It says If we want the benefits of wind doubling, we should subsidize wind farms. It blatantly says toward the end that this is not the Business as Usual model.
The Study Scenario is a plausible outcome, representing what could come about through a variety of pathways, including aggressive wind cost reductions, high fossil fuel costs, federal or state policy support, high demand growth, or different combinations of these factors. The resulting Study Scenario —10% by 2020, 20% by 2030, and 35% by 2050 wind energy as a share of national end-use electricity demand—is compared against the Baseline Scenario to estimate costs, benefits, and other impacts associated with potential future wind deployment.
Given the purpose of the paper and the lengths they had to go to fabricate a reality to achieve a positive outcome, this could easily be seen as an admission that Wind power in it's current form is unproductive.
The short list of what Wind power requires to be on the path according to this study (10% of power production in US) high gas prices (especially natural gas), Federal subsidation, overcoming low generation periods (alternate sources/short term storage), highly accurate predictive weather models, new long range transmission lines, political opposition to the towers,much higher prices of offshore wind power, higher consumer prices despite subsidation, higher electrical usage (to create a demand for new generation), All other forms of power generation must just stop growing, this study ignores all of the others.
This a study that makes certain assumptions about usage and capacity and draws conclusions of the realities of what that market will look like into the future. This one is labeled the "Study Scenario' and is paired with the Central Study Scenario' and the 'Baseline Scenario', all of which make differing assumptions about what direction the Wind generation market will become over the next 40 years.
This study assumes significant investment and growth specifically in GW expansion, breaking down costs, difficulties, consequences and lots of other details. The crux of the study comes at ES.2-3 where it shows, in years where there is no Wind power subsidy from the federal government, there is no expansion of generation.
From the Article: ES.5.1 The Opportunity: The Wind Vision analysis modeled a future Study Scenario (with various sensitivities) in which 10% of the nation’s electricity demand is met by wind power in 2020, 20% by 2030, and 35% by 2050.
ES.4.2 Risk of Inaction: Without actions to improve wind’s competitive position in the market, such as those described in the roadmap, the nation risks losing its existing wind manufacturing infrastructure and a range of public benefits.
This is an Energy Dept rationalization for increased funding most especially of the Wind Power Production Tax Credit. The most entertaining part is the repeated mentions of the limitations of wind power (low wind regions, distance from power grid, unpredictable output). They have to increase power usage significantly to predict lower prices (because of the largely insurmountable technical issues with Wind) even though electricity usage has declined for 6 years. In short, this is a brochure for the best case scenario for Wind Power if everything goes right. The original studies (this is an executive summary) dont seem to be available.
The early release and refusal to place new inmates in California is huge. According to federal statistics, California dropped 50k internments per year and are releasing early 13k per month. Just their decline alone accounts for 72% of total US reductions. Depending on the length of sentences, they may well have sent home the entire 200k 'drop' in prisoners. And other major state prison systems admit their lowering of prison sentences for drug crimes is the reason for their drops.
And the california plan seems to be raising some crimes there
"By contrast, we find robust evidence that realignment is related to increased property crime. In terms of overall property crime, we estimate an additional one to two property crimes per year on average for each offender who is not incarcerated as a result of realignment. In particular, we see substantial increases in the number of motor vehicle thefts, which went up by 14.8 percent between 2011 and 2012. (Magnus Lofstrom and Steven Raphael, Public Safety Realignment and Crime Rates in California, Public Policy Institute of California, Dec., 2013 at p. 2.)"