC
OE
DC
OE
DC
OE
DC
OE
Enhancedutilizationof
Isotopefacilities
R&DonAlternativeIsotope
ProductionTechniques
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
ProgramDirectionOE
DC
DA
DC
ARPAE
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Competitive
Grant
ProgramDirectionEM
DefenseEnvironmental
Management
ProgramDirectionEMNon
Management
ProgramDirectionEM
UraniumEnrichmentD&D
Fund
ManagementandOversight
Admin
$25,635,000
$850,000
$0
Admin
$2,415,000
$0
$0
Admin
$1,950,000
$0
$0
Admin
$2,843,598
$2,843,598
$15,363
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$1,077,500
$0
$0
$9,593,500
$2,985,000
$73,519
FormulaGrant
$8,089,022
$21,125,687
$0
FormulaGrant
$22,022,000
$26,972,000
$6,480
$567,845
$56,800
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$0
Competitive
Grant
Contract
Contract
DE
EERE
DE
EERE
DE
EERE
DE
EERE
$10,000,000
$10,000,000 $10,000,000
$4,617,000
$4,617,000
$4,617,000
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$149,400,000
$20,000
$0
$765,085
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$254,302
$2,954,302
$0
Admin
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$332,040
DepartmentalAdministration Admin
$3,962,490
$3,962,490
$476,170
$2,006,563
$2,006,563
$6,563
Competitive
Grant
EERE
Spent
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
EM
DE
Awarded
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
DCTotal
Announced
Grant
DC
Type
Program
$247,198,905
ModifyIntegratedBiorefinery
SolicitationProgramforPilot
andDemonstrationScale
Biorefineries
IndustrialAssessmentCenters
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
Competitive
Grant
$79,393,440 $15,527,135
$12,643
$12,643
$7,570
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$125,000
$0
$0
$15,918,700
$11,243,500
$40,000
FormulaGrant
$13,733,668
$13,733,668
$335,859
FormulaGrant
$24,231,000
$24,231,000
$48,452
245
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
DE
EERE
DE
EERE
DE
EERE
DE
SC
DE
OE
DE
OE
DE
ARPAE
DETotal
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
Competitive
Centers
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Grant
EERE
FL
EERE
FL
EERE
FL
EERE
Deployment
FL
OE
FL
OE
FL
OE
$0
$280,109
$280,109
$0
$13,462,162
$0
$0
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$250,000
$0
$0
$168,886,300
$93,925,640
$1,080,900
FormulaGrant
$175,984,474 $175,984,474
$8,437,509
FormulaGrant
$126,089,000 $126,089,000
$3,570,125
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
EERE
$772,254
$7,000
FL
GA
$772,254
$7,000
EERE
EERE
$0
$7,000
FL
GA
$17,500,000
$0
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FE
$17,500,000
$4,941
EERE
GA
$0
$4,941
FL
EERE
$0
Competitive
Grant
Admin
EERE
GA
$3,000,000
$0
FL
EERE
$12,934
$444,815
EERE
GA
$2,275,000
$12,643
FL
EERE
$3,000,000
$70,131,974
EERE
GA
$0
$12,643
FL
EM
Spent
$83,800
$92,873,240
EERE
GA
Awarded
$837,704
Competitive
Grant
FL
FLTotal
Biorefineries
FundamentalResearchinKey
ProgramAreas
Announced
$17,585,466
$1,758,500
$0
$6,399,957
$0
$0
$95,500,000
$0
$0
$267,197,537
$0
$0
$1,217,160
$0
$0
$1,881,676
$1,881,676
$0
$861,016,154 $399,663,874 $13,095,534

SRSD&D,Soil&Groundwater
ActivitiesSitewideRecovery
ActProject
Biorefineries
ProgramAreas
GeologicSequestration
TrainingandResearchGrant
Program
ProgramFormula
Contract
$2,597,000
$2,597,000
$0
Competitive
Grant
$37,633
$37,633
$10,764
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$5,010
$5,010
$0
$30,379
$30,379
$0
$1,161,000
$0
$0
$605,000
$0
$0
$67,187,600
$53,102,236
$516,962
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
246
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Awarded
Spent
EERE
GA
EERE
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$82,495,000
$82,495,000
$136,108
GA
EERE
$9,293,167
$0
$0
GA
EERE
$0
$0
EERE
$500,000
$0
$0
GA
OE
$36,755,747
$0
$0
GA
OE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$14,983,167
GA
$996,874
$0
$0
GA
OE
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Program
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
FormulaGrant
$1,088,694
$1,088,694
$65
GATotal
FormulaGrant
Announced
GA
$342,492,583 $264,112,264 $26,211,556
GU
EERE
GU
EERE
GU
EERE
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
GU
EERE
GU
OE
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
GUTotal
$124,756,312 $124,756,312 $25,547,657
FormulaGrant
$9,593,500
$1,119,297
$12,837
FormulaGrant
$1,119,297
$19,098,000
$169,514
FormulaGrant
$19,098,000
$16,600
$0
$166,426
$0
$0
$16,603,507
$0
$0
$46,580,730
$20,233,897
$182,351
$25,285
$25,285
$3,612
FormulaGrant
$15,068,200
$15,068,200
$0
FormulaGrant
$4,041,461
$4,041,461
$471,614
HI
EERE
HI
EERE
HI
EERE
HI
EERE
Biorefineries
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$25,930,000
$25,930,000
$47,372
HI
EERE
$1,235,985
$123,600
$0
HI
EERE
$0
$0
EERE
$600,000
$0
$0
HI
OE
$5,347,598
$5,548,585
$0
HI
OE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$750,000
HI
$782,834
$782,834
$0
HI
OE
WindEnergyTechnologyR&D
andTesting
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
$318,196
$318,196
$0
$54,099,559
$51,838,161
$522,598
Competitive
Grant
$12,643
$12,643
$0
Admin
$50,000
$50,000
$10,675
FormulaGrant
$21,149,600
$13,376,900
$186,900
FormulaGrant
$80,834,411
$80,834,411
$2,975,374
HITotal
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
IA
EERE
IA
EERE
IA
EERE
IA
EERE
IA
EERE
Biorefineries
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$40,546,000
$40,546,000
$4,054,600
IA
EERE
$2,880,857
$288,100
$0
247
State
ProgramOffice
IA
EERE
IA
SC
IA
OE
IA
OE
IA
OE
IA
ARPAE
IATotal
Project
Investigationofintermediate
ethanolblends,optimization
ofE85engines,and
developmentof
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Type
Competitive
Grant
Announced
Awarded
Spent
$11,269
$11,269
$0
Contract
$1,710,000
$1,710,000
$171,878
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$826,530
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$475,493
$475,493
$0
$4,373,488
$0
$0
$157,870,291 $137,304,816
$7,399,427
Competitive
Grant
ID
EM
INLD&DRecoveryActProject Contract
$217,875,000 $217,875,000 $39,344,515
ID
EM
$130,000,000 $130,000,000 $34,198,102
ID
EM
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
INLTRUWasteRecoveryAct Contract
Project
INLBuriedWasteRecoveryAct Contract
Project
Competitive
Equipment
Grant
FederalGovernment
EGSTechnologyR&D
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
NationalGeothermal
Competitive
Database,Resource
Grant
System
Grant
Grant
Grant
AdvanceCleanEnergy
IntensiveProcessR&D
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
ID
EERE
ID
EERE
ID
SC
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Program
Competitive
Grant
Contract
ID
OE
ID
OE
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
ID
OE
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
FormulaGrant
$120,000,000 $119,300,000 $16,860,287

$346,280
$346,280
$122,128
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$500,000
$500,000
$28,940
$4,702,100
$1,953,000
$125,238
$3,772,560
$0
$0
$6,330,000
$2,569,253
$0
$4,000,000
$0
$0
$350,000
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$1,850,000
$160,579
$17,295,200
$14,975,357
$125,719
$30,341,929
$30,341,929
$2,764,966
$28,572,000
$28,572,000
$2,808,969
$1,462,054
$146,200
$0
$5,519,862
$0
$0
$1,742,000
$1,742,000
$18,480
$49,171,710
$0
$0
$788,840
$0
$0
$339,814
$339,814
$4,331
248
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
Assurance
ID
ARPAE
IDTotal
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Competitive
Grant
$3,000
$2,387
$629,112,349 $550,513,833 $96,564,641
IL
EM
ANLRecoveryActProject
Contract
IL
EM
Admin
IL
FE
IL
FE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
ProgramDirectionEM
Management
StorageApplications
Program
Biorefineries
Equipment
EGSTechnologyR&D
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
AdvanceCleanEnergy
IntensiveProcessR&D
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
EERE
IL
SC
IL
SC
IL
SC
IL
SC
IL
SC
$3,000
$98,500,000
$79,000,000
$3,311,975
$305,550
$305,550
$18,094
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$6,588,540
$0
$0
$1,094,000
$0
$0
Competitive
Grant
$108,000
$133,285
$20,616
Admin
$352,384
$352,384
$215,806
$8,800,000
$0
$0
$5,500,000
$1,620,000
$18,408
$3,985,095
$0
$0
$636,000
$0
$0
$1,475,269
$4,532,436
$148,542
$112,175,600
$81,586,745
$368,864
$242,526,619 $242,526,619
$1,595,271
$101,321,000 $101,321,000
$0
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
andTesting
Grant
Grant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Competitive
Program
Grant
WindEnergyConsortia
Competitive
betweenInstitutionsofHigher Grant
LearningandIndustry
Competitive
Centers
Grant
MIE
Contract
ComputationalPartnerships Contract
(SciDACe)
MagellanDistributed
Contract
ComputingandDataInitiative
$12,378,644
$1,237,900
$0
$1,711,240
$0
$0
$7,695,000
$0
$0
$749,877
$0
$0
$39,200,000
$0
$0
$14,999,658
$0
$0
$11,998,339
$0
$0
$20,591,912
$20,591,912
$45,249
$4,448,000
$4,448,000
$86,876
$7,900,000
$7,900,000
$27,466
$3,125,000
$3,125,000
$0
$16,384,000
$16,384,000
$849,994
249
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
IL
SC
NOvAMIE
Contract
$14,936,000
$14,936,000
$1,138,972
IL
SC
Contract
$44,672,000
$44,672,000
$21,774
IL
SC
SuperconductingRadio
FrequencyR&D
FermilabGPPaugmentation
Contract
$25,000,000
$25,000,000
$1,202,720
IL
SC
Contract
$8,821,000
$8,821,000
$384,462
IL
SC
Contract
$9,000,000
$9,000,000
$110,523
IL
SC
Contract
$9,860,000
$9,860,000
$60,670
IL
SC
Contract
$244,000
$244,000
$0
IL
SC
augmentation
LongBaselineNeutrino
Experiment
EnhancedAIPfundingatNP
userfacilities
NuclearDataProgram
Initiative
IL
SC
IL
SC
IL
OE
IL
OE
IL
OE
IL
OE
IL
ARPAE
ILTotal
Contract
GeneralPlantProjectfunding Contract
EnergySciencesFellowships Contract
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
SmartGridRegionaland
Competitive
EnergyStorageDemonstration Grant
Project(EISA1304)
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Grant
EERE
IN
EERE
IN
EERE
IN
EERE
IN
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
WasteHeatRecovery
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
IN
EERE
IN
EERE
IN
EERE
IN
EERE
IN
SC
IN
OE
IN
OE
IN
OE
IN
ARPAE
Competitive
Grant
Grant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Competitive
Program
Grant
Competitive
Centers
Grant
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Grant
$4,260,000
$1,629
$15,100,000
$2,853,051
$130,000
$130,000
$0
$10,994,000
$0
$0
$5,405,583
$5,405,583
$0
$1,078,840
$0
$0
$1,383,754
$1,383,754
$0
$3,966,239
$34,000
$15,986
$879,401,143 $703,911,168 $12,496,948
IN
INTotal
$4,260,000
$15,100,000
$6,339,591
$0
$0
$63,207,986
$0
$0
$42,613,900
$32,913,200
$250,000
$131,847,383 $131,847,383
$2,252,132
$68,621,000
$68,621,000
$0
$6,118,331
$611,800
$0
$370,800,000
$0
$0
$6,100,000
$39,200,000
$0
$10,125,000
$0
$0
$30,374,136
$30,374,136
$137,933
$39,346,818
$0
$0
$912,534
$0
$0
$785,088
$785,088
$0
$6,733,386
$0
$0
$783,925,154 $304,352,607
$2,640,065
250
State
ProgramOffice
Project
KS
EERE
KS
FE
KS
EERE
KS
EERE
KS
EERE
KS
EERE
Biorefineries
StorageApplications
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
KS
KS
KS
OE
KS
OE
KS
OE
Type
Competitive
Grant
Spent
$12,643
$0
$3,440,000
$0
$0
$2,400,509
$0
$0
$23,803,300
$19,543,137
$300,658
FormulaGrant
$56,441,771
$56,441,771
$4,117,649
FormulaGrant
$38,284,000
$38,284,000
$654,355
EERE
$2,688,559
$268,900
$0
EERE
ofE85engines,and
developmentof
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
$11,031
$11,031
$0
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$19,753,822
$0
$0
$821,422
$821,422
$0
FormulaGrant
$457,104
$457,104
$0
$148,114,161 $115,840,008
$5,072,662
Competitive
Grant
KY
EM
PaducahRecoveryActProject Contract
KY
EM
KY
EERE
KY
EERE
KY
EERE
KY
EERE
KY
EERE
KY
EERE
ProgramDirectionEM
Management
Biorefineries
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
KY
EERE
KY
EERE
KY
EERE
KY
OE
KY
OE
KY
OE
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Program
ofE85engines,and
developmentof
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
Awarded
$12,643
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
KSTotal
KYTotal
Announced
Admin
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$78,800,000
$78,800,000
$2,148,873
$228,612
$228,612
$0
$12,643
$12,643
$9,743
$2,979
$2,979
$2,979
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$349,976
$0
$0
$25,382,500
$23,446,900
$16,442
FormulaGrant
$70,913,750
$70,913,750
$547,616
FormulaGrant
$52,533,000
$52,533,000
$170,730
$4,096,206
$409,600
$0
$12,980,000
$0
$0
$11,096
$11,096
$0
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$9,538,234
$0
$0
$858,816
$858,816
$0
FormulaGrant
$591,715
$591,715
$0
$256,299,527 $227,809,111
$2,896,383
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
251
State
ProgramOffice
Project
EERE
LA
EERE
LA
FE
LA
EERE
LA
EERE
LA
EERE
LA
EERE
LA
EERE
LA
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
WasteHeatRecovery
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
LA
EERE
LA
EERE
LA
EERE
LA
OE
LA
OE
LA
OE
LATotal
Biorefineries
ProgramAreas
StorageApplications
Type
LA
Competitive
Grant
Announced
Awarded
Spent
$25,285
$25,285
$0
$5,057
$5,057
$0
$4,650,000
$0
$0
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$29,958,106
$0
$0
$444,293
$0
$0
$33,750,900
$25,178,220
$76,363
$50,657,478
$50,657,478
$4,028,431
$71,694,000
$71,694,000
$86,668
$4,232,020
$423,200
$0
Deployment
$1,575,858
$0
$0
$20,600,000
$0
$0
$45,572,851
$0
$0
$862,424
$862,424
$0
$604,703
$604,703
$0
$269,632,975 $149,450,367
$4,191,462
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
FE
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
EGSTechnologyR&D
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Transformation
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$54,911,000
$54,911,000
$14,852
MA
EERE
$6,234,595
$623,500
$0
MA
EERE
$1,909,754
$0
$0
MA
EERE
$3,277,428
$2,700,649
$89,703
Biorefineries
StorageApplications
Competitive
Grant
$50,570
$50,570
$19,345
Admin
$27,899
$27,899
$23,366
$2,157,507
$0
$0
$910,997
$0
$0
$3,771,546
$0
$0
$1,138,884
$0
$0
$500,000
$0
$0
$42,350,200
$30,924,050
$219,915
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$122,077,457 $122,077,457 $16,378,601
252
State
ProgramOffice
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
EERE
MA
SC
MA
SC
MA
SC
MA
SC
MA
OE
MA
OE
MA
ARPAE
MATotal
Project
Deployment
andTesting
TransportationElectrification
Type
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Contract
EM
MD
FE
MD
EERE
MD
EERE
MD
EERE
MD
EERE
MD
EERE
MD
EERE
MD
EERE
MD
MD
Awarded
Spent
$4,768,669
$0
$0
$499,886
$0
$0
$4,354,135
$0
$0
LargeWindTurbineBlade
TestingFacility
Centers
AlcatorCModFacility
Upgrades(MIT)
EnhancedoperationofMajor Contract
FusionFacilities
Contract
$24,752,779
$24,752,779
$0
$1,350,000
$0
$0
$35,000,000
$35,000,000
$29,289
$4,960,000
$4,960,000
$0
$935,000
$935,000
$0
$2,215,000
$2,215,000
$0
Program(EISA1306)
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$35,778,357
$12,417,092
$571,346
$796,207
$796,207
$3,812
Competitive
Grant
$33,276,106
$0
$0
MD
Announced
$388,003,976 $292,391,203 $17,350,229

ProgramDirectionEM
Management
ProgramDirectionFE
Admin
$1,750,016
$1,750,016
$539,125
Admin
$170,616
$170,616
$0
Biorefineries
FederalGovernment
EGSTechnologyR&D
Competitive
Grant
$25,285
$25,285
$19,015
Admin
$4,911,286
$4,911,286
$1,458,214
Admin
$2,287,599
$2,187,599
$6,666
$1,381,611
$0
$0
$350,000
$0
$0
$52,295,100
$16,643,973
$360,490
$61,441,745
$66,091,745
$1,304,281
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$51,772,000
$53,572,000
$428,591
EERE
$5,405,259
$540,500
$0
MD
EERE
$150,000
$150,000
$34,120
MD
EERE
$150,000
$0
$0
MD
EERE
$275,610
$0
$0
MD
EERE
$272,267
$0
MD
EERE
$5,924,190
$0
$0
MD
EERE
$44,820
$44,820
$0
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
andTesting
Grant
Competitive
Grant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Competitive
Program
Grant
ofE85engines,and
253
State
ProgramOffice
MD
SC
MD
OE
MD
OE
MD
OE
MD
OE
MD
DA
MD
ARPAE
MDTotal
Project
developmentof
(SciDACe)
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
InteroperabilityStandardsand
Framework(EISA1305)
DepartmentalAdministration
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Type
Contract
$0
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$200,000,000
$4,400,000
$0
$893,591
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$716,898
$716,898
$0
FormulaGrant
$10,000,000
$10,000,000 $10,000,000
Admin
$15,862,124
$15,862,124
$3,928,019
$40,560
$40,560
$0
Competitive
Grant
$416,107,130 $177,638,509 $18,078,521
Treasury
ME
EERE
ME
EERE
ME
EERE
ME
EERE
Competitive
Credits
Grant
Competitive
WasteHeatRecovery
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
ME
EERE
ME
EERE
ME
EERE
ME
EERE
ME
OE
ME
OE
ME
OE
MI
EERE
MI
EERE
MI
EERE
MI
EERE
MI
EERE
MI
EERE
$40,441,471
$0
$0
$19,094,239
$0
$0
$11,535,900
$1,214,000
$87,300
$41,935,015
$41,935,015
$3,970,536
$27,305,000
$27,305,000
$4,000,000
$1,263,098
$126,300
$0
Deployment
WindEnergyConsortia
betweenInstitutionsofHigher
LearningandIndustry
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$2,886,782
$0
$0
$12,000,000
$0
$0
StorageApplications
Biorefineries
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$750,000
$0
$0
$95,900,000
$0
$0
$783,554
$783,554
$0
FormulaGrant
$320,789
$320,789
$0
$254,215,848
$71,684,658
$8,057,836
$3,400,000
$0
$0
$25,285
$25,285
$18,074
$19,567
$19,567
$18,152
$2,752,163
$0
$0
$2,400,000
$2,400,000
$304,223
$115,000
$0
$0
$77,742,100
$49,236,457
$2,261,180
FE
Spent
$258,820
ME
MI
Awarded
$258,820
METotal
Announced
Admin
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Transformation
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
254
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Awarded
Spent
EERE
MI
EERE
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$82,035,000
$82,035,000
$45,641
MI
EERE
$9,597,969
$959,800
$0
MI
EERE
$149,975
$149,975
$0
MI
EERE
$149,975
$0
$0
MI
EERE
$1,906,725
$0
$0
MI
EERE
$1,134,304,482 $168,047,258
$0
MI
EERE
MI
EERE
MI
EERE
MI
SC
MI
OE
MI
OE
MI
OE
MI
ARPAE
MITotal
FormulaGrant
Announced
MI
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
andTesting
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Grant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Competitive
Program
Grant
ofE85engines,and
developmentoftrans
Competitive
Centers
Grant
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Grant
$4,003,223
$140,980,000
$2,500,000
$0
$14,970,144
$0
$0
$1,975,207
$1,975,207
$0
$19,500,000
$19,500,000
$75,515
$103,158,878
$0
$0
$1,004,971
$0
$0
$1,117,842
$1,117,842
$0
$5,195,805
$0
$0
$1,845,900,063 $571,365,366
$6,726,008
MN
Treasury
MN
EERE
MN
EERE
MN
EERE
MN
FE
MN
EERE
MN
EERE
MN
EERE
MN
EERE
MN
EERE
MN
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$54,172,000
$54,172,000
$247,729
MN
EERE
$5,008,803
$500,900
$0
MN
EERE
$1,193,275
$900,000
$15,660
MN
EERE
Deployment
$3,193,275
$0
$0
Credits
Biorefineries
ProgramAreas
StorageApplications
EGSTechnologyR&D
$243,398,975 $243,398,975
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$28,019,520
$0
$0
$12,643
$12,643
$10,545
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$4,907
$4,907
$0
$39,838
$39,838
$19,788
$1,597,899
$0
$0
$1,550,018
$0
$0
$1,338,000
$0
$0
$349,985
$0
$0
$38,484,100
$36,392,900
$3,348,392
$131,937,411 $131,937,411
$7,325,732
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
255
State
ProgramOffice
MN
EERE
MN
EERE
MN
SC
MN
SC
MN
SC
MN
OE
MN
ARPAE
MNTotal
Project
andTesting
WindEnergyConsortia
betweenInstitutionsofHigher
LearningandIndustry
NOvAMIE
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Type
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Announced
$0
$12,000,000
$0
$0
$40,064,000
$40,064,000
$3,159,675
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$1,544,004
$0
$0
$883,060
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$678,986
$678,986
$0
$2,200,000
$0
$0
Contract
Competitive
Grant
$324,897,810 $264,703,585 $14,127,521
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
Transformation
Transformation
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$57,393,000
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
MO
EERE
Deployment
andTesting
TransportationElectrification
MO
EERE
MO
OE
MO
OE
MO
OE
MO
ARPAE
EERE
MR
EERE
MP
EERE
MP
EERE
Biorefineries
Competitive
Grant
$12,643
$12,643
$0
Admin
$15,674
$15,674
$12,877
$2,476,400
$0
$0
$1,072,330
$1,072,330
$0
$1,290,464
$0
$0
$43,779,300
$27,431,143
$412,378
$128,148,027 $128,148,027
$3,908,632
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
FormulaGrant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Program
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Grant
MP
Spent
$0
MOTotal
Awarded
$626,086
ProgramFormula
StateEnergyProgram
$57,393,000
$22,758
$5,671,999
$567,200
$0
$150,000
$150,000
$0
$150,000
$0
$0
$398,005
$0
$0
$15,000,000
$0
$0
$14,999,905
$0
$0
$1,527,641
$0
$0
$900,677
$0
$0
$742,406
$742,406
$0
$7,200,000
$0
$0
$280,928,471 $215,532,423
$4,356,645
FormulaGrant
$9,593,500
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$18,651,000
$18,651,000
$31,187
FormulaGrant
Program
$795,206
$795,206
$26,492
$100,000
$10,000
$0
256
State
ProgramOffice
MPTotal
Project
Type
MS
FE
MS
EERE
MS
EERE
MS
EERE
MS
EERE
MS
EERE
IndustrialCarbonCaptureand Competitive
StorageApplications
Grant
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
MS
EERE
MS
OE
MS
OE
MS
OE
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
MSTotal
Spent
$19,456,206
$57,679
$1,500,000
$0
$0
$1,571,027
$0
$0
$500,000
$0
$0
$17,257,400
$15,795,400
$878,867
$49,421,193
$49,421,193
$7,030,740
$40,418,000
$40,418,000
$143,053
$2,819,512
$282,000
$0
$30,563,967
$0
$0
$824,901
$824,901
$0
FormulaGrant
$469,626
$469,626
$0
$145,345,626 $107,211,120
$8,052,660
MT
EERE
MT
EERE
MT
EERE
MT
EERE
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
MT
EERE
MT
EERE
MT
OE
MT
OE
andTesting
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$1,228,014
$0
$0
$15,550,600
$12,637,913
$0
FormulaGrant
$26,543,777
$26,543,777
$720,413
FormulaGrant
$25,855,000
$25,855,000
$404,815
$928,228
$92,800
$0
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$398,966
$0
$0
$774,659
$774,659
$0
FormulaGrant
$288,765
$288,765
$0
StorageApplications
Biorefineries
ProgramAreas
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$71,568,009
$66,192,914
$1,125,228
$1,332,179
$0
$0
$63,213
$63,213
$29,005
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$5,719
$5,719
$0
$20,507
$20,507
$17,814
$1,298,625
$0
$0
$140,000
$0
$0
$58,303,400
$37,517,770
$1,407,000
$131,954,536 $131,954,536
$3,086,021
NC
FE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
Awarded
$29,139,706
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
MTTotal
Announced
Competitive
Grant
$75,989,000
$75,989,000
$0
$8,848,616
$884,900
$0
$719,260
$0
$0
257
State
ProgramOffice
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
EERE
NC
SC
NC
SC
NC
OE
NC
OE
NC
OE
NC
ARPAE
NCTotal
Project
Deployment
andTesting
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Program
Centers
(SciDACe)
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Type
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Contract
FE
ND
EERE
ND
EERE
ND
EERE
ND
Awarded
Spent
$3,008,826
$0
$0
$741,754
$0
$0
$49,200,000
$0
$0
$12,975,388
$0
$0
$12,955,643
$0
$0
$17,500,000
$17,500,000
$451,000
$320,502
$320,502
$12,000
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$403,927,899
$0
$0
$985,065
$985,065
$0
FormulaGrant
$1,046,182
$1,046,182
$0
Competitive
Grant
$3,111,693
$0
$0
$784,448,007 $266,287,394
$5,002,840
ND
Announced
$100,000,000
$11,079,600
$118,000
$3,467,728
$25,266,330
$2,202,828
$13,746,900
$24,585,000
$107,274
$25,266,330
$61,500
$0
EERE
ExpandandExtendCleanCoal Competitive
PowerInitiativeRoundIII
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$24,585,000
$0
$0
ND
EERE
$615,481
$0
$0
ND
OE
$766,350
$766,350
$0
ND
OE
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
$258,858
$258,858
$0
$168,706,647
$62,017,638
$2,428,102
Admin
$846,000
$846,000
$170,990
Admin
$80,000
$80,000
$0
Admin
$200,000
$200,000
$0
NDTotal
NE
EM
NE
EM
NE
EM
NE
EERE
NE
EERE
NE
EERE
NE
EERE
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
NE
NE
NE
OE
ProgramDirectionEM
Management
Management
ProgramDirectionEM
Fund
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$19,218,500
$11,761,200
$108,820
FormulaGrant
$41,644,458
$41,644,458
$1,982,384
FormulaGrant
$30,910,000
$30,910,000
$0
EERE
$1,711,147
$171,100
$0
EERE
andTesting
Grant
$380,398
$0
$0
$2,271,994
$0
$0
258
State
NE
ProgramOffice
Project
OE
NETotal
Type
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
FormulaGrant
Announced
Awarded
Spent
$363,635
$363,635
$0
$60,981,674
$85,976,393
$2,262,194
$16,429
$16,429
$12,148
FormulaGrant
$12,522,900
$11,477,500
$0
FormulaGrant
$23,218,594
$23,218,594
$2,349,759
NE
EERE
NH
EERE
NH
EERE
NE
EERE
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$25,827,000
$25,827,000
$80,266
NH
EERE
$1,262,477
$126,200
$0
NH
OE
$0
$0
OE
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$15,815,225
NH
$783,538
$783,538
$0
NH
OE
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
FormulaGrant
$320,729
$320,729
$0
$79,766,892
$61,769,990
$2,442,173
$5,165
$5,165
$0
$129,090
$129,090
$59,345
$109,999
$0
$0
$350,000
$0
$0
$75,468,200
$42,722,650
$199,600
NHTotal
Admin
NJ
EERE
NJ
EERE
NJ
EERE
NJ
EERE
NJ
EERE
NJ
EERE
NJ
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
NJ
EERE
NJ
EERE
NJ
EERE
NJ
SC
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Program
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Contract
$688,000
$688,000
$10,833
NJ
SC
NSTXFacilityUpgrades
Contract
$7,034,000
$7,034,000
$332,988
NJ
SC
$1,090,000
$1,090,000
$947,593
NJ
SC
EnhancedoperationofMajor Contract
FusionFacilities
PPPLGPP
Contract
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$121,205
NJ
SC
Contract
$289,656
$289,656
$0
NJ
OE
$0
$0
OE
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$18,700,000
NJ
$971,307
$0
$0
NJ
OE
FormulaGrant
$996,658
$996,658
$0
NJ
ARPAE
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
$1,000,000
$0
$0
NJTotal
Competitive
Grant
Admin
Competitive
Grant
NM
EM
NM
EM
ProgramAreas
$118,821,296 $118,821,296 $10,700,633

$73,643,000
$73,643,000
$0
$8,330,740
$833,100
$0
$14,997,240
$0
$0
$750,000
$0
$0
$328,374,351 $251,252,615 $12,372,197

LANLNonDefenseRecovery
ActProject
TitleXUranium/Thorium
Contract
$14,775,000
$14,775,000
$1,389,152
Contract
$8,406,226
$8,406,226
$8,406,226
259
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
ReimbursementProgram
NM
EM
WIPPRecoveryActProject
Contract
NM
EM
Contract
NM
EM
NM
EM
NM
FE
NM
EERE
NM
EERE
NM
EERE
NM
EERE
LANLDefenseD&DRecovery
ActProject
LANLDefenseSoiland
GroundwaterRecoveryAct
Project
ProgramDirectionEM
Management
Program
Equipment
FederalGovernment
NM
EERE
EGSTechnologyR&D
NM
EERE
NM
EERE
NM
EERE
NM
EERE
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
NM
NM
NM
EERE
NM
SC
NM
SC
NM
SC
NM
SC
NM
SC
NM
SC
NM
Contract
$64,200,000
$64,200,000
$2,785,142
$132,800,000 $132,800,000
$3,810,693
$316,000
$316,000
$0
$1,077,000
$0
$0
$930,828
$930,828
$330,474
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$4,200,000
$0
$0
$500,000
$500,000
$115,637
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$1,999,990
$0
$0
$7,373,459
$2,641,200
$31,447
$4,995,844
$0
$0
$22,272,500
$10,214,100
$0
FormulaGrant
$26,855,604
$26,855,604
$1,070,105
FormulaGrant
$31,821,000
$31,821,000
$1,396,040
EERE
$1,903,927
$190,400
$0
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Contract
$272,816
$0
$0
$4,558,344
$0
$0
$3,391,282
$3,391,282
$56,688
$3,290,000
$3,290,000
$132
Contract
$450,000
$450,000
$0
Contract
$683,739
$683,739
$54,757
Contract
$223,000
$223,000
$30,432
Contract
$1,033,000
$1,033,000
$18,786
SC
andTesting
Centers
LinacCoherentLightSource
MIE
AdvancedNetworking
Initiative
(SciDACe)
augmentation
PHENIXForwardVertex
DetectorMIEfullfunding
(RHICatBNL)
Contract
$3,103,000
$3,103,000
$18,822
NM
SC
Contract
$75,000
$75,000
$0
NM
SC
Contract
$625,000
$625,000
$0
NM
OE
FormulaGrant
$800,578
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$382,070
$382,070
$0
$58,000
$58,000
$39,455
NM
NM
ARPAE
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Admin
$172,375,000 $170,553,000 $22,842,354
Competitive
Grant
Admin
Competitive
Grant
260
State
ProgramOffice
NMTotal
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
$515,748,207 $477,517,449 $42,396,342
NV
EM
NTSRecoveryActProject
Contract
$44,325,000
$44,325,000
NV
EM
ETECRecoveryActProject
Contract
$38,300,000
$38,300,000 $38,300,000
NV
EM
NV
EERE
NV
EERE
NV
EERE
NV
EERE
NV
EERE
NV
EERE
NV
EERE
HanfordCentralPlateauD&D Contract
RecoveryActProject
Grant
EGSTechnologyR&D
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
NV
EERE
NV
EERE
NV
OE
NV
OE
NV
OE
NVTotal
Competitive
Grant
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
NY
Treasury
NY
NY
$8,945,815
$298,337
$298,337
$199,586
$62,467
$62,467
$39,268
$18,006,000
$0
$0
$2,213,575
$0
$0
$42,794,359
$0
$0
$32,529,800
$27,312,802
$0
$37,281,937
$37,281,937
$804,635
$34,714,000
$34,714,000
$48,405
$2,494,779
$249,500
$0
$28,400,000
$0
$0
$138,000,000
$5,724,709
$0
$816,274
$0
$0
$438,573
$438,573
$0
$420,675,100 $188,707,325 $48,337,709
EM
Credits
BNLRecoveryActProject
Competitive
Grant
Contract
$42,355,000
$42,355,000 $12,934,278
EM
SPRURecoveryActProject
Contract
$51,775,000
$51,775,000
$1,958,894
NY
EM
Contract
$73,875,000
$73,875,000
$5,434,592
NY
EM
$179,184
$179,184
$40,681
NY
FE
$2,634,876
$0
$0
NY
EERE
$12,643
$12,643
$9,792
NY
EERE
$115,000
$115,000
$113,949
NY
EERE
WestValleyRecoveryAct
Project
Management
StorageApplications
Biorefineries
EGSTechnologyR&D
$10,925,071
$772,800
$13,204
NY
EERE
$2,786,250
$0
$0
NY
EERE
$10,869,217
NY
EERE
NY
EERE
NY
EERE
Transformation
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
NY
EERE
NY
EERE
Admin
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$74,648,828
$0
$0
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$7,602,486
$2,182,194
$175,665,400 $140,126,200
$1,040,700
FormulaGrant
$394,686,513 $394,686,513 $42,315,547
FormulaGrant
$123,110,000 $123,110,000
Competitive
$0
$18,700,327
$1,870,000
$0
$3,011,129
$2,275,000
$23,726
261
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
Grant
NY
EERE
NY
EERE
NY
EERE
NY
EERE
NY
SC
NY
SC
NY
SC
NY
SC
NY
SC
NY
SC
NY
SC
NY
SC
NY
SC
NY
SC
NY
SC
(SciDACe)
augmentation
LongBaselineNeutrino
Experiment
PHENIXSiliconVertexMIEfull
funding(RHICatBNL)
PHENIXForwardVertex
DetectorMIEfullfunding
(RHICatBNL)
userfacilities
Contract
$1,808,000
$1,808,000
$46,967
NY
SC
SLIConstruction
Contract
$18,673,000
$18,673,000
$157,415
NY
SC
Contract
$18,500,000
$18,500,000
$4,189,156
NY
OE
$5,631,110
$0
OE
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$173,553,807
NY
$1,246,777
$1,246,777
$0
NY
OE
FormulaGrant
$1,988,289
$1,988,289
$0
NY
ARPAE
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
$8,000
$8,000
$4,297
NYTotal
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Contract
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Program
Centers
NationalSynchrotronLight
SourceII
MIE
Contract
EM
OH
EM
OH
EM
OH
FE
OH
EERE
OH
EERE
OH
EERE
$7,441,232
$0
$0
$697,769
$0
$0
$38,600,000
$0
$0
$28,293,284
$0
$0
$33,327,638
$33,327,638
$172,910
$150,000,000 $150,000,000 $18,812,076

$5,569,000
$5,569,000
$0
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$0
Contract
$686,024
$686,024
$0
Contract
$55,000
$55,000
$1,615
Contract
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$151,907
Contract
$250,000
$250,000
$96,997
Contract
$967,000
$967,000
$0
Contract
$8,000,000
$8,000,000
$248,370
Competitive
Grant
OH
Deployment
andTesting
$1,484,014,258 $1,094,464,664 $89,949,267

PortsmouthRecoveryAct
Project
MoundOperableUnit1
RecoveryActProject
Management
StorageApplications
Biorefineries
Contract
Contract
Admin
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Admin
Competitive
Grant
$118,200,000 $118,200,000
$6,817,908
$19,700,000
$19,700,000
$0
$474,013
$474,013
$118,888
$5,086,568
$0
$0
$12,643
$12,643
$9,293
$2,811
$2,811
$2,811
$232,596
$0
$0
262
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
OH
EERE
OH
EERE
OH
EERE
OH
EERE
OH
EERE
Competitive
WasteHeatRecovery
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
OH
EERE
OH
EERE
OH
EERE
OH
OE
OH
OE
OH
OE
OH
ARPAE
OHTotal
Awarded
Spent
$0
$0
$489,977
$0
$0
$84,183,300
$56,170,375
$803,000
$266,781,409 $266,781,409 $35,708,033

$96,083,000
$96,083,000
$11,020,370
$1,102,000
$0
$34,100,000
$0
$0
$11,041,500
$0
$0
$67,201,906
$0
$0
$1,042,758
$0
$0
$1,253,864
$1,253,864
$0
$17,511,403
$0
$0
Competitive
Grant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Competitive
Program
Grant
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Grant
$329,853
$1,049,588,217 $559,780,115 $43,789,786
OK
EM
OK
FE
OK
EERE
OK
EERE
OK
EERE
OK
EERE
OK
EERE
OK
EERE
OK
EERE
OK
EERE
OK
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
OK
EERE
OK
SC
OK
OE
OK
OE
OK
OE
(SciDACe)
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
Announced
$315,170,099
Program
Biorefineries
ProgramAreas
EGSTechnologyR&D
Contract
$17,689,057
$17,689,057 $17,689,057
Competitive
Grant
$1,253,000
$0
$0
Competitive
Grant
$50,570
$50,570
$37,983
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$5,135
$5,135
$0
$30,240
$30,240
$26,347
$2,399,999
$0
$0
$483,819
$0
$0
$105,000
$0
$0
$38,423,800
$21,168,796
$0
$60,903,196
$60,903,196
$2,770,232
$46,704,000
$46,704,000
$29,681
$3,494,731
$349,500
$0
$589,092
$589,092
$0
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$130,000,000
$0
$0
$842,838
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$534,197
$534,197
$0
Contract
263
State
OK
ProgramOffice
Project
ARPAE
OKTotal
Type
Announced
Spent
Competitive
Grant
Credits
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$141,352,929
$0
$0
$816,100
$0
$0
$3,825,973
$0
$0
$34,651,500
$27,033,064
$32,343
FormulaGrant
$38,512,236
$38,512,236
$2,204,204
FormulaGrant
$42,182,000
$42,182,000
$127,166
$3,000,000
Awarded
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
$0
$0
$306,508,674 $148,023,783 $20,553,300
OR
Treasury
OR
EERE
OR
EERE
OR
EERE
OR
EERE
OR
EERE
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
OR
EERE
$3,636,443
$363,600
$0
OR
EERE
$1,172,000
$0
$0
OR
EERE
$400,000
$0
$0
OR
EERE
$21,000,000
$0
$0
OR
EERE
$22,200,000
$0
$0
OR
EERE
$600,000
$0
$0
OR
OE
$29,471,776
$0
$0
OR
OE
$846,603
$846,603
$0
OR
OE
$547,749
$547,749
$0
$341,215,309 $109,485,252
$2,363,713
ORTotal
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
PA
Treasury
PA
FE
PA
FE
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Transformation
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
Deployment
Credits
ProgramDirectionFE
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$101,366,626
$0
$0
$31,042
$31,042
$31,042
StorageApplications
Biorefineries
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$1,249,314
$0
$0
$12,643
$12,643
$0
$24,535
$24,535
$8,456
$1,682,920
$0
$0
$6,102,941
$0
$0
$493,000
$0
$0
$102,508,400
$74,351,300
$276,885
Admin
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$252,793,062 $252,793,062 $16,791,753

$99,684,000
$99,684,000
$0
$11,943,732
$1,194,400
$0
$1,874,939
$1,497,153
$15,487
$5,374,939
$0
$0
264
State
ProgramOffice
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
PA
EERE
PA
SC
PA
SC
PA
OE
PA
OE
PA
OE
PA
ARPAE
PATotal
Project
Type
andTesting
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Centers
Grant
Contract
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Announced
Awarded
Spent
$750,000
$0
$0
$40,580,800
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$21,000,000
$21,000,000
$82,311
$326,158
$326,158
$0
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$233,184,232
$0
$0
$1,067,287
$1,067,287
$0
FormulaGrant
$1,342,164
$1,342,164
$0
Competitive
Grant
$2,466,708
$0
$0
$886,859,442 $453,323,744 $17,205,934
PR
EERE
PR
EERE
PR
EERE
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$33,977,000
$19,204,700
$0
FormulaGrant
$48,865,588
$48,865,588
$0
FormulaGrant
$37,086,000
$37,086,000
$0
PR
PR
EERE
$3,793,774
$379,400
$0
OE
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
$562,794
$562,794
$0
$124,285,156 $106,098,482
$0
PRTotal
FormulaGrant
RI
EERE
$100,081,146
$0
$0
$14,599,200
$13,148,400
$0
$20,073,615
$20,073,615
$0
EERE
Competitive
WasteHeatRecovery
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
RI
EERE
RI
EERE
RI
$23,960,000
$23,960,000
$0
RI
EERE
$1,008,198
$100,800
$0
RI
OE
$776,783
$776,783
$0
RI
OE
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
$296,413
$296,413
$0
$160,795,355
$58,356,011
$0
RITotal
SC
EM
SC
EM
SC
EM
SC
EM
SC
EM
SC
EERE
SC
EERE
SRSD&DP&RAreasRecovery Contract
ActProject
SRSD&DM&DAreas
Contract
RecoveryActProject
SRSD&D,Soil&Groundwater Contract
ActivitiesSitewideRecovery
ActProject
SRSTRU&SolidWaste
Contract
RecoveryActProject
LiquidWasteTank
Contract
Infrastructure
LiquidWasteTank
Contract
Infrastructure
FundamentalResearchinKey Competitive
ProgramAreas
Grant
$478,400,000 $478,400,000 $46,671,833

$104,000,000 $104,000,000
$2,958,764
$292,000,000 $289,403,000 $66,337,546
$541,000,000 $539,600,000 $163,654,445

$200,000,000 $200,000,000
$1,965,167
$200,000,000
$0
$0
$640,000
$0
$0
265
State
ProgramOffice
SC
EERE
SC
EERE
SC
EERE
SC
EERE
SC
EERE
SC
EERE
SC
EERE
SC
EERE
SC
SC
SC
OE
SC
OE
SCTotal
Project
Competitive
Grant
Grant
AdvanceCleanEnergy
IntensiveProcessR&D
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
Deployment
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Centers
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
EERE
SD
EERE
SD
EERE
SD
EERE
Biorefineries
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
SD
EERE
SD
OE
SD
OE
SDTotal
Competitive
Grant
EM
TN
EM
TN
EM
TN
EM
TN
EM
TN
EM
TN
EM
TN
EM
TN
EM
TN
EM
Awarded
Spent
$97,500
$97,500
$47,891
$2,457,741
$0
$0
$300,000
$80,000
$2,434
$31,623,100
$26,354,978
$1,061,734
$58,892,771
$58,892,771
$8,739,278
$4,298,227
$50,550,000
$185,823
$1,005,000
$429,800
$0
$50,140,000
$0
$0
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
$23,673
$864,183
$864,183
$0
$611,034
$611,034
$0
$25,285
$25,285
$20,473
FormulaGrant
$15,099,300
$12,754,500
$91,336
FormulaGrant
$24,487,296
$24,487,296
$571,166
FormulaGrant
$23,709,000
$23,709,000
$45,815
$771,599
$77,200
$0
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
$9,608,970
$0
$0
$770,498
$770,498
$0
$74,471,948
$61,823,779
$728,790
TN
Announced
$1,967,429,556 $1,750,383,266 $291,648,588
SD
Type
Admin
OakRidgeDefenseY12D&D
RecoveryActProject
OakRidgeDefenseORNLD&D
RecoveryActProject
OakRidgeDefenseTRUWaste
RecoveryActProject
ORPRecoveryActProject
HanfordCentralPlateauD&D
RecoveryActProject
OakRidgeUED&DFunded
RecoveryActProject
OakRidgeNonDefense
RecoveryActProject
ProgramDirectionEM
Management
Contract
$327,000,000 $324,999,998 $27,164,423
Contract
$151,110,000 $111,363,000
$9,765,462
Contract
$80,000,000
$78,000,000
$6,423,377
Contract
$326,035,000
$380,000
$269,944
Contract
$451,831
$451,831
$0
Contract
$722,792
$722,792
$722,792
Contract
Contract
$118,200,000 $118,200,000 $10,570,951

$20,281,200
$20,281,200
$2,654,782
Admin
$475,700
$475,700
$297,116
Admin
$150,415
$150,415
$0
266
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Management
ProgramDirectionEM
Fund
Biorefineries
ProgramAreas
Equipment
FederalGovernment
EGSTechnologyR&D
Type
TN
EM
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
AdvanceCleanEnergy
IntensiveProcessR&D
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
Deployment
andTesting
TN
EERE
TN
EERE
TN
SC
TN
SC
TN
SC
TN
SC
TN
SC
TN
SC
TN
SC
Announced
Awarded
Spent
Admin
$475,000
$475,000
$0
Competitive
Grant
$691,689
$691,689
$63,058
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$5,210,000
$715,055
$15,344
$6,594,867
$6,594,867
$1,196,850
$54,900,000
$0
$0
$2,175,000
$2,175,000
$69,910
$6,075,000
$1,920,000
$5,187
$4,800,000
$0
$0
$2,575,000
$1,224,800
$0
$3,351,861
$18,100,000
$578,110
$42,243,200
$48,668,383
$231,157
$99,112,101 $110,912,101
$2,764,662
Competitive
Grant
Admin
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Grant
ofE85engines,and
developmentof
MIE
(SciDACe)
AdvancedComputer
Contract
Architectures
LeadershipComputing
Contract
Upgrade
Contract
CapitalEquipment
KnowledgebaseR&D
Contract
FundamentalNeutronPhysics Contract
BeamlineMIEatSNSfull
$62,482,000
$62,482,000
$0
$5,962,990
$3,096,300
$307,233
$935,000
$0
$0
$1,414,680
$0
$0
$34,300,000
$0
$0
$13,403,440
$13,403,440
$0
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
$597
$5,785,000
$5,785,000
$0
$3,750,000
$3,750,000
$0
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$1,237
$19,900,000
$19,900,000
$0
$5,362,000
$5,362,000
$117,673
$3,188,000
$3,188,000
$98,083
$600,000
$600,000
$567,944
267
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
funding(ORNL)
TN
SC
TN
SC
userfacilities
TN
SC
Contract
$180,000
$180,000
$0
TN
SC
SLIConstruction
Contract
$60,568,000
$60,568,000
$6,290,085
TN
SC
Contract
$9,999,000
$9,999,000
$427,944
TN
SC
Contract
$700,000
$700,000
$35,018
TN
SC
Contract
$700,000
$700,000
$0
TN
OE
$1,370,000
$92,532
OE
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$120,216,097
TN
$908,408
$908,408
$0
TN
OE
FormulaGrant
$770,233
$770,233
$0
TN
ARPAE
OSTITechnology
Infrastructure
EnergySciencesFellowships
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
AgencyEnergy(ARPAE)
Competitive
Grant
$380,000
$380,000
$326,880
TNTotal
Contract
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,338
Contract
$4,380,000
$4,380,000
$9,094
$1,618,015,504 $1,054,024,212 $71,069,783
TX
Treasury
TX
EM
TX
FE
TX
FE
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
Credits
StorageApplications
Program
Biorefineries
TX
EERE
EGSTechnologyR&D
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
NationalGeothermal
Database,Resource
System
Grant
Competitive
WasteHeatRecovery
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
Competitive
Grant
Contract
$114,071,646
$0
$0
$10,898
$10,898
$10,898
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$16,871,947
$0
$0
$995,000
$0
$0
Competitive
Grant
$101,140
$101,140
$65,974
$1,369
$1,369
$1,369
$1,499,288
$0
$0
$14,292,189
$0
$0
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$5,250,000
$0
$0
$250,000
$0
$0
$71,000,000
$0
$0
$132,000
$0
$0
$208,931,400 $153,100,721
$801,420
$326,975,732 $326,975,732
$1,021,605
$218,782,000 $218,782,000
$234,050
Admin
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
268
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
TX
EERE
TX
SC
TX
OE
TX
OE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
TX
OE
Deployment
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Program
Centers
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
Contract
TXTotal
FormulaGrant
UT
EM
MoabRecoveryActProject
UT
FE
UT
EERE
UT
EERE
UT
EERE
UT
EERE
UT
EERE
StorageApplications
Grant
EGSTechnologyR&D
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
UT
EERE
UT
EERE
UT
EERE
UT
OE
UT
OE
UT
OE
UTTotal
Awarded
Spent
$23,340,967
$2,334,100
$0
$5,982,405
$0
$0
$38,114,079
$0
$0
$13,108,718
$13,108,718
$0
$258,209,258
$0
$0
$1,370,056
$0
$0
$2,432,068
$2,432,068
$0
$1,326,722,160 $716,846,746
$2,135,316
$108,350,000 $108,350,000
$6,450,149
$1,302,497
$0
$0
$7,375,481
$0
$0
$4,640,110
$0
$0
$28,035,300
$21,720,850
$545,400
$37,897,203
$37,897,203
$3,009,416
$35,362,000
$35,362,000
$87,253
$2,625,513
$262,600
$0
Deployment
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Program
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$3,377,840
$0
$0
$14,908,648
$0
$0
$53,890,000
$0
$0
$819,747
$0
$0
$451,075
$451,075
$0
ProgramDirectionEM
Management
ProgramDirectionFE
Contract
EGSTechnologyR&D
FormulaGrant
$299,035,414 $204,043,728 $10,092,218
VA
EM
VA
EM
VA
FE
VA
EERE
VA
EERE
VA
EERE
VA
EERE
VA
EERE
VA
EERE
Transformation
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
VA
VA
Announced
$400,000
$400,000
$0
Admin
$1,571,866
$1,571,866
$1,039,006
Admin
$48,000
$48,000
$0
Admin
$68,315
$68,315
$16,494
$1,499,783
$0
$0
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$7,295,000
$7,295,000
$0
$60,719,900
$38,697,700
$0
FormulaGrant
$94,134,276
$94,134,276
$8,885,370
FormulaGrant
$70,001,000
$70,001,000
$89,682
EERE
$7,454,197
$745,400
$0
EERE
$625,000
$0
$0
Competitive
269
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
Grant
VA
EERE
VA
EERE
VA
EERE
VA
SC
VA
SC
VA
SC
VA
SC
VA
SC
VA
SC
VA
SC
VA
OE
VA
OE
VA
OE
VA
DA
VATotal
VI
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
Grant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Competitive
Program
Grant
(SciDACe)
Contract
augmentation
Advancefundingof12GeV
Contract
CEBAFUpgrade
EnhancedAIPfundingatNP Contract
userfacilities
TJNAFInfrastructure
Contract
Investments
LatticeQuantum
Contract
ChromoDynamicsComputing
Contract
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
DepartmentalAdministration
$3,206,108
$0
$0
$720,000
$0
$0
$8,605,100
$0
$0
$747,980
$747,980
$0
$1,948,000
$1,948,000
$5,000
$65,000,000
$65,000,000
$2,738,220
$2,760,000
$2,760,000
$34,859
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
$302,363
$4,965,000
$4,965,000
$156,682
$1,834,000
$1,834,000
$6,193
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$20,694,097
$0
$0
$948,022
$948,022
$0
FormulaGrant
$912,836
$3,212,836
$0
$675,000
$675,000
$156,447
Admin
EERE
$366,833,480 $305,052,395 $13,430,316
VI
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
VI
VITotal
VI
VT
EERE
FormulaGrant
$9,593,500
$9,593,500
$0
FormulaGrant
$1,415,429
$1,415,429
$141,542
FormulaGrant
$20,678,000
$20,678,000
$443,174
$104,052
$10,400
$0
$31,790,981
$31,697,329
$584,716
FormulaGrant
$10,323,300
$10,323,300
$50,000
FormulaGrant
$16,842,576
$16,842,576
$0
VT
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$21,999,000
$21,999,000
$5,313
VT
$596,089
$59,600
$0
VT
andTesting
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Program(EISA1306)
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
$683,388
$0
$0
$9,090,000
$0
$0
$68,928,650
$0
$0
$765,835
$765,835
$0
$257,003
$257,003
$0
$129,485,841
$50,247,314
$55,313
VT
VT
VT
OE
VT
VT
VTTotal
WA
EM
ORPRecoveryActProject
Contract
$325,655,000 $325,655,000 $31,820,788
WA
EM
$442,265,000 $442,265,000 $38,009,690
WA
EM
HanfordRiverCorridorD&D Contract
RecoveryActProject
HanfordCentralPlateauD&D Contract
$739,369,832 $739,369,832 $98,863,931
270
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Type
Announced
Awarded
Spent
RecoveryActProject
WA
EM
WA
EM
WA
EM
WA
EM
WA
EM
WA
FE
WA
FE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Transformation
Grant
Competitive
WasteHeatRecovery
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
EERE
WA
SC
WA
SC
WA
SC
HanfordCentralPlateauSoil
andGroundwaterRecovery
ActProject
HanfordTRUWasteRecovery
ActProject
HanfordRiverCorridorSoil
andGroundwaterRecovery
ActProject
ProgramDirectionEM
Management
StorageApplications
Program
Biorefineries
ProgramAreas
FederalGovernment
EGSTechnologyR&D
Contract
$145,780,000 $145,780,000 $17,162,762
Contract
$228,520,000 $228,520,000 $33,927,904
Contract
$77,815,000
$77,815,000
$3,917,840
Contract
$667,475
$667,475
$667,475
Admin
$970,261
$970,261
$0
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
$21,254,500
$20,000,000
$562,710
$995,000
$746,250
$0
Competitive
Grant
$55,285
$55,285
$34,966
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$3,650,000
$3,650,000
$7,442
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$58,142
$3,960,000
$696,000
$15,004
$10,000,000
$0
$0
$8,458,431
$8,458,431
$2,334,604
$75,000,000
$0
$0
$500,000
$0
$0
$58,841,200
$33,868,060
$718,375
$59,545,074
$59,545,074
$2,216,191
$60,944,000
$60,944,000
$657,199
$6,283,775
$628,400
$0
$1,634,631
$136,387
$0
$1,934,361
$0
$0
$399,616
$0
$0
$14,999,927
$0
$0
$5,483,133
$0
$0
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$5,865
$860,000
$860,000
$13,624
$60,000,000
$60,000,000
$6,327,372
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
andTesting
Grant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Competitive
Program
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Centers
Grant
(SciDACe)
ARMClimateResearchFacility Contract
Initiative
271
State
ProgramOffice
WA
SC
WA
SC
WA
SC
WA
OE
WA
OE
WA
OE
WATotal
Project
IntegratedAssessment
Research
EnvironmentalMolecular
SciencesLaboratory
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
Type
$73,073
Contract
$60,000,000
$57,742,000
$8,090,056
Contract
$4,000,000
$4,000,000
$240,125
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$35,825,817
$880,000
$162,796
$916,929
$916,929
$0
FormulaGrant
$800,910
$800,910
$9,851
$2,465,445,157 $2,283,030,294 $245,897,785
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
FederalGovernment
Grant
Competitive
WasteHeatRecovery
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
EERE
WI
SC
WI
SC
WI
SC
WI
SC
WI
OE
WI
OE
WI
OE
WV
WV
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Deployment
Grant
andTesting
Grant
CleanCitiesAFVGrant
Competitive
Program
Grant
AdvancedNetworking
Contract
Initiative
(SciDACe)
Contract
CapitalEquipment
Contract
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
$29,983
$29,983
$0
$26,926
$26,926
$0
$1,479,887
$0
$0
$30,656,168
$0
$0
$350,000
$0
$0
$38,540,400
$25,817,100
$0
$141,502,133 $141,502,133
$4,162,846
$55,488,000
$55,488,000
$35,015
$5,399,857
$540,000
$0
$299,200,000 $299,143,157
$0
$5,343,052
$0
$0
$422,266
$0
$0
$15,000,000
$0
$0
$1,125,000
$1,125,000
$0
$1,651,135
$1,651,135
$0
$4,099,000
$4,099,000
$0
$543,103
$543,103
$0
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$21,525,946
$0
$0
$893,448
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$716,382
$716,382
$3,862
$623,992,686 $530,681,919
$4,201,723
FE
Spent
$4,860,000
WI
WV
Awarded
$4,860,000
WITotal
Announced
Contract
$647,272
$269,000
$5,173
FE
StorageApplications
Grant
ProgramDirectionFE
Admin
$875,000
$875,000
$0
EERE
ModifyIntegratedBiorefinery Competitive
$37,928
$37,928
$18,361
272
State
ProgramOffice
Project
Biorefineries
ProgramAreas
Equipment
EGSTechnologyR&D
Type
WV
EERE
WV
EERE
WV
EERE
WV
EERE
WV
EERE
WV
EERE
WV
EERE
WV
EERE
Competitive
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Grant
ProgramFormula
FormulaGrant
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
WV
EERE
WV
EERE
WV
OE
WV
OE
WV
OE
Grant
Policies
FormulaGrant
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
ProgramDirectionOE
Admin
WVTotal
Announced
Awarded
Spent
Grant
Competitive
Grant
Admin
$5,721
$5,721
$0
$4,890,263
$4,890,263
$740,756
$13,900,000
$0
$0
$1,269,595
$0
$0
$636,000
$500,000
$0
$14,003,800
$13,583,000
$329,600
$37,583,874
$37,583,874
$3,343,402
$32,746,000
$32,746,000
$0
$1,740,925
$174,100
$0
$6,900,000
$0
$0
$796,248
$796,248
$0
$366,482
$366,482
$0
$320,000
$320,000
$13,171
$116,719,108
$92,147,616
$4,450,463
$39,460
$39,460
$39,460
$1,896,000
$0
$0
FormulaGrant
$12,308,800
$10,694,200
$54,000
FormulaGrant
$11,195,471
$11,195,471
$0
WY
EM
WY
FE
WY
EERE
WY
EERE
WY
EERE
Program
ProgramFormula
Program
StateEnergyProgram
FormulaGrant
$24,941,000
$24,941,000
$0
WY
EERE
$511,078
$51,100
$0
WY
OE
$0
$0
OE
Competitive
Grant
FormulaGrant
$7,588,248
WY
$763,577
$763,577
$0
WY
OE
Program(EISA1306)
Policies
GovernmentsEnergy
Assurance
FormulaGrant
$248,874
$248,874
$0
$59,453,048
$47,894,222
$54,000
WYTotal
Contract
Competitive
Grant
273
AppendixG:PACEModel
Thismodel,thefinancingelementsandacomparisonofsomecurrentprogramsareillustrated
inthefollowingfigureandtables:
Source:RonPernickandClintWilder,CleanEdgeInc.:FiveEmergingU.S.PublicFinanceModels:PoweringCleanTechEconomicGrowthand
JobCreation,October2009.
http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/pdf/FiveEmerging_US_PublicFinanceModels_2009.pdf
274
FinancingProgramElements
Source:HowtoGuideforPACEPrograms,page12.
http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/berkeleysolar/HowTo.pdf
275

Source:HowtoGuideforPACEPrograms,page12.
http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/berkeleysolar/HowTo.pdf
276
AppendixH:EconomicImpactandSuccessStories
DifferentbulletsontheimpactofgreenbusinessonjobsetcinCalifornia:
Between1995and2008,greenbusinessesincreased45percentinnumber.Employmentin
these businesses grew36 percentwhile total jobs in the stateexpanded only 13percent.
Even in rural areas with a smaller economic base, green jobs are growing faster than the
overalleconomy.Justbetween2007and2008,greenjobsgrewfivepercentwhiletotaljobs
droppedonepercent.
InGreenTransportation,totalemploymentexpandedby152percent,butasapercentage
of total, employment in alternative fuel businesses increased the most from 40 to 48
percent.
EmploymentinWater&Wastewaterswelledby3.5timesinWaterConservationandby68
percentinResearch&Testing.
EnergyGenerationhasgrownwithgustoacrossCaliforniainbothnumberofcompaniesand
jobs.From1995to2008,employmentexpanded61percentbynearly10,000jobs.Insome
regions,employmentmorethandoubledoverthisperiod.Solarmakesupthebulkofthis
segmentandalsowitnessedthestrongestgrowth(63%).
GreenTransport
Since 1995 employment in Green Transportation has increased 152 percent while total
stateemploymentroseonly13percent.
GreenjobsinTransportationareprimarilyinMotorVehicles&EquipmentandAlternative
Fuels. However, employment in Alternative Fuels has grown faster at 201 percent
representing 48 percent of all jobs in Transportation. Vehicles & Equipment expanded
robustlyby111percentovertheperiod.EmploymentinGreenLogisticssurfacedonlyinthe
BayAreaandgrewremarkablyby1144percentsince1995.
With nearly 43,000 jobs in 2008, Air & Environment is the largest of Californias green
segments. From 1995 to 2005, the number of Air & Environment jobs remained fairly
steady, hovering around 35,000. However, since 2005, the number of green jobs in this
segmenthasincreased24percent.
277
Net metering, interconnection standards, renewable portfolio standards, tax incentives,

renewable energy access laws, and generationdisclosure laws are the most commonly
implementedrenewableenergypolicieswithintheU.S.states.
Netmetering,taxincentives,andrenewableportfoliostandardswerethemostcommonly
addedstaterenewableenergypoliciesduringthepastyear.
As more policies are implemented on various levels, policymakers must pay increasing
attentiontotheinteractionsbetweenfederalandstatepolicies,aswellasbetweenpolicies
ofdifferenttypes.
Timelaganalysisalsorevealsthatstatesthathadimplementednetmeteringlegislationin
2005 had significantly more renewable energy generation in 2007 (in terms of total
generation,asapercentoftotalelectricitygeneration,andpercapita)thanstateswithout
thepolicy.
Ananalysisisconductedtodeterminetheeffectivenessofbestpracticedesignelementsfor
threeindividualpolicies:RPS,netmetering,andinterconnection.Someofthefeaturesofa
welldesigned RPS policy are found to significantly contribute to renewable energy
developmentwhenlookedatindividually;however,noneofthemcanbecombinedintoa
modelthatadequatelypredictsanyoftherenewableenergygenerationindicators.
There are many contextual factors, other than policy, that affect renewable energy
development.Theseincludebutarenotlimitedtoresourceandtechnologyavailability,
the economic context, landuse and publicperception issues, transmission availability,
institutionalstructures,andfinancing.
Understandingthecontextualfactorswithinwhichpolicywillbesetisessentialtodefining
themostappropriatepolicyfeatures.
The complex and changing interactions between contextual factors, and between these
factorsandpolicymeasures,necessitatesflexibilityandcreativityinpolicydesign.
AsofMay2009,29statesandtheDitrictofColumbiahaverenewableportfoliostandards,
whilefiveadditionalstatesandGuamhaverenewableportfoliogoals.Stateswiththispolicy
areshowninhere:
278
California is the first state to adopt green building standards. The wind power industry,
according to the American Wind Energy Association, currently employs some 50,000
Americansandadded10,000newjobsin2007.
Boston,MAwasoneofthefirstU.S.citiestoimposeLEEDgreenbuildingstandardsonall
newdevelopmentsover50,000squarefeet,whetherpublicorprivate.
Chicago, IL is one of the first cities to offer residential and commercial developers an
expeditedpermittingprocess(30daysinsteadof100)andafreedesignreview(whichcan
runfrom$5,000to$50,000)iftheybuildwithgreenstandards.
NewYorkCityleadsingreenbuildingsquarefootage.
Portland,ORleadsinnumberofgreenbuildingsandcertifiedgreen
architects and designers per capita. San Francisco, CA adopted the strictest codes so far,
requiring green building for anyresidentialconstruction over 75 feetand anycommercial
buildingsover5,000squarefeet.
Scottsdale,AZisthefirstU.S.citytoadopttheGoldStandardforgreenbuildings.
If ocean energy is properly harnessed, Florida could become a net exporter of energy.
Within a decade, ocean energy production could mean an increase of about 35,000 new
jobsinFlorida,andwithin20to30yearsitcouldaccountforabout100,000newjobs.
EconomicImpact:NewJersey
In October 2008, New Jerseys Energy Master Plan (EMP) was created to guide the
development of green energy infrastructure in New Jersey. There are also comprehensive
statewideandnationalinitiativestoredirecttheworkforcesysteminsupportofthisnewand
emergingindustry.TheEMPtargetsa20percentdecreaseinenergyconsumptionby2020.It
also projects the creation of approximately 20,000 jobs during the same period, due in large
parttoa$33billioninfrastructureinvestment.160
160
http://www.bdb.org/clientuploads/PDFs/CleanEnergyIncentives.pdf.
279
Table102.EmploymentinNewJerseysGreenIndustries:AverageAnnualEmployment,2009
GreenIndustry
BuildingInstallation
ResidentialConstruction
CommercialAndIndustrial
EnergyEfficiency
Construction
BuildingAndEquipment
Manufacturing
Total,EnergyEfficiency
BiofuelEnergy
SolarEnergy
Renewable
Wind
Energy
Thermal,HydraulicAnd
OtherRenewableEnergy
Total,RenewableEnergy
EnvironmentalRemediation
Transportation
Total,AllGreenIndustries
NumberOf
Firms
8,735
7,268
AverageAnnual
Employment
60,857
24,905
ShareOfTotalGreen
Employment
30.4%
12.4%
1,138
12,712
6.3%
122
3,885
1.9%
17,263
158
453
439
102,359
7,082
14,247
12,501
55.3%
3.5%
7.1%
6.2%
1,127
30,550
15.2%
2,177
1,250
75
20,764
64,381
17,428
7,713
191,888
32.1%
8.7%
3.8%
100%
Source:http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/pub/studyseries/njgreen.pdf.
Successstory:PA161
TheFairlessHillssite,oncethehomeofasteelindustrycomplex,isnowarenewableenergy
manufacturingsuccessstory.Severalcompanieswithclosetiestowind,solarorbiofuelenergy
arelocatedonthesite.TheCommonwealthofPennsylvaniadesignedanincentivepackagefor
eachrenewableenergymanufacturingfacilityattheKIPCthroughtheGovernorsActionTeam,
acommitteeofeconomicdevelopmentprofessionalsthatservesasasinglepointofcontactfor
businesses considering locating or expanding in Pennsylvania. The team works with domestic
andinternationalbusinesses,siteconsultants,andinvestorsonprojectspossessingsignificant
investment and job creation opportunities. The two largest renewable energy tenants on the
siteareGamesaWindUSLLC,awindturbinemanufacturer,andAEPolysilicon,aproducerof
therawmaterial,polysilicon,usedinthemanufacturingofphotovoltaicsolarpanels.162
ThesuccessofFLintoSolar
"Onaverage,onabrightsunnyday,thesunshinesapproximately1,000wattsofenergyper
square meter of the planets surface, if we captured all of this energy into photovoltaic
161
RyanWiser,MarkBolingerandTroyGagliano2002
Ing,E.2002
161TheAR
R
161
280
panels,orlargemodulesofpanels,wewillhaveenoughsolarpoweredenergytoeasilyrun
ourhomes."163
SolarEnergy:FloridaIsPoisedtoBecomeaLeader,ButItMustActSoon
SolarpowerintheSunshineStatehasexplodedinthepastthreeyears,providingmillionsof
dollarsinnewprojectsandhundredsofjobsevenasmostofFlorida'seconomywithered.
Thestate'splannedinvestmentinsolarenergycrossedthe$1billionmarklastweekwith
theannouncementofFloridaPower&Light's75megawattBabcockRanchproject,billedasthe
largest photovoltaic array in the world. FPL has three other large solar plants already under
construction.Smallsolarinstallationshavetripledinlessthanthreeyears,andProgressEnergy
customers recently surpassed 1 megawatt of solar installed. Nearly 250 megawatts of solar
projectshavebeenannouncedstatewide.164
Likethenationasawhole,Floridasappetiteforenergyappearsinsatiable.Asoneofthe
largest economies in the world, the energy required to fuel the states economic engine is
significant.Atthesametime,theU.S.solarindustryisatanopportunecrossroadandFloridais
uniquely positioned to take advantage of public and governmental encouragement to reach
beyond the historical dependency of the U.S. on fossil fuel. With 100 Megawatts (MW)
currently under construction, and 11 MW breaking ground on May 27, 2009, 1 Florida will
quicklybecomethesecondlargestproducerofelectricityfromthesuninthenation(California
isthelargest).Thisisaonceinagenerationopportunitytoattractanew,cleantechindustry
to the state, bringing with it new jobs, taxpayer advantages, and critical forward thinking
energypolicy.165
Aextendsuntil2014taxcreditsforrenewableenergythathadpreviouslybeenscheduledtoe
xpireandbyproviding$6billionworthofloanguaranteesauthorizedbytheEnergyPolicyActof2005forrenewableelectricitydevelopment.T
heseloanguaranteesareexpectedtostimulatethedeploymentofconvent.
281
AppendixI:FreeingtheFloridaGrid2009
Table103.FreeingtheFloridaGrid2009
Source: James Rose and Shaun Chapman: Freeing The Grid Best and Worst Practices in State Net Metering Policies and Interconnection
Procedures,2009Edition,November2009.Availableasafreedownload:www.freeingthegrid.org
282
AppendixJ:FederalLoanGuarantee
TheARRAextendsuntil2014taxcreditsforrenewableenergythathadpreviouslybeen
scheduled to expire and by providing $6 billion worth of loan guarantees authorized by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 for renewable electricity development. These loan guarantees are
expected to stimulate the deployment of conventional renewable and transmission
technologiesandinnovativebiofuelstechnologies.Forrenewableprojectstoqualifytheymust
beunderconstructionbySeptember30,2011.166
Figure26.FederalLoanGuaranteesforCommercialTechnologyRenewableEnergyGeneration
ProjectsUndertheFinancialInstitutionPartnershipProgram
ApplicationDeadline
PartIsubmissionsmaybefiledatanytimepriortothefilingofaPartIIsubmissionandwillbereviewed
onacontinuousbasis.DeadlinesforeachofthetenroundsofreviewforPartIIsubmissionsarelistedin
thetablebelow.EarlierroundPartIIsubmissionswillenjoyafirstmoversadvantageintermsoforderof
priorityofreview.Pleasenote:Importantinformationregardingregistrationandotherpresubmission
requirementsareincludedintheloanguaranteesolicitationannouncement(theSolicitation).Please
refertotheSolicitationfordetails.
Round
PartIISubmission
Nov23,2009
Jan7,2010
Feb22,2010
Apr8,2010
May24,2010
July8,2010
Aug23,2010
Oct7,2010
Nov22,2010
10
Jan6,2011
AwardInstrument:Loanguaranteeagreement
TotalFundingAvailable
$750,000,000availabletopaythecreditsubsidycostsofloanguaranteeswhichcouldsupportasmuchas
$4,000,000,000$8,000,000,000inlendingtoeligibleprojects
ProgramDescription
ThisSolicitationunderthenewlycreatedFinancialInstitutionPartnershipProgram(FIPP)invitesthe
submissionofapplicationsforloanguaranteesunderTitleXVIIoftheEnergyPolicyActof2005(Energy
PolicyAct)fromtheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)insupportofdebtfinancingforrenewableenergy
systems,includingincrementalhydropower,thatgenerateelectricityorthermalenergyusingcommercial
technologiesandcommenceconstructionbySeptember30,2011(CommercialTechnologyRenewable
166
EnergyInformationAdministration,AnUpdatedAnnualEnergyOutlook2009ReferenceCase,April2009.
283
EnergyGenerationProjects).
EligibleLenderApplicant
TheapplicantunderthisSolicitationmustbeafinancialinstitution,oroneofagroupoffinancial
institutionschosentorepresentthemforthepurposeofthecommercialproject(LenderApplicant).
TheLenderApplicantmustqualifyandserveasLeadLenderasdefinedinAttachmentJofthis
Solicitationbydemonstratingitsexperienceoriginating,underwriting,andservicingloansforcomparable
commercialprojects.TheLenderApplicantandotherparticipatingfinancialinstitutions,asapplicable,will
berequiredtoshareinasignificantamountoftheriskoftheloanonaparipassubasiswiththeDOEas
guarantor.TheLenderApplicantandotherparticipatingfinancialinstitutions,asapplicable,areexpected
toevaluateandreceivecreditapprovalfortheloaninaccordancewithstandardinternalcreditpolicies
andproceduresforcomparableseniordebttransactionswithoutDOEguarantee.
ProjectRequirements
ProjectssupportedbyfundingunderthisSolicitationmustmeetthefollowingrequirements:
TheprojectcommencesconstructiononorbeforeSeptember30,2011;
Whetherstructuredonaprojectfinanceorcorporatefinancebasis,theprojecthasacredit
ratingfromanationallyrecognizedratingagencyofatleastacreditratingequivalentofBBfrom
Standard&PoorsorFitchorBa2fromMoodys,asevaluatedwithoutthebenefitofanyDOE
guaranteeoranyothercreditsupportwhichwouldnotbeavailabletotheDOE;
Theprojectutilizesacommercialtechnology;however,thetechnologyutilizedisnotrequiredto
beaninnovativetechnology,asrequiredinotherDOELoanGuaranteeProgramsolicitations;and
TheprojectmeetsallapplicablerequirementsofTitleXVIIoftheEnergyPolicyAct(including
Section1705butexcludingSection1703),theRecoveryAct,andthisSolicitation,includingall
Attachments.
ThefollowingisanonexclusivelistofprojecttypesillustrativeofCommercialTechnologyRenewable
EnergyGenerationProjects:
Windfacility
Closedloopbiomassfacility
Openloopbiomassfacility
Geothermalfacility
Landfillgasfacility
Trashtoenergyfacility
Hydropowerfacility,includingincrementalhydropower
Solarfacility
ApplicationProcess
Theapplicationprocessisstagedintwoconsecutivesubmissions,eachorganizedintosixidentical
sections:
PartI:ALenderApplicantsPartIsubmissionisexpectedtoprovidetheDOEwithasummary
leveldescriptionoftheproject,projecteligibility,financingstrategy,andprogressiontodatein
criticalpathschedules.TheDOEspreliminaryassessmentofthePartIsubmissionwillhelpeach
LenderApplicantselfselectwhethertoproceedwiththecostandeffortofcompletingafull
application,includingPartII.
PartII:ALenderApplicantsPartIIsubmissionisexpectedtoprovidetheDOEwithduediligence
informationrequirementsandincludeupdatedandcompleteprojectinformation.
Fees
Applicantsmaybechargedthefollowingnonrefundablefeestocovertheadministrativeexpensesofthe
DOEsSection1705LoanGuaranteeProgram:
Fee
Amount
284
ApplicationFee
FacilityFee
$50,000,payablebythe
LenderApplicant
0.5%ofguaranteed
amount,payablebythe
LenderApplicant
$12,500(25%)duewithPartI
$37,500(75%)duewithPartII
20%uponsigningofTermSheet
80%atclosing
MaintenanceFee
Anticipated$10,000to$25,000eachyear,payablebytheBorrower
eachyearinadvance,commencingupontheclosingdateoftheLoan
GuaranteeAgreement,intheamountspecifiedintheLoanGuarantee
Agreement
CreditSubsidyCost
DOEanticipatesthatitwilldirectlypay,subjecttotheavailabilityof
funds,theCreditSubsidyCostatorbeforetheclosingforeligible
projects
Figure 27. Federal Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Energy Efficiency,
RenewableEnergy,andAdvancedTransmissionandDistributionTechnologies
ApplicationDeadline
Deadlinesforeachofthesevenscheduledroundsofrollingsubmissionsareincludedbelow.Pleasenote:
Importantinformationregardingregistrationandotherpresubmissionrequirementsareincludedinthe
loanguaranteesolicitationannouncement(theSolicitation).PleaserefertotheSolicitationfordetails.
Round
PartISubmission
PartIISubmission
Sept14,2009
Nov13,2009
Oct22,2009
Jan15,2010
Dec23,2009
Mar12,2010
Feb18,2010
May14,2010
Apr22,2010
July19,2010
June24,2010
Sept17,2010
Aug24,2010
Dec31,2010
AwardInstrument:Loanorloanguaranteeagreement
TotalFundingAvailable
$8,500,000,000ismadeavailabletoguaranteeanestimated$30,000,000,000inloans.Further,
$2,500,000,000ismadeavailabletopayforcreditsubsidycostsofloanguaranteesmadeforSection1705
EligibleProjects(describedbelow)asauthorizedbytheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009
(RecoveryAct).
ProgramDescription
TheSolicitationinvitesthesubmissionofapplicationsforloanguaranteesundertheEnergyPolicyActof
2005(EnergyPolicyAct)fromtheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)insupportofdebtfinancingfor
projectsintheUnitedStatesreadyforcommercialdeploymentthatemployenergyefficiency,renewable
energy,andadvancedtransmissionanddistributiontechnologies.
GeneralEligibilityRequirements
TheSolicitationmakes$8,500,000,000availableforprojectsreadyforcommercialdeploymentinthe
proximatefuturethatmeetthegeneraleligibilityrequirementsunderSection1703oftheEnergyPolicy
Act.Theseeligibilityrequirementscallforprojectswhich:
Avoid,reduce,orsequesterairpollutantsoranthropogenicemissionsofgreenhousegases;
Employneworsignificantlyimprovedtechnologyascomparedtocommercialtechnologiesin
285
serviceintheUnitedStatesatthetimeatermsheetisissuedbytheDOE;
EmploytechnologynotingeneraluseinthecommercialmarketplaceintheUnitedStatesatthe
timeatermsheetisissuedbytheDOE;
Provideareasonableprospectofrepaymentoftheprincipalandinterestoftheguaranteed
portionoftheobligationandotherprojectdebt,which,whencombinedwiththeamountsavailable
totheborrowerfromothersources,willbesufficienttocarryouttheproject;
Haveavailableaminimumofsixmonthsoperatingandperformancedata,including1,000to
2,000hoursofoperationdata,obtainedfromdemonstrationproject;
Fitanyofninetechnologycategories,whichincludecategoriesfor(1)alternativefuelvehicles,
(2)biomass,(3)efficientelectricitytransmission,distributionandstorage,(4)energyefficient
buildingtechnologiesandapplications,(5)geothermal,(6)hydrogenandfuelcelltechnologies,
(7)energyefficiencyprojects,(8)solar,and(9)windandhydropower;
ProposedebtguaranteedbyDOEofnomorethan80%oftotalprojectcostsandnoother
proposedfederalfinancing;
Includeasignificantequityinvestmentintheproject;and
OtherwisecomplywithSection1703oftheEnergyPolicyActasimplementedbyregulationsset
forthinPart609underchapterIIoftitle10oftheCodeofFederalRegulations(FinalRegulations).
Section1705EligibleProjects
TheSolicitationmakes$2,500,000,000availabletocoverthecreditsubsidycostsofprojectsthatmeetthe
followingspecificeligibilityrequirementsunderSection1705oftheEnergyPolicyActasamendedbythe
RecoveryAct,inadditiontomeetingthegeneraleligibilityrequirementsdescribedabove:
CommencementofconstructiononorbeforeSeptember30,2011;
CreationorretentionofjobsintheUnitedStates;
Inclusioninanyofthreetechnologycategories,whichincludelimitedcategoriesfor(1)
renewableenergysystemsprojects,(2)electricpowertransmissionsystemsprojects,and(3)leading
edgebiofuelsprojects;and
CompliancewithSection1705oftheEnergyPolicyAct,asamended.
ApplicationProcess
Theapplicationprocessisstagedintwoconsecutivesubmissions,eachorganizedintosixidentical
sections:
PartI:AnapplicantsPartIsubmissionisexpectedtoprovidetheDOEwithasummarylevel
descriptionoftheproject,projecteligibility,financingstrategy,andprogressiontodateincritical
pathschedules.
PartII:AnapplicantsPartIIsubmissionisexpectedtoprovidetheDOEwithduediligence
informationrequirementsandincludeupdatedandcompleteprojectinformation.
Fees
ApplicantsmaybechargedthefollowingfeestocovertheadministrativeexpensesoftheDOEsLoan
GuaranteeProgram:
Loan
Guarantee
Amount
ApplicationFee
FacilityFee
$18,750(25%) 1%ofthe
Lessthan
duewithPartI
guaranteed
$75,000
$150,000,000
amount
$56,250(75%)
20%dueat
termsheet
execution
80%dueat
Maintenance
Credit
Fee
SubsidyFee
Anticipated
$50,000
$100,000
eachyear
TBDanddue
infullator
before
closing
286
$25,000(25%) $375,000
duewithPartI plus0.75%
$150,000,000
$100,000
ofthe
$500,000,000
guaranteed
$75,000(75%)
amount
duewithPartII
20%dueat
termsheet
execution
$1,625,000
$31,250(25%)
plus0.55%
Morethan
$125,000 duewithPartI
ofthe
$500,000,000
guaranteed
$93,750(75%) amount
20%dueat
termsheet
execution
80%dueat
closing
80%dueat
Figure28.FederalLoanGuaranteesforElectricPowerTransmissionInfrastructureInvestment
Projects
ApplicationDeadlines
Deadlinesareincludedbelow.Pleasenote:Importantinformationreregistrationandotherpresubmissionrequirementsare
includedintheloanguaranteesolicitationannouncement(theSolicitation).PleaserefertotheSolicitationfordetails.
Deadline
Date
PartISubmissionsDue
September14,2009
FirstRoundPartIISubmissionDue
October26,2009
SecondRoundPartIISubmissionDue
December10,2009
Third&FinalRoundPartIISubmissionDue
January25,2010
AwardInstrument:Loanorloanguaranteeagreement
TotalFundingAvailable:Totalamountavailablenotspecified;$750,000,000availableforcreditsubsidycosts(see"Fees"
below)
ProgramDescription
ThisSolicitationinvitesthesubmissionofapplicationsforloanguaranteesunderTitleXVIIoftheEnergyPolicyActof2005
("EnergyPolicyAct")fromtheDepartmentofEnergy("DOE")insupportofdebtfinancingforlargetransmission
infrastructureprojectsintheUnitedStatesthatusecommercialtechnologiesandbeginconstructionbySeptember30,2011.
TheDOE'sLoanGuaranteeProgramissubjecttoregulationssetforthinPart609underchapterIIoftitle10oftheCodeof
FederalRegulations(seeFinalRegulations;seealsoProposedAmendments).
EligibilityRequirements
TheSolicitationmakes$750,000,000availableforcreditsubsidycosts,providedbytheAmericanRecoveryand
ReinvestmentActof2009("RecoveryAct"),ofprojectsthatmeetthefollowinggeneraleligibilityrequirements:
TheprojectcommencesconstructiononorbeforeSeptember30,2011;
TheprojectcreatesorretainsjobsintheUnitedStates;
Theprojectutilizesacommercialtechnology;
Theprojectcannotbefinancedfromprivatesourcesonstandardcommercialterms;
Theprojectmeetsatleastoneofthefollowingcriteria:(1)theprojectinvolvesneworupgradedlinesofatleast
100milesof500kilovolts(kV)orhigheror150milesof345kV;(2)theprojecthasatleast30milesoftransmission
cableunderwater;(3)theprojecthasahighvoltagedirectcurrent(DC)component;(4)theprojectisamajor
interregionalconnector;(5)theprojectisdesignatedasaNationalInterestElectricTransmissionCorridorbyDOE
undertheEnergyPolicyActof2005,Pub.L.No.10958;(6)theprojectisassociatedwithoffshoregeneration,such
asopenoceanwaveenergy,oceanthermal,oroffshorewind;(7)theprojectmitigatesasubstantialreliabilityriskfor
amajorpopulationcenter;or(8)theprojectinvolvesasetofimprovementstoanintegratedsystemwithinastateor
regionthattogetheraggregateneworupgradedlinesofatleast100milesof500kilovolts(kV)orhigheror150miles
of345kV;
TheprojectmeetsallapplicablerequirementsofTitleXVIIoftheEnergyPolicyAct(includingSection1705)as
implementedbytheFinalRegulations;and
287
TheprojectmeetsallapplicablerequirementsoftheRecoveryAct.
ApplicationProcess
Theapplicationprocessisstagedintwoconsecutivesubmissions,eachorganizedintosixidenticalsections:
PartI:Anapplicant'sPartIsubmissionisexpectedtoprovidetheDOEwithasummaryleveldescriptionofthe
project,projecteligibility,financingstrategy,andprogressiontodateincriticalpathschedules.
PartII:Anapplicant'sPartIIsubmissionisexpectedtoprovidetheDOEwithduediligenceinformation
requirementsandincludeupdatedandcompleteprojectinformation.
Fees
ApplicantsmaybechargedthefollowingfeestocovertheadministrativeexpensesoftheDOE'sLoanGuaranteeProgram:
Fee
Amount
ApplicationFee
$200,000(25%)duewithPartI
$800,000
$600,000(75%)duewithPartII
FacilityFee
0.5%ofguaranteedamount
MaintenanceFee
Anticipated$200,000to$400,000eachyear,payableeachyearinadvanceoratclosinginlump
sum,ifspecifiedinloanguaranteeagreement
CreditSubsidyCost
DOEanticipatesthatitwilldirectlypay,subjecttotheavailabilityoffunds,theCreditSubsidy
DOELoanGuaranteeProgramSites
LoanGuaranteeProgramSite:http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/
FinalRuleEstablishingtheLoanGuaranteeProgram(10CFRPart609)
ProposedRuleAmending10CFRPart609
SuggestionsforStrongLoanGuaranteeApplications
LoanGuaranteeProgramAwardstodate:
LoanGuaranteeProgramRedRiverEnvironmentalProjects$245million
LoanGuaranteeProgramNordicWindPower$16million
LoanGuaranteeProgramBeaconPower$43million
LoanGuaranteeProgramSolyndra$535million
288
AppendixK:EconomicDevelopmentStudyScopingDocument
TheFECCenvisionscontractingwiththeFloridaEnergySystemsConsortium(FESC)toconducta
comprehensive review of all existing statutory incentives supporting the deployment of energy
efficiencyandrenewableenergy,aswellas,analysisofrenewableportfoliostandardandmechanismsto
attractventurecapitalists.
I.
CurrentIncentiveMix
a. ISSUE#1ConsultwiththeOfficeofTourismTradeandEconomicDevelopment
(OTTED),EnterpriseFlorida(EFI),andtheFloridaEnergyandClimateCommission(FECC)
todevelopanoverviewofFloridascurrentcleanenergyincentives(week1)
i. TaskInventoryalleconomicincentivesthatimpactthecleanenergysectorin
Florida
1. MustConsiderTotalamountofStatefundsallocatedtoeachincentive
andtheincentivesannualuse
2. MustConsiderDescribeeachincentivesinteractionwithsimilar
Federalincentives(i.e.Stateoffersasolarrebate,Federalgovernment
offersincometaxcredit)
b. ISSUE#2EvaluatethesuccessofStatesinvestmentintocleantechnologysector[SB
888/HB7135]
i. TaskAnalyzetheintendedeconomicimpactofeachincentiveprogramand
thenmeasuretheactualimpact,aswellas,recentlegislationthatenablescost
recoverymechanismssuchasthe110MWsinHB7135
1. MustconsiderHowmanyprojectsareunderway,wherearetheyin
theirdeployment,howmanyjobs,impacttostateGDP,privatecapital
leveraged
ii. TaskDevelopstandardmeasurementcriteriaandcompareamongprograms
1. MustConsiderBenchmarkingperformance/impactagainstsimilar
typesofprogramsorprogramswithsimilarobjectivesinother
jurisdictionsoranalogousindustries/sectors
iii. TaskEFIandOTTEDadministerbroadbasedeconomicdevelopmentprograms
thatprequalifythecleanenergysector.Analyzetheprogramsandseehowwell
theycatertocleansectorcompanies.Forexample,manyEFIincentivesare
contingentontheamountofjobscreatedandcapitalinvested.EFIstaffhas
notedthatcleantechnologycompaniesoftenmeetthecapitalinvestment
prongbutnotthejobscreatedprong.
c. ISSUE#3TaskInventoryFloridasincentivesthattargetenergyefficiencyand
demandsidemanagement.Identifyfederal,stateandlocalincentivestargetingthe
deploymentofenergyefficiencyandrenewableenergyproducts(EE/RE).
i. MustConsiderFloridaEnergyEfficiencyandConservationAct(FEECA)
ii. MustConsiderProgramsofferedbylocalutilities,cities,andcounties
iii. MustConsiderFederalincentivesforthedeploymentofEE/REproducts
II.
BarrierstoCommercializationandProjectFinance
d. ISSUE#4IdentifyFloridasuniversity,businessandfinancialresourcestodetermine
barrierstocommercializingintellectualpropertyanddeployingcleantechnology
businesses
i. TaskPresentanalysisofstagesofresourcesandcapitalnecessarytoprogress
businessfrominceptiontofullscaledeployment.Identifyeachstage,comment
ontheavailabilityofeachstageinFlorida,outlinewhatresourcesareavailable,
289
III.
andrecommendhowthestatecancreateprogramstobolstereachstage.
Strongemphasisshouldbeplacesonthebusinessandfinancialresources
availableorneededintheState.
1. MustConsiderPeriod1:ResearchandDevelopmentTransitionwhat
resourcesareavailabletotransitioncleantechnologyintellectual
property(IP)intothemarket
a. IdentifyandconsultwithFESCtodeterminewhatclean
technologyareastheuniversitysystemisfocusingitsresearch
anddevelopmenteffortsonwithinthecleantechnologysector
andidentifycorestrengthsandweaknesses
b. Identifyandconsultwithstateincubationnetwork(Public&
Private),technologytransferoffices,earlystageindustry
partnershipprograms
c. IdentifyandconsultwithFederalsourcestodeterminewhat
loans/grants/programsareavailableSmallBusiness
Administration,OTTED
2. MustConsiderPeriod2:EarlyCapital
a. IdentifyandconsultwithFederalandlocalfundingsourcesand
determinewhatloans/grants/programsareavailable
b. IdentifyandconsultwithFloridasangelinvestorcommunity
(privatedonors)andventurecapitalcommunity
3. MustConsiderPeriod3:Mid/LateCapital
a. IdentifyandconsultwithFederalandlocalfundingsourcesand
determinewhatloans/grants/programsareavailable
b. IdentifyandconsultwithFloridasventurecapitalcommunity,
industry,StateBoardofAdministration,privateequitygroups
4. MustConsiderPeriod4:ProjectFinanceforcleantechnologyprojects
a. IdentifyandconsultwithEFI,OTTED,industryrepresentatives
b. IdentifyandConsultwithpublicandprivate(inandoutofstate)
venturecapitalandprivateequitygroupsfocusedonclean
technology,investmentbanks,andstrategicleaders
ii. TaskTheFECCwantstoknowwhoisinvolvedateachstage,issues/challenges
ineachstageuniquetoFloridaascomparedtootherstates,modelsfromother
statesorFloridathatthestateshouldconsider.
iii. TaskIdentifythebusinessesoperatinginthecleantechnologysectorandthe
impactthattheyhavehadinthesector
1. IdentifyandconsultwithexistingbusinessesintheStatethatoperate
withinthecleantechnologysector
2. Identifyandconsultwithbusinessesthathavebeenattractedtoother
statesthatoperatewithinthecleantechnologysector.Determinewhy
thecompanychoseagainstFloridaorwhythecompanydidntconsider
Floridaforinvestment.
RegulatoryChanges
e. ISSUE#5AnalyzethepotentialeconomicimpactofaRenewablePortfolioStandard
(RPS)
i. TaskAnalyzethepotentialeconomicimpactthataRPSwouldbringtoFlorida.
1. MustConsiderJobcreation,growthinstateGDP,localtaxbase
growthversusthecosttoratepayers.
290
IV.
a. Identifyandconsultwithcleantechnologyprojectcontractors
inFloridaandotherjurisdictionstoassessbenefitsresulting
fromtheactualimplementationofcleantechnologyprojects
2. MustConsiderdifferencesbetweenvariousstateprograms,including
breakdownofRPSamongdifferentrenewableenergyindustries/sectors
3. MustConsiderTheeconomicdisadvantagesofnothavingastateRPS
ifafederalstandardisadopted
4. MustConsiderPerformanceofrenewablemandateprogramsinother
statesorforeignjurisdictions.
Recommendations
f. SpecificRecommendations
i. TaskRecommendtotheFloridaLegislaturewhetherthestateshould(1)
renewthecurrentincentivesasis(2)renewthecurrentincentiveswith
technicalchangesandreviewoffundinglevels,or(3)allowthecurrent
incentivestosunset
ii. TaskRecommendtotheFloridaLegislaturehowtocaternonsunseting
existingincentivestothecleantechnologysector
iii. TaskRecommendtotheFloridaLegislatureaportfolioofprogramsto
decreasefinancialbarrierstocleansectortechnologycommercialization
1. MustConsiderProgramsinstateswithsuccesscommercializingclean
technology,includingbutnotlimitedto,Iowa,Michigan,California,and
Massachusetts
iv. TaskRecommendtotheFloridaLegislaturewhethertopursueaRPS
1. MustConsiderProgramsinstateswhereaRPSleadtoneteconomic
growthinthestatescleantechnologyeconomicsector
v. TaskRecommendtotheFloridaLegislatureeffectivedemandsideincentives
1. MustConsiderProgramsinstateswithsuccessdeployingdemandside
incentives(e.g.,PACEmodel)
General
TheFECCwouldlikeananalysisofissues15andspecificrecommendationsasoutlinedabove
TheFECCenvisionsthatthisstudysrecommendationswillbeconsideredforafutureregular
sessionoftheFloridaLegislature.Inadditiontoprovidingareport,theFECCexpectsFESCto
testifytothelegislatureconcerningthestudysfindingsandexplaintherationalbehindthe
recommendations.
Pleasemakerecommendationsbasedonroughlythecurrentannualbudgetallocatedtothe
cleanenergysector.Inaddition,makerecommendationsiffundingwasmoderatelyandthen
significantlyincreased.
ProposedPI/COPIsatFESC:
UniversityofFlorida;FloridaEnergySystemsConsortium(UFFESC)IndustryProgramsDirector
FloridaStateUniversity;CenterforEconomicForecastingandAnalysis(FSUCEFA)
UniversityofFlorida;PublicUtilityResearchCenter(UFPURC).
291

Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

EnergyEfficiencyandRenewable

ConclusionsandRecommendations .................................................................................... 100

Table34.TotalSBIR/STTRAwards,AllAgencies,AllTechnologies,20002008 ....................................... 141

Table76.ARPAE ..................................................................................................................................... 202

and capital necessary to progress business from inception to fullscale deployment.

Solar Water Heat,

the aggregate amount of subsidized energy financing provided (directly or indirectly)

Encourage further development of demandside renewable energy systems; and

the development of new advanced biofuel production and capacitybuilding

the development and construction commercialscale advanced biofuel production

$1,000 for a combination of prescriptive measures designed to reduce energy

cleantech companies or products)31; equity investment firms interested in hightech startups;

During fiscal year 1992,directfederalsubsidiestotaled$8billion.Renewables(except

sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when usedasfuel.44Figure9below

workforce to support those industries in the service areas of theUniversityofCentralFlorida

Given that venture capital investment remained high intherecessionyearsof2007and2008,itisnotclearwhyventurecapitalfunding

A PBF is a potentially flexible funding mechanism, depending on legislative

Claudia Eyzaguirre andAnnieCarmichael:MunicipalPropertyTaxAssessmentFinancing:RemovingKeyBarrierstoResidentialSolar,Vote

The state of Florida received the fourth most directfundingforbiomassprojects($50

benefit to the producer accrues as production increases, any risk of nonperformance, or

The Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) offered Michigan Business

A $12.6 million Community Development Block Grant to fund infrastructure

Conditions on capital investment and employment should accompany any incentive

Through a cleantech advisory committee coordinate efforts to pursue ARRA cleantech

Create a system to channel through and coordinate cleantechrelated workforce

May be no incentive to perform as promised performance risk allocated to

Create a system to channel through and coordinate cleantechrelated workforce

Partner with private companies to promote research and development of hybrid

systems, andtoremove interconnection requirements for additional insurance on larger

Allow customers to effectively manage theirenergy consumption. Mitigate price

Additionally, a number of recommendations are offered for consideration to reduce

should explore the development of those financing mechanismswhichincludeaGreenBank,

TaxCredit Rate(%) Requirements Span(years)

TaxCredit Rate(%) Requirements Span(years) Cap

82,822,896 76,713,421 83,584,466

21,764,61 27,659,33 30,632,15

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

155,266,624 165,365,008 174,783,949 190,445,259 209,056,326

105MW 1983 Obligationalreadymet

2001 2002 2003

$4,019 $365 $155 $289 $2,050 $505 $576 $1,242

$844 $327 $714 $1,241

$4,085 $335 $331 $440 $1,436 $782 $855 $1,315

$759 $610 $300

$699 $755 $197

$90 $122 $191

$65 $1,699 $352 $798

$104 $490 $201 $322

$1,317 $522 $158

$0 $332 $2,218 $594 $125

$0 $152 $1,040 $358 $719 $2,583

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTALAvg0208

755 163 240 4 594 851 1,787 2,960 2,495

410 1,314 2,670

724 905 436

402 0 0 3 248 2 6 225

$355,592,700 $196,683,081 $11,047,997

$2,047,728,353 $1,066,054,489 $42,498,634

$487,861,732 $333,787,695 $13,064,994

$861,016,154 $399,663,874 $13,095,534

$342,492,583 $264,112,264 $26,211,556

$124,756,312 $124,756,312 $25,547,657

$217,875,000 $217,875,000 $39,344,515