The Southern States Energy Board's (SSEB) 45th Annual Meeting, chaired by Governor Ernie Fletcher of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and held Monday, August 29, 2005, in Greensboro, Georgia, examined peaking world oil production and its impact on the South. One presentation at the meeting, given by Dr. Robert L. Hirsch of SAIC, was entitled "Peaking of World Oil Production and the Southern States." Following is a summary of that presentation.

The peaking of world oil production will subject the world to its first ever discontinuity in energy—a sudden limit on the supply of a commodity that is essential to the functioning of the world economy. A number of experts forecast that peaking of conventional oil production will occur in this decade or the next. Given today's huge world oil consumption, oil peaking will likely lead to worldwide oil shortages and oil prices far beyond today's levels, seriously impacting the economics of all nations. Massive mitigation implemented well in advance of the event could greatly reduce the damage.

Oil peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, not an "energy crisis" in the sense that term has often been used. Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels. Accordingly, mitigation must be narrowly focused, at least in the near-term. Viable mitigation options include increased vehicle fuel efficiency, enhanced recovery of conventional oil, and substitute liquid fuels from heavy oil/oil sands, coal, and remote natural gas.

Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks would leave the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than a decade. Initiating a robust mitigation program 20 years before peaking occurs offers the possibility of completely avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall. Since the Saudis recently indicated that OPEC will not be able to supply world demand beyond the next 10-15 years, time may be running out on painless mitigation.

To a significant degree, the southern states are dependent on events at the national and international levels. However, there are actions that the states can take that may reduce their hardship, and there may even be opportunities for states that appropriately plan and prepare.

Dr. Hirsch is a Senior Energy Program Advisor at SAIC and a consultant in energy, technology, and management. Previously he was a senior staff member at RAND (energy policy analysis), Executive Advisor at Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (environmental and defense R&D), Vice President of the Electric Power Research Institute, Vice President and Manager of Research and Technical Services for Atlantic Richfield Co. (oil and gas exploration and production), Founder and CEO of APTI (commercial & Defense Department technologies), Manager of Exxon's synthetic fuels research laboratory, Manager of Petroleum Exploratory Research at Exxon (refining R&D), Assistant Administrator of the US Energy Research and Development Administraiton responsible for renewables, fusion, geothermal and basic research (presidential appointment), and director of fusion research at the US Atomic Energy Commission and ERDA.

The Southern States Energy Board is a non-profit interstate compact organization created in 1960 and established under Public Laws 87-563 and 92-440. Its mission is to enhance economic development and the quality of life in the South through innovations in energy and environmental policies, programs and technologies. As an institution that has precipitated economic growth in the South, SSEB endeavors to reach the goal of sustainable development by implementing strategies that support its mission. SSEB develops, promotes and recommends policies and programs that ensure energy reliability and security and protect and enhance the environment. Sixteen southern states and two territories comprise the membership of SSEB: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Virginia and West Virginia.

Overview of Section 45 Credit for Electricity from Renewable Resources— Focus on Open-Loop Biomass Facilities

(This article is intended as a general outline of §45 and its potential application to open-loop biomass facilities. This article is not intended as tax or legal advice concerning application of §45 or other tax provisions to any particular project or facility.)

Section 45 Credit Generally. Section 45(a) provides for a renewable electricity production credit for qualified energy resources produced by a taxpayer from a qualified facility and sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person during the tax year. The §45 credit was originally enacted as part of the Comprehensive Energy Policy Act of 1992, the purpose of which was "to enact a comprehensive national energy policy that gradually and steadily increases U.S. energy security in cost-effective and environmentally beneficial ways." 102 H. Rpt. 474. The credit was subsequently extended by the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 ("2004 Act"), and most recently by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ("2005 Act").

Prior to 2004, the credit only applied to electrical power from wind, closed-loop biomass, and poultry waste facilities. The 2004 Act expanded the credit to include power from a host of resources under §45(c)(a), including wind, closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, solar energy, small irrigation power, and municipal solid waste. A per ton credit was also added by the 2004 Act for refined coal facilities under §45(e)(8). Subsequently, the 2005 Act further expanded the credit to include hydropower and coal mined from Indian lands. After the 2005 Act, §45 generally applies to these facilities placed in service by December 31, 2007, except for solar facilities (which have a December 31, 2005 date), refined coal facilities (which have a December 31, 2008 date), and Indian coal (which qualifies from 2006-2012).

The base §45 credit rate for electricity is 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour produced and sold (adjusted annually for inflation). The base credit rate is reduced by one half for open-loop biomass facilities, small irrigation power facilities, landfill gas facilities, trash combustion facilities, and hydropower facilities. The rates are adjusted annually for inflation under §45(b)(2) and (e)(2) by the change in the GDP implicit price deflator, published by the Department of Commerce by March 15 of each year. The March 15 adjustment sets the rate for the calendar year of its release, and the adjusted rate is rounded (up or down) to the nearest one tenth cent. The IRS announced in April 2005 that the inflation factor for 2005 is 1.2528, producing a 2005 base credit of 1.9 cents (rounded up from 1.8792 cents). The one half credit for 2005 is therefore 0.9 cents (rounded down from 0.9396).

The §45 credit phases out under §45(b)(1) for a qualified resource if the "reference price" of power sold from that particular resource exceeds a range of 8 cents to 11 cents per kilowatt hour, adjusted annually for by the GDP implicit price deflator (a factor of 1.2528 for 2005 as discussed above). Per §45(e)(2)(C) the "reference price" is the annual average contract price per kilowatt hour of power generated from the same qualified resource and sold in the U.S. in the previous year. The IRS announced that the "reference price" for wind power for 2005 is 4.85 cents per kilowatt hour, resulting in no phase out since this price is well below the 2005 phase out range. Reference prices for other qualified resources were not available, also resulting in no phase out for 2005. Similar rules apply to the per ton credit rates for qualified coal resources.

The §45 credit generally lasts for 10 years after the date that the qualified facility is first placed in service. Before the 2005 Act, the credit life was only 5 years for open-loop biomass facilities, geothermal or solar energy facilities, small irrigation power facilities, landfill gas facilities, and trash combustion facilities. The 2005 Act extended to 10 years the credit life for these facilities that are placed in service after enactment of the 2005 Act (August 8, 2005). However, per §45(b)(4)(B)(ii), the credit life of open-loop biomass facilities placed in service prior to January 1, 2005 continues to be 5 years. As amended by the 2005 Act, this 5 year life for these pre-existing open-loop facilities began on January 1, 2005 and therefore expires on December 31, 2009. Indian coal also qualifies for a shorter period of 7 years beginning on January 1, 2006.

A summary of the types of qualifying resources, in-service dates, credit terms and credit rates are shown in the table above.

Open-loop Biomass as a Qualified Resource. Open-loop biomass is defined in §45(c)(3)(A) to include agricultural livestock waste nutrients; or any solid, non-hazardous cellulosic material, or any non-hazardous lignin waste material, that has been segregated from other waste materials, and which is derived from:

Qualified Open-Loop Biomass Facility. As previously indicated, open-loop biomass facilities that were in service prior to January 1, 2005, may qualify for the §45 credit for only 5 years through 2009. Facilities that are placed in service after August 8, 2005 and before 2008 may qualify for the credit for a period of 10 years. The placed in service date is relevant for many tax benefits, such as investment credits and depreciation deductions. Treasury Regulation '1.46 3(d)(1)(ii) provides that property is considered placed in service in the taxable year in which the property is placed in a condition or state of readiness and availability for a specifically assigned function. This determination is based on all relevant facts and circumstances.

In the context of an electrical power plant, Revenue Ruling 76 256 held that a coal-fired facility was placed in service when the following criteria were met: (1) necessary operating permits and licenses were approved, (2) the plant was synchronized to the power grid to function in the business of generating power for income, (3) critical tests for the various components were complete, (4) the power plant was placed in the control of the taxpayer, (5) the daily operation of the power plant had begun, notwithstanding the fact that the plant might undergo further testing to eliminate defects. See also Revenue Ruling 76-428 (applying these factors to a nuclear power plant), Private Letter Ruling 200334031 (applying these factors to a §45 windmill facility), and Private Letter Ruling 9529019 (applying these factors to a §29 landfill methane facility).

Revenue Ruling 94-31 addresses the placed in service date for pre-existing §45 facilities that are later reconstructed. The Revenue Ruling involved the replacement or reconstruction of a number of windmill facilities at a pre-existing windfarm. If the rebuilt windmills were considered new facilities, they would qualify for §45 for a new 10 year period. The IRS ruled that such reconstructed facilities may qualify for §45 for a new 10 year period even if they contain some pre-existing or used property, provided that the fair market value of this used property is not more than 20% of the facility's total value after reconstruction (i.e., the used property may not exceed 20% of the combined value of the cost of new property added to the facility plus the value of the used property retained in the facility). In such a case, the IRS ruled that the reconstructed facility was originally placed in service when rebuilt, even though it replaced a pre-existing facility and contained up to 20% used property. The result was based on the Service's position in Revenue Ruling 68-111, where a locomotive was constructed by a manufacturer with some used materials from its inventory. The cost of the used materials was less than 20% of the total cost of the materials used in constructing the entire replacement locomotive unit. The reconstructed unit was held to be "new section 38 property" for purposes of qualifying for the investment tax credit.

This 20% test has been applied in numerous private letter rulings regarding the reconstruction and relocation of facilities that qualify for the §29 credit for production of coal synthetic fuels. See, for instance, Private Letter Ruling 9725044, where the reconstruction of a facility "from the foundation pad up" permitted it to be considered a new facility first placed in service after the reconstruction. Likewise, the IRS has consistently ruled that rebuilt or relocated §29 facilities that contain more than 20% used property by value after reconstruction or relocation are not deemed to be new facilities with new in service dates. See, e.g., Private Letter Rulings 2005527005, 200527006, and 200518069.

Credit Calculation for Open-Loop Biomass. As previously stated, the §45 credit rate for open-loop biomass is 0.9 cents per kilowatt hour produced and sold in 2005. This amount is adjusted annually by the GDP implicit price deflator, rounded to the nearest one tenth cent. Due to this rounding, the credit rate tends not to adjust every year. Thus, when projecting the annual credit for the term of a project, a reasonable assumption might be an inflation adjustment every third year (which is generally consistent with historical adjustments from 1993 to 2005). If this assumption is applied to the credit for open-loop biomass, the projected §45 credit rates from 2005 through 2015 would be as shown in the following table:

The §45 credit applies to the sale of kilowatt hours that are attributable to qualified resources, in this case open-loop biomass. Therefore, the calculation may not be as simple as multiplying the projected kilowatt hours by the projected credit rates, where a facility supplements with other fuels or does not sell all the power to an unrelated party. The projection may have to be adjusted for (1) parasitic load (which is not sold), (2) the Btu content of fossil fuel used for startup and flame stabilization, and (3) any periods of co-firing with fossil fuel.

Accordingly, the calculation for projection purposes might be something like this:

Further, if there are any periods of co-firing with fossil fuel, no kilowatt hours may qualify during these periods because biomass co-fired with fossil fuel "beyond such fossil fuel required for startup and flame stabilization" is excluded from the definition of qualifying open-loop biomass under §45(c)(3). Currently, there is no definition of what constitutes co-firing beyond startup and flame stabilization. The term would seem to suggest that fossil fuel used to ignite the biomass pile, and to maintain adequate combustion during limited periods of wet fuel or other fuel inadequacies, may be permitted. More extensive fossil fuel use may be considered prohibited co-firing, which may result in no §45 credit during the period of such co-firings.

Reduction for Grants, Tax Exempt and Subsidized Financing, and Investment Credits. The §45 credit generated is reduced under §45(b)(3) for government grants used by the project, tax exempt and subsidized energy financing used to finance the project, or investment credits claimed on property which is part of the project. The reduction applies to grants, tax exempt and subsidized financing, or investment credits that are provided in connection with the capital cost of project construction or acquisition. See Private Letter Rulings 200439038, 200336023, 200318066, 200311021, 200206034, and 200202048. Congressional history also indicates that investment credits intended to reduce §45 are the business energy credit and the investment tax credit. The §45 reduction is a fraction, the numerator of which is the sum all such grants, tax exempt and subsidized financing, and investment credits used by the project, over a denominator equal to the total capitalized cost of the project. This is a cumulative calculation for each tax year that includes amounts for the current and all prior taxable years. The reduction in §45 credit is capped each year, however, at one half of the §45 credit produced for the year.

In addition, under §45(e)(9) the §45 credit may not be claimed by a facility that uses "gas derived from the biodegradation of municipal solid waste" (i.e., landfill gas), or a facility that uses refined coal, if these facilities ever claimed the §29 credit. In the 2004 Act, this §29 prohibition was imposed broadly to cover all §45 facilities, but the 2005 Act corrected the 2004 language to apply the §29 prohibition to only landfill gas and refined coal. This 2005 technical correction limits the §29 prohibition effective as if included in the 2004 Act. In other words, it is as if the 2004 broader §29 prohibition never existed.

Credit Use Limitations Based on Tax Liability. Once determined, the '45 credit may be reported by the taxpayer. The use of the allowable credit may be limited by tax liability, in which case it may generally be carried forward 20 years and back one year. The '45 credit is part of the '38 general business credits, and, as such, the use of '45 is generally limited under §38(c)(1) to tax liability reduced by the greater of either (1) tentative minimum tax, or (2) 25% of net regular tax liability in excess of $25,000 after reduction for credits contained in Subparts A and B of Part IV of the Internal Revenue Code (which include nonrefundable personal credits contained in §§21 through 26, and other credits contained in §§27 through 30A). In essence, the '45 credit will either reduce tax liability down to the tentative minimum tax level, or reduce tax by 25% of net regular tax in excess of $25,000 (after reduction of regular tax for the specified other credits), whichever is less.

There is one important exception to this tax liability limitation, however. For §45 facilities placed in service after October 22, 2004, the use of the credit is generally not limited by tentative minimum tax for four years from the date the facility is placed in service. This means basically that the only limit imposed on the credit under §38(c)(1) is the cap of 25% of net regular tax liability over $25,000. In other words, for the first four years of production, the §45 credit is not limited by tentative minimum tax.

Project Lease Structure and Credit Allocation for Open-Loop Biomass. Section 45(d)(3)(A) provides in general terms that a qualified open-loop biomass facility is any facility owned by the taxpayer that is in service by December 31, 2007, and produces electricity from open-loop biomass. Section 45(d)(3)(B) modifies this rule in the cases where the producer of the power is not the owner of the facility. In those circumstances, the taxpayer eligible for the credit is the lessee or operator of the facility. This is a new provision added by the 2004 Act, so no §45 rulings or regulations exist at this time to further explain the structure necessary for the lessee to be eligible for the §45 credit. However, it is clear that the power producer and seller receives the credit. In addition, §45(e)(3) states that where more than one party has and interest in a §45 facility, the credit is allocated in proportion to each party's interest in gross sales. Thus, if the parties intend for the lessee to receive the credit, the parties should make sure the lessee is in fact the producer, seller and recipient of gross sales of the power.

In cases where the producer is a partnership (or a limited liability company treated as a partnership for tax purposes) the partnership is the taxpayer for purposes of §45, and the §45 credit is allocated to its partners under Code §§701 and 704(a). Section 702(a)(7) provides that each partner determines its income tax by taking into account separately the partner's distributive share of the partnership's items of income, gain, loss, deductions, and credit, as prescribed by Treasury Regulations. Regulation §1.702-1(a) specifies that the distributive share is determined under §704 and Regulation §1.704-1. Regulation §1.704-1(b)(4)(ii) provides that allocations of credits are not reflected by adjustments to partners' capital accounts, and thus cannot have economic effect under §1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(b)(1). Therefore, a credit must be allocated in accordance with the partner's interest in the partnership as of the time the credit arises. If a partnership receipt gives rise to a tax credit, such as the §45 credit, and that receipt also gives rise to a valid allocation of partnership income, then partner allocations of credit will be in the same proportion as the partners' respective distributive shares of such income. See Regulation §1.704-(b)(4)(ii). This assumes that the entity is a partnership for federal income tax purposes consistent with Regulation §301.7701-3 (regarding entities eligible to be taxed as partnerships verses corporations). The IRS applies these rules regarding the allocation of §45 credit from partnerships. See Private Letter Rulings 200318066 and 200142018.

USDA Funds Bioenergy and Biobased Products Projects

Cubic Octafunctional Silsesquioxanes, Nanobuilding Blocks from Rich Hull Ash. 01 May 2005-31 Oct 2005; Grant Yr: 2005; Grant Amt: $78,125; Investigator: Kennedy, V.; Performing Institution: Mayaterials, Inc., Pinckney, MI.

Summary: Rice hull ash, which is being produced in large quantities, currently has limited commercial utility. Many nanocomposites are synthesized through very expensive routes. The project investigates the the low-cost production of nanocomposites derived from rice hull ash. These nanocomposites may be used in a wide variety of electronic, photonic and structural applications.

Camelina Sativa: A Multiuse Oil Crop for Biofuel, Omega-3 Cooking Oil, and Protein/Oil Source for Animal Feed. 15 Jul 2005-14 Mst 2006; Grant Yr: 2005; Grant Amt: $80,000; Investigator: Iverson, G. W.; Performing Institution: Great Northern Growers Cooperative; Sunburst, MT.

Summary: Situation Camelina sativa (camelina, false flax, or Gold of Pleasure) is an under-utilized crop that contains valuable oil, fiber and high quality protein with many potential uses in both nutrition and industrial applications: Camelina has been evaluated for oil production in the US (Robinson, 1987; Putman et al. 1993), but it has not yet emerged as a viable US crop. The Great Northern Growers Cooperative (GNG) is proposing to scale-up production of this multiple-use crop in the Northern Great Plains and to concurrently develop innovations to produce omega-3 products for human and animal consumption, as well as producing industrial biofuels and biolubricants This crop can be economically produced and processed in Montana providing a high value, multi-use crop with relatively low input costs for Montana producers.

Project Contact: Gary Iverson, phone +1(406) 937 4000, fax +1 (406) 937 6495, tsmi@northerntel.net.

A New Process for Biodiesel Production Based on Waste Cooking Oils and Heterogenous Catalysts. 01 May 2005-31 Dec 2005 Grant Yr: 2005; Grant Amt: $80,000; Investigator: Zhang, P.; Performing Institution: United Environment & Energy, LLC, Orchard Park, NY.

Summary: In the United States, the vast majority of biodiesel consumed is made from soybean oil by an energy and labor-intensive alkali-catalyzed process known as transesterification. The cost of biodiesel production is much higher than for petroleum-based diesel, and it is therefore not currently cost-competitive. The feedstock costs of soybean and processing costs associated with homogeneous alkaline catalyst are the main causes of the high price. The purpose of this project is to develop a new cost-effective biodiesel production technology to overcome the disadvantages of the current commercial process. By using waste cooking oils as feedstock and employing heterogeneous catalysts instead of the homogeneous acid or caustic solution, this technology will efficiently convert waste cooking oils to biodiesel with high yields and significantly simplify the separation and purification process. The heteroeneous catalysts are reusable, and no waste solution is produced.

Project Contact: Zhang, P. E., phone +1 (716) 662 0571, fax +1 (716) 648 4253, p-zhang@unitedee.com, www.unitedee.com.

Production of Aadvanced Nanomaterials from Biological Substrates. 01 May 2005-31 Oct 2005; Grant Yr: 2005; Grant Amt: $80,000; Investigator: Holt, C. T.; Performing Institution: NexTech Materials, Ltd.; Lewis Center, OH.

Summary: Current conventional methods of fabricating titania based ceramics have not resulted in superior materials performance. This project will utilize the nano-architecture of existing silica based micro-algae that have been chemically converted to demonstrated ceramic photo-catalyst materials while maintaining the intricate micro-algae shape and morphology to dramatically improve materials performance. After demonstrating the process for silica chemical conversion to value added ceramic materials, energy conversion devices with the novel bio-ceramic system as a component will be fabricated and tested against benchmark traditionally prepared nano-scale materials.

High Yield, High Efficiency Bio-Refining. 01 May 2005- 31 Dec 2005; Grant Yr: 2005; Grant Amt: $79,966; Investigator: Massingill, J. L.; Performing Institution: Advanced Materials and Processes, San Marcos, TX.

Summary: Processing of vegetable oils is complicated by the need to remove free fatty acids. Washing with caustic is a viable process but is inefficient because fatty acids and caustic form soaps which cause emulsions. These emulsions cause a yield loss of 1-1.5% or 160-240 Million lb/yr of soybean oil alone. The purpose of this project is to improve yields in vegetable oil processing with a non-dispersive contactor that extracts free fatty acids from vegetable oils and biodiesel without causing emulsions.

Cost Effective and Reliable Anaerobic Digestion for Agricultural Byproducts. 15 May 2005-14 Nov 2005; Grant Yr: 2005; Grant Amt: $79,740; Investigator: Cheong, D. Y.; Hansen, C. S.; Performing Institution: Hansen Energy and Environmental, East Garland, Utah.

Summary: The current problem with on farm anaerobic digesters is the high failure rate. Some failures are due to plugging because of the viscous and heterogeneous nature of agricultural animal waste. Other digesters have been abandoned because the management of the digester was too difficult or required to much time. The purpose of this project is to develop a novel method along with the machinery capable for treating agricultural animal waste and viscous biomass by anaerobic digestion (AD). A new technology termed the induced blanket reactor (IBR) will be developed to control plugging, solve design problems and control bacterial growth within the digester. The proposed technology employs a mechanical apparatus controlling materials within the digester tanks, thus creating a much faster rate of digestion. This technology could also effectively treat food processing waste such as cheese whey when it is combined with animal manure. The proposed process will reduce odor, kill pathogens, avoid soil or water pollution, and produce energy.

Improved Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure for Energy and Nigh-Value Co-Products. 15 May 2005-14 Jan 2006; Grant Yr: 2005; Grant Amt: $80,000; Investigator: Van Loo, B. V.; Performing Institution: Andgar Corporation, Ferndale, Washington.

Summary: Dairy manure generated on concentrated animal feeding operations is of particular environmental concern due to potentially harmful effects long term storage and land application have on air, water, and soil quality. This project examines effectiveness of design innovations and reduction in capital costs of Anaerobic Digestion.

New Berkeley Lab Report Reveals Utility Resource Planning as an Important Driver of New Renewable Generation

Utility resource planning has emerged as an important driver of new renewable generation in the West, according to a new report released by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Through the resource planning process, twelve western utilities have called for the addition of more than 8,000 megawatts of new renewable generating capacity by 2014.

Nearly half of these additions are planned not because of state or federal requirements, but because utilities are finding that renewable energy can make good business sense for them and their customers. This growing utility acceptance of renewable energy is motivated by the improved economics of renewables, as well as an increasing recognition of the inherent risks (e.g., natural gas price risk, environmental compliance risk) in fossil-based generation portfolios.

The new report, Balancing Cost and Risk: The Treatment of Renewable Energy in Western Utility Resource Plans, explores this latest driver of new renewable generation. The report examines how twelve western utilities treat renewable energy in their recent resource plans. "Our purpose is to highlight the growing importance of utility resource planning as a current and future driver of renewable generation," says Mark Bolinger, one of the authors of the study, "as well as to suggest possible improvements to the methods used to evaluate renewable energy as a viable resource option."

The report begins with a discussion of the planned renewable energy additions called for by the twelve utilities, an overview of how these plans incorporated renewables into different possible resource portfolios, and a review of the specific technology cost and performance assumptions made by the plans, primarily for wind power. It then evaluates the utilities' analysis of natural gas price and environmental compliance risks, and examines how trade-offs between the expected cost and risk of different supply options were made.

"Our review of the planning efforts of these utilities reveals that resource plans are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their treatment of renewable resources and the costs and risks that they both entail and mitigate," states co-author Ryan Wiser. "Many analytical improvements have been made in just the past few years."

Despite this progress, the authors identify a number of areas ripe for further improvement. Bolinger notes that "The improvements we propose will help resource plans to do an even better job of weighing the benefits and costs of different resource options."

The report can be downloaded at: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/re-pubs.html. A PowerPoint presentation can be found at: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/IRP_distribution.pdf. For more information, contact Mark Bolinger (MABolinger@lbl.gov, 603-795-4937) or Ryan Wiser (RHWiser@lbl.gov, 510-486-5474).

Research Reports International—3rd Edition Distributed Generation Case Studies

This report provides a look at commercial distributed generation applications from the customer's viewpoint. It was developed through interviews with 33 organizations that have implemented or are in the process of implementing photovoltaic, fuel cell, microturbine, or wind systems.

For each of the case studies, the organization was asked to describe the project, the system, and the service providers used; discuss the reasons why they selected the specific distributed generation solution; describe any issues they had to deal with in getting the project approved, funded, or implemented; evaluate how the system has performed; discuss the interconnection process and any net metering or sale back arrangements; and provide lessons learned for others looking to implement distributed generation solutions to consider.

Distributed Generation Case Studies is available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format via Electronic Download, CD-ROM, or Hardcopy for $299.

For more information about the report or to order, go to http://www.researchreportsintl.com/products/product.cfm?report_ID=50 or call 303-670-0296. Visa/Mastercard/American Express are accepted. You may also contact Research Reports International, Inc. by email at info@researchreportsintl.com or by snail mail at PO Box 1867, Evergreen CO 80437.