Abstract: . . .  biomass and using it as a renewable energy source. The Lake Tahoe program study is exceptionally relevant for Oregon’s biomass efforts because its issues and problems are similar. The results of resource assessments, green power market research and marketing strategy development provide a template that Oregon may find useful in developing its biomass programs. The Lake Tahoe Biopower Program aims to develop cost-effective market outlets for woody biomass as a way to improve forest health in the Lake Tahoe Basin, a 519-squaremile area on the California/Nevada border. The program study was funded for the Nevada Tahoe Conservation District by the US DOE’s Western Regional Biomass Energy Program (WRBEP) and prepared by McNeil Technologies (2000). Participants include government agencies, private All costs and quantities reported were converted from green to bonedry tons using a biomass moisture content of 52%, based on biomass testing performed by South Tahoe Refuse Company (STR). Biomass production costs for the Lake Tahoe study are based on data collected by the USFS and time and motion studies at forest restoration sites in Colorado and elsewhere in the Western US. These costs include stumpage, capital costs, labor costs, fuel costs and equipment maintenance costs. Chipping costs are taken from a prior chipping cost study by NEOS Corporation and a cost-shared study in support of the current project by STR. Transport costs are based on published biomass trucking costs and actual STR . . .
. . .  suggests that utility customers in the Lake Tahoe Basin will pay more for biomass energy. The low end of the price premium, $.02 per kWh, is comparable to that for wind power from the Windsource Program in Colorado, and that program has more than 10,000 subscribers. A caveat: There is often a discrepancy between what people say they are willing to pay, as recorded through surveys, and what they actually do, in terms of actual sign-ups for green power programs. Using more conservative sign-up rates would better forecast actual subscriptions. 27 In late 1997, a joint effort between SPPCo, the Nevada State Energy Office, and NREL resulted in an evaluation of customer attitudes towards and willingness to pay for electricity generated from alternative energy sources. See McNeil 2000.  . . .
--3000,2,750,2446,51756